Anti-Semitism In France!

[Ron Cusano 0]

You are entitled to your beliefs. Needless to say I completely disagree with the statement you just made concerning the Bible, as would most Bible scolars and expostors in the Christian world. I have no clue where you came up with that understanding of history, and I know you don't want to explain it, so let's leave it at that.

Speaking for myself, I can tell you that after 30+ years of intensive research and study, that I am completely convinced the the literal understanding of scripture if 100% correct, and is God's means of communication everything that He wants us to know about Him and life, both now and in eternity. Obviously you don't share that understanding, and you are, again, entitled to belive or not believe what you choose.

I explained much of that a few pages back.

Jesus did not write the New Testament. His apostles did not write much or any of it. Much of the New Testament was written by people who were told stories decades after the alleged facts occurred. Sometimes apostles told people who told other people who then wrote it down. Then there was the politics of canonization which is too long to go into.

There was also competition between the apostles to see who could build the bigger following most quickly. Errors were inevitable. That is why Gospels of different apostles differ from each other.

Before you ask the question, I will say that my level of believe for something presented as myth differs drastically than for something presented as science.

If that sounds like double-talk, what do you expect when one has no proof, but only feelings and faith to go by? I may be a better Christian than those that accept the Bible as literal, because anyone who needed to believe the Bible as literal, had to be given proof (that convinced them), while I accepted Jesus on faith and feelings alone.

[Ron Cusano 0]

http://www.frontiernet.net/~jimdandy/specials/blessed.htm

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

You are entitled to your beliefs. Needless to say I completely disagree with the statement you just made concerning the Bible, as would most Bible scolars and expostors in the Christian world. I have no clue where you came up with that understanding of history, and I know you don't want to explain it, so let's leave it at that.

Speaking for myself, I can tell you that after 30+ years of intensive research and study, that I am completely convinced the the literal understanding of scripture if 100% correct, and is God's means of communication everything that He wants us to know about Him and life, both now and in eternity. Obviously you don't share that understanding, and you are, again, entitled to belive or not believe what you choose.

Please stop telling me who agrees with you. These topics can not be proved by a vote.

Besides Bible scholars have a vested interest.:faint:

[Ron Cusano 0]

Of course they have a vested interest . . . telling the truth!

If the entire Christian world has an understanding of how and by whom the Bible was written, I would assume that the number of experts would count for something. But, if you think you know better, more power to you!

Please stop telling me who agrees with you. These topics can not be proved by a vote.

Besides Bible scholars have a vested interest.:faint:

[gadgetlady 4]

Jesus did not write the New Testament. His apostles did not write much or any of it. Much of the New Testament was written by people who were told stories decades after the alleged facts occurred. Sometimes apostles told people who told other people who then wrote it down. Then there was the politics of canonization which is too long to go into.

There was also competition between the apostles to see who could build the bigger following most quickly. Errors were inevitable. That is why Gospels of different apostles differ from each other.

So do you believe Jesus was the Son of God and He was resurrected on the third day after He was crucified?

(BTW, I disagree with your analysis of the accuracy of the Bible -- and I believe I have the facts to back me up -- but that's another subject altogether.)

[wavydaby 1]

Ok, You follow the King James VERSION of the bible, I am Catholic, I have more books than your bible does, who's literal version should be believed?

What literal version should be believed since MAN picked which ones to put in there. And I am not buying some kind "God spoke to them" kind of arguement.

[Ron Cusano 0]

The additional books in the Catholic Bible are the Apocatha (firgive the spelling) which are additional books not recognized as canon outside the Catholic Church. The rest of the books of the Catholic Bible and all other Christian Bibles is the same, and is inspired by God.

All of the other books of canon contain all the truth there is to know about Jesus, who He was and what He did. The other additional books contain information that your church has used to establish some tradations that non-Catholics do not embrace.

Rather that focusing on the differences, why not focus on the areas of agreement. By the way, the King James is only one on many great translations of the Bible, which if I remember correctly, are also embraced by your church.

Ok, You follow the King James VERSION of the bible, I am Catholic, I have more books than your bible does, who's literal version should be believed?

What literal version should be believed since MAN picked which ones to put in there. And I am not buying some kind "God spoke to them" kind of arguement.

[gadgetlady 4]

Ok, You follow the King James VERSION of the bible, I am Catholic, I have more books than your bible does, who's literal version should be believed?

What literal version should be believed since MAN picked which ones to put in there. And I am not buying some kind "God spoke to them" kind of arguement.

I don't know if you're talking to me or Ron, but I prefer the NIV -- although I prefer the word "translation", not "version". I never liked Shakespeare in high school and it was because the language is, to me, difficult to follow. When I started reading the NIV I felt like I was able to finally understand what was being said. That is not the case for others who have no problem with King James or New King James (or Shakespeare, for that matter).

That being said, I don't think you'll find any disagreements between the translations, and certainly not on issues of major doctrine.

Being Catholic, I'm sure "your" Bible says that Jesus was the Son of God and He was crucified and resurrected on the third day (I don't know of any Bibles that don't). Do you believe that to be literal or figurative?

[leatha_g 4]

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[Ron Cusano 0]

Actually, I was answering someone else who made a post regarding the Catholic Bible. I am not Catholic, I just consider myself a conservative Bible believing Christian!! I was raised in a Catholic home, but when I came to know Jesus, I no longer considered myself a Catholic.

I have used the Thompson Chain Reference Bible for many years because it is an excellent study bible, and is used in many seminaries. I also sue the NASB and other translations in my studies and writings.

I don't know if you're talking to me or Ron, but I prefer the NIV -- although I prefer the word "translation", not "version". I never liked Shakespeare in high school and it was because the language is, to me, difficult to follow. When I started reading the NIV I felt like I was able to finally understand what was being said. That is not the case for others who have no problem with King James or New King James (or Shakespeare, for that matter).

That being said, I don't think you'll find any disagreements between the translations, and certainly not on issues of major doctrine.

Being Catholic, I'm sure "your" Bible says that Jesus was the Son of God and He was crucified and resurrected on the third day (I don't know of any Bibles that don't). Do you believe that to be literal or figurative?

[gadgetlady 4]

Oops, I think you misunderstood, Ron. I was responding to wavydaby, who said her Bible was Catholic.

[Ron Cusano 0]

So was I! Duh!! Another senior moment on my part!!

Oops, I think you misunderstood, Ron. I was responding to wavydaby, who said her Bible was Catholic.

[gadgetlady 4]

Today, I am learning and today, I do read the Bible with a different pair of eyes. I seek to learn more, not because I've been told I MUST to understand, but because of my intrinsic belief that has been there since before I was big enough to pronounce the words in this Holy book. My faith has little to do with any teachings, it comes from within my heart and through experiences that God has seen me through with grace and mercy. Not until I came to that realization that nothing in my life is done alone and that 'I' am not the center of the universe did I have an interest in learning what was really in the book. If I was illiterate and could not read a word, my faith could not be moved. However, now that I have been given the gift of the Holy spirit who indwells in me, the verses I read do make sense and apply to all areas of my life and the universe that surrounds me and will long after I am gone, just as it has gone before me.

Let us all remember that each of us comes to God through our own unique experience and background. According to the Bible, as little children, without the static of intellect or worldly wisdom, but through FAITH alone - even the faith of a mustard seed. If only we submit our will to Him, Allmighty God, Jesus Christ, professing it by mouth (or type as it were) and asking His forgiveness for all our trespasses and asking that He help shape us into the person He created us to be. Amazing, unbelievable... but true. :confused:

You are absolutely right, Leatha. We all come to Him like children, and it is only through the influence of the Holy Spirit, prayer, meditation, and the reading of His Word that we come to a fuller understanding. We will never have complete understanding, but if we are not willing to learn and we do not endeavor to grow in our faith, what kind of faith do we have? 1 Corinthians 13:11 says When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. When we're young (or young in Christ), we think we know everything. It is only when we grow up that we realize we knew practically nothing.

Last night my husband and I were doing a Bible study with our kids (ages 6 and 9). We were reading Psalms 22 (all of it, but I stopped to comment on Psalms 22:15-18: My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; you lay me in the dust of death. Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced my hands and my feet. I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me. They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing.). We've been having discussions of Old Testament prophesy lately, so I said to my children, "What does this sound like?" The younger one responded, "Jesus on the cross." We then discussed the "they pierced my hands and feet" verse in the context of the time when it was written, when crucifixion was unheard of. My older daughter was quiet this whole time, and finally she said, "Mom, that can't be prophesy." "Why not?" I asked. "Because I've read that before and I never thought it was prophesy then." Ahhh, out of the mouths of babes. Because I didn't realize what it was then, it can't be true now. As children and as adults, how universal our closed-mindedness is.

Personally, I have learned the most in my life when I was challenged by others. That's Biblical, too: Proverbs 27:16 - As Iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

"Being Catholic, I'm sure "your" Bible says that Jesus was the Son of God and He was crucified and resurrected on the third day (I don't know of any Bibles that don't). Do you believe that to be literal or figurative?"

Even theologians disagree what “resurrected and rose” on the third day really means.

Some are sure that Jesus was again a man of flesh and bone,

while others think he was more of an apparition, one partially transparent and unable to be touched.

Does it matter?

Before you scream;

Which Jesus approached Paul on the road to Damascus?

[gadgetlady 4]

Even theologians disagree what “resurrected and rose” on the third day really means.

Some are sure that Jesus was again a man of flesh and bone,

while others think he was more of an apparition, one partially transparent and unable to be touched.

Does it matter?

Before you scream

I'm not screaming. But you didn't answer the question. I did not ask what FORM Jesus took when He was resurrected. I'm asking if you (and others) believe that He was the Son of God and if He was, indeed, resurrected after His crucifixion. It seems to me to be a pretty straightforward question.