Posted by femlite on January 16, 2004, at 13:03:10
In reply to Re: How to justify pagan roots?, posted by Miss Honeychurch on January 16, 2004, at 11:27:21
>> What I am questioning is the validity of his story. How is one to really know that his story was not molded to correspond with those of ancient gods who were born of a virgin, killed, and risen again?? In my mind, this is a perfectly reasonable question.
>
> >I guess it all comes down to how you actually see the Bible. Is it literature? Is it the true word of God?
Its important to consider historical accuracy. As far as we know the hisorical accuracy of the scriptures and events portrayed have been verified by outside sources, ie...Josephus, and othersBut what I find disturbingly illogical is that we think nothing of accepting the historical acount of someone, anyone, outside those who wrote the Bible. Why dont we question other historical sources? We take for granted the accounts of the Napoleanic wars, or the Bolshevic revolution.
How do we know that at the coronation dinner of the last Tsar of Russia the rumors of too little food for the peasants caused a stampede and dozens were trampled to death. There are, of course varying accounts of minor details but we accept the accounts in general. Why?
Maybe the accounts of WW1 are lies, there was no war, it was made up. Do you see what Im getting at. Why do we have more faith in secular historians than in the authors of the Bible. Just a thought:)
>>Did Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John have actual AGENDAS when writing their gospels? Why exactly were these gospels chosen to be included in the Bible as opposed to others? What was the Church's agenda by including these specific gosp
Please dont take this the wrong way, but what you are saying about the apostles sounds pretty cynical.
Think about the literal and historical context. Do you really believe that simple aramaic/jewish fishermen would really have "agendas"?
> Then there is the question of biblical translation from Aramaic to Greek to Latin to English, etc. How do we know what we are reading is a true translation?
>
>> We are so used to seeing Christ depicted with blue eyes and blonde hair, that that is in fact how many Christians visualize him, when in fact he more than likely was dark featured. But many Christians basically accept that Jesus was Nordic in appearance without questioning his ethnicity and what part of the world he came from.The we you describe in this paragraph is a westen "we". Only the we of Western Europe have ever thought or depicted Christ as fair skinned. Iconography is a very central part of the eastern half of the church. Having said that it is interesting to find that from Eastern Orthodox country to country,although Christ looks alot like the natives of each country, He's almost never fair or gentile looking.
>>Do we just accept stories from the Bible as blindly?Do we accept the stories of the greatness of the Egyptian Empire blindly? I think we dont consider our acceptance to be blind. But again we really almost nver question secular accounts of history.
>
> I am certainly no biblical scholar or theologian, so I apologize if I had said any mis-statements.
>
> I just have trouble taking the historic validity of the Bible as "gospel" as it were. Muslims believe the Koran is the true word of God, and Christians do not. How are Christians so certain the Bible is indeed, fact?? PLEase don't call me a heretic or anything, I feel it is healthy to question one's religion. Perhaps I am too cynical. I always feel people have an agenda and I feel the Bible to be no exception to this which is why I question some of its content.
I would not call you a heritic, but I would say you are playing with fire, (If in fact you have a relationship with Christ and His church)
Is the point of your searching to find answers? There are plenty of answers to your questions.If you accept the historical exsistence of Christ, then you have to start with Him as a source. He, is the author of the scriptures. If someone does not accept that premise then read the words that only He spoke about himself. He claimed to be God. He claimed to be truth. He said He would die and rise again. He is either a mad man or who He claims. How can a prophet lie? and remain a respected figure?
From a traditional Christian perspective I say this, we are in a spiritual war. Choosing sides against the darkness does not reguire checking our brain at the door or bashing others.
The battle line runs through our hearts.
Choosing which side of the battle to be on brings peace and revelation, but the choice comes first. Then the proof.Sometimes what we dislilke in others is what we dislike in ourselves
Certain traumas make it difficult to believe in good, to have faith in God and the goodness of others.It seems like an "agenda" to me :) to say all these negative things about the Bible and then throw in a small line at the end, about lack of faith?
Forgive me if Im wrong. It may also be a cry....>
> Perhaps my faith is not strong enough...
poster:femlite
thread:297550
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20040113/msgs/301635.html