Why Don't They Remove Books From The Bible Canon?

[Selah]

[quote]Do you think in the future they'll discover the world is flat[/quote]

No.

Let me ask you this-why do you think it's imperative to take the Bible literally? For example, the creation story-and I'm gonna get some flack for this from other Catholics here, but I really don't care-the creation story, consider how every culture has one. It was a story used by the ancients to explain how the earth came to be. This is true of the Jewish people.

You will find, if you go and read earlier posts of mine, that I believe in evolution. I believe that the creation story was just that-a story. Now, don't hear me wrong: I believe God is the creator of the universe. But, I do not believe it went about the way it did in Genesis.

Moreover, the story of the flood. Every culture also has one. The story in the Bible is almost identical to the Zoroastrian account. Which is fine by me. Why? Because, it's a story and meant to be one, like every other flood story.

I could go on. The Tower of Babel, etc...it's not about whether or not they actually "happened"...it's the moral they have. My father once told me that even if the Tower of Babel never happened, the moral still stands: human beings can't get along with each other! We try to create a one world order, and it collapses beneath us. Rome tried that too, and look what happened...

The purpose of the Bible is Christ. It's about the coming of the Messiah. The Bible is not a history book, nor is it a science book. The purpose of the Sacred Scriptures is this: it points to Christ, who came to earth to free us from the disorder of sin.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='DanielNicholas' date='19 January 2010 - 07:56 AM' timestamp='1263902207' post='2040109']
Do you think in the future they'll discover the world is flat?
[/quote]

Daniel,
You seem to confuse the Catholic Church's beliefs about Holy Scripture with what Biblical fundamentalists believe. Acquaint yourself more with what the Church actually says. St. Augustine for example, writing in the fourth century did not believe everything in the bible (such as the earth being created in 7 days) was to be taken literally:
"With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation."

St. Augustine – De Genesi ad literam, 2:9


S.

Edited January 19, 2010 by Skinzo

[HisChildForever]

Isn't this your second account?

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='DanielNicholas' date='18 January 2010 - 09:54 PM' timestamp='1263869695' post='2039967']
So, from going through the bible. Im sure, as even any atheist could admit. That what Jesus said actually made sense and can be applied to today with some level of relevance.

Even hardcore atheists like Richard Dawkins rave on about how amazing Jesus was.

This is what he wrote, which Im going to write out by hand.

"Well there's no denying that, from a moral point of view, Jesus is a huge improvement over the cruel ogre of the Old Testament. Indeed, Jesus, if he existed (or whomever wrote his script if he didn't) was surely one of the great ethical innovators of history. The sermon on the Mount is way ahead of its time. His 'turn the other cheek' anticipated Ghandi and Martin Luther King by two thousand years. It was not for nothing that I wrote an article called "Atheists for Jesus" (and was later delighted to be presented with a T-shirt bearing the legend)."


I mean, I can't think of one verse Jesus said himself that I would disagree with. However the rest of the bible is just horrendous.

But if you took out ONLY the things that Jesus DIRECTLY said himself, out of his mouth. The bible would be, far better than it is today.
[/quote]

Daniel Nicholas, as C.S. Lewis and Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen pointed out: 1. Jesus historically existed. Historians from his time acknowledged it. 2. Jesus said he was God. "Before Abraham was, I Am." John 8:58. "I Am" is saying, "Jahveh." The title/metaphysical explanation that God revealed to the Jews, in Exodus 3:14. In other words, "I am He Whose Essence is to Exist." The simple Jews were light years ahead of the Greek philosophers after that revelation.

The Jews knew precisely what Jesus was saying. That's why they took up stones to pummel him into the ground. Note that when he saw them picking up stones to kill him, he didn't say, "Whoa, now, guys, you misunderstood me!"

Now, if you want to deny that Jesus ever said "Before Abraham was, I Am," that's fine. We can leave it there. I always laugh about how the "Biblical historians" want to take the New Testament at face value and admit Mary existed, but then say "Well, she was raped and impregnated by a Roman soldier." They take one fact from the source they're "investigating," then wilfully ignore the many things in the same source that [i]contradict[/i] their wholly contrived assumption.

But . . . if Jesus did say, "Before Abraham was, I Am," then he was either completely insane, (given his other words, can you really believe that? As Fulton Sheen points out, anyone will acknowledge him as the sanest man who ever lived.) Or he was an evil, lying charlatan of the most base kind. Can you accept that conclusion, either? As Fulton Sheen pointed out, no sane man willingly dies for a lie. Jesus could've retracted everything and successfully saved his life.

So, you can say that Jesus never existed, you can say he was just a "wise teacher" and said most of the things in the New Testament, but you can ignore the part where it says he said "I am God," but you've got to come to [i]a[/i] firm conclusion, just like Jesus asked his disciples in Matthew 16:

13 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, "Who do men say that the Son of Man is?"

14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

15 He said to them, "But who do [b]you[/b] say that I am?"

16 Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."

17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.

18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

20 Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.


The important question now, DanielNicholas is . . . who do [i]you[/i] say that he is? Do you say that it never happened? That he was a lunatic? A liar? Or, is it possible that Jesus was, in fact, precisely who he said he was?

~Sternhauser

Edited January 19, 2010 by Sternhauser

[scardella]

I know you're quoting Dawkins here, and he's a bucket and a half of hilarity, particularly when paired with Colbert.
[quote]Well there's no denying that, from a moral point of view, Jesus is a huge improvement over the cruel ogre of the Old Testament.[/quote]

Anyway, have you actually sat down and read the OT... the WHOLE OT?

My understanding of the OT is far different. It is the story of a merciful God, slowly revealing Himself over time.

[Socrates]

[quote name='DanielNicholas' date='18 January 2010 - 09:54 PM' timestamp='1263869695' post='2039967']
So, from going through the bible. Im sure, as even any atheist could admit. That what Jesus said actually made sense and can be applied to today with some level of relevance.

Even hardcore atheists like Richard Dawkins rave on about how amazing Jesus was.

This is what he wrote, which Im going to write out by hand.

"Well there's no denying that, from a moral point of view, Jesus is a huge improvement over the cruel ogre of the Old Testament. Indeed, Jesus, if he existed (or whomever wrote his script if he didn't) was surely one of the great ethical innovators of history. The sermon on the Mount is way ahead of its time. His 'turn the other cheek' anticipated Ghandi and Martin Luther King by two thousand years. It was not for nothing that I wrote an article called "Atheists for Jesus" (and was later delighted to be presented with a T-shirt bearing the legend)."


I mean, I can't think of one verse Jesus said himself that I would disagree with. However the rest of the bible is just horrendous.

But if you took out ONLY the things that Jesus DIRECTLY said himself, out of his mouth. The bible would be, far better than it is today.

If you had the bible, and then ripped out the entire Old Testament AND the book of Corinthians and Romans,

There would be no problems at all? There wouldn't be the whole "Creationism/Intelligent Design" debate, for one.

There would be no Religion v.s. Science debate.

And, any sane person would take the side of science. Of course,

But didn't they go through the bible (I think at the Council of Nicea) and figure out which books were divinely inspired and which ones were not. And then they were canonised. So it was up to human judgement thousands of years ago wether which books were right and which ones were false.

However, using human judgement and modern science today. Obviously Genesis and Isaiah, Job, those books in particular contradict many things that modern science says, and what we know today. So therefore, they would not be divinely inspired and should be removed from the canon.

Instead of the whole "IT NEVER HAPPENED, it was a METAPHOR" approach, which obviously isn't working in the USA since just under half the population think the entire bible is 100% correct. I think it should just be removed.

Doesn't that make far more sense?

If it's wrong - RIP IT OUT!

Why is nobody doing thins?
[/quote]
Yes, let's remove everything politically-incorrect from the Bible.
If we make a new Bible that atheist liberal drag queens will perfectly agree with, then all our religious problems will be solved.

[King's Rook's Pawn]

If we're going to edit the Bible like that we may as well rewrite the whole thing. We can add lots of fun stuff about monsters and castles and beautiful princesses with long, blonde hair. I'd like to expand the part about the Noah and give him, you know, more personality and everything. It's okay to just make it up as you go, right?

Edited January 19, 2010 by King's Rook's Pawn

[Winchester]

And machine guns.

[Vincent Vega]

And Trogdor.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='DanielNicholas' date='19 January 2010 - 02:47 AM' timestamp='1263894471' post='2040097'] Its getting so boring.[/quote]
+JMJ+
yup.

it is.

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='20 January 2010 - 10:58 PM' timestamp='1264046317' post='2041269']
And Trogdor.
[/quote]

There was far too little burninating of peasants in the Old Testament.

~Sternhauser

[Winchester]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='20 January 2010 - 10:58 PM' timestamp='1264046317' post='2041269']
And Trogdor.
[/quote]
THE BURNINATOR!

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='19 January 2010 - 06:51 AM' timestamp='1263905479' post='2040118']
You are laboring under the false notion that the Bible is meant to be used as a science textbook, and in that sense you are as foolish as a Biblical fundamentalist.
[/quote]

Ouch. Well stated.