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

[Guest DanielNicholas]

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?

[Veridicus]

[quote name='DanielNicholas' date='18 January 2010 - 08:54 PM' timestamp='1263869695' post='2039967']
.......
[/quote]

You really don't get what we believe.

[CatherineM]

I don't even know where to start correcting what you posted.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='DanielNicholas' date='18 January 2010 - 10:54 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]
I'm sure there are people out there doing it, they are simply not christians. We believe the Scriptures, which is actually a library not a book, is inspired by God, so obviously we don't have the right to pick and choose [ unless you are the heretic Martin Luther].

[eagle_eye222001]

[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]

Not necessarily. What did Jesus say about abortion? Homosexuality? Jesus doesn't quite literally state what to do about these issues, and the evidence for His position on these issues is more indirect. People on both sides of the aisle think Jesus supports their side. It's clear the Gospels were not written to be a complete analysis on Jesus. Which is where you get His Church to be the visible guide on earth.

[quote]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.[/quote]

Human judgment guided by the Holy Spirit. Quite honestly, either they were guided by the Holy Spirit, or the whole Judeo-Christian God goes down the tubes.

Also, it's not "religion vs. science" necessarily. Religion and science should go hand-in-hand. However many times religious people ignore the science, and many times, the science would rather follow their god of chance even if the odds of God are better.



[quote]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.[/quote]

Like what? I am not aware of many contradictions. Unless your reading these books differently than the way they are supposed to be read. For example, if I read a book, and I see the phrase "raining cats and dogs," am I to think it is literally raining cats and dogs, or am I supposed to take that as the current culture takes it, namely that it is raining very hard? Another example would be the two creation stories. Are we to think there is a physical contradiction, or maybe there is a theological message behind it? If you want to debate the contradictions, probably should start a new thread on it.

[quote]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]

Can you prove it's wrong? Humans are not known to logically think all the time, and people should not be cutting up their own version of religion. Either the religion is true and people should form their lives around it, or it is false, and they should find something else to form their lives around. Making a religion "fit" means the religion isn't true to begin with.

[Chestertonian]

[quote name='DanielNicholas' date='18 January 2010 - 07:54 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]

No wonder you're an atheist.

[havok579257]

[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]


So you come on a catholic phorum just to insult catholics? Time is definatly on your side.... lots of time.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='DanielNicholas' date='18 January 2010 - 09:54 PM' timestamp='1263869695' post='2039967']
The sermon on the Mount is way ahead of its time. [/quote]

I'm glad you see that divorce and remarriage should not exist in our world today.

"And it hath been said, whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a bill of divorce. But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting for the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery." (Matthew 5:31-32)

[quote name='DanielNicholas' date='18 January 2010 - 09:54 PM' timestamp='1263869695' post='2039967']
His 'turn the other cheek' anticipated Ghandi and Martin Luther King by two thousand years.
[/quote]

Urban II was much more Christlike than either Gandhi or Martin Luther King.

[zunshynn]

[img]http://i603.photobucket.com/albums/tt112/ausador/LolWut.jpg[/img]

[Guest DanielNicholas]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' date='19 January 2010 - 02:45 PM' timestamp='1263872729' post='2039986']
Not necessarily. What did Jesus say about abortion? Homosexuality? Jesus doesn't quite literally state what to do about these issues, and the evidence for His position on these issues is more indirect. People on both sides of the aisle think Jesus supports their side. It's clear the Gospels were not written to be a complete analysis on Jesus. Which is where you get His Church to be the visible guide on earth.



Human judgment guided by the Holy Spirit. Quite honestly, either they were guided by the Holy Spirit, or the whole Judeo-Christian God goes down the tubes.

Also, it's not "religion vs. science" necessarily. Religion and science should go hand-in-hand. However many times religious people ignore the science, and many times, the science would rather follow their god of chance even if the odds of God are better.




Like what? I am not aware of many contradictions. Unless your reading these books differently than the way they are supposed to be read. For example, if I read a book, and I see the phrase "raining cats and dogs," am I to think it is literally raining cats and dogs, or am I supposed to take that as the current culture takes it, namely that it is raining very hard? Another example would be the two creation stories. Are we to think there is a physical contradiction, or maybe there is a theological message behind it? If you want to debate the contradictions, probably should start a new thread on it.



Can you prove it's wrong? Humans are not known to logically think all the time, and people should not be cutting up their own version of religion. Either the religion is true and people should form their lives around it, or it is false, and they should find something else to form their lives around. Making a religion "fit" means the religion isn't true to begin with.
[/quote]

Science would rather follow the god of chance? I hope you aren't referring to evolution, which is the exact opposite of chance. If you are referring to the chances of life on our planet existing, sure its unlikely. But even using pessimistic calculations like the Drakes equation. There should be 1 in a 1000 planets able to support life per galaxy. And there are billions of galaxies, so there should be billions of planets with life on them. Of course we've only visited and surveyed three planets in our galaxy. So you can't say life is unlikely unless you've seen every planet.

And regarding intelligence, there are homo sapiens, homo erectus and the neanderthals of course. So those are a few species on this planet whom were intelligent and capable of art, culture, religion. So I can't see any reason why other intelligent being should not exist on other planets.

IM SURE everybody has been made well aware of the contradictions in the bible, Im sure that's just common knowledge and I've done too much debating about such topics. Its getting so boring.

[Apotheoun]

I see no reason to alter the canon of scripture in order to conform it to the scientific theories of the present moment.

[Winchester]

[quote name='DanielNicholas' date='19 January 2010 - 04:47 AM' timestamp='1263894471' post='2040097']
Science would rather follow the god of chance? I hope you aren't referring to evolution, which is the exact opposite of chance. [/quote]
Could you explain how it's "the exact opposite", because mutation is, actually, chance.

[quote]
And regarding intelligence, there are homo sapiens, homo erectus and the neanderthals of course. So those are a few species on this planet whom were intelligent and capable of art, culture, religion. So I can't see any reason why other intelligent being should not exist on other planets.[/quote]
No one said they couldn't.
[quote]
IM SURE everybody has been made well aware of the contradictions in the bible,[/quote]
The only purpose of the Bible is Salvation.
[quote]
Im sure that's just common knowledge and I've done too much debating about such topics. Its getting so boring.
[/quote]
Yes, you are a weary scholar. All these in depth debates must try you so.

[Skinzo]

Daniel,
I hope you will keep posting here but you raise so many issues in your post, it's kind of hard to deal with them all. When you say the "rest of the Bible is horrendous" that's a pretty broad statement. Consider the many passages in the OT which call on us to care for widows, orphans, etc. Are they horrendous?
I hope you there is a nice parish near you where you can find a priest and people to discuss some of this with. We believe as we do because of our faith, we believe Jesus founded a Church and that He is still guiding that Church. I left the Church myself for several years but I'm glad that God brought me back. When one has an active prayer life and is involved in the sacraments I have found it does so much to strengthen my faith and hopefully has made me a better person for it. We all succeed and fail at times, but the important thing is to keep trying. I wish you all the best,

S.

[Guest DanielNicholas]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='19 January 2010 - 09:31 PM' timestamp='1263897107' post='2040098']
I see no reason to alter the canon of scripture in order to conform it to the scientific theories of the present moment.
[/quote]


Do you think in the future they'll discover the world is flat?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='DanielNicholas' date='19 January 2010 - 04:56 AM' timestamp='1263902207' post='2040109']
Do you think in the future they'll discover the world is flat?
[/quote]
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.

[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.