Is The Bible Reliable?

[rkwright]

Mortify - If it was a later insertion, why did St. Jerome include it? He had access to far more manuscripts than we have today.

Just looking at wikipedia makes me think you have some of your facts off...

[quote]The pericope is not found in its canonical place in any of the earliest surviving Greek Gospel manuscripts; neither in the two 3rd century papyrus witnesses to John - P66 and P75; nor in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, [b]although all four of these manuscripts may acknowledge the existence of the passage via diacritical marks at the spot[/b]. The first surviving Greek manuscript to contain the pericope is the Latin/Greek diglot Codex Bezae of the late 4th or early 5th century. [b]It is also the earliest surviving Latin manuscript to contain it; 17 of the 23 Old Latin manuscripts of John 7-8 contain at least part of the Pericope. [/b]Papias (circa AD 125) refers to a story of Jesus and a woman "accused of many sins" as being found in the Gospel of the Hebrews, which may well refer to this passage; [b]there is a very certain quotation of the pericope adulterae in the 3rd Century Syriac Didascalia Apostolorum; though without indicating John's Gospel[/b]. The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles Book II.24 refers to the passage “And when the elders had set another woman who had sinned before Him, and had left the sentence to Him, and were gone out, our Lord, the Searcher of the hearts, inquiring of her whether the elders had condemned her, and being answered No, He said unto her: “Go thy way therefore, for neither do I condemn thee.” Book II is generally dated to the late third century (Von Drey, Krabbe, Bunsen, Funk).[6] Codex Fuldensis, which is positively dated to AD 546 contains the adulterae pericope. The Second Epistle of Pope Callistus section 6[7] contains a quote that may be from John 8:11 - "Let him see to it that he sin no more, that the sentence of the Gospel may abide in him: “Go, and sin no more.”" However the epistle quotes from eighth century writings and is not thought to be genuine.[8]

[b]Until recently, it was not thought that any Greek Church Father had taken note of the passage before the 12th Century; but in 1941 a large collection of the writings of Didymus the Blind (ca. 313- 398) was discovered in Egypt, including a reference to the pericope adulterae as being found in "several copies"; and it is now considered established that this passage was present in its canonical place in many Greek manuscripts known in Alexandria and elsewhere from the 4th Century onwards. [/b]In support of this it is noted that the 4th century Codex Vaticanus, which was written in Egypt, marks the end of John chapter 7 with an "umlaut", indicating that an alternative reading was known at this point.

[b]Jerome reports that the pericope adulterae was to be found in its canonical place in "many Greek and Latin manuscripts" in Rome and the Latin West in the late 4th Century. This is confirmed by the consensus of Latin Fathers of the 4th and 5th Centuries CE; including Ambrose, and Augustine. [/b]The latter claimed that the passage may have been improperly excluded from some manuscripts in order to avoid the impression that Christ had sanctioned adultery:

"Certain persons of little faith, or rather enemies of the true faith, fearing, I suppose, lest their wives should be given impunity in sinning, removed from their manuscripts the Lord's act of forgiveness toward the adulteress, as if he who had said, Sin no more, had granted permission to sin."[9]
[/quote]

For me, this more than satisfies any curiosity in the matter.

[Socrates]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1286313434' post='2178051']
Yes, there are examples, one would be the changes made in response to the adoptionist controversies. Adoptionists like the Ebionites believed Jesus possessed only a human nature, was born naturally by a consumation between his father and mother (i.e. they rejected the virgin birth), but was ultimately chosen by God as His righteous servant. So what changes do we find among the manuscripts? In the Gospel of Luke there is a passage where Joseph and Mary present Jesus in the temple. Older manuscripts read,[b] "His father and mother were marveling at was said to them"[/b] (Luke 2:33) which can be taken to indicate Jesus had a human father. Later manuscripts have the verse as [b]"Joseph and his mother were marveling..."[/b]. A similar change was made in a later part of the Gospel where Luke records Joseph and Mary finding Jesus in the temple. Older manuscripts read, "His parents..." whereas the later manuscripts read "Joseph and his mother..." Another example is in the baptismal scene recorded by Luke. The Ebionites pinpointed Jesus "adoption" as the son of God at his baptism. In that scene the voice of God is heard and is recorded in older manuscripts as, "You are my son, today I have begotten you" which would lend credence to the adoptionist view. But later manuscripts have it recorded as "You are my beloved son in whom I am well pleased." These are three examples of changes made to scripture to curb a particular interpretation that was regarded as heretical.[/quote]
In neither case was the meaning of the passage changed; the language was merely changed to clarify against heretical errors which later grew up.
It's clear that "Joseph" and "His father" both refer to the same person.
In both translations, God speaks from heaven to confer His favor on Jesus His son.

As the miraculous virgin conception of Jesus by the Holy Ghost is explicitly recorded in the same Gospel of Luke (1:28-38), there is no reason to believe the essential meaning of the text was changed here.
You still have no evidence of significant changes to the essential story told in the Gospels, and all are clear about the divinity of Christ.


[quote]Perhaps if Mark's original Gospel was unearthed we would find even more differences, but we can only go off of what we have. There may be even more changes that we don't know about because we don't have the originals, thus more questions raised against the Bible's reliability.[/quote]
"Perhaps . . ." "may be . . ." "don't know . . ."

In other words, a lot of idle, baseless speculation.
You're going to have to do better than that to build a case against the authenticity of the Gospels.

[quote]With regards to motive, all that can be said is that if a change is made intentionally, there must be a reason for that change. If a verse was changed from "His parents..." to "Joseph and his mother..." we can reasonably infer that the motive is to counter the opinion that Jesus had a human father. [/quote]
Again, the substantial meaning of the passage was not changed. And all the Gospels, including the Gospel according to Luke, make it clear that Jesus Christ is literally the Son of God.


[quote]Well, you're simply uninformed on this issue.

The Ebionites mentioned above were a very early Jewish-Christian group that fit precisely the description you mention above. They rejected the virgin birth, rejected the Divinity of Christ, believed him to be only a man, and firmly held on to Jewish Law. St Ireneus mentions them in his, "Against the Heresies," and so there most certainly was an early theological conflict with them.
[/quote]
The Ebionites were a heretical sect, first mentioned by St. Irenaeus - in other words a group outside of Christian orthodoxy, and are referred to as heretics by all who wrote about them. There is no evidence that they were the original Christians, as you and certain modernists maintain. Nor is there any historical evidence of a hostile takeover of the Church by orthodox Christians. The earliest Christian writings we have, including the works of the New Testament, reflect orthodox Christian theology, rather than Ebionite beliefs.

[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05242c.htm"]Ebionites[/url]

[quote]
How can you be certain there is such an unbroken tradition that goes back to the Apostles?[/quote]
All the historical evidence certainly points to it, including the writings of the early Church Fathers. ([url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9209frs.asp"]Some quotes from the Fathers regarding Apostolic Succession[/url])

That the Church dates back to the Apostles and Christ was taken for granted by Christians in the first century of the Church. There is no evidence that this was something suddenly made up at some later date, all protestant claims to the contrary.


Of course, there's no way to have absolute objective certainty of anything that happened in the past without access to time travel, but the evidence is overwhelmingly for the truth of the Gospels.

Of course, if you wish, you can always doubt and speculate endlessly with "what ifs" and wild conspiracy theories. You can even write a fictional thriller about them (paid off great for Dan Brown).
However, such speculation lacks any firm basis. The actual historical evidence is on the side of the Church.

[mortify]

[quote name='OraProMe' timestamp='1286358755' post='2178132']
Mortify,

Awesome reading. Do you have a reference for the stuff you've said about the ebionites changing the old manuscripts?
[/quote]

It wasn't the Ebionites who edited the manuscripts, but the so called Orthodox. Bart Ehrman has written some decent though popular works on the subject.

[mortify]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1286374173' post='2178165']
Mortify - If it was a later insertion, why did St. Jerome include it?[/quote]

I don't know, maybe he made a mistake?

[quote]He had access to far more manuscripts than we have today.[/quote]

How do you know this? I doub't he had as many diverse and ancient sources as modern scholars have at their hands now.

[quote]Just looking at wikipedia makes me think you have some of your facts off...[/quote]

Although what you mention is interesting, it ultimately doesn't change the fact that it's an insertion into John's gospel. No one denies its an ancient story or that it's not in any manuscripts.

[mortify]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1286396135' post='2178205']
In neither case was the meaning of the passage changed; the language was merely changed to clarify against heretical errors which later grew up.[/quote]

You believe the Gospel authors were inspired, don't you? Don't you find it problematic that a scribe would take it upon themself to alter the inspired text for theological reasons? Obviously from your trinitarian viewpoint the text was clarified, however an adoptionist would say it was further obscured.

[quote]It's clear that "Joseph" and "His father" both refer to the same person.[/quote]

Yes, but that's not really the issue. The issue is that the latter can lend itself into suggesting that Joseph was Jesus' literal father.

[quote]In both translations, God speaks from heaven to confer His favor on Jesus His son.[/quote]

Yes, but in the older translation Jesus is *begotten* as God's son in a particular moment, and that moment was his baptism, hence the adoptionist belief that Jesus was "adopted" as God's son on his baptism. This is a significant change from the later variant.

[quote]You still have no evidence of significant changes to the essential story told in the Gospels, and all are clear about the divinity of Christ.[/quote]

I guess it depends on what you define as significant, but the insertion of the adulteress pericope into John's gospel and the ending inserted into Mark's are examples of significant changes that are hard to deny.

[quote]In other words, a lot of idle, baseless speculation.
You're going to have to do better than that to build a case against the authenticity of the Gospels.[/quote]

We don't have the originals, all we have are copies dated centuries later. We can compare older copies with later copies to discover changes have been made to the text. It seems reasonable to believe that changes and alterations were occurring even before the gospels were written, when the stories of Christ existed in oral tradition only. This can't be definitively proved but is it unreasonable to suggest the Bible is not reliable? Im studying the question, but unfortunately right now it seem quite unreliable.

[quote]Again, the substantial meaning of the passage was not changed. And all the Gospels, including the Gospel according to Luke, make it clear that Jesus Christ is literally the Son of God.[/quote]

The point there was to show a scribe's motive can be inferred.

[quote]The Ebionites were a heretical sect, first mentioned by St. Irenaeus - in other words a group outside of Christian orthodoxy, and are referred to as heretics by all who wrote about them. There is no evidence that they were the original Christians, as you and certain modernists maintain. Nor is there any historical evidence of a hostile takeover of the Church by orthodox Christians. The earliest Christian writings we have, including the works of the New Testament, reflect orthodox Christian theology, rather than Ebionite beliefs.[/quote]

I never said I believed the Ebionites were the original Christians, for all we know they may have been.

What early piece of non canonical writing can be used against the Ebionites?

[quote]The actual historical evidence is on the side of the Church.
[/quote]

If that were so Catholic faith would be increasing with knowledge, and not decreasing.

[Socrates]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1286515674' post='2178486']
You believe the Gospel authors were inspired, don't you? Don't you find it problematic that a scribe would take it upon themself to alter the inspired text for theological reasons? Obviously from your trinitarian viewpoint the text was clarified, however an adoptionist would say it was further obscured.[/quote]
Yes, I believe the Gospels were inspired, which means they were preserved by God from error. I don't find it problematic that minor changes were made in the language to clarify against misinterpretation which had later crept in. In both cases you mention, the essential meaning of the narrative remains unchanged.

Unless you have adopted the adoptionist heresy, there shouldn't be an issue here.
If you have such an issue with changes in language from the original, then we shouldn't use any translations at all, as something is invariably lost or altered in translation. I'm sure your NAB translation has many changes to the original language far greater than the quibbles you've mentioned here.
This especially becomes an issue, as there is some substantial evidence to indicate that the very first version of Matthew may have been in Aramaic, rather than Greek.


[quote]Yes, but that's not really the issue. The issue is that the latter can lend itself into suggesting that Joseph was Jesus' literal father.
[/quote]
Which the infancy narrative in the same Gospel according to Luke makes clear that he was not. Thus the scribal change clarifies, rather than changes, the theological meaning of the original text.

[quote]Yes, but in the older translation Jesus is *begotten* as God's son in a particular moment, and that moment was his baptism, hence the adoptionist belief that Jesus was "adopted" as God's son on his baptism. This is a significant change from the later variant.[/quote]
Once again, St. Luke makes clear that Jesus Christ was conceived by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, as the apostolic tradition of the Church has always taught. Since Jesus was clearly already literally conceived at the time of His baptism, it is obvious that God the Father is speaking of conferring His special favor upon His Son, rather than a literal begetting. If you insist on a "literalist" approach, God doesn't say He "adopted" Christ, so the adoptionist belief is baseless.


[quote]I guess it depends on what you define as significant, but the insertion of the adulteress pericope into John's gospel and the ending inserted into Mark's are examples of significant changes that are hard to deny.[/quote]
That issue's been gone over multiple times now, and there's no need to beat a dead horse. You're using sources from the 1850s, and there's been plenty of archeological discoveries since then suggesting that it had been included in early manuscripts of the Gospels. And an insertion from another source is not the same as a change in the text. The New Testament is itself a collection of writings by various human authors assembled by the Church.

You seem to take a rather protestant view of Scripture, speaking as though the Church were based on the written Gospels, rather than the written Gospels coming from the the living Church's preaching of the Gospel of Christ.


[quote]We don't have the originals, all we have are copies dated centuries later. We can compare older copies with later copies to discover changes have been made to the text. It seems reasonable to believe that changes and alterations were occurring even before the gospels were written, when the stories of Christ existed in oral tradition only. This can't be definitively proved but is it unreasonable to suggest the Bible is not reliable? Im studying the question, but unfortunately right now it seem quite unreliable.
[/quote]
As I've pointed out, none of the scribal changes we have record of significantly alter the meaning of the original text. And there's no reason to think that the oral tradition within living memory of the events of the Gospels is unreliable. Christian tradition has always taught that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses and those who had direct contact with eyewitnesses, and you still have no solid evidence against that tradition.

There is absolutely no evidence for the major changes and alterations to the Gospel story that you keep hypothesizing about.

Sure, you can keep doubting the reliability of the scriptures we have, and doubt the reliability of the Church's traditions, but what are you left with?
You've got nothing but baseless hypotheses and conspiracy theories based in nothing solid at all.

I'll stick with the Rock of St. Peter.


Again, using your standards, we'd have to throw out everything recorded in ancient history as "unreliable." The evidence all points to the truth of the Gospel, yet you still need Faith. I can't force Faith on you. If you choose to disregard written and traditional records, you're going to have to scour the internet for power crystals for a time machine, and I'm afraid I can't help you there.

"Because you have seen me, Thomas, you have believed: blessed are they that have not seen and have believed." ~ John 20:29

[quote]The point there was to show a scribe's motive can be inferred.



I never said I believed the Ebionites were the original Christians, for all we know they may have been.
[/quote]
From the evidence we have, they appear to have been a small, marginal sect well outside the mainstream of the Church. You're again going on baseless conjecture and doubt for its own sake. The existence of the Ebionites for me is no more proof against the truth of the Gospel than the existence of Mohammedans, who similarly deny Christ's divinity.

[quote]What early piece of non canonical writing can be used against the Ebionites?[/quote]
Well, most of what we know about them comes from the Fathers of the Church, who denounce them as heretics.

And why must we be confined to non-canonical writing? Does a writing being canonical scripture somehow make it more unreliable than other sources in your opinion?
Canonical scripture is the earliest and most reliable written source we have about the origins of the Christian Faith.

[quote]
If that were so Catholic faith would be increasing with knowledge, and not decreasing.[/quote]
I have no idea what you mean there.

[Maggyie]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1286556906' post='2178567']
I have no idea what you mean there.
[/quote]

He means that as we discover knew things about ancient history, we would be finding more and more confirmation of the historical truth and reliability of the Gospel. Mortify, the truth is not a threat to the Truth. There are multiple ways to interpret things and again, although the Bible is important and holy, it is not like the Koran. It was a work in progress for a long, long time.

[mortify]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1286570261' post='2178605']
He means that as we discover knew things about ancient history, we would be finding more and more confirmation of the historical truth and reliability of the Gospel. Mortify, the truth is not a threat to the Truth. There are multiple ways to interpret things and again, although the Bible is important and holy, it is not like the Koran. It was a work in progress for a long, long time.
[/quote]

Yes, you got what I meant. How is knowing that not problematic for you?

[Maggyie]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1286768039' post='2179037']
Yes, you got what I meant. How is knowing that not problematic for you?
[/quote]

As a student of the craft of historians, it's helpful to know that our understanding of the practice itself is fluid.

Sometimes the historical record does confirm the Gospel. Example: For the longest time there was substantial doubt over whether Pontius Pilate ever really existed. All the documents referring to him were secondary and it was thought they only talked about Pilate because the Gospel talked about him first. There was no Roman record of him ever existing, which is odd, because the Romans loved their records. It was considered a damning ommission. It's quite surprising that some well-meaning pious person didn't bother to forge something as they have a habit of doing. Then in the 1960s they discovered archeological proof (a foundation stone carbon-dated to that period bearing his Latin name and the title prefect of Judea was found in the Roman capital of Palestine). To this day, this is the only proof we have of Pilate's existence. If they hadn't stumbled on that stone (a complete piece of luck) nobody would know for sure.

Historians are our society's official "rememberers," they are the people we pay to record and interpret events for posterity. This is a monumental task - processing the universe for the rest of us. To the layman, recording and interpreting are two seperate things. But in fact, even the act of recording is the first step to interpretation - how do you choose what details to record and what to omit? What data is important and what is unimportant? What words do you use to describe an event? The choice of one word over another can deeply color an account. Then there is the problem with eyewitnesses - scientific analysis shows that eyewitness testimony of events is often innaccurate, for a number of reasons. Within 20 minutes memory begins to degrade. Our individual states of life, our ideologies and attitudes play a big role in what we remember and "see." This is why eyewitnesses to a big event can give complete contradictory accounts of what happened, whether the event is positive or negative. A good example is the Kent State shootings - there are as many "versions" of that event as there were people on that campus. Very few of these people are lying - they all saw and sincerely remember different things happening that day. When you consider that ultimately all history leads back to eyewitness, first-hand experience, it can make you kind of squemish about the validity of our knowledge.

The same issues that dog the practice of all historians complicate the work of biblical historians. The truth is that with all history there is SOME evidence to support almost every point of view imaginable - there is evidence that Holocaust deniers can use. There is evidence for 9/11 conspiracy theorists. There is evidence that the North is guilty for the Civil War and that the South is guilty. There is contradictory evidence for what caused the fall of the Soviet Union. The data is never unified, it rarely rules anything out or rules anything in. The historian's task is to extract the data he feels is meaningful - and by extracting selected data, he leaves some of the truth out. It's inevitable, and an accepted "cost of doing business" for doing history. Added to this when dealing with the sub-field of ANCIENT history is the fact that physical records have been decimated and primary sources are even more rare. A single biased writer whose work is the only manuscript to survive can hugely alter our understanding of history. Imagine if an Ann Coulter book was the only thing we had left from the late 20th century. What we "know" about ancient cultures is almost completely speculation: informed, reasonable guesses. But guesses nonetheless. A new "discovery" about the Bible usually just means, a new theory.

The true question is not, are the Gospels trusthworthy, but are the 21st century biblical historians any more reliable than the "historians" (recorders) of the Gospels? I think today's historians are quite reliable, given that there are professional standards of scholarship they must strive to meet, and they are conscious of many of the pitfalls of their profession. But ultimately they are just as subject to problems as the Gospel writers.

Edited October 11, 2010 by Maggie

[Socrates]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1286808618' post='2179089']
As a student of the craft of historians, it's helpful to know that our understanding of the practice itself is fluid.

Sometimes the historical record does confirm the Gospel. Example: For the longest time there was substantial doubt over whether Pontius Pilate ever really existed. All the documents referring to him were secondary and it was thought they only talked about Pilate because the Gospel talked about him first. There was no Roman record of him ever existing, which is odd, because the Romans loved their records. It was considered a damning ommission. It's quite surprising that some well-meaning pious person didn't bother to forge something as they have a habit of doing. Then in the 1960s they discovered archeological proof (a foundation stone carbon-dated to that period bearing his Latin name and the title prefect of Judea was found in the Roman capital of Palestine). To this day, this is the only proof we have of Pilate's existence. If they hadn't stumbled on that stone (a complete piece of luck) nobody would know for sure. . . .
[/quote]
That's actually just one of many examples. Unfortunately, I don't have the sources with me, but I've read whole lists of examples of Biblical persons, places, etc. which where dismissed by 19th century "rationalist" debunkers as fiction proving the scriptures false, which have since been confirmed as real by archeological findings.

Even the dating of the Scriptures themselves has been pushed back by the finding of early Gospel fragments. ("Biblical Scholars" used to commonly claim that none of the four Gospels were written down until well into the second century.)

Mortify's using 1850s sources, which aren't exactly on the current cutting edge of archeological knowledge. It seems the bottom line is an issue of Faith, rather than of any real evidence proving the Gospels false.

[mortify]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1286808618' post='2179089']
As a student of the craft of historians, it's helpful to know that our understanding of the practice itself is fluid.
[/quote]

That was a very informative post, however doesn't it lead to greater uncertainty? It almost sounded something aking to relativism, or making everything subjective since we utlimately can't be certain of anything. My question to you Maggie then is why do you believe? Where do you get the foundation for your faith if everything is fo "fluid"?

Socrates you can respond to if you like, or anyone else for that matter.


Thanks

[Maggyie]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1287038252' post='2179544']
That was a very informative post, however doesn't it lead to greater uncertainty? It almost sounded something aking to relativism, or making everything subjective since we utlimately can't be certain of anything. My question to you Maggie then is why do you believe? Where do you get the foundation for your faith if everything is fo "fluid"?

Socrates you can respond to if you like, or anyone else for that matter.


Thanks
[/quote]

It can certainly be taken as relativism from a certain point of view. However I should also say that historians don't believe that certainty is impossible - when they write a book or a paper they are very certain of their interpretation. But they do understand that their work can never be considered "the last word" on anything - it's similar to science in that respect - there is always the liklihood of new perspectives and new information that will upend our understanding of past events.

And of course there IS a 100 percent true history - going back to the Kent State shootings, there certainly was an actual sequence of events that happened. The only thing is, that "completely true and accurate" history almost always slips through our fingers - human beings are limited that way, and accepting those limitations is an important for historical scholarship.

To go to the root of your question, I was not raised to believe. I don't want to sound like I am pooh-poohing God's Word, because Scripture is holy and important, but just going off the Bible alone would never have convinced me that Jesus existed, or that he was who he said he was, or that God even existed. It is a sacred text and all faith traditions have "sacred texts." None of them is any more believeable than the others, although the Bible is a little bit better than some in terms of making logical sense - the Romans would crucify a trouble-maker at the drop of a hat, etc.

There's also the fact that while history is "slippery," we CAN get at a lot of the facts that matter. There will be arguments for eternity about who is at fault for World War I - but we do know there was a war. Even if 9/11 consipracies gained ascendency, and all the history books 300 years from now taught the wrong thing, they WOULD be teaching the fact that there was a disaster, many people died, certain buildings were affected and planes were used. We are bad at uncovering motives and details and anything that requires precision, but we do get the Big Things down. And so applying this principle to the Gospel, it's highly unlikely, given the fairly rapid spread of Christianity, that most of it is completely made up or outlandish. Now, rising from the dead is outlandish. God made man is outlandish. But wandering teachers, political intrigue and Roman crucifixions are not outlandish at all. Leaving aside theology, it's likely from a purely secular view that

a. A man named Jesus existed
b. He taught and gained a huge following
c. He ran afoul of the authorities and was put to death

And given the time period, it's also unlikely that his followers made up ALL of the rest of it. If they were going to invent some religious mythology to supplement their dead teacher's message, I doubt the early Christians would have gone with resurrection. There are more believable inventions - after all, they spread this in the Roman empire, where there was a healthy tradition of skepticism. And while it's clear Scripture is a written record of an oral tradition, and different bits and stories were added at different times, things like the incarnation and the resurrection do not lend themselves to being tacked on afterward by somebody with an agenda, when those beliefs didn't already exist within the religious tradition. The piece-meal assembly of Scripture actually makes it seem more reliable, simply because it shows how it developed slowly within a community that could give its assent to whether the bits and pieces were accurate or not.

In the end I would have to say a radical encounter with God is why I believe. I have never experienced a miracle but I have experienced God. It wasn't a feeling or an intellectual thing or a Damascus moment - it was Something Else and it is hard to describe. But I don't think it's an unusual experience for converts or reverts. Another thing that's helpful is to look back over your life and see where the Holy Spirit has been working - my life has no dramatic twists and turns, but even before I believed, when I considered my life, I could see *something* happened at certain points. And finally, it all comes down to relationship. When I have a friend express that they are struggling I always ask "how is your prayer life?" and without exception it needs serious improvement. You can't have a relationship with someone who doesn't exist, but you CAN have a relationship with Jesus Christ.

[Socrates]

[quote name='mortify' timestamp='1287038252' post='2179544']
That was a very informative post, however doesn't it lead to greater uncertainty? It almost sounded something aking to relativism, or making everything subjective since we utlimately can't be certain of anything. My question to you Maggie then is why do you believe? Where do you get the foundation for your faith if everything is fo "fluid"?

Socrates you can respond to if you like, or anyone else for that matter.


Thanks
[/quote]
While Maggie's responded for herself, I certainly don't regard truth as "fluid" or relative. I think the point is more how the opinion of any particular historian at a given time is not infallible (such as those you've cited).
In fact, for me personally, the way the Church has survived through over 20 centuries, and remained true to often unpopular beliefs and principles through all those years helps prove the authenticity of its message. If the Church were only a human institution, it would have died out ages ago.

And think about it. What other person who lived 2000 years ago continues to have a major personal impact in the lives of many around the world?
Why does a particular 2000-year-old Jewish rabbi continue to be at the center of so much devotion, as well as hate and opposition in the world?
And why does all that is evil and vile in this world have such an intense pathologically obsessive hatred for Jesus and His followers?

Maybe not "proof" in the strict empirical sense, but definitely something to ponder.

Edited October 14, 2010 by Socrates

[mortify]

Thank you for your responses, I'll study the issues more and write a thorough post.

[Skinzo]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1287078170' post='2179596']
And think about it.  What other person who lived 2000 years ago continues to have a major personal impact in the lives of many around the world?
Why does a particular 2000-year-old Jewish rabbi continue to be at the center of so much devotion, as well as hate and opposition in the world?
And why does all that is evil and vile in this world have such an intense pathologically obsessive hatred for Jesus and His followers?

Maybe not "proof" in the strict empirical sense, but definitely something to ponder.
[/quote]

Socrates,


 Your post puts me in mind of one of my favorite poems that was actually written by a Protestant but in any case it is brilliant.

Something to ponder indeed:

One Solitary Life

By Rev. James Allan Francis

"He was born in an obscure village,
a child of a peasant woman.
He grew up in another obscure village
where he worked in a carpenter shop
until he was thirty.
Then for three years
he was an itinerant preacher.
He never had a family.
Or owned a home.
He never set foot inside a big city.
He never traveled two hundred miles
from the place he was born.
He never wrote a book
or held an office.
He did none of the things
that usually accompany greatness.
While he was still a young man,
the tide of popular opinion
turned against him.
His friends deserted him.
He was turned over to his enemies.
He went through the mockery of a trial.
He was nailed to a cross
between two thieves.
While he was dying
his executioners gambled
for the only piece of property he had,
his coat.
When he was dead,
he was taken down
and laid in a borrowed grave.

Nineteen centuries have come and gone
and today he is still the central figure
for much of the human race.
All the armies that ever marched,
All the navies that ever sailed
And all the parliaments that ever sat
And all the kings that ever reigned
Put together
have not affected the life of man 
Upon this earth
As powerfully as this
One Solitary Life."


S.

Edited October 19, 2010 by Skinzo

[Guest Shadyrest]

[quote name='kafka' timestamp='1285097894' post='2175128']
[i]This has been on my mind for some time, exactly how reliable is the Bible and the New Testament in particular? [/i]

God is the Supreme Author of Sacred Scripture. He inspired the Sacred Writers, therefore it is infallibly and inerrantly reliable. This truth is beyond reason and sense.

[i]The New American Bible, a Catholic Bible, says the Gospels were written decades after Jesus, by anonymous authors who were not eyewitnesses. [/i]

that is an error. Two Apostles, and two disciples, one of whom may have been an eye witness when he was young (Mark) authored the Gospels. Luke was influenced by Matthew's and Mark's Gospel and he was also influenced by Mary. Perhaps some other disciples, or Christians added some parts under inspiration after the bulk was written but these were also under inspiration.

[i]All these really raise the question of how certain we are of anything recorded in the Gospels... so for example, my faith that the Catholic church is the true church is based on Matthew 16:18, but how certain are we that Jesus ever uttered such words?[/i]

The Faith is built on three pillars: Sacred Tradition first, then Sacred Scripture, then Magisterium. Sacred Tradition is the Deeds wrought by God in salvation history. Jesus establishing the Catholic Church is first a Deed he enacted, and it is reflected and expressed in Sacred Scripture. But the point is we believe and accept in love-faith-hope, first that God has effected acts in history.

In the end it is a matter of accepting the truths concerning the Bible taught by Sacred Tradition and Sacred Magisterium as a point of departure and then one may hope to do a valid scholarly study of Sacred Scripture.

As far as the only extent edition being from 300 a.d. I dont have time now to answer that, other than God's providence guides the translations. Will find quotes from Dei Verbum later.
[/quote]




[size="3"]Your statement that Jesus established the Roman Catholic Church and that it's reflected in Scripture, is untrue. When He made that statement to Peter, Rome was 1500 miles away, and the last thing on His mind was setting up a religious superstructure in Italy as His headquarters.[/size]

[Lilllabettt]

I smell troll. It's making me hungry. For troll.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1287705988' post='2181461']
[size="3"]Your statement that Jesus established the Roman Catholic Church and that it's reflected in Scripture, is untrue. When He made that statement to Peter, Rome was 1500 miles away, and the last thing on His mind was setting up a religious superstructure in Italy as His headquarters.[/size]
[/quote]

According to what authority?

[Maggyie]

[quote name='Shadyrest' timestamp='1287705988' post='2181461']
[size="3"] the last thing on His mind was setting up a religious superstructure in Italy as His headquarters.[/size]
[/quote]

How do you know?

[Guest Shadyrest]

[quote name='Maggie' timestamp='1287707410' post='2181468']
How do you know?
[/quote]

Because He didn't say so, that's why. When the Holy Spirit listed the offices of the church, He completely avoided mentioning a papacy, did He not? (1 Cor 12:28). A most inexcusable error if the Catholic view were true. But since the Holy Spirit doesn't make mistakes, He did not intend to start a papacy, and that's that.