Some parts of Bible not true: Catholic Church

by **emad** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:14 pm

Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true. The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible. “We should not expect to find in Scripture full scientific accuracy or complete historical precision,” they say in The Gift of Scripture. The document is timely, coming as it does amid the rise of the religious Right, in particular in the US. Some Christians want a literal interpretation of the story of creation, as told in Genesis, taught alongside Darwin’s theory of evolution in schools, believing “intelligent design” to be an equally plausible theory of how the world began. But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”. The document shows how far the Catholic Church has come since the 17th century, when Galileo was condemned as a heretic for flouting a near-universal belief in the divine inspiration of the Bible by advocating the Copernican view of the solar system. Only a century ago, Pope Pius X condemned Modernist Catholic scholars who adapted historical-critical methods of analysing ancient literature to the Bible. In the document, the bishops acknowledge their debt to biblical scholars. They say the Bible must be approached in the knowledge that it is “God’s word expressed in human language” and that proper acknowledgement should be given both to the word of God and its human dimensions. They say the Church must offer the gospel in ways “appropriate to changing times, intelligible and attractive to our contemporaries”. The Bible is true in passages relating to human salvation, they say, but continue: “We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters.” They go on to condemn fundamentalism for its “intransigent intolerance” and to warn of “significant dangers” involved in a fundamentalist approach. “Such an approach is dangerous, for example, when people of one nation or group see in the Bible a mandate for their own superiority, and even consider themselves permitted by the Bible to use violence against others.” Of the notorious anti-Jewish curse in Matthew 27:25, “His blood be on us and on our children”, a passage used to justify centuries of anti-Semitism, the bishops say these and other words must never be used again as a pretext to treat Jewish people with contempt. Describing this passage as an example of dramatic exaggeration, the bishops say they have had “tragic consequences” in encouraging hatred and persecution. “The attitudes and language of first-century quarrels between Jews and Jewish Christians should never again be emulated in relations between Jews and Christians.” As examples of passages not to be taken literally, the bishops cite the early chapters of Genesis, comparing them with early creation legends from other cultures, especially from the ancient East. The bishops say it is clear that the primary purpose of these chapters was to provide religious teaching and that they could not be described as historical writing. Similarly, they refute the apocalyptic prophecies of Revelation, the last book of the Christian Bible, in which the writer describes the work of the risen Jesus, the death of the Beast and the wedding feast of Christ the Lamb. The bishops say: “Such symbolic language must be respected for what it is, and is not to be interpreted literally. We should not expect to discover in this book details about the end of the world, about how many will be saved and about when the end will come.” In their foreword to the teaching document, the two most senior Catholics of the land, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, Archbishop of Westminster, and Cardinal Keith O’Brien, Archbishop of St Andrew’s and Edinburgh, explain its context. They say people today are searching for what is worthwhile, what has real value, what can be trusted and what is really true. The new teaching has been issued as part of the 40th anniversary celebrations of Dei Verbum, the Second Vatican Council document explaining the place of Scripture in revelation. In the past 40 years, Catholics have learnt more than ever before to cherish the Bible. “We have rediscovered the Bible as a precious treasure, both ancient and ever new.” A Christian charity is sending a film about the Christmas story to every primary school in Britain after hearing of a young boy who asked his teacher why Mary and Joseph had named their baby after a swear word. The Breakout Trust raised £200,000 to make the 30-minute animated film, It’s a Boy. Steve Legg, head of the charity, said: “There are over 12 million children in the UK and only 756,000 of them go to church regularly. That leaves a staggering number who are probably not receiving basic Christian teaching.” BELIEVE IT OR NOT UNTRUE Genesis ii, 21-22 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept he took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; and the rib which the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man Genesis iii, 16 God said to the woman [after she was beguiled by the serpent]: “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” Matthew xxvii, 25 The words of the crowd: “His blood be on us and on our children.” Revelation xix,20 And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had worked the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshipped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with brimstone.” TRUE Exodus iii, 14 God reveals himself to Moses as: “I am who I am.” Leviticus xxvi,12 “I will be your God, and you shall be my people.” Exodus xx,1-17 The Ten Commandments Matthew v,7 The Sermon on the Mount Mark viii,29 Peter declares Jesus to be the Christ Luke i The Virgin Birth John xx,28 Proof of bodily resurrection JOIN THE DEBATE www.timesonline.co.uk/debate <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1811332,00.html">www.timesonline.co.uk/art...32,00.html</a>

by **robertdreed** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 1:19 pm

Whoa. The herring-snatchers have just moved ahead of the Fundamentalist Prots, by centuries.

by **glubglubglub** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 2:33 pm

It's nice to get in writing what the Jesuits taught me about their church and its beliefs...as an aside, though, I've always been partial to Tsarion's take on the "I am that am/I am who (I) am", etc. name of god (nevermind the rest of his works): Tsarion's working in a framework that assumes Sitchen-style real entities as being the referents of mythological characters (ie, there were at one point aliens/godbeings named, say, Enki, Inanna, etc., and their real activities are behind (most of) the mythological stories featuring them). So, to Tsarion this whole: Moses: who are you? God: I am who I am. sounds a lot like 'god' trying to dodge the question, and who is abraham -- bedazzled by the presence of a real, living god -- to ask for clarification? Tsarion goes on to argue that the 'god' in question was some down-on-his luck godbeing whose real name would not be revered by Moses -- ie, baal, or beezelbub, or some other demonic figure -- hence the need to not give a name (no explanantion why not simply lie, but hey -- I was reading for fun). --- Hence it's a pity that that passage falls into the 'still true' category, but these aren't things I get worked up over.

by **Homeless Halo** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 4:00 pm

Indeed. Esoteric teaching of the bible is bound to grow in coming years. They've been drifting towards the gnosticism anyway. I think there is a "rogue" element in the place where old daddy slain god conspiracy meets big brother nwo conspiracy. Someone is attempting to actually inform the masses. Maybe they don't all agree? I'd thought the trends towards mysticism were growing, its interesting to see it from this angle. Thank you. The New Testament clearly states that Christ's sole qualification for the Priesthood comes from Melchizadek. (Title, like "Pharoh", for those who aren't familiar with the term) It is now nearly firmly established that the Melchizadekeans are the John Oannes Boat Cult from "Sumer". Star Cult. The Bible gives away as much as that Jesus believed "yahweh" was Enlil El, just another bastard annukaki. Even identifies himself with the Patron of Mankind, Enki, when he makes the Serpent references. Psychics all over mainstream TV. Kaballah is one of the fastest growing "religions" and suprise, it is actually mostly a REAL religion, unlike a lot of speedily growing cults... (although it gets practiced in a stereotypically "catholic" fashion a lot, if you get my drift...) The Bloodline stuff comes around for another appearance. Lots of the normal "skeptics" in the media start latching onto it. More television shows about Alien Invasions than we've had since the Reagan era. Its all becoming slightly surreal. (Loving it) Love is the Law, Daniel

by **banned** » Wed Oct 05, 2005 10:38 pm

Once you start picking and choosing and saying this is true and this isn't, as far as I'm concerned it all falls apart. I left Roman Catholicism once and for all the day, in a very rich parish, the grossly fat priest in commenting on the day's gospel said Jesus didn't LITERALLY mean it was difficult for the rich to enter heaven. Talk about pandering to your audience. I figured if Father Fatso could pick and choose so could I, and I chose to unload the whole thing which I'd thought was a not particularly compelling fantasy since I hit the 'age of reason' (seven.) The mackerel snappers never liked the Bible anyway, that's why they burned people who told the rank and file to read it. They have always told the faithful what the Bible "really" says and fricaseed or excommunicated anyone who didn't buy their version. As for "I am who am"--as someone who always got 100 on English tests I could not figure out why God would say something that ungrammatical. I never heard anyone say "Who am that at the door?" or "Who am on first?" If God had said "I am that which is" or "I am who is" it would be more euphonious, though no less cryptic. (His son Jesus had the technique down too, he said stuff like "Who do they say I am?" and "Thou hast said it.") Now, if I was God and talking out of a burning bush, and was asked who I was, I'd probably say "I'm the Supreme Being in this here universe, bud, eternal, all powerful and cranky as the dickens as you may have figured out by now, and all other gods who may try to chat you up are second-stringers, B sides, farm team, losers, hangers-on, and they all got worse grades in God class than I did. So listen to them at your own risk." Which is basically what YHWH did. But I'd skip the ungrammatical quip.

by **bender** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 9:16 am

my favorite quote on religion is ninon lescaut who said: [wish i was that sensible] : what you priests say is utter nonsense; i dont believe a word of it there are 500 contradictions in the bible but bits of the bible are good: eg: test everything and hold to that which is good i think the contradictions were put into the bible deliberately, so people would think, not just swallow i like 'i am who i am' - i take this to mean: the supreme characteristic, the divine essence of man, is to be what you are, to have no doubt of self, no war against yourself, no guilt - william blake: if the sun should doubt, it would immediately go out i like I AM too - i think it means that god means existence/life - god is the personification of life - indeed, if god is infinite as christians say, then god includes everything and excludes nothing - the personification of life as god is not to be taken any more seriously than santa claus as the personification of the spirit of christmas what is more divine than life? 'life is so unlike anything else, dont-you-know' if god excluded anything - evil or world or sex or devil - he would be limited, not infinite - god is not limited to being good - 'i make peace and i make trouble' isaiah 45, 7 - life is all - life is it - mysterious, strange, peculiar, crazy, wild, horrible, wonderful, loving, hating, everything no god sitting on high, looking down on us - just life, watermelons and snakes, oceans to drown in, cliffs to fall off, oregano and speedways and hairribbons truth is, the universe was the first-prize winner in a competition to make the most fantastic, crazy, ridiculous, amazing, wild, hilarious, stupid, headshaking thing - atoms and innocence, zebras and ice - wild! life is a joke - but not to be despised for that - honoured - a joke is the most spiritual thing there is grab a gun and shoot people - bang! - people are bubbles - pop! - rut and root to make more people - pop! - out they come - go to war and shoot people - bangbang! - oh, what larks! what a laugh! - go to war and be shot or blown up - boom! - aaargh! - oh, my aching sides! - hahahaha! - again! - [you're shocked beyond belief at me saying it, but its you and me who go on doing it, who enjoyed the untouchables, the war movies, the rambos, the grimgrunt of war! - you and me and god who massacred the incas and the red indians] - what a place! what fun! - house of horror, coconut shy, ferris wheel - yes! - oh, great! - its wild, mother, just wild! - astronauts and figurines, hats and brassbands! - gogogo! - yes, yes and yes! - i like it! - nebulae and deep space and hummingbirds! - christmas cards and biology and shopping malls! - jefferson and lincoln and starvation! - anemones and picnics and dragons! - whizz! whee! wild! - [kill me for my dareful words! hehehehehe]

by **slimmouse** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 9:50 am

I always thought it was "I am that I am" Pseudo-superiors dont like the goyim saying or knowing that in relation to themselves. That it is potentially true of every human is by and by.

by **emad** » Thu Oct 06, 2005 11:15 am

I think the big business interests that have invested their $$$$$$$s billions into fundementalist crap that says the Bible is an authoritative historical, archaeological and theological reference work that justifies all right-wing agendas from war to child sex abuse...are in for a wee bit of an eye opener. My fav co at the moment is Zion Oil! : Texan fundies who claim God has told them there is oil in Israel, the promised land of the petrol pump, and are milking their investors looking for the stuff. This one will roll and roll...

by **bigbander** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 3:28 am

the good bits from the bible? - the loving bits - the just bits - what about a 50 foot long sign in front of a few palaces: why do you grind the faces of the poor? what about quoting the bible where it says [to paraphrase] the rich are going to hell - the rich havent a shitshow of getting to heaven - ie, the rich are evil as - even rich religious leaders have been extremely evil - [and that's just the evil we found out about] - doesnt this speak to anyone? why, if some people are christian, are there no groups pushing for laws against mammon [wealth]? because: the nicer people are less aggressive and less arrogant, and therefore dont presume to call anyone on anything - the robbers call the robbed on everything - the robbers call the robbed shiftless, lazy, ignorant, drunken - but the robbed never call the robbers on anything the robbed dont even know they are robbed! - they have never got it into their heads that no one can work more than twice as hard as the average bear, so no one justly deserves more than twice the average reward - well, certainly not a million times the av reward, anyway - not even ten times the average the people cannot draw the line - cannot say: this is overpay, this is too much - so they suffer hyperextreme tyranny and pain, chaos and corruption everywhere - totally unnecessarily - and are carted off to die in the wars that the robbery creates hee haw, people, hee haw!

by **michael meiring** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:49 am

Only part of bible is a pack of lies has finally been admitted? well thats a good one, how about ALL of it is fiction/lies? I cannot recollect the sumerian tablets mentioning christianity or the christian god or his son? they dont seem to mention judaism or islam, perhaps thats because these religions were not invented/created for thousands of years later? when is the first recorded mention of christianty? does anybody know on here? and can they explain to me how the 'gods' of creation was massaged into a single 'god' and why? it seems there was an orchestrated mass ethnical cleansing of the pagans when the christians first appeared on the scene, multiply 'gods' of one form or another scaled down to a single 'god'... i wonder why? talk of conspiracy theories on a grand scale, this christian and all the other 3 modern invented/created religions are the biggest conspiracy theories known to man, and this scam is swallowed by billions without question, perhaps thats why its called BLIND FAITH ? Still they all promise sacrifice today in return for a heaven/paradise tomorrow.

by **Homeless Halo** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 3:44 pm

Mike, you should breathe. (no offense meant, it just seems you have a lot of anger towards mythological beings...) Christ/Jehovah indeed do not exist in Sumerian literature. However, Abram was from Ur in Sumer proper, somewhat after the tablets we discovered in the forties and fifties were chiseled. The connection between the major 3 religions exist because of Melchizadek order, and its various satraps throughout history (like Sarmoung). Melchiz's brotherhood brought the one god to abram, and educated Christ. (there are also connections between this order and the old Aryans in India; Krishna; the Buddha; and various cults of the far east) You're looking at ONE religion that has multiplied itself a dozen times that can be followed back to the boat cult itself, in pre-sumer. This boat cult was SECULAR. Star cult. Aliens. Weirdness. Many of its arms have rearranged history and tradition to prevent the secular teaching from reaching the nameless masses. (how is it that no Muslims/Christians/Jews seem to know anything about the pre-Hebraic history of their worldviews?) 6000+ years of control. And counting. always counting.

by **michael meiring** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 4:43 pm

Homer, i am aware of many things you say, i am agnostic, and it seems we agree on the MYTHICAL beings aspect of things. If i seem angry?! i suppose its all the religious conspiracy theorists peddling myths for profit.... i take sumeria as thats the 'official' starting point it seems from 'KNOWN' or should that be released history? there are artifacts, for example of an extinct sharks tooth (extinct for over 3 million years) with a perfectly bored/drilled hole through it. There are thousands of such examples of this buried in the cellars of historical offical history 'museums'. I am 'miffed' at all aspects of every field peddling 'offical' versions and conspiracy theorists. When it gets too much i feel letting off a bit of steam seems to calm me down...lol. there are examples of advanced civilisations who inhabited this earth millions of years ago, its just covered up aka 9/11 stylie.... i have my own believe system and i dont feel the need to peddle it on anybody.....why cant others be courteous and do the same?

by **banned** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 6:24 pm

This is not meant to tell people not to have their 'belief systems.' As far as I'm concerned someone can believe they're a blue rabbit and God is the Pokey Little Puppy, as long as they're not out to take away my civil rights, bomb me or burn me alive if I don't share it. Anyway, here is my question. Suppose ALL religious belief disappeared tomorrow except for one precept: Always in every situation treat everyone with the respect and kindness you wish accorded to yourself. THIS is the whole of the law. Would the world be a better place than it is now, with people arguing whether God is Jehovah or Asplazacki the Unconscionable, whether Jesus was born to a virgin or found under a head of cabbage, whether after death we go to heaven, or wake up as lawn furniture in a Walmart in Spokane? To me if a person's religious beliefs don't make them a better person, it's useless. If you they keep your beliefs to themselves (and worship Baba Au Rhum's toejam in their back yards), it's harmlessly useless. If they try to forcibly impose them on others, its beyond useless to counterproductive and they are a danger to society that needs to be controlled in order to protect the rest of us. Just like your right to swing your fist ends at my nose, your right to believe what you want ends if you try to make me believe it or penalize me societally if I don't. That's the bottom line for me.

by **Homeless Halo** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 7:17 pm

Sumer is the official starting point. There are several issues with this theory, not the least of which being that we just made it up recently and there is no reason to assume this, that is, no evidence to indicate it is neccessarily true. Although it may be. Lots of histories go back farther, to some pre-civilization. Fascinating really. Very similar stores. But trying to make something coherent out of the fragments of really really old myths, scraps of really old myths, bundles of old myths, tons of modern myths, and millions of myths per second today...well, you're fucked. The best synthesis of these stories, as one, I've seen so far, that is, that has most of the information along the most probable timeline (if any of it is true, probably half of it is true) is by Tolkien. 5.95 paperback. The story of the Creation of the world. It helps that JR wears his influences on both sleeves and was a huge geek for the myths closer towards sumeria(less official redactions/reversions/conversions): those of the British Isles and the Nore sequences. Yeah, I really just said that. Maybe I should call my doctor. See Sumeria as post-Numenoreans. Insert Atlantean, Lemurian, whatever, switch Vala with Annukaki, and make the elves the fair folk of the Isles, and you have your timeline, as best constructed by a modern scholar as has been done. its fun, and it helps Geeks like me remember which gods are which. (Molech = Merqat = Morgoth : the fallen Sun who resides in the Abyss) Of course, the farther you get, the more complicated it becomes. But Jesus had at least Blood from Numenor in him, and was raised by the survivors of Gondor. (How ridiculous is that?) Cheers. Love is the LAW Daniel

by **banned** » Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:29 pm

...but are you saying that Tolkien's "Silmarillion" was influenced by Babylonian mythology? Just askin'.

Some parts of Bible not true: Catholic Church

Some parts of Bible not true: Catholic Church

Re: Some parts of Bible not true: Catholic Church

an aside

Melchizadek?

Oh, Lordy.

god god god

Re: god god god

bender: love that whacky purple script!

why dont the good people ever get up and spout the good

only part of bible is lies?

sheesh...

mythical beings?

Here is a serious question.

cough

I know I'm going to hate myself for asking this...

Who is online