Inconsistency in the Bible ....

[Lawman]

As related to this thread; authors of the New testament: From CARM

[color="#000080"]Dating the gospels is very important. If it can be established that the gospels were written early, say before the year 70 A.D., then we would have good reason for believing that they were written by the disciples of Jesus Himself. If they were written by the disciples, then their reliability, authenticity, and accuracy are better substantiated. [b]Also, if they were written early, this would mean that there would not have been enough time for myth to creep into the gospel accounts since it was the eyewitnesses to Christ's life that wrote them[/b]. Furthermore, those who were alive at the time of the events could have countered the gospel accounts and since we have no contradictory writings to the gospels, their early authorship as well as apostolic authorship becomes even more critical.[/color]

[b]What is the Gospel of Q?[/b]

[color="#000080"]Q comes from the German "quelle" meaning "source." Some biblical scholars have proposed that there was a document prior to the writing of the gospels which was used by the writers of Matthew and Luke as a source of information. They have called this hypothetical document "Q." It is hypothetical because there is no proof that the document existed. Nevertheless, this proposal has gained some acceptance in scholarly circles due to the very close similarities and identical written accounts found in both Matthew and Luke. It is reasoned that the very similar accounts must be taken from a common source.

Since Matthew was probably originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic according to the historian Papias, and all we have is the Greek texts, [b]some conclude that a translation of the Hebrew gospel of Matthew into Greek would have resulted in translations slightly different from the Luke accounts[/b]. But since some of the accounts are identical, it is proposed that Matthew and Luke shared a common reference source. This is perfectly reasonable and we do see differences in translations as well as identical wording. Is this the result of an unknown document known as Q? Perhaps, but there is no way to be sure since it is possible that one copied from another or copied from Mark.[/color]

[b]Example:[/b]
Mathew 23:37 [i]"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, [b]the way[/b] a hen gathers her [b]chicks[/b] under her wings, and you [b]were unwilling[/b].[/i]

"Luke 13:34 [i]O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, [b]just as [/b]a hen gathers her [b]brood[/b] under her wings, and you [b]would not have it[/b]![/i]

[b]Matthew[/b]

[color="#000080"]The early church unanimously held that the gospel of Matthew was the first written gospel and was penned by the apostle of the same name (Matt. 10:2). Lately, the priority of Matthew as the first written gospel has come under suspicion with Mark being considered by many to be the first written gospel. The debate is far from over.

The historian Papias mentions that the gospel of Matthew was originally in Aramaic or Hebrew and attributes the gospel to Matthew the apostle. [/color]

[i]"Irenaeus (ca. a.d. 180) continued Papias’s views about Matthew and Mark and added his belief that Luke, the follower of Paul, put down in a book the gospel preached by that apostle, and that John, the Beloved Disciple, published his Gospel while residing in Asia. By the time of Irenaeus, Acts was also linked with Luke, the companion of Paul[/i]."

[color="#000080"]This would mean that if Matthew did write in Aramaic originally, that he may have used Mark as a map, adding and clarifying certain events as he remembered them. But, this is not known for sure.[/color]

[color="#000080"]The earliest quotation of Matthew is found in Ignatius who died around 115 A.D. Therefore, Matthew was in circulation well before Ignatius came on the scene. The various dates most widely held as possible writing dates of the Gospel are between A.D. 40 - 140. But Ignatius died around 115 A.D. and he quoted Matthew. Therefore Matthew had to be written before he died. Nevertheless, it is generally believed that Matthew was written before A.D. 70 and as early as A.D. 50.[/color]
[b]Mark[/b]

[color="#000080"]Mark was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus' life. He was a disciple of Peter and undoubtedly it was Peter who informed Mark of the life of Christ and guided him in writing the Gospel known by his name. "Papias claimed that Mark, the Evangelist, who had never heard Christ, was the interpreter of Peter, and that he carefully gave an account of everything he remembered from the preaching of Peter." Generally, Mark is said to be the earliest gospel with an authorship of between A.D. 55 to A.D. 70.[/color]

[b]Luke [/b]

[color="#000080"]Luke was not an eyewitness of the life of Christ. He was a companion of Paul who also was not an eyewitness of Christ's life. But, both had ample opportunity to meet the disciples who knew Christ and learn the facts not only from them, but from others in the area. Some might consider this damaging to the validity of the gospel, but quite the contrary. Luke was a gentile convert to Christianity who was interested in the facts. He obviously had interviewed the eyewitnesses and written the Gospel account as well as Acts.[/color]

"[color="#000080"]The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen[/color]. [i]To these He also presented Himself alive, after His suffering, by many convincing proofs, appearing to them over a period of forty days, and speaking of the things concerning the kingdom of God[/i]," (Acts 1:1-3).

[color="#000080"][b]Notice how Luke speaks of "them," [/b]of those who had personal encounters with Christ. Luke is simply recounting the events from the disciples. Since Luke agrees with Matthew, Mark, and John and since there is no contradictory information coming from any of the disciples stating that Luke was inaccurate, and since Luke has proven to be a very accurate historian, we can conclude that Luke's account is very accurate.[/color]

[color="#000080"]As far as dating the gospel goes, Luke was written before the book of Acts and Acts does not mention "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65)." Therefore, we can conclude that Luke was written before A.D. 62. "Luke's Gospel comes (Acts 1:1) before the Acts. The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly."[/color]
[b]John[/b]

[b]The writer of the gospel of John was obviously an eyewitness of the events of Christ's life since he speaks from a perspective of having been there during many of the events of Jesus' ministry and displays a good knowledge of Israeli geography and customs.[/b]

[color="#000080"]The John Rylands papyrus fragment 52 of John's gospel dated in the year 125-135 contains portions of John 18, verses 31-33,37-38. This fragment was found in Egypt. It is the last of the gospels and appears to have been written in the 80's to 90's. Most scholars say it was written in the early 90's. This means that the time span between the original writing of John and its earliest copy (fragment) is approximately 35-45 years.[/color]

[color="#000080"]Of important note is the lack of mention of the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. But this is understandable since John was not focusing on historical events and was most probably written 20 or so years after the destruction of the Temple. John focused on the theological aspect of the person of Christ and listed His miracles and words that affirmed Christ's deity.[/color]

[b] Though there is still some debate on the dates of when the gospels were written, they were most assuredly completed before the close of the first century and written by eyewitnesses or under the direction of eyewitnesses. [/b]

[Lawman]

[quote]I'm really beat, so while I find the issue of logic, faith and rationality compelling, I'm just too tired to get into it now[/quote]

[i]Take care of yourself Homer, get some rest. It's probably due to the weather (winter), but spring is around the corner.

As for me, I have been in summer for nearly 10 months, but that ends tommorow night.

All I got is a [b]WAKE-UP[/b]!!! [/i]

[Homer_Rice]

[quote name='Lawman' post='453979' date='Mar 9 2007, 05:56 AM'][i]Take care of yourself Homer, get some rest. It's probably due to the weather (winter), but spring is around the corner.

As for me, I have been in summer for nearly 10 months, but that ends tommorow night.

All I got is a [b]WAKE-UP[/b]!!! [/i]

[/quote]

Don't buddy up to me, pal. If you really are a Christian, as you claim, then how can you be justify your participation in this (via [url="http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=10644"]antiwar.com[/url]):

[quote]March 9, 2007
Guantánamo Is Not a Prison
by Karen J. Greenberg and Tom Engelhardt
TomDispatch

Once upon a time, our offshore prison at Guantánamo was the sort of place where even an American National Guardsman, only pretending to be a recalcitrant prisoner "extracted" from a cell for training purposes, could be beaten almost senseless. This actually happened to 35 year-old "model soldier" Sean Baker, who had been in Gulf War I and signed on again immediately after the World Trade Center went down. His unit was assigned to Guantánamo and he volunteered to be just such a "prisoner," donning the requisite orange uniform on January 24, 2003. As a result of his "extraction" and brutal beating, he was left experiencing regular epileptic-style seizures ten to twelve times a day. (And remember the Immediate Reaction Force team of MPs that seized him, on finally realizing that he wasn't a genuine prisoner, broke off their assault before finishing the job.)

If you happened to be an actual prisoner – putting aside the female interrogators who smeared red paint (meant to mimic menstrual blood) on Arab detainees as a form of humiliation – you might end up like this:

"The A/C had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room probably well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his own hair out throughout the night."

Or this:

''I saw another detainee sitting on the floor of the interview room with an Israeli flag draped around him, loud music being played, and a strobe light flashing."

Or this:

"On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food or water. Most times they had urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18, 24 hours or more."

These were, in fact, descriptions provided by outraged FBI agents assigned to Guantánamo in 2004 in memos or emails to their bosses back on the mainland. They confirmed prisoner claims that "military personnel beat and kicked them while they had hoods on their heads and tight shackles on their legs, left them in freezing temperatures and stifling heat, subjected them to repeated, prolonged rectal exams and paraded them naked around the prison as military police snapped pictures," and so on.

Ah, but those were the good old days when Guantánamo was the real "24" – the only problem being that there wasn't a "ticking bomb" prisoner in sight, just a former Australian professional kangaroo skinner, who had joined the Taliban before September 11, 2001 and never fired a shot at American forces, as well as a man who was supposedly Osama bin Laden's chauffeur. That was kind of top o' the line for the prisoners Guantánamo held until, last September, the real bad guys – 14 of them – were transferred there from the CIA's secret prisons and torture chambers elsewhere on the planet.

Now, Karen Greenberg, Tomdispatch regular and co-editor of The Torture Papers, has visited the new Guantánamo and she offers us an up-to-date lesson in Gitmo decorum. Tom

Guantánamo Is Not a Prison
11 Ways to Report on Gitmo without Upsetting the Pentagon
by Karen J. Greenberg

Several weeks ago, I took the infamous media tour of the facilities at Guantánamo. From the moment I arrived on a dilapidated Air Sunshine plane to the time I boarded it heading home, I had no doubt that I was on a foreign planet or, at the very least, visiting an impeccably constructed movie set. Along with two European colleagues, I was treated to two-days-plus of a military-tour schedule packed with site visits and interviews (none with actual prisoners) designed to "make transparent" the base, its facilities, and its manifold contributions to our country's national security.

The multi-storied, maximum security complexes, rimmed in concertina wire, set off from the road by high wire-mesh fences, and the armed tower guards at Camp Delta, present a daunting sight. Even the less restrictive quarters for "compliant" inmates belied any notion that Guantánamo is merely a holding facility for those awaiting charges or possessing useful information.

In the course of my brief stay, thanks to my military handlers, I learned a great deal about Gitmo decorum, as the military would like us to practice it. My escorts told me how best to describe the goings-on at Guantánamo, regardless of what my own eyes and prior knowledge told me.

Here, in a nutshell, is what I picked up. Consider this a guide of sorts to what the officially sanctioned report on Guantánamo would look like, wrapped in the proper decorum and befitting the jewel-in-the-crown of American offshore prisons… or, to be Pentagon-accurate, "detention facilities."

1. Guantánamo is not a prison. According to the military handlers who accompanied us everywhere, Guantánamo is officially a "detention facility." Although the two most recently built complexes, Camps Five and Six, were actually modeled on maximum and medium security prisons in Indiana and Michigan respectively, and although the use of feeding tubes and the handling of prisoners now take into account the guidelines of the American Corrections Association (and increasingly those of the Bureau of Prisons as well), it is not acceptable to use the word "prison" while at Gitmo.

2. Consistent with not being a prison, Guantánamo has no prisoners, only enemies, specifically, "unlawful enemy combatants." One of my colleagues was even chastised for using the word "detainee." "Detained enemy combatants" or "unlawful enemy combatants," we learned, were the proper terms.

3. Guantánamo is not about guilt and innocence – or, once an enemy combatant, always an enemy combatant. "Today, it is not about guilt or innocence. It's about unlawful enemy combatants," Rear Admiral Harry B. Harris, Jr.,the Commanding Officer of Guantánamo tells us. "And they are all unlawful enemy combatants." This, despite the existence of the official category "No Longer an Enemy Combatant" which does not come up in our discussions. Nor was the possibility that any of the detainees at Guantánamo might have been mistakenly detained ever discussed. As the administrator for the tribunals that are to determine the status of each detainee explained to us, the U.S. Government takes "a risk when we transfer" detainees out of Guantánamo.

4. No trustworthy lawyers come to Guantánamo. Our handlers use the term "habeas lawyers" as a seemingly derogatory catch-all for lawyers in general, both defense attorneys – those who are defending their clients before the military commissions – and habeas attorneys, those who seek to challenge in U.S. courts the government's right to detain their clients. The U.S. military and its Public Affairs Officers are convinced that the terrorists are transmitting information to their colleagues in the outside world via their lawyers. According to our escorts, "habeas lawyers" may be the unwitting pawns of terrorists. As a power-point presentation at the outset of our formal tour (and as subsequent remarks make clear to us), it is the belief of the American authorities that the detainees are using their lawyers in accordance with the directives outlined in the al-Qaeda training manual that was discovered in Manchester, England in 2000. This manual, they assure us, encourages terrorists to "take advantage of visits with habeas lawyers to communicate and exchange information with those outside."

5. Recently, at least, few if any reliable journalists have been reporting on Guantánamo; only potential betrayers are writing about it. "The media" arrive with ostensibly open eyes. Yet these guests, graciously hosted from morning to night, go home perversely refusing to be complimentary to their hosts. They suffer from "the chameleon effect," as I was told more than once by military public information office personnel, and "we just don't understand it." For our part, we visitors didn't understand why we were forbidden to walk anywhere – even to the bathroom – by ourselves, talk to anyone other than those we were introduced to (none actual prisoners), or even take a morning run up and down the street we were lodged on, although there was not a prisoner in sight.

6. After years of isolation, the detainees still possess valuable information – especially today. When asked what kind of useful information the detainees could possibly have for interrogators, many already locked away in Gitmo for over five years, the answer was: "I believe that we are, in fact, getting good and useful and interesting intelligence – even after five years." Right now, they are especially useful. This is because, Admiral Harris told us, "We have up-and-coming leadership in al-Qaeda and in the Taliban in Afghanistan [and] we don't know what they look like. There's never been a photograph taken of them or there's never been a photograph that US forces have of them. But their contemporaries… are quite often the same individuals that are in the camps here today. So we will work with law enforcement… and their sketch artists will work with these detainees, the compliant and cooperative detainees… And those pictures will be sent out to the forward fighting area." No one asked just how reliable our own memories would be after five years of isolated detention.

7. Guantánamo contains no individuals – inside the wire or out. The prisoners are referred to not by name, but by number. The guards and others, even outside the confines of the prison camp, remove the Velcroed names which are on their uniforms, leaving blank strips on their chests where their identity would normally be, or they replace their names with their ranks. Either way, they strive to remain anonymous. They tell us that they fear retaliation against themselves and their families from a presumably all-seeing, all-reaching jihadi network. With the media, most follow the same rules. We, too, could evidently land them in trouble with al-Qaeda. Thus, many refuse to tell us their names, warning those we greet to be careful not to mistakenly call them by name in front of us.

8. Guantánamo's deep respect for Islam is unappreciated. All the food served in the prison is halal, prepared in a separate kitchen, constructed solely for the detainees. All cells, outdoor areas, and even the detainee waiting room in the courthouse where the Military Commissions will be held, have arrows pointing to Mecca. All compliant detainees have prayer rugs and prayer beads. All detainees, no matter how they behave, have Korans. The library includes books on Islamic history, Islamic philosophy, and on Mohammed and his followers. Our escorts are armored against our protests about the denial of legal rights to prisoners. The right to challenge their detention in court, actually being charged with a crime, or adhering to the basic rules of procedure and evidence that undergird American law – none of this is important. They do not see that what's at stake is not building a mosque at Gitmo, any more than it is about serving gourmet food, or about the cushy, leather interrogation chairs we are shown. It is about extending the most basic of legal rights, including the presumption of innocence, to those detained here.

9. At Guantánamo, hard facts are scarce. This, we are told, is a security measure. "As the 342nd media group to come through here, you'll notice that we speak vaguely. We can't be specific. You will notice that we talk in approximate terms and estimates only. Those are operational security measures. We don't want to take away position" – a phrase which I took as shorthand for revealing actual numbers, names, locations, dates, etc.

Typical examples of preserving Gitmo security through a refusal to give out specific facts:

"What is that building?" [I am referring to one directly in our view.]
"Which building?"

"How long has the lieutenant been here?"
"Since she got here."

"Where is Radio Range?" [This is the area on which the camps are built.]
"I never heard of it."

10. Guantánamo houses no contradictions. And if you notice any – and they're hard to miss – it's best to keep quiet about them, unless you want a sergeant without a name chastising you about the dangers posed by enemy combatants, or one of the officers without a name reprimanding your lower ranking escort for giving out "misinformation." Stories are regularly presented to portray a policy as particularly generous to the detainees; only later does someone mention that it might have been an answer to the needs of the guards themselves. A typical example:

"'We allow two hours of recreation a day in order to comply with the Geneva Conventions,' they tell us. But a guide at another moment leads us to believe that there is actually a more pressing reason for allowing the recreation. 'We need them to go outside so that we can search their cells for weapons and contraband.'"

These sorts of contradictions leave me ultimately feeling sorry for our escorts. It is not their fault that they know so little about the place they are charged with explaining to us. Most of them arrived roughly eight months ago and were handed a defensive script. They are often quite sincere when they tell us that they don't know answers to our questions.

They actually don't know what went on before their arrival, or where things were located in earlier days, or if perchance abuses or outbursts, not to speak of torture, might have occurred at Gitmo, or even who was in charge as little as a year ago. Few, if any, from the old days are there to instruct or correct them.

Of course, if they wanted to, they could learn the details that many of us have picked up over the years simply by reading or by talking to those who spent time there. But this is not their task; they are but mouthpieces, nothing more, as they try to tell us time and again when we ask our questions. And, anyway, they themselves expect to leave relatively unscathed sometime this spring.

Finally, for those of us who want to write about Guantánamo and who are grateful for having been shown around and had the myths and realities of the Bush administration's most notorious detention facility laid out so clearly, a final lesson:

11. Those who fail to reproduce the official narrative are not welcome back. "Tell it the wrong way and you won't be back," one of our escorts warns me over lunch.

Only time will tell if I got it right.

Karen J. Greenberg is the Executive Director of the Center on Law and Security at the NYU School of Law and is the co-editor of The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib and editor of The Torture Debate in America.

Copyright 2007 Karen J. Greenberg[/quote]

[Actium]

[quote name='CincyInDC' post='452962' date='Mar 7 2007, 09:14 PM']I was raised Catholic, and y'all are awakening memories about religion class I have long forgotten. And when you fucks make me remember getting molested, I'm gonna be really pissed.

Disturbing kidding aside, if you are a Christian, should you not take the bible (or at least the New Testament if you're Catholic) and everything in it on faith and not try to debate or reason with BJ on his admittedly nit-picky inconsistencies? 15 vs. 14 generations? give me a break. I can only trace my lineage back 7! I mean, what's the point? Ideally, faith has nothing to do with logic, reasoning, or proof; it is simply faith--if you needed something to back it up, it wouldn't be faith, right?[/quote]

Former Catholic here too. And I was an altar boy--I really don't want those repressed memories surfacing!

I have lost my faith in the Catholic and Christian doctrine. I am more of an agnostic, but I lean towards believing in some sort of Supreme Being. I don't know, but one day will find out. My favorite last words were uttered by Henry Ward Beecher: "Now Comes the Mystery."

Check out [url="http://www.geocities.com/athens/acropolis/6537/"]this site of last words, epitaphs, etc.[/url] if you are really bored.

[Actium]

[quote name='Fulcher_33' post='453103' date='Mar 7 2007, 11:48 PM']FWIW,　I have some faith that something is out there. What it is I have no idea. With that said, I think the Bible is complete and utter horseshit. I also think that organized religion is a load of shit too. Right here in this thread we've got someone claiming to be a Christian saying the word "Catholic" like it's beneath him. If anything I am what God wants us all to be. I love my fellow man, as long as he's not from pissburgh, and I judge no one by their race, sex, or faith. All are equal to me.
MULLY
but I prefer the ones with the sweet asses[/quote]

It sounds like you and I agree, Mully. I don't really buy into any of the organized religions, but if I did I would choose Zoroastrianism. When you declare you faith, you get a brand new Mazda!

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zorastrianism"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zorastrianism[/url]

[Actium]

[quote name='Lawman' post='453284' date='Mar 8 2007, 10:41 AM'][i]Mully,

I respect your opinion; care to elaborate?[/i]
I apologize if was not clear in my reply in regards to my position on Catholiscm. I was responding as to my own personal experience,
here at one time I was contemplating conversion to Catholiscm. Upon further research which provided me with a better knowledge and understanding coupled with revealing practices I personally consider suspect; I choose not to follow this path.

Additionally, I have revealed in the past an occurence that also influence my decision.[/quote]

The thing I prefer in Catholicism over Protestantism is the concept of "saved by works," instead of "saved by grace."

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Actium' post='454089' date='Mar 9 2007, 11:13 AM']The thing I prefer in Catholicism over Protestantism is the concept of "saved by works," instead of "saved by grace."[/quote]


Im not Cathloic so I had to go look this one up as it was news to me.

[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0303sbs.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0303sbs.asp[/url]

[quote]OBJECTOR: The other day I was reading the book of Galatians, and it struck me how much emphasis Paul places on faith as the means of salvation. Then I asked myself how Catholics can believe in justification by works. If the Catholic Church really believes the Bible, as it claims, how can it continue to teach that we have to earn our salvation? The Bible seems pretty clear that justification is by faith alone.

CATHOLIC: There are several aspects to this question. The most important is to realize that the Catholic Church does not teach that we earn our salvation by our own efforts, although it does teach that we have to work on our salvation. The same apostle who wrote Galatians also wrote Philippians, wherein Paul says, "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling" (Phil. 2:12).

OBJECTOR: Yes, but don’t you think that statement has to be understood in light of the teaching in Galatians? In Galatians 2:15–16, Paul says, "We ourselves . . .who know that a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified."

CATHOLIC: I don’t see these two verses as contradicting each another or even in tension. But first let me make clear the official teachings of the Catholic Church: It teaches that we can do nothing to merit the grace that comes to us in baptism, which is the normal beginning of the Christian life. In fact, the Council of Trent condemned anyone who taught that we can save ourselves or who taught even that God helps us do what we could do for ourselves. The Church teaches that we can be saved only by God’s grace.

OBJECTOR: Well, if the Catholic Church really teaches salvation by grace, that’s wonderful. But it’s hard for me to believe because Catholics place so much emphasis on doing good works. Paul’s letters stress again and again that salvation comes through faith alone. In addition to Galatians 2:15–16, consider Romans 4:2: "For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God." Then three verses later, in 4:5, Paul puts it another way: "And to one who does not work but trusts him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness."

CATHOLIC: We don’t disagree about the primary role that faith plays. Following Paul, the Catholic Church teaches that justification comes by faith. Only it says that it doesn’t come through faith alone. If you look carefully at Paul’s writings, you will notice that he never says that our righteousness comes from faith alone—only that it comes from faith apart from works.

OBJECTOR: Well, there you have it. That was almost a direct quote from Romans 3:28: "For we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law." That phrase by faith apart from works of the law sounds to me like Paul is saying that justification comes through faith alone.

CATHOLIC: Romans 3:28 is a key verse in the differences between traditional Protestants and Catholics. You will notice that Paul says a man is justified by faith (pistei in Greek). When Martin Luther translated the letter to the Romans into German in the sixteenth century, he added the word alone —but alone is not in the original Greek text. The phrase "faith alone" does occur in the New Testament: one time, in James 2:24. There the inspired apostle denies that justification is from faith alone. Let me quote it: "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone."

OBJECTOR: The classic text in James 2:14–26 is a difficult one. Let’s come back to that one. I just want to point out that Luther was completely justified—pun intended—in translating Romans 3:28 with the words faith alone because that is another way of saying that justification is "apart from works of the law." You see, when Paul says in Romans 4:2 that Abraham could boast if his salvation were from works, he is explaining what he said in 3:27 when he asked, "Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On the principle of works? No, but on the principle of faith." Boasting before God is possible if any works are involved in our salvation, but no boasting is possible if it is by faith alone.

CATHOLIC: Agreed—Paul categorically excludes works from our salvation. But what kind of works is Paul talking about? If we believe the entire Bible, we need to see how Paul’s words fit together with James’s words, because James clearly says that "a man is justified by works." If Paul and James mean the same thing by works, then they contradict one another. Since you and I both believe that the Bible cannot contradict itself, we must agree that Paul and James mean two different things by the word works.

OBJECTOR: I agree, but this is a tough problem of interpretation.

CATHOLIC: The Catholic Church believes that we should interpret Scripture by using Scripture. You will note that sometimes Paul expands his phrase from works by adding the phrase of the law, as in Romans 3:20 and 28 and Galatians 2:16. Further, sometimes Paul substitutes the phrase through the law to describe the same reality. For example, in Romans 3:20, he says, "Through the law comes knowledge of sin." In other words, when Paul uses the word works he is talking about the Old Testament law.

A careful reading of Galatians will show that Paul is using works of the law to refer especially to the law of circumcision. He is so strong about this that he says in Galatians 5:2, "Now I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you." Paul’s opponents in Galatia wanted to bring the Gentile Christians back into the Old Testament law. These are the works of the law that Paul is fighting against, and they have no place in our justification. Paul is saying in essence that Gentile Christians do not have to be circumcised and live like Jewish Christians in order to be saved.

OBJECTOR: I can agree with your interpretation of Galatians, but I think also we can generalize Paul’s words so that any work that we put before God as a reason for him to accept us is the kind of work he condemns.

CATHOLIC: I might agree if that’s all there was to it. But Paul speaks about Christians fulfilling the law by following the command to "love your neighbor as yourself" (Gal. 5:14). He then explains that we must show the "fruit of the Spirit" (Gal 5:16–26) and bear one another’s burdens (Gal. 6:1ff) as a way of fulfilling the "law of Christ" (Gal. 6:2). All Paul’s teaching comes down to this: Our own works can never justify us, but works that grow out of faith in Christ are part of our justification. That’s why Paul says in Philippians 2:12 you must "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." And that squares with James’s teaching that works that grow from faith justify.

OBJECTOR: Okay, I’ll agree that James is teaching that we must add works to our faith. But notice that these works are only evidence of true faith as opposed to a false faith. Read James 2:14 carefully: "What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him?" James is dealing with the problem of those who claim faith but who don’t show it by their works. In verse 17 James says this kind of faith, "if it has no works, is dead." James’s message is this: If you have true faith, then you will have works to follow. But that does not mean that James sees works as having to do with our salvation.

CATHOLIC: Okay, James is teaching that works show true faith. But we Catholics insist that James 2:14–26 shows that works are more than mere evidence of faith. Works actually justify. James is speaking about works growing out of faith. If works of faith are not a part of our justification, then it is hard to understand why James would say, as he does, that "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar?" (Jas. 2:21). You may remember how Paul said that Abraham was not justified by works but by faith. Paul means that Abraham was not justified by keeping the Old Testament law, while James means that Abraham was justified by doing a work that grew out of his faith in God.

OBJECTOR: Maybe all James means is that Abraham’s actions showed that his faith was real.

CATHOLIC: You could argue that if James did not say explicitly, "You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works" (Jas. 2:22). And then in verse 24 James concludes again, "A man is justified by works and not by faith alone."

OBJECTOR: I must admit that I’ve never heard a Catholic give the explanation you gave, but I am still not convinced that the Catholic Church is right on this point.

CATHOLIC: Well, these are difficult points of theology and interpretation. I encourage you to pray and think about the Catholic understanding of justification. In sum, the Church teaches that salvation is a process of becoming holier and holier through time. All of this is a work of grace that God performs in our hearts through faith. Works done in faith are the natural completion of believing in Christ. As we trust and do God’s work, he instills within us more grace so that we may become holier and so be ready to meet him at the end of our life.[/quote]

[Actium]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='454131' date='Mar 9 2007, 11:23 AM']Im not Cathloic so I had to go look this one up as it was news to me.

[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0303sbs.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0303sbs.asp[/url][/quote]

Well, my knowledge on the matter is certainly limited. I am no theologian. I understand it as just believing in the Big Guy doesn't earn you a one way ticket to heaven--you have to be a good person and get in by good deeds. Many protestants seem to think just accepting Christ as God is enough, and that that alone can get you in. The Catholic way could be read as allowing the virtuous of other religions to ascend to heaven. The protestant way expressly forbids that.

Again, I don't know if that is, um, kosher. I just read it that way because in my view it's better. But again I am not really a Christian at all. I do recognize the power of religion and I admire people's faith. I wish I could believe that way again. Maybe one day I will.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Actium' post='454137' date='Mar 9 2007, 12:28 PM']Well, my knowledge on the matter is certainly limited. I am no theologian. I understand it as just believing in the Big Guy doesn't earn you a one way ticket to heaven--you have to be a good person and get in by good deeds. Many protestants seem to think just accepting Christ as God is enough, and that that alone can get you in. The Catholic way could be read as allowing the virtuous of other religions to ascend to heaven. The protestant way expressly forbids that.

Again, I don't know if that is, um, kosher. I just read it that way because in my view it's better. But again I am not really a Christian at all. I do recognize the power of religion and I admire people's faith. I wish I could believe that way again. Maybe one day I will.[/quote]


No issue, I wasnt aware of it either and I am far from a theologian, and struggled through a new testimate class I took once (proff was pretty darn tough for a 100 level course)

Protestans also believe that works are important but that you need faith too.

James 2:20 says "But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?" ([url="http://www.biblebb.com/files/macqa/1301-E-10.htm"]A great explination of this[/url])

Hebrews 11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." (This is a personal favorite of mine due to the last part, I like rewards )


Matthew 7:15-20 Talks about false profits and knowing them by their fruit, what he means is that people like "godhatesfags.com" are bearing false witness, their fruit shows such

[quote]15Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.
16Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.[/quote]

So what are the fruits?

As described by Paul, they are...

love;
joy;
peace;
patience;
kindness;
goodness;
faithfulness;
gentleness;
self-control.


[url="http://www.spirithome.com/fruitssp.html"]http://www.spirithome.com/fruitssp.html[/url]

[Jamie_B]

Belief can be a tough thing sometimes espesally when you have false prophets belittling what you believe gets twisted by those who are uneducated and people use that to fuel their hatred.

Like I said in the "Jesus camp" thread...

Im troubled by these and the god hates fags people, they really cherry pick things in order to fuel their hate and end up making people who otherwise wouldnt hate the rest of us. Uneducated hatred fueling more uneducated hatred.

[Actium]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='454164' date='Mar 9 2007, 11:53 AM']Belief can be a tough thing sometimes espesally when you have false prophets belittling what you believe gets twisted by those who are uneducated and people use that to fuel their hatred.

Like I said in the "Jesus camp" thread...

Im troubled by these and the god hates fags people, they really cherry pick things in order to fuel their hate and end up making people who otherwise wouldnt hate the rest of us. Uneducated hatred fueling more uneducated hatred.[/quote]

Indeed. Not really entirely pertinent here, but another of my sayings: "Authoritarianism depends on lack of information; totalitarianism depends on misinformation."

When one side gives misinformation, it results in far more antipathy than would mere lack of knowledge.

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Actium' post='454175' date='Mar 9 2007, 01:09 PM']Indeed. Not really entirely pertinent here, but another of my sayings: "Authoritarianism depends on lack of information; totalitarianism depends on misinformation."

When one side gives misinformation, it results in far more antipathy than would mere lack of knowledge.[/quote]

[Guest CincyInDC]

[quote name='Lawman' post='453525' date='Mar 8 2007, 04:00 PM'][i]I am trying to understand you correctly, the students are offended by [/i][b]Evolution[/b] [i]and if so, please explain their position. Thank you[/i].

[i]Have you introduce them to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and total Entropy?[/i]



I think with your answering of my first question, I will understand what [b]it[/b] is.

[i]Who is their enemy[/i]?



[i]See my thread on Logic from CARM. From my perspective, the mistakes people make is that they attempt to apply deductive reasoning by todays standards whereas it may not of applied in the past. I have mentioned this to another member within the thread.[/i][/quote]

No harm no foul on any misunderstandings. This is just an Internet forum. No one is going to change minds here--at least not drastically; it's just a place to get stuff off one's chest (my opinion). Sorry for the delayed response, too. Sometimes my life actually materializes.

A few students were hostile towards getting taught evolution. I didn't ask why, but my experience with college students is that they often have strong feelings about things but don't always know why. Regardless, we weren't there to debate evolution; we were there to teach/learn another facet of biology, but since evolution is a cornerstone of modern biology...we talked about evolution to a certain point. We didn't go over physics, so no thermodynamics discussion. Their "enemy" isn't really an enemy (well, it doesn't have to be); that's just a cliche. I was referring to the people who hold a different viewpoint; i.e., those who accept evolution as a way to describe reality would be an "enemy" of someone who is hostile towards evolution.

[Guest CincyInDC]

[quote name='Actium' post='454086' date='Mar 9 2007, 11:06 AM']Former Catholic here too. And I was an altar boy--I really don't want those repressed memories surfacing!

I have lost my faith in the Catholic and Christian doctrine. I am more of an agnostic, but I lean towards believing in some sort of Supreme Being. I don't know, but one day will find out. My favorite last words were uttered by Henry Ward Beecher: "Now Comes the Mystery."

Check out [url="http://www.geocities.com/athens/acropolis/6537/"]this site of last words, epitaphs, etc.[/url] if you are really bored.[/quote]

Do you feel similarly about these statements?

The best way to keep a person from attending mass is to raise them Catholic.
Many friends and I refer to ourselves as "recovering Catholics."
I found myself extra-disturbed by the movie Prince of Darkness; not because of [spoiler]the son of the devil[/spoiler]--rather, it was the creepy [spoiler]old convent [/spoiler]it was set in.

Strangely, if I did go back to a religion, it would probably be Catholicism.

[Actium]

[quote name='CincyInDC' post='454649' date='Mar 10 2007, 12:49 AM']Do you feel similarly about these statements?

The best way to keep a person from attending mass is to raise them Catholic.
Many friends and I refer to ourselves as "recovering Catholics."
I found myself extra-disturbed by the movie Prince of Darkness; not because of [spoiler]the son of the devil[/spoiler]--rather, it was the creepy [spoiler]old convent [/spoiler]it was set in.

Strangely, if I did go back to a religion, it would probably be Catholicism.[/quote]

I think I can agree with that. I definately feel that I would be Catholic again if I get my faith back. There was an ugly scene in my family when I said I didn't want to be confirmed, and that I didn't feel it would be right unless I truly believed it. I said the faithful deserved better than that, and so did I. Well, I got the whole "I failed" speech and my mom was upset, thinking I'm hellbound and all. So now we just don't talk about religion, and I say honestly that one day I may believe again. There is so much wonder out in the world that sometimes I really want to believe.

The other day I was listening to Faure's Requiem, the Agnus Dei movement. It is so beautiful that I thought, for a moment, that surely a man couldn't have written it, without the Almighty giving him a glimpse of celestial bliss. Then I though, what if earthly happiness is God's allowing us to feel what heaven is like, for a mere moment, to keep us on the path of virtue.

I just don't know. I want to believe, like Agent Mulder, but in something better.

[Guest CincyInDC]

[quote name='Actium' post='454654' date='Mar 10 2007, 01:55 AM']I think I can agree with that. I definately feel that I would be Catholic again if I get my faith back. There was an ugly scene in my family when I said I didn't want to be confirmed, and that I didn't feel it would be right unless I truly believed it. I said the faithful deserved better than that, and so did I. Well, I got the whole "I failed" speech and my mom was upset, thinking I'm hellbound and all. So now we just don't talk about religion, and I say honestly that one day I may believe again. There is so much wonder out in the world that sometimes I really want to believe.

The other day I was listening to Faure's Requiem, the Agnus Dei movement. It is so beautiful that I thought, for a moment, that surely a man couldn't have written it, without the Almighty giving him a glimpse of celestial bliss. Then I though, what if earthly happiness is God's allowing us to feel what heaven is like, for a mere moment, to keep us on the path of virtue.

I just don't know. I want to believe, like Agent Mulder, but in something better.[/quote]

Perhaps it was her who helped Faure?

[img]http://www.tiramillas.net/cine/salma/dogma.jpg[/img]

[Actium]

[quote name='CincyInDC' post='454656' date='Mar 10 2007, 01:10 AM']Perhaps it was her who helped Faure?

[img]http://www.tiramillas.net/cine/salma/dogma.jpg[/img][/quote]

Certainly that is a possiblity. Salma Hayek inspires me, as long as she doesn't have the Frida look.