God's Will Hunting

Actually quite helpful thanks. Most evangelicals I encounter use KJV and consider Catholic beliefs suspect. These are the "low information Christians" I mention. Creationist, anti-science, inerrant Bible Christians. LOTS of them. So NABRE may be helpful indeed.

Another clarification of "Low information" types: They do little if any actual study of the Bible itself (criticism), rather than "Bible study". They take what is told to them as gospel. They do not question, they are usually anti-science or ignorant of science, and many think the the Bible is the inerrant word of God. No mistakes, no errors. Even copies that were made by ancient scribes were under God's watchful eye.

So you can see that words to the contrary from "friendly sources" may be eye opening. I have already sent out a beta version if you will, and believe me, the readers are not aware of the points I bring up. Quite shocked actually. And they want "proof" of what I say, hence this thread.

aa5874

1. Tertullian is NOT a first hand source or eyewitness of Jesus.

2. "Against Marcion" attributed to Tertullian is a MASSIVE FORGERY and carried out some time AFTER the End of the 4th century or After the writings of Jerome.

3. No ancient source of the Jesus story is from the 1st century.

4. No author of the NT Canon claimed to be an eyewitness of Jesus.

5. ALL ancient writings of Jesus that have been found are outside the time period to be an eyewitness of Jesus.

Essentially, there is NO ancient writing that can contradict the claim that the Gospels are NOT eyewitness accounts and that their authorship are unknown.

sotto voce

Glad to be of help.

USA 'evangelicals' detest the Bible as much as Catholics and Orthodox anywhere. Believe me, nobody and nothing is ever going to 'open a crack in their belief system'. The KJV (and Young-Earth Creationism, and probably Calvinism) are their protections against the challenge of the gospel that they have disastrously found in modern English translations. They are on the same side as atheists, Catholics and Mormons, etc. They just have different tactics in opposing the biblical message. They will sympathise with skeptics who try to 'put them right', but they will be unable to say openly that they sympathise with skeptics.

Incidentally, the leaders of all denominations, even of Roman Catholicism that contradicts its every theological word, agree that the Bible is inerrant. Any that failed to do so would immediately be labelled non-Christian. They would also be very foolish, because if one part of the Bible can be erroneous, so can the parts that set up overseers! What American 'evangelicals' insist on is literalism of certain selected parts of the Bible that are taken by almost all others as of figurative meaning. There is all the world of difference between inerrancy and literalism, but these are often confused.

Catholicism of course completely buries the gospel that so many skeptics find challenging. So readers seeking truth should be wary of what may be free plugs for Catholic translations, that have deceptive notes and even rank mistranslations.

The Catholic authorities had to use Protestant English translations before they belatedly got their own act together (and they are still liable to use the KJV that they once condemned!), and they have borrowed very much Protestant scholarship, even when it conflicts enormously with their own dogmas. They have no choice, now that Catholics are better educated, and come into contact with Protestants. But this is not as damaging as it may seem, because there are still many millions of Catholics who are unfamiliar with the Bible, especially in less developed countries, and these folk rely on their local priests entirely for information. Again, not all posters will tell you this. So when you read a Catholic Bible, you are usually reading what is intended for priests and affluent Catholics who can be relied on not to 'spill the beans'. There is of course the danger that more straightforward Catholics will also read the Protestant truth, and indeed many have left the RCC, and can now be found among Protestants. But that's the risk the RCC is forced to take.

OLDMAN

Remember, what you are really doing is challenging their beliefs.
We form beliefs for a number of reasons, one of them is that beliefs can be comforting, thus saving us alot of energy that might be wasted by worrying.

When you try to take people out of their comfort zone, they will resist. In this case you are putting them in danger of loosing their immortal souls to a firey hell. That is not a comforting thought, is it? Nor is the reality that you offer them in it's place.

You will be so much better off, if you simply state that you are not afraid of death or what happens to you after you die, and let them ask the questions.

They didn't come to Jesus through study and knowledge, but by the charisma of some preacher playing on their emotions with the obivious reward and punsihment sell.

This is overcome by being just as confident in your beliefs as they are in their's. Being a friend who is reasonable and intellegent while being respectful, will do more than playing "what do you think this means".

Good luck, and remember....blinding lights do not allow you to see anything.

sotto voce

Are you quite sure that it is not me who just challenged yours?

God's Will Hunting

My intention exactly. But in a reflective way rather than in-your-face.

No doubt. Nonsense none the less. These people VOTE according to their "beliefs" here in the US, hence my concern. Otherwise I couldn't care less.

Reality simply is. Deal with it.

sotto voce

Chili

Never heard of NABRE but have an NAB and like it its poetic verse. Beyond that it is just book to me that has nothing at all to do with my destiny, nor should it ever, and anybody who think it does may be in for a surprise or two. That really is not mine to say, and should never be, regardless of how 'right' I think I am. For me it is just philosophy and I am never in my argument.

I like the Catholic church because you can 'do' so much with it, and she can be anything for anybody. I like their tradition and in particular their 'no bible reading' policy. Kind of like the Jews, I just learned the other day, although I always knew that they were a 'people of tradition' and that would say the same.

My interest in religion came by way of poetry, and I also did a bunch of Russian lit that kind drew me into it. But certainly not the church itself, and never go there still (except with the grandkids, so I am certainly not anti-Catholic).

Oh, and then there is not much truth to be found in protestantism lol, there never was, except a bunch of salvation recipes that do not work, even if they should.

OLDMAN

Quite.

OLDMAN

:banghead:If they could face reality, they wouldn't have the beliefs they have....

:banghead: