Different parts of the Bible were written in different genres, to different audiences, at different times, for different purposes. I never dismissed the Bible whole cloth. I merely asserted that different parts of it are to be read and understood differently.
Or you could provide a mapping to the chapters that are reliable and those that should be discarded.
Especially seeing as there are lots of inconsistencies between the gospels and a lot of stories that are referenced by even Catholic priests reference a guy who had voices in his head and at not time ever actually met Jesus it is impossible for me to “guess” what I should accept as true and what is known to be false.
I don’t believe any of it should be discarded. I am not a Protestant.
Are there any inconsistencies between the Gospels that have any theological relevance?
It’s impossible for anyone to do this. That’s why Jesus founded the Catholic Church to tell us.
Since there are massive swaths of the Bible that were written with no intention of factual accuracy, I can say “yes” with no qualifications.
So I should accept all portions of the New testament as the direct word of god?
You cannot have this both ways.
As you will dismiss them as misreadings and refuse to even help me understand what it theological relevance this is a fools errand.
Outside of claims that you cannot offer outside of your personal beliefs why should your claim be accepted and another persons claim that he traveled to the new world after rising be ignored.
Yet ironically, there is no way for you to directly point to tell me what he told us? I just need to assume that your church is the one that got it right out of the thousands that didn’t and hand over my tithe and do as told?
I have to say you aren’t selling the papist claims very well here.
Almost there-Of all the parts that were written with the intent of being factually accurate, where any of those parts wrong?
You should accept all 73 books as the Word of God, as I do. I’m not trying to have it both ways. It seems to me that you are taking a fundamentalist approach as to what the “Word of God” is or must be.
We are both on a bit of a fools errand, but that’s ok. By theological relevance, I just mean is there anything that would create controversy as to what we should believe about the nature of Jesus, the nature of worship, the nature of the Church, the nature of salvation, etc.; things that are of essential importance to what Christianity is.
Example: One Gospel account says that there were two angels waiting in the tomb, while another Gospel account says that there was one angel.
Do these conflicting accounts have any bearing on who Jesus is, whether or not he rose from the dead, what the Church is, how one is saved? No, they just disagree about how many angels were in the tomb. I can believe there was one angel, or I can believe there were two angels, and what’s the difference?
I have investigated Protestant, Catholic, and Mormon claims, and I find the Catholic claims to be the most consistent, well-reasoned, and believable, by a very wide margin. You are free to do the same and you may come to very different conclusions.
I can certainly direct you to what Jesus told us. You don’t have to assume anything. You can investigate, research, and weigh the evidence as much as you like. The Catholic Church is the one Jesus founded and entrusted to his Apostles, and the successors of the Apostles are today’s Bishops. Every other body of Christians broke off from the one Catholic and Apostolic Church. As far as tithing and “doing what you’re told”, ha! That is hilarious. If you only knew.
Outside of your claims I see no evidence that the Roman Catholic Church was the one Jesus “set up”
While I don’t discount that when Constantine called the First Council of Nicaea in 325 that the people attended had existing beliefs, you haven’t provided anything except for your beliefs that this is true that this was the “one true church”.
I get that it is important for you to personally believe this but give us some reason besides myths or legends or a warming in your heart.
The only reliable information I have is that it was declared the church of the Roman Empire by edict in 380. I am not finding any information besides the claims of those individuals that it was the one universal church.
As 1000’s of other Christian sects believe the same it is simply not possible to accept this based on your word and personal beliefs.
Okay, thank you for being more specific.
My response is that yes there may be factual inaccuracies in the English translations even in the parts of the Bible that were meant to be historical narrative. The inaccuracies may also be found in the original text, I don’t know since I’m not familiar with the original languages and don’t have the resources to look it up. But I am willing to concede to “yes”.
Okay, so you are lacking sources (other than myself) that would support the claim that the Catholic Church is the one founded by Jesus?
I can provide some later this evening.
Here is one: at least one of the gospels goes to great effort to trace Jesus’ ancestry back to King David. Through Joseph. So, how does that work?
So, the Bible is factually wrong in some places where it is supposed to be factually accurate.
BTW, if several people cannot tell if one, two or three people are in a cave, or somehow do not notice that there is another angel in such a confined space, then their testimony when it comes to other matters is certainly suspect. There is an elephant in the room when it comes to Biblical testimony.
Or maybe that’s two elephants. Or maybe even three-it’s so easy to overlook elephants sometimes.
St. Augustine (4th-5th century Bishop/theologian) answered that since Joseph was Jesus’ legal father through adoption, the claim of Jesus’ descent from David is valid. Other theologians disagreed such as Tertullian who claimed that Mary must have been a blood descendant of David. That’s from Wikipedia under “Genealogy of Jesus”.
Okay, but what you are failing to recognize is that the Church with its traditions, teaching, and liturgy, predates the writing of the Gospels by at least a few decades, and it preceded the canonization of the Gospels by nearly 4 centuries. The major tenets of the Christian faith, especially concerning the resurrection, were well-established by the time the Gospels were written.
Any chance of there being factual inaccuracies in that body of work and/or what you have been taught about that body of work?
Since I don’t know everything, nor am I perfectly virtuous, nor do I have perfect faith, it is possible that I am wrong, and all of religion is a sham.
But, if the claims of the Catholic Church are true, then it is not possible for the Catholic Church to teach error since it has the promise of divine protection.
Since I believe the claims of the Catholic Church, I do not believe that it can be in error.
Hmmm.
Ever hear of something called “circular reasoning”?
Have you, as it happens, investigated Jewish claims?
And how many Protestant claims did you check out?
The claim that Jesus is not God? Yes I have, though I can’t say I have investigated it from a particularly Jewish perspective.