God is Imaginary

beccyleigh

To answer the op, yes I do think god is imaginary, i do not accept holy books as proof of anything. I think these stories were created to keep people in line at a time where the world was thought to be flat & religious leaders were the be all of life. In this day & age we should not need such stories in order to do right & live right & I certainly do not think that religion should play any part in schooling or government. imo it has no place outside of churches or the privacy of the believers own home.

fyi, This view applies to all religions

Brunner26_2

If this poster wants to take offense then I have no control over it. If the poster is so sure of their convictions then why would they need to be offended by my post?

I may be wrong, but I don't think she was actually offended. Just calling you out.

And I agree with your view on religion.

beccyleigh

It was stated that I insulted her mental health (I didn't) & a snide comment made about how I offered nothing to a mature discussion.

They seem to be words of the offended. not my intention but I cannot control what others be offended by.

Brunner26_2

It was stated that I insulted her mental health (I didn't) & a snide comment made about how I offered nothing to a mature discussion.

They seem to be words of the offended. not my intention but I cannot control what others be offended by.

And to your original point, having a religious belief doesn't qualify as a mental illness according to the DSM.

wineplease

What was the science again? I thought we agreed that God can neither be scientifically proven nor disproven.

I was just referring to my arguments about the Big Bang.

wineplease

You're probably right that what made so many scholars change their minds between the ~1910 Catholic Encyclopedia and the ~1990 New American Bible was not new evidence but a new method for evaluating the evidence. My mistake.

How many of the "30 scholars (with doctorates in New Testament or Christian Scriptures from recognized institutions) who wrote books in the last 50 years" are part of the apostolic succession?

I don't think it is so much a new method of evaluating things as it is a new mood or collection of biases.

What do you mean by"part of the apostolic succession"? If you mean how many are bishops, none that I can think of. I didn't know you were so committed to the Catholic hierarchy. Bishops don't tend to write on technical questions about dating biblical
books. It is certainly quite rare for one to write a critical commentary on a biblical book. I'm not sure how much you know about Catholicism but those are not common tasks bishops perform.

wineplease

I may be wrong, but I don't think she was actually offended. Just calling you out.

You would be correct.

Brunner26_2

What was the science again? I thought we agreed that God can neither be scientifically proven nor disproven.

I was just referring to my arguments about the Big Bang.

I just looked back and I didn't see any scientific arguments. I saw you said that evolution and the big bang suggest a creator because you can't get something from nothing. That argument makes no sense about evolution, and "something from nothing" isn't really the only option. Your arguments weren't really scientific, and were more arguments from incredulity.

TheRoadDog

Guess this one is done. And there was no proof of god.

JaneDough_

Guess this one is done. And there was no proof of god.

I'll get back to you.

Going for a long walk. I shall ponder how to respond to this.

wineplease

Guess this one is done. And there was no proof of god.

If the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus along with the other things I discussed isn't proof enough for you, you just don't want to believe. I respect that. But, you should also respect that for some this *IS* proof of God.

treetop57

Strange use of the word "proof."

Bahet

Guess this one is done. And there was no proof of god.

If the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus along with the other things I discussed isn't proof enough for you, you just don't want to believe. I respect that. But, you should also respect that for some this *IS* proof of God.

Many don't believe that Jesus did rise from the dead. I respect that you are so sure of it and that's your faith. But if there were actually real scientific proof there would be nothing but Christians on this planet. Well, and a few whackados who think they were abducted by aliens and rectally probed.

m_a_b

Guess this one is done. And there was no proof of god.

If the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus along with the other things I discussed isn't proof enough for you, you just don't want to believe. I respect that. But, you should also respect that for some this *IS* proof of God.

Many don't believe that Jesus did rise from the dead. I respect that you are so sure of it and that's your faith. But if there were actually real scientific proof there would be nothing but Christians on this planet. Well, and a few whackados who think they were abducted by aliens and rectally probed.

We're back in the same old loop again:
- How do we know that God exists? Because it says so in the Bible.
- How do we know that we can believe the Bible? Because it's God's word.
- How do we know that God exists?...

wineplease

- How do we know that God exists? Because it says so in the Bible.

Which was written by eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. People who knew him and hung out with him.

I'm in for another few hundred comments here if y'all are.

TheRoadDog

- How do we know that God exists? Because it says so in the Bible.

Which was written by eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. People who knew him and hung out with him.

I'm in for another few hundred comments here if y'all are.

Back in the 70's a bunch of us were out in the woods partying and we ran into Bigfoot. Hung out with him all weekend. I guess we can call that legitimate too.

wineplease

Back in the 70's a bunch of us were out in the woods partying and we ran into Bigfoot. Hung out with him all weekend. I guess we can call that legitimate too.

Are you willing to die for that statement? Would the whole bunch of you be willing to lose your lives over that story? Do you think in 2,000 years, people will still be following your story of Bigfoot?

treetop57

Which was written by eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. People who knew him and hung out with him.

Who supposedly wrote the books of the Bible?

Books written by non-eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus:


Genesis
Exodus
Leviticus
Numbers
Deuteronomy
Joshua
Judges
Ruth
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2 Kings
1 Chronicles
2 Chronicles
Ezra
Nehemiah
Tobit
Judith
Esther
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Job
Psalms
Proverbs
Ecclesiastes
Song of Songs
Wisdom
Sirach
Isaiah
Jeremiah
Lamentations
Baruch
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
Nahum
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Haggai
Zechariah
Malachi
Mark - Mark
Luke - Luke
Acts of the Apostles - Luke
Romans - Paul
1 Corinthians - Paul
2 Corinthians - Paul
Galatians - Paul
Ephesians - Paul
Philippians - Paul
Colossians - Paul
1 Thessalonians - Paul
2 Thessalonians - Paul
1 Timothy - Paul
2 Timothy - Paul
Titus - Paul
Philemon - Paul
Hebrews - Unknown

Books written by eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus:
Matthew - Matthew
John - John
James - James
1 Peter - Peter
2 Peter - Peter
1 John - John
2 John - John
3 John - John
Jude - Jude
Revelation - John

But wait! What do the Catholic Bishops say about these eyewitness accounts in the explanatory notes of the bible they commissioned, published, and posted on their website?

Matthew

The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Matthew 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain.

The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew not only upon the Gospel according to Mark but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mark that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke. This material, called "Q" (probably from the first letter of the German word Quelle, meaning "source"), represents traditions, written and oral, used by both Matthew and Luke. Mark and Q are sources common to the two other synoptic gospels; hence the name the "Two-Source Theory" given to this explanation of the relation among the synoptics.

http://old.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/intro.htm

John

Other difficulties for any theory of eyewitness authorship of the gospel in its present form are presented by its highly developed theology and by certain elements of its literary style. For instance, some of the wondrous deeds of Jesus have been worked into highly effective dramatic scenes (John 9); there has been a careful attempt to have these followed by discourses that explain them (John 5; 6); and the sayings of Jesus have been woven into long discourses of a quasi-poetic form resembling the speeches of personified Wisdom in the Old Testament.

http://old.usccb.org/nab/bible/john/intro.htm

James

Paradoxically, this very Jewish work is written in an excellent Greek style, which ranks among the best in the New Testament and appears to be the work of a trained Hellenistic writer. Those who continue to regard James of Jerusalem as its author are therefore obliged to suppose that a secretary must have put the letter into its present literary form. This assumption is not implausible in the light of ancient practice. Some regard the letter as one of the earliest writings in the New Testament and feel that its content accurately reflects what we would expect of the leader of Jewish Christianity. Moreover, they argue that the type of Jewish Christianity reflected in the letter cannot be situated historically after the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

Others, however, believe it more likely that James is a pseudonymous work of a later period. In addition to its Greek style, they observe further that (a) the prestige that the writer is assumed to enjoy points to the later legendary reputation of James; (b) the discussion of the importance of good works seems to presuppose a debate subsequent to that in Paul's own day; (c) the author does not rely upon prescriptions of the Mosaic law, as we would expect from the historical James; (d) the letter contains no allusions to James's own history and to his relationship with Jesus or to the early Christian community of Jerusalem. For these reasons, many recent interpreters assign James to the period A.D. 90-100.

http://old.usccb.org/nab/bible/james/intro.htm

1 Peter

From Irenaeus in the late second century until modern times, Christian tradition regarded Peter the apostle as author of this document. Since he was martyred at Rome during the persecution of Nero between A.D. 64 and 67, it was supposed that the letter was written from Rome shortly before his death. This is supported by its reference to "Babylon" (1 Peter 5:13), a code name for Rome in the early church.

Some modern scholars, however, on the basis of a number of features that they consider incompatible with Petrine authenticity, regard the letter as the work of a later Christian writer. Such features include the cultivated Greek in which it is written, difficult to attribute to a Galilean fisherman, together with its use of the Greek Septuagint translation when citing the Old Testament; the similarity in both thought and expression to the Pauline literature; and the allusions to widespread persecution of Christians, which did not occur until at least the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81-96). In this view the letter would date from the end of the first century or even the beginning of the second, when there is evidence for persecution of Christians in Asia Minor (the letter of Pliny the Younger to Trajan, A.D. 111-12).

Other scholars believe, however, that these objections can be met by appeal to use of a secretary, Silvanus, mentioned in 1 Peter 5:12. Such secretaries often gave literary expression to the author's thoughts in their own style and language. The persecutions may refer to local harassment rather than to systematic repression by the state. Hence there is nothing in the document incompatible with Petrine authorship in the 60s.

Still other scholars take a middle position. The many literary contacts with the Pauline literature, James, and 1 John suggest a common fund traditional formulations rather than direct dependence upon Paul. Such liturgical and catechetical traditions must have been very ancient and in some cases of Palestinian origin.

Yet it is unlikely that Peter addressed a letter to the Gentile churches of Asia Minor while Paul was still alive. This suggests a period after the death of the two apostles, perhaps A.D. 70-90. The author would be a disciple of Peter in Rome, representing a Petrine group that served as a bridge between the Palestinian origins of Christianity and its flowering in the Gentile world. The problem addressed would not be official persecution but the difficulty of living the Christian life in a hostile, secular environment that espoused different values and subjected the Christian minority to ridicule and oppression.

http://old.usccb.org/nab/bible/1peter/intro.htm

2 Peter

Among modern scholars there is wide agreement that 2 Peter is a pseudonymous work, i.e., one written by a later author who attributed it to Peter according to a literary convention popular at the time. It gives the impression of being more remote in time from the apostolic period than 1 Peter; indeed, many think it is the latest work in the New Testament and assign it to the first or even the second quarter of the second century.

http://old.usccb.org/nab/bible/2peter/intro.htm

1 John

Early Christian tradition identified this work as a letter of John the apostle. Because of its resemblance to the fourth gospel in style, vocabulary, and ideas, it is generally agreed that both works are the product of the same school of Johannine Christianity. The terminology and the presence or absence of certain theological ideas in 1 John suggest that it was written after the gospel; it may have been composed as a short treatise on ideas that were developed more fully in the fourth gospel. To others, the evidence suggests that 1 John was written after the fourth gospel as part of a debate on the proper interpretation of that gospel. Whatever its relation to the gospel, 1 John may be dated toward the end of the first century.

http://old.usccb.org/nab/bible/1john/intro.htm

2 John and 3 John

Written in response to similar problems, the Second and Third Letters of John are of the same length, perhaps determined by the practical consideration of the writing space on one piece of papyrus. In each letter the writer calls himself "the Presbyter," and their common authorship is further evidenced by internal similarities in style and wording, especially in the introductions and conclusions. The literary considerations that link 2 John and 3 John also link them with the First Letter and the Gospel of John. The concern with "truth," christology, mutual love, the new commandment, antichrist, and the integrity of witness to the earthly Jesus mark these works as products of the Johannine school. The identity of the Presbyter is problematic. The use of the title implies more than age, and refers to his position of leadership in the early church. The absence of a proper name indicates that he was well known and acknowledged in authority by the communities to which he writes. Although traditionally attributed to John the apostle, these letters were probably written by a disciple or scribe of an apostle.

Jude

This letter is by its address attributed to "Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ and brother of James" (Jude 1:1). Since he is not identified as an apostle, this designation can hardly be meant to refer to the Jude or Judas who is listed as one of the Twelve (Luke 6:16; Acts 1:13; cf John 14:22). The person intended is almost certainly the other Jude, named in the gospels among the relatives of Jesus (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3), and the James who is listed there as his brother is the one to whom the Letter of James is attributed (see the Introduction to James). Nothing else is known of this Jude, and the apparent need to identify him by reference to his better-known brother indicates that he was a rather obscure personage in the early church. . . .

Many interpreters today consider Jude a pseudonymous work dating from the end of the first century or even later. In support of this view they adduce the following arguments: (a) the apostles are referred to as belonging to an age that has receded into the past (Jude 1:17-18); (b) faith is understood as a body of doctrine handed down by a process of tradition (Jude 1:3); (c) the author's competent Greek style shows that he must have had a Hellenistic cultural formation; (d) the gnostic character of the errors envisaged fits better into the early second century than into a period several decades earlier. While impressive, these arguments are not entirely compelling and do not completely rule out the possibility of composition around the year A.D. 80, when the historical Jude may still have been alive.

http://old.usccb.org/nab/bible/jude/jude.htm

Revelation

The author of the book calls himself John (Rev 1:1, 4, 9; 22:8), who because of his Christian faith has been exiled to the rocky island of Patmos, a Roman penal colony. Although he never claims to be John the apostle, whose name is attached to the fourth gospel, he was so identified by several of the early church Fathers, including Justin, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Cyprian, and Hippolytus. This identification, however, was denied by other Fathers, including Denis of Alexandria, Eusebius of Caesarea, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, and John Chrysostom. Indeed, vocabulary, grammar, and style make it doubtful that the book could have been put into its present form by the same person(s) responsible for the fourth gospel. Nevertheless, there are definite linguistic and theological affinities between the two books. The tone of the letters to the seven churches (Rev 1:4-3:22) is indicative of the great authority the author enjoyed over the Christian communities in Asia. It is possible, therefore, that he was a disciple of John the apostle, who is traditionally associated with that part of the world. The date of the book in its present form is probably near the end of the reign of Domitian (A.D. 81-96), a fierce persecutor of the Christians.

http://old.usccb.org/nab/bible/revelation/intro.htm

So what's the count, accepting the guidance of the teaching office of the American Catholic bishops, expressed through the explanatory notes in the Bible they commissioned, published, and posted on their website?

Possible eyewitness - 1
Traditionally ascribed to eyewitnesses but probably not - 9
Traditionally ascribed to non-eyewitnesses - 46 in Old Testament, 17 in New Testament

I'd point out that the one supposed eyewitness that the editors of the New American Bible don't reject out of hand is Jude, who in fact says nothing about the life of Jesus!

wineplease

The question, “Who supposedly wrote the books of the Bible?” is much too broad to be treated seriously here. There were numerous contributors to the Bible. You’d have to name a particular book to have a meaningful conversation. Concerning books written by “non-eyewitnesses” to the life of Jesus, of course all the Old Testament books fit in that category (since they were written before the birth of Jesus). I’m not sure what you are trying to prove by that list.

Concerning your comments: “What do the Catholic Bishops say about these eyewitness accounts in the explanatory notes of the bible they commissioned, published, and posted on their website?” I just don’t think you are thinking clearly about this. First, you must make a distinction between the translation of the Scriptures and the explanatory comments. Posting a translation of the Bible along with comments included in a particular translation does not constitute grounds for requiring a Catholic to agree with those specific comments. The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur found at the beginning of that translation clearly state, “No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed.” It is one thing for me to disagree with a formal statement by a pope or ecumenical council of the Church and it is quite another for me to disagree with the comments founds in a particular version of the Bible. If you want to insist that this is inconsistent I can only ask you to study what the Catholic Church actually teaches about its modes of teaching and get a better sense of what you are talking about.

treetop57

The question, “Who supposedly wrote the books of the Bible?” is much too broad to be treated seriously here.

No doubt. Which leaves me mystified as to why you said something as ridiculous as the Bible "was written by eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. People who knew him and hung out with him."

treetop57

Posting a translation of the Bible along with comments included in a particular translation does not constitute grounds for requiring a Catholic to agree with those specific comments.

And I have never said anything different. You are perfectly free to choose to ignore this particular exercise of the bishops' teaching office.

treetop57

The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur found at the beginning of that translation clearly state, “No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed.”

As I recall, I started quoting the American bishops' website after you implied that no true Christian would believe that the gospel predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem were written after the destruction of Jerusalem. I never claimed it made you a bad Catholic to ignore this exercise of the bishops' teaching office. Only that plenty of Christians see it differently from you. And in fact give the opposite view from yours the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur.

wineplease

No doubt. Which leaves me mystified as to why you said something as ridiculous as the Bible "was written by eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. People who knew him and hung out with him."

My statement was made directly to a comment about proof of God being in the bible. There is proof of God, through the life of Jesus, in the bible. That was my point when making my statement. You then want to discuss who wrote ALL the books of the bible.

TheRoadDog

Back in the 70's a bunch of us were out in the woods partying and we ran into Bigfoot. Hung out with him all weekend. I guess we can call that legitimate too.

Are you willing to die for that statement? Would the whole bunch of you be willing to lose your lives over that story? Do you think in 2,000 years, people will still be following your story of Bigfoot?

Am I willing to die for that statement? Not sure what that means. But, yes, I am going to die, so are you. The only difference in opinion is what happens after death. Will I be basking in the warmth of a supreme being, or will I eventually become fossil fuel?

treetop57

There is proof of God, through the life of Jesus, in the bible.

Once again that idiosyncratic use of the word "proof."

There is proof of Nirvana, through the life of Gautama, in the Buddhacarita .

There is proof of Ahura Mazda, through the life of Zoroaster, in the Avesta.

There is proof of Brahma, through the life of Krishna, in the Bagavad Gita.

There is proof of Voldemort, through the life of Harry Potter, in The Sorcerer's Stone.

wineplease

Once again that ideosyncratic use of the word "proof."

I realize you and I don't see things the same. I consider eye witness accounts proof. I believe in the historical data of the bible, which to me is proof. I believe the apostles who saw Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension. This all constitutes "proof" to me, but I respect that it does not for you. I realize many people want scientific evidence before they can believe in God. I get that.

treetop57

.

Deleted on second thought.

wineplease

What eyewitness accounts? There are zero reliable eyewitness accounts.

I mentioned them. How are the apostles not reliable eyewitnesses to the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus?

treetop57

None of the Bible was written directly by any eyewitness, as stated in the introductions to the books of the New Testament. Nihil obstat and Imprimatur!

treetop57

Just to be clear, your disagreeing with the interpretative aids on the American bishops' website on who wrote the books of the Bible doesn't make you a bad Catholic. But agreeing with them doesn't make me a bad Catholic, either.

[It's other things entirely that make me a bad Catholic.]