What Bible?

Babylonean history looks much like Genesis. Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of
Mary, Apocrypha - people argue over the literal details of our Bible - but
Early Christians didn't agree on much. They didn't have one Bible - that
didn't happen until 325 A.D. in Nicea. Why Paul's Bible? Why not James'
Bible? James knew Jesus personally - why was Paul considered more inspired?
Did politics or truth determine these details of what we believe? Was James
just too restrictive and the more liberal views of Paul more politically
digestable?

People make these documents the basis of beliefs which they then take
personally. When the documents are disputed, the believer feels personally
affronted and frequently as though they need to defend God. It is only our
belief system which has been challenged, not attacked, and God needs no
defense.

Mother Theresa had a quote (no, I'm not Catholic - Protestant Eclectic and
yes I absolutely believe the Apostle's Creed) - the quote said something
about when everything else is gone, God remains.

'Study to show thyself approved' Study what? The scriptures. What
scriptures? Study how? Are they science, allegory or what? The historeans
thought David was mythological, but the archeologists have proved him real.
Likewise the Philistines. Supposed contradictions have been resolved by
determining that there were two famous figures of the same name in different
countries a few decades apart. There's amazing verification of much of the
historical content of the Bible. Too bad the Temple didn't do offsite
back-ups of their data.

Why not Judith? Why not the amazing detective stories of Daniel? (Daniel and
the Dragon and Susanna) Why wouldn't one accept ancient records which show
methods that did not become common until many centuries later?
Received on Fri Mar 10 10:31:50 2006