2007-09-17 14:43:23 · 19 answers · asked by 3 Godz in 1 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
an urban legend with a history of 4 or so thousand years .. quite a legend indeed ..
2007-09-17 14:49:14 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
A little research will show that rather than being legend, it's at the VERY least a verifiable history. The ossuary of James, the brother of Jesus has been found and carbon dated to be accurate as far as age goes. I believe it will soon be verified as authentic. And even if you can't buy that, the ossuary of Joseph Caiphus, the son of the High Priest and accuser of Christ has been found, verified, and is real. The palace of Pontius Pilate has been found and contains his name graven in stone. Many of the landmarks mentioned in the bible are found in the Holy land. The Egyptian pharoahs that lived when the Bible was reporting happenings at the time are a verifiable fact. I could go on and on. But at some point, having nothing to do with the facts surrounding archaeology, and biblical archaeology in particular, you just have to listen to that still, quiet voice in your soul and decide if what you feel is real, and take a step of faith...or not. For your sake, I hope you do some research if you're a "show me" kind of person. There's a lot of material for you to see. Provided of course that your question is sincere and you really want to have an answer and not just stir things up.
2007-09-17 22:05:56 · answer #2 · answered by profsparro 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
How do you know it is an urban legend? Just like some believe that I believe that the bible is the truth and very real.
2007-09-17 21:50:14 · answer #3 · answered by Nikki 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think you are confused about the definition of an urban legend. Either that or you're a troll trying to stir up trouble.
2007-09-17 21:49:53 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because they are free to believe what they will. To you it is urban legend. To them it is the gospel truth. We do not have the right to dismiss anothers belief just because it doesn't match up to our own.
2007-09-17 21:53:03 · answer #5 · answered by gone 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The real question is why do people believe in evolution since it was created to keep people in bondage and people the right to feel superior because of the color of their skin or gender. Darwin was a rascist sexist pig, read his book. Oh and you might know some famous evolutionists, naames include Hitler Stalin Lenin (not John Lennon) and Jeffrey Dahlmer. A lot of what hitler believed he got from Darwin
2007-09-17 21:53:56 · answer #6 · answered by Jesus T 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Science will soon prove the Bible to be the science book written by God for mankind to survive on Earth. This will force every human on Earth not to be stupid enough not to believe what It says.
2007-09-17 21:52:22 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The canon of the Old Testament that Catholics use is based on the text used by Alexandrian Jews, a version known as the "Septuagint" and which came into being around 280 B.C. as a translation of then existing texts from Hebrew into Greek by 72 Jewish scribes (the Torah was translated first, around 300 B.C., and the rest of Tanach was translated afterward).
The Septuagint is the Old Testament referred to in the Didache or "Doctrine of the Apostles" (first century Christian writings) and by Origen, Irenaeus of Lyons, Hippolytus, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Justin Martyr, St. Augustine and the vast majority of early Christians who referenced Scripture in their writings. The Epistle of Pope Clement, written in the first century, refers to the Books Ecclesiasticus and Wisdom, analyzed the book of Judith, and quotes sections of the book of Esther that were removed from Protestant Bibles.
In the 16th c., Luther, reacting to serious abuses and clerical corruption in the Latin Church, to his own heretical theological vision (see articles on sola scriptura and sola fide), and, frankly, to his own inner demons, removed those books from the canon that lent support to orthodox doctrine, relegating them to an appendix. Removed in this way were books that supported such things as prayers for the dead (Tobit 12:12; 2 Maccabees 12:39-45), Purgatory (Wisdom 3:1-7), intercession of dead saints (2 Maccabees 15:14), and intercession of angels as intermediaries (Tobit 12:12-15). Ultimately, the "Reformers" decided to ignore the canon determined by the Christian Councils of Hippo and Carthage.
The Latin Church in no way ignored the post-Temple rabbincal texts. Some Old Testament translations of the canon used by the Latin Church were also based in part on rabbinical translations, for example St. Jerome's 5th c. Latin translation of the Bible called the Vulgate.
The "Masoretic texts" refers to translations of the Old Testament made by rabbis between the 6th and 10th centuries; the phrase doesn't refer to ancient texts in the Hebrew language. Some people think that the Masoretic texts are the "original texts" and that, simply because they are in Hebrew, they are superior.
Some Protestants claim that the "Apocrypha" are not quoted in the New Testament so, therefore, they are not canonical.
Going by that standard of proof, we'd have to throw out Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Obadiah, Nahum, and Zephaniah because none of these Old Testament Books are quoted in the New Testament.
But there is a bigger lesson in all this confusion over not only the canon but proper translation of the canon , especially considering that even within the Catholic Church there have been differing opinions by individual theologians about the proper place of the deuterocanonicals (not that an individual theologian's opinions count for Magisterial teaching!).
The lesson, though, is this: relying on the "Bible alone" is a bad idea; we are not to rely solely on Sacred Scripture to understand Christ's message. While Scripture is "given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16-17), it is not sufficient for reproof, correction and instruction in righteousness.
It is the Church that is the "pillar and ground of Truth" (1 Timothy 3:15)!
Jesus did not come to write a book; He came to redeem us, and He founded a Sacramental Church through His apostles to show us the way.
It is to them, to the Church Fathers, to the Sacred Deposit of Faith, to the living Church that is guided by the Holy Spirit, and to Scripture that we must prayerfully look.
Seek knowledge
2007-09-20 13:32:04 · answer #8 · answered by cashelmara 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some people need a crutch in life. They are not happy with this life and think there must be something better. This something better to them is god. It gives meaning to their lives when the couldn't find meaning in life.
2007-09-17 21:50:58 · answer #9 · answered by punch 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Why do people believe in a science without religion when science is just as much faith as religion is? Science itself and it's theories evolve and change over time, so do you change your thoughts with the current scientific trend?
2007-09-17 21:52:00 · answer #10 · answered by Feivel 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋