Monday, August 31, 2009
I am currently in the middle of reading the apocrypha of the Bible. This book consists of all the books that didn't make it into the Bible, reasons varying. The Council of Trent met between December 13, 1545, and December 4, 1563, and it was at these meetings that the Biblical canon was established. Reasons spanning from heretical authorship to association with the wrong sect (Gnostics) to not being written in the same language (Protestant Bibles apparently must be written in Hebrew to be authentic). Personally I believe the entire book (Bible) is a bunch of garbage and the "good, acceptable stuff" is already riddled with enough holes, contradictions and just plain bad logic. And the Protestant reasoning gets even more insane. The book of Tobit is not included in the Protestant Bible because of one instance of "magic." Um, what? What do Protestants believe that raising men from the dead is? Under what do Protestants file walking on water? By what terminology is the mass replication of food labeled? The blatant contradictions presented here are easily swept aside by the mainstream religious as "miracles." Miracles, as in, the good form of MAGIC. They both both employ superhuman elements and events. Hmm. The clear equivocation here is quite annoying to me, but maybe I'm just nit picking. Miracles are nothing more than magic performed by Jesus and his associates. Jesus, the son of a magic sky wizard, sent on a suicide mission to save humanity, was nothing more than a medium for the magic sky wizard. His magic was nothing more than the "magic" described in the book of Tobit. Curse your slight erroneous mistakes, Catholics!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with what you're saying, but I heard an interesting interp. of the walking on water story that I thought I would share. It doesn't really change anything about it being magic, etc., but there is an interpretation of that story as being chronologically after Jesus dies, but before he is resurrected. In this interpretation, the apostles didn't see flesh and blood Jesus, they saw a vision of the "ghost" Jesus. However, the author of the book (whoever it really was) thought that people wouldn't accept that they saw him or something, so he placed it in the story of Jesus' life. Not really pertinent, but interesting nonetheless.
ReplyDelete