Sarah Bova wrote:
The Apocripher was not originally in the Jewish Bible, before the time of Christ. It was added after the Roman Cathoic reformation. They should have never been added in the first place because the ancient writings were never biblical texts to begin with. They were only added under Catholic influence.
Should never have been added? And what exactly qualifies you to make such a statement? Unless my history is mistaken didn't the entire Protestant movement from which all the modern "Christian" sects came have its root in Catholicism?
In the beginning there were claims that the Catholic Church were not following the ways of Christ as written (I can see the truth in that calim). So we get a group of people who have read some secondary sources of information who go to the other extreme of being blinded by the written word.
This is why I maintain that unless you were there when Christ walked the Earth and remember exactly what he said or are in some other form able to experience that level of truth we cannot decide to get all fundamental over the written word, since the written word is not 100% correct (or at least it is very unlikely so). As such, it's veracity is still based in faith and belief. As far as belief goes, see the sky analogy.
The reason this thread and the one on ki is lasting so long is because you believe that the bible is the absolute truth, when many others accept it to be part of the truth but not necessarily the whole and only one. Through your own admission your faith is based on this paradigm - "If the Bible were wrong (like actually provably wrong) in even just one area .. I'd probably honestly cry"
. As such you are unable and unwilling to look outside and see anything that exists out of this box as it can surely create some psychological issues regarding your faith. The thing is though, if something is worth strongly believing then its premise can be challenged and it will stand strong imo, so there should be no fear in challenging it. In this same light it is difficult to acknowledge the truth inherent in other religious or spiritual traditions for fear that it may disprove or attempt to challenge what you believe in the book in a way that you cannot handle.
There is nothing wrong with the above of course, it is a primordial aspect of the self preservation instinct, but one needs to know the fullness of the concept before one decides to lay it out for the "persuasion" of others.
The beauty of understanding Christianity (and many other religions) through the life philosophy of Aikido is that the latter often acts as a check system for the former, since the latter exemplifies the way of living that is supposedly espoused by the former.
One of the beatiful aspects of Aikido philosophy is the simple proof and reflections of the universe found in nature. An apt one here is that when we look too closely we in fact see nothing.