It's important to clarify that I am a very confused child in need of learning about my religion, and my arguments on justifying it have some major gaps that I am aware of. That is the point. I am in search of answers and clarifications. I need someone who is educated in Christianity, preferably a theologian. I'll probably search for one myself. I need someone who can use tangible evidence both from the Bible and in the outside world.
The Search for Truth
I've noticed that for the entirety of my life as a born and raised Catholic, why are we only taught Christian living?
I read Vatican II the other day. Still in process of reading it. After Vatican II, even the author seemed to acknowledge the fact that Catholic teaching has shifted from scripture study/interpretation into Christian living. It is a problem because understanding important things like confession, the catholic rituals of the church, the pope, and the like. Some Catholics never end up touching the Catechism, or know the very foundations of what Catholicism is and what makes someone Catholic. I know the way I should act and why it pleases God. But surely, Catholicism is simply more than that.
I think it's important to know the history of these things, the why's and hows on it. Hell, even I've remained ignorant for so long that when I was face to face with educated athiests who challenged me in my belief in God, I couldn't argue using the Bible or using morals and Christian living with them. It was then I realized that I didn't know shit about my religion. Just believe and be good. Do you know how easy it would've been to drop my faith right then and there? Why have people abandoned critical thinking? That must be why, a lot of the times religious people tend to stray away from it.
That isn't to say that all religious people are uneducated. But from what I've seen around my area, why don't people value educating themselves on their own religion? Why am I forced into behaviors without studying the justifications behind that? I don't just want to hear the moral reasons behind it. I need something tangible. I know it is possible.
A lot of my teachers have answered me with what I assume to be 'catechist mentality'. I've been looking into the scripture, and when there is a perceived contradiction I come across, they've never touched that area or they lean into progressive Christianity. Either that or they tell me; "Why does it matter to you? You have faith, don't you?"
Sometimes I was even prone to believe that the Church was an "answer machine", but like all Christians, we are still searching for the truth. Furthermore, the church is allowed to interpret the Bible, not change it. Implying their are multiple interpretations of the Bible(wouldn't that create some denominations? or i must be wrong). And I understand there are literal and symbolic interpretations of the Bible, to which people before Vatican II took it literally to the point where the idea of perfection and purity was maximized to an idealistic extent. But what is the right way to interpret the parables of the Bible? Is it really up to our understanding? Is that what He wants?
It is a misconception.. .well, at least an arguable claim that you can't use historical, archaeological, and scientific evidence to prove the existence of God. And I'm not talking about the authority of the Bible here. I'm talking about outside of it. When I ask my teachers, they seem to hit a dead end, and tell me that using scientific and historical evidence to prove God is irrational and leans towards atheism, that Christianity is empowered by faith alone. I don't believe that at all. Sure, I also acknowledge the fact that science is based on human discovery, learning about the undiscovered, and that it isn't an absolute variable you can use to comprehend something that is incomprehensible and beyond this world. But that shouldn't mean that we push it away completely. The Bible references many places that archaeologists have used to discover artifacts and events described in the Bible. You need to confirm that God keeps to his word and that there was at least some evidence of his existence.
Doesn't God denounce the notion of blind-believing? Or is this not the message of this verse?
1 Corinthians 15:14 "14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. 22 For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive.
Manuscripts and Polytheism
I don't know anything about the actual Hebrew and Ugarit manuscripts. Perhaps a tiny bit, but I need my hands on it, and I need it deciphered word by word. I have so many questions regarding this topic and I need answers ASAP .
Apparently, the original word for God was "Elohim". This is the plural version of "El", a caananite God who was accompanied by another God... named Baal. Called the "king of the gods" and the "Most high"
The story of El and Baal(which are Ugarit texts, during the 14th to 12th century BCE) are reported to be developed at the same time as the Hebrew Bible, with some others saying that the Epic of Gilgamesh has some eerie parellels and similarities mentioned in the Bible. Along with others saying that it's apparently older than the Bible itself. They also said that the Bible quotes from the Ugarit texts, referring to the Baal Cycle.
My theology teacher said that the assembly of the Bible came after the Epic of Gilgamesh, but the actual manuscripts were older. This is unconfirmed because I have not done my research. Have people carbon-dated both manuscripts?
Onto the topic of Elohim, it's already strange why it is the plural form of a god.
El is mentioned in many names.
Israel, one who fights with El.
Micheal, one who is similar to El.
There's more. But I have so many air bubbles regarding this topic, you see, which is why everything is so scattered. I don't know how to think about this.
Additionally, the word "Yahweh" isn't a title used to describe God until he appears to Moses in a flaming bush. Later on, he goes on to describe how he doesn't appear to Abraham, Issac, and Jacob in his 'true' name, Yahweh, and goes as El Shaiiem(my internet is failing me , I can't search up the name). Why would God not reveal himself to his entrusted followers? Why would he change names to hide his identity? Is there a reason for his anonymity?
It is said the Baal has been listed in the Bible 90 times. Throughout the Old Testament, there is an inability to settle on which God to choose from. 'Elohim' or Baal? The Israelites keep returning to the figure of Baal multiple times, and I am unsure the reason, but in their stubbornness they return to false Gods and are constantly forgiven and punished. If you look deeper into Baal, he was the god of storm and rain, deciding whether your crops would die or live, basically your lifeline. So I begin to see why they had a dependence on him. But there must be a reason other than that. Or is there none other?
There are also some parallels listed here.
Ugarit Texts: El, the aged high God, is the ultimate sovereign in the council.
Daniel 7: The Ancient of Days, the God of Israel is seated on the fiery, wheeled throne (cf. Ezekiel 1). Here he is also described as white haired and ancient, like the characteristics of El.
Ugarit texts: El bestows kingship upon the god Baal, the Cloud-Rider, after Baal defeats the god Yamm in battle
Daniel 7: Yahweh-El, the Ancient of Days, bestows kingship upon the Son of Man who rides the clouds after the beast from the see (yamma) is destroyed
Ugarit texts: Baal is king of the gods and El's vizier. His rule is everlasting.
Daniel 7: The Son of Man is given everlasting dominion over the nations. He ruels at the right hand of God.
What is going on with the parellels at the time? There was a huge debate on confirming the existence of God and Baal at the time. Is that why there are so many similarities? Which one dominates and how? Were there really two Gods back then?
Comments
Displaying 0 of 0 comments ( View all | Add Comment )