Mother Teresa Struggled With Her Faith

[Isaac-Saxxon]

To many, the origin of the Bible can be summed-up as follows: "A mere translation of a translation of an interpretation of an oral tradition" - and therefore, a book with no credibility or connection to the original texts. Actually, the foregoing statement is a common misunderstanding of both Christians and non-christians alike. Translations such as the King James Version are derived from existing copies of ancient manuscripts such as the Hebrew Masoretic Text (Old Testament) and the Greek Textus Receptus (New Testament), and are not translations of texts translated from other interpretations. The primary differences between today's Bible translations are merely related to how translators interpret a word or sentence from the original language of the text source (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek).

In addition, these texts agree with the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, which was translated from Hebrew to Greek some time during the 3rd century BC.

Matty I respect your post but I do not agree with your statement. The original Hebrew and Greek text have acrostics built into them that lock in the truth. I am that I am dictated the Bible with human hands as scribes. The entire Bible is divinely inspired. This comes down to what IT is we believe as individuals. I respect your interpretation I just do not agree. I think we are both seeking truth and I know that is light years ahead of many church goers that warm the bench. I wish you the best in your quest.

[MattyMattyChooChoo]

Isaac,

You trivialize the origin of the Bible. The Catholic Church didn't just assemble the documents and send it on its way. Biblical scholars and theologians worked, and continue to work, for 2000 years to find, not just the interpretation of each individual word, but the meaning of the message as a whole.

You are correct that the King James Bible is derived from the ancient scripts. However, when the Bible was translated by Roman Catholics long before the Protestant Reformation, there was no disunity in the Church. The King James version was commissioned to continue the disunity and thus was translated reflecting the non-Catholic beliefs (sola scriptura).

King James was the head of the Church of England, which was created by Henry VIII (self declared head of the Church of England) for the sake of getting divorced. How was the Church instituted? For what reason? These things matter. The Church of England was instituted by a king who wanted Church-sanctioned sin. Those who stood up to him were executed (St. Thomas More). King James continued in the tradition of Henry VIII by supporting the right to head of the Church of England.

Define divinely inspired. Your two sentences are confusing.

"I am that I am dictated the Bible with human hands as scribes. The entire Bible is 'divinely inspired'".

The phrase "dictated the Bible with human hands as scribes" and "divinely inspired" seem to contradict. The first seeming to infer that God "possessed" (for lack of a better word) the scribes and took over their hands to put it down on paper. The second phrase infers that the Bible is "inspired" by God.
Something to remember is that the Bible was not jotted down be every person involved. Adam and Eve did not keep journals. The Bible was passed on verbally for generations, until it was finally recorded on paper (scrolls, whathaveyou). Did the verbal tradition whittle away every single detail of the story? Undeniably. It is part of our nature. When finally transcribed, was the story exactly the same as the actual event. Doubtful. If God told the scribes exactly what to write leaving no interpretation of the story to the writers, and human nature had changed the verbal tradition, the written version and the verbal versions would be vastly different. So which one is true?

[Isaac-Saxxon]

Originally Posted by MattyMattyChooChoo

Isaac,

You trivialize the origin of the Bible. The Catholic Church didn't just assemble the documents and send it on its way. Biblical scholars and theologians worked, and continue to work, for 2000 years to find, not just the interpretation of each individual word, but the meaning of the message as a whole.

You are correct that the King James Bible is derived from the ancient scripts. However, when the Bible was translated by Roman Catholics long before the Protestant Reformation, there was no disunity in the Church. The King James version was commissioned to continue the disunity and thus was translated reflecting the non-Catholic beliefs (sola scriptura).

King James was the head of the Church of England, which was created by Henry VIII (self declared head of the Church of England) for the sake of getting divorced. How was the Church instituted? For what reason? These things matter. The Church of England was instituted by a king who wanted Church-sanctioned sin. Those who stood up to him were executed (St. Thomas More). King James continued in the tradition of Henry VIII by supporting the right to head of the Church of England.

Define divinely inspired. Your two sentences are confusing.

"I am that I am dictated the Bible with human hands as scribes. The entire Bible is 'divinely inspired'".

The phrase "dictated the Bible with human hands as scribes" and "divinely inspired" seem to contradict. The first seeming to infer that God "possessed" (for lack of a better word) the scribes and took over their hands to put it down on paper. The second phrase infers that the Bible is "inspired" by God.
Something to remember is that the Bible was not jotted down be every person involved. Adam and Eve did not keep journals. The Bible was passed on verbally for generations, until it was finally recorded on paper (scrolls, whathaveyou). Did the verbal tradition whittle away every single detail of the story? Undeniably. It is part of our nature. When finally transcribed, was the story exactly the same as the actual event. Doubtful. If God told the scribes exactly what to write leaving no interpretation of the story to the writers, and human nature had changed the verbal tradition, the written version and the verbal versions would be vastly different. So which one is true?

I do not trivialize the Bible in any form or fashion. I see you well indoctrinated in Catholicism I would like to know you thoughts on the ten lost tribes ??
This question of who wrote the Bible could go on for a long time and I feel very sure we would not agree. Matty I have some close friends that are Catholic and I do not wish to insult anyone that is Catholic. I am not Catholic but I am a Christ-man (Christian). The need for a religion is a man made need and a set of controls put in place by man. You think you need a Priest or Pope to tell you what the Bible says I do not. I can read if for myself and the idea of waiting to be read to is just what the "church" would want so they can play mind control. You know it really amazes me how many people go for that flock mentality. I am sure you are nice guy and a devout Catholic and I respect your person and your religion. The answers are coming soon and I will repeat I am NO MANS judge but I do not think you need a fancy building and another man to be a studied Christian.

[vixweb]

Originally Posted by Isaac-Saxxon

I do not trivialize the Bible in any form or fashion. I see you well indoctrinated in Catholicism I would like to know you thoughts on the ten lost tribes ??
This question of who wrote the Bible could go on for a long time and I feel very sure we would not agree. Matty I have some close friends that are Catholic and I do not wish to insult anyone that is Catholic. I am not Catholic but I am a Christ-man (Christian). The need for a religion is a man made need and a set of controls put in place by man. You think you need a Priest or Pope to tell you what the Bible says I do not. I can read if for myself and the idea of waiting to be read to is just what the "church" would want so they can play mind control. You know it really amazes me how many people go for that flock mentality. I am sure you are nice guy and a devout Catholic and I respect your person and your religion. The answers are coming soon and I will repeat I am NO MANS judge but I do not think you need a fancy building and another man to be a studied Christian.

Well, As much as I wanted to respond- Isaac pretty much said it here! The Catholics certainly have an agenda, mainly to justify themselves, in my opinion. The ritualistic chants and proceedures- To much Tradition of MAN can distort the word of GOD. But hey, if that helps you, it's better than nothing -I wonder.I also do not believe a church should decide what information I should recieve, and I wonder how much "information" is hidden away in the depths of the Vatican- because we are not "on THEIR level"or wouldn't fully understand . I believe ALL men are equal in GOD's eyes, and I'm sure JUDGEMENT will be swift at the pulpit for the "mis-informers"! Yes, That includes all religions. This is MY opinion, of course, I wasn't trying to jump on Catholics-I just think the group mentality is dangerous

[Isaac-Saxxon]

Good post vixweb. I just watched a service at First Baptist Bossier www.firstbossier.com and I must say this preacher is nothing more than a stand up comedian. Not even good at that. He would mention the Bible and just keep rambling on about himself. This is the kind of person that has hijacked many Christian people. Judgment does start at the pulpit and our public officials too. The Word says a higher standard has been set for those who choose to be leaders. He is starving these good people that go to church because they are Christians and want to hear the truth of the Word.
This gives true Christianity a black eye. The great correction will come one day and these stuffed shirts in the pulpits will be guilty of murder ! yes murder of the eternal soul for all of those they mislead. Sounds harsh well I meant it to be. There is so much at stake here that many people have no idea just plugged in to the main frame and content to send their 10% and get the warm fuzzy for a hour each week. There are many people that study and some gifted teachers too and I think small study groups or just individual study is best.
Amos 8

11 Behold, the days come, saith the Lord GOD, that I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread, nor a thirst for water, but of hearing the words of the LORD:

12 And they shall wander from sea to sea, and from the north even to the east, they shall run to and fro to seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it.

It is not just this church in Bossier it is many churches. I try to watch all different services that run on TV and I do not have a ax to grind with any particular one. Teachers TEACH the WORD I do not need the traditions of man blowing warm air in my ears I need the WORD and some one educated in the languages to lecture and increase my knowledge of the Letter our Father sent to us as a book of instruction on what it takes to be happy and how to have a close walk with our Father. Study to show yourself approved with a teacher blessed of God that rightly divides the Word.

[Pocahontas]

I have to think some of the preachers are in the dark (so to speak) and not aware that they could be doing false preachings? Since that is their chosen vocation and they are paid to do so you would think and hope they have done their studies. But from what I've seen more and more have not and that is unfortunate!

[Huldah]

I just can't believe this happened. I just spent an hour on a reply to these articles and all the related posts, and then I was dumped from the server and it's all gone.

I don't know if I can remember all I wanted to say. Maybe I just said too much and they system couldn't handle it.

First off, let me just say this . . . "Crying, there's no crying in Baseball." Sorry, I liked that movie too. Although I don't agree with his polotics, I like Tom Hanks as an actor. He has certainly played some thought provoking roles.

Anyway . . . .

After reading several pages about Mother Teresa and her lack of faith, or losh of faith, or whatever you want to call it, I feel very sad for her.
I also feel like all the people in positons of trust in her life were not worthy of her trust. She asked her letters to be destroyed and they weren't. Letters to her "confessors" are now published? What happened to what is said in the confessional is sacred? And then one "advisor" tells her to "role-play" an imaginary conversation, and then it is used as "proof" that her faith had faltered.
Anyway, back to Mother Teresa herself (I'll try to be briefer this time). Is it possible that she simply wanted what she wanted and ignored or refused to listen to what God wanted for or from her and in turn was ignored? It is said about her (based on her letters) that the only interest she had in Jesus was the passion, the crucifixion, his death and dying on the cross; that she wanted to suffer as Christ did. Just because she didn't get "Jesus in her heart" as well, doesn't mean that she didn't get what she wanted. She repeatedly insisted on living in complete misery and in fact insisted that all of her helpers/followers live the same way. Why would she think that this was truely how God would want any of his children to live.
Please do not missunderstand me. I really believe that Mother Teresa was a great person and that she made a tremendous difference for the poor and downtrodden people of Caldutta. I also believe that her selflessness has been an example for others and lead to many people giving and helping more.
The point I'm trying to make is that perhaps she wasn't as "faithless" as this book is trying to make her out to be. I'm not sure that the author's reasoning for publishing all of these letters (along with him and many other people telling us what she was thinking) is as nobal as he makes it out to be.
I'm sorry, this version turned out to be much more sceptical than the first.
God Bless

[LateNight]

Originally Posted by Huldah

I just can't believe this happened. I just spent an hour on a reply to these articles and all the related posts, and then I was dumped from the server and it's all gone.

That can be frustrating.. if when you log in, if you check the little box that says "remember me?", it won't automatically log you off after some inactivity. depending on your situation, security wise, you might want to "log off" when you are done.

[rhertz]

Originally Posted by Huldah

I just can't believe this happened. I just spent an hour on a reply to these articles and all the related posts, and then I was dumped from the server and it's all gone.

Yeah I hate it when that happens.. Sometimes when I spend a long time on a post, I compose it in Word and paste it then submit. Then if things don't work out, I still have it in Word.

But even when I don't do that, I will do a ctrl-A (Select All) and a ctrl-C (Copy to clipboard) so if things don't work out, I can paste it and try again. Only on long posts though.

[Huldah]

Originally Posted by rhertz

Yeah I hate it when that happens.. Sometimes when I spend a long time on a post, I compose it in Word and paste it then submit. Then if things don't work out, I still have it in Word.

But even when I don't do that, I will do a ctrl-A (Select All) and a ctrl-C (Copy to clipboard) so if things don't work out, I can paste it and try again. Only on long posts though.

What a great tip. Thanks. If I write my post in word first, I can take all the time I want and then just cut and paste. Thanks