Gary Nilsen
Gary Nilsen
  • 11
    |
  • 0
    |
  • 0
    |
  • 2
    |
  • 279
Elias Mokbel emokbel
Not knowing the precise author of a book or a scripture does not mean that the book is not genuine or true. Many books in the world, written by unknown (anonymous) authors, are read and accepted by the readers just because of the truth that they convey. How many art works ( sculptures, paintings...etc) created by anonymous persons from history, are considered genuine in our modern times ? Aren't there thousands of scriptures found in Himalayan caves, and wall paintings found in Tibetan monasteries, dating back to thounsands of years, which are considered sacred, without even knowing who wrote them ? My point is that saying that a book is not true, or does not carry truth in it just because we are not sure about its author - generally speaking- is not a powerful argument, or an argument that we can rely on to completely refute the book. And this leads us to another important idea, and that is: truth , at least in its philosophical meaning ( because we might ask: what is truth ? ), does not fade with time, because if it does, then it cannot be taken as an absolute truth. why do philosophers still quote Socrates or Platon in the 21st century ? Isn't it because what they said transcends time ? So, saying that the Bible , which is 3000 years old, is not true , or outdated, just because it is old, is not a powerful argument either.
It is true that the Prophets whose words are written in the Bible are believed to be men who were inspired by God or that God spoke to them. But saying that a person in the 21st century would be considered as a lunatic if he claims the same thing is not an argument that is sufficient to prove that the Prophets did not receive God's words. In fact, who said that the Prophets were not considered as lunatics in their times ?! They were considered lunatics, by some, by most, by the majority of people.. but not by all of them. If WE say that they are lunatics, that doesn't mean what they say is not true. So the logic used here is not sufficient. How many scientists, at least, were considered lunatics, until their theories were proved true ? Galileo, Copernicus...etc. Every person in this world, who says something true, is a prophet. Socrates was killed because he was saying the truth, and when he was doing so, he had the spirit of prophecy. And the Church respects all those who, by a way or another, served the truth or had truth as their issue, even if they didn't know Christ or lived before him.
It is true that societies have changed and are still changing . And they change on multiple levels. But they , also , did not completely change. People still fight, make wars, do commerce, make agriculture, read books, get married, face diseases...etc. But the Bible, is not a purely sociological book, nor a purely political book , nor it is a book of archaeology or medicine...etc. And if it contains a book about law, we should interpret this in the context of the Jewish religion, and know why it was given to them like this and not to all other nations. And when we understand this, we see that all the scriptures in the Old Testament, were preparing the Jewish people to receive the Messiah. That's why, after Jesus Christ, the Church does not follow anymore the rules of Moses ( such as offering sacrifices in the temple...and so on ), but the teaching of Christ. Moses was not guiding the Jewish people to HIS rules and principles, but he was preparing them for the Messiah. And if Christ had disciples, who are the Apostles, then why shouldn't we follow also their teachings, if they were teaching us something that is in accordance with Christ's teachings. If we can't follow their teachings, then why did he chose them anyway? It is clear in the New Testament that the message of Christ did not end with his death...if it would, then why would he choose disciples? Why did Socrates had disciples? why did Platon had a school that teaches his thought? why would he teach his disciples if his teaching cannot survive generations and generations? Applying a teaching does not mean returning back to the 1st century AD, but means living with that teaching in your own time. If Ghandi was preaching for peace in 2016, his convictions will not change. 
Each disciple of Christ who wrote in the New Testament, wrote in his own style. But style does not change essence. You can say "I love you" to one person, and say " I give you my heart" to someone else, and practically mean the same thing. My point is that if disciples express an idea in a certain manner, this does not mean they contradict the essence of the teaching of their teacher.
"Do unto others as you would have done to yourself." This is said in the Bible.... If it is an "axiom that transcends all religions and civilisations", then how would you classify it ? An absolute truth ?......And if it was, then who said it ? An axiom could not be said if it didn't cross someone's mouth ? who said it ? who is able to say words that "transcend all religions and civilizations" ? if it is considered truth, and nothing but the truth, and if it really "transcends all religions and all civilizations", then there are 2 options : either the person who said it , said it from his own, and then he is someone who beholds all the truth, or the person who said it, said it because he was inspired by the Absolute Truth. There is no 3rd option. In both cases, we are dealing with absolute truth.