Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
weak. just another weak attack on the Bible. yay. been there, seen it. There's nothing new under the sun.
Dispute it then. You do realize Barth Ehrman was once a Fundamentalist-evagelical Christian who simply wanted to get to know the Bible a little better by studying it in its original languages. He attended CONSERVATIVE (fundamentalist, evangelical) seminaries such as Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College and went on to get his Ph.D and Master's of Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary to attain his goal. He is currently the James A. Gray distinguished professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a renowned and decorated textual critic. This path led him to become an agnostic.
We're not talking about some garden variety critic of the Bible here. We're not only talking about someone who is WELL qualified, we're also talking about someone who once held much of the same beliefs and views you hold to so dearly now so he knows both sides of the fence.
Of course none of this matters to you, I'm sure, because he is now Satan's pawn so there is NO way he could be telling the truth.
Dispute it then. You do realize Barth Ehrman was once a Fundamentalist-evagelical Christian who simply wanted to get to know the Bible a little better by studying it in its original languages. He attended CONSERVATIVE (fundamentalist, evangelical) seminaries such as Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College and went on to get his Ph.D and Master's of Divinity from Princeton Theological Seminary to attain his goal. He is currently the James A. Gray distinguished professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a renowned and decorated textual critic. This path led him to become an agnostic.
We're not talking about some garden variety critic of the Bible here. We're not only talking about someone who is WELL qualified, we're also talking about someone who once held much of the same beliefs and views you hold to so dearly now so he knows both sides of the fence.
Of course none of this matters to you, I'm sure, because he is now Satan's pawn so there is NO way he could be telling the truth.
I've also studied some of the same stuff. I take a different view of things.
And yes--if you are not of God, you are a child of the Devil. Jesus said that.
I've also studied some of the same stuff. I take a different view of things.
I think I read somewhere you're in bible school or something to that effect. I dare you to go buy and read this book. In there you will will learn about so many different codices/New Testament manuscripts with so many different readings it would make your head spin.
Quote:
And yes--if you are not of God, you are a child of the Devil. Jesus said that.
IF you are not of the biblical God, you are still a human being. I said that.
I think I read somewhere you're in bible school or something to that effect. I dare you to go buy and read this book. In there you will will learn about so many different codices/New Testament manuscripts with so many different readings it would make your head spin.
IF you are not of the biblical God, you are still a human being. I said that.
I'll be honest. During the school year I'm kept pretty busy reading class materials for school. But I'll see if I can pick up a copy this summer. I like to read alternative views--I like to read the views of non-Christians like mormons, jw's, etc. It only helps me to understand where people are coming from.
The cannonical gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, but by people who had heard the gospel and finally wrote it down. Hence, there are deviations, like the fate of Judas. Acts said he kind of fell down and blew up, while Matthew said he hung himself. So, which version is correct?
Biblical literalist go only on faith, and not on fact and choose to ignore the contradictions. Like Luke writing a gospel, despite not being there to ever meet Jesus himself.
This doesn't mean that the bible is untrue, it just means that it should be taken into context. After all, it was compiled by one sect of Christians, the orthodox church, who made things look like they wanted them to look like, hence, Revelation is in there while the Gospel of Thomas is not, despite Thomas pre-dating Revelation by 50-100 years.
The cannonical gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, but by people who had heard the gospel and finally wrote it down. Hence, there are deviations, like the fate of Judas. Acts said he kind of fell down and blew up, while Matthew said he hung himself. So, which version is correct?
Biblical literalist go only on faith, and not on fact and choose to ignore the contradictions. Like Luke writing a gospel, despite not being there to ever meet Jesus himself.
This doesn't mean that the bible is untrue, it just means that it should be taken into context. After all, it was compiled by one sect of Christians, the orthodox church, who made things look like they wanted them to look like, hence, Revelation is in there while the Gospel of Thomas is not, despite Thomas pre-dating Revelation by 50-100 years.
Actually, Matthew and John were written by eye witnesses. Mark was likely a young man at the time of Christ--he makes a cameo in the garden of Gethsamane. Luke was probably a witness--and he traveled with Paul after he converted. Luke wrote his gospel as a 2 part book with Acts.
The first 3 were likely written about 20-30 years after Christ--mostly as a result of the apostles realizing that they were dying off and wanted to have a written account of Christ to pass on.
The Gospel of Thomas just isn't consistent with the rest of them. It's a collection of nonsensical sayings that just don't belong with the rest.
Actually, Matthew and John were written by eye witnesses. Mark was likely a young man at the time of Christ--he makes a cameo in the garden of Gethsamane. Luke was probably a witness--and he traveled with Paul after he converted. Luke wrote his gospel as a 2 part book with Acts.
Of course there was a Matthew, John and Mark and it is there Gospels. But did they write them? No. They are, at best, second of third hand accounts. The Gospels, like the OT, were oral tradition long before they were written down.
Quote:
The first 3 were likely written about 20-30 years after Christ--mostly as a result of the apostles realizing that they were dying off and wanted to have a written account of Christ to pass on.
Actually, most scholars think the Gospels were written about 70-100 AD, that is, scholars who are not fundamentalist Christians (and hence, bias) themselves. With the average lifespan back then around fifty, that means that there is little to no chance that they were first hand accounts.
Quote:
The Gospel of Thomas just isn't consistent with the rest of them. It's a collection of nonsensical sayings that just don't belong with the rest.
Actually, Thomas has many of the same exact sayings of Christ as John, Matthew and Luke. It's sayings are meant to make people think (no wonder many fundies don't like it...) and it makes perfect sense when meditated on. It was only thrown out on the order of the Romans who went ahead and massacred all those who disagreed and burned their books...no doubt under "the guidence of the holy spirit"
There is little point in trying to correct the misunderstandings about the bible and its origins with Fundamentalists and other magic believers. To them God magically saw to it that only the truth was written (like dictation) literally word for word using the writers like human robot writers to insure its inerrancy (despite the fact that we were given free will). These are not issues of fact to these people . . . but of faith . . . and as such they are unassailable . . . they are emotionally protected by extensive cognitive barriers.
Those of us who have studied the missing texts and other sources are relegated to the use of the knowledge to interpret what is actually retained in the limited books available. I chose the Catholic version because it was the more extensive compilation. The essential spiritual truth resides in it despite the problems . . . and in spite of the literalist misinterpretations and corruptions by the magisterium.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
