Skip to comments.Former fundamentalist 'debunks' Bible
Posted on 05/15/2009 12:18:43 PM PDT by JoeProBono
click here to read article
He as sent up for blasphemy — and being a threat to the Empire and the Jewish religious establishment and to Herod. (The latter was the real offense in their eyes. They didn’t really care about alleged blasphemy. That was an excuse.)
Yes, I already ansered this. He was crucified and resurrected to overcome death, then he told us to do even greater things. There are numerous quotes where he says that he expects us to do as he did.
So he thinks he proves the Gospel According to John is a so-called forgery? Or does the earlier apply to the manuscripts, not to the followers? Pick up the blue copyediting phone, please.
Two Kid’s Dad: “The simple fact that there are apocryphal texts that the church voted out of the bible would seem to be a form of validation that the bible is a book by men and not the true and infallible word of a supreme being.”
Nevadan: You are mistaken. The apocryphal books of which you speak were never formally recognized by all Christians as being a part of the Bible. The books that were finalized into the Old and New Testaments occured over a long period of time. In regard to the New Testament, it was the Church leadership that decided which books NOT to INCLUDE as scripture. Their reasons for which books were included and which were rejected had to do with authenticity, historical accuracy, and whether or not the book(s) in question were regarded as “scripture” by the Church Fathers, Apostles, and the Church as a whole over a long, tested period of time. The Christian era apocryphal books that were rejected (i.e. Gospel of Thomsas, Judas, etc.) were written 200-400 years after the time of Jesus. They were composed by Gnostic Christians. Gnostics believed in all sorts of heretical ideas - such as Jesus never actually existed, or He was never really human. Their doctrinal ideas were rejected by the early church because their beliefs ran counter to established, historical Christian teachings.
The fact that the apocryphal books were written hundreds of years after the events especially cast them in a bad light with obvious questionable “authenticity”. Whereas the hundreds and thousands of New Testament manuscripts we have for the books that are included in the New Testament (such as the four Gospels and the letters of Paul, Peter, John, Jude, Hebrews, etc.) range anywhere from 50 to 100 years of when they were originally composed.
This is quite amazing considering that the existing copies we have of many “secular” ancient texts, such as Caesar’s Commentaries, are anywhere from 700 to 1000 years from the time the originals were composed.
There are several excellent books that deal with all of the questions and subjects you brought up. One thought, though, if one, for sake of argument, admits that there may be a God who is omnipotent and all powerful, then isn’t it possible that He could flood the world and get rid of the water? Couldn’t He also cause a virgin, since He created human beings to begin with, to be pregnant?
Just because one can come up with a theory as to how something occured doesn’t mean that that IS how it occured (i.e. all the 9/11 conspiracy theories).
As to your issue with God about Job - you need to read the whole book very carefully. I think you are looking at the book in a very superficial way. You will find one of the key issues of the book is that it was both God and Job’s integrety that were at stake. God had said Job was a good and faithful servant to Him. Satan claimed that Job really did not love God or truly honor Him. Satan accused Job of only honoring God because of all the blessings and protections he had received from God. If these blessings and protections were removed - Satan claimed that Job would not only turn away from God, but the he would even curse God. You may ask, “Why would God feel the need to prove to Satan that he was wrong about Job?”. To be honest, I don’t really know the whole answer to that. But, apparantly God felt this was an important enough issue to prove not only His integrity - but also that of Job’s - to His creation.
You must also understand that the book of Job is part of the “wisdom” literature of the Old Testament. It’s purpose was to tackle some tough questions. Such as - why do good people suffer? There are other “wisdom” books, such as Job, the Psalms, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes. All of these books try to grapple with how to live a Godly life in a hostile and oftentimes Godless world.
In ancient times, and even today by some people, it was believed that anyone who suffered some kind of tragedy or catastrophe in their life, that it must be because they had “sinned” in some way. Even the disciples once asked Jesus what sin a blind man had done in order that he was made to be blind. Jesus said that it wasn’t because of any sin, but that God’s glory could be shown in the healing of this man. Jesus didn’t quite answer the question completely which means there are just some things that we will never completely understand. God just doesn’t tell us everything.
In closing, you’ve asked some good questions. I wish I were competent enough to answer them completely, but there are excellent books out there that delve into all these issues if you will search them out. There are online Bible study and Biblical reference materials (often free). I encourage you, if you are genuinely seeking answeres, to look them up. On the other hand, if you are not truly looking for answers, then nothing I or anyone else can say to you will matter.
I don’t speak for Professor Ehrma, but based on the book of his I read, I think he means the earliest available mauscripts.
CNN mistake, then.
Depends on the situation. I’d guess Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek and maybe even some Latin if he were a typical citizen of the day.
True, he likely spoke Aramaic, Hebrew when teaching, and the NT is written in Greek, but the writers also knew both languages and we’re with him at the time he spoke them (well except maybe for Luke). There’d be less translation error there, not to mention less problem with cultural metaphors, historical context, worldview, etc.
Between the originals and today’s Bible, sure there are errors, but you can go back to very old documents that are very close to the originals in chronology. I don’t see how this guy can honestly attest the Bible to be not true if he’s had this much study under his belt.
No, they were almost certainly NOT with him.
“The #1 requirement for all professors of religious studies is that they not be religious.”
That is not entirely true. In fact, I knew one professor of religious studies who made himself a pest by pointing out the fallacies of ecumenism, at a time when ecumenism was all the rage. This made a lot of people uncomfortable, because it pointed out that if a religion is right, other religions are not, and the majority of people are therefore “wrong”.
However, it is also not up to people to determine what it means to be right or wrong in their religion. It might mean everything, and to be wrong means to be damned; or it might be much of a muchness, as far as heaven is concerned.
But it is not up to people to decide, one way or another. The worst thing that people could do, in his mind, was to try and “blend” religions together. This is because while if it didn’t matter, then it wouldn’t matter; but in all other alternatives, it would be worse for you if you did.
So, in the final analysis, he said if you are religious, then have faith in your religion. If you do not have faith in your religion, then find another religion in which you have faith. But don’t think you can hedge your bets by mixing and matching.
One of many.
It is not possible to have a discussion with you about something that you will not define. So, have a wonderful evening.
Did I ever say God was limited? Why are you asking me such a question?
In the end he’ll be debunked, not that I need to defend the Bible, because God or His Word don’t need my defense, but He’s going to find out some day how wrong he is..
Actually, Higher Criticism starts with a presumption, then filters every “analysis” through that. You might not like the fact such analyses are premised on bias and thus inherently flawed, but this is contrary to objective historical documentary analysis. Dig a little.
Matthew, Mark, and John weren’t with him?
many are invited but few are chosen
Full of historical evidence of the Bible.
But, besides that,, the devil has been trying this crap from the beginning of time. Satan started this in the Garden of Eden. "Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, "Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the garden'?" Gen 3:1.
Did God really say that??? Did He??? Are you sure??? Are you sure it's not a lie?? Sure He's real???
Believe what you want. I believe the Bible. I believe God. I believe Jesus was Who He said He was! I believe in hell and heaven! Choose what you want,, as for me,,, I believe!
What was His supposed blasphemy? ... By His own hearing before the Sanhedrin He claimed He was God. That seems to be washed out of relevance by you, by your secularizing assertion that you are as much God as He was since God is in everything. ... Are you beginning to get the picture of why some of us are rather disturbed with your particular form of denial of Christ’s Deity?
Yeah right and people died to preserve the Gospel and the words of Christ. Including the apostles. I don’t want what your smoking bart.
Yawn. Spinozist claptrap.
Thanks. They go to church and pray regularly.
(Had a long reply, deleted all but the above)
So send in freepmail ... I’m a thick-skinned old boy.
Also Professors of Criminology should not be criminals
3All things were made and came into existence through Him; and without Him was not even one thing made that has come into being.
4In Him was Life, and the Life was the Light of men.
5And the Light shines on in the darkness, for the darkness has never overpowered it [put it out or absorbed it or appropriated it, and is unreceptive to it]".
Jesus is God, God is from the Beginning, Jesus Is the Same Yesterday, Today, and Forever! He knows all the languages from the beginning of time! He created them!
Revealing the Hidden
Contradictions in the Bible
(And Why We Don't Know About Them)
by Bart D. Ehrman
Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (Unabridged)by Bart D. Ehrman Narrated by Jason Culp Avg. Customer Rating:
(based on 40 reviews) List Price : $39.99Audible.com Price :$27.99Promotional Price* :$20.99You Save :$7.00
I linked the hardcover, kindle, and audible editions in my earlier post. The Amazon search is what was talking about. :’)
Thanks. I’d seen it earlier. No basis for having founded America, eh?
Also when he was asked if homosexuality was a sin, he could not make himself say it was. He could only say that homosexuality “is not God`s best”.
He waffles on the Christian social issues, abortion etc. Much like Rick Warren who says, “yes I am pro life but” Neither one of them has the guts to come right out and say what they believe. I have no use for either one of them. They really have no right to complain about the Supreme Court, they are complicit with Obama IMHO
Allegedly, claiming he was God, although when Pilate asks him directly if he's the Messiah, he replies that "that's what they say."
If God is everywhere and everywhen, then ipso facto it cannot be possible to be separate from God.
If that is so, then the mythology of the New Testamanet story falls apart.
No, it's been pretty well documented that each of those books was written from 50 to 10-0 years after the fact. This is what Professor Ehrman is referring to when he calls tehm forgeries and frauds -- not that someone made them up, but forgeries by the standards of teh time, wherein they were attributed to people who were supposed eyewitnesses while being written by people half a century to a century after Jesus's time.
Dr. Ernest Holmes points out that there is a difference between "I am God" and "God is me." If God is everywehre, everywhen, then it's impossible to be separate from God.
Furthermore, since we know that "in the beginning" there was God and god alone, the only thing that all that we see could be made of is God-stuff because that's all there is.
You know, I'm reminded of a story told by the writer Ram Dass -- probably apocryphal, but to the point: He tells of going to visit his brotehr in the insane asylum. His brother says, "You know what I don't understand? I tell people I'm God and I'm in this asylum. You tell people you're God and you're the great Ram Dass."
And he replied, "he difference, dear brother, is that I tell them they are too."
Now recall Jesus saying (in Matthew), "You are the Light of the World."
This is forced overinterpretation. There is nothing to suggest that that verse refers in any way to Jesus.
“In the beginnign was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” All it says is that God was (and thus is) all that there was (and thus is) and that God’s Word gave rise to all creation. To interpret the verse the way you do requires a stretch of creative interpretation.
Jesus was a carpenter's son from Nazareth (out in the country.) he was not exactly a highly educated person (not that he needed to be.) I find it unlikely that he would have spoken four languages -- especially Greek.
Yeah, I’ve seen alot of that stuff and am not impressed that much by their scholarship. I wouldn’t call it well documented. Most of their arguments are pontificating assertions and the ‘most likely he was...’ speculation, not logic based on facts.
A great deal spoke some greek Greek back then because it was the trade language, much like English today. He may have not had much education, but by today’s pathetic standards it’d probably be equal to college level.
Why not? Because they are too cynical of criminology to be able to present it objectively? Yes, I agree.
BUDDY, Don’t you believe in the Trinity? The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are One? Are you even a Christian?May I ask what church if any that you attend?
“It took off primarily through the efforts of Constantine, who made it the official religion of the empire”
Only in part. Christianity had spread through about 20% of the Roman Empire before Constantine’s conversion. This kind of a spread from a non-militant religion that originated in the lower classes is historically unheard of.
“Christianity got a head start of over 600 years to Islam, yet Islam now has over 1.5 billion followers.”
True. And much of Islam’s spread has been by the sword. Some would argue the divine nature of Islam’s conquests as its proof.
My simple point is that a lower-class religion spread in a way that’s really unprecedented in history. It did so without armies, without power, and relatively without influence.
I have listened to Joel and Rick on many occasions, both of them are afraid to stand up and be counted. They both refused to condemn what Obama stands for. Be courageous like Franklin Graham, Dr Dobson etc. Rick Warren promoted Obama for President, IMHO he has blood on his hands.
Christianity is already defined in a vast number of differing ways by those who call themselves Christian.
Thought you might find this poster’s particular professions to be interesting ...
THIS is what I was referring to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.