5 kinds of Christians........

[Seabee1973]

It isn't something that has to do with belief. The universe is exponentially older than 6,000 years. The Bible is provably wrong on this matter.

Its not proivably wrong you believe its wrong

[Seabee1973]

What about some of the really extraordinary things like Jesus's divinity, his resurection, his miracles.......maybe these things were invented to teach a lesson. Should these things be taken literally when they are impossible?

What makes you think they are impossible?

[brandymac27]

Why does Craig (in Techboy's article he posted on the previous page) say that Ehrman lost faith in the Gospels b/c of one simple mistake? That's just not true. Ehrman himself wrote that he became agnostic b/c he had issues with the problems of good versus evil in the world.

It seems the more I read from Craig, the less respect I have for him. It's almost as if he'll do anything, including lie, to promote his ideas. Not good scholarship IMO.

ETA: Sorry, Craig says Ehrman lost faith in Christ, not the Gospels b/c of one minor mistake. But still...that's not true.

[Seabee1973]

If God truly wanted us to take everything literally and completely disregard context, how come Jesus communicated most of his teachings through parables?

Because a parable is an earthly story with a heavenly meaning.

One of teh versus actually explians it and the its funny the same thing that happened back then is still going on today. his disciples asked him why he did it and he told them the answer.

[Seabee1973]

Psalms 28:1

To you I call, O Lord my Rock...

No one takes the entire bible literally. Some passages are obviously metaphor like the passage above. Some passages are poetic, some are exaggeration for emphasis, some are "apocalyptic literature" written with political cartoon sensibilities, some are parables, etc.

And much of the bible is just story...meant to be taken literally.

Psalm 18:31 For who is God, but the LORD? And who is a rock, except our God,

Dueteronomy 32:18 "You neglected the Rock who begot you, And forgot the God who gave you birth

So the Lord is my rock and my shield

[alexey]

Here is what a historian has to say about how gospels were written.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p96.htm

The Gospels were written 35 to 65 years after Jesus' death -- 35 or 65 years after his death, not by people who were eyewitnesses, but by people living later. The Gospels were written by highly literate, trained, Greek-speaking Christians of the second and third generation. They're not written by Jesus' Aramaic-speaking followers. They're written by people living 30, 40, 50, 60 years later. Where did these people get their information from? I should point out that the Gospels say they're written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. But that's just in your English Bible. That's the title of these Gospels, but whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew didn't call it the Gospel of Matthew. Whoever wrote the Gospel of Matthew simply wrote his Gospel, and somebody later said it's the Gospel according to Matthew. Somebody later is telling you who wrote it. The titles are later additions. These are not eyewitness accounts. So where did they get their stories from?

After the days of Jesus, people started telling stories about him in order to convert others to the faith. They were trying to convert both Jews and Gentiles. How do you convert somebody to stop worshipping their God and to start worshipping Jesus? You have to tell stories about Jesus. So you convert somebody on the basis of the stories you tell. That person converts somebody who converts somebody who converts somebody, and all along the line people are telling stories.

The way it works is this: I'm a businessman in Ephesus, and somebody comes to town and tells me stories about Jesus, and on the basis of these stories I hear, I convert. I tell my wife these stories. She converts. She tells the next-door neighbor the stories. She converts. She tells her husband the stories. He converts. He goes on a business trip to Rome, and he tells people there the stories. They convert. Those people who've heard the stories in Rome, where did they hear them from? They heard them from the guy who lived next door to me. Well, was he there to see these things happen? No. Where'd he hear them from? He heard them from his wife. Where did his wife hear them from? Was she there? No. She heard them from my wife. Where did my wife hear them from? She heard them from me. Well, where did I hear them from? I wasn't there either.

[alexey]

(more from the same debate)

Stories are in circulation year after year after year, and as a result of that, the stories get changed. How do we know that the stories got changed in the process of transmission? We know the stories got changed because there are numerous differences in our accounts that cannot be reconciled with one another. You don't need to take my word for this; simply look yourself. I tell my students that the reason we don't notice there's so many differences in the Gospels is because we read the Gospels vertically, from top to bottom. You start at the top of Mark, you read through to the bottom, you start at the top of Matthew, read it through the bottom, sounds a lot like Mark, then you read Luke top to bottom, sounds a lot like Matthew and Mark, read John, a little bit different, sounds about the same. The reason is because we're reading them vertically.

The way to see differences in the Gospels is to read them horizontally. Read one story in Matthew, then the same story in Mark, and compare your two stories and see what you come up with. You come up with major differences. Just take the death of Jesus. What day did Jesus die on and what time of day? Did he die on the day before the Passover meal was eaten, as John explicitly says, or did he die after it was eaten, as Mark explicitly says? Did he die at noon, as in John, or at 9 a.m., as in Mark? Did Jesus carry his cross the entire way himself or did Simon of Cyrene carry his cross? It depends which Gospel you read. Did both robbers mock Jesus on the cross or did only one of them mock him and the other come to his defense? It depends which Gospel you read. Did the curtain in the temple rip in half before Jesus died or after he died? It depends which Gospel you read.

Or take the accounts of the resurrection. Who went to the tomb on the third day? Was it Mary alone or was it Mary with other women? If it was Mary with other women, how many other women were there, which ones were they, and what were their names? Was the stone rolled away before they got there or not? What did they see in the tomb? Did they see a man, did they see two men, or did they see an angel? It depends which account you read. What were they told to tell the disciples? Were the disciples supposed to stay in Jerusalem and see Jesus there or were they to go to Galilee and see Jesus there? Did the women tell anyone or not? It depends which Gospel you read. Did the disciples never leave Jerusalem or did they immediately leave Jerusalem and go to Galilee? All of these depend on which account you read.

You have the same problems for all of the sources and all of our Gospels. These are not historically reliable accounts. The authors were not eyewitnesses; they're Greek-speaking Christians living 35 to 65 years after the events they narrate. The accounts that they narrate are based on oral traditions that have been in circulation for decades. Year after year Christians trying to convert others told them stories to convince them that Jesus was raised from the dead. These writers are telling stories, then, that Christians have been telling all these years. Many stories were invented, and most of the stories were changed. For that reason, these accounts are not as useful as we would like them to be for historical purposes. They're not contemporary, they're not disinterested, and they're not consistent.

[alexey]

Obviously this whole process could have been guided by God, etc.

[brandymac27]

Here is what a historian has to say about how gospels were written.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p96.htm

And there will be some who say that 35-65 years isn't enough time for legendary development to take place, and that in the time span of only 35 years it's quite possible there were eye witnesses still alive.

Now, here's my issue: that the Gospels were written anywhere b/w 35-65 years after Jesus' death isn't necessarily a problem for me. I'm not debating that Mark could have been written even earlier either. My issue is that REGARDLESS of how early the Gospels were written, what we have TODAY are still not the originals.

I have read a bit on textual criticism and I know that most of the changes that were made are in fact very minor (though a few are questionable IMO). But, keep in mind, we are comparing copies of copies of (possibly) copies to what we have today. We cannot therefore say with any certainty that what the originals said are what we have today. We cannot compare those copies of copies, etc, to the originals to see how many errors there actually are and if those errors did in fact change the meaning of the texts b/c we don't have the originals.

So, regardless of how early the Gospels may have been written, we can still only compare our present day texts with mere copies. I have put a lot of thought into this and I have come to the conclusion that, despite all the fancy arguments, nobody can truthfully say that they know for sure that there are only a "few minor errors that don't change the meaning of the texts". You can only say this with 100% accuracy if you are holding the original in your hand, which is impossible.

[mardi gras skin]

I have read a bit on textual criticism and I know that most of the changes that were made are in fact very minor (though a few are questionable IMO). But, keep in mind, we are comparing copies of copies of (possibly) copies to what we have today. We cannot therefore say with any certainty that what the originals said are what we have today. We cannot compare those copies of copies, etc, to the originals to see how many errors there actually are and if those errors did in fact change the meaning of the texts b/c we don't have the originals.

What's your hypothesis? We have scores of manuscripts from all over the empire (before and after Constantine) sharing 98% of the exact same content. Looking at the content that they all agree on and throwing out the fraction of the texts that differ, we are left with the same message.

What leads you to doubt that content all these manuscripts share are accurate copies of the original? How do you account for their overwhelming agreement if they don't share the same source?

[Johnny Punani]

I'm in Group 1

However, I would add that any perceived errors by a reader who is a believer or a non-believer are the fault of the reader.

[TradeTheBeal!]

Group 7: Doin it for the money.

[mardi gras skin]

For who is God, but the LORD? And who is a rock, except our God

God is not literally a rock.

[brandymac27]

What's your hypothesis? We have scores of manuscripts from all over the empire (before and after Constantine) sharing 98% of the exact same content. Looking at the content that they all agree on and throwing out the fraction of the texts that differ, we are left with the same message.

What leads you to doubt that content all these manuscripts share are accurate copies of the original? How do you account for their overwhelming agreement if they don't share the same source?

I believe that there is no way to tell with 100% accuracy that, after discarding the texts that differ from the ones that are similar, we still have the true meaning of the original texts. Hypothetically, what if the texts that are different that have been unused are the closest to the originals? To me, there's a meaning in a difference. I have to ask questions about why there are differences in the first place. How do we know that certain scribes didn't change the texts to what we have now b/c of some bias that they themselves had? Scribes were made of flesh. They had their qualms just as we do.

The point I'm making isn't so much about the minute errors that don't really do anything to change the meaning of the texts. I'm talking mainly more about all the differences in the Gospels and why there are so many of them. IMO, the differences are telling us that either: 1-the original scribes did in fact have an agenda, 2- later scribes had an agenda as well or tried to possibly correct (in error) any mistakes previously made which actually distorted the true meaning of the texts even further.

All I'm saying is we don't know what the originals said, regardless of how early they were written. And, IMO, there is enough evidence to show that somewhere along the line of transmission/translation things were either intentionally or unintentionally changed.

[Seabee1973]

the original transcripts of mathew was in aramic the gospel of Luke was wriiten by the same person who wrote Acts was written before 70 AD, both are attributed to Luke

[Seabee1973]

God is not literally a rock.

not in that since he is not

[Destino]

Psalm 18:31 For who is God, but the LORD? And who is a rock, except our God,

Dueteronomy 32:18 "You neglected the Rock who begot you, And forgot the God who gave you birth

So the Lord is my rock and my shield

If you took that literally God would be a rock, like a pet rock, but larger I'd imagine. A super powerful pet rock.

[Destino]

not in that since he is not

Then you would be speaking figuratively and not literally.

[stevenaa]

So you're saying that FCs are immune to hypocrisy? :pfft:

"My hypocrisy only goes so far."

[sportjunkie07]

group 1, not a doubt in my mind... as i have grown older i have seen how real it actually is, the Bible is a "living word"

[Jumbo]

If you took that literally God would be a rock, like a pet rock, but larger I'd imagine. A super powerful pet rock.

A Rock of Ages.

Did I call this in post #67 or what? :pfft:

On a comedic note, to join the now-in-progress multi-track train ride, some friends were watching Religulous on Showtime last night and I caught Bill Maher's shtick about the matter of two of the four gospel's not mentioning the virgin birth--"probably because it really wasn't that big a deal."

He has some funny routines on this stuff.

Given the family history he presented in the film, it would be interesting to see where his mother and sister fit in the five categories.

I know Maher's not well-liked among many folks for the snarky aspects of his political/religious humor (he's really nicer than people give him credit for), and his remarks on such matters are certainly not intended to pass for serious scholarship (though they're not much more off at times than some work that gets cited as serious scholarship), but I still think the guy's damn funny and what I saw of the flick had it's entertaining moments. Of course, I liked Carlin and Lenny Bruce too.

Personally, I think we need more acerbic, irreverent, quality comedy ranters as tailgate posters.

And just for the "totally serial" side of the aisle, I seem to remember much of the material Bill presents in the movie having been dissected and many aspersion-casting comments well-challenged by scholars of faith, even if not all points refuted or all bones of contention pulverized.

(for the lazy--wiki is wiki--this page is not all that bad though IMO, and at least they give other links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_of_Jesus )

[Seabee1973]

Then you would be speaking figuratively and not literally.

Nope literally You have to understand thecontext of thew whole verse and the bible

[Pskins]

I'm in group #7.

Those who were raised in the Christian tradition but who now look at the world through a critical eye.

Group #1 people, IMHO, are completely batty. I know this may offend some here, I am not attacking you personally, but I really feel that way. People who willfully ignore scientific discovery and hard facts about how life and humans came about do it not out of religious fervor but out of fear. The deep fear that they might see the truth. That truth is that in the grand scheme of things in our universe, Humanity and the planet Earth don't mean squat. Many will disagree with me on this but mankind and our blue planet are not even bugs to the universe. We are nothing. That can be terrifying.

OK now flame away

[Enter Apotheosis]

Nope literally You have to understand thecontext of thew whole verse and the bible

You might want to consider amending your original position to better reflect what you're shooting for. As it stands, you're on the losing side of a semantic debate and it's not even a close contest. Might I recommend:

"I consider the word of the bible to be infallible. So far as I am concerned, there is certainly not room for (loose) human interpretation. However, I am smart enough to recognize allusion/metaphor/parable when I see it. I simply believe that, in context, even the Bible's figurative speech has absolute meaning."

I'm not positive that it properly reflects what you're shooting for... but at least it makes a little bit more sense and is hopefully headed in the right direction.

[Special K]

What about some of the really extraordinary things like Jesus's divinity, his resurection, his miracles.......maybe these things were invented to teach a lesson. Should these things be taken literally when they are impossible?

Yes, these I believe to be truths.

Because a parable is an earthly story with a heavenly meaning.

Ok then. You answer clearly indicates that you don't take every passage of the Bible literally.

Are you instead trying to communicate that you believe every word of the Bible to be correct and when people start doubting this, secularism creeps in? That would make more sense to me as you have clearly demonstrated that you do not take every story in the Bible literally.

If this is true, I can see your point. I believe that the inaccuracies found in the Bible to be a product of major time lapses beween the writings of books, the fact that the books were written by several different authors, and the fact that language translations can contribute to erosion of the exact, original meanings.

That being said, I do not feel as though these discrepancies prove the Bible is flat out wrong or even wrong in some parts. I think they are very minor side issues that detract people's attention from the primary message of the Bible and cause them to doubt. Bottom line, just because there are discrepencies doesn't not make the Bible untrue. Rather, the discrepancies prove that the Bible has many authors, was written over an large time frame, and has gone through minor distortions in the translation process.