Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: DREDIOCK on March 16, 2006, 07:40:29 AM
-
Seagoon, Have you read it yet?
Looks like an interesting read
Scholar Bart Ehrman's new book explores how scribes -- through both omission and intention -- changed the Bible. Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why is the result of years of reading the texts in their original languages.
Ehrman says the modern Bible was shaped by mistakes and intentional alterations that were made by early scribes who copied the texts. In the introduction to Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman writes that when he came to understand this process 30 years ago, it shifted his way of thinking about the Bible. He had been raised as an Evangelical Christian.
Misquoting Jesus (http://www.harpercollins.com/global_scripts/product_catalog/book_xml.asp?isbn=0060738170)
-
The author was on the Daily Show the other night.
Sounds interesting.
-
Until Mr. Peabody invents the "way back machine" it will be impossible to determine the validity of any quote for certain.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
The author was on the Daily Show the other night.
Sounds interesting.
Loved it when Stewart said "It's a Helluva book."
-
Actually he said there was evidence that proved that one of the stories about Jesus never happened..
unfortunately I forget which story it was.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Actually he said there was evidence that proved that one of the stories about Jesus never happened..
unfortunately I forget which story it was.
John 8:7
-
Howdy Dred,
Sorry about the delay in replying, I just got back from a 3 day conference in SC so this is my first chance to read the AH BB in serveral days.
In answer to your question, I haven't read Ehrman's latest book. Actually, I first heard about it late last month on Al Mohler's Radio Show (http://www.albertmohler.com/radio_show.php?cdate=2006-02-22) when a caller asked about it roughly 15 minutes into the show (Mohler is the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary).
While I don't know the book, I do know of the author, Bart Ehrman. Ehrman is a prof. at UNC Chapel Hill. His history is almost exactly the reverse of mine, he was initially inclined towards fundamentalism, and attended two evangelical colleges, but gradually grew more and more skeptical towards the claims of the Christian faith until he abandoned Christianity entirely. He now describes himself as an agnostic, although given his rejection of the truth claims of the Christian faith, and embracing of the entire higher critical agenda, I think atheist would be more accurate. I on the other hand attended secular schools and started out as an utter skeptic about Christianity, rejecting its historicity until my conversion in 1993. Unlike Ehrman, I have no doubts about the historicity of the New Testament (NT).
To tell the truth, I don't have plans to read Ehrman's new book as it doesn't seem to differ much from most of his earlier works (except in the sense of being more comprehensive and aimed at the popular market), and he isn't advancing anything that hasn't already been put forward many times since the late 19th century, most notably of late by the Jesus Seminar, and I've had my fill of "Jesus as Legend, Gospel as Kerygma" type of books. I'll be frank that I also have a tight reading schedule at the moment as I'm putting together the bibliography for my own Th.D thesis and (godwilling) associated book, which with the reading I do for sermons, bible studies, means I'll be "booked" till roughly 2009.
I did a brief write-up on the accuracy and historicity of the NT in a reply to Sandman located here (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=164124&perpage=40&highlight=New%20Testament&pagenumber=4) the link I reference there is still one of the best "quick" summaries of evidence for the reliability of the New Testament Scriptures (http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/habermas-nt.html).
Anyway, if you are looking for some readable replies to "modern" skeptical critiques of the New Testament, the following books are all good resources written by NT scholars:
Jesus Under Fire (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0310211395/ref=pd_kar_gw_1/104-4605608-7675905?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155)
The Historical Jesus (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0899007325/ref=pd_cpt_gw_1/104-4605608-7675905?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155)
The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802822193/ref=pd_cpt_gw_2/104-4605608-7675905?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155)
Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1565630378/qid=1142566117/sr=1-8/ref=sr_1_8/104-4605608-7675905?s=books&v=glance&n=283155)
If you've already read Ehrman, you might want to try one of the above in order to weigh the Christian reply in the balance.
Good to hear from you. See you in the MA - be looking for the Rook Key Lime Pie LA5. ;)
- SEAGOON
-
Seagoon, you go to Southeastern Baptist Seminary?
-
Hi Clevman,
No, I graduated from Westminster Theological Seminary (http://www.wts.edu), went to the University of St. Andrews before that.
- SEAGOON
-
Seagoon-- if you don't mind me asking, did your conversion occur in close proximity to your marriage?
-
Hi Phookat,
Interesting question. Yes, but the two were only peripherally related. Neither I, nor my wife were evangelical Christians at the time of our marriage and we were married in a very theologically liberal church pastored by a man who didn't believe the word of the bible.
Both of us, however were being brought to "an end of ourselves" at that point in our lives, so our conversion was almost simultaneous. My wife was actually very convicted that she was in the process of marrying a man who was sunk in paganism and the occult and who had no relationship to Christianity whatsoever (she had been raised nominally Christian.) This actually provoked a crisis in her at that time, because she began to realize how far she was from God and sensed she was continuing to go further and further away. She also realized, long before I did, that she was marrying someone whose moral convictions were firmly planted in mid-air, who wasn't constrained by anything other than "I will do whatever seems right in my own eyes" and whose word ultimately wasn't worth very much. This dovetailed with my own realization that I wasn't "a good person" as I had always convinced myself, and that if there was a heaven, I certainly wasn't worthy of entrance into it. Also, for the first time in my life I was being forced to really grapple with the question "What's the big deal about Jesus?" The answer to that came for me when I first realized the true import of verses in the bible like John 3:36 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%203:36&version=50) and Romans 3:21-26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%203:21-26;&version=50;)
For someone who had been studying religions uniformly made up of "do", the message of "done" was like the lifting off of a heavy burden.
- SEAGOON
-
Interesting. Reason I ask is, I have a bunch of friends in my circle who were pretty hardcore Christians. Some of them started reading books on both sides of the Historical Jesus debate, such as the books you mention above, as well as authors such as Elaine Pagels, or the book by Earl Doherty here (http://home.ca.inter.net/oblio/home.htm). Those who looked into it ended up being convinced by Pagels and other authors--but the kicker is, all of them were (and are) unmarried. Those of my Christian friends who got married stayed religious, usually refusing to consider the question at all or look at books by the likes of Pagels.
-
Seagoon, do you still have an accent?
-
Hi Phookat,
Originally posted by phookat
Interesting. Reason I ask is, I have a bunch of friends in my circle who were pretty hardcore Christians. Some of them started reading books on both sides of the Historical Jesus debate, such as the books you mention above, as well as authors such as Elaine Pagels, or the book by Earl Doherty here (http://home.ca.inter.net/oblio/home.htm). Those who looked into it ended up being convinced by Pagels and other authors--but the kicker is, all of them were (and are) unmarried. Those of my Christian friends who got married stayed religious, usually refusing to consider the question at all or look at books by the likes of Pagels.
Prior to becoming a Christian, I was a practicing occultist and while I had done quite a bit of reading on religions and sects generally. The interesting thing is that the majority of reading I did on other religions (aside from the text book and history of religion variety) where books written by apologists for those religions. So for instance, when I read on Hinduism, I went back to the Vedas and then read books on Hinduism by supporters and promoters of that religion. The same was true of Islam, Buddhism, etc. I was generally either intrigued by those religions or was an open admirer of them, and often did the post-modern "integration" of parts of their worldview into my own. So for instance, I adopted the Hindu and Buddhist belief in reincarnation.
However, when it came to Christianity, I had an openly antagonistic view. I hated Christianity and consequently, all of my reading regarding Christianity tended to be critiques, criticisms, and reinterpretations. So for instance, I gobbled up books like Hone's "Lost Books of the Bible" and "Holy Blood, Holy Grail." I was totally uninterested in reading books that supported orthodox Christianity and was not open to arguments for it.
After my conversion in 1993, I still read some of the books highly critical of Christianity, initialy at least because friends and some family members were desperately trying to get me to "go back" so for instance, I was given a copy of Karen Armstrong's "A History of God" as soon as it came out. I have continued to read "anti-Christian" books simply because of the need to be able to respond intelligently to them. So, while I have not read Bart Ehrman's newest book, I seriously doubt it will have much that he hasn't already put into other works like Lost Scriptures and Lost Christianities which I am familiar with.
So, for me at least, the question of Christianity doesn't really have much to do with my marital status, although I can tell you that I am still married today because of the effects of my conversion on the way I live my life (since my marriage began there have been multiple opportunities to begin affairs, that I would have succumbed to otherwise, etc.) It has to do with a conviction that the Christian faith is true, which has been corroborated by my experience and strengthened by what I have read. Ultimately, its a question of heart change - regeneration as the Bible calls it.
And yeah, I'd read the Gnostic Gospels by Pagels prior to becoming a Christian.
- SEAGOON
-
I'd like to hear about John 8:7 from your point of view Seagoon. Have you seen the evidence that suggests it was added much later and is not in the original Greek texts?
Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
8:2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them.
8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
8:4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.
8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
8:8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
8:9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
Isn't it possible that a later scribe added this story as fact just because it teaches so well?
-
Howdy Thrawn,
Originally posted by Thrawn
Seagoon, do you still have an accent?
No I don't, everyone else does. ;)
But seriously, I came over to the states when I was 6, and worked hard to lose the "right propah" English accent (I wanted to fit in). Unfortunately, I succeeded.
-
There are an awful lot of Born Again Christians here. They live and breath the King James version of the bible. I love pointing out to them that the King James version is "so called" because King James took out the bits he didn't like.
:lol
-
I got a pocket sized New Testmaent outside of school a few weeks ago, unfortuneately it hurts my eyes to read the small text so I haven't read very much. Anyway, I totally agree with Maverick that no one will know the truth unless they invent a time travelling device. This religious talk is actually quite interesting, while I really can't say I enjoy going to church, especially Catholic church, I don't mind learning from others opinions. I had a question for Seagoon but I just forgot it.
Oh and my second cousin just renounced her Catholic faith, her parents aren't at all too happy, seeing as she was raised a devout Catholic. Shouldn't be surprising though, she does listen to music that is rather....anti religion, such as Slipknot. She was supposed to become a member of the church this year and she said she doesn't believe in God, double whammy.
P.S. I love the MySpace bulletins that end with something to the tune of "Jesus said 'if you deny my father I will deny you before him" or something like that. That coming from people who must put a false heading on it so people will actually read what they have to say about Jesus. Before I start ranting about that i'm off. Carry on.
-
Hi Nirvana,
Originally posted by nirvana
I got a pocket sized New Testmaent outside of school a few weeks ago, unfortuneately it hurts my eyes to read the small text so I haven't read very much.
Send me your address in a PM and I'll send you a durable bible with readable print gratis. :)
Tell me if you'd prefer a study bible (with expositional notes from bible scholars at the bottom of the page) or a smaller leather bound bible without notes.
I'll extend that same offer to everyone.
PS: I agree that "Spamming for Christ" is obnoxious as well as counterproductive. Usually has more to do with the ego of the individual unfortunately.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
So for instance, I adopted the Hindu and Buddhist belief in reincarnation.
Intriguing. At the time you were a Hindu, did you believe in the historical reality of the Mahabharata and Ramayana, as well as the other Puranas?
-
Hi MT,
Originally posted by midnight Target
I'd like to hear about John 8:7 from your point of view Seagoon. Have you seen the evidence that suggests it was added much later and is not in the original Greek texts?
Isn't it possible that a later scribe added this story as fact just because it teaches so well?
My fear is that this conversation is going to quickly get outside the scope of dialogue that this forum can usefully handle, and I just don't have enough time at present to get into what might become a highly technical discussion. That said, I'll try to answer your question.
First off, Evangelicals Christians do indeed believe in the doctrine of the inspiration of scripture, i.e. the idea that all the scriptures are nothing less than the Word of God as Paul put it in 2 Tim 3:16-17
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." The word inspired there is theopneustos literally meaning "God Breathed." Because scripture is the Word of God, who is Himself infallible, it is inerrant.
But the doctrine of inerrancy applies only to the original autographs, the original copies of the scripture. We would concede that copyists occasionally made errors, and that certain ancient copies of the Bible are less reliable than others. However, this does not mean that because we do not have copies of the original manuscripts, we cannot reliably reconstruct them. As Dr. Morton Smith points out in his Systematic Theology -
"As to the preservation of the original, Kenyon says:
The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church is so large, that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world.
The careful use of textual study enables us to reconstruct the original text on the order of 999 words out of every 1,000. In the New Testament there are only 375 variations that bear on the meaning of the passages, and even here there is no change of a doctrine, precept or fact.
Though the situation of the Old Testament differs from the New, there is reason for a similar confidence in it. Gleason Archer concludes his chapter on the textual criticism of the Old Testament with the following statement:
In conclusion we should accord to the Masoretes the highest praise for their meticulous care in preserving so sedulously all the consonantal text of the Sopherim which had been entrusted to them. They together with the Sopherim themselves gave the most diligent attention to accurate preservation of the Hebrew Scriptures that has ever been devoted to any ancient literature, secular or religious, in the history of human civilization.. Because of their faithfulness, we have today a form of the Hebrew text which in all essentials duplicates the recension which was considered authoritative in the days of Christ and the apostles, if not a century earlier. And this in turn, judging from Qumran evidence, goes back to an authoritative revision of the Old Testament text which was drawn up on the basis of the most reliable manuscripts available for collation from previous centuries. These bring us very close in all essentials to the original autographs themselves, and furnish us with an authentic record of God’s revelation.
Again Sir Frederick Kenyon says:
The Christian can take the whole Bible in his hand and say without fear or hesitation that he holds in it the true Word of God, handed down without essential loss from generation to generation, throughout the centuries.
[Morton H. Smith, Systematic Theology, Vol.1, 1999, GPTS Press]
So for instance, we have fragments of the Gospel of John that date back to the beginning of the 2nd century (roughly 110 AD), and we find no great difference between those fragments and the modern translations of the gospel of John into English that we read. Certainly no differences that would affect the theology of the bible.
Now regarding John 7:53-8:11 there have long been concerns amongst evangelicals as to whether this was a part of John's original manuscript, Calvin himself wrote in the 15th century:
It is plain enough that this passage was unknown anciently to the Greek Churches; and some conjecture that it has been brought from some other place and inserted here. But as it has always been received by the Latin Churches, and is found in many old Greek manuscripts, and contains nothing unworthy of an Apostolic Spirit, there is no reason why we should refuse to apply it to our [spiritual]advantage. [Calvin, Commentary on John]
So this is no "new controversy" discovered by Ehrman, in fact most of his previous works are a rehashing and popularization of old controversies. New garments cut from old fabric so to speak.
Ultimately, while I doubt that the story itself was originally placed where it currently resides in John, I have no doubt that it was authentic, apostolic, and original rather than the whole-cloth creation of a later scribe.
Therefore I agree with Hendriksen when he writes:
"Much has been written with respect to the authenticity of this story. Is it to be considered a genuine part of the Fourth Gospel written (or at least dictated) by the apostle John? Also, regardless of whether John himself wrote it, does it belong in the Bible, or should it be removed from Scripture? In answer to the first question it should be clearly stated that the facts at our disposal do not enable us to declare definitely that the apostle himself wrote or dictated this account. As to the second, it is our conviction that these same facts indicate that no attempt should be made to remove this portion from Holy Writ.
(I'll include his factual reasoning regarding John 7:53-8:11) in the next post)
Our final conclusion, then, is this: though it cannot now be proved that this story formed an integral part of the Fourth Gospel, neither is it possible to establish the opposite with any degree of finality. We believe, moreover, that what is here recorded really took place, and contains nothing that is in conflict with the apostolic spirit. Hence, instead of removing this section from the Bible it should be retained and used for our benefit. Ministers should not be afraid to base sermons upon it! On the other hand, all the facts concerning the textual evidence should be made known!"
- SEAGOON
-
MT,
The Pro and Con evidence that I had to snip from the William Hendriksen quote is quite compelling, here is what he wrote regarding John 7:53-8:11
"The facts, then, are as follows:
1. The story contains several words which do not occur elsewhere in any of John’s writings. This, however, is not entirely decisive.
2. The oldest and best manuscripts (Aleph, A, B, L, N, W) do not have this story. It makes its first appearance in Codex Bezae. It is found in the later uncials (the so-called Koine text) and the cursives based upon them. Thus it found its way into the A.V. The A.R.V. has the story, but places it between brackets, and states in the margin: “Most of the ancient authorities omit John 7:53–8:11. Those which contain it vary much from each other.” Some manuscripts place it at the close of the Fourth Gospel and some (the Ferrar cursives) after Luke 21:38.
3. Some of the old Latin witnesses (a, f, g) and also the Syriac sin., Syriac cur., Pe****o, as well as the Sahidic (Upper Egypt), Armenian, and Gothic translations omit this portion. Moreover, the Greek expositors Origen, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Nonnus, and Theophylact fail to comment on it. It is found here (i.e., between 7:52 and 8:12) in some Old Latin witnesses (b, c, e, ff, j), in the Vulgate, and in the Palestinian Syriac translation.
Now, if there were no additional information with respect to this paragraph, the evidence in its favor would be very weak, indeed. We are not at all surprised that A. T. Robertson regards it as a marginal gloss which through a scribal error crept into the text.17 Lenski expresses himself in no uncertain language, regards it as spurious, and omits it completely from his exposition. E. J. Goodspeed considers it an anecdote which should be omitted.
4. However, the matter is not simple by any means. There are facts which point in the opposite direction:
The story fits very well into the present context. It can be viewed as serving to prepare for and to elucidate the discourse of the Lord in 8:12 ff. Let it be borne in mind that this woman had been walking in moral darkness. It is probable that Jesus dispelled her darkness. So, we are not surprised to read in verse 12: “I am the light of the world.”
5. The Christ as pictured here (7:53–8:11) is entirely “in character”: as he is described here so he is also pictured elsewhere. Here is the Savior who came not to condemn but to save, and who actually did save such persons as the woman of Lk. 7, the Samaritan woman, publicans, sinners. Here the One who told the touching parable of “the prodigal son” is shown in the act of revealing his tender mercy to a prodigal daughter. And the scribes and Pharisees, too, are “in character.” These men who had shown very clearly that they cared more for their own sabbath-regulations than for the total recovery of the paralytic at the pool (ch. 5) reveal their utter lack of human consideration in the case of this woman.
6. Papias, a disciple of the apostle John, seems to have known this story and to have expounded it. Says Eusebius: “The same writer (Papias) has expounded another story about a woman who was accused before the Lord of many sins, which the Gospel according to the Hebrews contains” (Ecclesiastical History III, xxxix, 17). It would seem, therefore, that Papias already knew this story, that he regarded it of sufficient importance for exposition, but that he did not find it in John’s Gospel. Was it never there, or had it been removed for certain reasons?
7. Augustine has stated definitely that certain individuals had removed from their codices the section regarding the adulteress, because they feared that women would appeal to this story as an excuse for their infidelity (De adulterinis conjugiis II, vii). Closely connected with this is the fact that asceticism played an important role in the sub-apostolic age. Hence, the suggestion that the section (7:53–8:11) was at one time actually part of John’s Gospel but had been removed from it cannot be entirely dismissed."
[Hendriksen, W., & Kistemaker, S. J. 1953-2001. Vol. 1-2: New Testament commentary : Exposition of the Gospel According to John. Accompanying biblical text is author's translation. New Testament Commentary . Baker Book House: Grand Rapids]
-
Seagoon,
Thank you, very interesting stuff. To me at least. I agree the pro-con evidence that you provided is compelling, but I am afraid I find it compelling completely opposite to how you meant it.
It seems to boil down to "It isn't in the oldest texts, but it sounds so right it has to be true." I agree, it is a great teaching tool regarding judgment and forgiveness, but it is probably a great tool introduced by a very smart scribe.
So imagine it is proven it is not the words of John. Does that reduce the power of the scripture?
-
Hi Again MT,
Originally posted by midnight Target
Seagoon,
Thank you, very interesting stuff. To me at least. I agree the pro-con evidence that you provided is compelling, but I am afraid I find it compelling completely opposite to how you meant it.
It seems to boil down to "It isn't in the oldest texts, but it sounds so right it has to be true." I agree, it is a great teaching tool regarding judgment and forgiveness, but it is probably a great tool introduced by a very smart scribe.
So imagine it is proven it is not the words of John. Does that reduce the power of the scripture?
The issue is not so much whether it is the words of John, the critical issue is did the event actually happen? It doesn't matter so much who recorded it, after all 2 of the gospels, Luke and Mark, weren't written by Apostles. If it is a testimony written by Luke (whose style of writing it closely follows) and inserted later into John by a copyist, we don't really have a problem. But if it didn't happen, it shouldn't be in modern translations of the bible. I have a few friends in the ministry who do take that view, and as a result they don't preach on John 7:53-8:11.
For the Christian what is paramount about the NT is its historicity, because the NT is not a stringing together of morality tales, it is a intended to be an eyewitness account of the events of redemption - most importantly the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That is why Peter wrote regarding the importance of leaving a written record of the things the Apostles had seen and done:
"Moreover I will be careful to ensure that you always have a reminder of these things after my decease. For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (2 Peter 1:15-21)
If the New Testament was all myths, "cunningly devised fables" then even the Apostles knew that their record would be a pack of lies that far from being useful would put believers in a pitiful condition, that is why Paul wrote:
"But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up -- if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable."
That is why Paul preceded that paragraph with evidences for the resurrection that the Corinthians would have been aware of (1 Cor. 15:1-12 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20cor.%2015:1-12&version=50)), and could actually put to the test by asking witnesses. Peter does the same thing in preaching, he actually refers to the miracles that the Jerusalem crowd had witnessed in his address (Acts 2:22-40 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts%202:22-40;&version=50;)), had they not occurred he would have been laughed to scorn rather than producing thousands of converts. And that fact can't be denied, thousands of people in Jerusalem who were in a position to know the truth of these events became Christians soon after the crucifixion of Christ.
Anywho, the point is that whether or not we think that John 7:53-8:11 should be included in our translations of the gospel according to John, the confidence Christians have in the reliabilty of the bible and the Gospel of John shouldn't be shaken.
-
Hi Phookat,
Originally posted by phookat
Intriguing. At the time you were a Hindu, did you believe in the historical reality of the Mahabharata and Ramayana, as well as the other Puranas?
I would never have described myself as a Hindu. I didn't worship any of the Hindu Gods and I never actually attended a Hindu temple. I studied the teachings of the religion and borrowed concepts from it that appealed to me, while dismissing others that didn't (such as Vegetarianism).
It's difficult now to remember what I believed about the legendary books like the Bhagavad Gita, that's probably because I spent a lot of that era either drunk or stoned and I'm missing some brain cells that would help me to recall, its easier to remember what I felt about the more philosophical works like the Upanishads. I remember thinking that they had tapped into some "deep higher truths" because what I was reading resonated with me. In the case of the Ramayana I don't believe I cared whether the events had literally happened (although I probably thought that Rama really was an avatar of Vishnu) but that the important thing was that there was a spiritual message that was taught by example.
Really, I was just adding it all to an amorphous web of loosely connected spirituality that ultimately helped no one, least of all me. I might just as well have been Homer Simpson attempting to feed peanuts to Ganesh. Above all, as with the other religions I had tinkered with, it was just a post-modern arrogant Westerner picking and choosing whatever would allow him to remain at the center of the universe.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I'd like to hear about John 8:7 from your point of view Seagoon. Have you seen the evidence that suggests it was added much later and is not in the original Greek texts?
Jesus went unto the mount of Olives.
8:2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, ...
Actually in the original Aramaic, 8:2 reads that He went unto the mount of Olives and questioned,
"WTF is with all these olives?"
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Howdy Thrawn,
No I don't, everyone else does. ;)
But seriously, I came over to the states when I was 6, and worked hard to lose the "right propah" English accent (I wanted to fit in). Unfortunately, I succeeded.
To bad, your Christmas sermons are much better when I picture you saying, "The wee bairn Jaysus". ;)
-
FWIW, when I was in the States I chanced upon an early-morning TV program featuring a linguistics prof (I think from Stanford) who discusses Greek and Hebrew scriptures and their translation.
-
as i could not find a religion i agreed with, i was inspired by god to create my own religion.
i asked god if i should convert others to my new religion, and god said," don't bother, they won't believe you anyway, they will just mock and scorn you".
who is to say i am wrong and they are right?
-
Interesting how some people believe that they are the rare individual that has considered reviewing the original texts with the current best understanding of ancient languages. Sheesh. When Randy White died, I read an article where his widow said he was re-translating the Bible and his findings would shake the foundations of Christianity. Oh, please.
Men of faith have always pursued the truth regarding the Scriptures. All Christians, Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant, have a vested interest. Duh. This work is non-stop and on-going. It has gone on for centuries. The current discussion in this forum has been played and replayed over and over century after century by people who know what they're talking about. This guy has nothing new to offer.
I think it was St. Augustine who said that he doubted the faith of anyone who said they had never doubted their own faith. For most of us, it's that period of teenage rebellion. Like stupid haircuts and clothes, we finally outgrow it.
HONK!
Gooss
-
Gooss-- I think you may be underestimating the historicity studies that have gone on recently. When you say "Men of faith" have studied this, you are already skewing your outcome. Men of faith have a vested interest in proving their faith, just like the other way around. If your questioning was just like stupid haircuts and clothes for you, then I doubt you put any serious or objective acedemic thought into the question.
john9001-- Indeed. It is impossible to disprove the idea of God. After all, God is all-powerful. He could have changed all the historical records subtly (and pre-buried all the dinosaur bones) to allow all the scholars to prove that Zeus and Odin and Jupiter and Moses never existed, even though they all actually did exist just as he revealed in all of his divine scriptures. In fact I could believe that the entire universe was created two seconds ago, and everything that you thought existed before that (dinosaurs, Jesus, and even your immediate memory of reading this thread) never existed or happened, but is a result of the positioning of individual quarks in all our brains. There is of course no way for you to disprove this--it is entirely possible and just as likely as any other faith.