Why hasn't Jesus come back yet?

[Grumpy Old Man]

Yes, we have previously established that you can be quite good at giving out pat answers to questions that were never asked.

Care to actually engage the conversation and actually be responsive to what was said, or no?

Did you read the whole post, or just that one bit? I actually recall spending some considerable time writing out a measured and detailed response of slightly more than one short sentence.

As I said, take it up with Ehrman. I see no reason to doubt him. He's a University Professor (and a distinguished one too). Your anger should be directed toward him for writing his book, not me for reading it and choosing to believe it.

As for why I don't believe forged works should be considered "scripture", I think that should be obvious. Whoever wrote them did so to put forward their own doctrines in the name of famous Apostles so they would be more widely read. Who's going to read a book by a nobody? But if you put an Apostle's name on it, Christians will pay attention. And it's worked. The forgeries in the NT have sat there for thousands of years while Christians fight and squabble over how to interpret them. You know, perhaps if the forgeries were taken out the NT might have less contradictions in it and would reduce the squabbling.

As for you, seeing as your so upset by what I've been saying, can give me one good reason to accept these forgeries as Scripture.

I suspect you'll never get around to reading Ehrman's book, and instead will continue to take it out on me, so I'll say this; I'm no expert on the Bible. I just pick up books and read them when I can, based on whether their topic interests me (hence how I found Ehrman's book in the first place). I'm a seeker of truth based on evidence. And if that evidence shows that there are some books in the Bible that shouldn't be there, I'll go with that until I find better evidence that shows otherwise. I will go wherever the evidence leads.

I think sometimes you Christians expect us sceptics to have all the answers. If I had all the answers I wouldn't be on this forum asking questions all the time. My problem is that many of the answers you lot provide just don't fill in the gaps. So far the only person who has provided me with something tangible to work with is Hendrik, or whatever his name is.

 

[razeontherock]

Did you read the whole post, or just that one bit? I actually recall spending some considerable time writing out a measured and detailed response of slightly more than one short sentence.

As I said, take it up with Ehrman. I see no reason to doubt him. He's a University Professor (and a distinguished one too). Your anger should be directed toward him for writing his book, not me for reading it and choosing to believe it.

As for why I don't believe forged works should be considered "scripture", I think that should be obvious.

STILL NOT addressing what was said

Whether Paul actually wrote the Epistle, or not, has NO bearing on it being a "forgery." Neither does it have ANY bearing on whether it should be considered Scripture, or not.

This was abundantly clear from my previous post. You completely avoided addressing that. Why?

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

STILL NOT addressing what was said

Whether Paul actually wrote the Epistle, or not, has NO bearing on it being a "forgery." Neither does it have ANY bearing on whether it should be considered Scripture, or not.

This was abundantly clear from my previous post. You completely avoided addressing that. Why?

Because it's a dumb question. Again, read the book. 2 Thessalonians claims to be written by Paul. It was not. Ergo it is a forgery. Ehrman goes to great length to make sure that the reader understands that forgery was NOT considered an acceptable practice in ancient times. He gives several accounts, both inside and outside the church, of forgers who were punished for writing pseudonymous (forged) works in the name of other people. Forgery was NOT acceptable then, and it should not be acceptable now.

Let me put it this way, if someone who wasn't the real Apostle Paul wrote a book in Paul's name then were they not lying about their identity? Yes they were. So then, how can a forged work be considered valid scripture? It cannot because God, as the Bible says, is not a liar.

The great irony of the Biblical Canon is that it actually warns us to be wary of false teachings, and yet false teachings have made their way into scripture. The reason they are so hard to detect is because these false teachings sound so much like the real thing. The forgers were people who clearly wanted their own doctrines to be relayed to the Church. In the case of the Pastoral letters, the author (generally considered to be the same person, but not Paul) sought order within the church and wanted women to shut up during the services; only men were allowed authority in the church (which contradicts Paul himself and the other Apostles who seemed to hold Godly women in higher esteem than the author of the Pastoral Epistles - read Acts).

Remember, the Biblical Canon was mostly formed out of quiet consensus. Various works were accepted as being written by the Apostles, and by the time of the 4th Century, these works were accepted into the Canon. The more obvious writings, the Gnostic Gospels for example and the Acts of Paul and other such obvious works, were rejected because they were so clearly against what the majority of the church believed. And that's it in a nutshell; the Canon was accepted, ultimately, because of majority belief. Christians have some notion that, somehow, God magically made sure that the only books to be included in the Bible were the right ones. This just isn't the case. There are forgeries in the New Testament Canon and the Church has built doctrines on these forgeries for around 1800 years.

Again, read the book.

 

[athenken]

Because it's a dumb question. Again, read the book. 2 Thessalonians claims to be written by Paul. It was not. Ergo it is a forgery. Ehrman goes to great length to make sure that the reader understands that forgery was NOT considered an acceptable practice in ancient times. He gives several accounts, both inside and outside the church, of forgers who were punished for writing pseudonymous (forged) works in the name of other people. Forgery was NOT acceptable then, and it should not be acceptable now.

Let me put it this way, if someone who wasn't the real Apostle Paul wrote a book in Paul's name then were they not lying about their identity? Yes they were. So then, how can a forged work be considered valid scripture? It cannot because God, as the Bible says, is not a liar.

The great irony of the Biblical Canon is that it actually warns us to be wary of false teachings, and yet false teachings have made their way into scripture. The reason they are so hard to detect is because these false teachings sound so much like the real thing. The forgers were people who clearly wanted their own doctrines to be relayed to the Church. In the case of the Pastoral letters, the author (generally considered to be the same person, but not Paul) sought order within the church and wanted women to shut up during the services; only men were allowed authority in the church (which contradicts Paul himself and the other Apostles who seemed to hold Godly women in higher esteem than the author of the Pastoral Epistles - read Acts).

Remember, the Biblical Canon was mostly formed out of quiet consensus. Various works were accepted as being written by the Apostles, and by the time of the 4th Century, these works were accepted into the Canon. The more obvious writings, the Gnostic Gospels for example and the Acts of Paul and other such obvious works, were rejected because they were so clearly against what the majority of the church believed. And that's it in a nutshell; the Canon was accepted, ultimately, because of majority belief. Christians have some notion that, somehow, God magically made sure that the only books to be included in the Bible were the right ones. This just isn't the case. There are forgeries in the New Testament Canon and the Church has built doctrines on these forgeries for around 1800 years.

Again, read the book.

I am curious. Why do you care so much about the integrity of the bible if you are an agnostic?

 

[Faulty]

As I said, take it up with Ehrman. I see no reason to doubt him. He's a University Professor (and a distinguished one too).

Ummm, so?

What does that matter?

He's also written a book on what he considers contradictions in the scriptures, which anyone who understands what he's reading could answer. He shows himself as a man of shoddy understanding in the scriptures themselves. He can claim to be an expert in the things about the scriptures, but he's certainly no expert of the scriptures.

Therefore, I'd consider the foundation of his work as highly questionable.

 

[razeontherock]

Because it's a dumb question. Again, read the book. 2 Thessalonians claims to be written by Paul.

As far as DUMB goes, what we're talking about starts out this way:

2Th 1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians"

So clearly, no it does not claim to be written by Paul. Now, you were saying?

Ehrman goes to great length to make sure that the reader understands that forgery was NOT considered an acceptable practice in ancient times.

He's a blathering idiot that seemingly has no clue what a "scribe" is. Your pre-occupation over who actually wrote it is irrelevant.

false teachings have made their way into scripture.

You do realize that you have repeatedly demonstrated the inability to clarify even the most basic of doctrines? How would you possibly be in a position to know what you state here?

And that's it in a nutshell; the Canon was accepted, ultimately, because of majority belief.

"Canon" is a new term, that has little bearing on historical Christianity. You might try getting your facts straight someday. Just an idea.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

As far as DUMB goes, what we're talking about starts out this way:

2Th 1:1 Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians"

So clearly, no it does not claim to be written by Paul. Now, you were saying?

So because he names some people, it makes the letter genuine?

He's a blathering idiot that seemingly has no clue what a "scribe" is. Your pre-occupation over who actually wrote it is irrelevant.

Firstly, calling a Professor a blathering idiot, just because he says something you don't like, is a direct ad hominem. You use ad hominems a little too frequently, and it usually happens when you have run out of steam and can no longer present a solid case against what I'm saying.

Secondly, Erhman addresses the scribe issue in his book.

Thirdly, my preoccupation may seem irrelevant to you, but it concerns me greatly. If a book in the Bible is a forgery then it cannot be considered the Word of God. I fail to understand how this does not concern you. Your religion is based on the Bible, and now you claim not to care what's actually in it?

Fourthly, Ehrman's book isn't solely Ehrman's own opinions. His work is actually based on the work of others for the last two centuries. He lists his sources in the book, and mentions them quite frequently. He also mentions his own studies and how he has changed his mind over the authorship of some of the Epistles.

You do realize that you have repeatedly demonstrated the inability to clarify even the most basic of doctrines? How would you possibly be in a position to know what you state here?

Again, an ad hominem. Against myself this time. Apparently, everyone but Raze is an idiot who doesn't understand anything. I'll admit, Raze, that I don't know everything. I've said this many times. I'm no expert. But I read a lot, probably more than you.

The only arguments I've heard against the idea that Paul didn't write those Epistles is from Evangelical sources (such as Study Bible intros to the aforementioned Epistles), and the arguments are quite weak. The arguments for the notion that Paul didn't write those Epistles include such things as language analysis, contextual settings, datings, comparisons with Paul's other writings, etc.

Also, I've never actually known you to clarify any doctrines either. Never. You write little bits here and there that imply you understand something, but when pressed about a matter, you always shy away and you've never once defined what you believe or know. Either this is because you yourself don't quite know what you believe, or you don't have any real answers to offer. I suspect it's a little bit of both. There are very, very few occasions when your posts actually have some real "meat" in them. I can only assume that you are exactly what you accuse me of; someone who doesn't know what they're talking about. So perhaps we have more in common than you realise.

"Canon" is a new term, that has little bearing on historical Christianity. You might try getting your facts straight someday. Just an idea.

Now this is irrelevant. What's in the Canon, or whatever you want to call it, is what matters.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

I am curious. Why do you care so much about the integrity of the bible if you are an agnostic?

Because if it is the word of God, I would like to know for sure. If I didn't care about this matter, I wouldn't be on a Christian forum asking questions and mostly getting insults for answers. This is quite possibly the most un-Christian Christian forum on the internet. The only reason I come here is because it appears to be the most populated (and the top Google result) and I'm likely to get the most answers. I did try a Baptist forum a while back, but they didn't accept my registration because I was agnostic. They clearly had no desire to fulfil the Great Commission.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Ummm, so?

What does that matter?

He's also written a book on what he considers contradictions in the scriptures, which anyone who understands what he's reading could answer. He shows himself as a man of shoddy understanding in the scriptures themselves. He can claim to be an expert in the things about the scriptures, but he's certainly no expert of the scriptures.

Therefore, I'd consider the foundation of his work as highly questionable.

Well, like I said, take it up with him. I'm sure you can e-mail him or write him a letter with your objections.

I've read the book you mentioned above too. "Jesus, Interrupted" I think it was.

 

[athenken]

Because if it is the word of God, I would like to know for sure. If I didn't care about this matter, I wouldn't be on a Christian forum asking questions and mostly getting insults for answers. This is quite possibly the most un-Christian Christian forum on the internet. The only reason I come here is because it appears to be the most populated (and the top Google result) and I'm likely to get the most answers. I did try a Baptist forum a while back, but they didn't accept my registration because I was agnostic. They clearly had no desire to fulfil the Great Commission.

Point taken. However, part of being a Christian is believing that the Bible is the infallible word of God. It does not matter what "Professors" or "Experts" say about what their "research" indicates. It is all a matter of faith. If the Holy Spirit has opened your eyes all you need do is ask God to increase your faith and give you the ability to discern what is the truth and what is false.

 

[razeontherock]

So because he names some people, it makes the letter genuine?

You might at least TRY to keep up with the conversation. Your whole premise here is that Paul didn't write it, and you make a big brew ha ha out of it. It STATES that Paul didn't write it.

Surely you can connect the dots?

Firstly, calling a Professor a blathering idiot, just because he says something you don't like, is a direct ad hominem. You use ad hominems a little too frequently, and it usually happens when you have run out of steam and can no longer present a solid case against what I'm saying.

100% FALSE. You only pretend I ad hom, because you fail to grasp the content. Quoting this pompous heathen, you diss John because he most likely was illiterate. Which is all the proof we need to determine that the "Professor" (and I use the term loosely) is, indeed, a blathering idiot, with absolutely NO reason to opine on any Biblical subject.

Whether I happen to like what he says or not is irrelevant.

Secondly, Erhman addresses the scribe issue in his book.

Obviously not well enough to make a worthwhile comment, otherwise he wouldn't have steered you down that rabbit trail re: John.

Thirdly, my preoccupation may seem irrelevant to you, but it concerns me greatly. If a book in the Bible is a forgery

LOOK:

you have yet to even put forth a reasonable concept of authorship! Failure to do that has you obsessing over things that ARE irrelevant.

Next, a while back I asked you what would happen to Christian understanding if we omitted one book you questioned; 2 Timothy, I think. You never addressed that. Why?

It's NOT a "dumb question."

Next, you're not in a position to comment on ANY of this, because a true understanding of the NT is only to be had by a deeper understanding of the OT, which you admittedly don't fathom. So you are the blind leading the blind into the ditch.

And when you come to a true understanding of the OT, you come to recognize that Paul didn't make ANYTHING up - it was all there all along! He's simply independent verification of it.

In fact, the only "new Christian doctrine" anybody came up with, was PETER; namely, that Gentiles (you and I, btw) could receive G-d's Blessing. And Paul already knew that when he finally met up with the Apostles. It was THEY who accepted him.

So you can throw out all the Pauline epistles you like, and what changes?

Not only is this NOT a dumb question, it is the crux of the issue!

And I can tell you are NOT ready for the answer, because it is "nothing." Which makes your Professor dearest one giant douchebag, who should be ashamed he ever uttered a word on the subject. Which other posters here have already told you, but in such genteel fashion you brushed it off.

Again, an ad hominem. Against myself this time.

Using words you don't know the meaning of now? Ad hom ignores the substance, and attacks the person. That's not what I did here. Here's what I said: "You do realize that you have repeatedly demonstrated the inability to clarify even the most basic of doctrines? How would you possibly be in a position to know what you state here?"

Which is all true, and 100% connected to substance, having nothing to do with personality. Which, by definition, is not ad hominem.

If you wish to sort through your confusions, you really need to get away from all this malarky and stick with the Gospels for a while. Then you'll see what I've been telling you all along, that most of these issues that trouble you are simply irrelevant. And those items that do have relevance, will most likely sort themselves out easily enough.

Also, I've never actually known you to clarify any doctrines either. Never. You write little bits here and there that imply you understand something, but when pressed about a matter, you always shy away and you've never once defined what you believe or know. Either this is because you yourself don't quite know what you believe, or you don't have any real answers to offer.

False dilemma. "He that has ears to hear, let him hear." You should recognize that excludes you, and clarifying doctrines is not really what you need. You need to forget about all of that, and sit at the Master's feet. Recently you were on the right track, and I told you so. You should try to get back ...

What's in the Canon, or whatever you want to call it, is what matters.

You're still mistaking death for life. "Why seek ye the living among the dead?" (Luke 24:5)

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

However, part of being a Christian is believing that the Bible is the infallible word of God.

Technically not true. There are many Christians today who do not believe the Bible is inerrant (probably most Christians accept this now; it's only the fundies, who are a (loud) minority these days, who struggle with this). The Bible is not inerrant. It has contradictions, unfulfilled prophecies and forged epistles in it and yet there are many Christians who know these things and still have room for faith in Christ in their life.

It does not matter what "Professors" or "Experts" say about what their "research" indicates.

It does matter, and I can prove it.

If it was proven, by a Professor or other expert, that the Bible is the literal inerrant word of God and everything in it is correct, you, along with every other Christian in the world, would jump all over this and demand that every atheist shut up. If science pointed to the truth of the Bible, Christians all over would rejoice and would hail these scientific breakthroughs. It is therefore hypocritical of you to say professors and experts and research do not matter.

Fundies generally like to mock science and research, but they forget that the TV's the watch Fox News on, the computers they use, their washing machines, their cars, their games consoles, etc, were all built on scientific breakthroughs. Fundies could no more live in a world without science than they could live in a world without their own hatred of science.

 

[athenken]

Technically not true. There are many Christians today who do not believe the Bible is inerrant (probably most Christians accept this now; it's only the fundies, who are a (loud) minority these days, who struggle with this). The Bible is not inerrant. It has contradictions, unfulfilled prophecies and forged epistles in it and yet there are many Christians who know these things and still have room for faith in Christ in their life.



It does matter, and I can prove it.

If it was proven, by a Professor or other expert, that the Bible is the literal inerrant word of God and everything in it is correct, you, along with every other Christian in the world, would jump all over this and demand that every atheist shut up. If science pointed to the truth of the Bible, Christians all over would rejoice and would hail these scientific breakthroughs. It is therefore hypocritical of you to say professors and experts and research do not matter.

Fundies generally like to mock science and research, but they forget that the TV's the watch Fox News on, the computers they use, their washing machines, their cars, their games consoles, etc, were all built on scientific breakthroughs. Fundies could no more live in a world without science than they could live in a world without their own hatred of science.

Though I agree that it is important to know where the translations came from, I disagree that any part of the message in the Bible is false, which is what you arguing here.

Additionally, not every Christian does not believe in science. Science certainly has its place. And, yes there are many examples throughout history where the Church considered scientific findings as false only to be proven wrong later (i.e., the earth being round, not being the center of the universe, etc...); however, there are many things in science that have not been proven that Christians are completely in the right to question (i.e., evolution, man-generated global warming, etc...).

You have, very succinctly, illustrated why it would be folly for a Christian to continue a debate on these topics until you have done a bit more soul seraching. At this point I reiterate that the seed has been planted and it is up to God let it grow.

My recommendation is to pray for increased faith and discernment in regard to the truth of the Bible and your Salvation in Jesus Christ.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Additionally, not every Christian does not believe in science. Science certainly has its place. And, yes there are many examples throughout history where the Church considered scientific findings as false only to be proven wrong later (i.e., the earth being round, not being the center of the universe, etc...); however, there are many things in science that have not been proven that Christians are completely in the right to question (i.e., evolution, man-generated global warming, etc...).

So in conceding that religion has got it wrong about science in the past, why do most Christians fight science today? Isn't it time that Bible literalists just embraced the realities of the Universe as presented to us from empirical study? They're going to have to eventually anyway.

 

[athenken]

So in conceding that religion has got it wrong about science in the past, why do most Christians fight science today? Isn't it time that Bible literalists just embraced the realities of the Universe as presented to us from empirical study? They're going to have to eventually anyway.

Not necessarily, as many things have yet to be proven. It is folly to take anything another human says as truth.

Yes, I realize the irony of that statement, but that is the way of it. Since every human is fallible and imperfect it is important to question any theory that is presented.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

Since every human is fallible and imperfect it is important to question any theory that is presented.

So how did fallible, imperfect humans compose the inerrant word of God? Did God control their hand movements? Take over their mind? Sit next to them and tell them what to write? Because the only alternative we have to these miraculous options is to believe that the Bible authors (the ones who weren't busy forging works and sticking Apostles names on them) were just like normal, everyday humans who believed they were hearing from God. And one thing we know about people who think they're hearing from God is that they often get things wrong because, after all, they're fallible and imperfect humans.

 

[GrayAngel]

So how did fallible, imperfect humans compose the inerrant word of God? Did God control their hand movements? Take over their mind? Sit next to them and tell them what to write? Because the only alternative we have to these miraculous options is to believe that the Bible authors (the ones who weren't busy forging works and sticking Apostles names on them) were just like normal, everyday humans who believed they were hearing from God. And one thing we know about people who think they're hearing from God is that they often get things wrong because, after all, they're fallible and imperfect humans.

If the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, then it is perfect. It doesn't matter that the men who held the pen were imperfect, because God was the one giving them the words. God did not override their motor controls, rather He used their personalities as a tool.

This is the same God who predestines some of us before even time began. He can cause a perfect book to come from imperfect people.

That does not mean that our translations/transliterations of the Bible are as perfect as the original.

 

[Grumpy Old Man]

If the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, then it is perfect. It doesn't matter that the men who held the pen were imperfect, because God was the one giving them the words. God did not override their motor controls, rather He used their personalities as a tool.

This is the same God who predestines some of us before even time began. He can cause a perfect book to come from imperfect people.

That does not mean that our translations/transliterations of the Bible are as perfect as the original.

I understand where you are coming from, but you give me no reason to place my trust in the Bible as the word of God. As I said earlier in this thread somewhere, I would rather see the Bible as a book about God, than a book by God. My faith in the inerrancy of Scripture was lost a while back and I don't think it will ever return; not unless I can find some solid reason to put my trust in it.

 

[razeontherock]

Technically not true. There are many Christians today who do not believe the Bible is inerrant (probably most Christians accept this now; it's only the fundies, who are a (loud) minority these days, who struggle with this). The Bible is not inerrant.

You are confusing the terms inerrant with infallible. The latter is what was said.

 

[athenken]

I understand where you are coming from, but you give me no reason to place my trust in the Bible as the word of God. As I said earlier in this thread somewhere, I would rather see the Bible as a book about God, than a book by God. My faith in the inerrancy of Scripture was lost a while back and I don't think it will ever return; not unless I can find some solid reason to put my trust in it.

If you are so concerned about the integrity of any of the translations that we have today then I suggest you learn ancient Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Then study the manuscripts that were used for the translations and compare them to the final products. After all, this is where your line of thinking will ultimately get you.

See you in a few years.