.

[paul becke]

Yes. I would just say : Realise that God is talking to you personally and directly. The Bible is not an ordinary book in this sense, also : When you return to a text, there are often hidden layers of meaning that the Holy Spirit will reveal to you, when you read the same passage on different occasions.

 

[StTruth]

Your claim is that the accounts in Mark, Luke, and Matthew are not in concert with each other and in fact Matthew contradicts the other two. If that is not the case, let me know and I will work to show how that is not the case.

It's not just that they are not in concert with one another. And this is not just a mere mistake which I'm willing to accept if they are writing such a long document. I do allow for errors in scriptures. But what is totally unacceptable to me is this is not just a normal mistake. It's not an honest mistake. St Matthew was making up a story to fit a prophecy that he had misunderstood. This is VERY serious. If he's willing to cook up stories about Jesus to fit an OT prophecy, how many other stories has he cooked up. Mind you, it's not easy to show he has cooked up a story. Supposing St Matthew had understood the prophecy and had cooked up a story with only one donkey, there is no way anyone could have spotted that he cooked up the story. So you shouldn't be asking for 50 contradictions. If an evangelist cooks up a story properly, he is still dishonest but his lie would not be discovered. Do you see what I mean. Just one such instance as I have shown is bad enough. St Matthew could only be discovered to have lied because he misunderstood the prophecy while the rest understood it correctly. I hope I'm explaining it correctly and you get my point about the enormity of this contradiction and why a single one is bad enough. In other words, a person's inability to find 50 contradictions is not an indication that the Bible writers were so wonderfully honest.

 

[redleghunter]

OK, I will give one good contradiction.

First, I need to have a preamble. I've read what a scholar says about the early Christians. They tried very hard shortly after Jesus' death to look for something in the OT and squeeze some prophecy out of it to refer it to Jesus.

Might help if we knew the scholar in question. Might also help to know only non-Christians make such claims. Was this scholar of Jewish or Muslim origin?

Some of their attempts can be quite ludicrous. Others are downright dishonest. These are prophecies which have already been fulfilled but the early Christians nonetheless forced Christ into these fulfilled prophecies so that theologians have to come up with the concept of "double" prophecy. But it's just plain dishonesty. For example, the young woman shall be with child prophecy was actually meant for someone else because the prophecy clearly identified that the event should take place between two kings which died long before Jesus was born. And yet, the early Christians truncated this prophecy and applied a small portion of it to Jesus. This is not in line with established method of reading a prophecy as was done in the OT times.

Why is it dishonest. Every TaNaKh prophecy has an immediate fulfillment to confirm the prophet is a genuine messenger of YHWH. One only has to look at the promises and prophecies given to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to see this.

Here's an example to test your assertion:

Luke 4: NKJV

16 So He came to Nazareth, where He had been brought up. And as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read. 17 And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written:

18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
Because He has anointed Me
To preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set at liberty those who are oppressed;
19 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.”

20 Then He closed the book, and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. 21 And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.”

Jesus proclaimed a portion of the following from Isaiah 61:

Isaiah 61: NKJV

“The Spirit of the Lord God is upon Me,
Because the Lord has anointed Me
To preach good tidings to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to the captives,
And the opening of the prison to those who are bound;
2 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord,
And the day of vengeance of our God;
To comfort all who mourn,
3 To console those who mourn in Zion,
To give them beauty for ashes,
The oil of joy for mourning,
The garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness;
That they may be called trees of righteousness,
The planting of the Lord, that He may be glorified.”

Do you see the distinction? There is a full prophecy of Messiah in Isaiah 61 which Jesus Christ proclaimed partially fulfilled in His first advent. Verses 2b-end of chapter 61 are yet to be fulfilled in His second advent.

Anyway, the evangelists saw Zechariah 9:9 and immediately wanted to apply it to Jesus.

Says who exactly? A revisionist theologian from the 19th century Tubingen center? Is there an early church theologian who makes such a claim? Sorry but I am going to have to go with what Jesus Christ said:

Luke 24: NKJV

25 Then He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” 27 And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.

Mark and Luke got it right. They spoke about one donkey being brought to Jesus. See Mark 11:1-7 and Luke 19:28-35. John of course went on his own little excursion and told a totally contradictory story in John 12. But I'll leave that for the moment.

You really did not have to 'leave that for the moment.' Too easy. An omission is not an error. If you went to school with Harry and Sally and later you were asked by your mother "who did you go to school with today?" If your answer was "I went with Harry." You would be accurate.

I'll look at St Matthew instead. Now Zech 9:9 is written in a typical Hebrew poetic style which is called parallelism. The word donkey is again repeated in the last line. The writer of St Matthew who I have already said was a Hellenistic Jew who knew no Hebrew must have thought that there were two donkeys, one of which was a foal. So he wrote a story about Jesus telling the disciples to bring him a donkey and a foal. And he even had Jesus placing a cloth over both animals and ride on both of them which is quite hilarious.

Why is this hilarious? Have you ever worked on a farm or ranch with donkeys? I ask, because have you ever tried to handle a young donkey without its mother? FYI, I verified this with the secular rancher in my office. He also told me he 'rides' two or more horses often to get them back to the stable. By riding one horse the other follow but it is still riding them. So...a little hick ranchero and farming understanding is needed when applying exegesis to cattle and stock.

Also where does the text suggest 'them' are the donkeys Jesus rode on?

Matthew 21:

6 So the disciples went and did as Jesus commanded them. 7 They brought the donkey and the colt, laid their clothes on them, and set Him on them. 8 And a very great multitude spread their clothes on the road;

Is the 'them' dem donkeys or the clothes? Let's look:

https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/mat/21/1/t_conc_950007

Please show me from the interlinear link of the verse above which is the 'them' for 'on them?' You say donkeys, I say clothing. Prove me wrong. You can't. I can call your assertion into question because it is ridiculous to think someone, an apostle would suggest Jesus was trick riding two donkeys into Jerusalem. So the only thing hilarious to me is that some scholar would actually suggest this! (kind ping to @Albion as the donkey story is one of his favorite AFIR).

When I was very young, I had this very uncomfortable feeling when I first read the Gospels, especially the Synoptic Gospels. I felt as if the evangelists were just trying to see a prophecy fulfilment {sic} in everything Jesus did.

Or, the apostles are to believed and what they wrote is actually Inspired words from God. I gave the example of Luke 4 where Jesus reads Isaiah 61:1-2a but omits the rest of the chapter on Messianic actions. Is that something the apostles made up too to just stuff another prophecy in the fulfillment 'kit bag?'

It seems you apply motive to apostles and disciples of Jesus Christ for no good reason other than you 'suspect'.

It was difficult for me to believe what they wrote entirely. That they cooked up some of the stories was palpably clear to me..

Obviously not to me and many others. You did not provide convincing exegesis. Frankly, you provided zero exegesis.

This story of the donkey confirms my earlier suspicion that the evangelists cooked up some of these stories.

I provided some exegesis above which shows what you have is an assertion and not an argument.

 

[redleghunter]

If the writer knew no Hebrew how did he read it? And if it were read to him (meaning someone knew how to read Hebrew) would the meaning not be made clear? And if he truly thought that Isaiah was saying Messiah was riding a donkey and a colt at the same time don't you think he would have asked for clarification? I mean, this must have been an educated man in order to write the Gospel of Matthew so it follows he would have tried to get the prophecy correct (which he also knew about). Now PapaZoom and redleghunter are more accomplished and skilled bible scholars than I am so I will let them answer your contradiction but my questions were easy for me to come up with; they most certainly should have occured to you.

I'm still trying to find out the contradiction. Jesus Christ riding two donkeys at one time is quite a feat but not a contradiction. However, I gave my 'hick' assessment in the post above.

An important part of exegesis is getting the time and environment of the author right and most importantly the audience receiving the message.

I think there is only one way to convince people who think Jesus was riding two donkeys. Go to a ranch, grab a young horse or donkey and try to take it away from the herd or mother. If one survives such an encounter they need to join the rodeo.

So you have two fishermen preachers approach a mama donkey and her baby donkey. You start untying the baby donkey without taking the mama? Be prepared to lose your gonads.

 

[redleghunter]

What I have pointed out here about the donkeys is more serious.

It sure is. You need to visit a dude ranch real soon.

Who was the audience of Matthew's Gospel? What was the main employment of the audience? The author?

Start there and your donkey problem will melt away.

 

[redleghunter]

But I can't hear the reply because the guy is mumbling and his accent is really tough to follow and my laptop has a problem with its in-built speakers.

This may help out your 'donkey issue.'


"What is good biblical exegesis?"

http://www.gotquestions.org/Biblical-exegesis.html

 

[redleghunter]

It's not just that they are not in concert with one another. And this is not just a mere mistake which I'm willing to accept if they are writing such a long document. I do allow for errors in scriptures. But what is totally unacceptable to me is this is not just a normal mistake. It's not an honest mistake. St Matthew was making up a story to fit a prophecy that he had misunderstood. This is VERY serious. If he's willing to cook up stories about Jesus to fit an OT prophecy, how many other stories has he cooked up. Mind you, it's not easy to show he has cooked up a story. Supposing St Matthew had understood the prophecy and had cooked up a story with only one donkey, there is no way anyone could have spotted that he cooked up the story. So you shouldn't be asking for 50 contradictions. If an evangelist cooks up a story properly, he is still dishonest but his lie would not be discovered. Do you see what I mean. Just one such instance as I have shown is bad enough. St Matthew could only be discovered to have lied because he misunderstood the prophecy while the rest understood it correctly. I hope I'm explaining it correctly and you get my point about the enormity of this contradiction and why a single one is bad enough. In other words, a person's inability to find 50 contradictions is not an indication that the Bible writers were so wonderfully honest.

This is going on too long. You really have to lay out the verses, show us your exegesis of the verses and WHERE EXACTLY you see a contradiction in the texts.

Other than that, all you have pointed out is your eisegesis of the subject matter. Meaning, you stated you did not trust the accounts of the gospel writers so the donkey example is 'proof' of your assertion. Biblical apologetics does not work that way. You have to define your contradiction. At best what you have is a textual difficulty of two donkeys ridden at the same time. I already pointed out how that difficulty is explained by using the historical context of the gospel writer and audience.

 

[PapaZoom]

nm

 

[PapaZoom]

It's not just that they are not in concert with one another. And this is not just a mere mistake which I'm willing to accept if they are writing such a long document. I do allow for errors in scriptures. But what is totally unacceptable to me is this is not just a normal mistake. It's not an honest mistake. St Matthew was making up a story to fit a prophecy that he had misunderstood. This is VERY serious. If he's willing to cook up stories about Jesus to fit an OT prophecy, how many other stories has he cooked up. Mind you, it's not easy to show he has cooked up a story. Supposing St Matthew had understood the prophecy and had cooked up a story with only one donkey, there is no way anyone could have spotted that he cooked up the story. So you shouldn't be asking for 50 contradictions. If an evangelist cooks up a story properly, he is still dishonest but his lie would not be discovered. Do you see what I mean. Just one such instance as I have shown is bad enough. St Matthew could only be discovered to have lied because he misunderstood the prophecy while the rest understood it correctly. I hope I'm explaining it correctly and you get my point about the enormity of this contradiction and why a single one is bad enough. In other words, a person's inability to find 50 contradictions is not an indication that the Bible writers were so wonderfully honest.

St Matthew was making up a story to fit a prophecy that he had misunderstood.

You claim this over and over but you aren't making a case for your view. You're just stating your view. You have yet to prove your case.

 

[redleghunter]

@StTruth if you do not believe my hill billy explanation of the mama donkey and baby donkey, I will refer you to the experts:

How should a young donkey be cared for ?

The best carer of a young donkey is its mother, and up until a donkey is about 6 months old, it should never be separated from its mother for more than an hour, and should be allowed to drink her milk as often as it wants, because at each suckling it actually drinks very little, the milk production of donkeys being rather slow compared to animals especially bred for milk production. Thus, if the mother is working, her foal should be allowed to be 'at foot', i.e. walking alongside.

The foal will need to, and will, lie down and rest frequently. As its mother will not then be willing to go any long distance from it, this must also be taken into account when working the mother. On the whole it is better not to work her at all.

http://www.fastonline.org/CD3WD_40/LSTOCK/001/Equines/Donkeys_Development/Chapter 3.htm

 

[Brokenhill]

Good advice, but not easily accomplished. We all bring presuppositions to the table with which we see the texts through.

Indeed. Perfection is impossible, but it should be our goal.

 

[StTruth]

Hi,

I've just woken up to see so many posts in reply. I need time to digest everything and reply. But I have to say at the outset in reply to one of you that the scholars I read are never Muslim or other anti-Christians. The scholars are all from respectable Christian seminaries or proper universities. My vicar says these are books I should not read because they are not meant for one my age but I disagree. The scholars include FF Bruce, Bruce Metzger, Leon Morris and Bart Ehrman.

Cheers,

StTruth

 

[samir]

Hi,

I've just woken up to see so many posts in reply. I need time to digest everything and reply. But I have to say at the outset in reply to one of you that the scholars I read are never Muslim or other anti-Christians. The scholars are all from respectable Christian seminaries or proper universities. My vicar says these are books I should not read because they are not meant for one my age but I disagree. The scholars include FF Bruce, Bruce Metzger, Leon Morris and Bart Ehrman.

Cheers,

StTruth

I looked up your "Christian scholars." Bart Ehrman's latest book is called, "Jesus Before the Gospels: How the Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed, and Invented Their Stories of the Savior" Doesn't sound very Christian to me.

 

[StTruth]

I looked up your "Christian scholars." Bart Ehrman's latest book is called, "Jesus Before the Gospels: How the Earliest Christians Remembered, Changed, and Invented Their Stories of the Savior" Doesn't sound very Christian to me.

Hi samir,

Thanks for your post. I mentioned four names. I suppose nobody will have a quarrel with FF Bruce, Bruce Metzger and Leon Morris who are the top scholars Christendom has and is proud of. You said you did a search on the scholars and you must have seen that the first 3 have sterling credentials. One of them is even the translator of our RSV Bible.

Bart Ehrman is a scholar, first and foremost. He's a renowned historian, particularly of church history. He has studied in Moody Bible Institute and in Princeton (under Bruce Metzger) and he is (I believe) the only person alive today who has read every available texts in the period of early Christianity in the ORIGINAL TONGUE. This amazing scholar is au fait with Koine Greek, Latin, Syriac, Hebrew, Aramaic and just about any language used by the early Christians.

And he is HONEST. That's the one quality I like even though I'm sad that he lost his faith while at Princeton even though he joined these seminaries because of his zeal for God and his love for the Bible. As he puts it, Moody is where "Bible" is their middle name.

I'll give you a few examples of his honesty. He has argued with the Jesus deniers. These are people (usually atheists) who argue that Jesus never existed. They have quite compelling arguments and I was almost swayed by them when I was younger but thanks to the good Bart Ehrman who argues for the existence of a historical Jesus, I firmly believe that my Lord existed in history too.

Next is the so-called secret Gospel of Mark. Ehrman takes the position after examining the evidence that it's to be dismissed. He did that after he had lost his faith. You see, many Christians I know are unable to be this objective. They can only see arguments in favour of their faith as valid. Everything else is looked upon as wrong from the very word go. But Ehrman is not like that. Even though some scholars have argued that the secret Gospel of Mark is real and Jesus had an affair with the naked young man in linen cloth (mentioned in St Mark), Ehrman dismissed the whole thing as a fabrication. I agree with Ehrman that it's a fabrication and our Lord didn't do those things. But you see, it's Ehrman's honesty that is so appealing. That's what a true scholar should be like.

It's the same with FF Bruce who's such a respected and loved scholar. Every Christian loves him. Bruce Metzger has the same stature even though he's hated by some fundamentalists after he wrote the RSV translation of the Bible. I read in Christianity Today that many fundamentalists in the US burnt the RSV in their church lawns. And Metzger said that we've come a long way from Tyndale; we now burn the translation and not the translator. Such a gracious Christian. The reason why they hated Metzger was he decided to be honest in his translation. It's again the almah-parthenos problem. So, he translated Isaiah, "And a young woman shall be with child..." instead of "virgin" and fundamentalists were incensed.

FF Bruce is no different. This great scholar (like most scholars) divide his readership up. In his books for the masses, such as "Is the New Testament Reliable?" he always answers the question with a resounding, YES! But in his more scholastic works, he sounds very different. In The Canon of Scripture, he goes through every little detail and it really rocked my childhood understanding of the Bible as if the 66 books (if we leave out the Apocrypha) were specifically chosen by God. It's not like that at all. The method was quite shoddy and at times shocking. In the end, Bruce asks if the canon should be revised. Questions are raised whether some of the books in the New Testament ought to be removed and perhaps the Shepherd of Hermas (which was considered highly authoritative but the early church) should be included. But Bruce gave the opinion that the canon should not be changed and he talked about the adverse consequence of such a change. Wow!!! I asked myself what happened to his HUGE YES when he wrote "Is the New Testament Reliable"?

These scholars in their honest scholarship have helped me to revise my original view of the Bible. But that doesn't mean I've lost my faith. I just see things differently now or if I may quote St Paul, when I was a child, I spake as a child. I've thrown away all past childishness. Everyone says I don't sound like my age because I want to be truthful, clear-minded and perfectly honest and I don't like childishness which is why I was so upset when I first thought CF was confining me to the Teens section. And I want to treat the Bible like these great scholars do - with honesty and diligence.

So, if Ehrman is writing a book about how early Christians invented stories of Jesus, it's not wrong of him. The subject matter should not be a taboo; rather, we should always see if a text or a claim is true of false. A pious book may be pious but false and untruthful.

Cheers,

StTruth

 

[redleghunter]

Hi samir,

Thanks for your post. I mentioned four names. I suppose nobody will have a quarrel with FF Bruce, Bruce Metzger and Leon Morris who are the top scholars Christendom has and is proud of. You said you did a search on the scholars and you must have seen that the first 3 have sterling credentials. One of them is even the translator of our RSV Bible.

Bart Ehrman is a scholar, first and foremost. He's a renowned historian, particularly of church history. He has studied in Moody Bible Institute and in Princeton (under Bruce Metzger) and he is (I believe) the only person alive today who has read every available texts in the period of early Christianity in the ORIGINAL TONGUE. This amazing scholar is au fait with Koine Greek, Latin, Syriac, Hebrew, Aramaic and just about any language used by the early Christians.

And he is HONEST. That's the one quality I like even though I'm sad that he lost his faith while at Princeton even though he joined these seminaries because of his zeal for God and his love for the Bible. As he puts it, Moody is where "Bible" is their middle name.

I'll give you a few examples of his honesty. He has argued with the Jesus deniers. These are people (usually atheists) who argue that Jesus never existed. They have quite compelling arguments and I was almost swayed by them when I was younger but thanks to the good Bart Ehrman who argues for the existence of a historical Jesus, I firmly believe that my Lord existed in history too.

Next is the so-called secret Gospel of Mark. Ehrman takes the position after examining the evidence that it's to be dismissed. He did that after he had lost his faith. You see, many Christians I know are unable to be this objective. They can only see arguments in favour of their faith as valid. Everything else is looked upon as wrong from the very word go. But Ehrman is not like that. Even though some scholars have argued that the secret Gospel of Mark is real and Jesus had an affair with the naked young man in linen cloth (mentioned in St Mark), Ehrman dismissed the whole thing as a fabrication. I agree with Ehrman that it's a fabrication and our Lord didn't do those things. But you see, it's Ehrman's honesty that is so appealing. That's what a true scholar should be like.

It's the same with FF Bruce who's such a respected and loved scholar. Every Christian loves him. Bruce Metzger has the same stature even though he's hated by some fundamentalists after he wrote the RSV translation of the Bible. I read in Christianity Today that many fundamentalists in the US burnt the RSV in their church lawns. And Metzger said that we've come a long way from Tyndale; we now burn the translation and not the translator. Such a gracious Christian. The reason why they hated Metzger was he decided to be honest in his translation. It's again the almah-parthenos problem. So, he translated Isaiah, "And a young woman shall be with child..." instead of "virgin" and fundamentalists were incensed.

FF Bruce is no different. This great scholar (like most scholars) divide his readership up. In his books for the masses, such as "Is the New Testament Reliable?" he always answers the question with a resounding, YES! But in his more scholastic works, he sounds very different. In The Canon of Scripture, he goes through every little detail and it really rocked my childhood understanding of the Bible as if the 66 books (if we leave out the Apocrypha) were specifically chosen by God. It's not like that at all. The method was quite shoddy and at times shocking. In the end, Bruce asks if the canon should be revised. Questions are raised whether some of the books in the New Testament ought to be removed and perhaps the Shepherd of Hermas (which was considered highly authoritative but the early church) should be included. But Bruce gave the opinion that the canon should not be changed and he talked about the adverse consequence of such a change. Wow!!! I asked myself what happened to his HUGE YES when he wrote "Is the New Testament Reliable"?

These scholars in their honest scholarship have helped me to revise my original view of the Bible. But that doesn't mean I've lost my faith. I just see things differently now or if I may quote St Paul, when I was a child, I spake as a child. I've thrown away all past childishness. Everyone says I don't sound like my age because I want to be truthful, clear-minded and perfectly honest and I don't like childishness which is why I was so upset when I first thought CF was confining me to the Teens section. And I want to treat the Bible like these great scholars do - with honesty and diligence.

So, if Ehrman is writing a book about how early Christians invented stories of Jesus, it's not wrong of him. The subject matter should not be a taboo; rather, we should always see if a text or a claim is true of false. A pious book may be pious but false and untruthful.

Cheers,

StTruth

You do know that Ehrman is agnostic and proclaimed he is no longer a Christian?

There are thousands of scholars who can read the original languages. Ehrman is not the only one.
He is on record denying the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Here's something on Ehrman from his peers:

http://m.christianpost.com/news/the...god-with-book-on-how-god-became-jesus-118486/

 

[StTruth]

You do know that Ehrman is agnostic and proclaimed he is no longer a Christian?

There are thousands of scholars who can read the original languages. Ehrman is not the only one.
He is on record denying the Deity of Jesus Christ.
Here's something on Ehrman from his peers:

http://m.christianpost.com/news/the...god-with-book-on-how-god-became-jesus-118486/

Hi redleghuntrr

Yes I did mention that it was sad Ehrman lost his faith. But his scholarship is independent of his faith. I've already shown instances of his honesty.

People all go through phases and Ehrman may any time come back to the faith. It's a phase he's going through. I know a boy who served at the altar with me and he always has his phases. One day he's Christian and the next day he's an atheist. We chatted just recently and he's now a fundamentalist. But give him 3 months and he'll be something else quite different.

I wouldn't set too much store on Ehrman's current faith. What's important is his knowledge and scholarship.

Cheers

StTruth

 

[jimmyjimmy]

.

 

[StTruth]

You have many sources to chose from, and you choose, as the one you trust, a man who is not a believer, and one who is bent on destroying the Church. You gravitate to Ehrman, as your spiritual guide. You do not scrutinize Erhman, but the Bible. You do not dig to better understand where Ehrman misrepresents data, but take him at his word, while calling into question the Holy Bible. Do you not see anything odd in that?

Hi thatbrian

As I have explained just one post above yours it's the facts that a person says that's important. I also read FF Bruce, Metzger and Leon Morris but you only zoom in on Ehrman. It's wrong to say Ehrman is bent on destroying the church. That's an awful thing to say. I've read a lot of Ehrman. His books are easier for someone my level and I know he loves the church.

 

[jimmyjimmy]

.

 

[StTruth]

While you may read other authors, you have chosen for yourself an apostle of Satan as your guru. Your trust is in Erhman. You question him not. That's my point. You can read the entire library, but your mind and heart gravitate to a man who is not a Christian, and who's life's work is the destruction of Christ's bride. That's disturbing.

Why are you so intent on maligning Ehrman? I have his book on the New Testament and much of my ideas come from it. The back of the book says "Quite simply excellent; this text has become the standard text for introductory New Testament courses." Does this sound like someone who wants to destroy the Church, our Lord's bride?