.

[Deadworm]

Frank Cross of Harvard is one of the world's leading experts on ancient Semitic languages. I don't know about you, but my Philistine is a little rusty! The first time Cross took a Hebrew course he flunked it. This offended his ego so much that he developed an obsession to prove himself capable and just overdid it, mastering several ancient Semitic languages. My point is this: you are much too young to write yourself off as a potential scholar. Like Cross, you need to develop a chip on your shoulder to irritate you enough for the obsession to pursue mastery. When you begin to gain unique competence on an issue, the most pedantic books suddenly become exciting reads. When I was doing my doctoral thesis, I realized that some of my sources were never translated. That turned me off until I thought: "A lot of grad students are lazy like me and would try hard to get around translating boring difficult texts in ancient languages. Then it hit me: no one really knows what priceless nuggets lie buried in these neglected manuscripts. That insight made me love to plow through them and I was rewarded for my efforts.

civilwarbuff might be interested in this anecdote. When I pastored 2 UMC small churches in western NY, I paid a visit to a family of volunteer firemen. They lived in a humble home, but I was intrigued by 2 old muskets that hung over their fireplace. I learned that the muskets belonged to their great-great-great grandfather who fought at Gettysburg in the Union calvary. He also clashed with Jeb Stewart's rebel cavalry. Then I discovered that these 2 Civil War guns were accompanied by their great-great- great granddad's daily Civil War diary. No history scholar had ever seen the diary! I urged them to get the muskets and diary appraised because their total combination would enhance their value. But I wouldn't sell such a treasure for anything. I wonder if that diary would altar any books on the Civil War. Anyway that example illustrates the thrill of unique historical discoveries.

 

[StTruth]

Frank Cross of Harvard is one of the world's leading experts on ancient Semitic languages. I don't know about you, but my Philistine is a little rusty! The first time Cross took a Hebrew course he flunked it. This offended his ego so much that he developed an obsession to prove himself capable and just overdid it, mastering several ancient Semitic languages. My point is this: you are much too young to write yourself off as a potential scholar. Like Cross, you need to develop a chip on your shoulder to irritate you enough for the obsession to pursue mastery. When you begin to gain unique competence on an issue, the most pedantic books suddenly become exciting reads. When I was doing my doctoral thesis, I realized that some of my sources were never translated. That turned me off until I thought: "A lot of grad students are lazy like me and would try hard to get around translating boring difficult texts in ancient languages. Then it hit me: no one really knows what priceless nuggets lie buried in these neglected manuscripts. That insight made me love to plow through them and I was rewarded for my efforts.

civilwarbuff might be interested in this anecdote. When I pastored 2 IMC small churches in western NY, I paid a visit to a family of volunteer firemen. They lived in a humble home, but I was intrigued by 2 old muskets that hung over their fireplace. I learned that the muskets belonged to their great-great-great grandfather who fought at Gettysburg in the Union calvary. He also clashed with Jeb Stewart's rebel cavalry. Then I discovered that these 2 Civil War guns were accompanied by their great-great- great granddad's daily Civil War diary. No history scholar had ever seen the diary! I urged them to get the muskets and diary appraised because their total combination would enhance their value. But I wouldn't sell such a treasure for anything. I wonder if that diary would altar any books on the Civil War. Anyway that example illustrates the thrill of unique historical discoveries.

You have a lot of interesting things to say and I'm delighted to read them all. You should write a book for the general public the way Ehrman does it. He churns out a lot of books and he recycles many of the things he's said. But they sound interesting because he sets them in context beautifully. Scholarly books won't get much attention. I'm not so bothered about what the truth really is yet. I'm interested to see the evidence and I'll make up my mind later. That's why I don't have anything against Ehrman. There were so many thing I didn't know that I learnt from Ehrman. And it's not like Ehrman set out to destroy the church as thatbrian says. Eg he tells this story about what Eusebius or some early church historian wrote. The bishop of Antioch or some such place was travelling past a town when he discovered that the town folks were all reading the Gospel of St Peter. So he thought there should be no harm because Peter is an apostle of our Lord anyway. Later, his assistants told him that the Gospel was heretical ie it didn't accord with the belief of his church at that time. So he went back to the town and told them to get rid of the gospel. That was in the year AD 200. What Ehrman did was he set down the historical fact. That's the truth. But it set me thinking. By AD 200, people still didn't know what valid books of the Bible were? And a bishop didn't know? That is why the canon is fascinating but its also a snare for the fundamentalist who cannot get himself to go round the Bible to examine how it was formed. Many people start from the premise that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and if you question it, you can't possibly have the indwelling spirit which means you're not a Christian. So nobody questions it and they go on their merry way thinking all is well.

 

[samir]

You have a lot of interesting things to say and I'm delighted to read them all. You should write a book for the general public the way Ehrman does it. He churns out a lot of books and he recycles many of the things he's said. But they sound interesting because he sets them in context beautifully. Scholarly books won't get much attention. I'm not so bothered about what the truth really is yet. I'm interested to see the evidence and I'll make up my mind later. That's why I don't have anything against Ehrman. There were so many thing I didn't know that I learnt from Ehrman. And it's not like Ehrman set out to destroy the church as thatbrian says. Eg he tells this story about what Eusebius or some early church historian wrote. The bishop of Antioch or some such place was travelling past a town when he discovered that the town folks were all reading the Gospel of St Peter. So he thought there should be no harm because Peter is an apostle of our Lord anyway. Later, his assistants told him that the Gospel was heretical ie it didn't accord with the belief of his church at that time. So he went back to the town and told them to get rid of the gospel. That was in the year AD 200. What Ehrman did was he set down the historical fact. That's the truth. But it set me thinking. By AD 200, people still didn't know what valid books of the Bible were? And a bishop didn't know? That is why the canon is fascinating but its also a snare for the fundamentalist who cannot get himself to go round the Bible to examine how it was formed. Many people start from the premise that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and if you question it, you can't possibly have the indwelling spirit which means you're not a Christian. So nobody questions it and they go on their merry way thinking all is well.

Based on the ECFs I read it seemed the canon wasn't all that important to early Christians because everyone relied on the church. You seem very knowledgeable so I'm curious do you have an opinion on the Catholic or Orthodox churches?

 

[StTruth]

Based on the ECFs I read it seemed the canon wasn't all that important to early Christians because everyone relied on the church. You seem very knowledgeable so I'm curious do you have an opinion on the Catholic or Orthodox churches?

I'm not knowledgeable. Whatever I know comes from what I've read from books recommended by my archdeacon (and not my vicar; thatbrian seems to have confused them both). The Roman Catholics aren't that much different but anyway, most people know them well. What I don't know much about are the Orthodox folks. When I was in Dubrovnik with my Dad, we were looking for a restaurant within the walled city when we stumbled on a church. It was quite pretty so we entered it. It was strange. It looked like an art gallery. There were a lot of portraits but no sculptures which you see in most churches. There were no pews at all. It was an Orthodox church. I wondered where the parishioners sat and I thought they sat on the floor but on a thread in the Orthodox forum, I asked them and they said they didn't sit. They normally stand throughout unless some people feel the need to sit and they can go to the sides.

I also read once that the Orthodox have this huge problem with the Creed; they don't want the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Son. And that has caused fierce battles a long time ago and much bloodshed. But Jesus should have foreseen all this and he could easily have made a lot of things clear. Whether the Eucharist is literally his body, whether the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Son as well (frankly, I don't even know what that means and I bet others don't either and yet they were willing to on wars for this). They also cross themselves differently from how we do it. That's all I know about the Orthodox.

 

[Linet Kihonge]

St. Truth, I am a published scholar, but prefer to keep my identity a secret. 2 responses to your post:
(a) There are 2 contradictory traditions about Judas's suicide, but the legend you describe evolved from the corresponding biblical account, not vice versa.

(b) Stop peddling that "I'm not that cool" humble student crap! About 6 years ago, I was asked by a janitor, a retired architect, a male nursing student, and a retired engineer to do the type of Bible study that a good seminary might offer. I was reluctant to do so, but I complied. I taught them just enough Greek to use dictionaries and grammars with profit; and I demonstrated why no Bible translation can adequately substitute for a knowledge of Greek. We focused on controversial texts that raise important methodological questions and I taught them how to apply those methods.

(1) The janitor got a full free ride through Princeton's MDiv, program, was appointed to the new Dead Sea Scroll retranslation committee (using high-powered microscopes and computers to fill in smudged and damaged texts), is a cited editor of a book on the scrolls. He was granted a fellowship to participate in an archaeological dig at Bethsaida, where Jesus recruited up to 5 of His 12 disciples. He preferred to pastor a UMC church in Florida.

(2) The retired architect volunteered to serve on the Bethsaida dig and found that his architectural training was invaluable for identifying buried building structures; so he helped make some major exciting discoveries and lectured and published on these. His tunnel discoveries got him an invitation to search for the lost 100 foot tunnel dug by Nazi Jewish prisoners to escape death after they were forced to dig up and burn 70,000 shot Jewish corpses in Vilnius, Lithuania. Nova is doing a documentary on this architects's work which will air next year. The tunnel is sure to be a treasured Holocaust memorial that is a major tourist attraction.

(3) The male nurse got his BA and is now a 2nd year student with a full free ride at Candler School of Theology at Emory. He has read much of Ehrman and is a highly regarded student, who is a voracious reader. He wants to write several scholarly books and we often discuss prospective topics.

(4) The retired engineer said, "I'm too old to go to seminary." So he in I (retired) play cards with elderly shut-ins and lonely people, one of whom taught Julia Childs how to cook, used to have lunch with Gandhi, and was married to a tennis referee who had verbal brawls with John McEnroe!

3 out of 4 scholarly success stories ain't that bad! So what literary project are you going to embrace that will abolish the modern scholarly consensus on some important issue?

Let me ask, can I indulge you on death of Judas? I didn't get much on that while in school but I guess, it would be awesome to hear the nitty-gritty!

 

[Emmy]

Dear afishamongmany. The Bible is God`s Word to Man and we should read all of it. In Matthew 22: 35-40:
Jesus tells us: " The first and great Commandment is: Love God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. The second is like it: love thy neighbour as thyself." Treat all you know and all you meet, friends and not friends, treat them as you would love to be treated. In verse 40 we are told: " On these two Commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." That is straightforward and easily understood. In Matthew 7; 7-10: we read: " Ask and you shall receive," we ask for Love and Joy, then thank God and share all love and joy with our neighbour. We keep asking and receiving and sharing all with our neighbour. God will see our loving efforts, and God will approve and Bless us. We might stumble and forget at times, but then we ask God to forgive us and carry on loving and caring.
The Bible tells us to " Repent and be Born Again," we stop be selfish and uncaring, and start be loving and understanding, always friendly and helpful. The Holy Spirit will help and guide us, and Jesus our Saviour will lead us all the time: JESUS IS THE WAY. Love is very catching, and we find that we are gradually changing into loving and caring. God will see us and Bless us, and life will be filled with love, joy and peace. God is Love and our Heavenly Father wants loving sons and daughter to live with eternally. We have much time on Earth to read the Bible and learn to love as God wants us to. We choose how quickly or slowly we try to read God`s Word to us, let God lead us and we follow as obedient men and women. I say this with love, afishamongmany. Greetings from Emmy, your sister in Christ.

 

[Deadworm]

Just a note on your question about the canonicity of Hebrews. I don't think it's clear that it was only canonized because of the false belief that Paul wrote it. It is clearly an apostolic document from the circle of Paul's missionary companions. Thus, the author expects to be rejoined by Timothy (13:23). Two of the leading candidates for authorship are Paul's colleagues, Apollos and Priscilla.

Also, it's not correct to say that Hebrews teaches that you don't get a second chance after apostasy. Rather, rhe type of apostasy envisaged is mind a totally closed to the Gospel that makes it impossible to "restore again to repentance (6:4)." So it is the apostate and not God who does the rejecting. Now consider Ehrman's comparison of Hebrews with the Shepherd of Hermas, which was accepted as authoritative in some churches, but was ultimately rejected from the NT canon. The spiritual depth and maturity of Hebrews is far superior to that of Hermas, which is tediously repetitive, rather vague, and theologically shallow. If you don't believe me, just try to read Hermas through. It can be read online.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/shepherd.html

St.Truth: Have you ever read any of Philip Yancy's books. I think you'll find him a great writer who is easy to read. I'd recommend "The Jesus I Never Knew" for starters.

 

[PapaZoom]

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/shepherd-lightfoot.html

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/shepherd.html

 

[StTruth]

Just a note on your question about the canonicity of Hebrews. I don't think it's clear that it was only canonized because of the false belief that Paul wrote it. It is clearly an apostolic document from the circle of Paul's missionary companions. Thus, the author expects to be rejoined by Timothy (13:23). Two of the leading candidates for authorship are Paul's colleagues, Apollos and Priscilla.

Also, it's not correct to say that Hebrews teaches that you don't get a second chance after apostasy. Rather, rhe type of apostasy envisaged is mind a totally closed to the Gospel that makes it impossible to "restore again to repentance (6:4)." So it is the apostate and not God who does the rejecting. Now consider Ehrman's comparison of Hebrews with the Shepherd of Hermas, which was accepted as authoritative in some churches, but was ultimately rejected from the NT canon. The spiritual depth and maturity of Hebrews is far superior to that of Hermas, which is tediously repetitive, rather vague, and theologically shallow. If you don't believe me, just try to read Hermas through. It can be read online.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/shepherd.html

St.Truth: Have you ever read any of Philip Yancy's books. I think you'll find him a great writer who is easy to read. I'd recommend "The Jesus I Never Knew" for starters.

Hi Deadworm,

I have seen Philip Yancy's books but they don't appeal to me. If I'm not mistaken, he isn't as meaty as some of the other writers. Books such as "Reinventing Jesus - How contemporary sceptics miss the real Jesus and mislead popular culture" appeals more to me and I have read it. But I have a lot that I disagree with in the book. I think many of the arguments are unfair.

FF Bruce in "The Canon of Scripture" outlined the acceptance of Hebrews into our canon. Initially, the eastern churches accepted it as Pauline. It was placed under Paul's epistles for a long time. But the Roman churches did not accept it. In AD 340, Athanasius visited Rome and "he persuaded the Roman Christians to fall into line with their eastern brethren in admitting the canonicity, if not the Pauline authorship, of Hebrews. From that time on the right of Hebrews to be accepted as a New Testament book was not seriously questioned at Rome, or in those western churches which fell within Rome's sphere of influence." (Bruce, page 221).

McDonald's "The Biblical Canon" is very good because he gives a lot of details in an orderly manner. We know that many men of God didn't accept it as canonical. Clement of Rome used it but did not consider it Scripture. Same with Justin Martyr. When Eusebius finally accepted it as Pauline, he admitted that many disputed its Pauline authorship. "Augustine and Jerome had doubts about the authorship of Hebrews, but they nevertheless accepted it as Paul's to insure its inclusion in the biblical canon." (McDonald, page 395).

When I first read these books and Metzger's too, I was very uncomfortable. I thought the books of the Bible had to be less arbitrary than this. I wanted the Bible to be more "sacred" and God-inspired than a bunch of men trying to persuade others to accept one book because another group had long accepted it on the assumption it was Pauline or some of these great leaders while not accepting it's Pauline decided to call it Pauline to ensure it's accepted. This is the kind of adult politics which I despise and I didn't like it affecting holy things.

But that is the problem with books on the canon. This is not the only example. Some are much worse but I won't go into them. When I told my vicar all this, he said he had always had doubts about my archdeacon's recommendations and he had told me so. He thinks my brain has to be more 'formed' before I read them. Of course that is rubbish. I don't see how an older brain can take such things any better.

I also have another book called "The Text of the New Testament - Its transmission, corruption and restoration" by Metzger and it's tough reading because there are the corpuses and manuscripts mentioned so many times that I'm sick of them. I'm taking a long time to read it and I haven't made much headway but it appears like a book that will whittle down one's respect for the Bible even more. But my archdeacon says that he doesn't agree with my vicar. He thinks that my mind is well formed and he thinks I'm very intelligent (if I may say that without appearing to be boasting; LOL). He says these books will only help me to have a more mature outlook on the faith and the Bible. Not the simplistic understanding of a child of 6 but the cool calm mature knowledge of an old scholar. Of course there will be issues that you have to grapple with but nothing is too much for a brain that is uncluttered by preconceived notions and which is prepared to be honest when faced with the texts before me. I think my archdeacon is right. My vicar is more fatherly and he first knew me when I was a very young altar boy so he may have forgotten that I have since grown up. LOL. My archdeacon is more scholarly and he's more holy in the church. It's a very high position, next only to the bishop, and the church wouldn't have put him there if he weren't this wise. But I'm taking a very long time with the book which is tedious.

Cheers,

StTruth

 

[civilwarbuff]

Not the simplistic understanding of a child of 6 but the cool calm mature knowledge of an old scholar.

Mat 18:3 Then he said, “I tell all of you with certainty, unless you change and become like little children, you will never get into the kingdom from heaven. Mat 18:4 Therefore, whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom from heaven, Mat 18:5 and whoever receives a little child like this in my name receives me.”
Mat 19:13 Then some little children were brought to him so that he might lay his hands on them and pray. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. Mat 19:14 Jesus, however, said, “Let the little children come to me, and stop keeping them away, because the kingdom from heaven belongs to people like these.”
Mar 10:13 Some people were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. Mar 10:14 When Jesus saw this, he became furious and told them, “Let the little children come to me, and stop keeping them away, because the kingdom of God belongs to people like these. Mar 10:15 I tell all of you with certainty, whoever doesn’t receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it.” Mar 10:16 Then after he had hugged the children, he tenderly blessed them as he laid his hands on them.
Luk 9:48 Then he told them, “Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me, because the one who is least among all of you is the one who is greatest.”
Luk 18:16 Jesus, however, called for the children and said, “Let the little children come to me, and stop keeping them away, because the kingdom of God belongs to people like these.
Luke 18:17 I tell all of you with certainty, whoever doesn’t receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never get into it at all.”
Something tells me there will be an abundance of souls in heaven who had a child like acceptance of the Word and a severe dearth of old scholars.......

 

[StTruth]

Something tells me there will be an abundance of souls in heaven who had a child like acceptance of the Word and a severe dearth of old scholars.......

Ho Ho Ho!!! I'll get to heaven because I'm still a child. Deadworm is the illustrious scholar in our midst. He's the one who will be in serious trouble. But I suspect he will quote from his scholarly books to St Peter and he'll still get through the Pearly Gates in the end. LOL.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I guess you don't understand.......

 

[afishamongmany]

Dear afishamongmany. The Bible is God`s Word to Man and we should read all of it. In Matthew 22: 35-40:
Jesus tells us: " The first and great Commandment is: Love God with all thy heart, with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. The second is like it: love thy neighbour as thyself." Treat all you know and all you meet, friends and not friends, treat them as you would love to be treated. In verse 40 we are told: " On these two Commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets." That is straightforward and easily understood. In Matthew 7; 7-10: we read: " Ask and you shall receive," we ask for Love and Joy, then thank God and share all love and joy with our neighbour. We keep asking and receiving and sharing all with our neighbour. God will see our loving efforts, and God will approve and Bless us. We might stumble and forget at times, but then we ask God to forgive us and carry on loving and caring.
The Bible tells us to " Repent and be Born Again," we stop be selfish and uncaring, and start be loving and understanding, always friendly and helpful. The Holy Spirit will help and guide us, and Jesus our Saviour will lead us all the time: JESUS IS THE WAY. Love is very catching, and we find that we are gradually changing into loving and caring. God will see us and Bless us, and life will be filled with love, joy and peace. God is Love and our Heavenly Father wants loving sons and daughter to live with eternally. We have much time on Earth to read the Bible and learn to love as God wants us to. We choose how quickly or slowly we try to read God`s Word to us, let God lead us and we follow as obedient men and women. I say this with love, afishamongmany. Greetings from Emmy, your sister in Christ.

Dear sister Emmy,
Thank you for your thoughts and words of encouragement.
Go well
your brother in Christ ><>

 

[afishamongmany]

Of course there will be issues that you have to grapple with but nothing is too much for a brain that is uncluttered by preconceived notions and which is prepared to be honest when faced with the texts before me. I think my archdeacon is right. My vicar is more fatherly and he first knew me when I was a very young altar boy so he may have forgotten that I have since grown up. LOL.

Hello again St. Truth,
Anyone who thinks nothing in The Bible is 'too much for a brain' is either ignorant or cuckoo.
Human intellect is a wondrous and useful gift of God. Maybe you'll agree that Paul of Tarsus was quite 'brainy? Do you understand what he is saying in I Corinthians 1
26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. 27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; 28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, 29 that no flesh should glory in His presence.
Growing up is a process. Like the rest of us you're not yet 'grown up'.
But back to the plot-
There have been some very interesting and informative exchanges going on here. What interests me most though is, where is God Himself in this 'how to read the Bible'?
StTruth you do not believe in Bible inerrency and give the impression of despising those who do, so I'm interested to know how you believe The Living God communicates with us? Does He use The Bible at all? If so in what way? If not how can we know Him?
Go well
><>

 

[StTruth]

Hello again St. Truth,
Anyone who thinks nothing in The Bible is 'too much for a brain' is either ignorant or cuckoo.
Human intellect is a wondrous and useful gift of God. Maybe you'll agree that Paul of Tarsus was quite 'brainy? Do you understand what he is saying in I Corinthians 1
26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. 27 But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; 28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, 29 that no flesh should glory in His presence.
Growing up is a process. Like the rest of us you're not yet 'grown up'.
But back to the plot-
There have been some very interesting and informative exchanges going on here. What interests me most though is, where is God Himself in this 'how to read the Bible'?
StTruth you do not believe in Bible inerrency and give the impression of despising those who do, so I'm interested to know how you believe The Living God communicates with us? Does He use The Bible at all? If so in what way? If not how can we know Him?
Go well
><>

I don't get you. Everything in the Bible comes from the brain. Surely you must accept that. It must have come from the writers' brains. But there's not saying that the Bible is worthless. It's wrong to assume that what comes from the brain is bad. It's not.

Your next point: That the Bible is not inerrant is demonstrably true. Of course I don't believe in biblical inerrancy. But I don't despise those who do. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. But it's a fact that all children do believe in biblical inerrancy and so did I when I was younger. That's because children don't read the Bible for themselves. You can't see the obvious absence of inerrancy if you don't even read the Bible. You talk about God communicating with us. Are you referring to the biblical stories of God talking to Abraham, etc? You are aware of scholars who have suggested that those stories are allegorical? Many of the stories of God's speeches seem to show God as extremely cruel. Surely you don't believe God said all those things and all those things really did happen? Like the part about God saying he wanted to kill all of creation in a flood. Surely you don't believe in the story that would make God out to be worse than genocidal?

 

[jimmyjimmy]

I don't get you. Everything in the Bible comes from the brain. Surely you must accept that. It must have come from the writers' brains. But there's not saying that the Bible is worthless. It's wrong to assume that what comes from the brain is bad. It's not.

Your next point: That the Bible is not inerrant is demonstrably true. Of course I don't believe in biblical inerrancy. But I don't despise those who do. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. But it's a fact that all children do believe in biblical inerrancy and so did I when I was younger. That's because children don't read the Bible for themselves. You can't see the obvious absence of inerrancy if you don't even read the Bible. You talk about God communicating with us. Are you referring to the biblical stories of God talking to Abraham, etc? You are aware of scholars who have suggested that those stories are allegorical? Many of the stories of God's speeches seem to show God as extremely cruel. Surely you don't believe God said all those things and all those things really did happen? Like the part about God saying he wanted to kill all of creation in a flood. Surely you don't believe in the story that would make God out to be worse than genocidal?

I have allowed this tangent to go on for a for a bit too long, but now we must get back to the OP. Stay on the topic of the OP, please, or, if you would like to continue this line, please start a new thread.

Thanks for your cooperation.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hi Deadworm,

I have seen Philip Yancy's books but they don't appeal to me. If I'm not mistaken, he isn't as meaty as some of the other writers. Books such as "Reinventing Jesus - How contemporary sceptics miss the real Jesus and mislead popular culture" appeals more to me and I have read it. But I have a lot that I disagree with in the book. I think many of the arguments are unfair.

FF Bruce in "The Canon of Scripture" outlined the acceptance of Hebrews into our canon. Initially, the eastern churches accepted it as Pauline. It was placed under Paul's epistles for a long time. But the Roman churches did not accept it. In AD 340, Athanasius visited Rome and "he persuaded the Roman Christians to fall into line with their eastern brethren in admitting the canonicity, if not the Pauline authorship, of Hebrews. From that time on the right of Hebrews to be accepted as a New Testament book was not seriously questioned at Rome, or in those western churches which fell within Rome's sphere of influence." (Bruce, page 221).

McDonald's "The Biblical Canon" is very good because he gives a lot of details in an orderly manner. We know that many men of God didn't accept it as canonical. Clement of Rome used it but did not consider it Scripture. Same with Justin Martyr. When Eusebius finally accepted it as Pauline, he admitted that many disputed its Pauline authorship. "Augustine and Jerome had doubts about the authorship of Hebrews, but they nevertheless accepted it as Paul's to insure its inclusion in the biblical canon." (McDonald, page 395).

When I first read these books and Metzger's too, I was very uncomfortable. I thought the books of the Bible had to be less arbitrary than this. I wanted the Bible to be more "sacred" and God-inspired than a bunch of men trying to persuade others to accept one book because another group had long accepted it on the assumption it was Pauline or some of these great leaders while not accepting it's Pauline decided to call it Pauline to ensure it's accepted. This is the kind of adult politics which I despise and I didn't like it affecting holy things.

But that is the problem with books on the canon. This is not the only example. Some are much worse but I won't go into them. When I told my vicar all this, he said he had always had doubts about my archdeacon's recommendations and he had told me so. He thinks my brain has to be more 'formed' before I read them. Of course that is rubbish. I don't see how an older brain can take such things any better.

I also have another book called "The Text of the New Testament - Its transmission, corruption and restoration" by Metzger and it's tough reading because there are the corpuses and manuscripts mentioned so many times that I'm sick of them. I'm taking a long time to read it and I haven't made much headway but it appears like a book that will whittle down one's respect for the Bible even more. But my archdeacon says that he doesn't agree with my vicar. He thinks that my mind is well formed and he thinks I'm very intelligent (if I may say that without appearing to be boasting; LOL). He says these books will only help me to have a more mature outlook on the faith and the Bible. Not the simplistic understanding of a child of 6 but the cool calm mature knowledge of an old scholar. Of course there will be issues that you have to grapple with but nothing is too much for a brain that is uncluttered by preconceived notions and which is prepared to be honest when faced with the texts before me. I think my archdeacon is right. My vicar is more fatherly and he first knew me when I was a very young altar boy so he may have forgotten that I have since grown up. LOL. My archdeacon is more scholarly and he's more holy in the church. It's a very high position, next only to the bishop, and the church wouldn't have put him there if he weren't this wise. But I'm taking a very long time with the book which is tedious.

Cheers,

StTruth

Hi StTruth,

If you want something really meaty that will likely qualify as having the critical calibre you're apparently searching for, then I'd suggest the book, God's Word in Human Words, by Kenton L. Sparks. This will definitely give you something further to think about in relation to what you've been reading in Ehrman. It's one of my "critical" influences. One of ...

Unlike Ehrman, Sparks is still within the "evangelical fold," even though he gets countered as not being as such by Norman Geisler.

2PhiloVoid

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Mat 18:3 Then he said, “I tell all of you with certainty, unless you change and become like little children, you will never get into the kingdom from heaven. Mat 18:4 Therefore, whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom from heaven, Mat 18:5 and whoever receives a little child like this in my name receives me.”
Mat 19:13 Then some little children were brought to him so that he might lay his hands on them and pray. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. Mat 19:14 Jesus, however, said, “Let the little children come to me, and stop keeping them away, because the kingdom from heaven belongs to people like these.”
Mar 10:13 Some people were bringing little children to Jesus to have him touch them. But the disciples rebuked those who brought them. Mar 10:14 When Jesus saw this, he became furious and told them, “Let the little children come to me, and stop keeping them away, because the kingdom of God belongs to people like these. Mar 10:15 I tell all of you with certainty, whoever doesn’t receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it.” Mar 10:16 Then after he had hugged the children, he tenderly blessed them as he laid his hands on them.
Luk 9:48 Then he told them, “Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me, and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me, because the one who is least among all of you is the one who is greatest.”
Luk 18:16 Jesus, however, called for the children and said, “Let the little children come to me, and stop keeping them away, because the kingdom of God belongs to people like these.
Luke 18:17 I tell all of you with certainty, whoever doesn’t receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never get into it at all.”
Something tells me there will be an abundance of souls in heaven who had a child like acceptance of the Word and a severe dearth of old scholars.......

I agree with your comment about child like acceptance, but this statement of Jesus' doesn't mean He places a high value on ignorance. I think we have to walk a fine line between humility, child like acceptance, and movement of God's Spirit, which are all indispensable on the one hand, but then, on the other, we shouldn't chuck our brains out the door just because some avenues of academic inquiry will cause us to ponder deeply.

2PhiloVoid

 

[afishamongmany]

I don't get you.

Hello,happy Sunday to you St Truth,
Brian has delivered me from spending time responding in detail to your inerrancy and 'God seems not nice' points.
If you want to continue elsewhere let me know.
But apropos and on topic let me just repeat something I said early on in the thread.

"The important thing is having a sure conviction that one is dealing with a communication from God Himself. He has given it and our understanding of the communication is governed and directed by Him, whatever sound reason and intellectual rigor we bring to it.
It's great progress when we are able to say, "Dear Lord I just don't get this" and move on thankfully with what we do get.
Further along illumination of that particular point may come, according to His Will."
Go well
><>

 

[redleghunter]

@StTruth this is the post I did not receive a response from you:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/how-to-read-the-bible.7960008/page-9#post-69975223