Religion doesn't have to be irrelevant, ineffectual, repressive...
Mark T
Do you find more grace in the search for meaning than in absolute certainty,
in the questions rather than in the answers?
Do you have religious interests and longings but cannot accept the beliefs
and dogmas you associate with Christianity?
Are you repelled by claims that Christianity is the "only way"?
Visit http://www.tcpc.org/
Sincerely
I have been doing a short research on your dialogue with Vera as I
am new to the group. Your correspondence has been very intense and
upsetting to me at times because you both seem to be so angry. This
seems to be because you think that, like Oz Guiness says in "Fit
Bodies, Fat Minds: Why Evangelicals don't think and what to do about
it", that Vera is too emotional. I haven't read the book but your many
quotations have persuaded me that I must get it, since I agree with all
of the writer's quotations. However, I don't agree necessarily with
your point of view though I think I am beginning to understand it.
My favorite quotation is by Abraham Lincoln: "There is so much
good in the worst of us and so much bad in the best of us that it ill
behooves any of us to find fault with the rest of us." I think Lincoln
was talking about aspertions against character and not the legitimate
discussion of ideas obviously. What do you think? Signed: Sincerely
Eric Fisher
will find it irrelevant, those who refuse to get involved will find it
ineffectual, and those who want everything to always go their way will
find it repressive.
Mark T
> Oz Guiness ... "Fit Bodies, Fat Minds: Why Evangelicals don't think and
> what to do about it" ... I haven't read the book but your many
> quotations have persuaded me that I must get it, since I agree with all
> of the writer's quotations.
He is a great evangelical writer and author of many books.
> However, I don't agree necessarily with your point of view
I don't always agree with myself either. I'm sometimes wrong. Take the
good and spit out the bad. You have my permission. ;-) My views change
regularly as I am in the process of change and still "on the road to find
out."
> My favorite quotation is by Abraham Lincoln: "There is so much
> good in the worst of us and so much bad in the best of us that it ill
> behooves any of us to find fault with the rest of us." I think Lincoln
> was talking about aspertions against character and not the legitimate
> discussion of ideas obviously. What do you think?
We are all fallen creatures. Iron sharpens iron.
--
"Fundamentalism is demonic, and can only be met with the sword, or at least
with a very vitriolic pen." - Peter Cameron, "Fundamentalism and Freedom"
(Doubleday; Sydney: 1995.) p.3
#################################################
My Testimony at http://members.cox.net/christian_life/
#################################################
... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist '... an assurance that those
who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really true Christians at
all.' - Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
#################################################
Sincerely
Thank you for replying to my comments on Abe's quotation. Yes, I
agree that if any "fundamentalist" system is closed it is wrong because
it presumes omniscience on the part of the thinker, however a novice in
any field needs to learn the fundamentals. So every thing has a place
in the perfect plan of God. Fundamentalists eventually graduate.
Please don't be so harsh on them. Signed: Sincerely
Mark T
> Yes, I
> agree that if any "fundamentalist" system is closed it is wrong because
> it presumes omniscience on the part of the thinker, however a novice in
> any field needs to learn the fundamentals. So every thing has a place
> in the perfect plan of God. Fundamentalists eventually graduate.
Stages of Faith, by James W. Fowler (published in paperback by
Harper Collins, 1995.)
Stage 1--Magical World
ages 2-6, perceives the world through lens of imagination and intuition
unrestrained by logic e.g., lives in a magical world in which anything is
possible
Stage 2--Concrete Family
ages 6-12, sees the world as a story--concrete, literal, narrative family of
ritual and myth e.g., "In the beginning, God created the . . ."
~Stage 2 collapses when teenagers use newfound power of abstract thought to
deconstruct previous understanding of the world e.g., risk of rejecting
religious beliefs of parents, and identifying with surrounding secular
culture
Stage 3--Faith Community *
teenager to early adulthood or beyond, sees the world through the lens of
the peer community e.g., unconsciously "catches" faith, values, and way of
thinking from peer group or subculture tends not to question the accepted
ways of thinking e.g., "if the Bible says . . . it must be true" or "if some
group says . . . it's the Truth" difficult dealing calmly and rationally
with issues that touches on one's identity
Stage 4--Rational Constructs *
adulthood (if) traditional answers stop making sense e.g., beliefs
previously unquestioned are called into account; develops the capacity to
step back (usually for the first time) and examine beliefs with reason
universe is reconstructed with self-chosen concepts might experience deep
disappointment/anger on finding some beliefs did not stand up to
investigation
Stage 5--Numinous (Supernatural/Mysterious) Universe
mid-life or latter (if) it seems we have run up against the limits of
rational thought
e.g., the search for certainty can end in feelings of failure/despair; we
come to live in a spiritual universe of mystery, wonder, and paradox e.g.,
we might return to sacred symbol, story, tradition, liturgy, spiritual
community, but no longer captured in a theological box
Stage 6--Selfless Service **
rare stage for many; identifies deeply with all humanity, and spends
themselves in
service of worldwide issues of love, and justice e.g., Mahatma Gandhi,
Mother Theresa, etc.
________________
(*) To those in stage 3 or higher, the next stage looks like a loss of
faith, and the previous stage is repulsive. This can be seen when stage 3
engages in witch hunting, and stage 4 baits and taunts stage 3.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Robin Skinner & John Cleese "LIFE ...and how to survive it" - (Methuen;
London:1993)
p. 270 - 271
John: So a religious idea will be interpreted by a person in a way that fits
in best with their existing psychology?
Robin: Yes, and it can therefore support them in functioning at the best
level they're capable of, given their limitations. ... Well, take people
functioning at the least healthy level first. They'll understand religion
as a collection of rules, of rewards and punishments, of threats and
promises, all enfoced by a powerful and frightening God.
John: The extreme black-and-white thinking found in young children?
Robin: That's exactly what it is. The thinking of such people has got
stuck at that level, and though it's normal in a very young child, it's
obviously unhealthy in an adult.
...
John: And how is God experienced?
Robin: He's seen as a terrifying, domineering, bad-temprered dictator, who
wants everyone to spend heir time admiring him and telling him how
marvellous he is. ... So naturally people holding this view feel they have
to do lots of things to keep Him sweet, so that He won't get into a bad mood
and blast them with thunderbolts, or boils, or rivers of blood.
p. 287
John: Well, everything that you've been saying implies that
[Fundamentalism] is a manifestation of a fairly low level of mental health,
doesn't it? For a start, Fundamentalists call for a literal interpretation
of scripture, and as we saw when we were discussing secular values, focusing
in on the letter of the law is a characteristic of the less healthy. In
addition, wise people tend not to exhibit literal mindedness, so it seems
singularly inappropriate to assume that this is the vein in which great
spiritual teahers are speaking. Then again, whether we're talking about
Christianity, Islam, Judaism or Hinduism, the values of Fundamentalists seem
aimed at making themselves feel better by placing all negative and
destructive emotions in people with different beliefs, and enjoying the
golden glow of self-justification that results. ... You know that simile:
'As rare as a Fundamentalist who loves his enemy.' ... the Inquisition did
largely miss the point of 'Love Thy Neighbour', didn't they? Wasn't burning
heretics 'worse' than being tolerant towards them? ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Sincerely
The kind of Fundamentalists that are being discussed are such a
small group it seems too irrelevant to spend so much time arguing with
them. I think it is right to say that they have psychological problems
and should be viewed with compassion and not scorn. If you are talking
about the average Evangelical point of view there is a different type
of mentality. Probably many/most are on Fowler's 3rd stage of Faith
Developement, but here they are learning the fundamentals of religion
and will be encuraged to go on to stages 4, 5 & 6, which unlike Folwler
I believe there are many. Simply because we have not heard of them is
not surprising since they don't advertize their good deeds, rather they
keep them secret, unlike Ghandi, Mother Theresa, etc. Signed Sincerely
Reaper
Be careful with Mark. He walks out these quotes from mere men as truth
while he denys the word of God. This stuff from Fowler is just one
man's opinion and Mark puts it forth because it excuses his walk with
God and as he trys to lure others into the pit where he lives and spews
his venom against those who want to live their lives pleasing God Almighty.
You have been warned.
Reaper
Mark T
> Be careful with Mark. He walks out these quotes from mere men as truth
> while he denys the word of God. This stuff from Fowler is just one man's
> opinion and Mark puts it forth because it excuses his walk with God and as
> he trys to lure others into the pit where he lives and spews his venom
> against those who want to live their lives pleasing God Almighty.
>
> You have been warned.
Ooh-wah!!!! Fundamentalists are so afraid of what I might say that they
have to issue warnings!!! Isn't that special!!!!!!
BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
from Peter Cameron "Fundamentalism and Freedom" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1995.)
p 6
the following features of Fundamentalists- a distrust and fear of freedom
...
p. 10 ff
They will be fearful in the face of any challenge to their security and
brutal in their reaction; they will seek to bolster their security by
persuading others of its validity.; and those others will be persuaded
because of their own increasing sense of insecurity in the modern world.
...Fundamentalists need an enemy; an enemy both gives them their own
identity and unites them. ...they stand for nothing positive at all - simply
obedience to rules and the condemnation of those who break them. ... it is a
religion of fear which proceeds by intimidation. ...
Fundamentalism ... thrives on protective stupidity. ...fear in the face of
any challenge to the status quo; ... brutality in suppressing dissent;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From Os Guiness "Fit Bodies, Fat Minds: Why Evangelicals don't think and
what to do about it" ( Baker Books; Grand Rapids:1994)
p. 143
A fourth misconception concerns the idea tht thinking Christianly is a form
of uniformity - in other words, that if we all think Christianly we will all
think the same way. Whe this happens, the goal of thinking Christianly
collapses into a frantic search for the one particular correct way of
thinking or acting. The result is he fallacy of "particularism", the
uniformity of a particular "Christianly Correct" way of thinking.
...[particularism] denies two requirements of thinking Christianly that
oppose all uniformity: the importance of diversity and the fact of human
fallibility.
p. 143 - 144
For another thing, applying the idea of uniformity is disastrous because it
leads inevitably to legalsim and judgementalism. There is only a short and
easy step from "This is the Christian way" to "There is only one Christian
way" to "Anything different from this Christian way is not Christian" to
"All those who differ fom my way are not Christians".
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
#################################################
My Testimony at
http://members.cox.net/christian_life/
***********************************************************
'As rare as a Fundamentalist who loves his enemy.
#################################################
Reaper
Mark T wrote:
> "Dim Reaper" wrote:
>
>
>>Be careful with Mark. He walks out these quotes from mere men as truth
>>while he denys the word of God. This stuff from Fowler is just one man's
>>opinion and Mark puts it forth because it excuses his walk with God and as
>>he trys to lure others into the pit where he lives and spews his venom
>>against those who want to live their lives pleasing God Almighty.
>>
>>You have been warned.
>
>
> Ooh-wah!!!! Fundamentalists are so afraid of what I might say that they
> have to issue warnings!!! Isn't that special!!!!!!
>
> BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!
>
Mark, just consider it a public service. I am glad to help you through
your day.
(: Lawrence Meckan :)
> Mark, just consider it a public service. I am glad to help you
through
> your day.
When you find the demonic underbelly of processed cheese, tell us,
okay? ;)
lawrence
Sincerely
Thank you for your warning as I choose to believe you intend it to
help me and I appreciate that. Mark T seems to be a sincere and clear
thinker, except at times he seems to be sarcastic or angry at what he
considers to be a close-minded attitude on the part of
"Fundamentalists". I put the word in quotation marks because I'm not
sure what we're talking about. If it means the fundamentals of the
faith as in the Nicean Creed, then I am a fundamentalist. I do not
consider myself close-minded. I hope not. I don't mind discussing the
particulars of the Creed to the best of my ability but we all are
dealing with the subject of God and therefore cannot expect to grasp
His omniscience. Nevertheless I can think of no more important nor
wonderful subject. I hope you agree. Signed: Sincerely
Mark T
BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!
from Robin Skinner & John Cleese "LIFE ...and how to survive it" -
Reaper
I don't think that subject is something the public cares about.
However, maybe, since you brought it up, you could take this on as a
personal cause. If you brought more awareness of this important topic
to the general public, you could probably get a grant or some other
public funding to study it. Similar crazy ideas have become careers for
some people....
(: Lawrence Meckan :)
Either you're aiming for deadpan comedy or you missed the fact I was
laughing at your inane "I'm a warning ministry without a clue" ways..
You did see the emoticon didn't ya?
lawrence
Reaper
I think that would be a great discussion - the Nicean Creed. If you can
get it going, I think I would join in.
Open mindedness sounds like a good thing. How could anyone be against
that? Are you new to news groups? This is certainly a place where you
can hear almost anything. Being firmly grounded in your beliefs will
serve you well on news groups.
Here is a passage of scripture to think upon.
2Ti 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2Ti 3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous,
boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
2Ti 3:3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers,
incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
2Ti 3:4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than
lovers of God;
2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from
such turn away.
2Ti 3:6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead
captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the
truth.
Reaper
an attempt at deadpan comedy. Guess I need to work on that...
>
> lawrence
Sincerely
Your warning again is much appreciated, but I do not discern a
deceitful spirit in Mark T. He is a sceptic but I sense it is because
he has been mistreated by inconsiderate Christians who did not realize
what harm they were doing ( we can all be guilty of this, don't you
think? I certainly have been. "Speak the truth with love" is what St.
Paul admonishes doesn't he?).
You are so well versed in the Bible I admire you and feel I can
learn a lot from your contributions. Yes I am a "newbie" to the
computer world. What specific question concerning the Nicene Creed
would you like to discuss? Signed: Sincerely
Sincerely
Mark T
It's the "without a clue" bit that is the key!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Dim Reaper" wrote:
>>>>Explain what you think is is meant by spirit and soul.
>>>God is Spirit and we are made in His image, spirit.
>> You do not EXPLAIN the word spirit by saying that it is spirit. What IS
>> spirit?????
>
> I did explain it further down in my post
No you didn't!
> Man's theories are hardly interesting.... to me at least.
Then you remain an ignorant brain-dead fundamentalist.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--
"Fundamentalism ... is characterised by and thrives on protective
stupidity." - Peter Cameron
Mark T
> Here is a passage of scripture to think upon.
>
> 2Timothy
Written circa 100 -150 CE ...after Paul died ... despite the claim in Vs 1
that it was written bt Paul.
So much for the "inerrant" bible!!!!!
Sincerely
Timothy was a disciple of Paul's as I recall so even if the
recording of the letter was many years later it still is Paul's letter
to Timothy. What are you trying to prove? This seems like unnecessary
nitpicking on the part of such an intelligent man as yourself. What do
you have against Reaper that you insult him by calling him names? You
are a Christian, a follower of Raboni Yeshua who commands his disciples
to love one another, doesn't he? Signed: Sincerely
Sincerely
Mark T
> Timothy was a disciple of Paul's as I recall so even if the
> recording of the letter was many years later it still is Paul's letter
> to Timothy.
No ... Paul NEVER wrote 2 Timothy as the letter was written circa 100 - 150
CE by someone pretending to be Paul. Paul was dead at the time of writing 2
Tmothy!!!!!
> What are you trying to prove?
The bible is errant. It contains mistakes (as well as truth) as
demonstrated by this letter. The bible is not an absolute.
--
The Bible ...[is] ... a collection of human responses to God (very human,
some of them all too human), which we are at liberty to use in the process
of formulating our own individual, unique response to God. We don't do that
by imitating these responses slavishly. I mean God, if he exists, doesn't
want innumerable clones of the apostle Paul. He wants us to respond to him,
each of us in our own unique way. And we can use the Bible to do that, but
we don't do it by obeying it slavishly and blindly. - Peter Cameron
"Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 195
Reaper
No particular part, but I would be interested in what you think about it.
Reaper
Mark T wrote:
> "Sincerely" wrote:
>
>
>> Timothy was a disciple of Paul's as I recall so even if the
>>recording of the letter was many years later it still is Paul's letter
>>to Timothy.
>
>
> No ... Paul NEVER wrote 2 Timothy as the letter was written circa 100 - 150
> CE by someone pretending to be Paul. Paul was dead at the time of writing 2
> Tmothy!!!!!
>
>
>
>>What are you trying to prove?
>
>
> The bible is errant. It contains mistakes (as well as truth) as
> demonstrated by this letter. The bible is not an absolute.
>
>
Sincerely, you can learn a bit about Mark from this post.
God, is well able to provide His word to the world and to His people.
There have always been and will continue to be those who want to
discredit the Bible. Think about where Mark is coming from and you will
do fine.
Sincerely
attempt to defend any part of it to the best of my ability, hoping that
others with more knowledge would help me to defend it. Signed:
Sincerely
Sincerely
Reaper
Mark T wrote:
> "Dim Reaper" wrote:
>
>
>>>> Timothy was a disciple of Paul's as I recall so even if the
>>>>recording of the letter was many years later it still is Paul's letter
>>>>to Timothy.
>>>
>>>No ... Paul NEVER wrote 2 Timothy as the letter was written circa 100 -
>>>150 CE by someone pretending to be Paul. Paul was dead at the time of
>>>writing 2 Tmothy!!!!!
>>>
>>>>What are you trying to prove?
>>>
>>>The bible is errant. It contains mistakes (as well as truth) as
>>>demonstrated by this letter. The bible is not an absolute.
>>
>>Sincerely, you can learn a bit .... from this post.
>
>
> Amen!
>
>
>
>>God, is well able to provide His word to the world and to His people.
>>There have always been and will continue to be those who want to discredit
>>the Bible.
>
>
> Are you suggesting that Paul wrote 2 Timothy after he had died??????
>
> A MIRACLE!!!!!!!
>
> If you read REAL BOOKS you would understand the problem with 2 Timothy
> !!!!!
>
I have learned from you Mark that someone will deny the word of God and
still claim to be a Christian. To most of us that sounds like the
ultimate oxymoron. Yet, there you are.
I pray that you will actually decide to live out being a Christian and
love your brothers and sisters in the Lord instead of lashing out at them.
Sincerely
As always( so far ) I respect your point of view. As to whether
Paul wrote 2 Timothy or not, the Bible does not say, so you still have
no logical reason for saying that the Bible is inerrant. Nevertheless
my point that you ignored was that Paul,s letter to Timothy could have
been kept for a hundred or more years before it was included in the
Bible. We include letters written by Adams to Jefferson hundreds of
years later. That does not invalidate the publications they appear in.
Please find me another more logical example. Thank you. Signed:
Sincerely
Sincerely
Please forgive my hasty remark that the Bible doesn't say that
Paul wrote 2 Timothy. It clearly does. I was wrong. I am sorry for
such a gross error. I think I need to start studying my Bible better
if I hope to defend it better. You have inadvertently done me a great
service if I do. It is all too easy for me to fall into my bad
character flaws and I'm guilty of having arrogance and pride that is
unjustified as I have so quickly revealed to everyone reading this
correspondence. However as quick as I am to confess I am quick to
forgive so let's keep up the dialogue if you're willing. Signed:
Sincerely
Jani
"Sincerely" <lee...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1113492771.3...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Mark,
> As always( so far ) I respect your point of view. As to whether
> Paul wrote 2 Timothy or not, the Bible does not say, so you still have
> no logical reason for saying that the Bible is inerrant.
Actually, he was saying that it's *not* inerrant.
Nevertheless
> my point that you ignored was that Paul,s letter to Timothy could have
> been kept for a hundred or more years before it was included in the
> Bible. We include letters written by Adams to Jefferson hundreds of
> years later. That does not invalidate the publications they appear in.
> Please find me another more logical example. Thank you.
As I understand it, the argument against 2 Timothy being written by Paul is
that the language, style and content of the text are not compatible with
either Paul's other writings or the period in which he lived. You are
perfectly correct that a letter written by Adams could be included in a
compilation of a century later, but not if the letter included references to
events which had occurred after Adams' death, or used linguistic forms not
developed until a later period, and so on.
Jani
JPF
"Reaper" <Reaper...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:y_q7e.6037$lP1....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Because the Bible is God's Word and God cannot lie (Isaiah 55:10-11; John
17:17; Titus 1:2; Hebrews 4:12), it's totally trustworthy, free from any
error. God's Word is described as "the word of truth" (2 Corinthians 6:7;
Colossians 1:5; 2 Timothy 2:15; James 1:18). Inerrancy isn't a theory about
the Bible; it's the teaching of the Bible itself.
What most people claim as errors in the Bible aren't errors but
difficulties. People think they've stumbled upon apparent inconsistencies
when they haven't taken the time to find out all the facts, or made an
in-depth study of the passage. Many Bible questions have been answered as
new discoveries have been made in fields such as language, history,
archeology, and other sciences.
Regardless of the kind of difficulty found, not a single irreconcilable
error can be found in the Bible's pages.
JPF
Isn't the Bible full of contradictions and circular reasoning? Isn't
everyone entitled to have his own interpretation of the Bible?
Where are the contradictions? Very few people who claim the Bible is full of
contradictions have ever read the Bible or can point out any contradictions.
Challenge those who accuse the Bible of being full of contradictions to
prove it by showing you one.
There are things in the Bible that seem to be contradictory, but they all
have reasonable explanations. If you offer to give a person an explanation
and they do not want to hear it, they have revealed that their problem is
NOT the alleged contradictions! That is just a smoke screen.
? In America we believe that a person is "presumed innocent until proven
guilty." Can you show me one of the places the Bible contradicts itself? If
you make a charge, you need to have evidence to back it up. If the alleged
contradictions can be cleared up, would you declare the Bible innocent of
the charges? Would you then believe?
There are things in the Bible that are difficult to understand.
? If I were to give you a textbook on quantum physics would you understand
everything in it? You can understand far more of the Bible than the book on
quantum physics. Why do you reject the Bible and not the science book? It is
not because they do not understand. It is because they have a spiritual
and/or moral problem.
? Do you completely understand the chemistry of digestion? Has that kept you
from eating?
How to explain those things that seem like contradictions:
It is not likely that you will ever have to because few if any will come up
with any.
You must understand what constitutes a contradiction. The law of
non-contradiction is a basic law of logic. It states that a thing cannot be
both A and non-A at the same time. However it is not contradictory to say a
thing is both A and B at the same time. Two statements may be different
without being contradictory.
? If the Bible said (and it does not) that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and
Nazareth at the same time, would this be a provable contradiction? Yes. But
to say that He was from both, since He was born in one and raised in another
is not a contradiction.
? Matthew tells of two blind men who came to Jesus in Jericho. Mark and Luke
mention only one blind man. These statements are different, but they are not
contradictory. Mark and Luke did not say ONLY ONE came!
? What about differences in numbers in the Bible? Example: 2 Samuel 23:8
says a fellow slew 800 men, whereas 1 Chronicles. 11:11 says he slew 300.
There are a few places in the Bible where two writers record differing
numbers concerning a particular incident. So what? Does the number change
the point? These examples are very few, and more importantly, they do not do
injury to the point of the story.
? A point of logic: A man is talking to a husband and wife. The husband
tells the man about a trip to the beach they took one SATURDAY afternoon.
The wife interrupts, insisting it was on a SUNDAY afternoon. They go back
and forth about it, until they agree that whether it was Saturday or Sunday,
it doesn't matter. But because of the discrepancy, the man immediately comes
to the conclusion that there was no trip to the beach! He further concludes
that there is probably no such thing as the beach! In fact, he is unsure if
the two people he is talking to ever existed - and even if they do, he will
never believe anything else either of them ever say! What's wrong with the
man's logic?
Conclusion: Those who hide behind the alleged contradictions are making
excuses to cover up their moral and spiritual problem.
Jani
"JPF" <f8th...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:GLz7e.1687$J12...@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com...
> Isn't the Bible full of contradictions and circular reasoning? Isn't
> everyone entitled to have his own interpretation of the Bible?
> Where are the contradictions? Very few people who claim the Bible is full
> of contradictions have ever read the Bible or can point out any
> contradictions. Challenge those who accuse the Bible of being full of
> contradictions to prove it by showing you one.
Well, but then there comes the "it's not a real contradiction" argument :)
> There are things in the Bible that seem to be contradictory, but they all
> have reasonable explanations. If you offer to give a person an explanation
> and they do not want to hear it, they have revealed that their problem is
> NOT the alleged contradictions! That is just a smoke screen.
No, they may just be wary of your definition of "reasonable explanations".
>
> ? In America we believe that a person is "presumed innocent until proven
> guilty." Can you show me one of the places the Bible contradicts itself?
> If you make a charge, you need to have evidence to back it up. If the
> alleged contradictions can be cleared up, would you declare the Bible
> innocent of the charges? Would you then believe?
If a specific contradiction is explained, then that explains that particular
contradiction. Though, just out of interest, why do you insist that anyone
who explores these contradictions must have impartial "evidence", but the
bible is not required to produce any "evidence" other than itself?
>
> There are things in the Bible that are difficult to understand.
True, it is a collection of texts from assorted cultures translated into and
out of various languages. Not exactly Janet and John, I grant you:)
> ? If I were to give you a textbook on quantum physics would you understand
> everything in it? You can understand far more of the Bible than the book
> on quantum physics.
Not really. They both require specialised knowledge; just because something
is translated into English, doesn't mean that it's instantly comprehensible.
Why do you reject the Bible and not the science book? It is
> not because they do not understand. It is because they have a spiritual
> and/or moral problem.
Um, no, it's because understanding a physics textbook is a fairly narrow
field of study, whereas to understand the bible requires anthropology,
history, languages, Durkheim, etc, etc ...
> ? Do you completely understand the chemistry of digestion? Has that kept
> you from eating?
Does the bible explain the chemistry of digestion? Or are you arguing that
it has that as currently hidden wisdom, to be revealed at some later date?
>
> How to explain those things that seem like contradictions:
>
> It is not likely that you will ever have to because few if any will come
> up with any.
>
> You must understand what constitutes a contradiction. The law of
> non-contradiction is a basic law of logic. It states that a thing cannot
> be both A and non-A at the same time. However it is not contradictory to
> say a thing is both A and B at the same time. Two statements may be
> different without being contradictory.
All logic does is set out an argument so that if the premises are true, so
is the conclusion. It doesn't say that A and not-A can't co-exist, unless
that's a stated premise.
> ? If the Bible said (and it does not) that Jesus was born in Bethlehem and
> Nazareth at the same time, would this be a provable contradiction? Yes.
> But to say that He was from both, since He was born in one and raised in
> another is not a contradiction.
Since your bible doesn't say that he was born in two places, and as far as I
know no-one is saying he was, what exactly is your point?
>
> ? Matthew tells of two blind men who came to Jesus in Jericho. Mark and
> Luke mention only one blind man. These statements are different, but they
> are not contradictory. Mark and Luke did not say ONLY ONE came!
Again, there is no contradiction, there is a difference in commentary.
>
> ? What about differences in numbers in the Bible? Example: 2 Samuel 23:8
> says a fellow slew 800 men, whereas 1 Chronicles. 11:11 says he slew 300.
> There are a few places in the Bible where two writers record differing
> numbers concerning a particular incident. So what? Does the number change
> the point? These examples are very few, and more importantly, they do not
> do injury to the point of the story.
Oh, OK, so the "point of the story" is more important. Um, weren't you
saying that it was down to strict logical parameters, a moment ago? and that
something cannot be A and not-A at the same time?
300 is not 800, so A being not-A is pretty irrelevant. If your logical
starting premise for biblical text is that it's *not true*, of course, that
works perfectly.
> ? A point of logic: A man is talking to a husband and wife. The husband
> tells the man about a trip to the beach they took one SATURDAY afternoon.
> The wife interrupts, insisting it was on a SUNDAY afternoon. They go back
> and forth about it, until they agree that whether it was Saturday or
> Sunday, it doesn't matter. But because of the discrepancy, the man
> immediately comes to the conclusion that there was no trip to the beach!
> He further concludes that there is probably no such thing as the beach! In
> fact, he is unsure if the two people he is talking to ever existed - and
> even if they do, he will never believe anything else either of them ever
> say! What's wrong with the man's logic?
Since you're not talking about logic in the first place, the question's
irrelevant. But this hissy-fit of "you don't believe *any* of it, so I'm
going to throw a strop!" sounds very familiar. Most intelligent people don't
dismiss christian scriptures in toto, at all - they simply put them together
with other historical and anthropological evidence, and work from there.
Some of them start from a standpoint of personal belief, some don't.
> Conclusion: Those who hide behind the alleged contradictions are making
> excuses to cover up their moral and spiritual problem.
Given what you've written above, it would seem that those who don't like the
contradictions haven't much idea how to deal with 'em, besides hiding under
the blanket.
Jani
Sincerely
Your logical defense of seeming contradictions in the Bible were
convincing and most satisfying. Thank you for helping all of us to
understand why so many people argue with the Bible. I'm not saying
that Mark T has a moral or spiritual problem because I have no right to
judge another person but I look into my own heart and I know this is
true. The Bible's laws are pure and good, meant to help and not to
harm us. Why can't people see this? I really enjoy the discussion of
the Bible with people who are honest and respectful of everyones'
opinions but don't take offense when legitimate questions are being
asked. It's alright for me to be wrong if I admit it and am willing to
be corrected. Signed: Sincerely
Sincerely
I stand corrected again and admit my errancy. I was wrong. I'm
sorry for being so eager to get into a conversation that I leap before
I think out my ideas clearly.
It may be that the language, style and content of 2 Tim. are not
compatible as you have stated. I hope you will give me your references
for this statement so I can research it please. You are a kind and
thoughtful writer and I thank you for answering me. Signed: Sincerely
Mark T
>>>>> Timothy was a disciple of Paul's as I recall so even if the
>>>>>recording of the letter was many years later it still is Paul's letter
>>>>>to Timothy.
>>>>No ... Paul NEVER wrote 2 Timothy as the letter was written circa 100 -
>>>>150 CE by someone pretending to be Paul. Paul was dead at the time of
>>>>writing 2 Tmothy!!!!!
>>>>>What are you trying to prove?
>>>>The bible is errant. It contains mistakes (as well as truth) as
>>>>demonstrated by this letter. The bible is not an absolute.
>>>Sincerely, you can learn a bit .... from this post.
>> Amen!
>>>God, is well able to provide His word to the world and to His people.
>>>There have always been and will continue to be those who want to
>>>discredit the Bible.
>> Are you suggesting that Paul wrote 2 Timothy after he had died??????
>> A MIRACLE!!!!!!!
>> If you read REAL BOOKS you would understand the problem with 2 Timothy
>> !!!!!
>
> I have learned from you Mark that someone will deny the word of God and
> still claim to be a Christian.
#################################################
My Testimony at http://members.cox.net/christian_life/
***********************************************************
'As rare as a Fundamentalist who loves his enemy.
#################################################
... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist '... an assurance that those
who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really true Christians at
all.' - Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
#################################################
Mark T
> As to whether Paul wrote 2 Timothy or not, the Bible does not say
It mentions Paul's name as author!
>so you still have no logical reason for saying that the Bible is inerrant.
I agree. The bible is definitely errant.
> Nevertheless my point that you ignored was that Paul,s letter to Timothy
> could
> have been kept for a hundred or more years before it was included in the
> Bible.
You don't know how the bible was put together, do you? 'There was no single
Bible "book" containing Old and New Testaments until about 400 CE.
The articles I referenced are talking about HOW the letter was written. It
mentions things that did not exist when Paul was alive. It wasn't written
earlier then put in the bible later.
Google some history articles on HOW & WHEN the bible was compiled.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From
http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue4/Articles/dating_early_christian_gospels.htm
Dating Early Christian Gospels
by Andrew Bernhard
A remarkable number of ancient gospels not included in the New Testament
have been recovered during the past two centuries. In evaluating these
gospels, scholars have come to astonishingly different conclusions about
when they were written. Some scholars have assigned many of the newly
recovered gospels to the first century of the Christian movement.[1] Others
have concluded that virtually all of these gospels were written during the
middle or late second century.[2] No scholarly consensus regarding the dates
of these gospels seems likely anytime in the foreseeable future.
Although there has been such vigorous debate about the dates of
gospel origins, it may be that exact dates are not necessary for
understanding the place of early gospels[3] in the emergence of
Christianity. Indeed, I will argue, they are counterproductive. Early
gospels cannot and should not be dated to a specific year or decade. Dates
of gospel origins cannot be assessed with such a high degree of precision
because the gospels stem from a sparsely documented period in distant
history. Dating gospels is a largely arbitrary exercise that obscures the
fact that all early gospels, canonical and non-canonical alike, are
essentially the same kind of writings.
Early Christian Gospels
The texts under consideration in this essay have two defining
characteristics. First, they are gospels. While the term "gospel" (Gk.
euaggelion) has a long and varied history,[4] it is here defined as a
written text that has a primary focus of recounting the teachings and/or
activities of Jesus; interactions between Jesus and his disciples in the
context of his earthly ministry are a necessary characteristic. Thus, in
this essay, the term does not refer to an oral proclamation of the Christian
message (e.g., Paul's "gospel"; 1 Cor 5:1-5) or to an ancient homily (e.g.,
the Gospel of Truth).
Second, the texts under consideration here are early. That is, they were
indisputably written before the end of the second century (and presumably
after the crucifixion of Jesus). At least one of two kinds of evidence is
required to establish that a gospel is early.[5] An early date for a gospel
may be confirmed by an extant manuscript that was copied by around the end
of the second century.[6] Or, the gospel may be explicitly named in the
works of an author who commenced his or her writing activities before the
close of the second century.
Significant descriptions or portions of twelve ancient texts that meet the
criteria necessary to be considered an early gospel have been preserved from
antiquity. Six early gospels are attested by manuscripts from the second
century or shortly thereafter: Matthew (?64, ?67),[7] Luke (?4),[8] John
(?52),[9] Gospel of Thomas (P.Oxy. 1),[10] Gospel of Peter (P.Oxy.
4009)[11], and an "Unknown Gospel" (P.Egerton 2).[12] Six additional early
gospels are attested by patristic citations from the same time period: Mark
(Irenaeus, Haer. 3.11.8), Secret Mark,[13] Gospel of the Ebionites
(Irenaeus, Haer. 1.26.2; 3.21.1), Gospel of the Nazareans (Eusebius, Hist.
eccl. 4.22.8), Gospel of the Hebrews (Clement, Strom. 2.9.45), and Marcion's
gospel (Irenaeus, Haer. 1.27.2).
Dating Early Christian Gospels
While some extraordinary claims have been made about precisely
when early gospels (and parts of them) were written,[14] it is impossible to
determine the dates of gospel origins with much certainty. An absolute date
can be assigned to an ancient text only if a clear relationship can be
established between the text and another writing or event from a specific,
known time. Unfortunately, such writings and events are almost entirely
lacking from the time period when the gospels were written.
Terminus post quem. Only two known events are helpful for
determining how soon early gospels may have been written after the death of
Jesus: the fall of Jerusalem (70 C.E.) and the martyrdom of Peter (ca. 64
C.E.). Yet, these events are useful for dating only two gospels and a
portion of a third. Matthew and Luke must have been written after Titus'
siege of Jerusalem because they allude to it (Matt 22:7; Luke 19:43-44,
21:20-24), but it is not clear that Mark was aware of the event.[15] John 21
must have been written after Peter's death,[16] but the final chapter may
have been added to the gospel long after the rest had been written.[17]
There are no certain references to any datable historical events in John
1-20.[18] The same is true for the eight non-canonical early gospels.[19]
On the basis of literary relationships, only one gospel must have been
written after Matthew, Luke, or the datable portion of John: the Gospel of
the Ebionites presupposes Matthew and Luke.[20] The remainder lack the
extensive verbal correspondence necessary to establish a literary
relationship. It is not at all clear that the Gospel of Thomas,[21] Gospel
of Peter,[22] or "Unknown Gospel" of P.Egerton 2[23] is dependent upon the
canonical gospels for their material. The accusations of the church fathers
do not establish that Marcion actually abridged ("mutilated") Luke.[24] Too
few fragments of the Gospel of the Nazareans and Gospel of the Hebrews have
been preserved to allow for a definitive judgment of their sources.[25] It
is not even possible to determine which came first: Mark or Secret Mark.[26]
Terminus ante quem. Trying to determine the latest possible
dates for gospel origins is also a difficult task. Certainly, all early
gospels were completed before the end of the second century, but how much
earlier is unclear. On the basis of manuscript evidence alone, it is only
possible to determine that two gospels were in circulation before the middle
of the second century, one non-canonical gospel ("Unknown Gospel," P.Egerton
2)[27] and one canonical gospel (John, ?52).[28] All additional information
about which gospels were in use by the early decades of the second century
comes from ambiguous patristic testimonies.
There are two writers who at first glance appear to be
potentially useful for determining which (canonical)[29] gospels were in
circulation by the early second century. First, it appears possible that
Ignatius of Antioch was familiar with Matthew when he wrote his letters
around 110 C.E. In various passages, Ignatius seems to allude to the gospel,
although he does not mention it explicitly.[30] Most of these passages,
however, are vague references at best and could easily be the result of oral
tradition.[31] Also, careful examination of the Matthew-Ignatius parallels
reveals an interesting trend. Ignatius has an overwhelming preference for
material found in Matthew, but not the other synoptics.[32] This excessive
familiarity with special M material has suggested to some that Ignatius may
have known a source of Matthew rather than the gospel itself.[33]
Second, Papias of Hierapolis mentioned writings by Matthew and Mark in his
five volume Oracles of the Lord Explained around 130 C.E. However, his
comments, known only second-hand through Eusebius, are not at all clear. His
brief description of a writing of Matthew as "logia in the Hebrew dialect"
is too vague to be a certain reference to the canonical text (Eusebius,
Hist. eccl. 3.39.16).[34] Further ambiguity surrounds Papias' comments about
Mark. Papias states only that Mark wrote down notes of Peter's preaching
(Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15). Yet, it is difficult to believe that so
carefully constructed a narrative as Mark could have been regarded as a mere
chaotic collection of unordered notes.[35] Further, Papias does not actually
state that these notes were the canonical gospel (nor does Eusebius imply
that he did).[36] Thus, it is not certain that Papias was describing either
canonical Matthew or Mark in the excerpts of Eusebius.
All early gospels, then, were written sometime between the death of Jesus
and the second half of the second century. Three gospels[37] must have been
written after 70 C.E.; how long after is anybody's guess. Two gospels[38]
must have been written before the end of the first half of the second
century C.E.; how long before is anybody's guess. With such chronologically
distant boundaries, it is little wonder that scholars have come up with such
divergent dates of origins for early gospels. The dates are based on nothing
more concrete than each scholar's impression of precisely when small
stories, sayings, or phrases might or might not have been meaningful to a
particular writer or community. There is considerable room for differences
of opinion with such subjective analysis.[39]
Conceptualizing Early Christian Gospels
Clearly, there are reasons to be hesitant about assigning dates
to early gospels. To begin with, there is little to be gained by assigning
them. Speculations are not beneficial and possible dates of greater than
half a century can hardly be of more than negligible interpretive value.
Also, there is no way to appeal to a scholarly consensus to settle the
matter with non-canonical gospels. Finally, there is a great deal to be lost
by trying to date early gospels. When some gospels are located in the first
century and others in the second, the implication is unavoidable: the
earlier gospels are more original than their later, derivative counterparts.
To steer clear of this unwarranted prioritization, all early
gospels should be regarded simply as products of pre-canonical
Christianity.[40] All parts of all early gospels were likely written after
the death of Jesus (ca. 30 C.E.), but before Irenaeus created a broad
consensus that only four[41] individual[42] gospels could be regarded as
authoritative scripture (ca. 180 C.E.). The period for the writing of the
early gospels might reasonably be narrowed to something like 60-150 C.E.,
but the gospels should remain in a broad, rather than narrow, context. This
will make it easy to see that all early gospels are analogous developments
of the Jesus tradition. They have a great deal in common.
All early gospels have a common background. They come from an
age when traditions about Jesus had not yet been fixed. Most these
traditions, in fact, were still being circulated orally. In the "unwritten
tradition," various narratives about Jesus were being recounted along with
parables and teachings attributed to him (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 3.9.11). The
oral traditions were so abundant that, as one ancient writer put it, "if
every one of them were written down, I suppose the world itself could not
contain the books that would be written" (John 21:25).
All early gospels underwent a similar process of formation.
Probably over considerable periods of time,[43] the evangelists molded their
gospels into their final forms by adapting traditional materials from
various oral and written sources. Although so few Christian writings have
survived from this time period, nothing is more certain than that traditions
about Jesus were subject to constant revision. The lists of Jesus' teachings
that circulated during this time period[44] were revised easily and often.
For example, the few extant manuscripts of the Gospel of Thomas[45]
illustrate clearly[46] how sayings were undoubtedly rearranged,[47]
expanded,[48] contracted,[49] or placed in interpretive contexts.[50]
Narratives gospels also were frequently, thoroughly reworked. Consider Mark.
The material in this gospel[51] was placed in at least seven radically
different arrangements.[52]
All early gospels also share at least one more additional common
characteristic: their reason for being written. By creating a gospel, every
ancient author was trying to present his or her beliefs about Jesus in a way
that would be helpful to his followers after the end of his physical life.
The gospel writers may have drawn on oral traditions that, to the modern
mind, seem to be of doubtful worth. They may have modified material in a way
that we would regard as unjustified. Yet always, for each evangelist, the
underlying motivation for writing was the same.
Conclusion
While it may be only natural to wonder exactly when significant
ancient texts were written, some questions are better left unanswered. After
nearly two millennia, the dates of gospel origins cannot be determined as
precisely as we might like. Assigning speculative dates to early gospels
does not contribute to our understanding of these texts, but inevitably
prioritizes them. To avoid doing such injustice to these texts, the gospels
should be located in the broad context of pre-canonical Christianity (ca.
60-150 C.E.). Then, it will be possible to appreciate all early Christian
gospels for what they are: some of the first attempts ever made to
articulate the meaning of the life of Jesus, sincere attempts made by people
who revered him.
Bibliography
Attridge, Harold W. "Appendix: The Greek Fragments." Pages 96-128 in vol. 1
of Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2-7: Together with XIII, 2*, Brit. Lib. Or.4926(1),
and P.OXY. 1, 654, 655. Edited by Bentley Layton. 2 vols. Leiden: E.J.
Brill, 1989.
Bell, H. Idris, and T.C. Skeat, eds. Fragments of an Unknown Gospel and
Other Early Christian Papyri. London: Oxford University Press, 1935.
Berger, Klaus, and Christine Nord. Das neue Testament und frühchristliche
Schriften. Leipzig: Insel Verlag, 1999.
Bernhard, Andrew. "Jesus of Nazareth in Early Christian Gospels." No pages.
Cited 11 June 2001. Online: http://www.gospels.net.
Black, C. Clifton. Mark: Images of an Apostolic Interpreter. Minneapolis:
Fortress, 2001.
Blomberg, Craig L. The Historical Reliablity of the Gospels. Downers Grove:
Inter-Varsity, 1987.
Brown, Raymond. The Gospel According to John. Anchor Bible 29. Garden City:
Doubleday, 1966-1970.
Cameron, Ron. "Thomas, Gospel of." Pages 535-540 in vol. 6 of The Anchor
Bible Dictionary. Edited by David Noel Freedman. 6 vols. New York:
Doubleday, 1996.
- - - . The Other Gospels: Non-Canonical Gospel Texts. Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1982.
Comfort, Philip W., and David P. Barrett, eds. The Text of the Earliest New
Testament Greek Manuscripts. Rev. and enl. ed. Wheaton: Tyndale House, 2001.
Crossan, John Dominic. The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean
Peasant. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991.
Culpepper, R. Alan. John, The Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend.
Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1994.
Daniels, Jon B. "The Egerton Gospel: Its Place in Early Christianity." Ph.D.
diss., The Claremont Graduate School, 1990.
Ehrman, Bart. The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early
Christian Writings. 2d ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
- - - . The New Testament and Other Early Christian Writings: A Reader. New
York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Elliott, J.K., ed. The Apocryphal New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1993.
Holmes, Michael W., ed. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English
Translations. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.
Jenkins, Philip. Hidden Gospels: How the Search For Jesus Lost Its Way. New
York: Oxford University Press, 2001.
Knox, John. Marcion and the New Testament: An Essay in the Early History of
the Canon. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942.
Koester, Helmut. Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development.
Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990.
- - - . "Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels." Harvard Theological Review 73
(1980): 105-130.
Kümmel, Werner Georg. Introduction to the New Testament. Translated by A.J.
Mattill. 14th ed. Nashville: Abingdon, 1966.
Luhrmann, D., and P.J. Parsons, eds. "4009. Gospel of Peter?" Pages 1-5 in
vol. 60 of The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1994.
Massaux, Édouard. The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on Christian
Literature Before Saint Irenaeus. Translated by Norman J. Belval and Suzanne
Hecht. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1986.
Meier, John P. A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. 3 vols. New
York: Doubleday, 1991-2001.
Miller, Robert J., ed. The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars Version.
Sonoma: Polebridge, 1994.
Patterson, Stephen J. The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus. Sonoma: Polebridge,
1993.
Powell, Evan. The Unfinished Gospel: Notes on the Quest for the Historical
Jesus. Westlake Village: Symposium Books, 1994.
Roberts, Alexander, and James Donaldson, eds. The Ante-Nicene Fathers.
1885-1887. 10 vols. Repr. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994.
Robinson, James M., and Helmut Koester. Trajectories through Early
Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971.
Robinson, John A.T. Redating the New Testament. Philadelphia: Westminster,
1976.
- - - . The Priority of John. Edited by J.F. Coakley. London: Meyer-Stone,
1985.
Sanders, E.P., and Margaret Davies. Studying the Synoptic Gospels.
Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1989.
Schneemelcher, Wilhem, ed. New Testament Apocrypha. Translated by R. McL.
Wilson. 2 vols. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991.
Sibinga, J. Smit. "Ignatius and Matthew." Novum Testamentum 8 (1966):
263-283.
Smith, Morton. Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1973.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Robert J. Miller, ed., The Complete Gospels: Annotated Scholars Version
(Sonoma: Polebridge, 1994), 6.
[2] John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (3 vols.;
New York: Doubleday, 1991-2001), 1:114-139.
[3] Early gospels are written texts about Jesus that were certainly written
before 200 C.E., as will be discussed below.
[4] Helmut Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development
(Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990), 1-40.
[5] Helmut Koester, "Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels," HTR 73 (1980):
107-112. Koester employs these two kinds of evidence, although he also
recognizes other ways to identify early gospels.
[6] Since there is some ambiguity in dating ancient manuscripts, those dated
from the first quarter of the third century C.E. are regarded as evidence
that a text had been written before 200 C.E.
[7] Philip W. Comfort and David P. Barrett, eds., The Text of the Earliest
New Testament Greek Manuscripts (rev. and enl. ed.; Wheaton: Tyndale House,
2001), 43-44.
[8] Comfort and Barrett, Earliest New Testament, 43.
[9] Comfort and Barrett, Earliest New Testament, 365.
[10] Harold W. Attridge, "Appendix: The Greek Fragments" in Nag Hammadi
Codex II, 2-7: Together with XIII, 2*, Brit. Lib. Or.4926(1), and P.OXY. 1,
654, 655 (ed. Bentley Layton; 2 vols.; Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1989), 1:96-97.
[11] D. Luhrmann and P.J. Parsons, eds., "4009. Gospel of Peter?" in The
Oxyrhynchus Papyri (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1994), 60:1-5.
[12] H. Idris Bell and T.C. Skeat, eds., Fragments of an Unknown Gospel and
Other Early Christian Papyri (London: Oxford University Press, 1935), 2.
[13] Morton Smith, Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 446-47. Clement describes
Secret Mark in an otherwise unattested letter discovered by Smith.
[14] John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean
Peasant (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1991), 427-434
[15] Werner Georg Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament (trans. A.J.
Mattill; 14th ed.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1966), 71.
[16] Klaus Berger and Christine Nord, Das neue Testament und frühchristliche
Schriften (Leipzig: Insel Verlag, 1999), 313.
[17] Raymond Brown, The Gospel According to John (AB 29; Garden City:
Doubleday, 1966-1970), 1080.
[18] John A.T. Robinson, The Priority of John (ed. J.F. Coakley; London:
Meyer-Stone, 1985), 79-81. Although it has often been asserted that John
alludes to the formulation of the birkat ha-minim in the 90s C.E., Robinson
rightly points out that there is no basis for believing that the Greek word
aposynagogos (John 9:22, 12:42, 16:2) connotes a formal excommunication,
such as the Jewish "Benediction Against Heretics." See also: Evan Powell,
The Unfinished Gospel: Notes on the Quest for the Historical Jesus (Westlake
Village: Symposium Books, 1994), 130-136.
[19] Wilhelm Schneemelcher, ed.. New Testament Apocrypha (trans. R. McL.
Wilson; 2 vols.; Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1991), 1:97, 107, 113,
159, 169, 176, 215, 221, 385, 392.
[20] Schneemelcher, Apocrypha, 1:169.
[21] Stephen J. Patterson, The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus (Sonoma:
Polebridge, 1993), 17-120.
[22] Bart Ehrman, The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early
Christian Writings (2d ed.; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 184.
[23] Jon B. Daniels, "The Egerton Gospel: Its Place in Early Christianity"
(Ph.D. diss., The Claremont Graduate School, 1990), 27-138.
[24] John Knox, Marcion and the New Testament: An Essay in the Early History
of the Canon (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942), 97.
[25] Schneemelcher, Gospels, 1:136.
[26] Meier, Marginal Jew, 1:121-122.
[27] R. Alan Culpepper, John, The Son of Zebedee: The Life of a Legend
(Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1994), 108. The early date of
P.Egerton 2 has recently been challenged; some scholars prefer to date the
manuscript closer to 200 C.E. than 100 C.E.
[28] Some imprecision in dating this tiny fragment must be accepted since it
preserves less than 150 lettes.
[29] One should not expect any evidence for the early existence of
non-canonical gospels. The patristic sources that have been preserved were,
of course, those that were valued by later Christians who recognized only
four authoritative gospels.
[30] Édouard Massaux, The Influence of the Gospel of Saint Matthew on
Christian Literature Before Saint Irenaeus (trans. Norman J. Belval and
Suzanne Hecht; Macon: Mercer University Press, 1986), 86-96.
[31] Koester, Ancient, 315.
[32] Craig L. Blomberg, The Historical Reliablity of the Gospels (Downers
Grove: Inter-Varsity, 1987), 206-207.
[33] J. Smit Sibinga, "Ignatius and Matthew," NovT 8 (1966): 263-283.
[34] James M. Robinson and Helmut Koester, Trajectories through Early
Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), 74. Scholars have frequently
speculated that the logia ("sayings") may have been a sayings collection
(like Q) rather than Matthew itself.
[35] John A.T. Robinson, Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1976), 114-115.
[36] C. Clifton Black, Mark: Images of an Apostolic Interpreter
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 90.
[37] Matthew, Luke, and the Gospel of the Ebionites.
[38] John and the "Unknown Gospel" of P.Egerton 2.
[39] Philip Jenkins, Hidden Gospels: How the Search For Jesus Lost Its Way
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 93.
[40] In this essay, the pre-canonical period is designated as the time
before there was agreement about any significant portion of the canon. While
the earliest known list of the New Testament as it now stands in modern
Bibles was not written until 367 C.E., the central role of the four gospels
was never seriously challenged after the time of Irenaeus (ca. 180 C.E.).
[41] Not one gospel, as Marcion would have liked.
[42] Not a harmony of four gospels, as Tatian would have liked.
[43] Ron Cameron, "Thomas, Gospel of," ABD 6:537.
[44] Robinson and Koester, Trajectories, 85-95.
[45] Attridge, "Greek Fragments" in Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2-7, 1:98-109.
Attridge has compiled a complete collection of patristic references to the
Gospel of Thomas and also presents an exhaustive list of the differences
between the complete Coptic manuscript and the Greek fragments of the text.
[46] While the differences between the different manuscripts may have arisen
after the close of the second century, they illuminate the process of
revision that was undoubtedly at work earlier.
[47] e.g., Coptic sayings 30 and 77b are found together in P.Oxy. 1.23-30.
[48] e.g., Coptic saying 26 has been significantly expanded in P.Oxy. 655,
col. i.1-17.
[49] e.g. the portion "he will become troubled" portion of Coptic saying 2
has been omitted in P.Oxy. 654.7-8.
[50] e.g., according to Hippolytus, Haer 5.7.20, the Naasenes modified the
text of saying 4 to refer to their system of aeons.
[51] This presumes the two source solution to the synoptic problem, which
perhaps should not be so casually accepted. For a brief summary of concerns
about the validity of the two source hypothesis, see: E.P. Sanders and
Margaret Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels (Philadelphia: Trinity Press
International, 1989), 112-19.
[52] At least seven different versions of the core synoptic material are
known from the first two centuries: 1. canonical Mark; 2. Secret Mark, a
longer version of the canonical gospel that was valued by Clement of
Alexandria; 3. Another longer version of the canonical gospel that Clement
condemned as a false creation of the Carpocratians; 4. Matthew; 5. Luke; 6.
Marcion's gospel, a text that Irenaeus (Haer. 1.27.2) and Tertullian (Marc.
4.4) claimed was an abridgement ("mutilation") of Luke; 7. Gospel of the
Ebionites, a text that combined the material in Luke and Matthew.
Interestingly, even with all these different versions, later writers still
felt compelled to append three different endings to the canonical gospel.
Mark T
> As I understand it, the argument against 2 Timothy being written by Paul
> is that the language, style and content of the text are not compatible
> with either Paul's other writings or the period in which he lived.
Yep!
> You are perfectly correct that a letter written by Adams could be included
> in a compilation of a century later, but not if the letter included
> references to events which had occurred after Adams' death, or used
> linguistic forms not developed until a later period, and so on.
It would then be a forgery ... and 2 Timothy is a forgery NOT written by
Paul.
Mark T
> Because the Bible is God's Word
Unproven! There was no single Bible "book" containing Old and New
Testaments until about 400 CE!!!!!
> it's totally trustworthy, free from any error. God's Word is described as
> "the word of truth" (2 Corinthians 6:7; Colossians 1:5; 2 Timothy 2:15;
> James 1:18).
> Inerrancy isn't a theory about the Bible; it's the teaching of the Bible
> itself.
Where ion the bible does it even mention the BIBLE by name???? There was no
single Bible "book" containing Old and New Testaments until about 400
CE!!!!!
> Regardless of the kind of difficulty found, not a single irreconcilable
> error can be found in the Bible's pages.
CRAP!
How do you explain away 2 Timothy which wasn't written by Paul??????!!!!!!
The fundamentalist mantra "The Bible is the word of God" ISN'T found in the
Bible as there was no single Bible "book" containing Old and New Testaments
until about 400 CE!!!!!
Fundamentalists start with their erroneous dogma and then attempt to prove
it regardless of the historical evidence to the contrary.
1001 Errors in the Christian Bible
http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/
Biblical Inconsistencies
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.shtml
Early Christian Writings
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
From Jesus To Christ
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/
Fundamentalists Annonymous
http://www.fundamentalists-anonymous.org/
Intelligent Christian
http://www.intelligentchristian.org/
Internet Sacred Texts Archive
http://www.sacred-texts.com/index.htm
Jesus Seminar Forum
http://religion.rutgers.edu/jseminar/
Karen Armstrong
http://www.2think.org/hii/armstrng.shtml
Rudolph Bultmann
http://religion.rutgers.edu/nt/primer/bultmann.html
Scientific Boo-boos in the Bible
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1991/1/1boobo91.html
Sea of Faith
http://www.sofn.org.uk/
Ship Of Fools
http://ship-of-fools.com/
Skeptics Annotated Bible
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/
What the Christian fundamentalist doesn't want you to know
http://www.bidstrup.com/bible2.htm
Mark T
> Isn't the Bible full of contradictions and circular reasoning?
Parts of it are contradictory. Try solving the synoptic problem!!!!
Parts are also true.
> Where are the contradictions? Very few people who claim the Bible is full
> of contradictions have ever read the Bible or can point out any
> contradictions.
I have read the bible throiugh ... every verse ... many times in man y
different versions over the last 30 years. (Now reading the Message Bible)
The bible definitely contains contradictions and mistakes which is clearly
shown in every accredited university where the bible is studied as an
ancient document.
You can see it if you are not illieterate or a brain-dead rabid
fundamentalist.
> Challenge those who accuse the Bible of being full of contradictions to
> prove it by showing you one.
The fundamentalist mantra "The Bible is the word of God" ISN'T found in the
Bible as there was no single Bible "book" containing Old and New Testaments
until about 400 CE!!!!!
Fundamentalists start with their erroneous dogma and then attempt to prove
it regardless of the historical evidence to the contrary.
For example ...
Moses apparently wrote about his own death. A miracle!!!!!
###########################################################
Deuteronomy 34:5-6 (New International Version)
5 And Moses the servant of the LORD died there in Moab, as the LORD had
said. 6 He buried him [a] in Moab, in the valley opposite Beth Peor, but to
this day no one knows where his grave is.
###########################################################
Moses as author of Deuteronomy also refers to himself in the thrird
person!!! Another miracle!!!!
There are too many errors in the bible to fully list. This is a sample from
http://www.answering-christianity.com/bible.htm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Can God be the author of confusion and contradiction?
...
ii) II Samuel 24 :1 says that God incited David to number Israel .
I Chronicles 21:1 says that Satan incited David to number Israel. God and
Satan are not synonymous.
iii) II Chronicles 36:9 says that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he became
king.
II Kings 24:8 says Jehoiachin was 18 years old when he became king.
A difference of 10 years
iv) II Samuel 10:18 talks about David slew the men of 700 chariots of the
Syrians and 40,000 horsemen and Shobach the commander.
I Chronicles 1:18 says that David slew the men of 7000 chariots and 40,000
footmen
Contradiction: one says 700 the other 7000. One says 40,000
horsemen(cavalry), the other 40,000 footmen (infantry).
v) I Chronicles 9:25 says that Solomon had 4000 stalls for horses and
chariots.
I Kings 4:26 says that he had 40,000 stalls for horses
A difference of 36,000.
vi) Ezra 2:5 talks about an exile Arah having 775 sons.
Nehemiah 7:10 talks about the same exile Arah having 652 sons.
vii) John the Baptist contradicts Jesus.
According to Jesus, John the Baptist was Elijah in his 2nd coming Matthew
17:11.
John the Baptist denied being Elijah when the priests and Levites questioned
him
(John 1:19-21).
viii) Was Jesus put on a cross (Stauron in Greek) Mark 15:11 or on a tree
(Ksulon in Greek) I Peter 2:24
ix) John 3:13 Jesus says that none has ascended into heaven except the son
of man who descended from heaven.
This contradicts II Kings 2:11 which says that Elijah ascended into heaven.
x) The Genealogy of Jesus.
a) From David to Jesus 41 names (generations) are given by Matthew [although
he claims
there are 42] as against the 26 names [generations] given by Luke [Luke 3].
A difference
of 15 whole generations in the genealogy of the same man.
Matthew mentions that Jesus was the seed of David through Solomon while Luke
says that Jesus was the seed of David through Nathan [Solomon's brother].
This is a contradiction as the seed of David could never reach Jesus through
Solomon and his brother Nathan at the same time. According to Matthew Jesus'
grandfather is Jacob [the father of Joseph] while according to Luke it is
Heli.
xi) Luke doesn't claim inspiration of his Gospel by God. He wrote it because
he knew of the events and it "seemed good to him" ( Luke 1:1-5). Also see I
Corinthians 7:25 where Paul, in this specific case says that he's informing
without God's commandment.
...
Non-Existent Prophecies
.
Matthew 2:23 "that which was spoken by the prophets, 'He shall be called a
Nazarene.'" The words Nazareth / Nazarene are not even found in the Old
Testament. Use a word search.
.
Matthew 27:9-10 In reference to the potter's field being bought with thirty
pieces of silver, quoting Jeremiah in the Old Testament. This is not in
Jeremiah at all.
.
Luke 24:46 & I Cor.15:4 After Jesus resurrected, he said, "Thus it is
written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead
the third day." This is a non-existent prophecy. There is no reference to a
third day resurrection anywhere in the Old Testament.
...
Cain took eve as wife?? Or what happened. Something's wrong here: For when
he married there was NO other woman.
"And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a
city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch."
(Genesis 4:17)
...
Rabbits dont chew cud:
LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the
hoof; he is unclean unto you.
...
What were the last words of Jesus:
Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice,
saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God,
why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice,
yielded up the ghost."
Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father,
unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the
ghost."
John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is
finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."
To see or not to see God:
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (Ex. 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend."
(Ex. 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Gen. 32:30)
OR= God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and
live." (Ex. 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1 Tim. 6:16)
...
How many children did Michael daughter of saul have??
SA2 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of
her death.
SA2 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom
she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of
Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of
Barzillai the Meholathite:
Let us Judge:
1 Cor 2:15 " The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he
himself is not subject to any man's judgment:" (NIV)
1 Cor 4:5 " Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the
Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and
will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his
praise from God."
On wine or not to wine?
Proverbs 31:6-7 "Give strong drink to him who is ready to perish, and wine
to those hthat be of heavy hearts. Let him drink and forget his poverty and
remember his misery no more."
Proverbs 20:1 (just 11 chapters earlier):"Wine is a mocker, strong drink is
a ragingand whomsoever is deceived thereby is not wise."
....
Cretionism myths dont agree with themselves :o), and then ladies and
gentlemen
there was Man :o)
Man was created AFTER the other animals (Genesis 1:25-26), now wait a minute
Man was created BEFORE the other animals Genesis 2:18-19.
SERMON ON THE MOUNT OR PLAIN?
Hey all, anyone heard of the SERMON on the MOUNT?? (Matthew 5:1,2)?? Nice
stuff
but hey know what, good ole Luke says it was on a PLAIN (Luke 6:17.20), wow
ever heard of the sermon on the plain??
GREEK OR NOT SO GREEK?
Was it a GREEK woman who sought Jesus since her daughter was ill (Mark 7:26)
or was it a woman of CANAAN (mark 15:22).
HOW MANY WOMEN?
How many women went to the sephulchre after Jesus' "cruci-fiction" on the
first day of the week. Whatever your answer is , guess what youre correct!
Was it one (John 20:1) Or was it two (Matthew 28:1) or wait a minute was it
three??(Mark 16:1) NAH, he was a popular guy must be more than three (Luke
24:10)
THE RESTING GOD:
1.God got tired and rested (Exodus 31:17) BUT ALSO God never rests or gets
tired (Isaiah 40:28)
THE UNKNOWING GOD:
2.God sees and knows everythig (Prov 15:3) BUT THEN he doesnt see and know
everything and its possible to hide from him (Genesis 3:8; Genesis 18:20-21)
THE TEMPTING GOD:
3.God doesnt tempt anyone (James 1:13) BUT THEN ALAS, God tempted Abraham
(Genesis 22:1 ) and deceived Jeremiah (Jeremiah 20:7)- sniff :o(
THE LYING GOD:
4.God doesnt lie (Hebrews 6:18) BUT THEN God sent LYING SPIRITS to lie to
people (1 Kings 22:23)
THE NOT-SO-SURE GOD
5. God forbids the making of IMAGES (Exodus 20:4) BUT ALAS GOD commands that
images of cherubims be made (Exodus 25:18,20)
THE END OF JUDAS?
6. Judah hung himself and comitted suicide (Matthew 27:5); OR Did he die
when his bowels split open (poor fellow cant agree on his death even ) Acts
1:18
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
According to the fundamentalist view the Bible is finished, NOTHING may be
added ...
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this
book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the
plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from
the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of
the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are
written in this book. (Revelation 22:18-19 KJV)
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
The Revelation of John was written 90 - 95 CE.
Please rip the following books of the bible out of your bible as they could
be written after that date:
John's Gospel written 90 -1230 CE.
I John written 90 -120 CE
2 John written 90 -120 CE
3 John written 90 -120 CE
Jude written 90 -120 CE
1 Timothy 100 -150 CE
2 Timothy 100 -150 CE
Titus written 100 - 150 CE
2 Peter written 100 -160 CE
Happy bible page ripping!!! ;-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Biblical Inconsistencies
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.shtml
Fundamentalists Annonymous
http://www.fundamentalists-anonymous.org/
Intelligent Christian
http://www.intelligentchristian.org/
Karen Armstrong
http://www.2think.org/hii/armstrng.shtml
Rudolph Bultmann
http://religion.rutgers.edu/nt/primer/bultmann.html
Mark T
> Given what you've written above, it would seem that those who don't like
> the contradictions haven't much idea how to deal with 'em, besides hiding
> under the blanket.
Exactly!
These people usually haven't studied the bible at university level. Try
harmonising the manifold problems between Kings and Chronicles to find the
"true history" of the time!!!!!
Most Bible Studies are a sharing of ignorance.
Mark T
> The Bible's laws are pure and good, meant to help and not to
> harm us.
But that does not mean that they are 100% true ... because they are not!
See my many examples of errors in the bible in my previous post.
Try to harmonise the 4 gospels. John's gospel stands out like a sore thumb!
Google on the synoptic problem.
Jani
"Mark T" <egadlook@that109> wrote in message
news:425ef1ab$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
Yes, but your posts to Sincerely have probably zapped out her bandwidth, or
her attention span, by now. Incidentally, I ploughed my way through, and the
sources are very ... delicate .. about the historical/ linguistic, etc. It
is not at all categoric that he *didn't* write it, just consensus of
academics. (Although I am starting to understand this Dr Who version of
christianity - "we zapped around in the Tardis and so no matter whether
your're ancient Egyptians or future neopagan wikkins, we got there first and
you're All Christians!" :)
Jani
Jani
"Mark T" <egadlook@that112> wrote in message
news:425ef8a3$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> "Jani" wrote:
>
>> Given what you've written above, it would seem that those who don't like
>> the contradictions haven't much idea how to deal with 'em, besides hiding
>> under the blanket.
>
> Exactly!
>
> These people usually haven't studied the bible at university level.
A lot of people haven't studied *anything* at that level, to be fair.
Jani
Mark T
> Yes, but your posts to Sincerely have probably zapped out her bandwidth,
> or her attention span, by now.
I forgot ...fundamentalists only read comic books.
> Incidentally, I ploughed my way through, and the sources are very ...
> delicate .. about the historical/ linguistic, etc. It is not at all
> categoric that he *didn't* write it, just consensus of academics.
The consensus of academics is better than a fundamentalist unfounded opinion
"because the bible says so".
You can get the bible in comic book form ...easier for fundamentalists to
read.
http://users.aol.com/ChriCom/index.html
Sincerely
& Stanley Ellisen, Th.D.. It is a unique blending of the 4 Gospels,
published by Multnomah Books, 1994 by Western Seminary. It will
resolve all the "contradictions" in the gospel accounts you may have.
It is a beautiful blending of the 4 gospels. If you don't want to buy
it try to borrow it from a theological college library It is truly a
treasure and I feel sure it wll answer many of your questions. The
Deity of Jesus is such an important matter you can't afford not to
investigate every doubt you have til you find the truth that He is God
Incarnate. Signed: Sincerely
Sincerely
May I please refer you again to the book "The Greatest Story" by
Johnston M Cheney & Stanley Ellisen, Th.D. I can see from your
superior knowledge of the Bible that I am way over my head in trying to
debate with you, so I guess I'll have to drop out for now and do my
homework. Thanks for setting me back on the right path of Bible study.
Signed: Sincerely
Reaper
I do not consider you an enemy. You confess you are a Christian, that
makes us brothers. Consider it a family feud.
terry
Mark T wrote in message <425f0f2c$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>...
>"Jani" wrote:
>
>> Yes, but your posts to Sincerely have probably zapped out her bandwidth,
>> or her attention span, by now.
>
>I forgot ...fundamentalists only read comic books.
>
Mark,
The best comic book I've read is "Interpreting Faith for the Modern Era" by
Bultman. Of course, running a close second is the letters of "Karl
Barth/Rudolf Bultman." ;^)))
However, the most intriging comic book is probably "Confessions of a
Philosopher" by Bryan Magee or "Meditations" by Marcus Aurelius. ;0)
Take care,
Terry
Mark T
>I highly recommend you read "The Greatest Story" by Johnston M. Cheney
> & Stanley Ellisen, Th.D.. It is a unique blending of the 4 Gospels,
> published by Multnomah Books, 1994 by Western Seminary.
It is a work of fiction based on the bible. It does not address the major
problems in attempting to harmonise all four gospels ("Attempt" because it
has never been done.)
> Deity of Jesus is such an important matter you can't afford not to
> investigate every doubt you have til you find the truth that He is God
> Incarnate.
I once believed so ... then I got an education and left fundamentalism ...
warn by my Pastor that university would destroy my faith. Crap! My faith
was saved by finding out the truth that Jesus never was the One God YHWH,
King of the Universe, the Ground of all being. Jesus is the Christ /
Messiah ...and a human.
Truth matters. Fundamentalism is not true.
--
I have suggested that Fundamentalism is demonic. ...Tillich (one of the
theological triumvirate of the twentieth century) makes the same allegation
on the first page of his magnum opus ... Fundamentalists "confuse eternal
truth with a temporal expression of the truth. ... the theological truth of
yesterday is defended as an unchangeable message against the theological
truth of today and tomorrow. ... It elevates something finite and transitory
to infinite and eternal validity. In this respect fundamentalism has
demonic traits. It destroys the humble honesty of the search for truth, it
splits the conscience of its thoughtful adherents, and it makes them
fanatical, because they are forced to suppress elements of truth of which
they are dimly aware."...[Tillich] uses the word demonic to indicate
something which is opposed to the truth, which subverts the truth and
presents an obstacle to those who are searching for the truth.
- Peter Cameron "Fundamentalism and Freedom" p. 81
Mark T
>>I forgot ...fundamentalists only read comic books.
> The best comic book I've read is "Interpreting Faith for the Modern Era"
> by
> Bultman. Of course, running a close second is the letters of "Karl
> Barth/Rudolf Bultman." ;^)))
>
> However, the most intriging comic book is probably "Confessions of a
> Philosopher" by Bryan Magee or "Meditations" by Marcus Aurelius. ;0)
Amazing! Theology and philosophy books done in comic book form for the
feeble minded!!!
A miracle!!!!
...although i do confess to having bought the copmic book "Joyce For
Beginners" (Icon Books) ... because James Joyce is bloody difficult to
understand ... and although own a copies of Ulysees and Finnegan's Wake I
haven't been able to wade through them.
roger_...@yahoo.co.uk
> "Sincerely" wrote:
> > Nevertheless my point that you ignored was that Paul,s letter to
Timothy
> > could have been kept for a hundred or more years before it was
included in the
> > Bible.
>
> You don't know how the bible was put together, do you? 'There was no
single
> Bible "book" containing Old and New Testaments until about 400 CE.
Ahem. Are you confusing material format and canon? If you mean canon,
then of course this is untrue. If you mean only that it wasn't
technically possible to compile so large a collection of texts into a
single volume, well, what of it? Incidentally what do you think
Siniaticus and Alexandrinus are?
> Google some history articles on HOW & WHEN the bible was compiled.
I wouldn't rely on google for so controversial a matter. Look at
something like Metzger on the Canon, and Eusebius of Caesarea's
comments in his Church History (ca. 310AD).
> Dating Early Christian Gospels
> by Andrew Bernhard
>
> A remarkable number of ancient gospels not included in the New
Testament
> have been recovered during the past two centuries. ...
Andrew's opinions reflect the consensus of one group of secularised
scholars in the anglophone world in one period of history. The
evidence from antiquity is otherwise.
This group start with the principle that they decide what is or is not
'Christian' -- they then include heretical groups, and then assert that
since heretics did not believe what Christians believe, early
Christianity was 'diverse'. Such circular logic is deeply dishonest
and hateful.
All the best,
Roger Pearse
terry
Sincerely
Although I don't consider being a fundamentalist dishonorable in
this forum it seems to be an insult to be called one. I'm not
adequately well read in the specific field of apologetics and
criticisms of religion to carry on a dialogue in this forum. Perhaps
it is because I am an American and Australian culture is too different.
I would hope not. Perhaps I lack the wit or wisdom or both. In any
case I find the comments by so many people to be rough and unloving,
unkind and sarcastic - quick to criticize and insult people like Vera.
In other words: unChristian. Why do you call yourselves a Christian
group? Signed: Sincerely
Jani
footnotes.
Jani
"Sincerely" <lee...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1113515873.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Sincerely
Your reminder is well taken. My apologies to you and others. I have
found your remarks to be polite and helpful and JPF and the Reaper who
warned me I would get in beyond my ability to swim. I just didn't
expect to encounter sharks in the water...but it is Australia, isn't
it? ( just an attempt at humor...I've taken this a bit too seriously
and nothing was meant to hurt me...unless I let it. My ego can get me
in trouble more than any words can). Thanks for being here to keep the
forum going, Jani, and others like you. Who started the group? Vera?
Signed: Sincerely
Jani
who set it up, but it's been mentioned before - you can probably find it on
Google.
Jani
"Sincerely" <lee...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1113623506....@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
pedro
>Dear
>
There's nothing 'dear' about him. He's the biggest hypocrite here.
There's nothing wrong with you, mate. ARC is anything BUT christian in
the true sense of the word. In fact, they even object to being called
that. They like to say it's a 'group to discuss Christianity'. But what
it really is is a platform for those who want to bash traditional
Christianity, and fundamental christians, and flog their own ideas. If
you support fundamental christian beliefs and post there, you can expect
to be mocked, hounded, criticized, abused, stalked, and lied about.
Have a nice day! :)
--
rgds,
Pete
-----
http://pedro.spyw.com
The time here is- http://tinyurl.com/6sfgd
'Dogs have masters. Cats have servants'
Sincerely
I looked up ARC on Google and the author is Rowland Croucher. By
the way, he has a suggestion that ARC should split because there are so
many Christians dialoguing as an inside group that it makes it
uninteresting for non-Christians to participate and his original idea
was that it was to be interfaith or at least multi faceted in spiritual
points of view I guess. Signed: Sincerely
Sincerely
I'm such a "newbie" I didn't know "ng" meant newsgroup. So I
probably shouldn't be using the formal"Dear" as in the salutation of a
letter. I don't intend it as more than a formality when I use it that
way. As for all the abusive material I've read I think I need to take a
less egotistical offense to some of it. What I don't think should be
tolerated is actual disrespect for a person's religion, God or God's
name. Ad hominem arguments are never considered appropriate, are they?
Vulgar language always seems to distract from the purpose of a
discussion, also, don't you agree? It may seem to let off some
emotional steam but actually it only builds it up more thus robbing the
subject of sound judgement. That's been my experience. Signed:
Sincerely
(: Lawrence Meckan :)
> Sincerely wrote:
<snip and header cull>
>> unkind and sarcastic - quick to criticize and insult people like Vera.
>> In other words: unChristian. Why do you call yourselves a Christian
>> group? Signed: Sincerely
>
> There's nothing wrong with you, mate. ARC is anything BUT christian in
> the true sense of the word. In fact, they even object to being called
> that. They like to say it's a 'group to discuss Christianity'.
That's what it is. Discussing Christianity..
> But what it really is is a platform for those who want to bash traditional
> Christianity, and fundamental christians, and flog their own ideas.
Please not this AGAIN!
This is like, 2 years running at least, you've been ranting on how
aus.religion.christian should be a Christian-only enclave and how you
ended up getting sold a raw deal because of it..
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.christnet.evangelical/msg/9819ca2646777d33
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.christnet.evangelical/msg/ffbc90863d4cb98e
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/aus.religion.christian/msg/656bb819f1a344fe
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/aus.religion.christian/msg/aca201a2eb19a486
(1st reply by Chris Ho Stuart to your claims about a.r.c)
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/aus.religion.christian/msg/6a6ddb8cb2bef0e7
(2nd reply by Chris Ho Stuart to your claims about a.r.c)
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/aus.religion.christian/msg/a61f6d1fe77a5679
(1st reply by Sean McHugh)
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/aus.religion.christian/msg/7fd69eaea891cde9
(2nd reply by Sean McHugh)
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/aus.religion.christian/msg/e2ab358bb569fc13
(comments from a third party against your ideas)
> If you support fundamental christian beliefs and post there, you can expect
> to be mocked, hounded, criticized, abused, stalked, and lied about.
Hmm. All these adjectives have been used elsewhere as propaganda by
someone close to you, Pedro; and they, to a large extent, have been
refuted by evidence.
lawrence
Jani
Mark posted is by Bernhard, with a *very* extensive bibliography.
Jani
"Sincerely" <lee...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1113634772....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
pedro
If Google didn't exist you wouldn't have a life. Now fuck off!
pedro
>Dear Jani,
> I looked up ARC on Google and the author is Rowland Croucher.
>
Vera... don't ya just luv this! LOL!
> By
>the way, he has a suggestion that ARC should split because there are so
>many Christians dialoguing as an inside group that it makes it
>uninteresting for non-Christians to participate and his original idea
>was that it was to be interfaith or at least multi faceted in spiritual
>points of view I guess. Signed: Sincerely
>
>
>
--
rgds,
Pete
-----
http://pedro.spyw.com
The time here is- http://tinyurl.com/6sfgd
'Daddy, what does 'formatting C drive' mean?'
pedro
Hi there. What you're missing perhaps in your perception about things,
is that there's a lot of history between some of the ppl here, and many
of us have reached the point where we simply have no regard for some
others, and have 'washed our hands of them', and don't want to have
anything to do with them. Also some ppl here are less than honest, and
tell porkies. So these things considered, explains some of the 'ad hom'
that you refer to. Some of us are simply at the limit of our patience
with some others here. I won't go into details, but I could google up
literally hundreds of abusive posts from one person directed towards me,
and for no reason whatsoever except that I have taken sides with certain
others, or been friendly with them. Some ppl have left as well because
of the constant attacks on them. But I can assure you that there are
good ppl here who are more than willing to accommodate you in reasonable
discussion. You just have to avoid being side-tracked by those who have
an anti-christian agenda, and want nothing more than to waste your time
arguing with them. You will never achieve anything if you do, because
they have no interest in reason or truth. They only want to push their
views onto you, and destroy any that you might have that they disapprove
of. If they can't do that, they will just try to hound you off the ng
with abuse and constant harassment. Welcome to the looney bin!
--
rgds,
Pete
-----
http://pedro.spyw.com
The time here is- http://tinyurl.com/6sfgd
'Always tell the truth- there's less to remember'
pedro
Also.. the best advice I can give you, after almost a decade of posting
in this madhouse otherwise known as usernet, is that if you're
christian, and interested in staying christian, or becoming 'more'
christian, or just interested in Christianity, then DON'T frequent these
ng's, and especially DON'T go to ARC (Aus Religion Christian). But I
don't expect you to value my opinion or respect my advice, since you
don't really know me, but there you have it. And I can assure you that
there would be many who would back me up on this, and especially some
who have left these ng's for the very reasons I give above. You'll need
to have a very firm commitment to what you believe in order to survive
here. Even those who do sometimes don't!
--
rgds,
Pete
-----
http://pedro.spyw.com
The time here is- http://tinyurl.com/6sfgd
'Windows: The triumph of marketing over technology'
(: Lawrence Meckan :)
> (: Lawrence Meckan :) wrote:
>> Please not this AGAIN!
>>
>> This is like, 2 years running at least, you've been ranting on how
>> aus.religion.christian should be a Christian-only enclave and how you
>> ended up getting sold a raw deal because of it..
>>
>> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.christnet.evangelical/msg/9819ca2646777d33
>>
>> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.christnet.evangelical/msg/ffbc90863d4cb98e
>>
>> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/aus.religion.christian/msg/656bb819f1a344fe
>>
>>
>> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/aus.religion.christian/msg/aca201a2eb19a486
>>
>> (1st reply by Chris Ho Stuart to your claims about a.r.c)
>> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/aus.religion.christian/msg/6a6ddb8cb2bef0e7
>>
>> (2nd reply by Chris Ho Stuart to your claims about a.r.c)
>> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/aus.religion.christian/msg/a61f6d1fe77a5679
>>
>> (1st reply by Sean McHugh)
>> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/aus.religion.christian/msg/7fd69eaea891cde9
>>
>> (2nd reply by Sean McHugh)
>> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/aus.religion.christian/msg/e2ab358bb569fc13
>>
>> (comments from a third party against your ideas)
>> Hmm. All these adjectives have been used elsewhere as propaganda by
>> someone close to you, Pedro; and they, to a large extent, have been
>> refuted by evidence.
>>
>> lawrence
>
> If Google didn't exist you wouldn't have a life. Now fuck off!
They're your words, Pedro.
You deal with 'em. ;)
lawrence
Sincerely
I laughed at the "always tell the truth-there's less to remember"
quote. I need all the help I can get to remember even the truth little
own lies which I truly don't tell...oh, maybe, some little white lies,
like "I'm feeling fine" when I'm not. I did as Jani suggested and I
Googled ARC and got Rowland Croucher's "place" ( I don't know the
computer term). He was very helpful after a while for me because he
gave a condensed history of ARC and explained he tried to be like an
arbitrator of peace that hasn't worked out yet, but, thank goodness for
people like me he hasn't given up. I think you all who have hung in
are to be commended to help us newbies. Thank you from the bottom of
my heart. You are serving a great need of intelligent Christian
companionship in my life. We live in an ever more isolatiing society.
Thank you, Australia, for opening your heart to we Americans. Signed:
Sincerely
Jani
references in Mark's post about 2 Timothy. I haven't said anything about ARC
or Rowland.
Jani
"Sincerely" <lee...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1113676900....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Sincerely
If I have you confused with someone else please forgive me. I am
a newbie and get confused by much of computer language and procedure. I
hope you will be patient with me. "God hasn't finished with me yet."
Signed: Sincerely
pedro
I don't need to. Only in your tiny demented little mind is there any
suggestion otherwise. One day you may learn that your brain is abnormal,
but I doubt it.
Sincerely
I do value your opinion and respect your advice and I am grateful
to you and Reaper for your warnings. I have prayed about this and
Googled the ARC ng and found Rowland Croucher's place (sorry I don't
know the computer term) and he explained somewhat the history of ARC.
It seems he's trying to bring peace and I like this effort, don't you?
I've mentioned in earlier posts to other people that angry remarks
don't add to the clear thinking of a discussion, at least that has been
my experience. It let's off steam for the moment but it builds up more
powerfully afterwards. I find that taking two or three deep breaths
calms the nervous system and brings much needed oxygen to the brain.
Have you ever tried it? I know it's hard to do if you're excited but
if you want to think clearly it works wonders. Signed: Sincerely
pedro
Just reading some threads...
(: Lawrence Meckan :) wrote:
>Reaper wrote:
>
>
>>(: Lawrence Meckan :) wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Reaper wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Mark, just consider it a public service. I am glad to help you
>>>>
>>>>
>>>through
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>your day.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>When you find the demonic underbelly of processed cheese, tell us,
>>>okay? ;)
>>>
>>>
And once again Wawence sticks his wittle nose in to support Morkie, and
the views of men over the bible.
>>>lawrence
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>I don't think that subject is something the public cares about. However,
>>maybe, since you brought it up, you could take this on as a personal
>>cause. If you brought more awareness of this important topic to the
>>general public, you could probably get a grant or some other public
>>funding to study it. Similar crazy ideas have become careers for some
>>people....
>>
>>
>
>Either you're aiming for deadpan comedy
>
I thought is was a clever response to a typical Wawencian poke at bible
based Christianity.
> or you missed the fact I was
>laughing
>
But you have no sense of humour Lawrence, so it's rather surprising that
you can actually laugh.
> at your inane "I'm a warning ministry without a clue" ways..
>
>You did see the emoticon didn't ya?
>
>lawrence
>
>
Mark T
> found Rowland Croucher's place (sorry I don't
> know the computer term) and he explained somewhat the history of ARC.
> It seems he's trying to bring peace and I like this effort, don't you?
Yep! Rowland is far more educated Pedrododo. There are several people who
are worth listening to on any ng ... even if you disagree with what they
say. We are not supposed to be clones of each other (except if you happen
to be Pedrododo, Vera, Griz, Ben Mitts, Reaper, etc ad nauseum)
--
"Fundamentalism ... is characterised by and thrives on protective
stupidity." - Peter Cameron
Mark T
>> There's nothing wrong with you, mate. ARC is anything BUT christian in
>> the true sense of the word. In fact, they even object to being called
>> that. They like to say it's a 'group to discuss Christianity'.
>
> That's what it is. Discussing Christianity..
The pedrododo crowd do not like discussion ... they want to be able to order
people to think exactly as they themselves think.
>> But what it really is is a platform for those who want to bash
>> traditional
>> Christianity, and fundamental christians, and flog their own ideas.
>
> Please not this AGAIN!
Pedrododo is like a very boring broken record of the Legendary Stardusrt
Cowboy performing "Paralyzed" ... it sux!
Mark T
> If Google didn't exist you wouldn't have a life. Now [EXPLETIVE DELETED} >
> off!
Why does Pedrododo want Lawrence to "go forth and mulitply"????
The dodo is upset with the truth.
(: Lawrence Meckan :)
>
> Just reading some threads...
>
> (: Lawrence Meckan :) wrote:
>
>
>> Reaper wrote:
>>> (: Lawrence Meckan :) wrote:
>>>> When you find the demonic underbelly of processed cheese, tell us,
>>>> okay? ;)
>
> And once again Wawence sticks his wittle nose in to support Morkie, and
> the views of men over the bible.
Actually, I abhor conspiracy where-ever I find it, and currently you're
full of it.. (tongue in cheek, both ways ;) )
That was the context of my post - conspiracy theories SUCK, especially
if they involve calling people demons and other nasty cutlery. Such
theories do not benefit anyone, and end up just creating hysteria, fear,
uncertainty, doubt and paranoia. If you want demons in your socks (or
your processed cheese), it's up to YOU to believe such a tale.. ;)
If you want to continue to entertain the idea of a grand conspiracy that
Rowland, Mark, Bradley, Roy, Ninure and I have nothing better than to
point out your weaknesses, I leave you to fall on your own sword..
The way you talk about me is as if I'm going around sticking people with
a 20,000 KW cattle prod and seeing the results, which is the direct
opposite of what I actually do.
If people have issues with the evidence I bring, it's their issue.
I make my point. I deliver the evidence. I move on..
Lighten up once in a while, Pete ;-P ;)
lawrence
pedro
>pedro wrote:
>
>
>
>The way you talk about me is as if I'm going around sticking people with
>a 20,000 KW cattle prod and seeing the results, which is the direct
>opposite of what I actually do.
>
>
Strange isn't it that how you see yourself, things, and what you do, is
different to how everyone else sees them. How many ppl now have stopped
discussing with you because of your lack of integrity? All the atheists
for starters- Sean, Barry, Theo. And the christians- Bob, Vera, Chuck,
and goodness knows how many more. Then myself of course. And no this is
not discussion. This is just making a point, then pissing off!
>If people have issues with the evidence I bring, it's their issue.
>
>
Your evidence is rarely if ever evidence except in your tiny warped brain!
>I make my point. I deliver the evidence. I move on..
>
>
Good! Move away from me then!
>Lighten up once in a while, Pete ;-P ;)
>
>lawrence
>
>
--
rgds,
Pete
-----
http://pedro.spyw.com
The time here is- http://tinyurl.com/6sfgd
'Reality is an illusion caused by lack of alcohol'
Chuck Stamford
> Dear Reaper,
> Thank you for your warning as I choose to believe you intend it to
> help me and I appreciate that. Mark T seems to be a sincere and clear
> thinker, except at times he seems to be sarcastic or angry at what he
> considers to be a close-minded attitude on the part of
> "Fundamentalists". I put the word in quotation marks because I'm not
> sure what we're talking about. If it means the fundamentals of the
> faith as in the Nicean Creed, then I am a fundamentalist. I do not
> consider myself close-minded. I hope not. I don't mind discussing the
> particulars of the Creed to the best of my ability but we all are
> dealing with the subject of God and therefore cannot expect to grasp
> His omniscience. Nevertheless I can think of no more important nor
> wonderful subject. I hope you agree. Signed: Sincerely
Hi Sincerely,
Reaper is trying to help you to figure out who it is you are talking to when
you are talking to Mark T. Here are some things you should know about his
"Christian" faith.
1.) Denial of the Deity of Christ
2.) Denial of the triune nature of God
3.) Denial that God has a nature or that God exists
4.) Denial that God is personal
5.) Denial that Scripture is the revealed word of God...after all, it's
pretty difficult to say anything when you don't exist as a personal being!
6.) Denial that Scripture is *any* sort of authority in the Christian's
life
7.) Denial of the miraculous
In fact, it is very difficult to find anything that Mark *does* believe that
one can also find in the apostolic Christian faith. He calls Jesus Christ
his "lord", however, he seems to view Jesus Christ in much the same way that
a Buddhist views the Budda...as one who attained "enlightenment", relative
to the culture and time in which he lived. But that's about all there is to
Mark's version of Christianity except for a few glaring inconsistencies.
For example, he preaches that tolerance is very important to one's faith,
yet he is one of the least tolerant posters on this newsgroup. I say "one
of", because there are others here that are pathologically intolerant of
others beliefs, but at least these other folks aren't preaching the
importance of tolerance while they're being intolerant.
God bless
Chuck Stamford
(: Lawrence Meckan :)
> (: Lawrence Meckan :) wrote:
>
>> pedro wrote:
>> The way you talk about me is as if I'm going around sticking people with
>> a 20,000 KW cattle prod and seeing the results, which is the direct
>> opposite of what I actually do.
>
> Strange isn't it that how you see yourself, things, and what you do, is
> different to how everyone else sees them.
I'm allowed to. I'm me.. Nobody has exclusive licence on the one, true,
correct way of seeing the world, now do they ?
> How many ppl now have stopped discussing with you because of your lack of integrity?
OK. Finally a claim worth defending..
Where's your proof ? (That's right you don't have ANY, do you??)
> All the atheists for starters- Sean, Barry, Theo. And the christians- Bob, Vera, Chuck,
> and goodness knows how many more. Then myself of course. And no this is
> not discussion. This is just making a point, then pissing off!
So you would consider all throwaway lines and fly-by-night flames that
Bob, Vera and Chuck do as your proof ?
Get real..
This is almost Grizian in design. He had the gumption to suggest that
people wouldn't talk to me because I upset the apple cart. Face life,
and the truth, Pedro, the apple cart which you venerate is going to be
upset ANYWAY due to the nature of this medium.
There is always a paper trail.
If you don't have some evidence to back you up, your claim is vanity and
snake oil salesmanship at its worst.
>> If people have issues with the evidence I bring, it's their issue.
>
> Your evidence is rarely if ever evidence except in your tiny warped brain!
So me quoting your exalted highnesses words isn't worth the bandwidth
you've created to populate a post ?
Thanks for confirming how little responsibility and value you hold on to
your words here..
>> I make my point. I deliver the evidence. I move on..
>
> Good! Move away from me then!
If you sow conspiracy, I will debunk it.
If you sow hatred, I will counter it with mercy.
If you sow that your views are the only 100%, ironclad, truth, I'd
challenge you to show how you're not imperfect as the next guy.
If you sow that you and Vera are simply victims, I will quote your own
words BACK at YOU to show YOU how your words have created the antagonism
and chagrin you currently encounter.
So, Pedro, what do you want to sow today ?
Peace or more of this "Vera and I are victims" speil ?
lawrence
Sincerely
Thank you for being another kind voice warning of the perils of
falling into the deadly trap of Mark T's devilish wiles...that's just
for fun...Seriously, I do think Mark T is a Christian if he is trying
to follow Jesus' teaching: that he loves God and that he does unto
others as he would have them do unto him. Now that is an ideal
teaching, so I said TRY...that's the best we can all do. As for
rituals and dogmas they are good as long as they don't interfere with
the main teaching, don't you think? So far, Mark T has been loving and
kind to me and I feel no threat of any kind in him only that he is far
better educated than I am; but that is good, for then I can learn from
him...and from you too...and from everyone, for God has gifted each one
of us in some unique way, I believe. What do you think? Signed:
Sincerely
Mark T
...Chucky can only talk ABOUT me and not TO me .... his wife won't allow him
to talk to me ....
> Reaper is trying to help you to figure out who it is you are talking to
> when you are talking to Mark T. Here are some things you should know
> about his "Christian" faith.
Unlike fundamentalists (who are clones of each other) other Christians are
allowed to be individuloas witrh their own opinions.
> 1.) Denial of the Deity of Christ
> 2.) Denial of the triune nature of God
Correct. The finite human Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah / Christ but not
the One God, YHWH, King of the Universe, the Ground of all being.
> 3.) Denial that God has a nature or that God exists
Incorrect. God does have a "nature" as the Ground of all being. God does
not exist. God is the Ground of all that exists.
> 4.) Denial that God is personal
God is supra personal - "more than personal". "personal" limits God and God
is unlimited.
> 5.) Denial that Scripture is the revealed word of God...
Denial that the fallible bible is the ONLY revealed "word of God". God is
rtevealed in many ways and not limited to a fallible finite book.
> 6.) Denial that Scripture is *any* sort of authority in the Christian's
> life
There is only One Ultimate Lord and Authority , the One God, YHWH, the
Ground of all being. The bible is a fallible finite book.
--
The Bible ...[is] ... a collection of human responses to God (very human,
some of them all too human), which we are at liberty to use in the process
of formulating our own individual, unique response to God. We don't do that
by imitating these responses slavishly. I mean God, if he exists, doesn't
want innumerable clones of the apostle Paul. He wants us to respond to him,
each of us in our own unique way. And we can use the Bible to do that, but
we don't do it by obeying it slavishly and blindly. - Peter Cameron
"Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 195
> 7.) Denial of the miraculous
Incorrect. I do not deny the miraculous.
> there are others here that are pathologically intolerant of others beliefs
They are called F U N D A M E N T A L I S T S.
--
"Fundamentalism is demonic, and can only be met with the sword, or at least
with a very vitriolic pen." - Peter Cameron, "Fundamentalism and Freedom"
(Doubleday; Sydney: 1995.) p.3
#################################################
My Testimony at http://members.cox.net/christian_life/
#################################################
... quoting from James Barr's book "Fundamentalism" on the three
distinguishing features of the Fundamentalist '... an assurance that those
who do not share their religious viewpoint are not really true Christians at
all.' - Peter Cameron "Heretic" (Doubleday; Sydney: 1994) p. 178
#################################################
Mark T
> Thank you for being another kind voice warning of the perils of
> falling into the deadly trap of Mark T's devilish wiles...
Fearing what others have to say is one of the strange little fundamentalist
fetishes.
############################################################
From John Milton's "Areopagitica" (1644) [Appleton- Century Crofts; New
York:1951]
p. 14 " ... the example of Moses, Daniel, and Paul, who were skilful in the
learning of the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Greeks, which could not possibly
be without reading their books of all sorts, in Paul especially, who thought
it no defilement to insert into Holy Scripture the sentences of three Greek
poets, and one of them a tragedian ..." (Acts 17:28 from Aratus; 1
Corinthians 15:33 from Euripides; Titus 1:12 from Epimenides)
p. 16 "'To the pure all things are pure;' not only meat and drinks, but all
kind of knowledge whether good or evil; the knowledge cannot defile, nor
consequently the books, if the will and conscience be not defiled."
p. 21 " ... a wise man will make better use of an idle pamphlet than a fool
will do of sacred Scripture."
p. 37 "Any man may be a heretic in the truth; and if he believes things only
because his pastor says so, or the Assembly so determines, without knowing
other reason, though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes
his heresy. There is not any burden that some would gladlier post off to
another, than the charge and care of their religion."
p.51 "And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the
earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and
prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple; who
ever knew Truth to be the worse in a free and open encounter? Her confuting
is the best and surest suppressing."
#############################################################
Those are very dangerous ideas to fundamentalists!!!!!
> God has gifted each one of us in some unique way, I believe.
Yep! Iron sharpens iron. Every good teacher is a good student. EWe learn
from each other.
> What do you think?
Fundamentalists aren't allowed to think. They must follow what the bible
says ... exactly! ... if they feel like it.
Example: I asked Chucky ...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jesus said in Matthew 5:42, "Give to him that asketh thee, and from
him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." May I have your house
and car and may I borrow your most prized possession?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chucky thought Jesus' command in the bible verse was too inconvenient to
follow although Chucky believes the bible to be "God's Word". Apparenetly
fundamentalists only follow "God's Word" when it suits them. ;-)
There are many other such examples of fundamentalist hypocrisy ... like
rejecting all other Christians who do not hold fundamentalist man made
dogma.
~ vera ~
Somehow your style reminds me of someone... Could it be that I have read you
here before under another nick?
God bless you,
~ vera ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de ~
~ http://www.acc-growing-deeper.de/Israel.htm ~
~ http://groups-beta.google.com/group/Growing-Deeper ~
~ http://www.e-sword.net ~
Chuck Stamford
I think the teachings of Jesus Christ are a complete waste of time, if He is
not the Incarnate Son of God that He, and traditional Christianity have
always held Him to be. If God is not a personal God, then it would be
impossible to sin against Him, just as it would be impossible for Him to
reveal Himself to mankind; impossible for Him to be a rewarder of good or
the bane of evil. If it's impossible for God to reveal Himself to mankind,
then the Bible becomes a worthless compiliation of ridiculous myths and
superstitions. And if the Bible is myth, and there is no such thing as sin
against God, the Atonement is a ludricrous load of sentimental crap, and we
Christians, as Paul says, are among men the most miserable...just like Mark
always says.
What do I think? I think I'm very afraid for you with your misplaced
admiration for education. You don't seem to understand that education is a
completely neutral condition; that it says absolutely nothing about anyone's
knowledge of the important truths in life. It's like admiring water because
its wet, without understanding that it can also be sweet or poisonous. I
am very afraid that in your apparent desire to be nice to everyone as you
come in here, you have left your spiritual discernment at home. And without
that discernment you are going to be little more than wolf food if you stay.
My suggestion: Leave...now. For your own good. And don't come back until
you understand who it is that you serve. It's one thing to withhold belief
that the Bible is inerrant. It's quite another to take the whole of the New
Testament as metaphor.
God bless
Chuck Stamford
Sincerely
Is it possible that you are making assumptions about me on very
little evidence? My desire is not to be nice, my desire is to be
loving...quite a different quality , don't you think? I Cor. 13.
Please read it and think again of what you have accused me of without
justification. however well meaning. Perhaps you do not realize that I
am not a child but quite an old woman with much experience. Being
kind, patient, not boasting,not proud,not rude, not self-seeking, not
easily angered, ...always protecting,trusting,hoping persevering is not
easy to acquire but I am still trying. Peace, dear Chuck. Matt T
deserves our love: our Lord died for him. Signed: Sincerely
Sincerely
At last we meet. No, I have not used another nick...as to whether
my style reminds you of someone...who could it be?..perhaps it is
inspired. I have prayed it would be, in which case you know it must be
Holy Spirit inspired; is this not true for yourself? What a blessing,
if it is true. What more could we ask for? I will pray for you.
Signed: Sincerely
(: Lawrence Meckan :)
> My suggestion: Leave...now. For your own good. And don't come back
until
> you understand who it is that you serve. It's one thing to withhold
belief
> that the Bible is inerrant. It's quite another to take the whole of
the New
> Testament as metaphor.
Not really, when it comes to you and yours. You hold people who
disagree with you on one or either count as a heretic..
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.christnet.evangelical/msg/016596c6938c13c1
lawrence
Jani
"(: Lawrence Meckan :)" <lme...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1113787962....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Oh well, that's useful. Although I'll probably still respond to his latest
post to me, it doesn't hurt *at all* to keep my brain exercised.
Jani
Chuck Stamford
Sincerely, I am not accusing you of anything at all. I just fail to see how
ignoring the fact that someone rejects every belief in the Christian faith
that Jesus Himself said was necessary for salvation is an example of loving
someone. As I see it, what you're doing with Mark is akin to you sitting in
the boat, having a lovely chat with a man drowning in an ocean of pride, and
thinking you are loving him. That may be fine if you've already made some
effort to pull him into the boat, but trying to make yourself attractive
enough to him that he wants to climb in isn't going to cut it.
In any case, we're not commanded just to love our fellow man, but to
*selflessly* love them. To me, that entails two things: We present them
with the one who *is* love as we love them, not ourselves, and we love them
in more than just kind words directed at anything we may imagine is virtuous
in them.
Now I'm not suggesting there's anything wrong with chatting with the lost.
As I go about my days at work and at home I do it all the time. But when we
come into this sort of environment, and meet with someone who is facing
eternal torment at each beating of their heart, what could be more
important to say to them than giving them the Gospel; sharing our faith with
them; giving them a reason for the hope we have? After all, what has the
power to make the difference for them between heaven and hell? How
attractively we package ourselves? Or Jesus Christ; who, and what He is,
and what this means for a lost humankind.
Did you ever hear the old joke about the grandmother who had a reputation
for never, ever having a bad word to say about anyone, no matter how vile
they may have been? According to the story, one of her grandchildren
decided to give this reputation the "acid test" one day, and asked her,
"Grandma, what do you think of Satan?" The old lady thought for a moment,
and then answered the child, "Well.........he's consistent."
Now I *like* that old lady, because she's doing what her Lord commands that
we do. She's looking for the good in people just as hard as she can and
focusing on that. But see, here's the difference between what she was doing
and what I see you doing in here. She wasn't saying this to Satan himself.
I'm sure, being a wise lady, if she had been addressing Satan when she
answered, she would have known enough to rebuke him in the name of Jesus
Christ, not waste time praising his only remaining virtue. We do no one any
good if we are not the watchmen God requires us to be.
"But if the watchman see the sword come, and blow not the trumpet, and the
people be not warned; if the sword come, and take any person from among
them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at the
watchman's hand" Ezek 33:6 (KJV)
So Sincerely, you can be as sweet as you want to anyone you want and it is
fine by me. I'd just like to see a little "trumpet blowing" mixed in, and
apparently I'm not alone here. Maybe I have jumped the gun a bit. You've
only been here for a very short time as far as I know. But time is
guaranteed to no one, so maybe it's time you got the trumpet out of its case
and started using it.
God bless
Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
"(: Lawrence Meckan :)" <lme...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1113787962....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> My suggestion: Leave...now. For your own good. And don't come back
> until
>> you understand who it is that you serve. It's one thing to withhold
> belief
>> that the Bible is inerrant. It's quite another to take the whole of
> the New
>> Testament as metaphor.
>
> Not really
So you're saying that withholding belief in the inerrancy of Scripture *is*
equivalent to believing the entire New Testament is metaphor? I just want
to be clear here, because if that's what you're saying then you are
certainly breaking new ground in what I know of your beliefs.
Chuck Stamford
Chuck Stamford
"Jani" <ja...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:42631629$0$328$cc9e...@news.dial.pipex.com...
I'd be interested in knowing why an agnostic finds it "useful", within the
context of a discussion on Buddhism, that an evangelical Christian (me)
knows what a heretic is, and what should be done with that knowledge. I
fail to see the utile connection.
Chuck Stamford
Sincerely
You are right; I have not been here very long. Blowing my horn
is not what I feel called upon to do at this time. I'm trying to get
acquainted. Mark T was kind enough to reply to my first posting and I
was grateful. I'm sorry if I used the word accused . It seems I have
to be very careful what words I use because people seem so sensitive to
anything that comes close to criticism. I am trying to avoid being
critical as I don't know enough about what's going on in what seems to
be a long standing argument. Saving Mark T's soul is not up to me;
that is the work of the Holy Spirit. I don't know what Mark T's soul
state is; only God knows this. He says he doesn't believe in a Triune
God. Well, as a Christian I don't either. I believe that God is One
God in 3 Persons: Father, Son & Holy Spirit. But this is a mystery of
Faith. No human mind can comprehend it. However it can and is
experienced by the soul of the believer. The Lord uses metaphors like
knock and the door shall be opened. Seek and ye shall find. These are
invitations to enter into the experience of knowing The Lord. But
first someone must tell the seeker about The Lord and that Believer
must be the kind of person the seeker would be attracted to like I Cor.
13. Do you see the point I am trying to make? Signed: Sincerely
Qolon
Spirit. But this is a mystery of Faith. No human mind can comprehend it"
intangibility.
It may be more readily characterised as a neurological disorder such as
psychosis: "In the depths of its psyche fundamentalism is ruled by
catastrophic anxiety, a self tottering on the brink of a dissolution in
which it will fragment imprisoned in a world that will impose all of its
terrors and evils upon it. We will fail to understand fundamentalism as long
as we resist seeing how close it is to a psychosis. Fundamentalist rage is
the attempt of a subject to hold itself together in the only way it can: by
waging war on all that terrifies it. The psyche commits itself to
destructiveness to allay a destruction that already threatens it from
within. That condition results in a paradoxical situation that finds its
only possible solution in Revelations. Destructiveness must be given a full,
unchecked expression and the psyche must somehow survive that act." [Walter
Davis, 8-9 January 2005 'The Psychology of Fundamentalism'
<http://www.counterpunch.org/davis01082005.html> and author of
'Deracination: Historiocity, Hiroshima and the Tragic Imperative']
Especially so when the biblical narrative conveys it as intellectual
property which is both 'self-possessed' {ie. the kingdom of God is within
you [Luke 17:21]} and may be held as possession: "Again, the kingdom of
heaven is like hidden treasure in a field, which a man found and hid; and
for joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field.
Again the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking beautiful pearls,
who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he
had and bought it." [Matthew 13:44-46]
- dolf
- <http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/telos/kabbalah/grapple.html>
"Sincerely" <lee...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1113798143.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
(: Lawrence Meckan :)
> "(: Lawrence Meckan :)" <lme...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1113787962....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Chuck Stamford wrote:
> >> My suggestion: Leave...now. For your own good. And don't come
back
> > until
> >> you understand who it is that you serve. It's one thing to
withhold
> > belief
> >> that the Bible is inerrant. It's quite another to take the whole
of
> > the New
> >> Testament as metaphor.
> >
> > Not really
>
> So you're saying that withholding belief in the inerrancy of
Scripture *is*
> equivalent to believing the entire New Testament is metaphor?
No, I'm saying you hold the people who do not hold your doctrine of
inerrancy in the same regard *as* those who believe the entire NT is
metaphor. I am saying "not really" because you treat both the same way,
whereas you state "it's one thing to" do ditch and "quite another" to
take the NT as metaphor.
You condemn both as heretics (as your extensive speil on heretics and
liberalism was done in due reply to Bob wanting to ignore my words on
inerrancy). Therefore it isn't "one thing" to ditch inerrancy or "quite
another" to have the NT as metaphor as you treat the exactly the same
way.
Just to help you on your misbegotten pogrom of heretic hunting, I
suggest that when you find the demonic underbelly of processed cheese,
that's you've found your heretic ;-P ;)
> I just want to be clear here, because if that's what you're saying
then you
> are certainly breaking new ground in what I know of your beliefs.
It's not I'm saying. What give you the impression that it was ?
lawrence
Chuck Stamford
> Chuck Stamford wrote:
>> "(: Lawrence Meckan :)" <lme...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1113787962....@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>> > Chuck Stamford wrote:
>> >> My suggestion: Leave...now. For your own good. And don't come
> back
>> > until
>> >> you understand who it is that you serve. It's one thing to
> withhold
>> > belief
>> >> that the Bible is inerrant. It's quite another to take the whole
> of
>> > the New
>> >> Testament as metaphor.
>> >
>> > Not really
>>
>> So you're saying that withholding belief in the inerrancy of
> Scripture *is*
>> equivalent to believing the entire New Testament is metaphor?
>
> No, I'm saying you hold the people who do not hold your doctrine of
> inerrancy in the same regard *as* those who believe the entire NT is
> metaphor.
Then you're laboring under a rather large misconception...something of a
hallmark for you.
Chuck Stamford
Mark T
...Chucky can only talk ABOUT me and not TO me .... his wife won't allow him
to talk to me ....
> If God is not a personal God, then it would be impossible to sin against
> Him,
Rubbish! God can be supra-personal and it would be possible to sin against
him.
> just as it would be impossible for Him to reveal Himself to mankind;
> impossible for > Him to be a rewarder of good or the bane of evil.
All this is possible if God is the Ground of all being.
> What do I think? I think I'm very afraid for you with your misplaced
> admiration for education. You don't seem to understand that education is
> a completely neutral condition; that it says absolutely nothing about
> anyone's knowledge of the important truths in life.
The utter ignorance of fundamentalist blind faith is not any type of answer.
Fundamentalists are fearful of anyone who uses their God-given brain and
thinks.
Fundamentalists aren't allowed to have doubts or to ask questions.
############################################################
From John Milton's "Areopagitica" (1644) [Appleton- Century Crofts; New
York:1951]
p. 14 " ... the example of Moses, Daniel, and Paul, who were skilful in the
learning of the Egyptians, Chaldeans, and Greeks, which could not possibly
be without reading their books of all sorts, in Paul especially, who thought
it no defilement to insert into Holy Scripture the sentences of three Greek
poets, and one of them a tragedian ..." (Acts 17:28 from Aratus; 1
Corinthians 15:33 from Euripides; Titus 1:12 from Epimenides)
p. 16 "'To the pure all things are pure;' not only meat and drinks, but all
kind of knowledge whether good or evil; the knowledge cannot defile, nor
consequently the books, if the will and conscience be not defiled."
p. 21 " ... a wise man will make better use of an idle pamphlet than a fool
will do of sacred Scripture."
p. 37 "Any man may be a heretic in the truth; and if he believes things only
because his pastor says so, or the Assembly so determines, without knowing
other reason, though his belief be true, yet the very truth he holds becomes
his heresy. There is not any burden that some would gladlier post off to
another, than the charge and care of their religion."
p.51 "And though all the winds of doctrine were let loose to play upon the
earth, so Truth be in the field, we do injuriously by licensing and
prohibiting to misdoubt her strength. Let her and falsehood grapple; who
ever knew Truth to be the worse in a free and open encounter? Her confuting
is the best and surest suppressing."
#################################################
Chuck Stamford
Of course I do. What I'm wondering is if you see mine, which in a nutshell
is: In a setting that is a newsgroup dedicated to the discussion of the
Christian faith and life, what could possibly be better to talk about to a
person who so obviously has not surrendered his life to the real Jesus than
the real Jesus?
Sincerely, if you are a Christian (and I'm not saying I have my doubts),
then you know that Mark could be the most admirable human being on the
planet, and he will still die in his sins and suffer the eternal torments of
hell unless he repents and gives his life over to the Lord of heaven and
earth, Jesus Christ. So tell me again just how it is that you are doing him
any good by spending the time with him you've been given by God,
complimenting him on his virtues?
It's harvest time, Sincerely. Today, not tomorrow or next week. Get out of
the truck you came in, go into the field where you've parked, and start
working to bring in that harvest in the only Way there is. Or minister to
the harvesters that are already there working, if you feel that this is why
God has called you into this group. Or allow yourself to be ministered to,
if you feel this is why God brought you here. But stop watering the weeds!
It's not good for the wheat.
God bless
Chuck Stamford