Interesting discussion. I never realised until I started reading without the "filter" in place that Paul's writings didn't jive with the gospel accounts.
What would Christianity look like without Paul's writings?
by AK - Jeff 107 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
AllTimeJeff
ATJ,
Remember that your thoughts on Witherington apply equally to Ehrman or any other liberal theologian you trot out, or do they get some sort of special pleading beacuse their presuppositions match your own?
Absolutely not! Witherington spends his time maintaining a superstitious view of ancient scrolls, while attempting to explain away the flaws, contradictions, and textual issues arising from the myriads of different MSS out there.
Ehrman is not a liberal, he studies the MSS, points out the flaws that are there, and then says that the bible isn't inspired. Thats liberal? Or just honest?
-
XJW4EVR
It's Ehrman reading his presuppositions into the text. Something that he has not been straight forward about. Because he is not forthcoming about this fact, he has duped persons into thinking that he is being "honest" when he really isn't. When I read Witherington, Metzger (who taught Witherington and Ehrman) or any other conservative scholar I know what there presuppositions are at the outset. This tells me why they are saying what they are saying.
As I said before, any scholar that agrees with your presuppostions is "honest" yet those that do not are "quacks". Seems to me like the old mind sets never leave certain people. In any case, I bid you good day.
-
AllTimeJeff
XJW4EVR
No, Ehrman is using analysis to contrast two conflicting MSS, letting the MSS point out the errors in them. Ehrman is pointing them out. And he isn't the only one. That doesn't require an agenda, it requires the ability to read.
People like Witherington spend their time apologizing for this, and like the GB ironically enough, try to win arguments by discrediting their opponents, facts be damned.
Ehrman is being honest. He shows the flaws. Yes, I imagine it would offend people of faith if their faith depends on the belief that all of the bible must the the unerring word of god or else. No, I don't think people of faith should stop believing as they will. I simply ask them to be honest enough to acknowledge the facts and say "I recognize the evidence, I still follow Jesus." I respect that a lot more then a thinly veiled theistic agenda that asks people to be dishonest, that asks people to simply believe the bible is the unerring word of god because that is easiset for some people.
Have faith. Thats fine. Worship Jesus. Thats fine too. There is great value in that I am sure for you personally. But if one must anchor their faith by, in effect, not considering the evidence, and then insisting that those who do publish the evidence have less then honorable or honest motives, then I am afraid that your faith is not as beneficial as you might think it.
I think it appropriate to view the bible as an incomplete attempt by ancient people to explain god. I think some books and passages have great value. But it's this "all or nothing" approach that we must view the bible as the unerring word of god, that we must discredit those that sincerely look at these MSS and say, "Seriously, they contradict each other. Seriously, this is a patchwork. Thats what the evidence says." that merits my reply to you.
I have nothing against your faith. I must say I have chosen to take you on because you simply are not being honest. I am not saying that you do this on purpose (although I can't tell one way or another, I simply don't know) But I do know that you are wrong about the original MSS, about your view of the bible. The fact that you can't be honest enough to say "I know the evidence, I worship this way anyway" troubles me.
I wish you a good day as well.
-
Pistoff
"You guys may not like the paul letters but I just was checking the revelations as part of the canon and one thing that came up is how early the confirmation on the Paul letters was, they were always completely accepted as canon by literally everyone. They also have very early dates on them."
Source?
It is not surprising that the letters attributed to Paul were accepted; they fit the mindset of Ireneaus, Origen et all; they were and are useful for controlling behavior, etc., if that is one's interest.
-
Pistoff
"It's Ehrman reading his presuppositions into the text. Something that he has not been straight forward about. Because he is not forthcoming about this fact, he has duped persons into thinking that he is being "honest" when he really isn't. When I read Witherington, Metzger (who taught Witherington and Ehrman) or any other conservative scholar I know what there presuppositions are at the outset. This tells me why they are saying what they are saying"
The conclusions are not even as important as the process; the process that Witherington uses is one that makes everything fit, and it ends up matching his "faith". The process that Ehrman and others use is to start with NO assumptions, and to not minimize or explain away the conflicts between the gospels.
Ehrman started as a fundamental believer, determined to be the evangelical who would study the texts and retain his faith. When he could not longer be honest, he admitted that the study of texts do not support a literal reading of the NT, or that it is inspired by God.
So, you say he has a viewpoint; that is not the way it looks to me. He WANTED to believe, as Witherington; but the facts got in the way.
-
allelsefails
Reniaa wrote - You guys may not like the paul letters but I just was checking the revelations as part of the canon and one thing that came up is how early the confirmation on the Paul letters was, they were always completely accepted as canon by literally everyone. They also have very early dates on them. Reniaa ..........................................
You're right the earliest Scripture list by the Heretic Marcion in c.150 C.E. includes all Paul's letters (including the letter to the Laodiceans) and Luke edited by Marcion. (No other books of course) Not one quote by an actual "Christian" shows Paul's works were considered "scripture" until c. 180. Yes Paul was quoted from in the earliest times of the church - that is Clement of Rome. But many books were accepted and quoted from as much as Paul's writings and before James, Jude, Revelation, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John. Take those out and put in Hermas, Barnabas, and 1 Clement and see how different your doctrine is. DOn't use evidence you're not willing to apply to your own beliefs. ..........................
The only defense of the "Bible" is that God must have directed the selection of books NO objective study would allow the 27 books of the Greek/NT scriptures in.
-
mraimondi
Edited for content of pictures and off topic.