If one were to read the Apostolic Fathers, he would see that the fundamentals of the faith are the same now as they were then. What is in question are peripheral issues.
Mad Dawg
JoinedPosts by Mad Dawg
-
118
Really, There Is A Lot To Learn About Your Faith
by AllTimeJeff inin ak - jeffs thread "did jesus ever claim to be the messiah", narkissos said the following that i think, and have learned, is rather profound:.
a better approach to this discussion might start with questioning the presupposition that there was one concept of "messiahship" common to all or even most 1st-century ad jews.. the idea is, we assume that the faith and religion we have now, is as it was way back then... clearly, it isn't.. i haven't devoted a great deal of my time to this subject, but i have read enough to realize that there is a lot more to the history of our churches and religions then we think.
jw history is pretty easy, as they started in the late 19th century.
-
-
-
118
Really, There Is A Lot To Learn About Your Faith
by AllTimeJeff inin ak - jeffs thread "did jesus ever claim to be the messiah", narkissos said the following that i think, and have learned, is rather profound:.
a better approach to this discussion might start with questioning the presupposition that there was one concept of "messiahship" common to all or even most 1st-century ad jews.. the idea is, we assume that the faith and religion we have now, is as it was way back then... clearly, it isn't.. i haven't devoted a great deal of my time to this subject, but i have read enough to realize that there is a lot more to the history of our churches and religions then we think.
jw history is pretty easy, as they started in the late 19th century.
-
-
Mad Dawg
Mad Dawg, if you are so sure that you have it right, why should you be concerned if anyone else reads the works of Bart Ehrman and others?
ATJ, did you miss where I said:
Actually, understanding the history of the Bible will increase one’s confidence in it. One should read different takes on it – not just those that wish to shred it like Bart.
Where have I discouraged anyone from reading anything?
When I said that if you have the truth it will be ok, then I see you and Perry try to discredit Ehrman in particular…
He deserves discrediting. All error deserves discrediting.
I have to wonder, what are you afraid of people reading about?
Nothing, why are you so upset that I said that one should read other things in addition to Bart? Such a lengthy post and all you can fixate on is two comments?
Are you more interested…
I am interested in truth, whatever that may be.
There are many like myself who read the history and see many red flags.
Have you ever read anything that would explain the “red flags”?
I certainly hope that people reading this won't be dissuaded from reading up on what other scholars have to say. To me, the efforts to discredit the findings of those who have studied this for their life's work is a bit JW like.
Are you saying that Bart is above scrutiny?
Some (not all) Christians who have participated in this discussion have a real bias towards the bible. They view it as divine revelation. I obviously do not, and find a whole host of reasons why I do not view it this way.
Which, by definition, means that you have a bias against the Bible.
BUT I AM NOT AFRAID TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO DO THEIR OWN RESEARCH BY THOSE WHO ARE NOT CHURCH APOLOGISTS AND SEE WHAT THEIR FINDINGS ARE AND IF THEY HAVE THE RING OF TRUTH TO THEM.
Please read my quote in green above.
It disgusts me that rather then let these records stand on their merits, the scholars themselves are attacked, with the (perceived) hope of discouraging honest inquiry.
Attacked? Puh-leeeeze. Why the thin skin?
THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THE GOVERNING BODY TRIED TO DO TO US WHEN WE WERE JW's.
And the GB wants us to accept their word as truth without question. Are we allowed to question Bart?
WHAT IN GODS NAME ARE YOU APOLOGISTS AFRAID OF PEOPLE READING UP ON AND FINDING OUT???????
Absolutely nothing. Please read the green quote above.
Here is a newsflash for all you apologists for defending something that was never attacked by me: ALL YOU HAVE ADMITTED TO AT BEST …
An oversimplification of what was said, and out of context to boot.
God, it seems to me, is perfectly capable of writing his own book if he so chooses to.
Which He did.
This pious attempt by a couple here to defend the bible, when all I did was suggest that readers see for themselves the real history of the bible and how the Church got started makes me angry.
Because of your poor grasp of history, I decided to correct your errors. Why does that so upset you? Why are you spending so much emotional energy on a tiny portion of the posts? If you want to talk history, then talk history. When you do, please back up your claims with evidence.
HAVE YOU APOLOGISTS CONSIDERED THE REAL POSSIBILITY THAT A READING OF THESE SOURCES COULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF STRENGHTHENING THE FAITH OF SOME WHO READ IT???
Again, please read the green quote above.
And that would be A-ok with me.
And me.
Mad Dawg, we haven't had many chances to interact, but it is clear that YOU have done your research and have come to your own conclusions, which I happily respect and accept.
Thank you, I most sincerely appreciate that.
Lastly, lets not forget, if its the truth, there is nothing to be afraid of. Read up! Don't just read people who have already made up their mind and have as their only goal to get you to believe as they do. See what critics have to say.
Does this include critics of Bart and others who wish to discredit the Bible?
Read up, take responsibility for your beliefs, and make up your own mind.
Agreed 100%.
Lets see, shall we put Ehrman and Ray Franz on the same level for the efforts of believers to discredit them before you even read a word, or seek to understand what and why they say what they say?
Let’s see, shall we put Ehrman and the GB on the same level in that they cannot be questioned? I understand Bart, that is why I descredit him.
-
118
Really, There Is A Lot To Learn About Your Faith
by AllTimeJeff inin ak - jeffs thread "did jesus ever claim to be the messiah", narkissos said the following that i think, and have learned, is rather profound:.
a better approach to this discussion might start with questioning the presupposition that there was one concept of "messiahship" common to all or even most 1st-century ad jews.. the idea is, we assume that the faith and religion we have now, is as it was way back then... clearly, it isn't.. i haven't devoted a great deal of my time to this subject, but i have read enough to realize that there is a lot more to the history of our churches and religions then we think.
jw history is pretty easy, as they started in the late 19th century.
-
-
Mad Dawg
ATJ said:
All I am pointing out is that some apologists sound an awful lot like JW's in trying to dissuade people from investigating the history of the bible and the history of how it got here.
Hmmm… In all my life I have never had anyone try to dissuade me from investigating the history of the bible and the history of how it got here. Although I have never been a JW, I grew up in a hard core Baptist church and was always encouraged to investigate. Even when they didn’t like my conclusions.
ATJ, would you please be more specific in your accusations? Frankly, your grasp of history is quite poor. And you wish to teach me about my faith? You would do well to take your own advice. This time using research from across the spectrum, as I have done.
-
118
Really, There Is A Lot To Learn About Your Faith
by AllTimeJeff inin ak - jeffs thread "did jesus ever claim to be the messiah", narkissos said the following that i think, and have learned, is rather profound:.
a better approach to this discussion might start with questioning the presupposition that there was one concept of "messiahship" common to all or even most 1st-century ad jews.. the idea is, we assume that the faith and religion we have now, is as it was way back then... clearly, it isn't.. i haven't devoted a great deal of my time to this subject, but i have read enough to realize that there is a lot more to the history of our churches and religions then we think.
jw history is pretty easy, as they started in the late 19th century.
-
-
Mad Dawg
You are most welcome. I appreciate the thanx.
-
118
Really, There Is A Lot To Learn About Your Faith
by AllTimeJeff inin ak - jeffs thread "did jesus ever claim to be the messiah", narkissos said the following that i think, and have learned, is rather profound:.
a better approach to this discussion might start with questioning the presupposition that there was one concept of "messiahship" common to all or even most 1st-century ad jews.. the idea is, we assume that the faith and religion we have now, is as it was way back then... clearly, it isn't.. i haven't devoted a great deal of my time to this subject, but i have read enough to realize that there is a lot more to the history of our churches and religions then we think.
jw history is pretty easy, as they started in the late 19th century.
-
-
Mad Dawg
Don't have the numbers at my fingertips, but the majority of them would be partials or scraps. Those containing the entire NT are few.
-
118
Really, There Is A Lot To Learn About Your Faith
by AllTimeJeff inin ak - jeffs thread "did jesus ever claim to be the messiah", narkissos said the following that i think, and have learned, is rather profound:.
a better approach to this discussion might start with questioning the presupposition that there was one concept of "messiahship" common to all or even most 1st-century ad jews.. the idea is, we assume that the faith and religion we have now, is as it was way back then... clearly, it isn't.. i haven't devoted a great deal of my time to this subject, but i have read enough to realize that there is a lot more to the history of our churches and religions then we think.
jw history is pretty easy, as they started in the late 19th century.
-
-
Mad Dawg
with tons of variant readings,
Most of which can be easily ferreted out by comparing the mss’s to each other. And none of the variants have any affect on the doctrines of Christianity.
held among various groups and tribes is what one finds as to how the bible came around.
Which makes it even more impressive that 24,000 + mss’s agree in substance.
Again, in the end, those with a political agenda created the Holy Roman Empire, with the Church now the official mouthpiece of the Empire. How is that NOT political?
The Holy Roman Empire was not founded until 962 by Otto I.
Also:
1. Assumptions are no substitute for evidence.
2. The Church did not have near the power that it had later.
3. Shifting the burden of proof does not answer my question.
Here is what this is beginning to sound like to me... which unfortunately is a bit too familiar.
Some Christian apologists: You only need to accept Jesus as your lord as found in the traditional gospels. There is no need to investigate what other scholars and historians have to say regarding the bible, its history, or how the canon was put together. That will only destroy your faith.
Actually, understanding the history of the Bible will increase one’s confidence in it. One should read different takes on it – not just those that wish to shred it like Bart.
Some, like Bart Ehrman, have a totally biased agenda and only write what they do to destroy your faith.
Agreed.
Remember, if its true for JW's, its true for ALL religions: If its the truth, it will stand up to critical scrutiny.
Agree 100%. That is why the fathers rejected the gnostics as heretics
Often, the issue of the canon IS PORTRAYED AS a group of official religious leaders, with a pile of possible 'candidate' books in front of them at some big meeting/council, trying to decide which ones they should say are 'inspired' and which ones they should 'condemn' or 'censor'. Such a portrayal is a substantial misunderstanding/misrepresentation of the historical process.
-
118
Really, There Is A Lot To Learn About Your Faith
by AllTimeJeff inin ak - jeffs thread "did jesus ever claim to be the messiah", narkissos said the following that i think, and have learned, is rather profound:.
a better approach to this discussion might start with questioning the presupposition that there was one concept of "messiahship" common to all or even most 1st-century ad jews.. the idea is, we assume that the faith and religion we have now, is as it was way back then... clearly, it isn't.. i haven't devoted a great deal of my time to this subject, but i have read enough to realize that there is a lot more to the history of our churches and religions then we think.
jw history is pretty easy, as they started in the late 19th century.
-
-
Mad Dawg
ATJ said:
Variuous groups were rejected, notably the Gnostic Christians. People like Marcion, (decried by The Roman Church as a heretic) were excommunicated for his views that were not accepted by early church fathers.
So? The Gnostics had more in common with eastern mysticism than it did Christianity. The Gnostics were way outside the mainstream. You seem to be confusing theology with politics.
Marcion taught a Zoroastrian dualism. To wit: To the end of promoting his view, Marcion went through the Pauline epistles, choosing only some of them (Galatians, the Corinthian letters, Romans, the Thessalonian letters, Ephesians [as Laodecians], Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon - Harr.IC, 210) and "removed whatever he judged were interpolations - that is, anything that did not agree with his understanding of what Paul should have written." [Metzg.NT, 93] He also gutted the Gospel of Luke for his purposes, accepting only about 3/4 of it as authentic[Knox.MarcNT, 3] and with the edited Pauline epistles, created his own informal "canon." It is Marcion that did precisely what you have ascribed to the Fathers. Marcion was properly slapped down for it.
In addition, the works of the early church fathers demonstrate that they had definite viewpoints, and used the scrolls and citations that were available to them to prop up their beliefs.
Having read nearly the entire body of Ante-nicene fathers, you have it excactly backwards. Their viewpoints were developed from the scrolls available to them. The “gnostic gospels” did not appear until later and were never as wide spread as what would become the canon. Further, these later writings would have been compared to the earlier writings and oral traditions and rejected.
The bible canon was commisioned after the Church became the official state religion. The establishment of the Church was itself a political exercise.
Actually, the Council of Nicaea put its stamp of approval on the canon in 325. Christianity didn’t become the state religion until 380. Are you intentionally putting theology and politics into one basket?
I think the opposite of the question is: What is the basis for the claim that the bible is a product of holy spirit?
Good question.
Thousand of scrolls…
Yep, over 24,000. This seems miraculous in itself:
-
45
Attended DC this weekend, quick recap...the End may not be imminent could take a million years but its still coming
by shopaholic inattended the dc this weekend in california with a jw acquaintance of mine that wanted to go 'jw man-hunting' and didn't want to go alone.
she knows i'm not active and haven't been to a meeting in a long time and have no interest in jw men.
i think she feels like she has the best of both worlds with me, anyway it was interesting...the gb appears to be changing their tune and i don't think the masses even realize it.. br.
-
-
Mad Dawg
I wonder if the GB is allowing the Dubbers' expectations to flat line a bit so they can be stoked again at a later date.
-
118
Really, There Is A Lot To Learn About Your Faith
by AllTimeJeff inin ak - jeffs thread "did jesus ever claim to be the messiah", narkissos said the following that i think, and have learned, is rather profound:.
a better approach to this discussion might start with questioning the presupposition that there was one concept of "messiahship" common to all or even most 1st-century ad jews.. the idea is, we assume that the faith and religion we have now, is as it was way back then... clearly, it isn't.. i haven't devoted a great deal of my time to this subject, but i have read enough to realize that there is a lot more to the history of our churches and religions then we think.
jw history is pretty easy, as they started in the late 19th century.
-
-
Mad Dawg
ATJ, what is your basis for saying that the selection of the canon was a political process?
-
45
Why can a JW get a boob job but not a tatoo???
by cognac inthat makes no sense to me.
you'd get yourself in a jc for a tatoo but i've seen a couple of jws get a boob job and nothing happen... the hypocrisy in endless... .
-
-
Mad Dawg
Hmmm... Maybe if a sister is harassed about a boob job, she can claim that Jehober miraculously cured her sagging boobs. The miracle being that she saved the money from her window washing job to do it.