i never heard of c.s.
lewis growing up (he also wrote science fiction christian books, such as the narnia chronicles, perlandra, a grief observed and mere christianity, the best easy summation of christianity i've ever come across).
my first encounter was when i was taking a seminary course that met at st. thomas, a very high english church in ny.
I haven't read all of The Screwtape Letters, but what I have read is quite intriguing. And I agree, Mere Christianity is brilliant.
His allegory in The Chronicles of Narnia is on par with Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, with much of it lost on today's readers.
the victors not only write the history, they also reproduce the texts.
in a study that explores the close relationship between the social history of early christianity and the textual tradition of the emerging new testament, ehrman examines how early struggles between christian "heresy" and "orthodoxy" affected the transmission of the documents over which, in part, the debates were waged.
his thesis is that proto-orthodox scribes of the second and third centuries occasionally altered their sacred texts for polemical reasons--for example, to oppose adoptionists like the ebionites, who claimed that christ was a man but not god, or docetists like marcion, who claimed that he was god but not a man, or gnostics like the ptolemaeans, who claimed that he was two beings, one divine and one human.
I'm saying that Colbert was playing devil's advocate (no pun intended) the way he usually does, and Ehrman didn't exactly come off looking like he was making many good points. I realize one can only do so much in a short spot on a satire show and Colbert jumping on you every opening he gets, but if you profess to believe in these conclusions, and I certainly hope he does because he's influencing alot of vulnerable people, then you've got to hit some home runs once in a while if this is your life's work. Despite a cynical, secular, ever growing atheistic world, that feeds on sound bytes, the audience was drawn into Colbert's counter points. Call me crazy, call me a religious zealot, call me bias, but Colbert made some vaild points and did not come off insulting to Ehrman in any way. At one time, Ehrman believed that truth could be found, but the fact is, he was faced with what alot of Ex JW's and Protestants have found, and that is if one is intellectually honest and read early Church history, one either becomes Catholic/Orthodox, or one claims that the Church has manipulated or "cooked the books", ie, the bible and walks away from Christianity. Ehrman, and many others like him, have chosen the latter.
So the short answer is, no, it was not a real debate. I understand that. I've heard Ehrman actually debate with some seasoned Catholic apologists before, which doesn't happen very often, because the Catholic Church doesn't not rely solely on scripture to support their position. Ehrman will make headway with those (Protestants) that have to completely rely on Sola Scriptura (bible alone) to defend their position, but when the Catholic Church has the early Church fathers, ie the early christians, supporting their positions, Ehrman is left in a corner. And it's no wonder, he himself was a "bible alone" believer.
the victors not only write the history, they also reproduce the texts.
in a study that explores the close relationship between the social history of early christianity and the textual tradition of the emerging new testament, ehrman examines how early struggles between christian "heresy" and "orthodoxy" affected the transmission of the documents over which, in part, the debates were waged.
his thesis is that proto-orthodox scribes of the second and third centuries occasionally altered their sacred texts for polemical reasons--for example, to oppose adoptionists like the ebionites, who claimed that christ was a man but not god, or docetists like marcion, who claimed that he was god but not a man, or gnostics like the ptolemaeans, who claimed that he was two beings, one divine and one human.
whereami, yes, I am serious. You see one thing, I see another. This clip was a point/counterpoint agrument, and Ehrman, to be charitable, looked like a deer caught in headlights. And this was after he appeared before on Colbert's show and it was more of the same on that as well. Colbert is a self professed Roman Catholic (you did the see the source of the link, right?), so why do you think Ehrman wanted to come on air with him? Ehrman has spent his whole life studying scripture and saw a chance to make points and that's the best he can do, albeit on a political satire show? There are just as many educated men, some from the time of the Apostles, who believe/believed completely differently than what Ehrman and Metzger have concluded.
the victors not only write the history, they also reproduce the texts.
in a study that explores the close relationship between the social history of early christianity and the textual tradition of the emerging new testament, ehrman examines how early struggles between christian "heresy" and "orthodoxy" affected the transmission of the documents over which, in part, the debates were waged.
his thesis is that proto-orthodox scribes of the second and third centuries occasionally altered their sacred texts for polemical reasons--for example, to oppose adoptionists like the ebionites, who claimed that christ was a man but not god, or docetists like marcion, who claimed that he was god but not a man, or gnostics like the ptolemaeans, who claimed that he was two beings, one divine and one human.
Ehrman couldn't talk his way out of a paper bag "educated" himself into confusion.
http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2009/04/son-of-duck.html
early christian writings.. .
let alone "inspired by god?
church councils) this is what i mean by spiritual osmosis.. there are other early lists of new testament books that.
Prodigal, if that's the way you feel, I understand. I have no interest in trading barbs or starting a mud slinging contest. You have chosen your path, and I have chosen mine. I wish you the best and peace be with you.
early christian writings.. .
let alone "inspired by god?
church councils) this is what i mean by spiritual osmosis.. there are other early lists of new testament books that.
ProdigalSon, please cite credible sources. You're going to hang your hat on Jack Chick hate diatribe of the Catholic Church, as shown in your link? Alberto Rivera was shown to be a total sham. What else do you have in regards to your allegation that the Church created Islam?
I'm sorry, but I don't believe in karma. My father and brother are both Buddhists and it's a belief that in my humble opinion, is nonsensical. But I do believe that yes, every individual is responsible of their own actions. Christ never promised that His followers would never sin or make mistakes. In fact, He knew it would happen. Why else would give the apostles the power to forgive sins? (John 20:23)
And to answer your question, of course I want to join this religion. It's the Church that Christ founded on Peter. (Matthew 16:16-20)
early christian writings.. .
let alone "inspired by god?
church councils) this is what i mean by spiritual osmosis.. there are other early lists of new testament books that.
Mad Sweeney, there will be no attacks, at least not from me.
Pax
early christian writings.. .
let alone "inspired by god?
church councils) this is what i mean by spiritual osmosis.. there are other early lists of new testament books that.
So, if I'm following you here, the Vatican created Islam just to have it overrun them all over the the Holy Lands, Africa and Europe? Islam takes no responsibility for it's own actions? Your bias towards the Church precludes you from addressing what the Koran teaches, which if it's necessary, convert others by conquest? Wow...
Let's start with the Crusades, if that's okay with you. Why do you think the Crusades are referred to by scholars of all ilks as, the "retaking" of the Holy Lands? Who took them in the first place? And why?
early christian writings.. .
let alone "inspired by god?
church councils) this is what i mean by spiritual osmosis.. there are other early lists of new testament books that.
Thank you for the welcome, ProdigalSon. Do you need to back up the statement? Not for my sake, I've addressed all these things for myself (I'm entering the Church this year) and there is alot of misinformation about the things you listed. But if you feel the need to defend your opposition to the Church, I'm game. Do you "seriously" want to see links refuting the things you cited (Crusades, Inqusition, etc.), or have you made up your mind already about where you stand? BTW, for starters, the Muslim, Caliph Omar, burned the library at Alexandria in 640 AD.
early christian writings.. .
let alone "inspired by god?
church councils) this is what i mean by spiritual osmosis.. there are other early lists of new testament books that.
Hello all. I'm new to the site. I was a cradle JW that was in the WT for about 25 years. I felt compelled to comment about some things that ProdigalSon was stating above. When you make the "crushing" accusations about the Catholic Church, can you cite some sources please? You're claiming that the Catholic Church did not teach or has never taught to love thy neighbor, forgiveness & gratitude? Have you actually read what the Church teaches in it's Catechism? I think you'd be surprised to learn that it in fact does teach these things.
