Well, I have this theory that Paul was a low level enforcer for the Jews, saw a chance to muscle his way up to leader in the new cult, jumped ship and started pushing everyone around and then figured out a way to suddenly get a shitload more converts.
It's like being the original free agent getting the original new light.
i'm sure we have been visited by the third kind, but i am referring to a time, within our lives, where as a whole man will be visited and see them.
i know mother shipton, maya, sumerian, and others all reference a future (in all aspects similar to our modern time) when the "gods" will return and help men ascend to a new level.
personally, i don't think such an event is too far fetched..
Come on. Sagan even alluded to it via mathematical probability.
Yes, of intelligent life existing elsewhere in the universe. Not the same as "I'm sure they've been here."
Do you think the ancients, whose cave drawings depict entities in "suits", were pulling ideas out of their ass?
No, I think the same thing as when as when I see drawings my friend does when on acid. Hallucigens, imagination. You interpret them as suits because that speaks to something you have seen, astronauts in suits. There is no proof whatsoever they were aliens in suits. I mean, I saw wizard of oz, should I also beleive in tin men, red ruby slippers and women riding bicycles in tornados?
No one can explain many of the megaliths today, much less try and duplicate them with "ancient" tools/technology.
What do you mean "explain"? Ancient people carved shit on stones. They had an active imagination. There's an explanation. You don't have to like it, but it's sure more sensible than ancient aliens evolving, developing the technology to travel light years and then disappearing for reasons unknown.
What tools and technology did ancient people duplicate?
i'm sure we have been visited by the third kind, but i am referring to a time, within our lives, where as a whole man will be visited and see them.
i know mother shipton, maya, sumerian, and others all reference a future (in all aspects similar to our modern time) when the "gods" will return and help men ascend to a new level.
personally, i don't think such an event is too far fetched..
Look at the ancient texts, and even megaliths - makes you really wonder...
Yeah, I've seen them. "Makes you wonder" isn't quite the same as "I'm sure they've been here" ...
i am not a jw but one thing that they really get me on is when they call the outside world a "wicked system of things" and say it is run by the devil.
i know the world can be great and people can be wonderful but on the flip side, the bad seems to be getting worse and morals seem to be flying out the window.
i don't know, what do you guys think?
And...*gasps*….canned beer hadn't been invented yet.
Thank the FSM we had whisky.
i'm sure we have been visited by the third kind, but i am referring to a time, within our lives, where as a whole man will be visited and see them.
i know mother shipton, maya, sumerian, and others all reference a future (in all aspects similar to our modern time) when the "gods" will return and help men ascend to a new level.
personally, i don't think such an event is too far fetched..
why are you sure they have been here?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0062012614/ref=s9_simh_bw_p14_d0_g14_i1?pf_rd_m=atvpdkikx0der&pf_rd_s=center-3&pf_rd_r=0eppm5kwv5zydqhmh1ar&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1287771322&pf_rd_i=283155.
has anybody read this recent book by erhman?
wondering.. thank you..
You read Bart, he has NO AGENDA to prove? really?
PSac, no need to rebutt what I didn't claim. I never said he has an agenda to prove or not. Since you want to go down that road, what do you think his agenda is? I know what I think it is, specifically in publishing his books (to sell them). Beyond that, I can only speculate beyond what he said it was in multiple books (to show the mass lay people what most graduates of seminary and theological schools know but don't tell their flocks).
From what I can tell based on his writings, he isn't telling anyone to NOT be a christian. He is laying out some facts, some conclusions the general community shares, some of his own conclusions and some speculation. Let the reader use discernment.
Those books I linked are all by scholars comparable to Bart and Metzger is one of THE if not THE scholar of NT history.
I have no issue with reading Metzger, but reading books by some of the people you link to is like me reading a study paid for by IBM that tellsme how awesome IBM products are. Most of these people write on their blog how they want to show the bible is true or work for places and write under the auspices of that goal. Slanted material with an agenda out of the gate.
Your questions are dealt with in those books and NONE of them claim the beible to be inerrant by the way.
What questions are you referring to?
For me, it's not the Bible being inerrant, it's more a question of, given the lack of autographs, the competing early factions, the obvious discrepancies, the twisted logic that has to be brought to make sense of it, the obvious theological and political climate the NT and Bible were compiled under, the lack of any real true way to determine what's real and what's not, why would I trust ANY of it?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0062012614/ref=s9_simh_bw_p14_d0_g14_i1?pf_rd_m=atvpdkikx0der&pf_rd_s=center-3&pf_rd_r=0eppm5kwv5zydqhmh1ar&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1287771322&pf_rd_i=283155.
has anybody read this recent book by erhman?
wondering.. thank you..
I mentioned it as an example of the honesty in Paul's letters.
How do we know it was at all honest?
but obviosuly evidently Tertius ( and Paul) felt it necessary to state that fact for the recepients of the letter.
I know I changed what you wrote, but to highlight a point. Using the word obviously there is the same as the WT using evidently. Maybe there was a reason they specifically mentioned it, maybe there wasn't. Maybe Tertius put that in there on his own without Paul telling him to, maybe it wasn't a fact at all but someone put it in there anyway.
Point is, do I suspect it is false? No, but I also can't claim it's truly authentic. I could just as easily reason that, were it to be faked, it makes sense that it would sound like it wasn't. There is a presumption of innocence, sure, but no one saw any of this go down or can ask this. It's ALL presumption when we decide to trust what they are writing.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0062012614/ref=s9_simh_bw_p14_d0_g14_i1?pf_rd_m=atvpdkikx0der&pf_rd_s=center-3&pf_rd_r=0eppm5kwv5zydqhmh1ar&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1287771322&pf_rd_i=283155.
has anybody read this recent book by erhman?
wondering.. thank you..
I recall the first time he mentioned it ( many years ago) he did NOT say that, it was his teacher that "cleared" that up when the issues was raised. I could be mistaken however, I am going on memory from what I read.
I haven't read any of Metzgers work, only Erhman, it was in Erhman's book that I read how many errors there were along with how insignificant most of them are.
In terms of historical criticism, the NT documents are as good if not more reliable than any other docuemtn we have from that time.
Reliable in terms of what? Being more or less theologically consistent with each other (which they should be since the NT was compiled to support a specific declaration of faith)? In that case they are. In terms of knowing which ones are what Jesus really said? No way to know. In terms knowing which copies are the closest to the original? No way to know. In terms of knowing which NT docs are more or less historically reliable that other books rejected for the NT? Can kind of sort of tell sometimes, but this is the world of miracles and insivible people in the sky that said they would be right back and disappeared for the past 2000 years. Define "reliable" and then we can talk.
If you haven't read it my I suugest:
I will not read material by people with an agenda to prove. You keep linking to books by people interesting in proving the bible true, not in determining whether or not it is true. Why not send me a Watchtower link?
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0062012614/ref=s9_simh_bw_p14_d0_g14_i1?pf_rd_m=atvpdkikx0der&pf_rd_s=center-3&pf_rd_r=0eppm5kwv5zydqhmh1ar&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1287771322&pf_rd_i=283155.
has anybody read this recent book by erhman?
wondering.. thank you..
you are taking Jesus quote out of context, as I am sure you know and Bart knows too.
True, I didn't mention how he blatantly said he had no problem being a wedge and driving apart families. thanks for the reminder ;)
Paul's much publizied issues with women are blown WAY out of proportion, he openly names some of them by Name in his letter to the Romans and make sit clear they are in high standing in the community there.
Uh, in one letter it says women can prophesy, in one is says they cannot speak. I think the point is that not so much that Paul has issues with women, but that those views are so diametrically opposed it seems like one might not be Paul's ideas. A forgery, perhaps, or later addition to something he may have written.
Romans was NOT written by Pauls hand by the way:
I don't think the use of a scribe at as issue, although you certainly would have to trust a scribe to be saying exactly what you mean or double checking every letter. I mean, eternal salvation is at stake, here right? Might want to make sure every single letter is spot on...
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0062012614/ref=s9_simh_bw_p14_d0_g14_i1?pf_rd_m=atvpdkikx0der&pf_rd_s=center-3&pf_rd_r=0eppm5kwv5zydqhmh1ar&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1287771322&pf_rd_i=283155.
has anybody read this recent book by erhman?
wondering.. thank you..
Funny how no one mentiones THAT when mentioning the "1000's of errors".
Except the guy you are complaining about?
Not knowing if we have the exact words also means we don't knoe if we DON'T have the exact words and unless soemthing can be shown to be incorrect, why assume that it IS incorrect?
Tsk tsk tsk, PSac. If I have 100 different recipies all claiming to be my grandmothers secret coconut cake recipe, do i just pick some at random and I don't know they're wrong so I will presume they are hers and go around telling people that?
The burden of proof falls on those claiming they are correct, not the ones pointing out that we don't know.
