Another Question for Christians

[Book of Jeremiah]

I ask this question very sincerely as I am interested in the responses.

Why is it that so many Christians are so hostile in response to critical scholarship?

The purpose of that area of study is essentially to "get to the truth" in the grand scheme of things and it seems to me that if one really wants to know the will of God, to really understand the teachings of Jesus, and make sure they are on the right track, etc, that it would be in their best interests to understand the context in which scripture was written, the cultural influences of the times that certain passages are relating to, a little bit about ancient languages in order to identify misinterpretations, know the history in order to determine which things in Christian faith are supported by the Bible and which things are simply church traditions, etc.

my response:

I myself am a man of faith but I do not blindly accept what a priest or pastor or someone tells me. I listen, think, meditate on it, and then research the hell out of it. Usually what I find stands in contrast to what that priest or pastor told me. But, for me, my faith is not challenged...actually my faith is enhanced. Yes my study forces me sometimes to adjust my understanding of God or redefine how I see Jesus, but isn't that what we should all be doing anyhow? Continuously developing our faith and reaching new levels of understanding and communion with God?

Lets just take this example. Let's say somewhere in the Bible it says that you should never eat grapes on Thursday and those who do eat grapes on Thursday are unworthy and should be condemned. So being a good Christian you make sure that you never eat grapes on Thursday and you shun everyone who does and give them the finger every time you see them. But suddenly an earlier manuscript is found and however it happens there is clear evidence that the text was wrong....it says you should ALWAYS eat grapes on Thursday and those who DON'T should be condemned. .Well it seems to me that a Christian would want to know that so they can be good with God, ya know?

So what's the deal? Why all the hostility when someone says, for example, "well we are pretty certain that the Apostle Paul didn't write 1st or 2nd Timothy, Titus, or Ephesians. They were probably written by someone else claiming to be Paul in order to give their ideas more authority"? It seems to me we would want to know that as Christians so we base our beliefs and actions upon an authentic source instead of some jack-ass claiming to be someone he is not.

Seems logical to me.

So help me out. What's the deal?

You said here:
The purpose of that area of study is essentially to "get to the truth" in the grand scheme of things and it seems to me that if one really wants to know the will of God, to really understand the teachings of Jesus, and make sure they are on the right track, etc, that it would be in their best interests to understand the context in which scripture was written, the cultural influences of the times that certain passages are relating to, a little bit about ancient languages in order to identify misinterpretations, know the history in order to determine which things in Christian faith are supported by the Bible and which things are simply church traditions, etc.

This is not how you come to know the will of God, Phantom. You know the will of God by doing what Jesus told you to do in John 7:17. That is how you come to know the will of God, understand the teachings of Jesus and make sure that everything is of God. It's the only way.

 

[BluePhantom]

Here is perhaps a different way to approach the question. When I discuss religion with someone I will often ask early on who they think wrote the Gospel of Mark. Now I don't ask that to pick a fight. I ask it because how they respond will tell me a lot about who I am talking to and where their point of view is coming from. It's very rare that I ever challenge their response no matter what it is. Now I am saying this just from my experience and I want to stress that. This is just from what I have personally seen.

Now when I have asked that question of a Rabbi, or a Catholic Priest, or a Reverend in the Episcopal church or someone from a more traditional background, I usually get an answer along the lines of "well traditionally we attribute it to Mark the Evangelist, but in reality no one really knows. But who wrote it is not as important as what it has to say and what it can teach us about life, society, and our relationship with God." I think that's a perfectly reasonable position.

Now when I have asked Evangelical pastors who have attended seminary, I usually get a response that says something like "well traditionally it has been attributed to Mark the Evangelist. Modern scholarship debates that, but I think it was written by Mark and let me give you my reasons why" and that's usually followed by him or her presenting their evidence or their argument. Again a perfectly reasonable position in my opinion.

But when I have asked that question of Evangelical pastors who have not attended seminary what I hear is "Mark the Evangelist wrote it and anyone who says otherwise or even thinks otherwise has been deluded by Satan and is going to burn in the fiery flames of hell for their sinfulness." Usually I don't have a conversation with them so much as get preached at and told how to think and what to believe under threat of torture.

It's worth noting that when I talk to members of each of these churches, their opinions and willingness to discuss scholarship is usually in line with that of the church leader. So is it simply a matter of learning or being mentored by someone that will shape one's degree of openness to alternate perspectives? In other words, is it simply that followers of a church are going to parrot what the minister tells them and that's that?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Here is perhaps a different way to approach the question. When I discuss religion with someone I will often ask early on who they think wrote the Gospel of Mark. Now I don't ask that to pick a fight. I ask it because how they respond will tell me a lot about who I am talking to and where their point of view is coming from. It's very rare that I ever challenge their response no matter what it is. Now I am saying this just from my experience and I want to stress that. This is just from what I have personally seen.

Now when I have asked that question of a Rabbi, or a Catholic Priest, or a Reverend in the Episcopal church or someone from a more traditional background, I usually get an answer along the lines of "well traditionally we attribute it to Mark the Evangelist, but in reality no one really knows. But who wrote it is not as important as what it has to say and what it can teach us about life, society, and our relationship with God." I think that's a perfectly reasonable position.

Now when I have asked Evangelical pastors who have attended seminary, I usually get a response that says something like "well traditionally it has been attributed to Mark the Evangelist. Modern scholarship debates that, but I think it was written by Mark and let me give you my reasons why" and that's usually followed by him or her presenting their evidence or their argument. Again a perfectly reasonable position in my opinion.

But when I have asked that question of Evangelical pastors who have not attended seminary what I hear is "Mark the Evangelist wrote it and anyone who says otherwise or even thinks otherwise has been deluded by Satan and is going to burn in the fiery flames of hell for their sinfulness." Usually I don't have a conversation with them so much as get preached at and told how to think and what to believe under threat of torture.

It's worth noting that when I talk to members of each of these churches, their opinions and willingness to discuss scholarship is usually in line with that of the church leader. So is it simply a matter of learning or being mentored by someone that will shape one's degree of openness to alternate perspectives? In other words, is it simply that followers of a church are going to parrot what the minister tells them and that's that?

And here is another Scripture for your question, Phantom. Once again, it is written:
2 Timothy 3 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching rebuking correcting and training in righteousness

Context
All Scripture is God-Breathed
…15and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

 

[BluePhantom]

This is not how you come to know the will of God, Phantom. You know the will of God by doing what Jesus told you to do in John 7:17. That is how you come to know the will of God, understand the teachings of Jesus and make sure that everything is of God. It's the only way.

Ok...well let me toss out a hypothetical here. What if somehow we found the original manuscript of the Gospel of John and just for the sake of this discussion, it's absolutely genuine and authentic. And in that manuscript, John 7 doesn't exist. It's not in there. And we find copies that somehow we are able to definitively trace came directly from the original and none of them have it in there either. And we find that the first time John 7 appears is 250 years later.

Well.....isn't that kind of important to know as a Christian?

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

This is not how you come to know the will of God, Phantom. You know the will of God by doing what Jesus told you to do in John 7:17. That is how you come to know the will of God, understand the teachings of Jesus and make sure that everything is of God. It's the only way.

Ok...well let me toss out a hypothetical here. What if somehow we found the original manuscript of the Gospel of John and just for the sake of this discussion, it's absolutely genuine and authentic. And in that manuscript, John 7 doesn't exist. It's not in there. And we find copies that somehow we are able to definitively trace came directly from the original and none of them have it in there either. And we find that the first time John 7 appears is 250 years later.

Well.....isn't that kind of important to know as a Christian?

No. Because what you have suggested is impossible. The scriptures declare:

John 16 13 But when he the Spirit of truth comes he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own he will speak only what he hears and he will tell you what is yet to come.
Context
The Holy Spirit Promised
…12"I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13"But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all the truth; for He will not speak on His own initiative, but whatever He hears, He will speak; and He will disclose to you what is to come. 14"He will glorify Me, for He will take of Mine and will disclose it to you.…

and again it is written:

1 John 2 27 As for you the anointing you received from him remains in you and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things and as that anointing is real not counterfeit--just as it has taught you remain in him.


and again it is written:
John 16 13 But when he the Spirit of truth comes he will guide you into all the truth. He will not speak on his own he will speak only what he hears and he will tell you what is yet to come.

Question back to you. If I know all things by the Holy Spirit who is the author and the revelator of the scriptures then how could He not warn me of something that was off? He could and He would. Are you born again? If not the Gospel is foolishness to you. That is scripture also.

 

[BluePhantom]

Here is perhaps a different way to approach the question. When I discuss religion with someone I will often ask early on who they think wrote the Gospel of Mark. Now I don't ask that to pick a fight. I ask it because how they respond will tell me a lot about who I am talking to and where their point of view is coming from. It's very rare that I ever challenge their response no matter what it is. Now I am saying this just from my experience and I want to stress that. This is just from what I have personally seen.

Now when I have asked that question of a Rabbi, or a Catholic Priest, or a Reverend in the Episcopal church or someone from a more traditional background, I usually get an answer along the lines of "well traditionally we attribute it to Mark the Evangelist, but in reality no one really knows. But who wrote it is not as important as what it has to say and what it can teach us about life, society, and our relationship with God." I think that's a perfectly reasonable position.

Now when I have asked Evangelical pastors who have attended seminary, I usually get a response that says something like "well traditionally it has been attributed to Mark the Evangelist. Modern scholarship debates that, but I think it was written by Mark and let me give you my reasons why" and that's usually followed by him or her presenting their evidence or their argument. Again a perfectly reasonable position in my opinion.

But when I have asked that question of Evangelical pastors who have not attended seminary what I hear is "Mark the Evangelist wrote it and anyone who says otherwise or even thinks otherwise has been deluded by Satan and is going to burn in the fiery flames of hell for their sinfulness." Usually I don't have a conversation with them so much as get preached at and told how to think and what to believe under threat of torture.

It's worth noting that when I talk to members of each of these churches, their opinions and willingness to discuss scholarship is usually in line with that of the church leader. So is it simply a matter of learning or being mentored by someone that will shape one's degree of openness to alternate perspectives? In other words, is it simply that followers of a church are going to parrot what the minister tells them and that's that?

And here is another Scripture for your question, Phantom. Once again, it is written:
2 Timothy 3 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching rebuking correcting and training in righteousness

Context
All Scripture is God-Breathed
…15and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Well that doesn't really answer my question, actually. And there is no need to quote scripture to me. I am perfectly aware what it says in John, Timothy, blah, blah, blah. That's not the point and it's not the question. The question is why some Christians are so quick to dismiss, reject, and ignore scholarship without a moment's hesitation.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Here is perhaps a different way to approach the question. When I discuss religion with someone I will often ask early on who they think wrote the Gospel of Mark. Now I don't ask that to pick a fight. I ask it because how they respond will tell me a lot about who I am talking to and where their point of view is coming from. It's very rare that I ever challenge their response no matter what it is. Now I am saying this just from my experience and I want to stress that. This is just from what I have personally seen.

Now when I have asked that question of a Rabbi, or a Catholic Priest, or a Reverend in the Episcopal church or someone from a more traditional background, I usually get an answer along the lines of "well traditionally we attribute it to Mark the Evangelist, but in reality no one really knows. But who wrote it is not as important as what it has to say and what it can teach us about life, society, and our relationship with God." I think that's a perfectly reasonable position.

Now when I have asked Evangelical pastors who have attended seminary, I usually get a response that says something like "well traditionally it has been attributed to Mark the Evangelist. Modern scholarship debates that, but I think it was written by Mark and let me give you my reasons why" and that's usually followed by him or her presenting their evidence or their argument. Again a perfectly reasonable position in my opinion.

But when I have asked that question of Evangelical pastors who have not attended seminary what I hear is "Mark the Evangelist wrote it and anyone who says otherwise or even thinks otherwise has been deluded by Satan and is going to burn in the fiery flames of hell for their sinfulness." Usually I don't have a conversation with them so much as get preached at and told how to think and what to believe under threat of torture.

It's worth noting that when I talk to members of each of these churches, their opinions and willingness to discuss scholarship is usually in line with that of the church leader. So is it simply a matter of learning or being mentored by someone that will shape one's degree of openness to alternate perspectives? In other words, is it simply that followers of a church are going to parrot what the minister tells them and that's that?

And here is another Scripture for your question, Phantom. Once again, it is written:
2 Timothy 3 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching rebuking correcting and training in righteousness

Context
All Scripture is God-Breathed
…15and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Well that doesn't really answer my question, actually. And there is no need to quote scripture to me. I am perfectly aware what it says in John, Timothy, blah, blah, blah. That's not the point and it's not the question. The question is why some Christians are so quick to dismiss, reject, and ignore scholarship without a moment's hesitation.

It is written:
Titus 3 9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law because these are unprofitable and useless.

And again it is written:

2 Timothy 2 23 Don t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments because you know they produce quarrels.

___________
That's why.

 

[RandomVariable]

I ask this question very sincerely as I am interested in the responses.

Why is it that so many Christians are so hostile in response to critical scholarship?

The purpose of that area of study is essentially to "get to the truth" in the grand scheme of things and it seems to me that if one really wants to know the will of God, to really understand the teachings of Jesus, and make sure they are on the right track, etc, that it would be in their best interests to understand the context in which scripture was written, the cultural influences of the times that certain passages are relating to, a little bit about ancient languages in order to identify misinterpretations, know the history in order to determine which things in Christian faith are supported by the Bible and which things are simply church traditions, etc.

I myself am a man of faith but I do not blindly accept what a priest or pastor or someone tells me. I listen, think, meditate on it, and then research the hell out of it. Usually what I find stands in contrast to what that priest or pastor told me. But, for me, my faith is not challenged...actually my faith is enhanced. Yes my study forces me sometimes to adjust my understanding of God or redefine how I see Jesus, but isn't that what we should all be doing anyhow? Continuously developing our faith and reaching new levels of understanding and communion with God?

Lets just take this example. Let's say somewhere in the Bible it says that you should never eat grapes on Thursday and those who do eat grapes on Thursday are unworthy and should be condemned. So being a good Christian you make sure that you never eat grapes on Thursday and you shun everyone who does and give them the finger every time you see them. But suddenly an earlier manuscript is found and however it happens there is clear evidence that the text was wrong....it says you should ALWAYS eat grapes on Thursday and those who DON'T should be condemned. .Well it seems to me that a Christian would want to know that so they can be good with God, ya know?

So what's the deal? Why all the hostility when someone says, for example, "well we are pretty certain that the Apostle Paul didn't write 1st or 2nd Timothy, Titus, or Ephesians. They were probably written by someone else claiming to be Paul in order to give their ideas more authority"? It seems to me we would want to know that as Christians so we base our beliefs and actions upon an authentic source instead of some jack-ass claiming to be someone he is not.

Seems logical to me.

So help me out. What's the deal?

You like science. Let's do a little experiment:

Let's say I am completely naive about the bible, religion, or any of that kind of stuff. You say you are a bible scholar so I ask you, "I heard there is a story about some flood in the King James Version of the bible. What can you tell me about that?"

Well I suppose I would tell you that the pericope about Noah and the flood in the KJV is one of a long line of flood narratives that were common to many cultures at the time and for centuries prior. The account depicted in the KJV, as opposed to say "The Epic of Gilgamesh" or the Sumerian tale of Enki and Enlil, is a bit unique in that it approaches the story from a monotheistic perspective instead of a polytheistic perspective, and that the hero, in this case Noah, is kind of jerk in a way. In previous versions the hero lobbies on behalf of mankind and begs the god or gods not to flood the earth and to give mankind another chance and Noah in contrast just kind of says "oh ok, no worries. Go ahead and wipe them out then."

I would point out that many similarities between all the stories exist, for example the design of the ark in the Bible narrative is the same design as in the story of Enki and Enlil and both landed on a mountain when the waters receded, in both accounts God or the gods promised to never do it again, in both accounts there was a burnt offering that pleased God or the gods, etc. So I would characterize the story of Noah as the Hebrew version of a very ancient flood story that has roots in many different cultures that pre-dated the Israelites by a couple thousand years.

And what you should have done is shoved a KJV bible in my hand and said, "I think it's in there somewhere." and walked away.

But you said "what can you tell me about that?" You specifically asked for my input and what I knew about the subject. I very well might give you a KJV, but if someone asks for my input, they are going to receive it and I will tell them what I know and what I think about it in good faith. What they do with that is up to them.

OK, let me tell you a little story:

One of the board's atheists posts something so incredibly stupid in the religious forum that some of us here die of shock. So BluePhantom and I and the other recently deceased posters are sitting together outside the gates waiting for our turn. God comes over and sits down with the group. Since he is not talking out of the whirlwind none of us recognize him. He says, "How about I tell everyone a story while we wait?" So he tells about a guy who builds a big boat which saves all the animals while everyone but this guy's family drowns. When God finishes his story BluePhantom speaks up and says, "Ya, I heard that one back on earth." God gets up and storms off. A few of hours later BluePhantom and I are are sitting outside the gates. Everyone else got called soon after God stormed off. I am there because I had grapes for breakfast and ham for lunch. (Sorry, God.) BluePhantom is there because he pissed off God.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

Without a lengthy reply (mostly coz I'm mobile), I trust the Holy Spirit.
It was through His guidance that the Bible was assembled.
And it is through His guidance (much like you mentioned in the OP of reading and meditation) that I understand the Bible *as it pertains to my life*.....and that's how I understand the Bible to be meant. Not for entire groups to translate it the exact same way, but for us to use It to build on our own personal relationship with God and to bring us to Him

Good answer, hortysir. The Holy Spirit is our teacher. We need no man to teach us - He is our guide, our teacher, our comforter. We are to be led by the Holy Spirit. Those that are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God. Those who are not - are not. It is one thing to know "about God" and another thing completely to know Him and to be known BY Him.

The discernment of spirits is one of the 9 gifts of the Holy Spirit. God has not left us like orphans. We have been given the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the 9 gifts are operational to this very day. All men have a choice. Religion or a relationship with Jesus Christ. I choose the latter.

 

[BluePhantom]

This is not how you come to know the will of God, Phantom. You know the will of God by doing what Jesus told you to do in John 7:17. That is how you come to know the will of God, understand the teachings of Jesus and make sure that everything is of God. It's the only way.

Ok...well let me toss out a hypothetical here. What if somehow we found the original manuscript of the Gospel of John and just for the sake of this discussion, it's absolutely genuine and authentic. And in that manuscript, John 7 doesn't exist. It's not in there. And we find copies that somehow we are able to definitively trace came directly from the original and none of them have it in there either. And we find that the first time John 7 appears is 250 years later.

Well.....isn't that kind of important to know as a Christian?

No. Because what you have suggested is impossible.

What do you mean it's impossible? It happens all the time. John 8: 1-11 doesn't appear in any manuscript until the 5th century. It wasn't in there originally, it was added later. Mark 16: 9-20 doesn't appear in any manuscript until the 5th century as well. It was added later. I would imagine all those people who kiss snakes to prove their faith would want to know that because that's where it comes from (Mark 16:18). Perhaps on their way to the hospital someone might tell them that.

And enough with the scripture. I am quite well versed on scripture and it's kind of a weak strategy to use scripture to argue in favor of the inerrant nature of scripture. No offense intended. It's just a little counter productive.

 

[Book of Jeremiah]

If you were a man of faith as you claim you would never say that speaking scripture is a weak strategy. Jesus Christ is my example and as He defeated Satan in the desert with "It is Written"... I'm in good company.

I perceive that you have a perverse spirit and are only interested in silly disputes. I am a Christian and won't debate the validity of the Bible and /or Scripture with you. It would be an act of futility. (and sin)

 

[BluePhantom]

OK, let me tell you a little story:

One of the board's atheists posts something so incredibly stupid in the religious forum that some of us here die of shock. So BluePhantom and I and the other recently deceased posters are sitting together outside the gates waiting for our turn. God comes over and sits down with the group. Since he is not talking out of the whirlwind none of us recognize him. He says, "How about I tell everyone a story while we wait?" So he tells about a guy who builds a big boat which saves all the animals while everyone but this guy's family drowns. When God finishes his story BluePhantom speaks up and says, "Ya, I heard that one back on earth." God gets up and storms off. A few of hours later BluePhantom and I are are sitting outside the gates. Everyone else got called soon after God stormed off. I am there because I had grapes for breakfast and ham for lunch. (Sorry, God.) BluePhantom is there because he pissed off God.

that's great!! Seriously that was funny

 

[Nutz]

I ask this question very sincerely as I am interested in the responses.

Why is it that so many Christians are so hostile in response to critical scholarship?

The purpose of that area of study is essentially to "get to the truth" in the grand scheme of things and it seems to me that if one really wants to know the will of God, to really understand the teachings of Jesus, and make sure they are on the right track, etc, that it would be in their best interests to understand the context in which scripture was written, the cultural influences of the times that certain passages are relating to, a little bit about ancient languages in order to identify misinterpretations, know the history in order to determine which things in Christian faith are supported by the Bible and which things are simply church traditions, etc.

I myself am a man of faith but I do not blindly accept what a priest or pastor or someone tells me. I listen, think, meditate on it, and then research the hell out of it. Usually what I find stands in contrast to what that priest or pastor told me. But, for me, my faith is not challenged...actually my faith is enhanced. Yes my study forces me sometimes to adjust my understanding of God or redefine how I see Jesus, but isn't that what we should all be doing anyhow? Continuously developing our faith and reaching new levels of understanding and communion with God?

Lets just take this example. Let's say somewhere in the Bible it says that you should never eat grapes on Thursday and those who do eat grapes on Thursday are unworthy and should be condemned. So being a good Christian you make sure that you never eat grapes on Thursday and you shun everyone who does and give them the finger every time you see them. But suddenly an earlier manuscript is found and however it happens there is clear evidence that the text was wrong....it says you should ALWAYS eat grapes on Thursday and those who DON'T should be condemned. .Well it seems to me that a Christian would want to know that so they can be good with God, ya know?

So what's the deal? Why all the hostility when someone says, for example, "well we are pretty certain that the Apostle Paul didn't write 1st or 2nd Timothy, Titus, or Ephesians. They were probably written by someone else claiming to be Paul in order to give their ideas more authority"? It seems to me we would want to know that as Christians so we base our beliefs and actions upon an authentic source instead of some jack-ass claiming to be someone he is not.

Seems logical to me.

So help me out. What's the deal?

Sounds to me as if you are questioning your own faith.

 

[BluePhantom]

If you were a man of faith as you claim you would never say that speaking scripture is a weak strategy. Jesus Christ is my example and as He defeated Satan in the desert with "It is Written"... I'm in good company.

I perceive that you have a perverse spirit and are only interested in silly disputes. I am a Christian and won't debate the validity of the Bible and /or Scripture with you. It would be an act of futility. (and sin)

Ok....let's try this. Say you are having a debate with a Muslim about whether Islam or Christianity is the "correct religion" and the Muslim argues his point by quoting the Quran. Are you going to give his argument a great deal of credibility? I highly doubt it because it is from a biased source. Similarly if someone makes the argument that the Bible contains errors or inconsistencies over time or whatever and you quote the Bible to refute that argument, you probably won't be granted a great deal of credibility by whoever you are talking to. It's not that quoting the Bible is not a good thing to do, it's that it's not terribly effective in that particular scenario.

I see we have quickly gotten to the point where I am being labelled "perverse" and the quality of my spirit and degree of my faith have come into question. We you have really done Jeremiah is provide an excellent example of exactly what I am talking about. So thank you for demonstrating my point.

 

[BluePhantom]

I ask this question very sincerely as I am interested in the responses.

Why is it that so many Christians are so hostile in response to critical scholarship?

The purpose of that area of study is essentially to "get to the truth" in the grand scheme of things and it seems to me that if one really wants to know the will of God, to really understand the teachings of Jesus, and make sure they are on the right track, etc, that it would be in their best interests to understand the context in which scripture was written, the cultural influences of the times that certain passages are relating to, a little bit about ancient languages in order to identify misinterpretations, know the history in order to determine which things in Christian faith are supported by the Bible and which things are simply church traditions, etc.

I myself am a man of faith but I do not blindly accept what a priest or pastor or someone tells me. I listen, think, meditate on it, and then research the hell out of it. Usually what I find stands in contrast to what that priest or pastor told me. But, for me, my faith is not challenged...actually my faith is enhanced. Yes my study forces me sometimes to adjust my understanding of God or redefine how I see Jesus, but isn't that what we should all be doing anyhow? Continuously developing our faith and reaching new levels of understanding and communion with God?

Lets just take this example. Let's say somewhere in the Bible it says that you should never eat grapes on Thursday and those who do eat grapes on Thursday are unworthy and should be condemned. So being a good Christian you make sure that you never eat grapes on Thursday and you shun everyone who does and give them the finger every time you see them. But suddenly an earlier manuscript is found and however it happens there is clear evidence that the text was wrong....it says you should ALWAYS eat grapes on Thursday and those who DON'T should be condemned. .Well it seems to me that a Christian would want to know that so they can be good with God, ya know?

So what's the deal? Why all the hostility when someone says, for example, "well we are pretty certain that the Apostle Paul didn't write 1st or 2nd Timothy, Titus, or Ephesians. They were probably written by someone else claiming to be Paul in order to give their ideas more authority"? It seems to me we would want to know that as Christians so we base our beliefs and actions upon an authentic source instead of some jack-ass claiming to be someone he is not.

Seems logical to me.

So help me out. What's the deal?

Sounds to me as if you are questioning your own faith.

I am assuming you missed the part where I wrote that my faith becomes enhanced. I am quite secure in my faith, but thanks for your concern

 

[Nutz]

If you were a man of faith as you claim you would never say that speaking scripture is a weak strategy. Jesus Christ is my example and as He defeated Satan in the desert with "It is Written"... I'm in good company.

I perceive that you have a perverse spirit and are only interested in silly disputes. I am a Christian and won't debate the validity of the Bible and /or Scripture with you. It would be an act of futility. (and sin)

Ok....let's try this. Say you are having a debate with a Muslim about whether Islam or Christianity is the "correct religion" and the Muslim argues his point by quoting the Quran. Are you going to give his argument a great deal of credibility? I highly doubt it because it is from a biased source. Similarly if someone makes the argument that the Bible contains errors or inconsistencies over time or whatever and you quote the Bible to refute that argument, you probably won't be granted a great deal of credibility by whoever you are talking to. It's not that quoting the Bible is not a good thing to do, it's that it's not terribly effective in that particular scenario.

I see we have quickly gotten to the point where I am being labelled "perverse" and the quality of my spirit and degree of my faith have come into question. We you have really done Jeremiah is provide an excellent example of exactly what I am talking about. So thank you for demonstrating my point.

Read Emily Dickinson's poem...Faith is a Fine Invention and get back to me.

 

[Nutz]

I ask this question very sincerely as I am interested in the responses.

Why is it that so many Christians are so hostile in response to critical scholarship?

The purpose of that area of study is essentially to "get to the truth" in the grand scheme of things and it seems to me that if one really wants to know the will of God, to really understand the teachings of Jesus, and make sure they are on the right track, etc, that it would be in their best interests to understand the context in which scripture was written, the cultural influences of the times that certain passages are relating to, a little bit about ancient languages in order to identify misinterpretations, know the history in order to determine which things in Christian faith are supported by the Bible and which things are simply church traditions, etc.

I myself am a man of faith but I do not blindly accept what a priest or pastor or someone tells me. I listen, think, meditate on it, and then research the hell out of it. Usually what I find stands in contrast to what that priest or pastor told me. But, for me, my faith is not challenged...actually my faith is enhanced. Yes my study forces me sometimes to adjust my understanding of God or redefine how I see Jesus, but isn't that what we should all be doing anyhow? Continuously developing our faith and reaching new levels of understanding and communion with God?

Lets just take this example. Let's say somewhere in the Bible it says that you should never eat grapes on Thursday and those who do eat grapes on Thursday are unworthy and should be condemned. So being a good Christian you make sure that you never eat grapes on Thursday and you shun everyone who does and give them the finger every time you see them. But suddenly an earlier manuscript is found and however it happens there is clear evidence that the text was wrong....it says you should ALWAYS eat grapes on Thursday and those who DON'T should be condemned. .Well it seems to me that a Christian would want to know that so they can be good with God, ya know?

So what's the deal? Why all the hostility when someone says, for example, "well we are pretty certain that the Apostle Paul didn't write 1st or 2nd Timothy, Titus, or Ephesians. They were probably written by someone else claiming to be Paul in order to give their ideas more authority"? It seems to me we would want to know that as Christians so we base our beliefs and actions upon an authentic source instead of some jack-ass claiming to be someone he is not.

Seems logical to me.

So help me out. What's the deal?

Sounds to me as if you are questioning your own faith.

I am assuming you missed the part where I wrote that my faith becomes enhanced. I am quite secure in my faith, but thanks for your concern

If you were secure in your faith, you would over intellectual it.

 

[BluePhantom]

If you were a man of faith as you claim you would never say that speaking scripture is a weak strategy. Jesus Christ is my example and as He defeated Satan in the desert with "It is Written"... I'm in good company.

I perceive that you have a perverse spirit and are only interested in silly disputes. I am a Christian and won't debate the validity of the Bible and /or Scripture with you. It would be an act of futility. (and sin)

Ok....let's try this. Say you are having a debate with a Muslim about whether Islam or Christianity is the "correct religion" and the Muslim argues his point by quoting the Quran. Are you going to give his argument a great deal of credibility? I highly doubt it because it is from a biased source. Similarly if someone makes the argument that the Bible contains errors or inconsistencies over time or whatever and you quote the Bible to refute that argument, you probably won't be granted a great deal of credibility by whoever you are talking to. It's not that quoting the Bible is not a good thing to do, it's that it's not terribly effective in that particular scenario.

I see we have quickly gotten to the point where I am being labelled "perverse" and the quality of my spirit and degree of my faith have come into question. We you have really done Jeremiah is provide an excellent example of exactly what I am talking about. So thank you for demonstrating my point.

Read Emily Dickinson's poem...Faith is a Fine Invention and get back to me.

So are you suggesting that those who so quickly dismiss (those about whom I am asking) lack balance in their lives? Particularly between faith and the world around them?

 

[BluePhantom]

If you were secure in your faith, you would over intellectual it.

Sigh.....it's fucking uncanny. Aside from that statement making no sense at all (I am not even sure what it means), it's amazing to me how quickly so many ignore the actual question and jump right to questioning my faith and my "perverse spirit". If anyone actually wants to address the question instead of ministering to me I will be happy to get back to them.

 

[Nutz]

If you were secure in your faith, you would over intellectual it.

Sigh.....it's fucking uncanny. Aside from that statement making no sense at all (I am not even sure what it means), it's amazing to me how quickly so many ignore the actual question and jump right to questioning my faith and my "perverse spirit". If anyone actually wants to address the question instead of ministering to me I will be happy to get back to them.

Can you ask your question in a sentence or two without justifying it with a preconceived answer?