Another Question for Christians

[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.

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?

Faith is your balance. The world around you is the world around you.

 

[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.

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

You could just look at the OP and read the question at the very top in bold type:

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

 

[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?

You could just look at the OP and read the question at the very top in bold type:

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

And the simple answer is that most critical scholarship is nothing more than an attack on a Christians faith.

 

[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.

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

You could just look at the OP and read the question at the very top in bold type:

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

And the simple answer is that most critical scholarship is nothing more than an attack on a Christians faith.

Well I think many Christians believe that critical scholarship is an attack on their faith, but I see no evidence of that at all. Is it an attack on faith to point out that Mark 16:9-20 does not appear in the earliest copies of the gospel or is it simply an observation?

 

[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?

You could just look at the OP and read the question at the very top in bold type:

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

And the simple answer is that most critical scholarship is nothing more than an attack on a Christians faith.

Well I think many Christians believe that critical scholarship is an attack on their faith, but I see no evidence of that at all. Is it an attack on faith to point out that Mark 16:9-20 does not appear in the earliest copies of the gospel or is it simply an observation?

Presentation is everything.

 

[RandomVariable]

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

I only take credit for the crummy posts.

 

[BluePhantom]

Presentation is everything.

Probably something to be said for not being paranoid and defensive too.

 

[hortysir]

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?

You could just look at the OP and read the question at the very top in bold type:

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

And the simple answer is that most critical scholarship is nothing more than an attack on a Christians faith.

Well I think many Christians believe that critical scholarship is an attack on their faith, but I see no evidence of that at all. Is it an attack on faith to point out that Mark 16:9-20 does not appear in the earliest copies of the gospel or is it simply an observation?

Can you link that for me so I can look through it when I get home?

 

[BluePhantom]

Well I think many Christians believe that critical scholarship is an attack on their faith, but I see no evidence of that at all. Is it an attack on faith to point out that Mark 16:9-20 does not appear in the earliest copies of the gospel or is it simply an observation?

Can you link that for me so I can look through it when I get home?

Sure. Here are a few.

This one is pretty solid and includes several sources
The Ending of Mark Mark 16 9-20

I don't like the language this guy uses (he comes off as a bit of a jerk) but his conclusion is accurate
The Strange Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference 8211 Biblical Archaeology Society

The link below is to Biblegateway.com and you will notice they made an insertion in the middle of the text pointing it out. Most (though not all) Bible's do footnote Mark 16:9-20 and point out that it's a later addition, but this one puts it right in the middle.
Mark 16 NIV - Jesus Has Risen - When the Sabbath was - Bible Gateway

Here's a website that attempts to argue that 9-20 is genuine. I, personally, think their argument stretches credulity on several points (but the website isn't called "Apologetics Press" for nothing ), but in the interests of being fair and balanced I thought I would toss it in. At the very least it's the most thorough and well presented argument in favor of 9-20 that I have seen.
Apologetics Press - Is Mark 16 9-20 Inspired

 

[BluePhantom]

This is why stuff like this matters.

"Jamie Coots, the pastor of the Full Gospel Tabernacle in Jesus Name in Middlesboro, Ky., was handling a rattlesnake during a service when he was bitten on his right hand Saturday night. But when the ambulance arrived at 8:30 p.m., the EMS team found that Coots had gone home...according to people at the church, Coots verbally refused treatment at the church....When the ambulance crew arrived at Coots' home, his wife Linda Coots signed a form declining medical treatment, police said...Emergency personnel left about 9:10 p.m. that night. When they returned about an hour later to check on Coots, police said he was dead from a venomous snake bite."

"These pastors believe that to "take up serpents" is a form of religious expression. In the King James Bible, Mark 16:18 says, "They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them...Coots and his followers believe that God calls upon them to handle venomous serpents and to drink other poisons. Even if they are bitten, they will refuse medical treatment because they believe that they are worthy of God's faith, and that their fate is in God's hands."​

Snake-Handling Pentecostal Pastor Dies From Snake Bite - ABC News

But as I have pointed out Mark 16:9-20 does not appear to be authentic but was added centuries later. So here is a real world example in society today where lives are being impacted (and lost) because of a misunderstanding regarding scripture and the history of how it developed. It seems to me that it would be a benefit for someone who is about to kiss a snake to be aware that the scripture they are relying upon to keep themselves alive is not authentic.

Maybe it's just me. Call me crazy.

 

[hortysir]

Happens too often.
Even Jesus said not to test God

 

[BluePhantom]

Happens too often.
Even Jesus said not to test God

Well exactly. See I look at stuff like that and say "yes we can heal a poisonous snake bite through the grace of God because God was kind enough to provide us with these things called doctors and anti-venom". He also provided us with this wonderful thing called a brain which, if used properly, will indicate to someone that swinging a rattlesnake over their head and giving it a smooch is probably not such a great idea.

I don't recall Jesus ever saying to the Disciples; "hey guys check this out. I am going to let this snake bite me just for shits and giggles".

 

[PostmodernProph]

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?

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"?

probably because such claims are not critical scholarship.....absurd claims from atheist wannabees do not have to be given the same weight as theological scholars......

Interesting, but not surprising, that you fit the stereotype of the christian who is hostile to the idea of questioning of so-called "scholarship".

and that would be the stereotype of the Christian with enough education to recognize that the claim of "scholarship" on the part of these deniers is a joke?......

 

[PostmodernProph]

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?

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"?

probably because such claims are not critical scholarship.....absurd claims from atheist wannabees do not have to be given the same weight as theological scholars......

Well of course they are critical scholarship. The term "critical scholarship" is a definition used in academia.
Read What is a Critical Scholar - Westar Institute Westar Institute

So what I am hearing you say is that if a Christian sees an orange on a table and calls it an orange, then it's an orange and if a scholar sees an orange on a table, runs tests on it, makes comparisons to other fruits, and concludes it's an orange, then it isn't an orange.

Similarly if a Christian sees an apple on a table and calls it an orange then it's an orange, and if a scholar sees an apple on a table and runs tests on it, makes comparisons against other fruits, and calls it an apple then it's an absurd claim from an atheist wannabe.

Is that what you are saying? If so, how does that make any sense at all?

not at all....I am saying that when Christian scholars look at the historical evidence and say that Paul wrote those books of the Bible and an atheist looks at an apple on a table and says Paul did not, one should not trust the guy looking at apples on tables instead of the historical evidence.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

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.

I would respond by asking you if you were comparing it to the pre 500AD version of the story of Gilgamesh or the post 500AD version of the story of Gilgamesh......

 

[PostmodernProph]

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?

actually it is only one verse of that chapter and part of John 8.....and we DO know it, and it is important that we know it......that is why the NIV version explicitly states it......

 

[PostmodernProph]

The question is why some Christians are so quick to dismiss, reject, and ignore scholarship without a moment's hesitation.

most of the criticism I see is totally without merit.....

 

[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?

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"?

probably because such claims are not critical scholarship.....absurd claims from atheist wannabees do not have to be given the same weight as theological scholars......

Well of course they are critical scholarship. The term "critical scholarship" is a definition used in academia.
Read What is a Critical Scholar - Westar Institute Westar Institute

So what I am hearing you say is that if a Christian sees an orange on a table and calls it an orange, then it's an orange and if a scholar sees an orange on a table, runs tests on it, makes comparisons to other fruits, and concludes it's an orange, then it isn't an orange.

Similarly if a Christian sees an apple on a table and calls it an orange then it's an orange, and if a scholar sees an apple on a table and runs tests on it, makes comparisons against other fruits, and calls it an apple then it's an absurd claim from an atheist wannabe.

Is that what you are saying? If so, how does that make any sense at all?

not at all....I am saying that when Christian scholars look at the historical evidence and say that Paul wrote those books of the Bible and an atheist looks at an apple on a table and says Paul did not, one should not trust the guy looking at apples on tables instead of the historical evidence.......

The point is that very frequently the historical evidence does not support church tradition.

 

[PostmodernProph]

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.

but that isn't what we're talking about here.....how about this, you tell the Muslim that the Koran wasn't written by Mohammed....he asks you for proof and you tell him some atheist scholar said so.....so he asks you what the atheist scholar's proof is and you tell him the atheist scholar doesn't believe in the Koran.....and he asks you what makes the atheist a scholar and you tell him he knows how to look at apples on a table......now, did you win the argument?......

 

[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?

actually it is only one verse of that chapter and part of John 8.....and we DO know it, and it is important that we know it......that is why the NIV version explicitly states it......

Argue with the historical evidence

The Story of the Adulteress

Note the following in the NIV:
"[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]"

It's not just one verse it's the entire pericope. Even the Bible editors themselves freely admit it

John 7 NIV - Jesus Goes to the Festival of - Bible Gateway