Another Question for Christians

[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.......

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

/shrugs.....and that is what I discount.....because just the fact some atheist claims that to be true does not equal historical evidence......historical evidence does in fact lead us to believe that Paul was in fact the author of the books you mentioned......

 

[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.

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?......

Disbelief in God has nothing at all to do with scholarships position that Matthew didn't write Matthew for example or that John didn't write John. They hold that position based on a variety of archaeological, cultural, linguistic, and textual evidence.

 

[PostmodernProph]

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

but I am not arguing with the historical evidence....I am arguing with what you incorrectly claim is the historical evidence...as I pointed out and as what you quote above clearly states John 7:53 (one verse) and John 8:1 through 11 showed up later......this is not a secret.....however, what you said earlier and what I objected to was that John 7 was added later....the first 52 verses of John 7 were NOT added later.....

this underscores what I was arguing earlier.......I objected to your 'scholarship" not because it was scholarship that contradicted what I believe, but because it was in fact ignorance instead of scholarship......

 

[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.

/shrugs.....and that is what I discount.....because just the fact some atheist claims that to be true does not equal historical evidence......historical evidence does in fact lead us to believe that Paul was in fact the author of the books you mentioned......

So in other words anyone who disagrees with you or the teachings of your faith must be an atheist and therefore has no credibility? Wow.

 

[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?......

Disbelief in God has nothing at all to do with scholarships position that Matthew didn't write Matthew for example or that John didn't write John. They hold that position based on a variety of archaeological, cultural, linguistic, and textual evidence.

/shrugs.....so you claim.....however, the claimed archaeological, cultural, linguistic and textual "evidence" is nothing but bullshit....so, I argue with it......not because it is contrary to what I believe but because it is bullshit credited only by other atheist "scholars".....

 

[PostmodernProph]

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.

/shrugs.....and that is what I discount.....because just the fact some atheist claims that to be true does not equal historical evidence......historical evidence does in fact lead us to believe that Paul was in fact the author of the books you mentioned......

So in other words anyone who disagrees with you or the teachings of your faith must be an atheist and therefore has no credibility? Wow.

not at all......anyone who claims something is true when they actually have no substantial evidence to support their claims but relies on the word of an atheist source is probably an atheist or some other flavor of brainless idiot, but it is in fact that atheist "scholar" they wasted their time listening to who has no credibility......

 

[PostmodernProph]

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

a better question might be, why do so many atheists consider themselves theological scholars?.......

 

[PostmodernProph]

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

but so far the only things you've provided evidence for are things that Christian scholars have identified fifty years ago

 

[BluePhantom]

/shrugs.....so you claim.....however, the claimed archaeological, cultural, linguistic and textual "evidence" is nothing but bullshit....so, I argue with it......not because it is contrary to what I believe but because it is bullshit credited only by other atheist "scholars".....

So because you say it's bullshit it must be bullshit is what you are saying. You are suggesting, for example, that John son of Zebedee who was a peasant living in Galilee (meaning he would have spoken Aramaic and not Greek), who was almost certainly uneducated (educations were only for the rich), who even the Bible itself in Acts 4 says was illiterate (the Greek word used is "agrammatoi" or literally "unable to write")....this uneducated, illiterate, Aramaic speaking peasant wrote a book using beautiful flowing Greek in perfect rhetorical style? He couldn't even write in his own language let alone a foreign one.

You want to talk about what bullshit is....that's bullshit right there.

 

[BluePhantom]

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

but I am not arguing with the historical evidence....I am arguing with what you incorrectly claim is the historical evidence...as I pointed out and as what you quote above clearly states John 7:53 (one verse) and John 8:1 through 11 showed up later......this is not a secret.....however, what you said earlier and what I objected to was that John 7 was added later....the first 52 verses of John 7 were NOT added later.....

this underscores what I was arguing earlier.......I objected to your 'scholarship" not because it was scholarship that contradicted what I believe, but because it was in fact ignorance instead of scholarship......

Go back and re-read what I wrote. I wasn't saying that John 7 was added later, I was proposing a hypothetical situation saying "what if we found that John 7 was added later? Wouldn't that be important to know?"

 

[PostmodernProph]

..this uneducated, illiterate, Aramaic speaking peasant wrote a book using beautiful flowing Greek in perfect rhetorical style?

and yet the people who knew him personally had no problem accepting the fact that he wrote it......did you know him better than they did?.....

more importantly, do you have some scholarly historical evidence that outweighs the historical evidence of his contemporaries acceptance of his claims of authorship?.......perhaps some church leader saying "we shouldn't keep a copy of the gospel of John among our church records because we all know he never wrote it!".......that would certainly be relevant critical scholarship......

 

[PostmodernProph]

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

but I am not arguing with the historical evidence....I am arguing with what you incorrectly claim is the historical evidence...as I pointed out and as what you quote above clearly states John 7:53 (one verse) and John 8:1 through 11 showed up later......this is not a secret.....however, what you said earlier and what I objected to was that John 7 was added later....the first 52 verses of John 7 were NOT added later.....

this underscores what I was arguing earlier.......I objected to your 'scholarship" not because it was scholarship that contradicted what I believe, but because it was in fact ignorance instead of scholarship......

Go back and re-read what I wrote. I wasn't saying that John 7 was added later, I was proposing a hypothetical situation saying "what if we found that John 7 was added later? Wouldn't that be important to know?"

read my response to your hypothetical....if you had no argument with what I said, why did you argue?......

 

[JakeStarkey]

Many Christians are so hostile in response to critical scholarship because they are true believers, the same as many atheists.

They mistake their feelings for evidence.

 

[BluePhantom]

..this uneducated, illiterate, Aramaic speaking peasant wrote a book using beautiful flowing Greek in perfect rhetorical style?

and yet the people who knew him personally had no problem accepting the fact that he wrote it......did you know him better than they did?.....

more importantly, do you have some scholarly historical evidence that outweighs the historical evidence of his contemporaries acceptance of his claims of authorship?.......perhaps some church leader saying "we shouldn't keep a copy of the gospel of John among our church records because we all know he never wrote it!".......that would certainly be relevant critical scholarship......

The contemporaries of John didn't think John wrote the Gospel of John either. Hell the Gospel of John doesn't even claim to be written by John. It's anonymous. The earliest copies of the gospel don't say "John" at the top, nowhere in the book does it claim to be written by John, it's not written in the perspective of an eyewitness (in other words it never says "I", or "we", or "us", or "me"....it says "they", "them", etc. It even refers to John as "John" and not "me").

 

[BluePhantom]

/shrugs.....so you claim.....however, the claimed archaeological, cultural, linguistic and textual "evidence" is nothing but bullshit....so, I argue with it......not because it is contrary to what I believe but because it is bullshit credited only by other atheist "scholars".....

So because you say it's bullshit it must be bullshit is what you are saying. You are suggesting, for example, that John son of Zebedee who was a peasant living in Galilee (meaning he would have spoken Aramaic and not Greek), who was almost certainly uneducated (educations were only for the rich), who even the Bible itself in Acts 4 says was illiterate (the Greek word used is "agrammatoi" or literally "unable to write")....this uneducated, illiterate, Aramaic speaking peasant wrote a book using beautiful flowing Greek in perfect rhetorical style? He couldn't even write in his own language let alone a foreign one.

You want to talk about what bullshit is....that's bullshit right there.

BTW, don't even try to suggest that he dictated it in Aramaic to a scribe who then translated it to Greek. There are things in John that only make sense if it was originally written in Greek. For example the discussion between Jesus and Nicodemus in John 3 is playing on a double meaning of the phrase "gennethe anothen" which can mean both "born again" and "born from above" (or "born in the Spirit"). "Anothen" is the critical word and Nicodemus takes the first meaning "born again" and asks how a person can be put back into the womb and reborn. Jesus clarifies that He meant the second meaning: "born in the Spirit". So Nicodemus misunderstood because of a Greek word that had a double meaning and Jesus clarified what He meant. The Aramaic words for "again" ("oTuob") and "from above" ("Shmayoa") are not alike at all. There would have been no way for Nicodemus to misunderstand. The pericope only makes sense if it was originally written in Greek.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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".

Hollie

Also interesting is that these threads always end up being pissing contests to prove who is the better "christian".

All they do is copy/paste from other sites and say their site is better and use the words to club each other and/or atheists with them. All in all, a very insecure and hostile bunch.

That's why I gave up reading most of threads/posts here.

 

[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......

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

Hollie

Also interesting is that these threads always end up being pissing contests to prove who is the better "christian".

All they do is copy/paste from other sites and say their site is better and use the words to club each other and/or atheists with them. All in all, a very insecure and hostile bunch.

That's why I gave up reading most of threads/posts here.

Well truth be told, I am about done engaging with Postmodern as we are digressing into topics that this thread is not about. I am happy to have a pissing match on a thread where it's more applicable. We are supposed to be discussing the psychology of those...well....like Postmodern. and what makes them behave the way they do in response to scholarship. I apologize for taking part in a side discussion that has gotten off the topic.

 

[Meriweather]

BTW, don't even try to suggest that he dictated it in Aramaic to a scribe who then translated it to Greek. There are things in John that only make sense if it was originally written in Greek. For example the discussion between Jesus and Nicodemus in John 3 is playing on a double meaning of the phrase "gennethe anothen" which can mean both "born again" and "born from above" (or "born in the Spirit"). "Anothen" is the critical word and Nicodemus takes the first meaning "born again" and asks how a person can be put back into the womb and reborn. Jesus clarifies that He meant the second meaning: "born in the Spirit". So Nicodemus misunderstood because of a Greek word that had a double meaning and Jesus clarified what He meant. The Aramaic words for "again" ("oTuob") and "from above" ("Shmayoa") are not alike at all. There would have been no way for Nicodemus to misunderstand. The pericope only makes sense if it was originally written in Greek.

The idea of rebirth, or born again, was a familiar Jewish concept. When a Gentile became a Jew, they were said to be reborn.

I am not arguing that John the Apostle wrote or dictated the Gospel. Just noting that that rebirth was not an uncommon concept in Judaism at the time. Since Nicodemus was already a Jew, he wouldn't qualify as being reborn in the conversion sense. That only left the possibility of being born again from his mother--and he probably knew Jesus wasn't suggesting that.

 

[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?

I am probably asking you to repeat yourself yet again but what is your conception of God?

 

[BluePhantom]

Many Christians are so hostile in response to critical scholarship because they are true believers, the same as many atheists.

They mistake their feelings for evidence.

So if I understand you correctly, you think it is because they can't distinguish between "what they want to be true" and "what is true"? If so, it's an interesting hypothesis. Personally, I think it has to do with fear. I think they are terrified with the notion that what they have believed all their life may not be correct. I think their way of coping with that is to attack it ruthlessly. It gives them a personal reaffirmation of faith because they see themselves as "fighting the good fight" against this evil enemy that is challenging what they have been told to believe. I think as well that perhaps the idea of considering such ideas might make them feel like if they don't...flip out and scream in opposition that perhaps in some way they may feel like their own faith may be in question...you know...like it's evil to even consider the possibility.

Just a theory. I really don't know what motivates them. Thoughts?