Another Question for Christians

[LindaVance826]

Dunno. I sure don't. I just look up the issue with the Church or raise it with my local pastor and say things like "that's interesting". One must remember that Biblical Scholarship is not new. It was the Roman Catholic Church that put the bible together and there was much debate at the time...about 400AD.

That's correct and there were four qualifications for putting a book into the Bible. 1) It had to be ancient (meaning dating back to the first century AD or earlier). 2) It had to be widely used. In other words it had to be a book that was very common to the people and individual churches, 3) It had to be apostolic...meaning written by an apostle or a close companion of one. (hence the tradition of The Revelation being written by John son of Zebadee instead of John of Patmos [whoever he was]), and 4) it had to be orthodox. That one is the kicker, because there were many books that were widely used at the time that were omitted from the Bible because they didn't agree with the view of the church at the time. Some notable examples would be the Gospel of Thomas, The Shepherd of Hermas, The Gospel of Barnabus, or the Gospel of Peter. The Gospel of Peter is my favorite because it was rejected on the grounds that the Pope disagreed with it and thus it could not be the word of God because God would never have inspired the writing of something the Pope disagreed with. You know...you can't make this shit up.

 

[LindaVance826]

Thought I would mention what my study bible has to say about John of Patmos. He was exiled by the Romans to the Isle of Patmos for being such a powerful disciple. He was the one who had the incredible vision of God that makes up much of the first chapter of Revelations. He was not the same John who wrote 1st and 2nd John. Two different times and two different people.
Now, I didn't make this up, any more than Blue Phantom made his up. This is an excellent example of why Christians can differ greatly on how the Bible is interpreted. A biblical scholar is privy to documents, books and letters and teachings that we aren't. We go by the end result - the Holy Bible. It is open for interpretation. Personally, I will pray for guidance, or understanding and open my Bible. Many times I don't even have to turn the page because what I need to read is right there in front of me. I believe the Bible is a living thing.

 

[gtopa1]

..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. .

seriously?.....is this the historical evidence you want to hang with?......so the gospel itself does not proclaim authorship, no manuscript carries a title "Gospel of John". it was shared among the fledgling Christian churches anonymously for two hundred years .....but by the time of canonization the entire Christian community unanimously included it in the Bible as the gospel of John even though they didn't believe he wrote it?......do you see now why I don't give much credit to atheist "scholarship"?........

I am feeling left out. I have been insulting Islam and religion on FB and the internet for years now. Where is my flogging?

Friday here; I'll get out "Old Faithful"...the same one I use on the ornery bullocks!!......now there's a thought..

You'll be able to fit in with the herd!!

Greg

 

[MaxGrit]

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?......

Yep, a lot of scholarship publications are fictions.

Sometimes it is not accurate information on the subject, sometimes it is simply making stuff up.

Apparently these scholars never heard of ghost writers either.

 

[MaxGrit]

I can't say that I rely on traditional teachinds as I haven't attended traditional church very often at all.
A good 85-90% of my Christian fiber has been woven between He and I.
Besides my attendance of Baptist, Methodist and Pentecostal churches, I read a pretty broad variety of sources, whenever and wherever I can.
My wife has always been a very strict and legalistic Pentecostal and we've had morethan a few arguments over how I disagree with some of their 'stumbling blocks'

Oh I can relate to that. My wife is a pretty literal interpreter of scripture and we have had some pretty spicy discussions throughout the years. But she at least considers scholarship. Sometimes, frankly often, she rejects the conclusions but she does read it, look at it, compare it to other ideas, go over the peer reviews, etc. I mean she does her due diligence. Frequently we arrive at different conclusions,and there are a couple topics we have simply learned not to even approach, but that's ok. We respect each other's opinions and one of the reasons why I can respect her's, despite her different conclusions, is that when something new is brought up she doesn't immediately scream "LIES! PIG DOCTRINE FROM ATHEIST LIARS!" She says "Hmmmm....well let me go check that out and I will get back to you".

Lol, you tell me that water is not wet so wtf did you expect?

Just because something could be don't mean that it is.

Then there is the correlation is not causation, similarities is not relationships errors.

 

[MaxGrit]

My hostility to much theological education in Britain, Germany and the USA today has to do with its fruit. Half of all Germans who study theology are atheists at the end of the course. In otherwords they have learnt nothing about God of any actual spiritual value.

Also I see the main criticisms that could have been made about biblical authority to have mainly been resolved in the last 2 centuries. But the result has been the division into partisan camps. So to a great extent it depends on who you read.

I think you make an excellent point here. Some things can be quite disturbing to a Christian. I mentioned before that it makes no difference to me, for example, whether Matthew wrote Matthew or not. I don't find that problematic because it's the message that is important and not the author of the gospel that matters to me. There are some things though (and I won't mention what they are because it will cause a shit-storm) that have been far more difficult to reconcile.

I guess how I approach an uncomfortable conclusion I have made is to say "well....if it's true then it's true. So how do I reconcile this new learning with my faith and my belief in who God and Jesus are?" That can sometimes take quite a bit of thought . And it has occasionally required me to dramatically redefine how I understand Him. Yet I have been able to maintain my belief despite the study. But yeah I can easily see how some things that critical scholarship implies can be devastating to someone's faith, especially if they are very steadfast and locked into a particular and rigid set of beliefs.

No one taught you that speculation is not the same as fact?

Or how the average person is a myth.

 

[the_human_being]

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?

The deal is that a forum such as this is hardly the place to find serious scholarship. One doesn't know the credentials or agendas of those engaging in the scholarship. One might as well go to a bar and have a discussion with a bunch of bar-flies.

 

[MaxGrit]

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?

The deal is that a forum such as this is hardly the place to find serious scholarship. One doesn't know the credentials or agendas of those engaging in the scholarship. One might as well go to a bar and have a discussion with a bunch of bar-flies.

Of course, other sources are filled with trash as well. Most likely because academia rewards novel ideas and new theories. Even if it's a big reach.

 

[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?

The deal is that a forum such as this is hardly the place to find serious scholarship. One doesn't know the credentials or agendas of those engaging in the scholarship. One might as well go to a bar and have a discussion with a bunch of bar-flies.

Oh every now and then you find someone to have good discussion with. Usually you get guys like Maxgrit, Parture, and the rest who reach for their nitroglycerin pills the moment you whisper "Ehrman" in their ears. But sometimes you run into someone that can offer some good perspective.

 

[MaxGrit]

Hahahaha Ehrman is a hack.

G
G