Getting Down To The Root...

[KT45]

If they really and honestly took the time to look over the forum and at some of the “Introductory Stuff” they’d understand what they’re up against.

Maybe we should have some of the basic "Introductory Stuff" pinned in the coloseum or Lion's den. I remember when i came here as a christian that there were some areas in the forums I couldn't get into. I don't remember which part it was though but it probably had info that I as a christian would have found useful. But anyway I think posting basic stuff in the main places christians debate in would help stop them from asking the same stupid questions over and over again.

 

Or maybe I wishing for the impossible

[Mythra]

[but anyway I think posting basic stuff in the main places christians debate in would help stop them from asking the same stupid questions over and over again

 

I really don't mind Kat wanting to have a discussion about historical details or evidence for or against christianity's authenticity.

 

Unless, of course it's leading up to the inevitable John 3:16, and the observation that we couldn't have been TRUE christians.

[Kat22]

 

 

1. Anachronisms within the text. One such example is with regards to persecutions and punishments inflicted upon christians. There was no such persecutions during the reign of Trajan.

Thanks Where is the best link to study more about the reign of Trojan? I am not too familiar with that time period.

2. Early citations of Ignatius that disagree with regards to when he was martyred. Eusebius has him martyred during the reign of Aurelius, which would date his martyrdom around 169 C.E. - not anywhere near the 107 C.E. date that would make his references among the first.

 

Is this info on ECW.com (EarlyChristianWritngs)? I go there a lot and could study more about this section there.

 

3. Other highly regarded theologians who regard all of Ignatius as spurious (including Calvin)

 

Who's Calvin and could you name a few other theologians? I'd like to see if I can contact them and get their personal perspective.

 

4. Differences in writing styles between the various epistles lead scholars to suspect several different authors.

 

That makes sense.

 

But - ignoring all of this - If the short recension of Ignatius were genuine - was actually written in 107 C.E. as Ignatius was on his way to Rome to be executed - what do you assume this would prove?

 

I am not totally sure, yet. Besides, this isn't meant for me to "prove" anything. I just want to know what's out there so I am fully informaed of both sides.

 

Any more than a Mormon in 1900 writing about Joe Smith's escapades proves that the Urim and Thummim actually did help Joe read the golden plates.

Hey! That's MY line!!

[freeday]

[but anyway I think posting basic stuff in the main places christians debate in would help stop them from asking the same stupid questions over and over again

 

I really don't mind Kat wanting to have a discussion about historical details or evidence for or against christianity's authenticity.

 

Unless, of course it's leading up to the inevitable John 3:16, and the observation that we couldn't have been TRUE christians.

 

i take it you have heard it before. I choose to beleive the gospels as factual about Jesus due to the authors closeness to the source. most historians say that if a source was written within 100yrs of the event, it is ussually reliable.

[Guest Shiva H. Vishnu]

[but anyway I think posting basic stuff in the main places christians debate in would help stop them from asking the same stupid questions over and over again

 

I really don't mind Kat wanting to have a discussion about historical details or evidence for or against christianity's authenticity.

 

Unless, of course it's leading up to the inevitable John 3:16, and the observation that we couldn't have been TRUE christians.

 

i take it you have heard it before. I choose to beleive the gospels as factual about Jesus due to the authors closeness to the source. most historians say that if a source was written within 100yrs of the event, it is ussually reliable.

 

Unless the main chracter performs impossible feats, like making a blind man sign on as an exemplar of the status quo.

[Open_Minded]

i take it you have heard it before. I choose to beleive the gospels as factual about Jesus due to the authors closeness to the source. most historians say that if a source was written within 100yrs of the event, it is ussually reliable.

 

OK Freeday ... the orginal post asked the following....

 

Again, I ask for all answers to be logically based and backed by documentation.

 

So back up your statement "most historians say that if a source was written within 100 yrs of the event, it is usually reliable." with a source. Did you read this in Wikipedia? What books or sources have you read about the scholarship of ancient literature to know what "most historians" say regarding its historical "reliability" or the way it developed from oral tradition into written literature?

[Antlerman]

3. Other highly regarded theologians who regard all of Ignatius as spurious (including Calvin)

 

Who's Calvin and could you name a few other theologians? I'd like to see if I can contact them and get their personal perspective.

I just can't resist the temptation on this one: If you wish to contact John Calvin, you will need to find someone to perform a seance with you. He died in 1564 AD.

[Mythra]

Hi Kat.

 

Here is an article written by William Killen, who was a Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Presbyterian Theological Seminary. Pack a lunch. It's over 50 pages long. I would also recommend the book "A History of Christianity" by Paul Johnson.

 

Are you pulling my leg that you don't know who Calvin is? John Calvin. Theologian from the Protestant Reformation. From which we get "Calvinism" as opposed to "Armenianism". Two distinct approaches to what makes God happy.

[Checkmate]

i take it you have heard it before. I choose to beleive the gospels as factual about Jesus due to the authors closeness to the source. most historians say that if a source was written within 100yrs of the event, it is ussually reliable.

freeday, this is NOT a thread for mindless preaching.

 

Number 1, Kat22 is ALREADY a Christian, so she doesn't need to read your sermons.

 

And Number 2, as Open_Minded already stated, you MUST site PROOF for your statements. Site your sources, NOT your opinions.

 

In other words, THIS thread is for the Theologically Inclined. NOT the Theologically Impaired. GO AWAY.

 

Oh, and Kat22?, here is another web library source that we enjoy around here.

The Internet Infidels Library. If you're honestly seeking an opposing viewpoint, then this is THE place to go. Enjoy!

[Sparrow]

ok, one last time...

 

Hah! Sarcasm!

 

Welcome to Ex-christian.net!

 

If you notice, I am posting very little about my opinion and sources and mainly just asking questions to all and answering questions directed at me.

 

Your presence as a christian on an ex-christian FORUM is a very obvious expression of your opinion.

 

Your request for information that you could easily obtain from web-pages (not a forum) is also an expression of your opinion and incidentally, your intent.

 

I AM researching and not expecting others to do everything for me. However, I also am honest enough to state I HAVE A BIAS!!! Because of this bias, there is the chance that I may unintentionally overlook important evidence. One thing I have learned, in my walk to faith, has been to be held accountable. Who better to hold me accountable than those who would be glad to call BS on me?

 

Your point?

 

You’ve been asked, where are you going with this by before. You made a statement that you are doing research.

 

Sorry, but in the short-time I’ve been on this forum, I’ve already heard the “I’m doing research” line 3 or 4 times, only to discover (as was already expected) that this “Researcher” is here to proselytise and witness – all in a hope to bring a lost soul back to God. The last one was someone calling themselves Amy-Marie who used to post images she painted when she didn’t or couldn’t answer a question.

 

So please forgive my sceptism, but why are you really here?

 

Are you suddenly going to do “… see why you should return to God …. ” twist?

 

This forum sticks me in a position where, if I do not see it (or choose not to mention it), it is pointed out to me (and also to anyone else who might be missing something). Therefore, if you don't like my approach, DON'T POST!

 

Sorry, if I don’t like your approach, I’ll post that I don’t like your approach.

 

As long as I don’t abuse you and stick to the theme, I’ll post what I feel needs to be posted.

 

So sorry, but it’s just plain tough – I don’t understand you real reasons for being here and given that you could go to a number of other web-pages to find the information you want, your reasons for being on an ex-christian a very unclear and in my personal opinion highly questionable.

 

Simple as that. Otherwise, I will just think you are looking to argue and I will choose to ignore any further attacks on my reasons for starting this thread. At that point, any further comments I make on this issue will be "Refer to my previous statements."

 

Suit yourself, but do this at your own peril. Ignore someone and I assure you, you will be showered in BS no matter what you “good” and “pure” intentions are.

 

Thank you to all who choose to take this conversation seriously in order to give me, and anyone else who wants to learn, a chance to share information and grow in knowledge.

 

Geez! It’s the same old pattern again and again.

 

Sparrow

[white_raven23]

Hey Kat22,

 

I know I've been harsh on you elsewhere, but as it pertains to this thread, I won't be doing that (so long as you really are genuine about seeking and learning new perspectives.....if Sparrow winds up being right though, and you are using the "knowledge-seeking" angle as a means to sermonize......I promise to come up with some text scorching enough to give your eyeballs second-degree burns).

 

Now, I know you asked for specific sources, well....I want you to do something for me. Consider this thread itself a source. You may have noticed some posts by Freeday, a fellow Christian. You asked for very specific information and you've made it quite clear that you want some citations (which I think is cool, good for you BTW).

 

Look back.....did Freeday give you any? No. He/She even goes so far as to mention specific websites for you to look at. Did Freeday make an easy link to said websites? No. And as others have pointed out, including O_M, Freeday makes "fact" statements without complying with your wishes for backup for said statement.

 

You said in your earlier post that you appreciate it when we make you look at the things you tend to overlook, so I wanted to make sure you did NOT overlook the poor example set by "one of your own". This person is being authoritative about their statements without respecting your wish for backup. NEVER NEVER NEVER pass off the behavior of someone who disregards your honest requests as "oh, it's really nothing"....in a way it's really no different than a man disregarding the word "No." from a woman, and you know that can be a very serious thing.

 

There is a book that is almost entirely online (although I did wind up buying it from Amazon) called Biblical Nonsense. It's got some pretty good points.

Here is a link to the page where to the left, the blue links detail the contents for free:

http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/

 

It provides some very good food for thought.

[Kat22]

3. Other highly regarded theologians who regard all of Ignatius as spurious (including Calvin)

 

Who's Calvin and could you name a few other theologians? I'd like to see if I can contact them and get their personal perspective.

I just can't resist the temptation on this one: If you wish to contact John Calvin, you will need to find someone to perform a seance with you. He died in 1564 AD.

 

OH! Well, I guess it would be kinda hard try talk to him then!

 

Hi Kat.

 

Here is an article written by William Killen, who was a Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Presbyterian Theological Seminary. Pack a lunch. It's over 50 pages long. I would also recommend the book "A History of Christianity" by Paul Johnson.

 

Are you pulling my leg that you don't know who Calvin is? John Calvin. Theologian from the Protestant Reformation. From which we get "Calvinism" as opposed to "Armenianism". Two distinct approaches to what makes God happy.

 

I told you I still have a lot to learn. I had even forgotten who Thomas Paine was!

 

 

 

Are you suddenly going to do “… see why you should return to God …. ” twist?

 

 

This is the one comment I will answer. No. You have my word I will not pull the "See why you should return to God" rutine. I will ask/answer questions, get answers and leave the sermons to someone else (or another thread ).

 

As for the rest...

 

Refer to my previous statements.

[Kat22]

 

You said in your earlier post that you appreciate it when we make you look at the things you tend to overlook, so I wanted to make sure you did NOT overlook the poor example set by "one of your own". This person is being authoritative about their statements without respecting your wish for backup. NEVER NEVER NEVER pass off the behavior of someone who disregards your honest requests as "oh, it's really nothing"....in a way it's really no different than a man disregarding the word "No." from a woman, and you know that can be a very serious thing.

 

 

 

Thanks White_Raven-

 

I did notice the lack of sources but, if I hadn't, it's good to have it brought to my attention. The way I see it, any information given (from either side) without sources and proof to back it up, I will not take seriously. Which, by the way, I am trying to get hold of some LIVE (unlike Calvin )sources that can help me find out the real percentage of who believes (in the historical society) that the four gospels really came from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. That's a huge question for me right now. It's been hard to hunt down an precise percentage that can be backed up with names (some not all). All I get, so far, can be viewed as speculation (from both sides) because they don't give any clue as to how they reached that conclusion.

[wideawake42]

I still believe that there is not enough evidence to officially disprove Christ. However, I am still in the process of learning and really want to know what is out there, not just the Christian side but the whole side. If I find out different than I already know, I will have to re-evaluate my position. However, if my current belief is merely confirmed, then I will continue down my currrent path. Either way, this topic is not only beneficial for me (and everyone) finding out what real Christianity was, but it can also help others who only look at half the information (including myself, because my bias can tend to lead me in that direction).

 

 

Sorry for taking so long to respond, but my DSL was out all day yesterday. I would like to point out two things. One, this information might be beneficial to you, but most of us were Christians at one point, and therefore we HAVE ALREADY seen the two "halves of information", both the Christian half, and the atheist half. Otherwise, we would not have made the decision to be where we are today - on exchristian.net.

 

Still, I will play along, only because of your first statement - that "there is not enough evidence to officially disprove Christ". I suggest you take a Logic course. This is what we call the "Argument Ad Ignoratium" or "Argument from Ignorance" - when it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proven false. This is a very common logical fallacy, a fallacy of relevance (an argument that relies on premises that are not relevant to its conclusion, and therefore cannot establish its truth), and I see a lot of Christians lean on this.

 

To put it simply, the burden on proof is on the believer.

[Sparrow]

…… suddenly going to do “… see why you should return to God …. ” twist?

 

This is the one comment I will answer. No. You have my word I will not pull the "See why you should return to God" rutine. I will ask/answer questions, get answers and leave the sermons to someone else (or another thread ).

 

As for the rest...

 

Refer to my previous statements.

 

Listen Dear, don’t try that arrogant christian crap “Refer to my previous statements….” with me.

 

Someone promised you 2nd degree burns on your eye-balls, you do this to me again I’ll give you another 5 on-top of those other two degrees.

 

I know my Englisch is not great, but tough. My mother-tongue is not Englisch.

 

I buried my husband and at the same time looked for a liver transplant for my daughter as your damned non-existent God abandoned me. You want bitter, here it is.

 

Prove yourself! Prove your damn claims or discuss the facts or get lost. Make a choice!

 

Prove yourself.

 

Sparrow

[Mythra]

sources that can help me find out the real percentage of who believes (in the historical society) that the four gospels really came from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. That's a huge question for me right now.

 

I don't think you'll find that percentage, Kat. Because each critical historian has a different opinion about how much, if any, of the events described in the gospels actually happened.

 

Even on the internet, you can see the diversity of opinion. Each scholar puts his own spin on the facts in order to support his stance. So, you have to weigh what each person is saying in light of their bias, and what they're trying to convince you of. You can read from christian scholars that the gospels are completely reliable, each one written by the person whose name is in the title - all of them can be shown to date very early (from 60 C.E. until 100 C.E.) They'll provide supporting evidence. You can read an equal number of articles by other scholars or critical historians who state emphatically that we have absolutely no idea who wrote the gospels, and they can provide evidence to show that none of them were written before at least the start of the second century. So, you have to sort through it all and form your own opinions.

 

I can tell you (just from my personal perspective) that the percentage of critical historians who believe that every word in the New Testament is true is miniscule. (if not 0%).

 

As you start looking into the history of christianity, it's like peeling back layers of an onion.

 

For instance - someone (a christian) says - "There is a reference to Jesus in the Talmud". Okay. You look into it. You find out that the Jesus they're referring to is Yeshu ben Stada (or ben Pandira). This Yeshu bears very little resemblance to Jesus of Nazareth (100 B.C.E., and very little else matches up). So, you realize that the christian who told you this was either being dishonest, or he is simply parroting what some other christian told him. You then wonder if the gospel story could be based very loosely on this Yeshu ben Stada. You assume that ben Stada is a real historical person. Then you find out that this portion of the Talmud wasn't written until at least 300 C.E. NOW you're not sure whether the ben Stada passage was written in order to provide a Jewish explanation for the Jesus stories that were circulating about, or whether it's genuine..

 

One thing about looking into this whole scenario. Each time you think you've found an answer, it usually just leads to more questions.

 

And you learn to question EVERYTHING.

[Sparrow]

[…

 

And you learn to question EVERYTHING.

 

Hey Mythra!

 

(Cool avatar!!)

 

This is exactly the point “Questioning everything.”

 

People like Kat22, I’m sorry to say, are a dime a dozen and we could spend the time answering her / his very staged questions by dealing with the philosophy of how to make to easier for people questioning their faith or answering people who are clearly out to “pull our legs”.

 

This person and everyone like them is here to deliver “Some Holy Spirit” inspired message and being honest, we’ve heard it all time and time and time again. It doesn’t change.

 

There’s hundreds, if not thousands of web sites dealing with the questions she / he has raised. Yet here we are again rushing to answer some misguided pretentious religious zealot with yet another message from God about how much he loves us.

 

We even fight amongst ourselves over the details because someone writes “plinky” instead of “plonky”. Like, the spelling matters. All because of people like Kat22.

 

Yes, this forum is for discussion, and for education, but don’t you feel a little peeved when “yet another clever christian” (YACC for the unix gurus) turns up and starts the same shit over again.

 

Kat22 knows exactly what he / she is doing. This is just another experiment by just another Christian because they know better and they want to bring us poor sods back to God.

 

Noe of them question anything, let alone everything.

 

Spatz

[Checkmate]

.............I am trying to get hold of some LIVE (unlike Calvin )sources that can help me find out the real percentage of who believes (in the historical society) that the four gospels really came from Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. That's a huge question for me right now. It's been hard to hunt down an precise percentage that can be backed up with names (some not all). All I get, so far, can be viewed as speculation (from both sides) because they don't give any clue as to how they reached that conclusion.

Not meaning to tell you what to think, but I don't comprehend your desire to PROVE claims which are supported by a majority consensus of OPINIONS. Nor your penchant for garnering the "peer reviewed" and therefore "infallible", "objective" conclusions of some degreed nitwit(s). From EITHER side of this discussion. (I personally don't trust ANYONE'S motives/findings.)

 

I said this before, and I'll say it again..."What does it matter WHAT anyone else thinks or says?" The only thing that matters...the ONLY thing that YOU need to do...is READ the Bible for yourself. Remove your rose-colored glasses. Take your BIASED fingers OFF the scales of Truth. Start with a blank slate and read the Bible as you would if you were an agnostic, who NEVER had any religious brain washing.

 

For example, you want to know who wrote the gospels? Why ask anyone? Just read the Bible.* Do the gospels NAME the author in the narratives? Do any of them say, "I, Matthew, or Mark, wrote these words"? No? Then you now have an excellent case to conclude that it was simply church tradition that assigned these names JUST to give them validity.

 

Does it make SENSE that "Moses" would write of his own death and burial AFTER he was dead? Nope. So what can we LOGICALLY conclude? That someone else wrote at least a PART of those books ascribed to him. (Maybe ALL. )

 

I could go on, but hopefully you get my gist. You don't need a degree, someone else's degreed conclusions, nor a majority percentage of agreement on any point of debate. All you need is a skeptical and rational mind that will NOT sweep the Truth of your findings under the church's apologetical rugs.

 

*edited to add - P.S. - The bible you utilize should be void of ANYONE'S notes/commentary. Anything more than reference notes is leading you to accept someone else's interpretation of what you're reading. Martin Luther was very devious in this. Each book of the Bible which he edited gave his "review" of "thumbs up" or "thumbs down", approval/disapproval. Thus leading the reader where HE wanted them to go. Avoid this trap.

[Kat22]

You know, it seems that this is getting a little off track. Let's take a deep breath and shed some light on this conversation by watching this video on the dragon

 

Ok, now that we have all "seen the light", we can get back to the conversation.

 

First, I must address Sparrow.

 

I am sorry for your loss and your hardship. I will not patronize you with my own losses, I will just say that I did not mean to offend. "Refer to my previous statements" is just meant to say that I have already explained my position and it is a waste of everyone's time for me to continue to say the same thing over and over. If you want to be skeptical of my intentions, that is fine, I cannot stop you.

 

Grinch-

 

I address the issue of professional oppinions because that seems to come up a lot from boths sides. One side says that the majority of Historians favor the idea that the Gospels were written by who they say they were. The other half says that the majority favors the idea that they weren't. So, why not go to the very ones who learned how to critiqu these gospels and other historical documents?

 

But, at the same time, you are right. The only thing that really matters is our own un-biased experience. However, since I am obviously not in a position to know the ins and outs of historical critique, I would really like to speak to those who are... on both sides of the issue. Find out what they believe and what lead them to that conclusion.

[RHEMtron]

Yes, history comes up from both sides, but both sides never quote from the same source. Or rather believe in each others source. I was in another forum today and a point was brought up by this one Christian: What's the point? Im always going to believe my sources and youre always going to believe yours.

 

But of course the difference between us is that we dont stop searching for the truth once we hear an answer we like. If a point is made in our defense, we then look to see if there are any holes in that argument. If there's a good, valid rebuttal for it. Then we look for a rebuttal for that. If youre going to research the historicity of the bible and Christianity, make sure you do it this way.

 

That's why i agree with Mr Grinch in that all you have to do is read the bible with an unconditioned mind. We dont ask you to read it with our points already ingrained in your mind. We dont ask that you read it looking for the claims we've made. Just read it with a blank slate just as we have. We guarantee if it's done in this matter, youll come to the same conclusion as us... and every other brilliant mind in history

[SkepticOfBible]

“Sola Scriptura”

 

 

What is the biblical basis for this?

 

2—“Sola Gratia” Sola Fide”

 

one verse for you, which debunks the notion that this is only position in the bible

 

James 2:24

Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.

 

Doing Good Works Can't Get You Anywhere With God

 

I suggest you also read Matthew 25:31-46 carefully, as this again gives contrary instruction to your position

4—“Solus Christus”

5—“Soli Deo Gloria:

 

So where does the Catholic Church denies this? Oh btw, here is what Martin Luther thought about some of the books

 

Who wrote the Bible? (Part 5)

 

When Martin Luther reviewed Scripture during his break from Catholicism, he judged the contents of the Bible in the light of his convictions. He found a number of books difficult to reconcile with what he understood of the Gospel--specifically, II Maccabees, Esther, James, Hebrews, and Revelation.

 

If he had it this way he would thrown these books out

 

a lot of my resources comes from www.gotquestions.org, quest study bible, and wilkinson and boa bible handbook, and belivers bible comentary by william macdonald which is my favorite.

 

So do you ever look up what the catholics had to say?Are you objective enough to listen to them?

[scotter]

 

A little bit of catch up and adding to Skeptic’s post, for readers' information, Christian and non-Christian:

 

Martin Luther – justification – Book of James – “On the Jews and their Lies”

 

A non-Catholic and non-Christian source, see "Luther's view of canonicity"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luther_Bible

 

 

Fordham U's Sourcebook series is highly recommended:

 

Excerpts for a quick reference:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/luther-jews.html

 

Full text

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/1543-...dLies-full.html

 

Reiterate: Martin Luther can be wrong.

[Checkmate]

Grinch-

 

I address the issue of professional oppinions because that seems to come up a lot from boths sides. One side says that the majority of Historians favor the idea that the Gospels were written by who they say they were. The other half says that the majority favors the idea that they weren't. So, why not go to the very ones who learned how to critiqu these gospels and other historical documents?

Why not? You answered your own question. Because no matter what subject you research there will inevitably be TWO sides, both with well-reasoned arguments and YOU, the uneducated boob (no offense meant), will be left having to flip a coin to choose between THEIR enlightened positions. I say cut out the middle man and make up your OWN mind to begin with. Besides, isn't the Bible SUPPOSED to be so SIMPLE that even a CHILD can understand it?

But, at the same time, you are right. The only thing that really matters is our own un-biased experience. However, since I am obviously not in a position to know the ins and outs of historical critique, I would really like to speak to those who are... on both sides of the issue. Find out what they believe and what lead them to that conclusion.

Okay. I think I see where you're heading with this. Just remember something....

 

"Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one, and they ALL stink!"

[Open_Minded]

I address the issue of professional oppinions because that seems to come up a lot from boths sides. One side says that the majority of Historians favor the idea that the Gospels were written by who they say they were. The other half says that the majority favors the idea that they weren't. So, why not go to the very ones who learned how to critiqu these gospels and other historical documents?

Kat... if you are truly interested in going to the ones who learned how to critique the gospels you may want to check out the following site:

 

The site is The Society of Biblical Literature. A description of their work is as follows: http://www.sbl-site.org

The Society of Biblical Literature

(SBL) supports the critical investigation of the Bible. Founded in 1880, SBL is a member of the American Council of Learned Societies. The Society provides conversation partners and resources for those interested in the religions, history, literature, and culture of the ancient Near Eastern world.

 

Over 6,000 members from every continent provide a forum to test ideas

and advance the understanding of the Bible's role in the public arena.

 

They have a publications section: http://www.sbl-site.org/Publications/ - this publications page has email addresses of the staff - so you can contact them.

 

Kat - this is a standard peer review society. Now here's the thing - these scholars are willing to do the same thing you're willing to do. Submit themselves to opinions that are different from their own. Peer review societies are how scholarly consensus is developed. I can't give you hard numbers - but when you contact the staff - ask them one question for me.

 

How many conservative/evangelical literalist "scholars" are willing to submit their work to peer review?

 

In other words - you will most likely find that the majority of membership in this organization in mainstream to liberal scholars. That one fact alone should tell you volumes.

 

In addition to using this site as a way to contact people who specialize in Biblical scholarship, read through the site. Review it's papers and publications. You will get a huge education doing this.

 

But, at the same time, you are right. The only thing that really matters is our own un-biased experience. However, since I am obviously not in a position to know the ins and outs of historical critique, I would really like to speak to those who are... on both sides of the issue. Find out what they believe and what lead them to that conclusion.

 

Contact The Society of Biblical Literature Kat -- then let us know what you find out when you email the staff about authorship of the gospels.

[Kat22]

Besides, isn't the Bible SUPPOSED to be so SIMPLE that even a CHILD can understand it?

 

Are you talking about these verses?

 

Mark 10:15 and Luke 18:17 - "I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."

 

This makes me think of my growing up. When I was a child, I accepted the Mormon faith willingly but questioned responses that seemed to limit the power of God. For instance, I asked my dad about the virgin birth and he said Mary was a virgin until the Holy Spirit "came down" and concieved Christ with her. I said something along the lines of "But it says she was a virgin." And he replied with "But, that's how babies are made, clipper (my nickname)". I stopped asking questions but, in my heart, I just kept thinking "But, He's GOD! Can't He do anything?" My childlike view didn't want to put God in a box and try to say that He couldn't do certain things just because "That's not the way it's done." But I didn't analized it word for word, I just accepted that God was all powerful and knew what He was doing. That, if I needed an answer, He would make sure I got it.

 

Anyway, I know this comment is a bit off-topic and it's not meant as a "this is what that means" type deal. That's just how I personally have always veiwed that verse. As for the rest, have no fear . In the end, just like when I was growing up, I will make up my own opinion and not borrow someone elses.

 

Contact The Society of Biblical Literature Kat -- then let us know what you find out when you email the staff about authorship of the gospels.

 

Thanks so much

 

I have been given a mountain of sources and directions from so many of you... it's gunna take me a LONG time to sort through it all. This is exactly what I was hoping for ... a direction that will fully challenge my knowledge (beyond my bias) and force me to go outside of what I already know.

 

If anyone has anything else to share, please do. But I think I will stop asking questions before I get so much info that I overload!

 

I appreciate all of you who were willing to point me in the right direction. I really needed this fresh perspective