Question For Christians About Biblical Inerrancy

[rayskidude]

I read part of this debate, its nauseating.

 

Neon asked a simple question and its being dodged quite brilliantly in a display of non-brilliance.

 

I call it tap dancing.

 

Its where you just make a display and a spectacle in order to avoid anything of substance, the Christian I saw at the beginning of the thread, I dont even remember his/her name nor do I have the energy or the want to go back and look at it for manners' sake, is a sophist and does not care about understanding, or loving his/her neighbor or having a wise discussion...no

 

the fucking bible is perfect and pure and God is perfect and Jesus is perfect....

 

Why would you honestly believe this?? There is no proof to back this up, just highly developed apologetics, created by the worlds best sophists down the ages, but they have done this with every religion, every religion has apologists and damned good ones at that, they spend their lives trying to make arguments for this doctrine and that, for this belief and that, for this denomination and that. The bible itself simply DOES NOT STAND ON ITS OWN

 

Heres the big questions:

 

What will the bible do for me??

 

What will Jesus do for me??

 

What will becoming a Christian do for me??

 

Its not selfish its the truth, the book is chock full of promises that never come true, chock full of theories on how to be happy, how to be healthy, how to find joy and it does not work, it simply is a failed attempt.

 

Argue about the bible errancy until the cows come home, what is big foot...I mean god going to do for me????

 

What is the bible going to do for me???

 

What is Jesus going to fucking do for anybody???

 

We were all there, we wanted to save the world, we wanted peace on earth, we wanted to please the master...but nothing ever happened or only negatives happened. Youre preaching to the EX CHOIR.

 

My god this should have been a rant....well we all saw how smashing the last one went but shit, im as mad as hell and im not going to take this anymore...I think thats the cry of most ex-christians here

 

If I pissed anyone off that isnt Xtian then for the love of satan PM me.

 

The

 

Excellent inquiry - and I've put off a reply in an attempt to re-read your post, trying to ensure I answer in a meaningful way - not with just a Christianezed cliche'd response. But I'm convinced - after 35 years of being an Evangelical Christian (I was born/raised Catholic) and studying and speaking with followers of other religions (or no religion) that only Biblical Christianity is true. And the Bible is God's self-revelation to Man - of His Person, His purposes, His will for individuals, etc. Christianity does supply correct doctrine about the origin and reason for the universe - to glorify God. God, as the single Supreme Being in this universe, is solely worthy of worship, adoration, etc. This universe exists only because God chose to create, out of no necessity. And since we owe our very existence to Him - we should rightfully respond in worship.

 

As humans beings - God created us in His own image & likeness, giving us that opportunity to have some level of a personal relationship with Him. When a child of God being indwelt by the Holy Spirit reads God's word there is a work which is accomplished in our hearts to draw us closer to Him, and to strengthen us to persevere in our devotion to Him - because SIN has polluted this world, and sin's effects are far-reaching. And this is where the true Christian life is proven out - do we persevere in our faith & faithfulness to God in the face of trials?

 

Christianity is an admittedly difficult lifestyle - with the difficulty of not just being challenged by the trials themselves, but by the seemingly 'unfair' nature of the serverity and distriution of the trials. THe Bible is repleat with warnings, admonishens, and examples of the sufferings of this life - and in particular those sufferings faced by God's own children, the sheep of His own pasture. God instructs His people to expect suffering, pain, oppression, persecution, etc. Part of the reason for the suffering is simply that we live in a world ruined by sin - and the effects of sin apply to the entire Creation. SO the various geological & weather-related tragedies, the multiple diseases, the chronic nature of Man's own persecution of other men - all of this is a guarantee in this life because of sin. I believe that these facts have lead many to sign onto existentialism, atheism, etc. It is often hard to see God's beneficial presence in this world.

 

But in these things, God is testing our faith. Anyone can be happy in good times - but can I maintain my joy in the midst of trial? That is the test of faith. Anyone can be happy in their marriage - as long as things go their way and there are no challenges. But can I remain strong in my love & commitment to my spouse in the face of severe physical & mental health issues, financial strains, personal tragedies and betrayals, even infidelity? Can I forgive? Can I be strong? Can I live selflessly for others? Can I trust God, that He will somehow bring a greater good out of all these painful issues?

 

And yet there are a multitude of examples throughout history of God's people not just coping or surviving in the midst of much suffering, but they actually thrive - as God provides for their physical, emotional, and spiritual needs which enables them to persevere through the trial while maintaining strong faith in God. One example - the Roman tormentors had to stuff rags into the mouths of Christians being burned at the stake - to stop them from singing!!! I cannot myself imagine such joy at being placed in that place of torment - but by the grace of God, His people are called and able to live above the immediate circumstances. Even today, organizations such as "Voice of the Martyrs" investigates and communicates with global Christendom re: religious persecution of Christians throughout most of the Middle East/Muslim world, China, Sudan, Indonesia, etc. And Christians pray for, write letters in behalf of, and provide supplies for these persecuted brethren. But the primary prayer request of the persecuted is for boldness to remain strong and active in Chritian ministry in the face of trials.

 

Many Christians have experienced great joy, peace, strength, purpose, etc in their life with the Triune God of the Bible. But to address some misconceptions - the Bible nowhere promises physical health or human happiness as the norm in this life. God promises to save us from the eternal condemnation that our sin against Him & others deserves, that salvation is provided by the Person & Ministry of Jesus Christ - God in the flesh - Who suffered & died in our place so that we can have our sins forgiven. The suffering & death of Jesus Christ satisfy God's just wrath agaist sin, and demonstrate His grace & love for us - as He Himself incurred that just punishment. God is just and the justifier of all who believe. Now God calls on men to humble themselves (after all - we're not God and we're not good - we're ungrateful rebels by nature) to repent of our sin and trust in the person of Jesus Christ. Through this conversion God grants us His gracious salvation.

 

God promises that believers will live forever - in His presence - in the New Heavens and New Earth. Part of the reason for trials here is to teach us not to love this world, this life - becasue of the ruin brought about by sin. We're to learn to love God and His glory. All else pales in significance when compared to God. SO we're to imitate the Apostle Paul when he says. "For to me, to live is Christ; and to die is gain." This runs counter to our nature, so it is an attitude that we must cultivate in our hearts, and many Christians continue to strive to live for God's glory. Other believers are still in the process of learning that this is our greatest calling.

 

So - what will the Bible, Jesus Christ, Church, etc do for us? Teach us the truth of this universe, teach us the supremacy of God, teach us the high calling of loving God with all we are and loving our neighbors as ourselves, teach us to work humbly with others to accomplish God's purposes, etc. As one who's had the opportunity to serve in pastoral ministry - there have been a variety of experiences & observations. I have seen Jesus Christ deliver people from various addictions, from living on the street, from pursuing completely selfish goals, from immature flippancy about life, from pornography, from financial greed, from despair, from meaninglessness, from a variety of worldly maladies. But I have also seen anger, bitterness, hatred, ungratefulness, slander, stupidity, selfishness, sensuality, etc in the church, by people who profess to follow Christ. I have seen these in my own heart, much to my disappointment and shame.

 

But no matter the circumstances - all believers must remember, we're aliens and wanderers in this world, our citizenship is in heaven. I'm to live as a pilgrim - holding all that I have in an open hand, that I may freely offer all to God to use (or lose) as He wills, for His purposes. My faith is not in people - people will disappoint and betray. My faith is in the God of the Bible, whose promises cannot fail. Then one day in the future, He will wipe away all tears, and I will be in His presence - no more pain, no more sorrow, no more suffering, no more sickness, no more death, no more of this world. But until then - I am called by God to persevere in His grace, for His glory, and to serve His purposes selflessly and tirelessly. God's rest awaits me.

[Kuroikaze]

I apologize for the delay - I'm enjoying the opportunity of having several conversations on this thread.

 

How do we harmonize the suicide accounts of Judas - Matthew 27:5 states that he threw the 30 pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and went away and hanged himself. Luke notes that Judas fell headlong and burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out - Acts 1:18. We believe that after having hung there dead (probably from a tree) for some extended time, that the rope simply gave way - and his now dead & bloated body (bloated from the decay) burst open when it hit the ground below.

 

Your thots?

 

My thought? this is nonsense if you think it competently explains the contradiction. Matthew says the threw the silver at into the temple, and Acts says he bought a field with the money.

 

At least one of those passages is incorrect no matter how you try to spin it.

[centauri]

But I'm convinced - after 35 years of being an Evangelical Christian (I was born/raised Catholic) and studying and speaking with followers of other religions (or no religion) that only Biblical Christianity is true. And the Bible is God's self-revelation to Man - of His Person, His purposes, His will for individuals, etc.

 

Unfortunately, "Biblical Christianity" is so subjective that doesn't mean much of anything to anyone that isn't entranced by the various, often conflicting doctrines and dogma it produces.

Believers create a version of "God" and then praise their ideas about it.

Their "God" is a surrogate that allows them to elevate their own egos, while cloaking themselves in an aura of humility.

[Neon Genesis]

Note (4); there is obviously an ingredient of mysticism here. When a believer, indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God, reads a book - there is an internal witness that attests to inspiration by God. The Christian can discern, spiritually, that this book is "theopneustos" breathed into by God. As believers we do not shy away from metaphysics and some degree of mysticism - we are, after all, talking about the God Who is Spirit revealing Himself to man, condescending to man in the language of men. Men, in turn, communicating to the God of the Universe in prayer.

This is utter nonsense. You're essentially saying that the early church guessed on which books were canon and which ones aren't and based their whole claim on nothing more than an emotional gut feeling rather than facts or truth? Yet you claim theologians like Bert Ehrman are arrogant because they rely on facts? If the early church's reasons for canonizing the books that they did wasn't the epitome of arrogance, please explain to me what is.

 

 

 

There's also been some statements by some in this thread that II Tim 3:16, etc do not apply to the NT - as there was no NT at that time. Certainly, the primary application is to the OT Scripture. But from the 50's to about 90AD, the NT books were written and began to be transcribed and distributed. Thus even Paul about 65AD, in I Timothy 5:18, he quotes from the Book of Deuteronomy and the Gospel of Luke in that one verse re: the diligent work of a church elder is worthy of financial support. SO Chritians have always applied the teaching of inspiration to the NT writings. Thus the stringent process for acceptance into the canon.

You act as if there were only 27 books that were written and collected with a single unifying purpose when it's not the case at all. There were countless other gospels that were written during those times too like the Gnostic gospels. Why didn't they make it in too? What about the Book of Enoch? Why was it dropped from later biblical canon even though Jude references it? Why doesn't the final 12 verses in Mark 16 appear in any of the earliest manuscripts of Mark if the true words of God are so obvious to anyone that's a Christian? If that verse refers to any gospel that was written during that time that claims to be the words of Jesus, then it should apply to the Gnostic gospels too. Since you don't believe in the Gnostic gospels, then either you're guilty of cherry picking what verses you believe in and are therefore not a "true" Christian or your argument is invalid.

[Guest kcdad]

Marx was right... ORGANIZED religion is the opiate of the masses... keeping them quiet, stupid and controllable.

That's true, but I think also that many ideologies can be added to the list. Some political ideas sometimes also become the opiate. It seems like the large masses of people need myths, or at least have a hard time escaping them.

 

 

Sorry... couldn't resist.

 

I believe it is the media's job in our society today... keep us preoccupied, distracted and hypnotized

[Guest kcdad]

Luke notes that Judas fell headlong and burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out - Acts 1:18. We believe that after having hung there dead (probably from a tree) for some extended time, that the rope simply gave way - and his now dead & bloated body (bloated from the decay) burst open when it hit the ground below.

 

Your thots?

 

Quite imaginative.

 

How about this: Judas committed himself to the betrayal completely (he fell headlong into it)

His guts (his courage, fortitude, etc) left him and he became an empty shell of a man.

 

BTW, that "we believe" crap gets you no cookie from me... "speak for yourself, John".

[freeday]

I apologize for the delay - I'm enjoying the opportunity of having several conversations on this thread.

 

How do we harmonize the suicide accounts of Judas - Matthew 27:5 states that he threw the 30 pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and went away and hanged himself. Luke notes that Judas fell headlong and burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out - Acts 1:18. We believe that after having hung there dead (probably from a tree) for some extended time, that the rope simply gave way - and his now dead & bloated body (bloated from the decay) burst open when it hit the ground below.

 

Your thots?

 

My thought? this is nonsense if you think it competently explains the contradiction. Matthew says the threw the silver at into the temple, and Acts says he bought a field with the money.

 

At least one of those passages is incorrect no matter how you try to spin it.

 

It is a matter of perspective. In Matthew, the chief priest picks up the money that Judas threw down and then proceeds to buy the field of blood. In Acts, the author forgoes the aforementioned episode and gives Judas the credit for buying the field of blood. Both are correct, the priests used Judas' reward to buy the field. For example, Whether I buy some drugs from the local drug dealer directly or I send my grunt to go buy the drugs, they are still my drugs. I think Matthew is more matter-of-fact, whereas acts is more allegory. The bible is a piece of literary work, which has many different writing styles.

[Kuroikaze]

It is a matter of perspective. In Matthew, the chief priest picks up the money that Judas threw down and then proceeds to buy the field of blood. In Acts, the author forgoes the aforementioned episode and gives Judas the credit for buying the field of blood. Both are correct, the priests used Judas' reward to buy the field. For example, Whether I buy some drugs from the local drug dealer directly or I send my grunt to go buy the drugs, they are still my drugs. I think Matthew is more matter-of-fact, whereas acts is more allegory. The bible is a piece of literary work, which has many different writing styles.

 

 

Ok...but both seem written as history not as allegory, and if you want to get technical, Luke/Acts are written more like a historical narrative than Mathew. What is your rational basis for this interpretation. Is it just an interpretation of convenience or is there any evidence that the author intended it this way?

If you just take anything you want in the bible as allegory then on what basis can you claim that there is ANY factual truth in Christianity.

 

I could, by your logic, read the entire gospel narrative as allegory and say that Jesus was not even a real person, just symbolic. Or I could say that the miracles didn't happen they were just allegory. Could you offer any evidence that these views are wrong?

 

There is only one mention of Jesus in any historical writings from the first century outside the 4 gosples (and a few gnostic texts, which are even less believable than the aforementioned) and the passage in Josephus is widely considered forged.

 

So you have what exactly? Christianity doesn't exactly loose all meaning, but the Fundamentalist/Evangelical view of the bible is well and truly fucked by the line of thinking you take here.

 

Edit: Basically you have agreed with me, in that you admit that the passage in Acts is not FACTUALLY true, which is what I was suggesting. Be it a lie, mistake, or allegory, the salient point is that it isn't factually true, which destroys the fundamentalist doctrine of inerrancy.

[freeday]

It is a matter of perspective. In Matthew, the chief priest picks up the money that Judas threw down and then proceeds to buy the field of blood. In Acts, the author forgoes the aforementioned episode and gives Judas the credit for buying the field of blood. Both are correct, the priests used Judas' reward to buy the field. For example, Whether I buy some drugs from the local drug dealer directly or I send my grunt to go buy the drugs, they are still my drugs. I think Matthew is more matter-of-fact, whereas acts is more allegory. The bible is a piece of literary work, which has many different writing styles.

 

 

Ok...but both seem written as history not as allegory, and if you want to get technical, Luke/Acts are written more like a historical narrative than Mathew. What is your rational basis for this interpretation. Is it just an interpretation of convenience or is there any evidence that the author intended it this way?

If you just take anything you want in the bible as allegory then on what basis can you claim that there is ANY factual truth in Christianity.

 

I could, by your logic, read the entire gospel narrative as allegory and say that Jesus was not even a real person, just symbolic. Or I could say that the miracles didn't happen they were just allegory. Could you offer any evidence that these views are wrong?

 

There is only one mention of Jesus in any historical writings from the first century outside the 4 gosples (and a few gnostic texts, which are even less believable than the aforementioned) and the passage in Josephus is widely considered forged.

 

So you have what exactly? Christianity doesn't exactly loose all meaning, but the Fundamentalist/Evangelical view of the bible is well and truly fucked by the line of thinking you take here.

 

 

I would contend that a large portion of Matthew is very direct. Regardless, an author could chose to tell the story in a different way. If both of us saw a robbery in progress; maybe I would remember the gun he had and you would focus on the outfit he was wearing and another witness might focus on what he said. This doesn't mean there was three different robbers, just different perspectives on them. In Matthew and Acts, the reader understands the same point: Judas was a wicked man, money was used to buy a field, and that field was named field of blood. I just don't see a contradiction that you are so adamant about.

 

Nobody on earth can prove that Jesus was an actuall person, but I think it is hard to deny the existence of Him. He is prophesized in the OT, obviously the four cannonical gospels, multiple apocryphal writings including Jesus, and the shear impact He had on the culture lends credit to the existence of Jesus.

[mwc]

Let me see if I understand this:

 

27.5 And throwing down the pieces of silver in the temple, he departed; and he went and hanged himself.

27.7 So they took counsel, and bought with them the potter's field, to bury strangers in.

 

So he runs off and hangs himself. Now he's dead. Just swinging in the breeze. The priests gather the money. Hold a meeting. Decide to buy a field. Find a field with a corpse swinging from a tree. Take a liking to that one. Buy it. Leave the body up there even though the field is to bury strangers in. Is it because they sort of knew Judas that they left him up there? He wasn't entirely a stranger? The whole point of dragging old jesus from the cross was that they didn't want to leave a body out since it was against the rules but these guys seem to not care in the least. Judas is hanging there for quite some time. Enough time to go through some bloating and rope rotting enough to break in some strange physics defying head-first fall scenario. You'd think the animals would have gotten to him first.

 

Then there's the story in Acts.

1:18 (Now this man acquired a field with the price of his wickedness, and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out.

So a dead man buys a field (according to the backwards they bought it with the money he returned logic). He hangs there for a long time since no one takes him down even though they know he's there since he's just sort of hanging around when they buy it (or did no one bother to look at the property...let me guess they bought it sight unseen). Then his magical fall accelerates him to the bursting point since his thick waterproof skin and lack of bodily orifices prevent the leakage of his fluids allowing for his gooey rupture upon hitting the ground. Sounds good so far. Really.

 

The problem I have is with the middle section of this last verse: "and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle" because it looks like this "kai prēnēs genomenos elakēsen mesos"

 

Now I know that seems like the same thing but it's not. Everyone seems to cheat on the translation.

 

"Prēnēs" is much like "prone" or "face down." In fact, by itself, it is rendered as "bending forward" or "prostrate." But when tied to this magic word "genomenos" people turn it into "falling headlong" and this only happens in this one magical verse. Strange isn't it? Now, "genomenos" means lots of things (around 40) so I can't name them all and "falling" is one of them but it usually has something to do with "to come," "to become," "come to pass," "came to be" and the like. Having to do with "falling" is probably there simply because of this verse since it's more to do with movement to a destination (as you can see "falling" fits that) but in a more temporal than physical sense (maybe "to befall" if you want "fall" in there).

 

"Elakēsen" we're told is "burst open" but that's not quite right. It's really more to "crack open" and not just "crack open" but rather "to crack open with a noise" or maybe if you like the bursting idea "burst open with a cracking sound." Like a pinata. Crack. And "mesos" is "midst" or "middle."

 

Now what we have here is "and bending forward he cracked open in the middle and his intestines spilled out." That's a much more accurate rendition of that part of the verse (and remember the noise that goes with that cracking open because it's in the Greek...gotta love it).

 

I have to say I used to love Papias' version where he got fatter than a chariot and then got ran down by one (thus breaking open) but I'm kind of liking this version now that this little discussion has forced me to read it in the original language. It's quite funny. I can only imagine that if this were to really happen that it would become known throughout Jerusalem just as the next verse asserts.

 

Oh well, the hanging and popping open version is good too I guess.

 

mwc

[Kuroikaze]

I would contend that a large portion of Matthew is very direct.

 

I wasn't talking about how direct he was, I was talking about literary styles.

 

Regardless, an author could chose to tell the story in a different way. If both of us saw a robbery in progress; maybe I would remember the gun he had and you would focus on the outfit he was wearing and another witness might focus on what he said. This doesn't mean there was three different robbers, just different perspectives on them.

 

This analogy doesn't really work, its more like if one man said the robber had a blue hat and the other said the hat was yellow....one of them cannot be right.

 

In Matthew and Acts, the reader understands the same point: Judas was a wicked man, money was used to buy a field, and that field was named field of blood. I just don't see a contradiction that you are so adamant about.

 

LOL, now your backpedaling, you were quite willing to claim that the story was allegory before, now you are claiming its factually true...which is it?

 

I pointed out the contradiction, so if you can't see it, you just don't want to see it. In fact the stories portray Judas very differently, one makes him out to be a victim who regrets his choice, and the other he is quite happy to take the money and use it to buy himself some land. Then he dies mysteriously as some sort of karmic pay back.

 

Nobody on earth can prove that Jesus was an actuall person, but I think it is hard to deny the existence of Him. He is prophesized in the OT, obviously the four cannonical gospels, multiple apocryphal writings including Jesus, and the shear impact He had on the culture lends credit to the existence of Jesus.

 

Its not hard at all, there may have been a person that the gospels were based upon, but the character of Jesus in the gospels is mostly fiction.

 

There isn't a single prophesy for him in the OT, (I know you think there is, but it just isn't so) Most of them are shoehorned in and fit very poorly. The most famous of which are in Isaiah.

 

The canonical gospels were written anonymously 30+ years after his death (the names were attributed to them in late 2nd/early 3rd century)

 

Apocryphal writings such as the gospel of Peter, or Thomas were mostly written even later, and if you had read them you would know that most of them portray Jesus in some ways that are very incompatible with orthodox/fundamentalist theology.

In the gospel of Peter for example Jesus is often portrayed as not having a physical body, and the crucifixion was all an elaborate show.

 

Jesus hasn't had influence on diddly squat, the CHURCH did those things, and it is no more evidence of it being true than Islam's influence on the middle east. This kind of argument might work on someone who thinks that the united states is the only place of consequence in the world, but I've been living in another country for nearly half a year, and I can tell you quite frankly that to a great many people Christianity has no influence whatsoever, and yet they are still decent people.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't think you are stupid for not being able to offer better arguments in favor of your religion. You are, in fact, offering me the best fundamentalist apologetics has to offer. The fact that it stinks like a dead fish is hardly your fault. I've heard all this before when I was still a believer, I am on this side of the fence for the exact reason that all of these arguments are really really bad.l

[rayskidude]

I apologize for the delay - I'm enjoying the opportunity of having several conversations on this thread.

 

How do we harmonize the suicide accounts of Judas - Matthew 27:5 states that he threw the 30 pieces of silver into the temple sanctuary and went away and hanged himself. Luke notes that Judas fell headlong and burst open in the middle and all his intestines gushed out - Acts 1:18. We believe that after having hung there dead (probably from a tree) for some extended time, that the rope simply gave way - and his now dead & bloated body (bloated from the decay) burst open when it hit the ground below.

 

Your thots?

 

My thought? this is nonsense if you think it competently explains the contradiction. Matthew says the threw the silver at into the temple, and Acts says he bought a field with the money.

 

At least one of those passages is incorrect no matter how you try to spin it.

 

K-man; Scripture states that Judas bought the field from his wickedness, but doesn't specify any particular act of wickedness. Remember the account in John 12:1-8 where a woman anointed Jesus with very costly perfume. Judas was incensed because this money could have been used to help the poor. But John 12:6 states, "Now he (Judas) said this, not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box, he used to pilfer what was put into it." SO besides the 30 pieces of silver for betraying Jesus Christ, Judas had access to other monies that he gained through his wickedness.

[Guest kcdad]

... the passage in Acts is not FACTUALLY true, which is what I was suggesting. Be it a lie, mistake, or allegory, the salient point is that it isn't factually true, which destroys the fundamentalist doctrine of inerrancy.

 

Sorry, Biblical Inerrancy isn't even wobbled by a metaphorical description... You see, BI is a Weeble. You can't knock it down.

[Ouroboros]

Sorry... couldn't resist.

 

I believe it is the media's job in our society today... keep us preoccupied, distracted and hypnotized

Oh, most definitely. And in control of opinions.

[Guest kcdad]

The problem I have is with the middle section of this last verse: "and falling headlong, he burst open in the middle" because it looks like this "kai prēnēs genomenos elakēsen mesos"

 

Now I know that seems like the same thing but it's not. Everyone seems to cheat on the translation.

 

"Prēnēs" is much like "prone" or "face down." In fact, by itself, it is rendered as "bending forward" or "prostrate." But when tied to this magic word "genomenos" people turn it into "falling headlong" and this only happens in this one magical verse. Strange isn't it? Now, "genomenos" means lots of things (around 40) so I can't name them all and "falling" is one of them but it usually has something to do with "to come," "to become," "come to pass," "came to be" and the like. Having to do with "falling" is probably there simply because of this verse since it's more to do with movement to a destination (as you can see "falling" fits that) but in a more temporal than physical sense (maybe "to befall" if you want "fall" in there).

 

"Elakēsen" we're told is "burst open" but that's not quite right. It's really more to "crack open" and not just "crack open" but rather "to crack open with a noise" or maybe if you like the bursting idea "burst open with a cracking sound." Like a pinata. Crack. And "mesos" is "midst" or "middle."

 

Now what we have here is "and bending forward he cracked open in the middle and his intestines spilled out." That's a much more accurate rendition of that part of the verse (and remember the noise that goes with that cracking open because it's in the Greek...gotta love it).

 

I have to say I used to love Papias' version where he got fatter than a chariot and then got ran down by one (thus breaking open) but I'm kind of liking this version now that this little discussion has forced me to read it in the original language. It's quite funny. I can only imagine that if this were to really happen that it would become known throughout Jerusalem just as the next verse asserts.

 

Oh well, the hanging and popping open version is good too I guess.

 

mwc

 

Wow... an even better image than mine... bending forward prostrate... kneeling and begging for forgiveness... get the image?

 

... then he bursts apart like a pinata...everything spilling out at once... "he spilled his guts". He tells them why he did it. He tells them he doesn't want the money anymore...

 

Thanks for the heads up.. I will take a look at the Greek and Aramaic idioms that are related.

 

Perhaps the Judas theories are correct... that he was trying to force Jesus to declare his Messiahship and bring about the great liberation of Israel, and when Jesus responded passively, Judas realized that he had caused Jesus' death.

[Kuroikaze]

K-man; Scripture states that Judas bought the field from his wickedness, but doesn't specify any particular act of wickedness. Remember the account in John 12:1-8 where a woman anointed Jesus with very costly perfume. Judas was incensed because this money could have been used to help the poor. But John 12:6 states, "Now he (Judas) said this, not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box, he used to pilfer what was put into it." SO besides the 30 pieces of silver for betraying Jesus Christ, Judas had access to other monies that he gained through his wickedness.

 

 

And this has what do to with our conversation? This does not relate to the point I was making in anyway whatsoever. Come on, at least freeday offered something substantial that required me to think a bit. This is nothing but a weird attempt at misdirection.

 

I was kinda dumbfounded when I read this, you could not have wrote something which addressed my statement less unless you started talking about belly button lint or something random.

[rayskidude]

Note (4); there is obviously an ingredient of mysticism here. When a believer, indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God, reads a book - there is an internal witness that attests to inspiration by God. The Christian can discern, spiritually, that this book is "theopneustos" breathed into by God. As believers we do not shy away from metaphysics and some degree of mysticism - we are, after all, talking about the God Who is Spirit revealing Himself to man, condescending to man in the language of men. Men, in turn, communicating to the God of the Universe in prayer.

This is utter nonsense. You're essentially saying that the early church guessed on which books were canon and which ones aren't and based their whole claim on nothing more than an emotional gut feeling rather than facts or truth? Yet you claim theologians like Bert Ehrman are arrogant because they rely on facts? If the early church's reasons for canonizing the books that they did wasn't the epitome of arrogance, please explain to me what is.

 

 

 

There's also been some statements by some in this thread that II Tim 3:16, etc do not apply to the NT - as there was no NT at that time. Certainly, the primary application is to the OT Scripture. But from the 50's to about 90AD, the NT books were written and began to be transcribed and distributed. Thus even Paul about 65AD, in I Timothy 5:18, he quotes from the Book of Deuteronomy and the Gospel of Luke in that one verse re: the diligent work of a church elder is worthy of financial support. SO Chritians have always applied the teaching of inspiration to the NT writings. Thus the stringent process for acceptance into the canon.

You act as if there were only 27 books that were written and collected with a single unifying purpose when it's not the case at all. There were countless other gospels that were written during those times too like the Gnostic gospels. Why didn't they make it in too? What about the Book of Enoch? Why was it dropped from later biblical canon even though Jude references it? Why doesn't the final 12 verses in Mark 16 appear in any of the earliest manuscripts of Mark if the true words of God are so obvious to anyone that's a Christian? If that verse refers to any gospel that was written during that time that claims to be the words of Jesus, then it should apply to the Gnostic gospels too. Since you don't believe in the Gnostic gospels, then either you're guilty of cherry picking what verses you believe in and are therefore not a "true" Christian or your argument is invalid.

 

K-man, please read my previous response re: Dr. Ehrman; he does not deal with facts alone - his conclusions arise also from presuppositions, assumptions, unprovable theories about various literary and historical criticism methods. It is a methodology that is given to subjective judgments. Therefore, though much has been done in this area of study called higher criticism, the conclusions reached are not based on any hard science, but personal and subjective thought processes brought to bear on the data. And they draw conclusions that are in opposition to men 1600 years closer to these issues - does this not cause some level of consternation on your part?

 

Everyone is aware of other writings that purported to be from Biblical writers - but they were not incorporated into the NT because they did not meet the requiremennts that I've stated previously. Placing (or not placing) a book into the Bible is a serious matter - because people will lives their lives based on Scripture since it is God's Word. The Early Church considered this matter with a discerning eye, and established a process to determine which books were actually Scripture. There are no sustainable reasons to doubt the current NT canon.

[Kuroikaze]

... the passage in Acts is not FACTUALLY true, which is what I was suggesting. Be it a lie, mistake, or allegory, the salient point is that it isn't factually true, which destroys the fundamentalist doctrine of inerrancy.

 

Sorry, Biblical Inerrancy isn't even wobbled by a metaphorical description... You see, BI is a Weeble. You can't knock it down.

 

I don't think you got my point, if start taking random stuff allegorically left and right it makes the notion of inerrancy pointless.

To argue that the bible is inerrant, but that Jesus' was allegorical(and did not objectively exist) would be at cross purposes with the main drive that causes fundamentalists to declare the bible inerrant in the first place.

 

When a fundy starts claiming that even things which seem to be written as factual claims are allegory they pretty much shoot themselves in the foot (metaphorically speaking )

[Kuroikaze]

K-man, please read my previous response re: Dr. Ehrman; he does not deal with facts alone - his conclusions arise also from presuppositions, assumptions, unprovable theories about various literary and historical criticism methods. It is a methodology that is given to subjective judgments. Therefore, though much has been done in this area of study called higher criticism, the conclusions reached are not based on any hard science, but personal and subjective thought processes brought to bear on the data. And they draw conclusions that are in opposition to men 1600 years closer to these issues - does this not cause some level of consternation on your part?

 

Everyone is aware of other writings that purported to be from Biblical writers - but they were not incorporated into the NT because they did not meet the requiremennts that I've stated previously. Placing (or not placing) a book into the Bible is a serious matter - because people will lives their lives based on Scripture since it is God's Word. The Early Church considered this matter with a discerning eye, and established a process to determine which books were actually Scripture. There are no sustainable reasons to doubt the current NT canon.

 

You pretty much show me that you are totally ignorant of how the the historiography process actually works.

[mwc]

K-man; Scripture states that Judas bought the field from his wickedness, but doesn't specify any particular act of wickedness. Remember the account in John 12:1-8 where a woman anointed Jesus with very costly perfume. Judas was incensed because this money could have been used to help the poor. But John 12:6 states, "Now he (Judas) said this, not because he was concerned about the poor, but because he was a thief, and as he had the money box, he used to pilfer what was put into it." SO besides the 30 pieces of silver for betraying Jesus Christ, Judas had access to other monies that he gained through his wickedness.

The Greek in Acts uses the word "misthou" which indicates a payment for doing that which is "adikias" (essentially that which is "not right"). So he bought the field with what he got from doing that which was not right. Seems simple to apply that G.John as you did until you flash back a couple verses in Acts to v16 where we get the prophecy being fulfilled "...Judas, who became a guide to those who arrested Jesus." So Judas became the guide (to fulfill the prophecy) and he bought the field from what he got.

 

It is also mentioned he got a part of the ministry but the word is different and actually indicates a "lot" (as in "casting lots" as opposed to a portion one might get in payment). This could indicate his "lot" was to fulfill this prophecy and it was a rather unpleasant lot but someone had to get it. So it wasn't from "greed" that he did all this but by chance ("There but by the grace of god go I").

 

As a matter of fact if you remove the parenthetical statement the whole thing flows much better which seems like someone added to explain what happened to poor old Judas but now that it's there, well, it causes a bit of a problem. You see. The "prophecy" clearly says the land is to be a "homestead" but no man is to live in it (which is why it becomes a cemetery). Unless he intended to live on the land that doesn't make any sense unless we are to believe the "potter" was living there (which Acts never mentions of course).

 

mwc

[Guest kcdad]

K-man, please read my previous response re: Dr. Ehrman; he does not deal with facts alone - his conclusions arise also from presuppositions, assumptions, unprovable theories about various literary and historical criticism methods. It is a methodology that is given to subjective judgments. Therefore, though much has been done in this area of study called higher criticism, the conclusions reached are not based on any hard science, but personal and subjective thought processes brought to bear on the data. And they draw conclusions that are in opposition to men 1600 years closer to these issues - does this not cause some level of consternation on your part?

 

Everyone is aware of other writings that purported to be from Biblical writers - but they were not incorporated into the NT because they did not meet the requiremennts that I've stated previously. Placing (or not placing) a book into the Bible is a serious matter - because people will lives their lives based on Scripture since it is God's Word. The Early Church considered this matter with a discerning eye, and established a process to determine which books were actually Scripture. There are no sustainable reasons to doubt the current NT canon.

 

Please reread your own post and look for the obvious hypocrisy... Ehrman's conclusions are given to subjective judgments???? What about the Canon itself and the arguments about what should be in and what shouldn't... from people like Athanasius, Marcion, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusibius.... and a myriad of others... even Martin Luther disagreed with the Canon. (James' "Epistle of Straw", for example) The Canon was a popular vote!

 

In your second paragraph... what does "Biblical writers" mean? Who is implicitly included and excluded from that group?

[Kuroikaze]

In your second paragraph... what does "Biblical writers" mean? Who is implicitly included and excluded from that group?

 

Not to give him too much credit, but I believe he is referring to books like the gospel of Peter, which claims to be penned by the apostle Peter, but was taken by both modern scholars and ancient to be pseudonymous.

[Guest kcdad]

In your second paragraph... what does "Biblical writers" mean? Who is implicitly included and excluded from that group?

 

Not to give him too much credit, but I believe he is referring to books like the gospel of Peter, which claims to be penned by the apostle Peter, but was taken by both modern scholars and ancient to be pseudonymous.

 

I think I understand that... but I want to know what HE mans by Biblical Writers ... is it a particular group of known people... Matthew (a disciple named Levi), Mark (a disciple named John Mark) Luke (some Greek physician who followed Paul and interviewed Mary) and John (a disciple, brother of James, sons of Zebedee), Peter (a disciple named Simon) Paul (a Turkish Jew named Saul) and that's it?

[Antlerman]

Sorry it's been awhile - pastoral responsibilities have increased this week. BUt re: the authorship and canonicity of II Peter, I submit the following for your consideration.

 

Edwin Blum (D.Theol. Univ of Basel, Switzerland) now Prof of Historical Theology at Dallas Seminary spent 5 pages discussing the various issues in his contribution the The Expositor's Bible Commentary. He states that Origen (c. 240AD), Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Augustine, and Jerome all accepted II Peter as written by Peter - but did not accept two other letters purporting to have been written by Peter. Dr. Blum believes in Petrine authorship. Certainly these Early Churchmen were well aware of the issues surrounding this epistle - no one disagreses that II Peter is a 'disputed book', but ultimately it was accepted into the canon AFTER rigorous vetting.

Thank you for your considered response. I'd like to speak to a number of points in it. First, I'll address at the outset and come back to it later that it's not arrogance to hold the view that the tools available to us were not at the disposal of the early church fathers, and therefore we may be able to see things that they didn't. In no way does this malign their abilities, working with the tools they had at the time. To me to ignore that the tools available to us today have improved considerably over the past 1769 years since Origen, is to almost venerate their words as superior in opinion by virtue of their places in church iconography, to the point of objectivity gives way to desire.

 

For someone to call those men ignorant fools would be inappropriate. But have you heard actual critical scholars refer to them as like this? Or are you interpreting them saying this by virtue of them not holding them in an almost sainted place of authority as the conservative scholars appear to? It is appropriate to say they did the best they could with what they had. That's not arrogance, it's factual. It's completely appropriate to believe we might know more than them. Or must we give way to them as authorities, despite what our tools show us; similar to ignoring science in favor of biblical writings?

 

Robert Gundry (PhD - Manchester) also addresses the various issues and noted that II Peter was quoted and/or alluded to in 2nd Cent Christian writings - demonstrating that was generally accepted as canon. And the Bodmer papyrus (P72) from the early 3rd cent also shows acceptance of II Peter. Gundry, Prof of NT and Greek @ Westmont College accepts II Peter. In his "Survey of the NT" he states; "Despite modern doubt, we may accept the verdict of the early church that... Peter... wrote the second epistle which bears his name.

Again there is room for differences of view in scholarship. This is reflective of the conservative opinion. I see the critical scholarship as more reasonable, for reasons I'll address momentarily.

 

In their "Intro to the NT"; DA Carson, Doug Moo, and Leon Morris state; "NONE OF THE OBJECTIONS (to Peter being author of II Peter) CAN BE SUSTAINED, and it seems better to accept it at face value, as a genuine writing of the Apostle Peter."

 

The reason none of the objections can be sustained is that they're based on a methodology which is highly subjective. The various historical, literary, form, etc types of NT criticism are not hard science. They are men's studied opinions, but not provable. Therfore, when Dr. Ehrman et. al. make statements that forgeries certainly made their way into the NT - because how could the people of that day possibly know they were forgeries - that shows an utter disrespect for the men who were in places of great responsibility, men who took their calling very seriously. To say these Early Churchmen were unaware of these issues being spoken of today and they simply could not adequately discern authentic from forgery - BUT the scholars of our 'school of thought' today are better equipped to make such judgments - and the modern critics come to a completely opposite conclusion - what kind of attitude is that? It is simply patronizing men of greater import, and men who were 1600 years closer to the issues. How do you categorize such disrespect for others, but confidence in yourselves? I call this arrogance - what do you call it?

First regarding Ehrman, personally I think the use of the word forgery is a little strong at times. I can see a better case to see them as products of attribution in his name or as pseudonyms. As Burton L. Mack states here in Who Wrote the New Testament page 7,

“As for the later attribution of anonymous literature to known figures of the past, that also was a standard practice during the Greco-Roman period. In the schools of rhetoric, for example, teachers had their students write speeches and letters appropriate for such figures to see if the student had fully understood the importance of a historical figure. It was what a recognized figure stood for that was deemed important, not his personal profile.

Scholars agree, in any case, that for these and other reasons, most of the writings in the New Testament were either written anonymously and later assigned to a person of the past or written later as a pseudonym for some person thought to have been important for the earliest period. Striking examples of the latter are the two letters said to have been written by Peter, both of which are clearly second-century creations.

"

 

This seems quite reasonable. To me, to call them "forgeries" tends to carry a modern understanding of mischievous intent. In some cases some may have been that, but I wouldn't see all attributions of words (such as those assigned to Jesus by some of his followers) as fraud. That's too cynical. Nonetheless, however one ascribes motives to them, the facts remain they bear the earmarks of authorship other than the name assigned to them.

 

This much is exposed through the tools of scholarship at our disposal today. This has nothing to do with “attitude” of arrogance as you choose to frame it. It has to do with tools at our disposal, and years upon years of collected minds pouring over these manuscripts in countless volumes written about them and other cultures. I hardly consider this an arrogant attitude, any more than I would say Newton was a buffoon for not being aware of the world through quantum physics, or that the ancient world thought that women were underdeveloped males in the womb, an inferior human as opposed to a different type of human. That’s what they understood with the knowledge they had. Not fools; just us without our knowledge through our tools.

 

To argue the church fathers were able to find some “forgeries”, in no way can be used to suggest they could discern everything, that somehow catching a few means they would therefore catch them ALL. That’s a complete leap of faith. You have called it arrogance to dispute the church fathers, but I would say could be seen as arrogance to simply swipe away the information coming to us through modern scholarship because a desire to venerate a tradition of the church fathers as holding some sort of special knowledge of God.

 

 

Now to methodologies:

 

When it comes to modern critical scholarship versus conservative scholarship, you’re dealing with two different approaches, not just results. One starts with the premise that the Christian religion is the product of the same natural social and creative forces we see in all societies, cultures, and times throughout human history, and from there they look for what sorts of influences, pressures, cultures, languages, politics, religions, etc that drove the creation of new mythologies and religions.

 

Along with this, it opens the texts of the sacred literature to a scrutiny that does not presuppose or seek to accommodate a belief in the miraculous, and evaluates it as a human product. In other words it attempts to remove the myth from the facts and approach it from a more naturalistic perspective.

 

The other approach, the conservative one, views the period of the formation of the Christian religion as a special period of time carved out by God himself in a unique interruption into human history. And from that premise it works to understand how all the pieces of the puzzle left behind during this rift into our world by God, fits within the traditional belief it was all inaugurated by God Himself as he stepped into human history as a man living in Galilee for approximate 30 earth-years, nearly 2000 years ago.

 

One can argue that the conservative approach is one that has an inherent bias defining its boundaries that inhibit it from venturing too far outside religious orthodoxies in its evaluation of sacred literature, and therefore it fails to be objective scholarship. However, the conservative could likewise say that the liberal critical scholar’s basic assumptions impact how they look at the texts also. In a sense that is true. Both camps start with a basic premise and work in different directions from there.

 

But what I see as the major difference, and why I would accept modern critical scholarship is precisely because it isn’t married to a pretty much already defined set of parameters. It therefore has the potential of greater, newer discovery and understanding as opposed to conservative scholarship which by definition is conservative in its views. Where critical scholarship if preferable to me is it takes what is in Christianity and fits it into the rest of the world neatly and cleanly, as opposed to trying to support some unnatural exception; which when one looks at what’s on the ground, isn’t. The Bible is not some cohesive message, but a message made to appear cohesive through the selection of texts that roughly fit that theme, and the rest becomes a matter of scholarship to make it fit the traditional beliefs.

 

In short, the critical approach is scientific (however recognizing the difference from the "hard" empirical sciences); the conservative approach is religious, or rather supporting of religious premises. Now I will add that the critical approach does not dictate a non-religious view at the end of the day, any more than accepting modern science does. Vast numbers of people do in fact not see the Bible or Christianity as a supernatural religion and yet identify with it and adopt its symbols as the language of myth that supports them in their culture.

 

To me, if one is to be religious, understanding the formations of their religion through critical scholarship is the much healthier approach. It is believing in God without needing to ignore scholarship, in exactly that same way as those who accept the age of the earth as 4.5 billion years, and humans are an evolved species along with all life on this planet and yet have a faith in God. It’s faith that doesn’t require intellectual suicide, which when committed, becomes anything but spiritually fulfilling. It’s the conservative that finds it necessary to tie their faith with history and science. Others are comfortable in just faith, and find discovery to enhance it for them. Different approaches to faith, and to scholarship.

 

So it's reported from the 'inside' that these NT critics would do well to plant their critical eye on their own methodology and ideology before claiming to possess greater powers of NT criticism than the Early Churchmen and Early Church. My use of the terms "ilk" and "arrogant" do not belie a weak position - but simply state what the situation actually is, and calling a spade a spade.

Again with daring to challenge the Early Churchmen. To not be allowed to do so denies objectivity in favor of a religious assumption.

 

They did their sincere best, to be gracious, but they were not superior or infallible in their views. They were fallible humans with limited resources in comparison to today, just as one day we will be to men of the future. This is reasonableness, not arrogance.

 

SO the councils did not invent or impose an NT canon - they officially confirmed the NT canon that had already been accepted in the churches as a whole.

Not quite as a whole. What of the Gnostics? What of the other “heretical” churches, so called. History is always written by its victors. But yes, they did not “invent” the NT. They simply codified the texts that were in wide use by those of like mind regarding their views of Christianity. Others were pushed to the side or destroyed.

 

Note (4); there is obviously an ingredient of mysticism here. When a believer, indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God, reads a book - there is an internal witness that attests to inspiration by God. The Christian can discern, spiritually, that this book is "theopneustos" breathed into by God. As believers we do not shy away from metaphysics and some degree of mysticism…

I appreciate the acknowledgement of this. And of course, this is subjective and is a matter of faith and not scholarship. I would very much like to explore this with you.

 

You do realize what “feels right” to us, is a generally a case of it fitting within our views? Of course the words of Bible texts as we have them “feel right” many times, simply because they are words that have informed our culture of it’s core value systems. It sounds right to you because it’s the words of your culture, not God (although in a very real sense one can locate God as one’s cultural sensibilities).

 

Myth and social formation go together and inform each other in a feedback loop. As we define our culture behaviorally, we intellectually create mythology to support it. As we embrace that mythology it feeds back emotionally and results in supporting behaviors, which in turn supports the mythology, which support the behavior, and so on. This continues to the point that the supporting mythology becomes a background language, a language that “feels right” to us! Hence your “witness of the heart”!

 

I most certainly do not mean this disrespectfully, or as any sort of a belittlement. I myself am a product of this culture, and can recognize my connection with Christian myth as a part of this. The words of the NT will and does sound right to us, in that its language permeates our society through art, literature, the media, and almost every part of our culture, including attitudes towards sex, life, religions, gender, etc. But I will argue, and have, that religion is not the cause of all these things, either for good or for bad, but a product of the process of supporting mythologies of societies, created and driven by societies. To many cultures not our own, our Christian ways sound “wrong”, just as theirs do to us. Truth is ours, and we create God in our image to inform us of who we want to be. God is therefore – us; us as God.

 

In short, it’s a catch-22. The myth created your sense of truth, and your sense of truth confirms the myth, as the myth supports your sense of truth, etc. It seems right to you because it fits how you’ve come to see things, which confirms it is right to you.

 

Jesus said, "My sheep hear My voice, and I know them and they follow Me - John 10:27 and "If anyone is willing to do (God's) will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from myself." John 7:17.

Indeed. And the above is why. Think of it in terms of creating a myth that supports acceptance of the social practice. “My sheep hear my voice,” says Jesus; understood as: “Those who participate in our group will understand and follow our values, and they will make sense to them as they modify their behaviors and believe in the myths.”. “Jesus” becomes the symbol of that group’s values. This is no different than any other system. The only difference is that it’s OURS, and as a result it’s harder to recognize it as such.

 

I look forward to your response.

[Antlerman]

I would contend that a large portion of Matthew is very direct. Regardless, an author could chose to tell the story in a different way. If both of us saw a robbery in progress; maybe I would remember the gun he had and you would focus on the outfit he was wearing and another witness might focus on what he said. This doesn't mean there was three different robbers, just different perspectives on them. In Matthew and Acts, the reader understands the same point: Judas was a wicked man, money was used to buy a field, and that field was named field of blood. I just don't see a contradiction that you are so adamant about.

 

Nobody on earth can prove that Jesus was an actuall person, but I think it is hard to deny the existence of Him. He is prophesized in the OT, obviously the four cannonical gospels, multiple apocryphal writings including Jesus, and the shear impact He had on the culture lends credit to the existence of Jesus.

 

FREEDAY!!!! How the hell are you?? Wow, now that's a voice from the past. Good to see you! Often wondered how things were for you...

 

Anyway, I'd like to offer some responses to the above, but I sort of exhasusted myself on the above post earlier today, and tonight is reserved from relaxing with a good wine and music, and perhaps some lighter posts. I look forward to discussions again with you. Later.....