All of you have been weighing heavy on my mind (1 Viewer)

Previous Next
Status
Not open for further replies.
UndeadSnoopy said:
I love animals. Not animal love.

My dog is nice to me when I have peanut butter.
Click to expand...
I bet Cesar Milan could help you get your dog to like you even when you dont have peanut butter
 
DaveXA said:
Source please.
Click to expand...
Just gonna keep it simple with wikipedia. I know it's a sheet source, but their religion pages are heavily regulated and are generally Christian friendly and my purpose is just to show that these are mainstream conclusions. You can find discussions on each issue and then follow the footnotes where they lead...

Authorship of the Gospels:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_reliability_of_the_Gospels#Luke

Authorship of the Pauline Epistles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles

Historicity of the OT:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_the_Bible
 
SystemShock said:
Herein lies one of the many issues with the Bible. If you read something which agrees with your current set of values, that's literally the word of God. If you read something that doesn't agree with your current set of values, then we need to do some "cultural and historical" research, in an attempt try to apologize for that which doesn't agree with our current set of values.

The irony is, people are not willing to do the same extensive cultural and historical research about the parts they agree with. Because if you took into consideration cultural and historical context, you will learn (well, you have to know this) that the origins and stories of every god ever conceived by humankind are very much the same, and the reason why you are a Christian today is because Christianity spread throughout the world through conquest and force, not by virtue.
Click to expand...

Well, I disagree with your assertion that I'm picking and choosing based on what I believe or don't believe. If I'm using a different standard to interpret Scripture for different passages, there is clearly a reason for that. Scripture isn't a single, linear book. And there are multiple genres and historical passages. Jesus often spoke in parables, some were fictional stories designed to illustrate his points, while others were actual events he spoke about, and still others there is no origin stated, so it may not be certain whether it's a fictional or actual event.

I know a lot of people think we get to pick and choose what to believe about Scripture, but I've studied Christian apologetics and I've done my own research, and formed conclusions based on that.

When I speak of cultural and historical interpretation, I'm speaking to what was going on at the time that shaped the disciples worldview at that time. Were we to look through the eyes of people at that time, I'm sure we'd be bewildered by what we're seeing. It's really difficult in this day and age to imagine what it was like back then, but that doesn't mean we can't try.

I understand what you're referring to, but, while there may be overlap among religions, they're certainly not all the same, and they don't all arrive at the same conclusions about spiritual teaching. But these are fundamental topics that have to be addressed before we can start deriving teaching and tradition from Scripture.

I respect your point of view, but from all I've read and studied, we've arrived at a different conclusion. It's all good though. I was a genuine agnostic for a good bit, and my approach was similar to yours, but eventually had a change of heart. Ultimately, we all have to find our own way.
 
Last edited:
Booker said:
It's widely accepted. It is true they were assigned authorship at some point in the second century, and by the time they were collected into a single volume those names stuck. But the Gospels authors don't identify themselves, nor their credentials, sources, anything. And that the later manuscripts all agree on their names doesn't really mean anything, except that those names were assigned by the time they were first collected together.

As far as the traditional assigned authorship, there are good reasons no to put to much stock in them. Mark, for example, was supposed to be a companion of Peter, except that his gospel depicts Peter as a fool and preaches Pauline Christianity, so that looks sketchy. Matthew supposedly wrote his gospel for the Hebrews in Aramaic, but the Gospel of Matthew is acknowledged as having been composed in Greek.
Click to expand...

Please cite your sources, because, I know some teachers claim this, but I haven't seen any documented evidence supporting your position.

Edit:Just saw your Wikipedia links. I'll take a look, but generally, I avoid those like the plague because it's rarely obvious who is editing and writing these. If the author and sources are dubious, I wouldn't call that a reliable source.

That said I'll take a look when I have some time this weekend.
 
Last edited:
DaveXA said:
Well, I disagree with your assertion that I'm picking and choosing based on what I believe or don't believe. If I'm using a different standard to interpret Scripture for different passages, there is clearly a reason for that. Scripture isn't a single, linear book. And there are multiple genres and historical passages. Jesus often spoke in parables, some were fictional stories designed to bring his points, while others were actual events he spoke about, and still others there is no origin stated, so it may not be certain whether it's a fictional or actual event.

I know a lot of people think we get to pick and choose what to believe about Scripture, but I've studied Christian apologetics and I've done my own research, and formed conclusions based on that.

When I speak of cultural and historical interpretation, I'm speaking to what was going on at the time that shaped the disciples worldview at that time. Were we to look through the eyes of people at that time, I'm sure we'd be bewildered by what we're seeing. It's really difficult in this day and age to imagine what it was like back then, but that doesn't mean we can't try.

I understand what you're referring to, but, while there may be overlap among religions, they're certainly not all the same, and they don't all arrive at the same conclusions about spiritual teaching. But these are fundamental topics that have to be addressed before we can start deriving teaching and tradition from Scripture.

I respect your point of view, but from all I've read and studied, we've arrived at a different conclusion. It's all good though. I was a genuine agnostic for a good bit, and my approach was similar to yours, but eventually had a change of heart. Ultimately, we all have to find our own way.
Click to expand...

And yet, there is picking and choosing. We don't need to go any further than that particular passage, or slavery, or stoning adulterous women to death... none of those things agree with our current set of values, so there is a need to apologize for them. Otherwise we can't have an all knowing, all loving, perfect god, and a gospel that's absolute truth.
 
SystemShock said:
And yet, there is picking and choosing. We don't need to go any further than that particular passage, or slavery, or stoning adulterous women to death... none of those things agree with our current set of values, so there is a need to apologize for them. Otherwise we can't have an all knowing, all loving, perfect god, and a gospel that's absolute truth.
Click to expand...

Well, we're dealing with different topics here. Sure a lot of it is intertwined, and requires unpacking, but we're delving beyond what we started with here. I'm not and never intended to try and make anyone here think anything. It's more than I can speak on in this thread and do it justice. If you genuinely want to discuss more, I'd be happy to do so via PM. If your intent is just to pick apart what I post here, I'm not interested in discussing further because we'd be getting far away from what my intent for participating was in the first place.
 
CapitalCitySaint said:
Don't get me wrong...I do think Guido is a little coo-coo...but not to the point that I want to pole the other SR members asking if they know him in real life and look into involuntary confinement.
Click to expand...

There's poleing involved here? I'm piqued.
 
DaveXA said:
Please cite your sources, because, I know some teachers claim this, but I haven't seen any documented evidence supporting your position.

Edit:Just saw your Wikipedia links. I'll take a look, but generally, I avoid those like the plague because it's rarely obvious who is editing and writing these. If the author and sources are dubious, I wouldn't call that a reliable source.

That said I'll take a look when I have some time this weekend.
Click to expand...
If you want a deeper look than you’ll find on the internet I can recommend these works:

The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (1974) by Thomas L. Thompson

Gospel Fictions (1988) and Who Wrote the Gospels (1997) by Randel Helms

The Case Against Q (2002) by Mark Goodacre

The Mystery of Acts (2008) by Richard Pervo

Forged (2011) by Bart Ehrman
 
Booker said:
If you want a deeper look than you’ll find on the internet I can recommend these works:

The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (1974) by Thomas L. Thompson

Gospel Fictions (1988) and Who Wrote the Gospels (1997) by Randel Helms

The Case Against Q (2002) by Mark Goodacre

The Mystery of Acts (2008) by Richard Pervo

Forged (2011) by Bart Ehrman
Click to expand...

Thanks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Previous Next

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)

    Share this page

     

    Twitter

    Back
    Top Bottom