Liberty University & Jerry Falwell...

Re: Re: For Bill Grover...

I'm going to answer you in this way.

1. I'm not an NT scholar, but I do have what I consider to be fairly informed opinions about history and religion.
2. I'm not about to be intimidated by your numerous titles and degree of knowledge on this subject.
3. I respect your depth of knowledge on the subject matter, but have my own opinion regarding the value of studying and becoming very well educated in what I consider to be, at its very root, a falsehood.
4. Therefore we have no basis for a debate, since I can't hold my own with you on PhD level divinity topics, and you are not willing to "lower yourself" to the philosophy being discussed at hand;
5. Which incidentally is: man is imperfect and will inevitably construe religious texts, practices, and beliefs to suit the political realities of his/her own time. Since religion is very conservative, once those alterations take place they become sacrosanct and retained as "truth" long after their original purposes have been outlived.

I do feel that the web sites I've posted, in particular the first, should give any serious scholar of the Bible plenty of food for thought.

Sorry I can't accommodate you or keep up with your level of Biblical analysis. On the other hand, if you want to talk philosophy of religion and its relationship to history and reality then let's keep on going....

In all of this discourse I hold no hard feelings towards you or anyone else who disagrees with me (and they are MANY). I've always marched to a different drummer, and have always been a "devil's advocate" (no pun intended).

 

Re: Re: Re: Re: For Bill Grover...

Hi Dave,

For me nothing detracts from the basics of Christianity--the love of God revealed through Jesus Christ.

I was merely stating that if some verses in the NT are now considered to be latter editions, then how do we convince those who need to know Christ that the Bible is true and is God's Word?

I don't think the later additions detract from the fundamental message of Scripture. But, the story of the woman caught in adultery, which alledgedly was not in the orginal manuscripts, may pose some serious problems for those of us who use this verse to speak of love, forgiveness, not judging others, and the theology of a second chance.

My own feeling, however, is that this is not a later addition. It is too representative of the character and personality of Jesus not to be authentic.

 

Re: Re: Re: For Bill Grover...

===


Carl

Neither do I have bad feelings about you. I think it is important for you to challenge some of the things you do. It occasions thought. Unfortunately, like you, I also need to be doing something else--my thesis--so, I confess, I'm just as happy not to go on with this.

Sorry, I recognize the limits of my abilities and interests. I do not call this recognition "lowering myself." I choose to make claims only about that which I understand. You made a claim about one of those things. If I do not understand something, then I make no claims about it!! So, I will not accept your invite to discuss the "Philosophy of Religion. "

My principal argument was with what I understood you to say -- that the text of the Bible had been greatly changed for political purposes. I have asked you to provide proof that this has occured even in just one verse. If you are unable to provide that, then, OK.

 

More...

Well we agree to disagree, then Bill. I don't have a thesis to write, but I do have a research paper or two to finish as well.

However, one last comment. I apologize for once again referring to a web site, but this reference, and specifically this text, seem to point to a conclusion that I indicated - that the eventual canonization of the four Gospels was a highly political process, involving the power of the Church in the secular sense, and not the religious sense.

Read this:

"...Frank Beare goes even further and declares all the gospels to be anonymous, with their traditional names being "second-century guesses."

During the period in which the church was organized there was an abundance of literature with widely divergent views of Jesus. Church officials set about deciding on the officially acceptable materials. As many as one hundred gospels were excluded, and only the four we have today were retained to make up the "Canon." Needless to say, only gospels that agreed with the Church's views at that time were canonized. This is especially significant when we recall that the Church had become a political, not just a religious, establishment during the second century. The canonization of four Gospels, rather than just one, indicates that there were some compromises to satisfy the wide range of divergent views that must have been in the scores of gospels that existed at that time. If the church authorities had agreed on everything, we would have ended up with only one authorized Gospel, the Gospel of Jesus.

Marcion of Sinope founded a Gnostic movement around 140 A.D. He acknowledged the Gospel of Luke as the only authentic Gospel. He believed that Luke, who was almost certainly a non-Jew, was the spokesman for Paul. Marcion exerted tremendous pressure upon the ecclesiastic authorities to accept only Luke. Since he was an ardent enemy of the Jews, he rejected the whole of the Old Testament. The Church, however, declared Marcion a heretic and put in its canon all the Epistles of Paul. In addition, they included the other canonized Gospels, Luke's Acts of the Apostles, and other works.

It was not until the councils of Hippo Regius (A.D. 393) and Carthage (A.D. 397) that the contents of the New Testament were solidified. Up until that time, what was accepted by the Church as authentic scripture varied. Some works that were then excluded are now accepted as part of the New Testament, and vice versa.

For almost four centuries after Jesus, the Christian scripture was not put into any definite order. The oldest available manuscripts of the gospels date from the fourth century. Older documents (e.g., papyri from the First to Third Century) contain no more than small fragments of the gospels.

The two oldest parchment manuscripts are not even in the language of Jesus; they are in Fourth century Greek. They are the Codex Vaticanus, now preserved in the Vatican library, and the Codex Sinaiticus, which was discovered in the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai and is now preserved in the British Museum, London. This second manu script contains two apocryphal works. The place of discovery of Codex Vaticanus is unknown."

Source - http://www.submission.org/jesus.html

(Granted, this is an Islamic web site, but one that appears somewhat scholarly rather than missionary)

 

Boys, boys!

I'm not getting into this one, but:

Carl, your sources are not in line with conventional liberal biblical scholarship, which does agree with you that much of the NT is pseudonymous, etc. As far as dates and composition of the NT are concerned, as understood by brilliant--and "mainstream liberal"--practitioners of what some call higher criticism, you might want to check the NT introductions by Luke Timothy Johnson (Emory University) or the late Raymond Brown (Union Seminary in New York). The notes in the latest edition of the Oxford Annotated Study Bible (NRSV) will give you shorthand versions of the above. The gazillionth edition of the Feine-Behm-Ku"mmel introduction will give you (in English translation) the status controversiae on this stuff in German higher criticism from maybe ca. 1980.

Needless to say, I'm totally out of sympathy with this approach, but you might as well take a look at the best it has to offer on its own terms.

For the record, FWIW: Yes, I do genuinely think higher crit is damnable, blasphemous, etc., etc., but that's another discussion (and I am not starting it, now or later).

At least you two are fighting like sane adults. Bon appetit!

 

Raymond E. Brown was brilliant! I have his two-volume book, The Birth of the Messiah and The Death of the Messiah as well as the The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. All contain excellent scholarship and a wealth of research.

 

I second unc's Raymond E. Brown recommendation. His stuff on the Gospel of John is widely considered the best ever written in English, and as an ordained RCC priest he had more respect for literal interpretation than some.

Regarding Liberty University: I think anyone who remembers my old posts on this forum knows I wouldn't agree with much of Falwell's politics or theology, but there's so much more to the school than that. As is true in the case of Regent (founded by Pat Robertson, whom I find much more offensive than ol' Jerry), I wouldn't be interested in a Liberty degree myself but have no trouble recommending the school to people who might find it useful. I think Dennis Huber did his M.Div. there, but I wouldn't swear to it.


Cheers,

 

Re: More...

 

===

HELLO TOM!!!

 

That's the fundamental question in saving souls, isn't it?

How does a reasonably open-minded non-believer become convinced "that the Bible is true and is God's Word"?

 

By becoming less reasonable, of course.

 

Some might suggest it requires an act of God...

Matthew 16
13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?"
14So they said, "Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.


1 Corinthians 2
13These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

John 16
5 "But now I go away to Him who sent Me, and none of you asks Me, "Where are You going?' 6But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. 7Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. 8And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9of sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; 11of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
12"I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. 14He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. 15All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you.


Blessings,

 

Howdy, Bill--it's been a while! How on earth are you doing...?


Cheers,

 

===

Really nice to see you back.

On earth I'm doing great...elsewhere ?, well...

 

Actually, if you check out Jonah 1:17, you will find that Jonah was a great fish story, not a whale of a tale.

 

Well, given that in Old Testament times the good Lord used Assyrians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Philistines, Syrians, and probably a few others to punish Israel, then why couldn't God use Arabs to punish America today? On the other hand, if one does not buy into Christianity (or at least Dr. Falwell's brand thereof), why go to Liberty University at all?

 

<<On the other hand, if one does not buy into Christianity (or at least Dr. Falwell's brand thereof), why go to Liberty University at all?>>

Because Libery's MBA was voted a top 10 best buy, for starters. http://www.geteducated.com/articles/TopMBAReg.htm

Pug

 

So, you dug back into the archives all that way just to make a wisecrack?
Jack

 

re:

One only need peruse the OT to find how many times "God" told his prophets to kill unbelievers. There are sprinkles of tolerance in some of the minor and major prophetic books, but overall, the OT advocates violence towards those who do not believe in the "one true God." And one only need Revelation (literally) to see the intolerance in the NT.

Peace,

Daniel

 

<<One only need peruse the OT to find how many times "God" told his prophets to kill unbelievers. There are sprinkles of tolerance in some of the minor and major prophetic books, but overall, the OT advocates violence towards those who do not believe in the "one true God." And one only need Revelation (literally) to see the intolerance in the NT.>>

Spoken like someone with a poor understanding of Christian theology. For the record, the OT violence usually centers around those individuals or groups of individuals that have become full in their sin...they are not simply unbelievers. As far as the NT intolerance you mention, Revelation only demonstrates God's intolerance of sin, not man's intolerance of other men.

Pug