By Vorjack
Let’s start with a simple fact: the Bible did not fall from the sky in 1611. The book — or rather, books — were created over a period of time by different people with differing beliefs.
One of the goals of biblical scholarship is to figure out what these beliefs were.
Bart Ehrman’s new book, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible, is a crash course in New Testament scholarship. It’s “NT101″ in six short chapters. In a rush, Ehrman is giving us all the information he wished his students had coming into his class — or all that he wished he’d had before going to Princeton.
The Low-Down on Higher Criticism
Pullquote: “The Bible is the most widely purchased, extensively read, and deeply revered book in the history of Western Civilization. Arguable, it is also the most thoroughly misunderstood…”
As the subtitle suggests, Ehrman starts off by examining the differences between the gospels, Acts and the letters of Paul. He doesn’t do this with the intention of discrediting the Bible. Instead, he uses these discrepancies as a way to understand the authors and the differences between them. He calls this the “historical-critical” method and contrasts it with the “devotional” method, trying to explain how these differences slip past the readers’ notice.
This takes up the first two chapters. Then he follows with a discussion of the historical Jesus, a discussion of the formation of the canon, a brief study of some of the heresies, a snippet about textual criticism and a discussion of early Christian theology.
Fans of Ehrman (Ehrmanians? Ehrmaniacs?) will recognize a lot of this material. Since it is a broad overview of New Testament scholarship, Ehrman brings in some of the content of his other works. He starts with a similar autobiography he’s used in several books. You’ll see lots of Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet, bits of Lost Christianities and a chunk of Misquoting Jesus — and fans of this work will be interested in Ehrman’s defense of the book in chapter six. There’s also a section on the historicity of miracles which seems to expand on some of his comments from the Ehrman/Craig debate. The book can stand on its own, but some portions feel recycled.
Pullquote: Ehrman has opened the door for his guests, but left them stranded in the foyer.
Ehrman summarizes a tremendous amount of material, and this means he has no time for a sustained defense of any of his topics. If you’re looking for detailed arguments, look elsewhere. Unfortunately, Ehrman’s endnotes are weak and he frequently references his own works, so you’ll have to look elsewhere on your own.
This is my greatest problem with the book. Introductory texts are both useful and important, but you need to point the reader to more substantial works in the process. Ehrman has opened the door for his guests, but left them stranded in the foyer.
Keeping the Faith
Pullquote: “Faith is not a matter of smarts.”
The last chapter is the most interesting, but also the most uncomfortable. Titled, “Is Faith Possible?”, it is Ehrman’s argument that giving up biblical literalism doesn’t automatically lead to giving up on Christianity. It’s clear that Ehrman doesn’t want you to think that he’s trying to deconvert the reader, and so he makes a case for liberal Christianity.
There are two problems with this. First, Ehrman has acknowledged that he left liberal Christianity due to the Problem of Evil, and he wants to be honest about that. But he also wants the reader to recognize that liberal Christianity is a viable option. The result is like watching a man try to sell a shirt that he’s already described as unfashionable: “Sure, I said I’d never wear it again, but maybe it would look good on you.” You can see how it might work, but Ehrman doesn’t really develop the argument.
Pullquote: At one point Ehrman describes two dear Christian friends that he’s vacationing with; it’s a pity he didn’t ask one of them to write this chapter.
Which leads to the second problem. Ehrman is better at tearing down simplistic Christianity than he is at building up a more mature faith. He explains why you shouldn’t use the Bible as the literal word of God, but he doesn’t explain how you should use it. He offers no guidelines for interpretation or discernment. He mentions that plenty of people are liberal Christians, but he never directs the reader towards any particular writer or theologian. At one point he describes two dear Christian friends that he’s vacationing with; it’s a pity he didn’t ask one of them to write this chapter.
The mention of the vacation is telling. The whole book reads like it was written over a two week spring break. It’s accessible and enjoyable to read, but arguments pass without support or citation.
It will serve wonderfully as an introduction to the historical study of the New Testament. It would make an excellent book to press into the hands of that friend or family member who thinks the KJV descended from heaven. However, those with a biblical studies background will want to look for something more substantial.
Vorjack is a librarian/archivist and a public historian, living with his wife in history-soaked Albany, New York.
Thanks for the critique. As I have said before, I am new to this site, and though I have had my convictions for years, I have not spoken about them. I did not keep silent because I was afraid of chastizement, but because I saw what damage I could do to people of faith unintentionally merely by asking questions.
Over time my view has changed, and I feel now that religion is not simply a spiritual crutch used by many to overcome personal fears (which it does for many), but is also a highly destructive an manipulative force in the lives of billions. As a consequence of the realization that the evils of religion far outwiegh the damage which might be felt by certain adherants when faced with some difficult questions. I think the benefit of speaking up outwieghs the personal damage it might cause another. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Now I have not put a lot of thought into these matters in 20 years. I came to my conclusions many years ago, and have been quite happy living as an agnostic. Now I see what appears to be a large volume of literature on athiesim is availible, and many authors are often quoted. Daniel has a reading list posted, so I plan to start there, but it is my hope that others like Vorjack will comment and give me a few suggestions too.
The rock of offense:
“Give glory to the Lord your God, before he cause darkness, and before your feet stumble upon the dark mountains, and, while ye look for light, he turn it into the shadow of death, and make it gross darkness.” (Jeremiah 13:16)
The figurative representations of Christ as the foundation rock of the great spiritual house of God (Matthew 16:18; Ephesians 2:20; 1 Peter 2:6) and also as the water-yielding rock of sustenance in the wilderness (1 Corinthians 10:4) are two of the great symbols of the Bible.
But for those who reject Him, He becomes “a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offense. . . . And many among them shall stumble, and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken” (Isaiah 8:14-15).
Not only will the stone cause such a one to stumble, but Jesus said, “And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder” (Matthew 21:44). This figure is taken from the fall of the great image in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. “Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet . . . and brake them to pieces” (Daniel 2:34). All the kingdoms of the world were represented in the image, but “the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth” (Daniel 2:35).
“Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient” (1 Peter 2:7-8).
Thus, the stone of stumbling, which is Christ, is also the Word, and it is deadly dangerous to stumble over the holy Scriptures. One should give glory to God before darkness falls and he stumbles upon the dark mountain in the shadow of death.
Wow…spouting Bible verses on an atheist/skeptic’s blog. Both original and brilliant!
Is your point that we should just avoid reaing the drivel in the first place in order to avoid stumbling over Jebus? Or is it that we should just blindly accept the convoluted and contradictory parts of the bible and let our good preachers ‘splain it all away?
“The rock of offense:”
Just a moroon spamming to drive up site hits.
Thanks for the information Vorjack; this book is (was) on my “to buy” list.
“However, those with a biblical studies background will want to look for something more substantial”:
Can you give us some references, other books that do not have that shortcoming you mention?
“Can you give us some references, other books that do not have that shortcoming you mention?”
I’m trying to pull something together. Most of what comes immediately to mind wouldn’t be very helpful. For example, I remember that Ehrman’s textbooks are pretty good, but you probably can’t get your hands on them unless you have access to an academic library.
If you want something immediately, Prof. Phil Harland of York University has been podcasting his lectures. You can subscribe via itunes or the like. The current ones on gnostic theology are pretty arcane, but his early stuff on the gospels and Paul’s letters are really good.
Actually you can probably get the textbooks on Barnes and Noble dot com. That’s where I get my textbooks (for my classes at Univ. of Texas).
Oh, well, if you want to *pay* for them, sure. I’m a librarian, I haven’t paid for a book in about a decade.
But yes, you can do a B&N search in their textbook section. Anything over $40 is going to be one of his textbooks.
There’s The New Testament and Other Early Christian Writings , and After the New Testament: A Reader in Early Christianity. I remember that both of these were good. He’s a very readable writer, but I think when he goes to make is accessible to the lay reader he goes too far.
I’ve enjoyed what I’ve read by Ehrman, but haven’t read any of his more scholarly books. I’m planning to read Jesus Interrupted and then maybe some of his heavier stuff. Thanks for the review.
Fans of Ehrman (Ehrmanians? Ehrmaniacs?) will recognize a lot of this material.
Anyone who’s read more than one or two of Ehrman’s books know what this is like. He does this fairly reliably across all of his newer books, and sometimes it gets pretty repetitive. I assume that he figures any book could be someone’s first one, but when his citations point back to previous books he’s written and you have to go back to those books to find the original citations he used, it gets somewhat annoying. OTOH, he’s a very accessible writer, so that helps me at least get over this trend in his recent books.
The result is like watching a man try to sell a shirt that he’s already described as unfashionable … He explains why you shouldn’t use the Bible as the literal word of God, but he doesn’t explain how you should use it. He offers no guidelines for interpretation or discernment.
I haven’t read it yet, but I’m fairly certain that he wrote that chapter as a defense from the people who are accusing him of attempting to destroy Christianity with his books. Considering he was a liberal Christian for many years, he probably thought he could get back into that mindset and write about what it was like for him. But as any of us who went through a similar path to atheism know, you can’t just put yourself back into the mind of a believer once you’ve stopped believing. You feel like an idiot when you try.
He probably shouldn’t have written that chapter at all, considering that the man is at this point a historian, not a theologian or a liberal apologist for Christianity. But on the other hand, I wouldn’t be surprised that he didn’t trust that a liberal apologist or a theologian would have written something that he could have put his name on and been happy to have in his book – considering his reasons for his atheism as outlined in “God’s Problem”, I imagine he’d feel the need to pick apart the very defense he’d asked them to wrote.
I would be interested in reading this chapter. I have never understood the religious moderate’s perspective, except that it has been explained by some (Dennet? Dawkins?) as a compartmentalization of the mind. Instead of taking the Bible literally they apparently take it as a representation of “mythological truth”.
Should we?
Should we?
Worked for rolling papers back in the day ;-)
I was introduced to Erhman with “Misquoting Jesus” and subsequent viewing of a few debates. (McGrath & Criag), I felt it significant, his analysis of the potential manipulation of Biblical Text and the canonizing process in general.
Reference to interpretations adjusted to satisfy critical doctrinal issues, to retain control or wrest control was what the Nicene council was all about. Actually some contention regarding the interprtation of the Trinity began in the early 4th century and continued for some 70 years.
It’s interesting as well, recently a controversy arose, the publishing house Zondervan, which has the copyright to the NIV, printed a new translation with 58 significant verse changes. These were deemed; offensive, diluted or inaccurately portrayed the authors intent, by Christian denominations in general. If it can be done today, in full view, amid vorciferous criticism what may have occurred in a cloistered monks room?
All that being said I do not separate God form the Bible nor the Bible from God. I do not consider it to be an answer to science but rather additional evidence of the continuity of God’s unending Grace. Erhman’s conjecture rambles on about conspiracy and reasons may abound. The lack of foundation for conspiracy rather than speculative conjecture. Besides the consistancy within the Bible ( Iknow this really gets all of you) remains.
But such are the arguments that further divde rather than attempt reconcilliation. “Either join my tribe or you are lost forever!”
The Free thinking tribe grows in numbers currently, the belief in trashing the Bible, and exemplifying God’s inadequacy seemingly lends itself to a better life and a better world. Personally I think not!
However, religious hierarchy has certainly demonstrated inadequacy maintaining order or providing leadership, even within their limited denominations. So loss of the R.R. political power is certainly not something I lose sleep over. Perhaps absent the lime light, attention given to acceptance of others, something beyond the scope of current comprehension, will allow for reflective dialogue and beneficial discussion.
The questions posed and the dialogue on this site continue to provide benefit and create the need for reflection and study.
Faith shaken but undeterred
The three books of The Lord of the Rings are also very consistent. What do you conclude from that?
What would make you doubt, really?
Given the span of centurys encompassed, the myriad of situations and conditions described. Writers with different backgrounds, not knowing their letters would be compiled as such, write consistently of God’s overwhelming power. Foretell future events. fear God’s indignation and wrath at transgression. Credit Him with creation. (irregardless of how old the our universe). Pray to him for strength, wisdom and guidance. Just to name a few. I find the historacity revealed in the Old Testament remarkably consistent with what historians discovered or confirmed of those time. How was it the Babylon fell? And when did that happen? And who allowed the Jews to return, with their gold and silver to rebuild a temple? Where? In Jerasalem. Only to have it destroyed as predicted aound 70 a.d.
The references between verses is extraordinary. Ackowledgement of how learned the new testament writers were of the old testament oral teachings.
The manner in which scrolls were copied, the attention to detail and the ritual involved, lends credence to the reverence and importance of a scibe’s endeavors.
The ancient Hebrews and new testament writers began a recorded history for the entire scope of civilization to scrutinize disassemble and quote out of context, if that be their choice. What our generation is attempting is no different than generations gone before and the Bible consistently remains defensible.
Considering we don’t have copies of ANY of the original texts of the bible from when they were written (we don’t even have conclusive proof as to what language they were written in…!), how do we know they foretold anything? It’s entirely possible sections that describe the fall of Jerusalem were written after its fall (or revised to include it). The earliest copies of some scriptural texts we have is from nearly four centuries after Christ’s supposed death (and these are recently unearthed copies); the copies that provided the foundation for the King James version, upon which most English-speaking readers rely, were from centuries after that. But of course, we’re told that we must believe it because the book tells us to (notwithstanding that Islam, Mormonism, Scientology, etc – which most evangelicals scoff at – also have the same M.O.) We’re told believe in Christianity over these others because of, what, provenance? (After all, the Bible is hardly alone in foretelling future events…)
I knew you were going to say that.
I suppose you’re equally impressed and struck by awe now, because what the bible does is no different: it tells you afterwards that things were foretold beforehand. No, better still, it interprets events in such a way that makes them look like in agreement with earlier predictions. It is quite possible, though, that if things would have had a different course, they would also be found to be a fulfilment of the prophecies.
Where it comes to real predictions for current or future events (e.g. Apocalypse) the bible has so far proven to be an epic fail.
On a somewhat related note: I once read a book (maybe it was “More Than a Carpenter”) that talked about how there were a lot of prophecies about Jesus in the Old Testament. One of the arguments for Christianity was that there were so many and the odds of them all occurring were so small that the Bible just had to be true!!
But some of the prophecies were pretty weak. I think they were considering every mention of a tree to be a prophecy of the crucifixtion of the J-Man.
And in all seriousness, what would be wrong with using Biblical scholarship to disprove Christianity? If you can dish it out, you should be able to take it.
Remember what dr. R. is saying: Jesus “fulfilled” some of those profecies “after” his dead, I mean, according to the NT he fulfilled those profecies, but we don’t have any other proofs that he did so. It may be very pausible that the NT adjusted Jesus life to those profecies, in order to prove his “holiness”
Moreover, Jews were expecting a Messiah and they didn’t see him in Jesus. Why, if he had fulfilled the profecies? It would have been a good proof… Instead of that, Christianism grew in foreign countries
Do you even know how the thing you call the Bible was assembled? Do you know anything of the councils of Trent and Nicea and the controversies which led to the canonization of the Bible?
Although without any formal religious scholarship I am familiar with the basic interactions of the Councils of Nicea and the somewhat abortive Councils of Trent some 1200 years later.
To give a poor lay persons perspective in Nicea, Constantine though he personally thought it was an extravagance to argue about Religious issues, got involved tried to instill peace between what was considered blasphemy from the Arians, specifically regarding issues of the trinity. While simultaneously disregarding practices by Donatists in Northern Africa. ( First case of religious Policies and Gov?). Although there was a vote, some say Constantine stacked the deck at any rate the Arians lost but the controversy continued for another 60 years after Constantine’s death and the division of the empire between his two sons.
We could go into great detail I love the early History. It’s so jacked up! I can see why folks are so disillusioned! Man’s corruption shows itself continuously. Man’s doctrine has been dividing the words of Christ for centuies. None of that devalues the reality of God for me. Christians undermining the message and reality of God? No different than a free thinker undermining the word of God.
Council of Nicea set the State and Church on a synergestic course that didnt really come to a head until Charlamangeat the end of the 1st century. When a popes finally came to the conclusion he was greater than the emperor! Ordained by God as it were, not serving at the behest of a mere mortal man.
As far as the council of Trent? Erasmus could have been the great compromiser or mediator. Martin Luther? one of the reasons he wrote so hatefully of the Jews was his failure to win their support of His Reformation. Did the man shed printed light on the word of God? Absolutly! Did he do it at the expense of an entire Religion I would have to say yes as well.
I guess my point in all this! We have never been close to perfect, never will be. But in spite of all we have done to each other and in spite of what we do to the word, in the name of God and for God rightly and wrongly. He endures! His Love endured the cross, His love sustains.
“He endures”
The idea of love also endures, though it may be pretty modern
The idea of justice endures.
The lust for power also endures.
Killing, raping, letting people starve also endures
War endures all along our history
Disease and death endures…
Oops, sorry, I forgot, good things are because of god and bad things are because of us, humans, and the fall, and freewill.
There are a lot of things that have been with us for all our history. Instead, Abrahamic God has been with us for a pretty shorter time, in a pretty little region, only for a part of the population. And you don’t have any proof of his existence, nor that “He endures” anything. I don’t see you worshiping disease because endures… so what’s exactly your point?
True, doubts, pain ,suffering, injustice, evil and love continue to exist. But do they endure, can they exist absent a cause?
Is it the contention, evil created the entity evil, fully capable of maintaining it’s own existence? Obviously not. Then is it through the physical and pshycological evolution of man, for the benefit of the species, evil should exist naturally?
Back to your question. My point? God, ( if there is a God) seemingly continues to exist (endure) and experience (enduring) the emotion filled world which man endures.
“Can they exist absent a cause?”
Can your God exist absent a cause? Wich is God’s cause?
In this case, “love” and “evil” are our definitions to classify natural (yeah, evolved) behaviours. Every action you can say “it’s evil” you can see it in other animals. And they don’t have a “spirit” neither an original sin (yep, I know, they were all vegetarians before the fall; it’s a pity lots of those animals are older than humanity, isn’t it?). So morality is only the rules we have accepted to live in community. And those rules were created -by us, humans- to avoid some natural behaviours; why we should do rules to avoid things that we don’t do?
“evil should exist naturally?”
Of course not. Evil was created by God, as everything else. What was his point in creating it? We are not able to understand it \sarcasm off
Evil doesn’t exists objectively. It doesn’t exists naturally at all. As I’ve said, you classify our behaviours between “good” and “bad”. That’s the birth of “evil”: his definition.
“My point? God, ( if there is a God) seemingly continues to exist (endure) and experience (enduring) the emotion filled world which man endures.”
But you don’t have any evidence of your God, or any God at all, existing neither now, neither before. You don’t have even a proof that your “experience” is the same -or close to- the experience of your neighbour, as you can’t compare them. You don’t have any proof of your experience being significatively different from that of a muslim, though both of you know you are right and the other one is wrong.
That’s why “feelings” aren’t accepted as scientific -nor logical- proves itselves
“Man’s doctrine has been dividing the words of Christ for centuies. None of that devalues the reality of God for me.”
So who are you? I presume you are not a man but a woman.
“I guess my point in all this! We have never been close to perfect, never will be. But in spite of all we have done to each other and in spite of what we do to the word, in the name of God and for God rightly and wrongly. He endures! His Love endured the cross, His love sustains.”
Good for you, “woman timothy mark” enjoying the near perfect bloody love of ancient roman crucifixion, oh! how you love Him!”
Strange way to put, it but I think you are accurate to a degree. There are those that find love and beauty, in courage, valor, duty in the ultimate sacrifice of one’s own life to save another.
Presume what you will. I sense a tone of inferred demotion in your statement. Would you then devalue womenhood in removing me from the ranks of man. Is a question of my ethnicity to follow? Surely a free thinker would demonstrate more respect than imagining himself so superior and conspicuously capable of rendering someone to a presumed reduced level of human existence.
Oooh….ad hominem attacks. Nice.
You can always tell when an augment is lost when the personal attacks begin.
What would make me doubt? Simply understanding the nature of how we come to know what we know! Emperically (through our senses) and combined with reflection. We are all a product of our cultural environments. Ideas, concepts or information I absorbed, I took for granted because of the faith and trust I had in the individuals sharing their knowledge. This in time became the tested qualitative information representing the formulation for some of my beliefs. When those ideas are rationally challenged I wish to determine how firm, is the fondation upon which I stand. It does me little good to avoid that which would cause doubt, for answering those doubts makes me stronger. Expectation that answers are there to be discovered and shared come with the exercise.
A few days ago there was a post on this site stating and I will paraphrase “no one ever came to an awareness or acceptance of God rationally” I would contend that St Augustine stands in great contrast to such a statement. He adopted a famous motto” I believe in order to understand” But notes the difference between faith and credulity. ” I can not believe something that is manifestly irrational” During the early stages of his philosophical pursuit of truth he rejected Christianity, he went through a time embracing “Skepticis ” among other philosophies before converting to Christianity at the age of 32. Rational and analytical a foremost thinker considered the “Doctor of Grace”.
Besides the consistancy within the Bible ( Iknow this really gets all of you) remains.
If you know that it gets everybody when you lie about the bible being consistent, why keep doing it? Isn’t that unethical?
First I apologize, it was a presumption to imply or infer consistency of the Bible “gets” anyone or everyone also poor manners to intentionally antagonize. I stand corrected thank-you.
In my reading today I came across a quote ” The Hebrew language upon which both Judaism and Christianity depend is endlessly imprecise and unclear, there is an openness to the language because it lacks connecting words. It points and opens and suggests but it does not conclude and define.”
Some could say the Bible is consistent in its inconsistency!
So if this stuff is important — and I’d imagine if you believe in eternal happiness or eternal suffering, it is important — why not learn Aramaic/Greek/Hebrew/etc and read the originals? Why not follow it to the letter?
Which brings us full circle.
Would that were I younger, endeavor to accomplish, just what you suggest. In the meantime I will be forced to rely on experts. A tiny bit of exposure to intrepretation of Greek actually lead to reading Erhman’s book. It’s painful to realize, interpretation of the Bible and men’s selfish desire to enforce their “assumed” position of correctness, represent constant sources of the strife and its resulting carnage against humanity.
It’s perplexing to me how individuals purporting themselves as a servants of God can tell someone “God’s eternal love is for us all,” one day, and the next, picket with a sign stating “God hates Gays”. Or that a recognized church leader would ask his followers to pray for the death of a supreme court justice because of a legal position. How is it man fails to recognize the contradictory nature of our personal interpretations and how do we continually justify them with such blind self indulgence?
The teaching and history of God’s love and desire for humanity to live as he would have us live is difficult to derive from what I believe is, inspired, compiled writings. My contention, difficult, not impossible! Many individuals share, the reality of their perception, based on Biblical inconsistancy, renders potential faith in a loving God null and void. However the Word never stands alone as evidence, certainly as one of the pillars united in the structure of God’s revelation but hardly independent.
Individuals choose the battles in attempting to weaken and hopefully eventually destroy the concept of God with concerted, concentrated effort on perceived vulnerability. Expertise is formed and rhetoric developed whether it be Erhman’s in Bibical interpretation or Flew’s in philosophy, (oops poor example) or Sagan’s in Cosmology. A foundation for disbelief is formulated, not always by observing the entirety of God’s creation but by attempting to disassociate one aspect of our world’s extraordinary magnificence from another.
Therefore with faith or belief, potentially or conceivably undermined from an initial aspect, a different opinion is capable of being adopted and the obligation to defend follows. The desire of reinforcements or recruitment to add justification and significance to such a decision follows a natural progression in human behavior. A following may even be created with accompaning appreciation and resulting accolades. What initiatially began with self examination becomes a cause celeb, pretty heady stuff.,
Redoubts in bulworks are formed with time after thoughtful analysis provokes successful condemnation of logical concepts for anything supernatural. Those bulwarks eventually have new pillars of conviction erected upon them and, low and behold, it becomes the house the Athiest built.
Some gain or provide access and a means to reach thousands. People are invited to find comfort, acceptance love and comraderie. All the while, being introduced to this old philosophy with fresh verve. Momentum builds and fervor grows in a technological superior setting exemplifying man’s self sufficiency. Inferring this can be a life changing sustainable transformation never susceptible to intraspective examination is exhilerating, provacative, stimulating rush.
However something might occur on the way the Forum, because there exists interesting aspects regarding momentum. It has a couple of those cause and effect issues. One being sustainability. For once the building stops, when excitement wanes and doubts arise a resurrected hope surfaces. What could be contained within such hope? Foundations of disbelief begin to erode and pillars come under attack. Not only from argument or debate because sometimes or more often the source is life, composed with its complex myriad of joys and sorrows.
It’s our nature, questioning the unknowable, that makes our convictions vulnerable.
We forever remain susceptable to the syndrome of acceptingHis loving heart. A challenge or a blessing in the form of revelation exists in the future which will confront, confound and provide evidence of God’s Wisdom and Grace in giving us freewill.
In the mean time rage on debate!
So many words to say “you are all wrong” and “you will see on the judgement day”…
Again, without giving any evidence.
My question now is… Why exactly your God?
(and not evangelical, catholic, jewish, ortodox, islamic… God)
That would be your perception, incorrect and far removed from my intent, but your reality none the less. So too many words. Lo siento. The consuming public does seem more prone to desire sensational headline and miniscule soundbite. Realitivism is demand for proof and substantiation, what naturalists and evolutionary proponents prefer seemingly demands a greater degree of accountability whatever the topic whatever the source. But do they demand it only when it suits their need or confirms their position?
My question now is… Why exactly your God?
What a great question, I’ll give two reasons, #1. The level of following Christ developed in life through teachings and miracles (Magic Tricks!). #2. the impact on civilization, of the empty tomb, after his death.
“That would be your perception, incorrect and far removed from my intent, but your reality none the less”
If I have missed any relevant argument in your post, I beg you to explain it to me.
” So too many words. Lo siento. The consuming public does seem more prone to desire sensational headline and miniscule soundbite”
Nope. I’ve been asking you for arguments. If you’d rather do poetry, is your choice, of course, but then what’s the point in arguing?
“But do they demand it only when it suits their need or confirms their position?”
No.
Oops, that was a rethorical question? Do you think it is less a lie if you put a question mark in the end?
“F:My question now is… Why exactly your God?
“TM: What a great question, I’ll give two reasons, #1. The level of following Christ developed in life through teachings and miracles (Magic Tricks!). #2. the impact on civilization, of the empty tomb, after his death.”
Thank you Timothy. I acknowledge here your effort to answer my question -wich I may don’t have any right to require, of course.
These indeed are “reasons”. The problem would be:
#1.1 We don’t have any evidence of those magic tricks.
You don’t believe that Orpheus went to the Hades to rescue EurÃdice neither he taught us medicine, writing and agriculture. You don’t believe that Prometheus stole the fire for us, even if his myth has been treated by ancient sources.You don’t believe the claims about “miracles” nowadays, when they don’t fit your religion. Why then, the magic tricks writen by someone 2000 years ago?
#1.2 “Through teachings”. Are Jesus teachings so different -and better- than the others? Don’t think so if you don’t consider the “teachings” -without any proof- about Yahve. In fact, if you are a catholic you are more a follower of Paul’s teachings than Jesus’s teachings.
Had he more followers than Mahomma, Gandhi or even the founder of “Scientology”, in his life?
#2 “the impact on civilization, of the empty tomb, after his death”
So? The impact of Mahomma is still great “on civilization”. The impact of roman empire is greater. The teachings -and impact- of Plato in our culture is greater; he even impacted in “Jesus” teachings. I don’t see you worshiping Plato.
I think you may be a Jesus follower only because of society
Re: Timothy Mark: What consistency of the Bible? It is as inconsistent in style, tone and content as any other collection of short fiction I have ever read!
I like that short fiction! Beginning with Genesis and ending where? Which part? Individuals rail against God’s inhumanity to man and then claim it to be fiction hence it never occurred.Or did it? Perhaps you should huddle and break out the playbook or script. Actually, I’m just kidding, people can have lots of different reasons for disbelieving, some are well read and some just parrot what they hear and therefore think they know.
I could say I know the definitive meaning of every chapter and verse and you all could have a field day exposing mistakes. So as I come upon questions or read statements regarding Biblical Translation which I sense are purposfully taken out of context, I endeavor to do my research and choose if or how to respond. I am mindful there exists within this site the learned minds of many who have studied more than I and have chosen to exercise their free will as God intended they should.
Without, pretense, rancor or contempt, I have chosen to, on occasion, offer the consistancy of God love’s existing for each of us completely and equally.
“the consistancy of God love’s existing for each of us completely and equally.”
You know, except for all of the people that god murdered horribly in the bible, or the ones he plans to burn for eternity. Other than them, totally consistent love equally.
Also, you use the word “irregardless”. You shouldn’t. Since it’s not a word.
When I was a child, my parents persuaded me not to swear not by saying that certain words were forbidden to say, rather, that certain words made you sound less intelligent than you were. I believe irregardless is one of those “words”. Unfortunately, it’s becoming an official word specifically because of its constant misuse. I wonder if “inflammable” started this way…?
As I understand it, “inflammable” is the correct original word for “able to catch fire” (think “inflame”). But people widely misinterpreted “inflammable” to mean “fireproof”, so the word “flammable” was invented and put into use.
Strunk and White (Elements of Style) say:
“Irregardless” is still not a word. Odd amalgam of “regardless” and “irrespective” and a double negative to boot.
I use the word “irrespective” as often as possible.
Oops…copy/paste issues (speaking of sounding less intelligent…)
Also, you use the word “irregardlessâ€. You shouldn’t. Since it’s not a word.
Linguistic prescriptivism. Ugh.
If a person utters some arrangement of syllables, and you understand what is being conveyed, then by golly it’s a word. Even if that arrangement of syllables is a neologism or originated as a spoonerism or is a portmanteau. Even if it is superfluous because another word already exists that you feel encompasses the conveyed concept sufficiently. Even if the language actually spoken by people is different from the one found in textbooks and classrooms and that bothers you.
It’s still a word.
Fo shizzle my elemenopizzle…
LOL.
Okay, but it is a stylistically poor word in my subjective interpretation :)
Give it twenty years. When all the kiddies are saying it, even the bright ones, the battle will be over, and you and I, the ones who think the word sounds hideous and contrived, will be true linguistic fossils. Yay! :)
:(
Doesn’t change the fact that it sounds stupid.
Not that TM needed much help, there.
On that we agree. The word, that is, not TM. (To be honest I didn’t read all he wrote, so don’t feel qualified to make a determination there.)
Ahmost mist one. Tanks for the observation. Had I poofed the text moore touroly I wood have fitzed it, made it rite, correctly altered it quickly right away as soon as I saw and done it over, again, cause I hate redumbdancy two.
Now about irreducible complexity.
“Angel fly cause they take themselves lightly”, Quoting Razor Ralph
The problem with this lengthy and unforgiving academic exercise is that the author tries too hard to use logic, but then violates his own terms of engagement. For example, he says most earnestly and matter-of-factly that we know very little of the historical Jesus and that in itself is a problem. But later in the same text, the author emphatically pronounces that Jesus did not join any of the groups of Jews that were vying each other at the time of his life. How do we know that for sure? If we know little to nothing of Jesus’ life, how do we in fact, KNOW that he didn’t belong to one group or another. The illogic is transparent and pervasive. Yes, we are sufficiently razzle dazzled by his herculean efforts to translate, quantify, objectify, evaluate, and describe pieces of literature that may or may not be the inerrant word of God. My question is— do we really have any other outcome to this man’s story than one of disbelief and cold disregard for what began as a passion and became a burden to him? Come on! Going to Princeton Seminary (and anywhere in New England these days) was bound to conflict with Moody Bible Institute’s teaching about the Bible, especially the Gospels.
But there is a deeper flaw than the uneven use of logic and reason in making smaller points in the book. The author completely discounts that Christianity is not an academic exercise, but rather an experiential one. That Jesus’ ministry and faith in him cannot be examined and observed like a specimen under a microscope. But that the miracle of Jesus is that God’s vehicle is NOT logical, empirical or even academic. This faith may not make sense, but it works because it just does–and is founded in the breast of each person individually through their own experience.
Therefore pastors do not necessarily have to open a huge can of worms that are bound to divide and dissolve the espirit de corps found sometimes difficultly in congregations. There is enough doubt to any religion to fan the flames of agnosticism anywhere, no matter how gifted the pastor might be. Rather, instead to look beyond those things we cannot and do not understand because of our human limitations, and simply look for those larger evidences of the Holy Spirit within each Christian’s lived experience and how they feel about that experience rather than the testing the Christian on whether a passage was from M, L, or Q sources.
I can’t believe I bought this book to read as inspiration during Holy Week. What a blatant mistake that’s been. And by the way, sir, least you academics ever lose sight of it— there are many disciplines who study theology in the course of their preparation–not just the clergy. And believe it or not, most of us in the real world have seen a few documentaries on the Historical Jesus and the evidence or lack of it that exists. I think all clergy are so paternalistic and elitist in that regard! Yes, many of us have done comparative theology, read the Bible horizontally and caught the subtle and sometimes glaring differences and seeming discrepancies. And although mere mortals sometimes fabricate, change their stories, repeat or copy inaccuracies, and are many times poor witnesses, it is hardly shocking to find such things in the Bible as ancient text. Given the levels of formal education available to people of Judea at the time of Christ, the availability of writing supplies, the possibility that writing might bring a person political grief, no matter what religious view one held, the friction between the Jewish people and their empire masters, the Romans added to the everyday human frailties and short comings, I am amazed that even the name of Jesus has been preserved, let alone his story. The fact that this man’s story has achieved historical and personal significance in even one life is amazing–given the geographical, cultural, and time barrier factors. The author’s cynicism becomes his bias. Thankfully, I am able to dismiss both. He knows not what he does.
As a nurse, I have seen things that I cannot describe let alone recreate scientifically for empirical study. These things may or may not be physical or they might possibly be supernatural. But I know what I’ve experienced, when, and the circumstances. These events are revelations to me about the essence of God. The transcend knowledge and language. These experiences are the stuff of faith. The author, living in a cloistered world of words cannot possibly know what I know.
And perhaps that is exactly why the God of the universe chose to send a man named Jesus to an obscure place in Judea to die a horrible death—so that the least of his people—a person like me—can understand not just the world around her, but the very nature of God by just having that one on one spirit to spirit relationship that another cannot ever share.
*yawn*
tl;dr
No one cares.
Ehrman’s scholastic view of the New Testament should be taken by all readers as a clear sign that indeed the Bible should be taken more seriously and in depth. He clearly shows us in all his literatures that there are a lot of discrepancies and errors but these errors were caused mainly by individual biases, influences and interpretations of that time and era of the writer itself. I think whether deliberate or not Ehrman is right to point the reader in the direction of understanding why these discrepancies were made and or committed, leaving it open ended for us to analyze more the scriptures, its true meaning and message left for us to discern and understand.
More work for understanding the Bible should be done, but this would be more meaningful and progressively positive if one should do it with an open mind.
If we indeed would like to know and continue to be inspired of what the Bible teaches or contains, we should put together all our efforts to help more people understand this influential book and hope that the time may come when we can understand the true teachings from scriptures of the Old Testament to Jesus’ New Testament with the help of scholars like Ehrman.
You could gain as much academic credibility studying any other historical work of fiction. I choose the collected works of Arthur Conan Doyle.
Historical scholarship will never authenticate the supernatural claims. Without those claims we wouldn’t be writing this thread.
timothy mark:
As a nurse – I haven’t ever seen anything that suggest the existence of a supernatural. TESTIFY!
I’m always intrigued when believers state they have witnessed the supernatural. I was going to ask timothy mark to describe in detail these experiences of his until I reread and saw that he claims to be unable to do so and yet lets them verify his beliefs.
Daniel– This would be a good question of the day: Have you ever observed a miracle?
I take the view that there is evidence of consciousness beyond death through mediums and other sources. We can’t say much categorically but we do observe that people who were loving and kind in life seem to be in a good ‘place’. People were vindictive, selfish and nasty often seem to be ‘earthbound.’ It seems not to be a permanent state. What this does indicate is that the evangelical belief that we have to ‘believe’ a theological doctrine to be ‘saved’-is just plain wrong.
In much of Northern Europe church-going is down to 5-10% compared to 40% -ish in the US. Yet if we look at measures of equality-in income, access to good education and health care-, levels of teenage pregnancy, crime and mental illness we find it compares well with the US.
I think that says something about the need for ‘old fashioned religion’ to sustain morality. And I do believe in a God and an ultimate moral order to the Universe.
Mediums? Seriously? As in people like John Edwards and Sylvia Brown?!
HA!
But really, google the term “cold reading” to see how those “mediums” are doing it. Every. Single. One. of them uses that technique when “speaking to the dead”. Every single “medium” is a fraud, plain and simple.
People like Eileen Garrett, Leonore Piper and Mrs Leonard several generations ago were investigated by members of the Societies for Psychical Research, both British and American and convinced them. In modern times we have Dr Gary Schwartz at the University of Arizona who conducted experiments where the medium was unable to see or hear the sitter or subject. Professional cold readers are unable to replicate.
You can, of course, interpret evidence differently but it is evidence not just assertion which is all the Evangelicals can offer. The resurrection is not good evidence. also, Coffeejedi, you can’t possibly have investigated all mediums so your opinion is just that, an opinion. Actually, more of a prejudice.
Quantum physics is offering possible explanations of these phenomena so the jury is still out. In the world of 20th century physics there was only matter and energy. No room for ‘spiritual forces’ there. But knowledge is moving on. Keep an open mind-who knows? Perhaps the Force will catch up with you?
As a student of physics, I have seen absolutely no evidence that claims quantum mechanics offers any evidence for these phenomena. And I can’t recall ever hearing of any evidence offered up by evangelicals that would be considered evidence by any competent scientist; merely “evidence” that screams: I don’t have a better explanation, therefore it must be.
in reply to Paul, I am the former Chairman of an association in the West of England which puts on talks for counsellors and psychotherapists. Some of our speakers are from a transpersonal background and these notions are increasingly discussed. One book that is often quoted is the “The Field” by Lynne McTaggart. There are many sources in there but a quick trawl of the web will give more. David Bohm, the physicist is often quoted. Bohm had long conversations with Krishnamurti. Dean Radin is another writer in this area but I have not read him.
Of course, these views are disputed but many better minds than mine think they can be profitably considered.
“Quantum physics is offering possible explanations of these phenomena so the jury is still out. In the world of 20th century physics there was only matter and energy. No room for ‘spiritual forces’ there. But knowledge is moving on. Keep an open mind-who knows? Perhaps the Force will catch up with you?”
What if [and I'm no evangelical, ex Christian as far as traditional, Spiritualist/along Native Indian beliefs/feminine sacred, and some scriptures but don't believe it's THE word of God etc but man's interpretation/manipulation/political agenda's combined, through out history, dialectics of many things perceived as God via man's mind--women need not even apply here Abrahamic religions] Anyhoo,
what IF, matter and energy have a conscious state that WE are no aware of? I will use some scripture that goes along with numerous other ancient beliefs as well as Wiccan, [ancient not the pop culture type] to pose some other alternative ways of thinking…ancient texts say God is consuming fire, numerous texts in OT about water, several regarding the energy/form of earth [esp in feminine], then there are the aspects of our body, meaning, our body has similarities with numerous geological shapes and functions of earth, we know when we die we compose/are eaten [food cycle], so that is proven, but we also know we consist of Elements [earth], Water [without we can't live], plasma, salt, breasts look like hills with a valley [not trying to be funny here, bear with me], hair on our arms if you look at it in light/when wet looks like wheat fields and sometimes those with snow, the womb entry looks like caves such as in South America/Mexico with walls that yes look and are shaped like caverns [underground], Now as to the inside,
we have parts that look like worms [intestines], certain sea animals, our veins [that Do send electrical pulses] look like both trees And electricity, etc etc etc…I could write pages of this., Anyway, now as to Space,
we know we have gases, water, and are matter, we know that certain things change matter, which All of what I just mentioned are mentioned in scripture texts to their understanding of them at That time or epoch Plus numerous other belief systems from ancient Mesopotamia to Mayan to Peru, etc., and numerous in Bible, even in NT…along with a dialectic of government man’s systems that evolved, showed failure, and a Repeat cycle [that expands with time, why yes prophecies do repeat themselves, and expand, history does this],
we know that in the South Pacific the volcanoes can destroy one island while creating another, carrying seed, birds and some small amphibians/reptiles…just like the seasons and so forth, there are cycles, that repeat…and expand. Matter changes form [interestingly Jesus is mentioned as 'visitation' in NT and also in changing form, several times after resurrection, these beliefs go back to Egypt but also in other religions including those that were in no way even near the same continent at that time, one interesting aspect],
I would conclude then, that ancient man due to how one had to live with environment and depend on what they say to survive saw meanings that we today neglect due to our disconnect, they may have mis-interpreted those meanings but they obviously had some deep understanding of, which they assumed to be spirits or God, etc., or gods. These evolved into organized systems and politics, with power in relation to natural events and their interpretation of…no way does this Disprove gods or God but helps us to understand at least from their lens, somewhat. [I don't think we can Truly understand even with interpretations of ancient language, and maybe we are not supposed to], in All systems we know there is a development, stagnation depending [esp on where and what type of physical geological environment they lived in/and types of animals they observed and Their tribal patterns/behaviors] and in that, matter changes, form…
but often remains the same, even repeats itself, expands. IF we, energy and matter are a piece of the larger puzzle, then we can’t say there is NO god or is a God, we can say however, that there are patterns, forms, that in the micro of things [from the complex structure of cells] to the mini-micro [micro organisms, animals we can't see with naked eye], macro and so forth,
there are consistencies, in Space those consistencies from what we do know [much in theory] also change form, repeat and expand…colors exist, gases, water [well a type of water], and forms of order that balance just like in our ecology.
For years we believed that animals did not feel nor relate, we are finding however that animals can feel, we know elephants can paint, parrots can decipher some meanings of phrases [Greys], and here’s what IS interesting,
whales today, who eat sharks, [Orca] are also now, eating stingrays, something they don’t normally do…what Does eat stingrays? Sharks,
matter changes form…I’m no expert, by any means, but I wonder, if maybe we concentrate too much on variables and don’t look at the patterns of consistency that reveal similarities that could yes, open the possibility that energy doesn’t die, takes on a different form, and that possibly, it has a consciousness…WE may not think that because of brain differences/patterns etc but how we know for sure? We don’t,
we can only assume. AS for the Bible, I have some strange theories on that, that most immediately reject [sad, really not to even consider possibility] and one of those theories is, that the parables and stories, written Yes by men far later, were in fact numerous stories of many peoples of various beliefs, who were Slaves, because there are numerous commonalities, such as, in Rev, the marks in forehead, in Rome/Jerusalem occupation it was common that slaves had marks branded in their foreheads, if they ran away they were hunted down and those marks told who they belonged to, Why the Romans did those marks. There are numerous other stories/parables, such as Jesus saying, if your hand offends thee cut it off, better to be without hand than in hell with whole body–fact, in slavery/Rome, it was usual that masters cut off the hands for slightest offenses, IF Christianity was a type of revolt through martyrdom [slaves suicide = money lost to Rome], and I believe it WAS, and the Romans later got smart to this and Used this to later control the slave masses, but that would not make the parables false, but anyway, hell would refer to crucifixion. It was noted that slaves, the educated ones with skills were often used as trustees over other slaves, hence the term master…IF numerous slaves [as they were separated on the bloc when sold] who had no hope other than death, and historically the conditions were THAT horrid, I did research, then it would be subversive as well as hopeful, at least in keeping mental sanity, in revolting the only way they could, through a very clever disguise of spiritual love, mingling Judaism beliefs with Persian and Pagan, due to the mix of slaves in the Roman families [and many Jewish who sold out to Romans, where I think the story of Judas comes from, betraying another slave to be crucified FOR his redemption of silver which was HOW slaves redeemed themselves under Roman occupation and skilled slaves Could do this], anyhow it would be clever to disguise a martyrdom revolt [and in so crippling the slave economy of Rome] through a religion of love, under a teaching of a master [or several] and call it Jes-US, Jews-Us, Jes/mix of Jews/Gentiles and US,
and possibly there was a true Jesus, I tend to believe there was, I don’t count out a visitation, [laughable I know but I don't count it out, many claim aliens and ufos, and there are drawn accounts in ancient Sumerian stones, those forms btw Changed matter and form, who knows, what I am saying] but Even if not,
it Would give explanations as to many of the beliefs…and why they were powerful and not only that, were So powerful in bringing about a Consciousness of human dignity among slaves, that later, the powers to be, used those same beliefs knowing who Well they worked, for their own purposes.
If this be the case [if my theory is true] then the spiritual would be, the love of humans, in the worst conditions, that Do live on, that resurrect, that in tyranny, fight to free future generations, in This way, they live on, maybe even in some physics form that we Don’t see, but they are there,
I know, sounds crazy, but I say, don’t say never, we simply do NOT know, but I do think, that we should at least, look at other possibilities and through other lens/angles, rather than be stuck in the variables to the whole equation.
Jane
Oh, in addition to, another Interesting thing I found in researching [I was deconstructing Bible and cognitive dissonance on some of the silence of Pauline Gospels to women, who I knew were mostly slaves in 40-70 A,D. in Rome, and in Jerusalem, and the whole submit/to masters yet at same time, be chaste and pure, that's what Got me started on serious questioning and research, the reality of the times of 64 A.D. did in no way correspond with the reality of women then, ONLY women [and their conditions were no better] of Roman Citizens familia laws would even be considered reconcilable to Pauline and Peter’s chapters to women, etc., Ephesus, etc., rapes [repeated] of Jewish slave women and other slave women of Roman families were so prevalent, that babies born of were killed, hidden [same in ancient Egypt babies found hidden in houses in archeological digs] and that coincides with the Roman Church later hunting women-pagan medicine Because of the abortions, peasants like slaves, babies were Property of the lord or slave master, caused by RAPES, those babies were property and abandoned/killed, through ancient herbals, etc., I found this by researching women-slavery-witch hunts [which occurred BTW in Herod's time, prior to Catholic Church, I believe they are related, because of the killing of what They deemed as Roman State property, babies by Rape [think Serbia rape camps ok if one thinks this isn't possible] OR babies by slaves who by law were later allowed to marry Only if master allowed, those babies were Still slaves, owned by the Roman family and so forth,
anyhow in doing research into This aspect, because so little if anything written by women, and only writings were of Catholic men’s depictions of female martyrs that Any woman who can Think can see, they are totally bogus, they don’t even Sound as if written by a woman’s perspective even for that epoch, anyway…that’s how I started seeing numerous codes or similarities with numerous parables and the life of slavery of that time period,
that and crucifixion, it Has been noted historically that several slaves crucified [and one Roman I believe who was a traitor, only Traitors of Roman citizenship could be crucified, crucifixion was only for slaves, therefore If there was a Jesus, he was either turned in as a traitor OR a slave--if slave could possibly Be why there IS no record of him historically, his being called master could well be, master slave of other slaves or Jewish Rabbi turned slave, it wasn't uncommon then], anyway, several reports though RARE of men who survived crucifixion, three days,
this would be, if you Think from a slave’s len’s in a time when there was an underground type of revolt to harm the economy of slave monies of Rome under the disguise of religion of love, love of one another-slaves [that would of course form Solidarity, among numerous of various spiritual beliefs under one household] the hope that some could survive crucifixion, those that Did survive, relayed how even in the most horrid of pain, there souls were preserved, that there was hope, That in of itself Would be a type of Defiance, to the indignity that was their main course, of the mistreatment by Romans, the guards, etc., I believe numerous stories of Jesus’s healing, was really about the Satan [Roman guards, demons, etc., various levels] of the horrors of mental insanity Caused by the torture of slavery, rapes, etc., that were passed around among the underground movement, to assist each other and to continue hope…and to give Courage, to embrace martyrdom as a form of resistance,
does it make sense what I am saying here? See we may not understand this, because we live in a relatively free society, but for those who there IS no hope, not only that but just surviving without going mentally insane [the man who cuts himself at the tomb, the woman who bled out which btw sounds Just like fistula, women raped in Congo today, bleed out], people who at one time were enemies, Jews who poor were sold out by those Jews who compromised under Roman occupation [before the final onslaught of 70 A.D.] and this is common, happened in colonization of Africa,
for slaves, to live being separated from family and children, to be repeatedly burned, limbs cut off, raped, beaten, stripped naked [all btw that Paul gave reference to], for them, to have a spiritual hope, if not in after life then of a chance that one day, the undermining of the Roman empire by martyrdom [like many in Islam today], would undercut the economy to the point of weakening them and making a future Revolution possible,
of course we don’t Get any writings until 300 A.D., by this time, the powers to be Know how the Christian slave sects managed to undermine and of course, took the appropriate action, some were even former slaves [possibly] and power corrupts [I haven't researched this far into 70 A.D. to 300 but I assume this is possible, it happened in French Revolution, the once poor oppressed became the oppressor, it happens, Anyhow,
my point is, there are some interesting similarities there, this doesn't prove there wasn't a Jesus or was, or there is no God or isn't, but it does, I think, give a whole other way of understanding the language, the sects of Christianity and why many were at odds with each other, and the course of history/development as a result of,
I haven't quite penned how Paul would fit into this, as it is said he wrote around 64 A.D., I have not found any evidence proving he didn't, or did, it's interesting that there are three men mentioned in the Jewish Talmud [which I don't concur with so much of that but it is some kind of historical reference, though how legit it is, I wouldn't bank too much on it just as much as I don't count Bible as accurate historical record] but what it does show me, is that there is a Consistent pattern, of the language of the oppressed, an underground type of movement, that appears to be in the open, etc., and that while historically we don’t have proof of actual documents AT that time,
the folk stories passed down, from slave to slave, could very well be, quite accurate in many of it’s forms, IF we had more knowledge of the life of slaves then and not just the given knowledge of the Roman Empire, in which I feel, would be like attempting to see all of the Soviet Society by the writings of Stalin and Soviet Pravda, if NOT for the underground books, testimonies of prisoners and later graves found,
we might never know ,the reality of so many and their lives in the former Iron Curtain. I’d be interested in knowing if Any have looked into any of these other lens in looking at this.
Sincerely,
Jane