Early Christianity

[B.H.]

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/t ... apion.html


ENA and others,

Read this scrap of a letter a bishop sent tp a church concerning the gospel of Peter. He was initially going to let them continue to use it just to avoid ill will, but only after he found out it taught something he thought was "heresy" did he throw a fit. The main point is that to me, the bishop didn't actually care if the gospel was really written by Peter. He was inclined to let them use it anyway as long as it didn't have any "heresy" in it.

[ena]

I'm not sure that this is a "dodge." As I understand it, the majority of the NT epistles were likely written by dictation to a scribe. Romans 16:22 even includes a greeting from the scribe who "wrote" the letter. Galatians 6:11 apparently contained a portion of Paul's own handwriting, as opposed to that of the scribe, which presumably comprised the rest of the document (only in the original version, of course).

The goal of many apologists is one of inerrancy. I don't believe that was something that God cared about or promoted. The problem is that when God approached man directly things did not work out well. We want a king! That did not work out well. Issuing a legal system did not work out well. The point of an errant Bible is at least your cannot use it like a legal system. You cannot use it for a pattern like the CoC tries to do. Nice dream but no go. I believe errancy is provable. I am not aware of anything that is critical to the message but there are somethings that it leaves you unable to do. It's brilliant in effect!

[ena]

Read this scrap of a letter a bishop sent tp a church concerning the gospel of Peter. He was initially going to let them continue to use it just to avoid ill will, but only after he found out it taught something he thought was "heresy" did he throw a fit. The main point is that to me, the bishop didn't actually care if the gospel was really written by Peter. He was inclined to let them use it anyway as long as it didn't have any "heresy" in it.

It was not made part the canon. There is a Wikipedia article on it. There was no agreement in the first century as to what was scripture or not. That is part of what makes CoC claims ridiculous. There are many writings not included. Even the ones that are are questionable. That is what many people don't understand.














]

[Lev]

I'm not sure that this is a "dodge." As I understand it, the majority of the NT epistles were likely written by dictation to a scribe. Romans 16:22 even includes a greeting from the scribe who "wrote" the letter. Galatians 6:11 apparently contained a portion of Paul's own handwriting, as opposed to that of the scribe, which presumably comprised the rest of the document (only in the original version, of course).

The goal of many apologists is one of inerrancy. I don't believe that was something that God cared about or promoted. The problem is that when God approached man directly things did not work out well. We want a king! That did not work out well. Issuing a legal system did not work out well. The point of an errant Bible is at least your cannot use it like a legal system. You cannot use it for a pattern like the CoC tries to do. Nice dream but no go. I believe errancy is provable. I am not aware of anything that is critical to the message but there are somethings that it leaves you unable to do. It's brilliant in effect!

Right, but the explanation that scribes physically wrote down what was dictated to them by illiterate ('unlettered') apostles still doesn't seem like a 'dodge' to me. It also would support the 'astonishment' shared by those who heard these uneducated people speaking in lots of different languages at Pentecost. Whether the Bible is inerrant or not, it could still have been dictated to scribes by illiterate people.

Lev

[ena]

Right, but the explanation that scribes physically wrote down what was dictated to them by illiterate ('unlettered') apostles still doesn't seem like a 'dodge' to me. It also would support the 'astonishment' shared by those who heard these uneducated people speaking in lots of different languages at Pentecost. Whether the Bible is inerrant or not, it could still have been dictated to scribes by illiterate people.

I get that. You are then one order of magnitude from the source. It poses a problem for inerrantcy. Paul was literate. Hence the large number of documents by him. The scribes may have been literate Christians. Luke is an example. I am not after your beliefs. I am after the CoC theology. It falls when inerrancy falls. It falls in the 1st chapter of Matthew. The last group of 14 is 13 including Joseph in the Genealogy of Jesus. The author is triply mistaken. So is the CoC. The book contradicts itself. There are things in the book that are useful and accurate. Take care.

[Lev]

Right, but the explanation that scribes physically wrote down what was dictated to them by illiterate ('unlettered') apostles still doesn't seem like a 'dodge' to me. It also would support the 'astonishment' shared by those who heard these uneducated people speaking in lots of different languages at Pentecost. Whether the Bible is inerrant or not, it could still have been dictated to scribes by illiterate people.

I get that. You are then one order of magnitude from the source. It poses a problem for inerrantcy. Paul was literate. Hence the large number of documents by him. The scribes may have been literate Christians. Luke is an example. I am not after your beliefs. I am after the CoC theology. It falls when inerrancy falls. It falls in the 1st chapter of Matthew. The last group of 14 is 13 including Joseph in the Genealogy of Jesus. The author is triply mistaken. So is the CoC. The book contradicts itself. There are things in the book that are useful and accurate. Take care.

Agreed--the Bible contains errors. To say that it is inerrant is wrong and to base one's faith on its supposed inerrancy is to invite disappointment. Whether the authors of the texts physically wrote the words themselves or dictated them to scribes is rather unimportant.

Lev

[ena]

the Bible contains errors. To say that it is inerrant is wrong and to base one's faith on it's supposed inerrancy is to invite disappointment. Whether the authors of the texts physically wrote the words themselves or dictated them to scribes is rather unimportant.

Agreed. The subject of inerrancy is important to me because I had a crisis of faith because of it. What I ended up believing was false. I discovered that from the virgin birth controversy. The Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14 does not have the word virgin there. The word is "almah" meaning young woman past the age of puberty.. The Greek of Matthew does use virgin. Translators put it there in the Hebrew translation because they reason it into the text. It is an artifact of Christian Hebrew Translators. They should not translate the Hebrew Bible because they do not see it like a Jewish translator would. There are Jews on the web doing damage control because of stuff like this. I see it as a matter of honesty. Is God dishonest? It is funny that Jesus does not mention it. Wasn't the virgin birth a sign?

Matt 12:39 kjv An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas:
Matt 12:39 (KJV)

Jesus died a Jew. He could not see what is not there. Nor should Christians.

[B.H.]

Thomas Paine wrote a booklet about supposed prophetic predicticions:


http://infidels.org/library/historical/ ... ecies.html

How the Christians could hold such blatant error and false doctrine is beyond me.

[ena]

Thomas Paine wrote a booklet about supposed prophetic predicticions:
How the Christians could hold such blatant error and false doctrine is beyond me.

There are Muslims that hold blatant error and false doctrine should be readily obvious. The counter is: "Oh they are not true Muslims." Tell that to people killed by them. The problem is that of evil. Evil is alive and kicking. It is easier to prove that than the existence of God . That makes me sad. You have to look at things in terms of their global context. You can always pull out specifics. So what? That is the problem with the CoC. They miss the global context of grace while dwelling on specifics. That is what Jesus meant when talking about the beam in your eye while worrying about the speck in some one elses. There is a constant bickering in the background of the CoC about what is more correct. I grew up in a world of half truths before I was able to discriminate. I then lived a lie thinking it was the truth. I am sick of the two lives. This is very common of the underground. Every society has one. The problem it rarely surfaces. When it does you have a crisis. I have seen it many times. I am 66. My nation has been at war most of my life. Most don't make sense. There was no reason to go into Iraq. There is no reason to be in Afghanistan. I think Guantanamo is morally wrong. Perhaps we are afraid opium production will fail? If you look under the surface you will find a web of lies.

[B.H.]

Do You before we went to war in Afghanistan the papers were saying the Taliban had eradicated 90% of the poppy in Afghanistan used to make illegal drugs with. Now the news is saying the Taliban is making the drugs to sell to the west. Okay which is it?