Poly's pick 09-22-04

[Poly]

Originally posted by BChristianK


Wickwoman, who apparently really wants me to answer her , said:

Just exactly how do those scholars pouring over those ancient texts, really know what God is saying? Does God have a manner of speaking or language that he commonly uses?
Do they know exactly where God was born so they can contrast his dialect to the dialect of others from his geographical region?

What do these questions have to do with responsible textual critical methods?
If you wanna say that the whole darn Bible is load of bunk that would still be more responsible than picking and choosing which verses are authentic and which aren’t based on your mood that day.

What scholars have done is determine, from numerous fragments, what material is most logically an authentic scribal translation of the autographa. Now when they sit down and look at the fragments, they have a number of criteria, one of them is not, “Hmmm, which one of these fragments best fits the way I feel today.�

I do know that the church fathers were presented with scores of gospel accounts.

You make it sound like they all got together in one big meeting and decided which were in and which were out in one afternoon.
:darwinsm:

They chose four, only one of which actually presents Jesus as God. The other three left that part out interestingly.

Since when is 7 considered “scores� Actually, “the church fathers� had considered Mathew Mark Luke and John as canonical before many of the other Gnostic gospels were written. In fact, most non-connonical gospel material we have are in Coptic not greek, which prettly clearly suggests that they were authored around the 2nd century (the gospel of Thomas being a possible excetion). Where did you get this crappy historical info, “The Davinci Code?�

Please tell me your not getting your historical information from a work of fiction. Most scholars don’t date the origins of the the finds of the Nag Hammadi to any early than the second century, all four gospels were written, circulated and relied upon in the early church before the second century (if you see a late date for the writing of John).

And, do you think it would matter to me for one instant that some human being thousands of years ago did actually write John about 50 years or so after Jesus' death, and he may have been a person who knew a person who actually knew Jesus? What difference does it make? It's still written by a man, not a god.

Yea, a man who knew Jesus, heard him speak, and is infinitely more qualified to determine what Jesus actually did and did not say than you! So take it or leave it. If you don’t have some studious reason to assume that verse X isn’t reliable then don’t pretend that you are qualified to say that Jesus did or did not say it based solely on your mood.

The ONLY way to read and believe anything, after investigation of authenticity as to its claims regarding time and place, which has been done, BTW with many of the Nag Hamaddi texts, is to read it for its context.

:darwinsm:

context?

The Gnostic texts are notorious for their lack of context.
:doh:

The gospel of Thomas has ALMOST NO NARRATIVE ELEMENTS WHATSOEVER!!!!

They are alleged collections of Jesus sayings, with no information as to where they were, what they were doing, where they were going, what was happening, or what would happen.
Now you tell me, how can an amalgamation of saying (totally ignoring the fact that they are probably not accurate) most of which are no more than 2 lines long be read for its context.?

We have no other way to judge what is or isn't from God than to see if it agrees with that which is in us which is a part of God.

The perfect eisegesis. So if you are a part of God, what do you need to bastardize the bible for? What you really mean is, that you have no other way you would rather judge the biblical accounts than to see if you would feel good if it were or were not true. So the accuracy of the text may depend on whether that spicy burrito kept you up the night before…

Otherwise, we are stumbling around like blind men. And, I know that only the highest and the best that we can imagine only begins to scratch the surface of what God could be like.

I suppose you could say that if you had reached the highest and best that we can imagine and had looked beyond that, but since I don’t consider you part of God, nor do I consider your opinion in any way divinely inspired, I’ll continue to look the bible and to responsible read it and exegete it. No offense, your not the only nongod with an uninspired opinion on the planet, I also happen to be one of those folks. I just don’t trust anyone’s opinion who can’t find any reason to substantiate their interpretation of a passage beyond, “that's what I feel like it means.�


Grace and Peace

Context

 

[ShadowMaid]

That was awesome! :thumb: Good pick Poly, and good job BChristianK.

 

[Lighthouse]

YEAH!