15 Dec 05
Originally posted by NemesioNo preconceptions except, of course, that there is no such thing as a miracle, virgin conception is impossible, everything is now the way it has always been, etc., etc. The underlying concept is an attempt to superimpose upon the text our current mindset, not allowing the text to be speak for itself.
The Jesus Seminar asks that no one come with any preconceptions.
And, what makes you put 'scholars' in quotes like that?
Do you question their scholarship? If so, on what grounds?
Nemesio
A scholar, or student, by nature, is one in a position of submission. Learning the subject does not allow for manipulation. Many of these so-called scholars are merely masquerading as such, all the while considering themselves masters of the subject. This is evidenced by their repeated findings, in light of support to the contrary.
Their knee-jerk reaction to everything is to discredit the source, all the while claiming themselves to be respectful of the source.
I believe the correct term for their sincerity is "bag of crap," although the term here has lost a lot of its punch.
15 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseBS. The pericope adulterae exists in several 5th century MSS.
Would you believe the 'cast the first stone' story is a complete
and utter fabrication and wasn't put in the bible till one scribe
put it in the liner notes in around the year 1200.
There are no texts in the original greek with that story in it.
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John-PA.pdf
The most notable is the 5th cent. Codex Bezae - which has the PA in both Greek and Latin.
15 Dec 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerIt sounds like we have a real dispute before us. What say you, sonhouse?
BS. The pericope adulterae exists in several 5th century MSS.
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John-PA.pdf
The most notable is the 5th cent. Codex Bezae - which has the PA in [b]both Greek and Latin.[/b]
15 Dec 05
Originally posted by stockenNaturally. Rule of thumb - the older the book, the less likely it is to be a factual description of historical events. So, I'm more skeptical about OT stories. With the NT, however, I tend to believe most of those events actually took place.
In this case? Do you believe it in some cases and not in others?..
15 Dec 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerNo, I mean do you believe the story of Jesus and the adulterous woman "let him... bla bla" to be real and from Jesus in some cases but not in others?
Naturally. Rule of thumb - the older the book, the less likely it is to be a factual description of historical events. So, I'm more skeptical about OT stories. With the NT, however, I tend to believe most of those events actually took place.
Does it depend on who's saying it? Or... ???
15 Dec 05
Originally posted by checkbaiterHow much of any work of fiction is true ?
My educated guess....95%....
The 5% is error in translation....just a guess mind you..
Must moderate christians admit it's just a collection of fables designed to show people how to lead a better life.
I thought it was just the fundimentalists who thought it had some links to actual history.
15 Dec 05
Originally posted by fooeyIt depends on the fiction. Often fiction offers more truth than factual narratives.
How much of any work of fiction is true ?
Consider for example, the truth about the complexities of race relations in Mississippi as it is reflected in Go Down, Moses by William Faulkner. Now, try to find a nonfiction account with as much truth and insight as that novel.
15 Dec 05
Originally posted by fooeySupposedly, you have now cornered the market on defining words, specifically, moderate.
Must moderate christians admit it's just a collection of fables designed to show people how to lead a better life.
I thought it was just the fundimentalists who thought it had some links to actual history.
Without addressing your ignorance on the historicity of biblical accounts, you are assuming somehow that currently held views of any historical event are the standard. How fundamental of you.
15 Dec 05
Originally posted by sonhouseAre you sure you've paraphrased him correctly? I haven't read the book.
My source came from that Fresh Air show hosted by Terry Gross:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5052156
The book is Misquoting Jesus.
The source I provided gives a detailed listing of all mss. sources with information as to whether the PA is omitted or included (if so, where in the Gospel or the mss.)
15 Dec 05
I read on the radio once people taking about all the different Bible's of the religions and the Holy Bible would probably have an error of about .002% though the 200 years. Other bibles like the muslim crayon(koran) would have about 20% and the Budist bible would have about 10% and the list of bibles goes on.
15 Dec 05
Originally posted by stockenIt depends on the story and which book it appears in, what Jesus says in the story etc.
No, I mean do you believe the story of Jesus and the adulterous woman "let him... bla bla" to be real and from Jesus in some cases but not in others?
Does it depend on who's saying it? Or... ???
For instance, I don't believe Jesus literally fed 7,000 or 5,000 people. I believe there was a miracle of the loaves - but probably a few hundred people at most. Similarly, I don't believe every single instance of healing is factually true - one or more healings or encounters may have been combined for theological emphasis.