Raf

I feel bad for Mira Sorvino. She wins an Oscar and nobody remembers! Tommy Lee Jones The Fugitive Joe Pantoliano That outta open the game up

There's a story in my eyes, turn the pages of desire Now it's time to trade those dreams for the rush of passion's fire.

I lost my original point in my last post. Bias works both ways. If a researcher goes in determined to undermine the "integrity" of the word, he will find errors and mistakes where none exist. "Answer a fool not according to his folly" does not contradict "Answer a fool according to his folly," for example. So I tend to go with research that shows open mindedness. Again, I was impressed that Nelson admitted Matthew didn't write Matthew. They should go further and admit Mark didn't write Mark (or know Palestine), Luke didn't write Luke and John didn't write John. Scholars are in general agreement about the letters Paul did write and the ones he didn't. But there are a few that are questionable. Non-traditionalists do not believe he wrote Colossians or Ephesians. Traditionalists insist he did. I'm inclined to go with the non-traditionalists because they have nothing to gain or lose by their position. My position is not strengthened or weakened if Luke was a physician, or if he wrote Acts. He's still demonstrably full of it on enough crucial issues (the birth of Christ, the conversion a thousands on the day of Pentecost, the aftermath of Paul's conversion) to cast doubt on his credibility when it comes to the resurrection (about which, again, every single gospel writer disagrees on multiple mutually exclusive issues).

One of the challenges with critical Biblical research is finding unbiased researchers. If someone goes in with the mindset that the Bible is absolutely positively the Word of God, you cannot expect that person to buck tradition even if the evidence leads away from it. I am impressed that the Nelson commentary admits Matthew did not write Matthew. But it really should be emphasized that people don't have a clue who wrote the gospels because, unlike Betty Webb, the gospel writers did not sign their work. Luke, in particular, is written by someone who not only did not sign his work, but also did not cite his sources or explain his methodology, something historians of the time actually took the trouble to do. The closest Luke gets is at the beginning of his gospel, where he does NOT claim to have spoken to eyewitnesses but, rather, to have investigated other written accounts of the life of Jesus. We don't know much about these other accounts other than that the gospel we know as Mark was almost certainly one of them. In Acts, the same author would have us believe that he was, at times, Paul's traveling companion. He wants us to think he was there. Many scholars believe that is not the case. We go back to Acts v. Galatians. If Paul is right, Luke is lying and unreliable. If Luke is right, Paul is lying and unreliable. It is not credible that both are right. The apostles, with Paul in their presence shortly after his conversion, would simply not have taken Barnabas' word that Paul had changed. They would have questioned him. They would have discussed his gospel and compared it to what they were personally taught by Jesus. And it defies reason that Paul would have been in the presence of the apostles without talking to them about the life, death and resurrection of the savior. Either Galatians or Acts is wrong about what Paul did after his conversion. Is it credible to believe that a companion of Paul would get this detail wrong? Is it credible to believe Paul is lying about not getting his gospel from the apostles? How many times do you find yourself needing to explain the difference between how Paul acted in the book of Acts and what he says is the right thing to believe and do in his own letters? One thing that becomes very clear is that the author of Acts was not as close to Paul as he would have you believe. Rather, this account is written by someone who is trying desperately to harmonize Paul with the apostles and present them as having some kind of continuity -- a continuity, it should be noted, that Paul himself does not claim. Rather, Paul would have believers reject anyone who disagreed with him -- even if it's an apostle. Read Galatians again. Paul is pretty emphatic about not being an heir to their doctrine. The author of Luke-Acts wants people to think he was a companion of Paul. Why? Because that bolsters his credibility. (It worked! People believe these works are history because they were written by a companion of Paul. Never mind that Paul contradicted his accounts at every turn). This was not an unusual occurrence in the ancient world. Heck, it's not even that rare these days. People claim to be eyewitnesses all the time to stuff that just never happened. Remember the pedophile ring operating out of a D.C. pizza shop? There were witnesses! The author of the gospel of John would have you believe he was eyewitness to at least SOME of what happened in the gospel. So what if he totally forgot about the 40 days Jesus spent getting tempted in the desert after his baptism. So what if he was the ONLY one who remembered the raising of Lazarus from the dead. (Seriously: how do the other gospel writers get away without mentioning this mind-blowing miracle?) So what if he had Jesus cleanse the temple at the beginning of his ministry instead of the end? Isn't the point that he cleansed the temple? Maybe. But if cleansing the temple is really what got Jesus into enough trouble for people to want him executed, then the writer of John would have known that it had to be near the end of his ministry. And if Jesus had cleansed the temple TWICE, once at the beginning of his ministry and again at the end, ONE of the gospel writers would have mentioned that he did it twice. No one does, probably because it only happened once. IF it happened at all.

Another shooting star goes byAnd in the night the silence speaks to you and IAnd now the time has come at lastDon't let the moment run too fast

I'm going to add a few cents of my own. Leah, you said earlier (at least I think it was you) that you were agnostic, except when you are angry. Then you're atheist. I'm going to suggest to you that you are neither. I speak as an atheist. If you are angry at God, then you believe in Him. And that's okay. You have questions. You are not satisfied with the answers you have received. You are entitled to those emotions. But atheism is not an angry position. It's letting go of anger. You can only be angry at God if you believe in Him. I am not angry at God. I am disappointed in certain people (not all) who claim to speak in his name. People who hate and concoct a God who magically hates the same people they do. You know the type. (That was funny). I guess what I am saying is, don;t lose faith out of anger. There are plenty of reasons to be atheist. Anger is not one of them. If you decide, out of calm reflection, that you do not believe in God, and you have questions about what to do next, talk to me. I've been through it. But if you are angry with Him, then atheism is not going to help you. Plenty of people here will be happy to help out, and you have people in real life. Best wishes. And by the way, I have no bad memories of your dad. The worst I've heard of him comes from credible witnesses. And I was not impressed with his performance at the 1989 Rock. But I was still grateful, many times, for when he tried to teach positive messages from the Bible. Helped me through some pretty tough times. Not trying to defend him, but wanted you to know that along with all you've heard from GSC, our collective impression of him is just a bit more nuanced than that.

Meanwhile, in 14 days...

So you are telling me you have a signed document with contemporaneous Witnesses vouching for the identity of the author. Fascinating.

I will repay you for the earworm. So help me You Will Pay. Rapture, by Blondie

happy birthday!!

15. And still waiting for Twinky's answer.

I thought you were trying to throw off the countdown. Do you turn 25 on Tax day?

Oriental setting Where the city don't know what the city is getting. The creme de la creme of the chess world and the show with everythibg but Yul Brynner.

Are you sure she wrote it?

no, wait. 16

17

I get my kicks above the waistline, sunshine

No No. Not that I know of. Definitely no. It's either great news or not great news. Definitely not bad news, though it started that way.

It's a drag It's a bore It's really such a pity To be looking at the board Not looking at the city

I can only imagine the courage it takes to come forward. Welcome, Leah.

A final note on fiction: Jesus used parables to convey truths. He never claimed those parables (like the rich man and Lazarus) actually happened. So a problem with learning from fiction is a problem with learning from how Jesus taught. Right? Awkward.

Our Lips Are Sealed The Go Gos

17