Raf

Yes sir

Sorry for the delay. Work. The former crew of a destroyed spaceship must travel back in time to assist an accidentally abandoned pre-teen defending his house from inept burglars.

And in case I haven't mentioned it, I deeply appreciate how welcome you are of my input, even given my change of heart about the Bible, the existence of God, etc. I'm trying to keep my lack of faith in its place and engage in discussions on their own terms. Not that I make a secret of where I stand, but facts is facts. "The Bible contains errors and contradictions" is a fact, and I'm prepared to argue that (you seem to be somewhat in agreement, although we may quibble on what "error" means in the context of our discussions). But "therefore the God of the Bible is not real" is an opinion (or, more to the point, a conclusion), and that's not always a welcome viewpoint or fair game in a discussion. In THIS thread, it's out of line, so I refrain from saying it. (That's also why I moved the thread, and I appreciate your graciousness in accepting that decision). Get better.

Some Like It Hot To Trot

Hoping you're being melodramatic about your health, but otherwise, proceed at whatever pace makes you comfortable. Best wishes.

I've got at least three on my Kindle. Did Jesus Exist (probably. More than likely). Jesus, Interrupted. And Forged.

Oakspear: I wrote mostly from memory and I'm nopt going to wed myself to any particular line. That Ehrman cites eight books, and which ones they are, is definite. Why Revelation and not James? I don't recall specifically. I seem to remember him saying that Revelation was written by "John, but not THAT John," but maybe I'm wrong. Or maybe he gave some other reason that escapes my memory.

True story: A man was on trial for kidnapping and rape in Broward County. During one of the breaks, the judge was chatting with him, and the defendant said some things that made the judge question whether the defendant was sane at the time the crime was committed. This led the judge to ask, "Have you considered a mental health defense?" The defendant responded: " To tell the truth, I was demonically possessed?" Judge: "You were what?" Defendant: "I was demonically possessed." The defendant then explained that he had been exorcised between the time of the incident and the time of the trial, so it was no longer an issue. Judge: "Are you saying you were possessed when you committed these crimes?" Defendant: "Oh, no. I didn't commit any crimes. This incident was consensual." You heard it here first, folks: a demon possessed a man, causing him to engage in consensual sex with a willing participant. The defendant was convicted.

Right. I just wanted to he clear about why I wo I kdnt be chiming in on every show. I'm halfway through the Whiplash... I mean Reactron episode of Supergirl.

When it comes to the New Testament, scholars don't agree on everything. And of course, this becomes complicated by the fact that the people most interested in the subject matter are also the most biased (which is not to say they are untrustworthy, but you need to correct for it). I keep coming back to Bart Ehrman for a simple reason: He went into the field as an evangelical, biased up the wazoo, and ended up changing his mind because the evidence convinced him otherwise (that is, he changed his mind about matters of Biblical authorship. That he changed his mind on other matters is less interesting to me, but you may consider it evidence of a new bias in the opposite direction of his old bias if you're so inclined). Anyway, according to Ehrman, only eight of the 27 books of the Bible are correctly attributed (that is, they were all but certainly written by the people whose names are attached to them). Those books are: Romans, I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, I Thessalonians, Philemon and Revelation. Based on Ehrman's writings, I think he is being a little harsh here. I'll explain. Most of the New Testament letters whose authorship is undisputed by scholars were written by Paul. Revelation, according to Ehrman, was written by "John." The catch is, it's probably not the John who appears in the gospels. It's just some disciple named John. It's a common enough name. On that basis, I don't see how Ehrman excludes James from the list. There's no reason to believe the person who wrote James was not named James. There is, equally, no reason to believe that this James was the brother of Jesus. He never claims such a relationship and never asserts his authority as a leader of the first century church. He's just some dude what wrote a letter. I haven't looked at the Johannine epistles lately, but I have no reason to think they were written by anyone other than someone named John either. Maybe or maybe not the same John who wrote Revelation. Whatever. I don't know why Ehrman only lists eight when the same criteria he used to include Revelation can also be used to include James and possibly I, II and III John. There's no reason to think any of those people named John also wrote the gospel of John. Skipping the issue of the gospels, which we've beaten to death without coming to agreement, we move on to the disputed letters of Paul, and they are fascinating. It's important to note that scholarship is not unanimous on these matters, but I'm not inclined to take the time to sort out which scholars are which. Be assured, evangelical scholars will disagree with Ehrman. Period. Their faith will not allow them to do otherwise. But of the rest, I am not aware whether there is a consensus. Paul did not write Ephesians. Let that sink in. Ephesians actually conflicts with the other epistles on issues like salvation (in Romans, we will be saved; in Ephesians, we were). He didn't write Colossians (so much for Luke the Gentile physician). He didn't write II Thessalonians (which makes sense. Look at the second coming in I Thess and compare it to II Thess. See any differences? YEAH! How did we miss them for so long?) He didn't write the pastoral epistles! Timothy... Titus... those were not written by Paul! Well, yeah. In Corinthians, Paul is like, "If you're married, stay married. If you're single, stay single. Then you get to Timothy and suddenly he's like, "If you want to be a bishop, you should be married. And ladies, childbirth saves you." HUH? But, but, but... What about the verse at the end of II Thess? "The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write." Wow. Except that's not the token in any of his undisputed letters. The letter is a fraud. By the way, there are some who believe I Corinthians 14:34-35 are an interpolation as well. You know the verses: A few chapters earlier, he tells women to cover their heads when they're praying and prophesying in church. So which is it: Cover your heads when you pray and prophesy? Or "SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP, B---! Make me a sammitch! Men are prophesying here!" Wierwille's explanation of I Corinthians 14:34-35 is simply laughable. Read the section again and skip over those verses. Makes a lot more sense now, doesn't it? No one has the slightest idea who wrote Hebrews. And no, Peter did not write I and II Peter.

Point of clarification: I no longer believe in the idea of "God-breathed," but as an academic exercise, I am willing to say that the presence of errors and contradictions doesn't rule out a work as God-breathed unless excluding errors and contradictions is part of the definition. For Wierwille (to cite an example), the presence of errors and contradictions disqualifies a work as God-breathed. This disqualifies his own work as well as the Bible. It would be out of place in this thread for me to argue that there's no such thing as God-breathed. So all I'm saying here is, assuming there is such a thing, errors and contradictions would not be disqualifiers. Hope that clears things up for anyone wondering.

Well, because of my answer, I can only go so far. But I will be more than happy to assist in the critical thinking department. :)

I think you and I have already agreed on what "God-breathed" does not mean, that the answer to the question posed in the title of this thread is "yes," but all we've done is dodge the question of what it does mean. That is, if "God-breathed" does NOT mean without error or contradiction, and if a work can be useful for doctrine reproof correction instruction in righteousness without being God-breathed, then what does God-breathed mean?

I missed Supergirl and I'm not keeping up with Gotham. I have Supergirl's recorded. I'm also recording arrow because I'm catching up on season 3 All that said, don't avoid spoilers on my account

The scholar I cited earlier in detail is Eugene Boring, in case anyone wants to check. Steve cited Bart Ehrman, leaving us with the false impression that Ehrman agreed Luke wrote Luke. I doubt that was intentional. I think Steve genuinely believed that when he wrote it. But it doesn't change the fact that Ehrman emphatically believes Luke-Acts was not only written by someone other than Luke, but that it was written by someone who was not a companion of Paul. That doesn't mean Ehrman is right. It only means you can't cite him as a scholar who believes the opposite of what he does.

Did someone say South Florida?

The story would have been shocking to the people who heard Jesus tell it, but it would absolutely not have been shocking to the Christian audience that had already been exposed to the letters of Paul. You are declaring, once again with no basis in fact, that a Gentile writer would include this story while a Jewish writer would not. Would Paul have included thst story? Yes. He would. So the fact that the story is included emphatically does not prove the gospel was written by a Gentile.

Portraying Samaritans in a positive light would not have come as a shock to Jesus audience in 80-90 AD, by which time Paul's message had been made clear and the church was chock full of Gentiles. To state that Jewish writers would have ignored the story is both baseless and, frankly, insulting to them. You're actually saying the God-inspired gospel writers would have left out a story they didn't like? Really? Remind me again what God-breathed means?

Now that's the best tasting pickle I ever heard.

Steve also cited three scholars. Two had identifiable biases. The third did not. Problem is, the third scholar cited by Steve actually disagreed with him, 180 degrees. So, thus far, we have six cited scholars. Four agree that Luke did not write Luke. The other two are preachers.

The only reason that the Good Samaritan story should appear in the gospel of Luke is if it is a story Jesus told. If it is a story Jesus told, then its inclusion is a result of the fact that he told it, not that the author of the gospel was a Gentile. The only way one can argue that the Good Samaritan story establishes Luke as a Gentile is to argue that the author of the gospel invented the story, rather than Jesus. If that's the case, then you may have proved Luke was a Gentile (you haven't), but you have done so at great cost: you have impugned his reliability as someone accurately conveying the truth of what Jesus taught.

Again, non sequitur. There may be valid reasons to conclude the writer of Luke was a gentile. The presence of the Good Samaritan story is not one of them. So my post does not show bias. It merely rejects a poor argument. Here's an article I read once that doesn't prove my point but earns me clicks that no one is monitoring...

This is a non-sequitur. The presence of the Good Samaritan story does not prove the author of Luke was a Gentile. The identification of the author of Luke as a Gentile does not limit the possible authors to Luke. And neither establishes that the gospel is God-breathed.

I was going to post this in the other thread, but decided it was more at home here: One piece of evidence mentioned by Steve regarding Luke interviewing Mary concerns Luke 8: 19-21 This incident, we are told by Steve, would have been seared into Mary's memory, and serves as evidence that Luke interviewed Mary. The problem with that assertion is that this episode is lifted wholly from the gospel of Mark, and no one is claiming Mark interviewed Mary. Mark 3: 31-35 If Mark could have gotten this second-hand (and no one is suggesting he interviewed Mary), then Luke could have gotten it second-hand. And the same goes for every story about Mary in the gospel of Luke. Assuming Mary was a figure who reappeared through Jesus' ministry all the way until the end and through the ascension, there is no reason to think she did not share her recollections with others who were present at the time: Peter, her son James, John, all the other disciples and apostles. To insist that the stories about Mary in the gospel of Luke prove he interviewed Mary is untenable. Alternate explanations better account for Luke's errors while maintaining the position that Luke did interview eyewitnesses (which, again, he never actually claims. By the time "Luke" is writing, enough other gospels have been produced that he feels the need to sort them out and get to the truth, a task at which he fails, though not for lack of effort). Luke's heavy reliance on the gospel of Mark is not coincidental. It is systematic. Mark is not just "a" source, it is a MAJOR source. Why would someone who interviewed witnesses independently then turn around and use a second-hand source like Mark for the backbone of his account? It makes no sense. Luke 1:1-2 That term, "handed down to us," implies the passage of time. Most scholars place the writing of Luke after 80 AD. Peter is long dead. Paul is long dead. MOST of the apostles are long dead. There were VERY few people around to interview who were actually eyewitnesses. Luke claims to have done some investigating, but he never says or hints that interviews with eyewitnesses were part of his investigation. We don't know when Mary died, but we do know that she was of child-bearing age when Jesus was born (duh). So assuming 3 B.C. as Jesus' birthdate, by the time Luke starts writing, Mary is at least 95 years old. Life expectancy at the time was not high. Certainly not 95. Possible that someone lived that long? Sure. But you're straining credibility unless you have some real evidence. For what it's worth, Catholic tradition places the assumption of Mary at 41 AD or so. I don't put any stock in that, but it's worth mentioning at least. When you learn history from historians, you get history. When you learn history from theologians, you get history*. History* may be valuable, and it may overlap with history, but you can't escape the fact that there's an agenda at work. Most "Bible scholars" are not historians. They are theologians. They have an agenda. Peer review is one way you get experts to call out other experts. But when it comes to Biblical studies, this is complicated by the vast number of people who approach the information with a bias. You're still able to get widespread agreement on the facts, but on the conclusions, it gets sketchy. So by all means, compare what the experts say. But, for example, when you cite Nelson's Bble Dictionary to prove Luke wrote Luke, understand that you are NOT looking at an unbiased source. The unbiased sources are those with no vested interest in the conclusion, and they overwhelmingly agree that Luke did not write Luke. Yes, I'm getting this second-hand. So is Steve. Neither of us have polled Bible scholars. But here's what we do know: I found three scholars without even trying. At least one IS a theologian, so his conclusion that Luke did not write Luke is especially credible because it goes against his natural bias, which would be to affirm Lucan authorship. Instead, he admits what I've repeatedly stated here: "most contemporary critical scholars remain unconvinced that Luke-Acts was written by a companion of Paul..." He goes on to list the reasons, including the contradictions with Paul's undisputed letters, the theological differences with Paul, etc). The author of Luke, had he been a companion of Paul, would have had access to Paul's letters (and if it were Luke, he would have been present for the writing of at least one!). It would be, therefore, inexcusable for him to contradict Paul on key aspects of Paul's life. Yet he does. More later.

Did he ever play a stork in a Vlasik pickle commercial? Willing to bet your life on it?