by Emery 52 Replies latest watchtower bible
@DMason
"Paul could not have read the Gospels since they were written after his death"
I found this tidbit:
Gospel John
Attention must be given to John 5:2 where John uses "is" rather than "was" concerning the pool near the Sheep Gate. This places the Gospel John to be written a time before 70 A.D. when Jerusalem was destroyed.
YLT Jn 5:2 and there is in Jerusalem by the sheep-gate a pool that is called in Hebrew Bethesda, having five porches,
QC
"Paul could not have read the Gospels since they were written after his death."
I disagree:
Paul and Peter are martyrs in Rome c. 64-69 C.E. The 4 Gosples were complete before then, only possible exception is John.
MP:
Its a fact that Mark 13(???) is a record of the destruction of the temple of jerusalem which occured around 70ad. Given that Mt and Lk copied Mk, they are even older. We also have the strange fact that the apostle Matthew is copying someone else when he was an eyewitness ? HOw is this exaplined ?
QC
Attention must be given to John 5:2 where John uses "is" rather than "was" concerning the pool near the Sheep Gate. This places the Gospel John to be written a time before 70 A.D. when Jerusalem was destroyed.
mP:
Well mark has an entire chapter which is clearly written after the destruction of jerusalem (mk 13). One chapter weighs a lot more than a single word.
@mP
"Its a fact that Mark 13(???) is a record of the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem"
That’s partially correct, i.e. Mark 13, Mat 24, Luk 21, have Jesus’ PROPHECY of Jerusalem’s destruction. This prophecy is then FULFILLED in 70 A.D.
That’s an important distinction. And, why you as a Jew should believe your fabulous Bible, NT and OT.
Usually your posts get no response from me because your “facts” are ALWAYS the artful practice of spewing malicious propaganda.
Many of the people arguing on this thread have yet to read a neutral analysis of the gospels or of the "historical Jesus." Once upon a time, this would be understandable. So many scholars stopped publishing in journals, though, and went mainstream. These books are best-sellers. This history is very old now. It started in the late 1800s, principally in Germany.
If you read Roman Catholic books or a denomination's books, history will be viewed through their agenda.
Your basic information would never stand scrutiny from most college students. I suggest calling a secular university and asking to speak with a religous historian for a two minutes. Ask for a referral to an academic book concerning NT scholarship. Explain you don't have an advanced background. I no longer know what is the latest and best in the field. They will gladly tell you and perhaps where to get a discount. In fact, I routinely see some of the books I read in public libraries. This info is no longer a big secret.
Your premises are wrong and so are your dates. Religous history and Biblical analysis is complicated by the wealth of utterly biased information on the market. One needs to read selectively. Also, I know from personal experience and debates with seminarians that there is a diversity within the field. They agree on the basics but other scholars do not necessarily agree with their theories from the basic facts. With computers and modern archaeology, as we move further away in time, more and more ancient material is being uncovered. Photographs from space craft revealed many ancient cities that no one could locate before.
I don't want to be rude. My reading time is precious so why not read the best.
"Your premises are wrong and so are your dates. Religous history and Biblical analysis is complicated"
I know, why should you have to explain a 4 th century”trinity Rianti” predilection, or any other fanciful self-illusion.
‘It’s all so “complicated” keep going until you find someone in the library, they’ll agree with me, they’ll explain it to you.’
Keep deluding yourself.
Bible understanding comes with a configuration of the heart, “the pure of heart see God.” It does not come with scholarship or a college degree.
...
There is absolutely NOTHING in the scriptures to indicate that Jesus was an "angel" in the traditional sense of the word. The word also can refer to "sent one" or "messenger," as many translations render it. Galatians 4:14 states:
...and my trial that [is] in my flesh ye did not despise nor reject, but as a messenger of God ye did receive me -- as Christ Jesus...." (Young's Literal Translation)
And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. (KJV)
Even though my bodily condition was a test for you, you did not mock or despise me, but you received me as an angel of God, as Jesus Christ. (Ehrman's translation)
Given his translation, Ehrman believes the Galatians received him as an angel, or messenger, of God, "as Jesus Christ." And what are we to make of the word "angel" (which means "sent one" or "messenger")? To me it seems obvious that Paul was referring to himself. Remember, there was no punctuation in these ancient languages. One has to figure out what's being said, then add the punctuation.
Does it make sense to say that they received him as the angel of God, Jesus Christ? Or that they received him as a messenger, or sent one, of Jesus Christ? I see no evidence whatsoever that the Galatians received him as they did Jesus Christ. (Or, as he would have it, "an angel of God, even Jesus Christ.") Even Ehrman wouldn't go that far and admits the verse is "a bit obtuse." So he's willing to go out on a limb and create a new doctrine that isn't anywhere taught in either the Old or New Testaments!
But let him have it his own way. A third interpretation he doesn't mention is that the Galatians received Paul as Jesus Christ. But, again, it doesn't make sense contextually. Why would they receive him as Christ, or as they received Christ? It only makes sense that they received him as a messenger of God, even as they did Jesus Christ. As Ehrman puts it, "I had always simply read the verse to say that the Galatians had received Paul in his infirm state the way they would have received an angelic visitor, or even Christ himself."
But what's all this he makes of angels and angelic visitors. If one views the verse in Young's Literal Translation: "...and my trial that [is] in my flesh ye did not despise nor reject, but as a messenger of God ye did receive me -- as Christ Jesus...."
Malachi writes of Christ when he says: " Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me: and the Lord , whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts. But who may abide the day of his coming? and who shall stand when he appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap...." (Malachi 3:1-2)
Another scholar notes of Jesus: "He is the Jehovah of the Old Testament, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He is the Son of God, the Messiah, the Creator. He is our Advocate with the Father. He is our Exemplar. He is often called the Good Shepherd or the Great Judge. He is sometimes referred to as our King, or as the King of Kings; as the Lamb of God; as the Light of the World; as the Lawgiver; or as the Mediator. Sometimes he is called the Messenger of the Covenant, or the Rock of our Salvation; the Chief Cornerstone; the Son of Man; the Anointed One, the Deliverer, or the Man of Sorrows; or the Only Begotten of the Father."
Opinions will inevitably vary. Some believe Jesus was simply Michael the Archangel made flesh. Others believe he is Yahweh, Jehovah, made flesh. The debate will go on, but one thing's for certain. It's far from being settled by Bart Ehrman.
------------------
Background: Evangelical Don Closson writes:
Bart Ehrman is a product of evangelicalism's center. Educated at Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College, he knows how conservative Christians think because he used to be one. His recent book Misquoting Jesus has been called "one of the unlikeliest bestsellers" of the year, and with it he has managed to bring to the public's attention the obscure world of New Testament textual criticism.
Having professed faith in Christ while in high school, Ehrman went off to college with a simple trust in the New Testament text, a trust that included verbal, plenary inspiration. In other words, he believed that God had inspired and preserved every word of the Bible. By the time Ehrman began doing graduate work at Princeton, he was having serious reservations about the text and its source. He now considers himself an agnostic and writes books that question most of what his fellow classmates at Moody and Wheaton believe.
@QC
MP:
Mk 13 is not written as a prophecy, its written as history. Forget the holy book context and read the text for what it says.
QC
That’s an important distinction. And, why you as a Jew should believe your fabulous Bible, NT and OT.
MP:
Im not a jew, not that it mattes.
As an individual praise or blame me for what i have done, dont just me because of my ancestors. Stop being racist and judging people on their ancestors.
QC
Usually your posts get no response from me because your “facts” are ALWAYS the artful practice of spewing malicious propaganda.
mP:
What propaganda ? If god wrote it, then be honest and take the text for what it says. Changing the meaning of the text is dishonest, and has been done many many times with many many different meanings, all of which are of course wrong.
Idiots spew forth accusations at the character of someone they disagree with. I hope your not one of those kinds of people, who cant argue on a higher level.
I've read Ehrman for a while along with other populizers. He always draws headlines with either a title or something that is always provocative. It is designed to titillate the fundie/conservative audience. I find it tacky. The publisher, though, moves books and makes money. Overall, reading Ehrman is better than not reading anything. He has a definite bias. I feel it is so obvious that I only note it. So my academic heart is so "cold." Thank you for the statement. It verifies that I am correct. Also, it is proof that read your skewed gospels to kingdom come, you are no great Christian. What do you expect here? A bunch of simpering JWs who will not question you. The heart remark was the clincher. You don't care about truth or Christ. You care about being right. Rather than researching your not research, you should find a bunch of simpering idiotic Christians to anoint you with oil and hail you as the new Jesus. Ego from people who don't know basic facts.
I've read Ehrman for a while along with other populizers. He always draws headlines with either a title or something that is always provocative. It is designed to titillate the fundie/conservative audience. I find it tacky. The publisher, though, moves books and makes money. Overall, reading Ehrman is better than not reading anything. He has a definite bias. I feel it is so obvious that I only note it. So my academic heart is so "cold." Thank you for the statement. It verifies that I am correct. Also, it is proof that read your skewed gospels to kingdom come, you are no great Christian. What do you expect here? A bunch of simpering JWs who will not question you. The heart remark was the clincher. You don't care about truth or Christ. You care about being right. Rather than researching your not research, you should find a bunch of simpering idiotic Christians to anoint you with oil and hail you as the new Jesus. Ego from people who don't know basic facts.
