Whether or not Peter and John could read is immaterial to the point. I will agree that finding out such things are part of what this thread is about. But at the same time, its the history of the dogma, with said sources of dogma, that are of particular interest to me.
Really, There Is A Lot To Learn About Your Faith
I submit that Peter and John's literacy has a definite bearing on the points made by Sir82.
A musilm friend told me once that the reason that Allah created/allowed there to be created, so many different religions is because he knew that it would take many different paths for people to find their way to God.
I always liked that point of view.
Hi there Snowbird. I agree that your point is relevant in that small context. I also don't want this to turn into a defense thread, insofar as I have no desire to attack your faith.
I personally agree that if John and Peter existed, they would have had to be literate. The larger question is, did Peter and John exist in the way that the gospels describe them?
The larger question is, did Peter and John exist in the way that the gospels describe them?
I also have no desire for this to turn into a brouhaha.
Imo, the Gospels are very frank and direct in their depiction of the Apostles, especially Peter and John.
For instance, Peter obviously suffered from foot-in-mouth disease, and while John seems to have been the more retiring of the two, he wasn't above letting his mother advance his ambitions.
The main thing, to me, is that their humanity shows in all their dealings.
I'm enjoying reading about them through the pages of the Bible and other works. It's as though I'm doing it for the first time.
in that they didn't exactly give the full history on such items as the canonization of the bible and the political wars that waged
Not quite true. For example I learned a great deal about the canonization of the Bible from a Catholic source. These sources did not hide the fact that there were many books circulating in ancient times that did not end up making the canon. They did not cover over the fact that the canon was decided upon by a council. There is a great deal of historical scholarship in the church today, and it has pretty much always been that way. The JWs are one thing, but other mainstream denominations don't really hide their history. in some cases they chronicle them.
From a critical review of Ehrman’s book Misquoting Jesus:
This book is a popular version of one of Ehrman's earlier, more scholarly books, Orthodox Corruption of Scripture. Both content and method have transferred over substantially, particularly Ehrman's major weaknesses, which are:
Ø A lack of familiarity with broader defining contexts (eg, Jewish Wisdom theology, which, for example, solves the alleged "problem" he sees in Heb. 1:3 and resolves it in favor of the "manifests" reading -- 56) that would weight down heavily in terms of solving alleged problems he "discovers";
Ø Treating problems in the text as though they are far more serious than they really are.
In conclusion, we find this book in some ways to be more of an ideological treatise that takes too many liberties when it comes to offering half-truths and in finding significance where none exists.
It amazes me to see people make a tempest in a teapot because the gnostics weren’t included. There is no reason that they should have been included.
Hi there BTS
It doesn't surprise me that out of all of the major Christian religions, Catholics would publicize this a bit more, given that they stress holy tradition over holy scripture anyway. In fact, the Catholic church is pretty up front that their tradition trumps scripture anyway. Not that I agree with them, but it is a hell of a lot more honest then, um, say, JW's!!
Having said that, I would seriously doubt that this is a point of major focus for the Church regarding anyone desiring to convert to Catholicism.
Mad Dawg, what is the source/who is the writer of this review?
On a side note, it was a RC priest that told me to look into the books of the aprocryphya and the non-canon ones.