Bibleguys - My Journey These Past Couple of Years (1 Viewer)

[Gold Dragon]

As for the law (or Torah, meaning "instructions", not just "law"), the OT declares it over and over to be perfect, holy, life, truth, light, good, etc., etc. It is the perfect instructions from a perfect Father to His children. Why would it be removed or abolished? Yahshua lived by it, Paul lived by it (despite the false accusations that he taught that it no longer applied), Peter lived by it, etc., etc. Why wouldn't we want to live by it? Not out of some obligation to be legalistic, but in loving response to our Heavenly Father. If you are a good parent, why do you give instructions to your children? You do so because you love them and you know better than them what is best for them. Wouldn't you expect Yahweh to do the same?

I think that is a great way to look at the function of the law.  I agree with you that the law was not abolished and following it is a response to a loving father.

The tricky part is how to do that in today's world and whether that it is living by the letter of the law or the spirit of the law.   And also how we approach those who may live by the law differently.  It isn't easy to work out.  

I want to encourage you in this view of the law. 

 

[Psychopav]

For CE, PS, GD, and Jayrock, I'd be really interested to hear how your faith journey has changed in practice as you have progressed on your journey of discovery.  How did you worship/pray/practice your faith before, and how do you do those things now?

I bet most of you have touched on this in other threads and even in this thread but I am hoping you'll each find it advantageous to take a minute or two to recap.

Gold Dragon, would you care to respond to this?

CE, PS, and Jayrock, thanks for sharing yours.

 

[Gold Dragon]

For CE, PS, GD, and Jayrock, I'd be really interested to hear how your faith journey has changed in practice as you have progressed on your journey of discovery.  How did you worship/pray/practice your faith before, and how do you do those things now?

I bet most of you have touched on this in other threads and even in this thread but I am hoping you'll each find it advantageous to take a minute or two to recap.

I've been meaning to respond but life gets in the way as this is a big question. Orthopraxis is something I value learning as an emphasis from my Catholic friends. As I learn more about debates of orthodoxy in the history and present situation of the church, the more I see that the doxy-praxis balance is heavily skewed one way.

In our latest round of looking for a church because of relocation for my work, we looked into Anglican as well as charismatic churches like aog, vineyard and sovereign grace.  We ended up choosing the local Anglican church which was surprising to me because my wife was the driving force of the decision.  She was upset with the lack of emphasis on the Spirit in the worship, teaching and practice of the Anglican, Baptist and other churches we had previously attended.    While I agreed with her of that void, I did not consider it a priority in our next church.   Both of us grew up in churches that are fairly skeptical of the charismatic movement.  

For those not aware of the Sydney Anglican scene, it considers itself the last bastion of evangelical conservative Anglicanism in a sea of liberal Anglicanism in the rest of Australia the UK and US.    It also sees charismatic Christianity as its greatest competition in Sydney with mega charismatic churches like hillsong and C3 commanding the attention of younger Christians.   There is lots of animosity between the two groups among the higher ups.

Our frustrations with our current Anglican pastors revolve around their discomfort with new ways of doing things, I think because they are new too and are afraid to rock the boat too much. But we are working with what we have and serve in areas we are passionate about like missions/evangelism, welcoming and prayer where we can slowly bring about change.  We ended up choosing our current church because it was local with a reasonably established kids ministry for our kids and we could easily invite our friends and our kids friends to. There are a lot of young families and new immigrants to Australia in our church, two areas we feel we can relate to and serve. We also visit the charismatic churches at times to get a different view on worship and teaching.

I guess when I look at different churches and denominations, I see places with flawed people and flawed theology that are just like me.  We are all trying to do the same thing of trying to love God and love people.  We do that by learning from each other and working together despite our many differences.   In the past I would have let those differences get in the way more.

That isn't to say that having orthodoxy is not important.   I am constantly trying to rethink my theology to make sure it is right and biblical and encouraging others to do the same even if we ultimately disagree.    But just as important is that we don't let those differences define our relationships with others who really have the same goals, of loving God for what he has done, and loving people so that they might get to know what God has done too.

 

[cstu]

There is lots of animosity between the two groups among the higher ups.

Nice religion.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Nice religion.

I agree that the bickering and fighting between Christians and Christian groups is a stain on us all.

 

[pecorino]

Agree. I've had to come to terms with the fact that there is no church out there in which I agree with everything, and that's ok. 

This is a non-Orthodox view that is very popular lately and caused a lot of fracturing in the church IMO. We are called to be one body with one heart and one mind. Who am I to pick and choose which tenets to disagree with of the 2000-year old (Orthodox) faith? I receive it as a gift that the theologians and writers of the past many centuries have set those tenets and I am happy to be part of the one body of the Church.

 

[matuski]

 Who am I to pick and choose which tenets to disagree with of the 2000-year old (Orthodox) faith?

This is the part that is just plain sad.

Who are you? A human being with just as much authority and credibility as anyone who ever lived with regard to the supernatural and what happens to us after we die.

 

[Gold Dragon]

I learned about evolution and the origin of the universe, Earth, life, etc.  It all made so much more sense than the fables from the Bible.  In fact, it became clear that all those stories that I just accepted as a child were just not true.

Just an fyi that I consider myself a Theistic Evolutionist or Evolutionary Creationist.   I would say that a majority of Christians outside of the United States have no problem with evolution and Christianity being compatible.   If you are interested in that discussion, we can take it to another thread.   

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Just an fyi that I consider myself a Theistic Evolutionist or Evolutionary Creationist.   I would say that a majority of Christians outside of the United States have no problem with evolution and Christianity being compatible.   If you are interested in that discussion, we can take it to another thread.   

Think we've probably been there, done that, but I'm always happy to discuss that stuff and try to learn something new.

I think your position, in a nut shell, is that God is the man behind the curtain, using the mechanism of evolution to create.  My position is, there's no need for a man behind the curtain.  We can explain/understand much of it without a supernatural player.  The simplest answer is often the correct one.

 

[Kafka]

Fellahs, pretty sure the final "crucifixion" scene from "The Life of Brian" succinctly sums up the perspective that we, as mere mortals, should aspire to.  Don't mean to be disrespectful, it's just my take.  Seems to be so much subterfuge & innuendo/interpretation(s) of what should be the "True" word...I just find it ironic.  Again, just my opinion.

 

[Psychopav]

Thanks for sharing your stories, gents.  I appreciate it and you and yours will remain in my prayers.  It's always affirming to see sincere souls searching for Truth.  Good bless you in your endeavors!

Special thanks to CE for starting this thread.  I am encouraged by the tone of the discussion.

 

[Psychopav]

This is the part that is just plain sad.

Who are you? A human being with just as much authority and credibility as anyone who ever lived with regard to the supernatural and what happens to us after we die.

Jesus down?

 

[pecorino]

This is the part that is just plain sad.

Who are you? A human being with just as much authority and credibility as anyone who ever lived with regard to the supernatural and what happens to us after we die.

Maybe any ONE person over the past 2000 years but I will gladly defer to the collective wisdom of the men and women throughout church history who through those generations have established the church and her traditions. And I honestly don't agree that I have "as much authority and credibility as anyone" considering I spend my time working a nine-to-five job, not in an ascetic lifestyle of prayer and fasting like many of the folks I'm talking about.

 

[matuski]

Jesus down?

Sure - point me to his writings?  No?  Nothing?

Of course not.  You are unquestioningly taking what you are told from other human beings... who obviously know nothing more than the rest of us about the afterlife and supernatural beings.  

 

[matuski]

Maybe any ONE person over the past 2000 years but I will gladly defer to the collective wisdom of the men and women throughout church history who through those generations have established the church and her traditions. And I honestly don't agree that I have "as much authority and credibility as anyone" considering I spend my time working a nine-to-five job, not in an ascetic lifestyle of prayer and fasting like many of the folks I'm talking about.

What does this collective have that you don't in regards to experience with life after death and gods?

 

[shadrap]

Wow!  Some real informed posters here regarding the bible & religion.  Seriously kudos & props!

 

[Psychopav]

Sure - point me to his writings?  No?  Nothing?

Of course not.  You are unquestioningly taking what you are told from other human beings... who obviously know nothing more than the rest of us about the afterlife and supernatural beings.  

Sorry, but you sound a lot like those Christians who say it's in the bible so it must be true.  Faith starts with a premise of trust.  We have eyewitness testimony and the Holy Spirit.  I'm sorry that you can't seem to hear either.

Maybe you should pray about it.

 

[pecorino]

What does this collective have that you don't in regards to experience with life after death and gods?

Time to pray and read, the strength and mental ability to fast, a stronger faith, a computer-free environment.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Did you guys just tell matuski to pray?

 

[The Commish]

Every christian believes revelation is not talking about Paul. If they did, they wouldn't be christians. And I don't care that christians disagree. I'm not looking for unity with anyone here.

One of the things I don't miss is the christian belief that the church is supposed to be of the same mind and have no disagreement. All it took was one person in the church to disagree with something and then discussion of the subject is thrown aside, as if the leadership can now say "See, no disagreement anymore." That's not a healthy environment and really stunts growth.

This is a tim-esque broad brush.  I've never been in a church (even my dead church when I was a kid) that subscribed to this and I have said a million times (in this very thread actually) that when you find yourself in a place where everyone agrees, the red flags should be flying all over the place.

 

[matuski]

Sorry, but you sound a lot like those Christians who say it's in the bible so it must be true.  Faith starts with a premise of trust.  We have eyewitness testimony and the Holy Spirit.  I'm sorry that you can't seem to hear either.

Maybe you should pray about it.

Instead of going down that road.. I will ask that you consider the fact that you confirmed all I have said.

You don't have anything from your god.  You are taking other human beings' words for it.  Humans who themselves have no more experience or expertise on the afterlife and gods than you or I.

You yourself have confirmed it.. if only you could consider it.  No talking to yourself necessary, just consider the obvious.

 

[Jayrok]

I guess I still don't quite understand the point you are trying to make. Maybe that's why you feel it's like I didn't read what you wrote. 

I do not believe the land described in Ezekiel 37 is meant as a millennial kingdom.  I do agree that the city and Temple described in Ezekiel 40+ is a detailed description of the land in Ezekiel 37.  It's the same place and in the Judaic prophecy, it is the final kingdom of God where everything is restored and he dwells among his people.  

I do, however, agree that the 1,000 year reign, in Christian prophecy, points to the land in Ezekiel 37 (or uses that scripture as its source). But then in Revelation, this city is somehow replaced with a new shining city of Jerusalem that descends from the heavens (new heavens and new earth).  This new city does not have a Temple.  

That's where the Christian version breaks from the Jewish version of prophecy.  In Christianity, Temple blood sacrifice was eliminated with the advent of the new covenant.  Which is one of the points of discussion in this part of the thread.

Current question:  If Ezekiel 40+ is a description of the Christian millennial kingdom, and blood sacrifice was eliminated with the new covenant, why are there blood sacrifices of animals for sin atonement in the millennial kingdom?

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Sorry, but you sound a lot like those Christians who say it's in the bible so it must be true.  Faith starts with a premise of trust.  We have eyewitness testimony and the Holy Spirit.  I'm sorry that you can't seem to hear either.

Maybe you should pray about it.

This is a very odd statement.  Or maybe I'm not understanding.

You're criticizing Christians who blindly accept whatever is in the bible.  Then saying the whole thing starts by having trust in the eyewitness testimony and description of a being called the holy spirit - stuff that only exists in the bible...

 

[CrossEyed2]

I do not believe the land described in Ezekiel 37 is meant as a millennial kingdom.  I do agree that the city and Temple described in Ezekiel 40+ is a detailed description of the land in Ezekiel 37.  It's the same place and in the Judaic prophecy, it is the final kingdom of God where everything is restored and he dwells among his people.  

I do, however, agree that the 1,000 year reign, in Christian prophecy, points to the land in Ezekiel 37 (or uses that scripture as its source). But then in Revelation, this city is somehow replaced with a new shining city of Jerusalem that descends from the heavens (new heavens and new earth).  This new city does not have a Temple.  

That's where the Christian version breaks from the Jewish version of prophecy.  In Christianity, Temple blood sacrifice was eliminated with the advent of the new covenant.  Which is one of the points of discussion in this part of the thread.

Current question:  If Ezekiel 40+ is a description of the Christian millennial kingdom, and blood sacrifice was eliminated with the new covenant, why are there blood sacrifices of animals for sin atonement in the millennial kingdom?




 

I don't make the argument that there will be no sacrifices in the Millennial Kingdom. Dispensational Christianity may make that argument, but the Bible certainly does not.

 

[Politician Spock]

This is a tim-esque broad brush.  I've never been in a church (even my dead church when I was a kid) that subscribed to this and I have said a million times (in this very thread actually) that when you find yourself in a place where everyone agrees, the red flags should be flying all over the place.

This is the crap I don't miss:

This is a non-Orthodox view that is very popular lately and caused a lot of fracturing in the church IMO. We are called to be one body with one heart and one mind. Who am I to pick and choose which tenets to disagree with of the 2000-year old (Orthodox) faith? I receive it as a gift that the theologians and writers of the past many centuries have set those tenets and I am happy to be part of the one body of the Church.

And while I agree it's probably not prevalent in every church, it is very much a "christian" belief, one that seemed to be an important tenant for members to live up to in every church I was a part of. If you don't experience it in your christian churches, I consider you lucky. 

 

[cstu]

This is a very odd statement.  Or maybe I'm not understanding.

You're criticizing Christians who blindly accept whatever is in the bible.  Then saying the whole thing starts by having trust in the eyewitness testimony and description of a being called the holy spirit - stuff that only exists in the bible...

See what you do is pick what you want to believe in and then use 'faith' to tell yourself that it's true.

 

[Jayrok]

I don't make the argument that there will be no sacrifices in the Millennial Kingdom. Dispensational Christianity may make that argument, but the Bible certainly does not.

So there will be sacrifices for sin, after the rapture, in the Millennial kingdom.  Why is that?  What is the purpose?  A typical Christian may say Christ's sacrifice brought an end to the need for animal sacrifice as a sin atonement (i.e. the new replaces the old).  Just wondering what your thoughts are on that.  

 

[CowboysFromHell]

See what you do is pick what you want to believe in and then use 'faith' to tell yourself that it's true.

Or, more likely, you believe what you were taught as a child and convince yourself that it just feels right, so it must be true.  Never mind that people born into other religions believe there's just as strongly for the exact same reasons.

 

[CrossEyed2]

Instead of going down that road.. I will ask that you consider the fact that you confirmed all I have said.

You don't have anything from your god.  You are taking other human beings' words for it.  Humans who themselves have no more experience or expertise on the afterlife and gods than you or I.

You yourself have confirmed it.. if only you could consider it.  No talking to yourself necessary, just consider the obvious.




2

That's a fairly arrogant statement to make. How can you say what another person has or does not have from anyone or anything?

 

[CrossEyed2]

So there will be sacrifices for sin, after the rapture, in the Millennial kingdom.  Why is that?  What is the purpose?  A typical Christian may say Christ's sacrifice brought an end to the need for animal sacrifice as a sin atonement (i.e. the new replaces the old).  Just wondering what your thoughts are on that.  




 

I stopped trying to fit the Bible into my preconceived ideas and just read Scripture for what it says. Ezekiel says there will be a Temple, and an altar, and sacrifices. And it's also pretty clear to me that this is describing the time after Yahshua has returned (Ezek 43:1-12)

 

[matuski]

That's a fairly arrogant statement to make. How can you say what another person has or does not have from anyone or anything?

Arrogance is presuming to know anything at all about supernatural invisible beings and afterlife.

Unless he left something out (which would be weird to do considering his goal to refute the claim).. he confirmed that he does not have any of those things.

If indeed anyone here has something from a god they would be able to share - that would be awesome, amazing, and welcome.

 

[Politician Spock]

That's a fairly arrogant statement to make. How can you say what another person has or does not have from anyone or anything?

I think it's more arrogant to say books are from god. First of all, how could anyone know that. And second of all, why would he do that when the vast majority of people at the time were illiterate. 

 

[CrossEyed2]

I think it's more arrogant to say books are from god. First of all, how could anyone know that. And second of all, why would he do that when the vast majority of people at the time were illiterate. 




1

I say that I believe it and that I have faith in it, not that I know it. There is an element of faith in any belief that involves the spiritual realm.

And the books weren't dropped off at Sinai for Moses to have to read. Yahweh communicated with His people directly. Then those communications and interactions were written down in order to preserve them over time.

That seemed like a bit of a straw man argument.

 

[The Commish]

This is the crap I don't miss:

And while I agree it's probably not prevalent in every church, it is very much a "christian" belief, one that seemed to be an important tenant for members to live up to in every church I was a part of. If you don't experience it in your christian churches, I consider you lucky. 

It's all a matter of perspective, I suppose, because for all the churches I've ever been in all over the US and places overseas, which is in the hundreds, I've never run into this.  That's my reality.  I'm sorry that you had to deal with sort of thing.  You consider me lucky.  I consider you unfortunate for having hit what seems like a patch of bad groups.  You were at Liberty weren't you?  I thought I remember reading that at one point?  I have no idea how many different churches you've been to in how many different areas of the world.  While I don't consider myself well traveled by any stretch, I have been to, what I consider, a pretty good number of churches in a lot of different areas.....more than your average bear I'd say.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I say that I believe it and that I have faith in it, not that I know it. There is an element of faith in any belief that involves the spiritual realm.

And the books weren't dropped off at Sinai for Moses to have to read. Yahweh communicated with His people directly. Then those communications and interactions were written down in order to preserve them over time.

That seemed like a bit of a straw man argument.

Didn't Yahweh do the same thing with Mohammed that he did with say, Paul?  How do you distinguish between the Bible and the Quran?  They both require faith to accept that they are truthful and not just made up by the authors.  How do you know L Ron Hubbard is, or isn't, just making stuff up?

 

[matuski]

Did you guys just tell matuski to pray?

The religious white flag. 

 

[Jayrok]

I stopped trying to fit the Bible into my preconceived ideas and just read Scripture for what it says. Ezekiel says there will be a Temple, and an altar, and sacrifices. And it's also pretty clear to me that this is describing the time after Yahshua has returned (Ezek 43:1-12)

Yeah, well.. you're no fun at all.  The CE of old called and said you aren't doing this right!   

 

[matuski]

I will let you all get back to your comfort zone.

It just bums me out when I see people so proudly declare they let others think for them and tell them what to believe.  The "full time job doesn't let me think for myself " excuse with a straight face was too much to let go.

 

[Politician Spock]

Didn't Yahweh do the same thing with Mohammed that he did with say, Paul?  How do you distinguish between the Bible and the Quran?  They both require faith to accept that they are truthful and not just made up by the authors.  How do you know L Ron Hubbard is, or isn't, just making stuff up?

Don't forget Joseph Smith and Ellen G White. 

 

[Politician Spock]

I say that I believe it and that I have faith in it, not that I know it. There is an element of faith in any belief that involves the spiritual realm.

And the books weren't dropped off at Sinai for Moses to have to read. Yahweh communicated with His people directly. Then those communications and interactions were written down in order to preserve them over time.

That seemed like a bit of a straw man argument.

Faith, or blind faith. I can understand having faith, which is belief without evidence. But blind faith is belief in spite of the evidence. 

Many pastors preached from the pulpit to me and my family that god preserved the books over time so that we can trust them. I had faith that was true. Now that I see the factual evidence that it's not true, it would require blind faith for me to continue believing that. I chose to reject blind faith.

 

[Politician Spock]

It's all a matter of perspective, I suppose, because for all the churches I've ever been in all over the US and places overseas, which is in the hundreds, I've never run into this.  That's my reality.  I'm sorry that you had to deal with sort of thing.  You consider me lucky.  I consider you unfortunate for having hit what seems like a patch of bad groups.  You were at Liberty weren't you?  I thought I remember reading that at one point?  I have no idea how many different churches you've been to in how many different areas of the world.  While I don't consider myself well traveled by any stretch, I have been to, what I consider, a pretty good number of churches in a lot of different areas.....more than your average bear I'd say.

I don't reject your experience. All I'm saying is the evidence of what I experienced exists in this thread. It reminds me of how much I don't miss experiencing it. 

 

[CrossEyed2]

Yeah, well.. you're no fun at all.  The CE of old called and said you aren't doing this right!   

Actually, I finally AM doing it right...it just feels wrong to those who want to keep the status quo. Not you, necessarily, but I figure I'm probably really irritating a lot of my friends online.

 

[shader]

Faith, or blind faith. I can understand having faith, which is belief without evidence. But blind faith is belief in spite of the evidence. 

Many pastors preached from the pulpit to me and my family that god preserved the books over time so that we can trust them. I had faith that was true. Now that I see the factual evidence that it's not true, it would require blind faith for me to continue believing that. I chose to reject blind faith.

So PS, I read some stuff on Ehrman and reminded myself of some of what he believes and has written.  I've been slammed this week and so I haven't read his book and I'm not sure that I want to. 

The little blurbs that I've had the time to read reminded me of a few of his points.  I'll give you an example.

He believes that the fact that there are TONS OF MANUSCRIPTS is a bad thing, while I'd argue it's a good thing.

Now we could get into a million of his other writings, and I'm sure (I hope) you haven't abandoned all your faith in God because of a few books that Bart Ehrman wrote.

But when I read statements that you make above such as "blind faith is belief in spite of the evidence", or "I see the factual evidence that it's not true", I caution you to remember that it can often come down to how we look at the evidence.

One person might say "wow look at all the manuscripts, no other ancient book has this many manuscripts.  We can reconstruct the ancient Greek text with extreme precision".  Another might say "look at all the differences!!!  BAM that's actual proof that God's word did not get transmitted 100% accurately and who knows how many differences might have crept into the text from the time of writing to the first manuscripts!!"

I believe Ehrman used a statement that "would you be ok if your wife was faithful 97% of the time"?  That's a great illustration, and an AMAZING illustration to get people to hop on board his side of the fence.  But is it really meaningful?  I'd argue not.

Why?  Because we have so many manuscripts, that scholars can very accurately do textual criticism and figure out an amazingly solid source text.  

 But that source text isn't good enough for many (such as Ehrman) as we tend to criticize the bible at a level that we subject to no other book of ancient times.

As an example, Herodotus.  Now historians KNOW that much of his information is wrong, but we aren't talking about the historical information, we're talking about the accuracy of the texts.  The oldest writings of Herodotus date to 900AD, or 1,350 AFTER he wrote them.  Yet when historians read these writings, are they super concerned with whether the things Herodotus actually said are still in there?  I honestly don't know.  I know I've listened to Dan Carlin talk about Herodotus and his writings, and I don't recall him ever asking that.  Maybe some historians do?  

But the point is that Bart Ehrman is making a MASSIVE deal out of the time period from the 1st century to the 2nd century and acting as if that time period is significant.  It's quite possible that we could find a manuscript tomorrow that is 98% accurate and dated from 60AD and blow that particular theory of his out of the water, so if I were him I'd REALLY be cautious on that one.  

Now much of the fault lies with Christianity.  I knew a lot of people that believed that the King James Version was THE WORD OF GOD, word for word.  That kind of dogmatic thinking got in a lot of people's heads.  So yes, Ehrman (or any cursory study of biblical texts) blows that thinking out of the water.

But does that mean that the text wasn't transmitted in a way that God is ok with?  I'd argue no (and for now, I'm not discussing the canon, lets talk about one thing at a time).  We can get a very clear picture of the life of Jesus and his apostles and have extreme confidence that it is essentially the same picture that the Church would have had in 250-350AD when looking at any one particular book.  Are some words different? Perhaps.  But do they change the meaning?  Rarely.  

And when some scriptures do creep in that were NOT in the original bible (1 John 5:7) they are corrected thanks to textual criticism.  1 John 5:7 is a great example of individuals with a certain belief system making changes to the text.  I've already mentioned earlier in the thread about how God's name was taken out of the bible.  That happened thousands of times.  So I'm well aware of the fact that, due to theology, the bible has been altered from time to time.

But the good news is that we currently live in a time period where we can remove a lot of that doubt.

So the only thing left is that little time period between the original gospel writings and the oldest manuscripts that we have.  It's very tough for me to imagine that things would have changed all that much.  First of all the further you go back in time, the less of an "agenda" these believers had.  They weren't looking to grow the church into a world power and take over the world, they were looking to survive.

But no matter how you slice it, I can't PROVE to you that the book of Luke didn't change all that much from when it was written until the oldest manuscript copies that we have.  Same thing goes with any other book of the bible.  If you're not comfortable with the fact that there was any change at all, that's an opinion that you have, and while I disagree, I respect it.

But be careful saying "we can't trust them and I can prove that".  No, what you can prove is that there were some changes, and many manuscripts, and many small differences.  But you can't prove that we can't trust them.  You can prove that YOU can't trust them, but that's because you must hold them to the standards of perfection.

On a personal level, I don't hold them to that standard.  It's a message and the message is delivered.  I've seen the impact of the message, I know the impact it has on my life, and I don't feel that any of the small discrepencies that may exist are anything that change the overall theme of the bible by any significant degree.

 

[pecorino]

I will let you all get back to your comfort zone.

It just bums me out when I see people so proudly declare they let others think for them and tell them what to believe.  The "full time job doesn't let me think for myself " excuse with a straight face was too much to let go.

That's not what I said and not what I intended to imply. My full time job keeps me from being the Christian that I would like to be. Maybe it is an excuse for not doing the spiritual work I would like to do, like reading more, praying more, attending services more, maybe even studying in seminary. I made this choice by thinking for myself and I think for myself every time I learn more about Christianity.  The church "allows" me to work out my own path to salvation but provides great structure and direction. The centuries of passed-down oral history and the long record of writings is impossible for any one person in his life to "get on top of." The fullness of Church history is worthy of PhDs in many, many different areas.

For example, I am often asked about infant baptism because Orthodox Christians continue to practice it but many other churches have significantly changed or eliminated it. I take solace and feel lucky that the church offers clear teachings on the sacrament of baptism, how it relates to joining the body of the church (as I described before) and its role in eternal salvation (which was one of the main points you raised: who can tell me anything about the afterlife?) If I were to try to study the history of baptism, how it was first instituted, the role of the Holy Spirit, the practice in the early church, its practice and implications as described in the Bible, etc, I just couldn't or wouldn't do it. But many church fathers said and wrote a lot about baptism and the dogma is baked into the practices of Orthodox Christianity. An earlier poster said he thought I should be considered lucky to be in another church that, I suppose, allows to me to make out of baptism whatever I want it to be. But i consider myself lucky to be in the other boat, knowing that I can lean on the wisdom of the church fathers and church tradition to make sense out of it.

And of course I am only bringing up baptism as a means to explain my point and I am not trying to hijack the thread in that direction. I could just as easily have replaced it with any number of other church activities or beliefs.

 

[tonydead]

Faith - the ultimate cop-out. 

 

[CowboysFromHell]

shader - that's a well thought out post, and I totally respect your opinion.  You've obviously explored your beliefs to the nth degree, and I respect that.  I've explored my beliefs just as much, if not more.  Let me attempt to illustrate where we are at odds (and by "we", I mean fill in the blank with the others in this thread).  Not trying to change your mind at all.  Just attempting to highlight the difference of opinion and see where it takes us (probably nowhere, but I have the energy for this type of discussion at the moment and I've had a few beers).

Let's say that someone you don't know, off the street, walked up to you tomorrow and told you they saw a guy walk on water, would you believe him?

I'm pretty sure, your answer will be no.  You'd think the guy was crazy.  Because you know that it's physically impossible, or perhaps there's some logical explanation that explains why this guy THINKS he saw another man walk on water.  (Btw, if your answer isn't no, PM me so we can talk about this great deal I have on beach front property in Ohio.)

Ok, so it's a silly analogy, right?  Not really.  In a very similar fashion, what you're asking me to believe (or maybe not you, but Christianity is asking me to believe) is that this guy named Jesus walked on water 2,000 years ago.  Obviously, you/Christianity is asking me to believe a whole lot more than that, but let's keep it simple, just to illustrate the point.  Now, 2,000 years ago, there was no internet, no TV, no newspapers, etc.  So, news like this would travel in an entirely different manner than it does today.  To get thousands, tens of thousands, millions of people to believe that something extraordinary happened in today's world is pretty easy.  It's called going viral.  To get that many people in Jesus' time to believe they saw something extraordinary would take a lot more convincing, a lot more effort, and a lot more time.  BUT, very little evidence.  Here's the big difference, and maybe why you wouldn't believe the guy on the street today, yet you do believe the stories from 2,000 years ago.  Today, to convince that many people, you need proof.  You need video.  Any claim you make is going to be either corroborated or debunked almost immediately, based on tangible evidence.  Ask Ryan Lochte.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, right?

Here's an alternative scenario that can be considered:  A relatively small number of people made some outlandish claims about a very charismatic leader.  The multitudes had no way to confirm nor refute the claims.  Legends grew.  This guy Jesus developed a reputation for performing "miracles".  Powerful men - the select few who could actually read/write - sought to become even more powerful through religion.  To the victors went the spoils, including the right to write history.  The legend of Jesus became part of history, and if you disagreed, you were killed as a heretic.  It doesn't really matter when the legends went from an oral tradition to being written down, then altered, etc.  It's all based on a relatively small number of charismatic, convincing people who were able to get the masses to buy into their outrageous claims.  And, getting them to buy into it was sometimes done via force.  Dare I say:  "survival of the fittest"?

In the end, you/Christianity have absolutely no evidence to support your outlandish claims.  It's all stories, legend, hearsay.  I, on the other hand, have loads of evidence to support my worldview.  Science tells us everything we need to know from the beginnings of the universe, through over 4 billion years of history to the present day.  We know where we came from.  And it ain't Jesus.

What's more likely to be the the truth?

1. God created everything.  Sent Jesus to live among us.  Everything in the Bible is true.
   
2. Allah created everything.  Sent Muhammad to be his prophet.  Everything in the Quran is true.
   
3. Judaism is true...
   
4. Hinduism...
   
5. Egyptian mythology...
   
6. etc.
   
7. There are natural explanations, that can be proven using the scientific method, for virtually everything we see in the Universe.  And some Bronze-aged shepherds developed some stories about a super-human named Jesus, and a really special man named Muhammad, and were able to convince the people of the time, through charisma, manipulation, and force that unbelievable things were true, and the only way to live a good life is if you follow what they say.  And, these stories filled a void for many people who want to know "why are we here"?  And still do, to this day.
   

 

[Politician Spock]

So PS, I read some stuff on Ehrman and reminded myself of some of what he believes and has written.  I've been slammed this week and so I haven't read his book and I'm not sure that I want to. 

The little blurbs that I've had the time to read reminded me of a few of his points.  I'll give you an example.

He believes that the fact that there are TONS OF MANUSCRIPTS is a bad thing, while I'd argue it's a good thing.

Now we could get into a million of his other writings, and I'm sure (I hope) you haven't abandoned all your faith in God because of a few books that Bart Ehrman wrote.

But when I read statements that you make above such as "blind faith is belief in spite of the evidence", or "I see the factual evidence that it's not true", I caution you to remember that it can often come down to how we look at the evidence.

One person might say "wow look at all the manuscripts, no other ancient book has this many manuscripts.  We can reconstruct the ancient Greek text with extreme precision".  Another might say "look at all the differences!!!  BAM that's actual proof that God's word did not get transmitted 100% accurately and who knows how many differences might have crept into the text from the time of writing to the first manuscripts!!"

I believe Ehrman used a statement that "would you be ok if your wife was faithful 97% of the time"?  That's a great illustration, and an AMAZING illustration to get people to hop on board his side of the fence.  But is it really meaningful?  I'd argue not.

Why?  Because we have so many manuscripts, that scholars can very accurately do textual criticism and figure out an amazingly solid source text.  

 But that source text isn't good enough for many (such as Ehrman) as we tend to criticize the bible at a level that we subject to no other book of ancient times.

As an example, Herodotus.  Now historians KNOW that much of his information is wrong, but we aren't talking about the historical information, we're talking about the accuracy of the texts.  The oldest writings of Herodotus date to 900AD, or 1,350 AFTER he wrote them.  Yet when historians read these writings, are they super concerned with whether the things Herodotus actually said are still in there?  I honestly don't know.  I know I've listened to Dan Carlin talk about Herodotus and his writings, and I don't recall him ever asking that.  Maybe some historians do?  

But the point is that Bart Ehrman is making a MASSIVE deal out of the time period from the 1st century to the 2nd century and acting as if that time period is significant.  It's quite possible that we could find a manuscript tomorrow that is 98% accurate and dated from 60AD and blow that particular theory of his out of the water, so if I were him I'd REALLY be cautious on that one.  

Now much of the fault lies with Christianity.  I knew a lot of people that believed that the King James Version was THE WORD OF GOD, word for word.  That kind of dogmatic thinking got in a lot of people's heads.  So yes, Ehrman (or any cursory study of biblical texts) blows that thinking out of the water.

But does that mean that the text wasn't transmitted in a way that God is ok with?  I'd argue no (and for now, I'm not discussing the canon, lets talk about one thing at a time).  We can get a very clear picture of the life of Jesus and his apostles and have extreme confidence that it is essentially the same picture that the Church would have had in 250-350AD when looking at any one particular book.  Are some words different? Perhaps.  But do they change the meaning?  Rarely.  

And when some scriptures do creep in that were NOT in the original bible (1 John 5:7) they are corrected thanks to textual criticism.  1 John 5:7 is a great example of individuals with a certain belief system making changes to the text.  I've already mentioned earlier in the thread about how God's name was taken out of the bible.  That happened thousands of times.  So I'm well aware of the fact that, due to theology, the bible has been altered from time to time.

But the good news is that we currently live in a time period where we can remove a lot of that doubt.

So the only thing left is that little time period between the original gospel writings and the oldest manuscripts that we have.  It's very tough for me to imagine that things would have changed all that much.  First of all the further you go back in time, the less of an "agenda" these believers had.  They weren't looking to grow the church into a world power and take over the world, they were looking to survive.

But no matter how you slice it, I can't PROVE to you that the book of Luke didn't change all that much from when it was written until the oldest manuscript copies that we have.  Same thing goes with any other book of the bible.  If you're not comfortable with the fact that there was any change at all, that's an opinion that you have, and while I disagree, I respect it.

But be careful saying "we can't trust them and I can prove that".  No, what you can prove is that there were some changes, and many manuscripts, and many small differences.  But you can't prove that we can't trust them.  You can prove that YOU can't trust them, but that's because you must hold them to the standards of perfection.

On a personal level, I don't hold them to that standard.  It's a message and the message is delivered.  I've seen the impact of the message, I know the impact it has on my life, and I don't feel that any of the small discrepencies that may exist are anything that change the overall theme of the bible by any significant degree.

Ehrman doesn't see tons of manuscripts as a bad thing. He sees it as a good things. More evidence is always good. The more evidence there is, the more the evidence speaks for itself. The tons of manuscripts show tons of evidence that there were tons of changes being made to the writings. It's not an opinion. Anyone can see the evidence. Christians chose not to.

 

[shader]

Ehrman doesn't see tons of manuscripts as a bad thing. He sees it as a good things. More evidence is always good. The more evidence there is, the more the evidence speaks for itself. The tons of manuscripts show tons of evidence that there were tons of changes being made to the writings. It's not an opinion. Anyone can see the evidence. Christians chose not to.

I'm disappointed that I took the time to respond and do some research and instead of discussing any of the points I made, it seems that you tried to find the first error you think I made (which absolutely was not an error), jumped on that and ignored everything else. In terms of biblical accuracy, Ehrman most definitely sees the manuscripts as a bad thing.  It's bad for the bible.  It doesn't appear you have much interest in discussing these issues, as any real attempt at reading comprehension would have enabled you to understand that. It seems as if you skimmed my post, jumped at the first thing you saw and slammed it.  

Also, if you had read my post, you would have found places where I discussed the fact that changes were being made to the writings.  I came out and admitted it.  So it's frustrating to see you write that "anyone can see the evidence and Christians choose not to", because that's factually not a true statement.  

 

[Politician Spock]

I'm disappointed that I took the time to respond and do some research and instead of discussing any of the points I made, it seems that you tried to find the first error you think I made (which absolutely was not an error), jumped on that and ignored everything else. In terms of biblical accuracy, Ehrman most definitely sees the manuscripts as a bad thing.  It's bad for the bible.  It doesn't appear you have much interest in discussing these issues, as any real attempt at reading comprehension would have enabled you to understand that. It seems as if you skimmed my post, jumped at the first thing you saw and slammed it.  

Also, if you had read my post, you would have found places where I discussed the fact that changes were being made to the writings.  I came out and admitted it.  So it's frustrating to see you write that "anyone can see the evidence and Christians choose not to", because that's factually not a true statement.  

There being a lot of changes in the writings is but a small fraction of the many points Ehrman presents in his many books. Ehrman is also one of the last authors I read during my deconversion journey. I'm really not interested in discussion with someone who thinks my deconversion hinges on a small part one of the author I read makes. If it was anything of importance, it was but the final straw. Over all it took a lot more than just that one point for my faith to collapse.  

In other words, I'm not interested in being a christian ever again. If you don't like my opinion, I don't care.

 

[shader]

shader - that's a well thought out post, and I totally respect your opinion.  You've obviously explored your beliefs to the nth degree, and I respect that.  I've explored my beliefs just as much, if not more.  Let me attempt to illustrate where we are at odds (and by "we", I mean fill in the blank with the others in this thread).  Not trying to change your mind at all.  Just attempting to highlight the difference of opinion and see where it takes us (probably nowhere, but I have the energy for this type of discussion at the moment and I've had a few beers).

Let's say that someone you don't know, off the street, walked up to you tomorrow and told you they saw a guy walk on water, would you believe him?

I'm pretty sure, your answer will be no.  You'd think the guy was crazy.  Because you know that it's physically impossible, or perhaps there's some logical explanation that explains why this guy THINKS he saw another man walk on water.  (Btw, if your answer isn't no, PM me so we can talk about this great deal I have on beach front property in Ohio.)

Ok, so it's a silly analogy, right?  Not really.  In a very similar fashion, what you're asking me to believe (or maybe not you, but Christianity is asking me to believe) is that this guy named Jesus walked on water 2,000 years ago.  Obviously, you/Christianity is asking me to believe a whole lot more than that, but let's keep it simple, just to illustrate the point.  Now, 2,000 years ago, there was no internet, no TV, no newspapers, etc.  So, news like this would travel in an entirely different manner than it does today.  To get thousands, tens of thousands, millions of people to believe that something extraordinary happened in today's world is pretty easy.  It's called going viral.  To get that many people in Jesus' time to believe they saw something extraordinary would take a lot more convincing, a lot more effort, and a lot more time.  BUT, very little evidence.  Here's the big difference, and maybe why you wouldn't believe the guy on the street today, yet you do believe the stories from 2,000 years ago.  Today, to convince that many people, you need proof.  You need video.  Any claim you make is going to be either corroborated or debunked almost immediately, based on tangible evidence.  Ask Ryan Lochte.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, right?

Here's an alternative scenario that can be considered:  A relatively small number of people made some outlandish claims about a very charismatic leader.  The multitudes had no way to confirm nor refute the claims.  Legends grew.  This guy Jesus developed a reputation for performing "miracles".  Powerful men - the select few who could actually read/write - sought to become even more powerful through religion.  To the victors went the spoils, including the right to write history.  The legend of Jesus became part of history, and if you disagreed, you were killed as a heretic.  It doesn't really matter when the legends went from an oral tradition to being written down, then altered, etc.  It's all based on a relatively small number of charismatic, convincing people who were able to get the masses to buy into their outrageous claims.  And, getting them to buy into it was sometimes done via force.  Dare I say:  "survival of the fittest"?

In the end, you/Christianity have absolutely no evidence to support your outlandish claims.  It's all stories, legend, hearsay.  I, on the other hand, have loads of evidence to support my worldview.  Science tells us everything we need to know from the beginnings of the universe, through over 4 billion years of history to the present day.  We know where we came from.  And it ain't Jesus.

What's more likely to be the the truth?

1. God created everything.  Sent Jesus to live among us.  Everything in the Bible is true.
   
2. Allah created everything.  Sent Muhammad to be his prophet.  Everything in the Quran is true.
   
3. Judaism is true...
   
4. Hinduism...
   
5. Egyptian mythology...
   
6. etc.
   
7. There are natural explanations, that can be proven using the scientific method, for virtually everything we see in the Universe.  And some Bronze-aged shepherds developed some stories about a super-human named Jesus, and a really special man named Muhammad, and were able to convince the people of the time, through charisma, manipulation, and force that unbelievable things were true, and the only way to live a good life is if you follow what they say.  And, these stories filled a void for many people who want to know "why are we here"?  And still do, to this day.
   

Thanks for the response and kind words.

I don't agree with your alternative scenario because I don't agree that the christians in the first century were "powerful men".  They were nobodies.  Unlettered and ordinary.  The Christians were also persecuted greatly.  They STRONGLY believed what they preached.  Their faith was very strong.  If you look at the writings of the apostles, and even those of the early church fathers in the late 1st century and the 2nd century, they were religious men of faith.  They all believed very strongly in what they wrote, and it doesn't appear that they had anything to gain, but everything to lose.

I think we at times confuse the awful actions of the Church in the 4th century onward and imagine that those were the same type of people that lived around the time of Jesus.  But that's just not the case.  

There are many non-christians who make statements that if Christians lived by the words of Jesus and the words of the NT, the world would be a better place.  Well it appears that early on, that's exactly how they lived.  

As for the miracles, look I get it, it's not necessarily the easiest thing to believe, if that's all you have to go on.  From my perspective, I can't explain it.  But contrary to what you've stated, science can't "tell us everything we need to know from the beginning of the universe" either.  There are holes there.  I'm not going to turn this into a evolution/creation thread, but I'm sure you can admit that there are a number of things that science doesn't know.  Does that mean every atheist runs to the local church because science can't figure out how life arose, how the universe began, or any other number of questions in which the scientific method hasn't been able to prove what happened?  Of course not, atheists have weighed out the evidence and made their decision, and there aren't swayed by what they do not know.

In the same way, I can't explain scientifically, in a way that would satisfy you, how Jesus walked on water, healed some people, or did a few resurrections.  But I already believe in something that's a far bigger deal than that, and that's that God created the universe.  I've personally not had a problem with miracles, because if I believe in a God that can create the massive universe and life itself.....is a resurrection really that big of a deal?  Or a virgin birth?  

Every person that believes in God will have a different reason for their beliefs.  You've been on this board long enough to know that it's very unlikely anyone will change based on someone's brilliant posting.  So I'm not trying to convince you.

For me, I start with believing in an intelligence.  Got to be one.  I can't buy that it all arose by nothing, for no reason, etc.  Just can't buy it.  It's not a matter of IQ, my IQ is fine, it's not a matter of education, etc.  I can say this because brilliant people are atheists and brilliant people believe in a God.  So each of us takes your chart of "which is more likely to be the truth" and works it out for themselves.

For me, it's a little simpler.

First, 

1) Intelligence behind universe

2) No intelligence behind universe

I can't prove scientifically or beyond a shadow of a doubt either of those two things, but I truly believe that the first step in all of this is just a person staring at a beautiful sunset and thinking either A) Wow, someone did that, or B) wow that's beautiful but I don't believe someone did that.

But if you're way down path B, it's going to be difficult for you to believe something that I believe way down path A, because our fundamental outlook is different right from the start.