"For one thing, why would Paul say women should only speak with their heads covered in 11:2-16 of 1 Corinthians, only to say elsewhere they may not speak at all?"
For that matter, there's no such thing as male or female in Christ Jesus: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. " - Galatians 3:28
view later
For Heaven's Sake!!!! It's
We're talking about the Bible,for Heaven's sake, so who could POSSIBLY get upset about the initials A.D.????
And, frankly, if they bother you so much, leave them off and just say in the year 120, or "early in the second century, around 120".
The letters "C.E." are ABSOFREAKINLUTELY MEANINGLESS!!
What the hell does 120 have in "COMMON" with 2020?
I bet it has a lot more in common with 120 B.C.
Sorry, but I'm boycotting this article now. Nothing else is worth reading within if the author is such an imbecile that he doesn't understand this or he is just one of these people that think that they can't on their own create a brand new calendar WHICH IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE OLD CALENDAR!!!!
Trivia time: when the French gave us Metric distance, weight and temperature, they also created metric TIME. It didn't catch on. Why? BECAUSE IT WAS STUPID!!!!!!
TS
May not have been as critical; it appears, etc, etc.
What a load.
[1] A Review of Bart Ehrman's Lost Christianities http://www.tektonics.org/books/lostehrman.html
Our rating: Thumbs down. Marginally Useless Lost: Heretic. No Reward. |
The curse of political correctness has brought down upon us yet another tome of self-righteous certainty. It is not that Ehrman gives what he admits are later Christianities equal chance of being right -- that question is avoided with the skill of a seasoned politician -- but rather, he wants to give them equal time to be heard, never quite telling us why, if they don't have a chance of being right, there is any sense in hearing from them to begin with.
Ehrman remains a paragon of naivete, clearly insulated from the world around him as he pursues his scholastic fantasies.
Christianity of the patristic period is said to be "more diverse" than what is even loosely called Christianity today, a difference by which those of today "pale by comparison"; clearly Ehrman has not got on with learning about what is offered by Mormons, JWs, Unitarians, and the entire lot, for otherwise he would know the absurdity of that statement. He is too busy rather implying that there is something wrong in denying the name Christian to someone like David Koresh [1] or to Arians who denied the divinity of Christ [2], though presumably he would not happily allow just anyone to affix to themselves the term New Testament scholar with the same level of permissiveness.
It is not that Ehrman is evil, or ignorant (as a scholar, he deserves great respect); it is that he follows the steps of Pagels in being so afraid to offend that he doesn't bother to think his way through his own presentation. It is not sufficient to whine that there was one "form" of Christianity that came out the winner; the question is, did the winner deserve the trophy, and as with his other prior work (Orthodox Corruption of Scripture) Ehrman is monumentally silent about this. There is breathing about variations on Trinitarianism, but not a word about pre-NT Jewish Wisdom theology that backs up the Niceans. Ehrman even admits readily that the heretics forged books [9] (while of course accusing the orthodox of doing the same; no discussion of course, though a note is given to his own guide to the NT) so he obviously is not incapable of delivering an assessment of who is (if anyone) actually on the side of truth. It is just that he does not want to.
The bulk of the book offers sometimes interesting discussions of partricular heretical stances, and how the world today may have been different had a heretical variety won out; here there are times when Ehrman's tolerance becomes so blind that he has to forge a path in which he wants to appreciate docetists or even anti-Semites in spite of themselves; in the process I cannot help but be reminded of local female librarians who were all for unlimited free expression and not putting filtering on public Internet terminals, a fine and dandy state of affairs until vagrants parked next to their desks and started viewing pornography, denigrating to their own womanhood, in their sight. The stumper for "tolerance" builds a mighty petard upon which to hoist themselves indeed. Readers may still appreciate Ehrman's look at these sects. Still and all Ehrman admits that they all cannot have been right [91] but waves this off as a concern first because the polytheistic Romans didn't care about such things (ahem...though Judaism, Christianity's parent, did with a vengeance, as he also admits); second, by hiding behind a list of questions about what proper belief actually would be; third, by noting as he did before that the other groups claimed apostolic succession as well (never mind that the docetists claiming back to Peter requires the absurdity of a Jewish, Galileean peasant holding a Greek view of the material world). Ehrman never gets past, "they thought they were right" and to "which of them was right". Here's a clue: Completely missing from Ehrman's bibliography is the quite sensible Hidden Gospels by Jenkins, who unlike Ehrman, did not shrink from that crucial question.
A few notes of interest to me. The Impossible Faith maven in me found some amusement in Ehrman explaining how Marcion's movement was doomed for precisely a reason I say Christianity could never have survived (newness). Ehrman makes issue of "vitriolic" attacks by Paul, et al. (see especially Chapter 9) but apparently has never heard of challenge-riposte. He notes some poor answers to heretics by Irenaeus and Tertulian, for example, on Jewish laws; but this hardly erases much better answers they were unaware of (rooted in ritual purity -- not that Ehrman is motivated for real answers to begin with. Again and again, his naivete is made clear with such statements as, "...put a dozen people in a room with a text of Scripture, or of Shakespeare, or of the American Constiution, and see how many interpretations they produce." [195] Hmm. I say put in that same room Shakespearian scholars, or a copy of The Federalist Papers, or material establishing interpretive contexts, and those "many interpretations" can take a proverbial hike off the dock.
A bit more naivete in that Ehrman wonders how Ephiphanius would have had knowledge of heretical rites. He supposes that the details of such sexual rites as described would have been revealed to a potential convert; it seems not to occur to him that such details are precisely what would be prime evangelism material for such a group. Once again, Ehrman's naivete concerning what cultic groups do today betrays him into a delusion of the Mister Rogers' Neighborhood variety. Ehrman's complaint that Epiphanius does not name his sources [201] ignores that this was a normal mode of operation for ancient writers.
That's all that really needs saying. Like Pagels before him, but with more depth, Ehrman here dives into the sea of tolerance and ends up soaking wet with nothing to show for it.
*
[2] Textual Trysts http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.html [Textual Criticism of the NT: Basic Assertions and Problems] [Advice from Secular Textual Critics] [Agreement Among NT Critics] [Is Our Faith Affected By Variants?] [Was There a Conspiracy to Change the NT?] [Textual Reliability and Historical Reliability] [ Case Study: Bart Ehrman]
Friends don't let friends read the NIV, NASV, ESV, RSV, NKJV, HCSB, etc.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/KingJamesBible1611/join
Even though the Church had settled on which texts to use, it had trouble making true copies of them. Almost nobody could read and write very well. Even village scribes could barely comprehend what they were writing. This is theory and it goes against what is written in Scripture. As Acts points out, some educated men followed Jesus even during his ministry. Furthermore, the Jews were a literate people by ancient standards, and they relgious worship was centered around the written text. Even those who promose a late date for the construction of the Gospels believe that they were based on earlier writings. Even if Jesus himself set nothing down in writings, because of the brevity and nature of his mission, it is not unreasonable to assume that his disciples included scribes who wsrote down some of his words. And, as the Pentecost narratives in Acts tells us, within months the Church was growing like wildfire, including event priests and other leading men. Luke's reference to other writings suggests that within two generations there would be many Christian manuscripts available, relating Jesus' words or words commentary on his words and his deeds.
"many of our modern Bibles are based on the wrong originals"
Amazing! I'll bet he just happens to know where the "right originals" are and what they say.
The existence of textual variants in the New Testament suprises no one with even a rudimentary theological education. Serious Biblical scholars have tools that tell them what exactly the variants were. It's in the margin of every edition of the Greek New Testament.
The vast majority of these textual variants are shortened names for God or Jesus, or circumlocutions where part of one verse is transferred into another. Most are readily recognized by textual critics as being the work of scribal errors.
The substance of the text is beyond doubt. If you want to debate whether a word here or there doesn't belong, fine. I am not aware of a textual variant that changes the meaning of the text, however.
This attack on the veracity of the Word of God is as old as the Garden of Eden.
The number one weapon of Satan is doubt
The first thing Satan will try to do is create doubt
It shows up early in Genesis.
Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
Forget this garbage. Pray for discernment and read your King James. The God of all creation can certainly provide all the security His Word needs.
Isa 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.
1Pe 1:24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
Mat 15:8 This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
Mat 15:9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.
Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
CC&E
Writers of articles such as this, do not get it and are absolute fools!!!
Ecc 12:12 And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.
Ecc. 10:2 A wise man's heart is at his RIGHT hand; but a fool's heart at his LEFT.
Stopped by Barnes and Nobles to pick up a free book yesterday and was amazed to see the Dan "show me the money man" Brown's and his mimicks infesting the front area of the store.
Of course before exiting, I commented rather loudly but gently about where there were any "classic good books" not garbage like Brown and the ripoffs ...I got attention from some of the zombies grazing there.