Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ChemistCat
If He married on earth it's not our BUSINESS. He was without sin, and went to His death a completely innocent sacrifice for sin.

this is true. But the REAL implication behind the show is that the gospels are wrong, because they didn't mention his marriage.

Marriage was normal among rabbis, so there is no reason for gospel writers, especially scientifically oriented people like Luke, to leave such a fact out of the gospels.

But the PC imply that the gospels had a political agenda: i.e. to oppress women.

The gnostic sects had women priests...and gospels. So the argument now is that these early writings are more "true" than the bible.

Jenkins points out the agenda

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195135091/ref=pd_sim_books_3/102-3465719-0004166?v=glance&s=books

Hidden Gospels: How the Search for Jesus Lost Its Way

From Publishers Weekly

In addition to attempting to find postmodern, multiple, nontraditional interpretations of traditional biblical texts, the renowned Jesus Seminar has published texts from outside the traditional canon, heralding them as new discoveries that suggest reinterpretation of traditional Christian theology and practice.

In this book, Jenkins counters the interpretations of Jesus Seminar scholars, concisely and evenhandedly introducing their theories and presenting historical and textual evidence to contradict them. He questions their "discoveries" of texts that have been known to biblical scholars for at least two hundred years, challenges their dating of texts in order to impart them greater weight and traces many of their purportedly new interpretations to age-old traditions ("heresies" to the early Church) such as Gnosticism.

He ascribes to the seminar scholars "inverted fundamentalism," claiming that these critics, ironically, assign great authority to historically questionable noncanonical texts, such as The Gospel of Thomas, while simultaneously challenging the authority and validity of the long-established canon. He attributes this bias to both a postmodern search for meaning and a lay audience hungry for religious truth, while noting that only new interpretations advance academic careers and attract media attention.

In short, he argues that the Jesus Seminar offers nothing new under the sun. Jenkins closes out this forceful critique by noting "we can only hope" that when new biblical texts surface, they might be "evaluated on their merits, and not solely for their value in cultural battles."

Copyright 2001 Cahners Business Information, Inc.

138 posted on 10/31/2003 5:23:18 AM PST by LadyDoc (liberals only love politcially correct poor people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]


To: LadyDoc
But the REAL implication behind the show is that the gospels are wrong.....

Well not quite.

The thought being conveyed is that the Gospels are more like the New York Times reporting of the news from Iraq. They report some truth but they fail to report and actually supress much of what is happening.
168 posted on 10/31/2003 8:11:52 AM PST by bert (Don't Panic!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies ]

To: LadyDoc
Great point!

The Bible doesn't say a thing about the Citric Acid Cycle or natural logarithms, either. Gosh, either those things are evil/false, or the Bible is wrong, right?

Had anyone documented Jesus's **entire** life, it would have required more data storage than the entire known world had papyrus and vellum!
252 posted on 10/31/2003 3:53:06 PM PST by ChemistCat (Hang in there, Terri. Absorb. Take in. Live. Heal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson