Just curious what others think about his explanation:

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2011/12/getting-inerrancy-wrong/

Views: 752

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

progressive? slavery? progressive? wives must submit to their husbands.. progressive? women must me silent in church and should NEVER hold leadership in the church? progressive? have i missed the "progressive" gospel that the church of jerusalem rejected before paul set out to make sure his misogynistic world-view was propagated throughout the world?

When you remove the pseudo-pauline works from the bible, you get a much different image of Paul.

this is exactly the point we are making in this entire discussion! the bible MUST be edited and explained to not offend everyone it is trying to 'save'! my image of paul is that he probably didn't even exist in the first place but is a compilation of many wandering preachers and story tellers around during that time, but that can be another discussion for another forum.

I regret to inform you, but you are mistaken.  The problem, and I mean dangerous problem is that you are spreading this as fact, when this has been a critical scholarly study in the halls of the finest academic institutions since the Teubingen school, which was by no means religious.  You are discrediting the very important work of many many scholars, and that is just bad on your part.

ok, so what am i mistaken on? what the bible attributes to paul NOT being progressive or that if you take out the bad stuff paul is an ok dude!?

and what am i spreading as fact?

i am not sure what point you are making other than making THE point this discussion is seeking to understand! IF the bad things the bible says as 'god's inerrant word' need editing from a spin doctor, then why claim it to be his word in the first place? seems to me it is not bad on my part as i don't really care what the latest explanation of HOW it got there is, the reality is it is THERE in the first place being passed of as moral perfection! that to me is the only point at issue here not who wrote the shit or whether paul really lived or not, neither of those points are relevant to this discussion and actually only further the case against the bible as an 'inspired' work in the first place! how could an all-knowing god write a piece of fiction and call it his 'word of life' and then rely on men by the thousands and millions to interpret it for him? that to me just makes no sense what so ever! he could very easily have included a set of guidelines by which ALL would know which parts are 100% true, and which are just made up shit!

cheers!

None of that.  You said that Paul started spreading his hate.  Even now you quoted as a reply from books that no serious scholar  from Yale, Harvard, Oxford, Teubingen or Princeton and all the other leading institutions of higher learning considers to be legitimately from Paul...  There are textual linguistic reasons, and even Origen in the early third century pointed them out.

If you remember, I said "I disagree, Paul was progressive for his time" and "Pseudo-pauline works are just that, pseudo"  Then you wrote a rebuttal citing a bunch of books Paul never wrote.  Nobody with an education in the subject matter, unless they are a Christian, believes Paul wrote them.

btw, please keep in mind that I have already agreed to most of your original post, and you were the one attempting rebuttal to that objection

Even now you quoted as a reply from books that no serious scholar  from Yale, Harvard, Oxford, Teubingen or Princeton and all the other leading institutions of higher learning considers to be legitimately from Paul...  There are textual linguistic reasons, and even Origen in the early third century pointed them out.

can you show me this quote you claim? i have quoted no books as far as i am aware! and again, you are proving the point of this thread!

If you remember, I said "I disagree, Paul was progressive for his time" and "Pseudo-pauline works are just that, pseudo"  Then you wrote a rebuttal citing a bunch of books Paul never wrote.  Nobody with an education in the subject matter, unless they are a Christian, believes Paul wrote them.

um, i don't think you are following what it is i am writing... i cited a bunch of books or quoted from them? no, i offered a few concepts that paul expounds upon in the new testament... and again, i will repeat.. I DON"T CARE who WROTE THEM!! the fact that they are in there is proof that the bible could not be 'divinely inspired' and again have proven the point of this thread. IF we remove all of the writings that we can't prove authorship of, most of the bible would disappear, so i am not even sure what you are trying to explain to me at this point as it is lost in translation somewhere back there! the fact that 'scholars' still have to debate this shit is reason enough to question the integrity of the entire book and all that is contained within, which, is the point of this thread, not what someone believes about paul and what he may or may not have written. someone else writing it doesn't make it anymore inspired nor does it change the fact that it is in the bible which people claim is divine!

Let us get this clear.  The only reason why this discussion is ongoing is because you are unwilling to admit your error when you stated "Paul unleashed his hate on the 1st and second century cultures." This is all due to your disagreement with my educated point that Paul was progressive for his time.

You offered concepts that all atheist bible scholars know are generally not from Paul.  All of them.  Nobody thinks Paul wrote that.  Only your ignorance blinds you from accepting this fact. 

You stated "Paul unleashed his hate on the 1st and second century cultures.".  Yes, you cited them and I said quoted them.   I apologize for the confusion that might have caused when I said quoted instead of referenced.

That statement was a statement about history, it was wrong, as a subject matter expert, I handed your ass to you and now you just need to move on and say:

"well my general point still stands" to which I reply "yes, of course, as I said before I already agreed to your general point in the first post, and it was just a point of clarification made to help you be more knowledgeable about the subject matter for next time".

thanks guys! i can admit when i am wrong, and i am probably on this issue in that i am not up on the latest scholarly explanation for the shit in the bible! my issue mainly is that the bible says the things i wrote, and as i have stated before, i don't actually care WHO wrote it! whether PAUL or Paul wrote them, i still don't believe that changes my issue with the actual texts! sorry for confusing the issues!

thanks Nelson

Thanks Nelson. I guess it boils down to that I think it is unfair to speak ill of the dead when they are undeserving of ill thought.  For most of time, all of us will be dead and our lives are so nonconsequential that in a few generations we are all but completely forgotten.  Even the great people are just names on a list with little or no emotional connection to any of us.  But what can last is a legacy and a reputation.  It is kind of like a "pay it forward" for yourself and those you love and care about.

James, like I said, I agreed with your point from the beginning, and added the thing about Paul as a final thought.  The difference is "Paul" and What religious people say is "Paul".  And who cares about what they say? 

What matters is what really happened.  It is kind of like I don't care about what the bible says about the building of certain cities in Egypt.  I care about what Egyptologists say about the building of those cities.  Since we are taking a stand for the truth, we ought to care more than most what is really true, especially when combating with lies.

i agree, and i will temper my enthusiasm when offered updated information! thanks!

Just out of curiosity, wasn't Tuebingen a center of Lutheran theology? I believe at one point they sent the Augsburg Confession to the Patriarch of Constantinople to initiate an ecumenical dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Actually, I had not realized that Teubingen was involved in that.  But I was familiar with the correspondence.  For the longest time, Teubingen has been both Catholic and Lutheran but in the early days it may have booted out the Catholics.  The Teubingen school was responsible for some serious work on what was called Biblical Higher Criticism.  It is a shame that they didn't further dialogue with the Patriarch.  The Orthodox Church really could have helped them be more accurate, but they had already settled into lutheran doctrines at that point.

Teubingen was the center of theology and philosophy.  But Teubingen also became known for its work in higher criticism.  That is where the Teubingen school came in.

When I first learned about it, I was taught that they were trying to find reasons to discredit the Bible, but after reading about how the biblical higher criticism process started, I began to realize that their arguments are very solid and make the most sense.

Many works of fiction are studied for their historical value.  The bible is just a big one.  It still is important to do it, and much can be learned through it.  That it is believed by a lot of people tends to complicate it.

RSS

© 2022   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service