FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Biblical Criticism - 2001
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Today at 05:55 AM

Notices

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-17-2001, 09:45 AM   #11
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by critical thinking made ez:
Since you insist on going off subject. May I?

Would putting a part of your Body into the mouths of men at the last supper be considered a homosexual act? Allowing men to eat you, must be considered a Gay act or a cannibalism. Setting up the monthly ritual for eternity of doing so, has to be.

See...going off subject never allows the first argument to conclude... stick to the original argument or don't post.
</font>
So you have no basis to believe that Paul was racked by guilt. I guess you take it on faith.
 
Old 04-17-2001, 09:48 AM   #12
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Start a new post on the Guilt of Paul and I will answer it there. On this post lets keep with the same line of argument.

Was the Bible written for the common man or for Scholars?
 
Old 04-17-2001, 09:52 AM   #13
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by critical thinking made ez:
Start a new post on the Guilt of Paul and I will answer it there. On this post lets keep with the same line of argument.

Was the Bible written for the common man or for Scholars?
</font>
In fact, actually, given the diverse purposes and literary styles present in the Bible, scholars are very helpful in determining just who each book in the Bible was written for. Luke, for example, was apparently written for a rather well to do Gentile. Perhaps of some importance in the government. Mark, on the other hand, was probably written for Christian converts in Rome. And then there are some rather personal writings, such as Philemon, that Paul probably did not realize would be read by many people at all.
 
Old 04-17-2001, 09:56 AM   #14
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

So your silence on the question means that it was written for the common man and therefore my interpretation as a common man or other common men would have been understood by God, therefore we must all be indiviually right to the inclusion that God would not fault us for getting it wrong to the point he would send anyone to hell. After all he wrote it for us not a scholar.
 
Old 04-17-2001, 10:00 AM   #15
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by critical thinking made ez:
So your silence on the question means that it was written for the common man and therefore my interpretation as a common man or other common men would have been understood by God, therefore we must all be indiviually right to the inclusion that God would not fault us for getting it wrong to the point he would send anyone to hell. After all he wrote it for us not a scholar. </font>
What silence? I explicitly answered your question in the preceding post.

And you have yet to demonstrate that your claim about Paul is supported by common sense.
 
Old 04-17-2001, 10:00 AM   #16
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

So now you're saying that there were a few books that were of private matter that we should not be reading as it sounds like an invasion of privacy between God and an individual. Again... for their own individual interpretation. Therefore still agreeing with me that the Bible which should be read by the masses was intended for the masses and not the scholars.

[This message has been edited by critical thinking made ez (edited April 17, 2001).]
 
Old 04-17-2001, 10:01 AM   #17
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by critical thinking made ez:
So now your saying that there were a few books that were of private matter that we should not be reading as it sounds like an invasion of privacy between God and an individual. Again... for their own individual interpretation. Therefore still agreeing with me that the Bible which should be read by the masses was intended for the masses.</font>
No, I am saying that scholarly studies of the Bible can help us understand what its authors intended to write.
 
Old 04-17-2001, 10:04 AM   #18
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

So now you are admitting that the writers didn't write what they intended to write but wrote false doctrine instead. It now has to be filtered and patched up by scholars. Why didn't God just get it rigth in the first place?
 
Old 04-17-2001, 10:07 AM   #19
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by critical thinking made ez:
So now you are admitting that the writers didn't write what they intended to write but wrote false doctrine instead. It now has to be filtered and patched up by scholars. Why didn't God just get it rigth in the first place?</font>
Maybe your name should be "creative thinking made easy." No, I said that scholars could help us understand the intent of the authors. Considering that they wrote in very different times, cultures, and langauges, scholarly understanding of those times, cultures, and languages are valuable tools in understanding the Bible.
 
Old 04-17-2001, 10:12 AM   #20
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Post

I don't think understanding the facts of the culture, etc... was the toilet indoors or out, makes much difference to 99% of the Doctrine if indeed, it was written to the common man instead of the scholar. God would have also known that would occur and written it appropriately.
 
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:07 PM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.