DCHindley

Yeah, I've got Simplified Scientific Astrology in my bookshelf. What a load of crap!

DCH

spin

Knowing that you were a flight risk, Jeffrey, I asked some questions directly of you that didn't require you to know who specifically was being spoken of, which you could answer, because they were based on characteristics rather than specific people. But for some reason you didn't answer.

Here they are again.

Would you say that the faith commitment of someone who follows a religion is the same (at least in strength of commitment) as that of someone who doesn't? Which of the two positions do you think is more likely to persevere in that faith commitment?

Do you agree that a faith commitment doesn't allow a person to be able to ask and answer a full range of questions relating to that faith in a scholarly manner?

So, how about some answers? I'm interested.


spin

spin

Evidence by its nature is something that we can treat from the perspective of disinterested observers. So far to my knowledge not one person with religious beliefs has managed to present anything that disinterested observers could accept. I'm always ready to look over such evidence and will happily try to find a disinterested observer or two to consider it.


spin

Lugubert

My university OT and NT professors have so far been 100% successful in their teachings not to reveal their personal preferences. It was rather a surprise to me that the asst. prof. who (obviously inadvertently) gave me the arguments that made me begin looking critically at my then Christian faith, finally arriving at atheism, had been preaching in a Baptist community.

My OT exegeses efforts, sometimes quite irreverent, and certainly not always mainstream, have so far been sufficiently well received, and my NT comments have been at least accepted, with not a hint of the examiners' personal views.

lukeprog

Interesting. Thanks, Lugubert. There does seem to be a gap between what Christian scholars know and what they will preach to their flocks. Do seminary-educated preachers tell their flocks that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses? That the texts have been changed thousands of times since they were written? That many books in the NT are forgeries? Do they discuss some of the most awful verses in the Bible?

I think not.

Jeffrey Gibson

Noting the shift from "NT scholars" to "seminary educated preachers who have flocks", which preachers of this ilk in particular are you referring to? And from what seminaries?

Which texts in particular do you have in mind?

Even assuming that the term "forgeries" is applicable to any NT text (even 2 Peter and the Pastorals [and maybe 2 Thess.], how many specifically is "many"?

Which are these?

On what basis? And more importantly, on what hard evidence? How many "seminary educated preachers" are there? How many do you know? Of all of the "to the flock" sessions on the bible led, or sermons that have been preached, by "seminary educated preachers" in in the last year (or ten). let alone only in America, have you been privy to? How many of them do you reliable evidence about in terms of what has been spoken of there?

In other words, why shoukd anyone here take what you think about the things you mention as informed and reliable, let alone anywhere near the truth?


Jeffrey

lukeprog

Jeffrey,

You ask lots of questions about topics I didn't want to discuss. I think the problem is that you're responding to me as if I'm making an argument, when I'm just doing an exploratory discussion in this case. If you want a debate, accept my invitation here.

I'll just say simply that I'm referring to the same things Daniel Wallace is when he writes about the inauthentic tale of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery:

(emphasis added)

In fact, that's exactly what happened to me.

Jeffrey Gibson

I'm responding to you as if you were making claims -- which, with your words "I think not" presented by you as the/your answer to the questions you raised, you most certainly were.

So I ask again, why should anyone here take what you claim to be the case vis a vis the things you mention, as informed and reliable, let alone anywhere near the truth?

Do you have evidence for them, or not?

Or to put this another way: what hard evidence do you have to claim that your experience in your particular church (which was what, BTW, and led by a preacher from what seminary?) is true not only in some other churces as well, but in a majority of churces which employ the services of "seminary educated preachers"


Jeffrey

lukeprog

Jeffrey,

It is good of you to question what I have claimed.

But I do not have to back up my claims everywhere I make them. I could not get out the door in the morning if I did. It would probably take me an hour to explain why I think rape is objectively wrong, but I don't have time for that every time I express my position that rape is wrong.

I will make time for that kind of thing if you wish a formal debate, but that's not what I wish for this thread. That would take us way off-topic. As you have pointed out, this very sub-thread is already off-topic, since we are talking about seminary-educated preachers instead of NT scholars.

Somebody who wants to know that truth-status of my claims can use google. These points have been argued many times before.

But, *sigh*, very briefly:

Seminary-educated preachers.

I've listened to thousands of sermons in my life, from dozens of preachers. (Luckily, hundreds of churches put their sermons on the web.) Seminary education is usually required for preaching positions.

In this non-random sample of thousands of sermons, I think I've heard only one sermon mention that the gospels were written by non-eyewitnesses. It may have been a Greg Boyd sermon, I can't remember.

Texts have been changed.

I didn't expect contradiction here since this position is universally supported by scholarship and evidence. See, um, any book ever written in the field of text criticism. Try Metzger's The Text of the New Testament.

Forgeries.

Again, I didn't really expect contradiction here, since most scholars agree that about a fifth of the NT consists of forged letters. As for the evidence as to why they believe this, that is another topic. As always, Wikipedia is a good place to start, and will point you to other references. Make up your own mind.

awful verses

The ones that have God committing or commanding rape, ethnic genocide, intolerance, etc. See here and here and here. I don't generally hear sermons on these parts of the Bible, even though they are well-known to seminary-educated people, who study books like Gleason's Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties.

They shouldn't. They should research it for themselves. I think it will fit with most people's common sense and experience that preachers do not preach on the awful verses of the Bible, or tell their flocks about the embarrassing parts of early Christianity, transmission of texts, contradictions, etc.

Again, if you really want to engage these issues in detail, I'll be happy to do so in a formal debate. (I'll understand if you don't have time, though.) But we are already off-topic.

Lugubert

I won't comment on "seminary" related questions. The concept is too foreign to me. In Sweden, Catholics only seem to run what's named a seminary. For the (Evangelical Lutheran) Church of Sweden, eight out of the eleven semesters of education and practical work needed for ordained clergy are fully integrated into the university system, and all those subjects and classes are open to everyone qualified for uni studies. That opens up interesting challenges, for example: interpret a manuscript Hebrew or Greek Bible text in a novel and challenging way without offending my fellow students who run for clergy.