simon kole

Then we are agreed on its nature, the documents all provide a unified message, which is all I am trying to say.

I do not regard anthologies as usually providing a single message across their collection, which is why I do not think of the Bible as an anthology.

Thanks for clarifying that. I'm glad we understand each other.

The "nice list" lives at http://www.freeratio.org/showpost.php?p=6842692 .

Failte

That is different than the "one unit"/"god-breathed"/"single-author" arguments you have made before, but I'm glad we are on the same page.

Anthologies are often selected to present a single message -- collections of poetry or stories that are specifically selected to reinforce a single idea. That doesn't make the idea true, it does not add any validity to the ideas; the unity of the document simply attests to the anthologists' intent, not the authors intent (the poetry and stories were not necessarily written together, or even remotely related in the author's mind, but the anthologist's intent, their agenda, is present.

So, the bible is an anthology, we agree. I will even agree that the anthology of the bible (any of the 9 or so versions) was put together specifically to present a consolidated message. However, that message is anything by consistent or logical. Showing that the books were put together with intent does nothing to validate them. I'm sure a very interesting book could be put together from various chapters NYT best-seller list that tells a compelling story, but has no other relevance. The "mash-up" of different authors and different stories might be interesting, it might even seem as if it was written purposefully, but it is a construct.

So, you're going to just throw out assertions and claims, and then refuse to defend them at all? That's not particularly useful - -as we've all pointed out, we can read. We still come to different conclusions and interpretations that you do, and if you want to continue to "argue" in this way, you're going to need to justify why your interpretations are correct and ours are wrong. If you don't, then we're perfectly justified in ignoring your unfounded assertions as ridiculous.

dockeen

And it should be noted that stating "your disagreement is with the NT, not with me"
is not defending a statement, or even engaging in a discussion for that matter.

I know you are used to working in a community where referring to something
"scriptural" or "non-scriptural" carries a lot of weight, but in this forum, it would
be more influential is you say you read it in the "Onion".

Deus Ex

Many anthologies have a somewhat unified theme. Take this one for instance:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...eeratidiscb-20

The bible has a somewhat unified theme because it is the collected writings of one ethnic group. But the bible is only somewhat unified in its theme because there is a serious disconnect between OT Yahweh and NT Jesus. This was noticed as early as the second century CE when Marcion posited that Jesus' Father was a greater God than Yahweh, the creator of the material world. You won't see the disconnect because the faith tradition that you belong to has imposed a systematic theology onto the entire collection of writings, and you have glossed over the diversity of voices found in the biblical canon.

simon kole

Marcion was not the only Christian whose theology was heretical. He lived during the apostolic age when those who had been taught by the apostles were still living. They were in a position to go through the writings and determine what was apostolic teaching (including Paul), and what was not.

I would expect apostolic teaching to be consistent, and view it as the responsiblity of the church leaders at that time to faithfully transmit what the apostles (including Paul) taught, and point out what they did not teach.

Deus Ex

There were many Christianities extant in the second century (and probably the first century too), and what you consider to be orthodox is simply the teachings of the group that "won out" by siding with the emperor of Rome in the fourth century.

schriverja

Marcion's canon (see here), however, was made up entirely of books (albeit a subset) of books that are now considered canonical by you. Yet from his canon he drew widely different theological conclusions.

It is also telling that Marcion, a huge fan of Paul's, did not include the Pastorals and Hebrews. One of the reasons scholars suspect the Pastorals aren't actually Paul's...
So much for unity of the texts, I guess.

simon kole

Well, I thought I was doing that in addressing proposed textual contradictions in terms of the context of the Bible,
as opposed to taking isolated verses out of Biblical context.

My purpose in the post was simply to show the books of the Bible are not just an "an arbitrary collection" of writings,
as is maintained by some.

The NT reports that all Scripture is God-breathed, which of necessity means it has one ultimate author.

That it is an "anthology,"

written by many different people,
over centuries,
whose message and doctrine are consistent across those writings,
which contain some doctrines most difficult to understand and
which require content across the whole "anthology" to elucidate (as in my post),

seems astounding to me. Do we have an example of anything like it anywhere else?

There is really nothing to defend regarding its self-evident nature.

simon kole

That is conjecture, and not conclusively provable.

simon kole

That's why he had to be corrected with apostolic teaching on the subject.
Unity of the texts has been demonstrated in my post.