Soul Invictus

And how unbiased are the holy texts? And just to be equally critical, what's holy to one doesn't make it holy in nature.

Kosh

Psst! Pass that doobie over here!

Amos

Thanks PTET that was very kind of you but I really don't care if you do or not because my comments will stand on their own, as I suggested.

Sorry, I don't know any archaeologists and but fully agree that it is wrong (if not stupid) for Fundamentalists to look for evidence which only can work against them because all is mythological.

For example, I believe in the historical Jesus as a real person but in my view he was just a reborn Jew who was called Jesus in the narrative to indicate that he at one time was just an ordinary Jew now reborn. All the events that are described in the bible are metaphysical events and so his apostles were not real people nor was Mary, Magdalene, Pilate or Herod. Yet, Pilate and Herod were people that existed in those days and so was the area where this divine comedy took place.

Do you see why I hold that the historical Jesus was real but only real in the myth? In fact, an argument now can be made that Joseph the Jew, to whom this rebirth happened was not real and that is why Jesus-bar-Joseph could be crucified. So really then, it was in the mind of the persona called Joseph that this story took place.

Doctor X

Kosh! Stop drooling so much on it!

Have you ever gotten into your hand . . . I mean REALLY gotten into your hand?

--J.D.

PTET

Amos, of course saying that the Bible is mythological is not the same as saying that it is not based in part on true historical facts, or that it does not contain profound spiritual truths.

Where have I ever said otherwise?

The problem, we both seem to agree, comes when people insist that their version of "truth" is true not matter what. That is what my page seeks to address

Facts For Fundamentalists

PTET

judge

http://ptet.dubar.com/misc-facts.html#NT

Yes there are many differences between the various greek texts because they are translations.

We do not find these variances amongst the many surviving mss of the easern peshitta.

It's easy to argue against the greek mss but very difficult (in fact impossible) to present the same arguments against the peshitta.

Here is an example of what I mean.

Where a word in the Aramaic may possibly be correctly translated
several ways it turns up in these different ways in various greek
manuscripts.
An example would be John 3:15
So that everyone who believes in Him not will perish.
The word translated here as "in him" may be translated 'in Him", "on
Him", "into him" or perhaps "through him".
All the Aramaic read the same but when it comes to the greek.

The following Greek manuscripts translate it "In Him": p75, B, W, 083
0113

The following translate it "On Him": p63vid, p66, A, L

And the following translate it "Into Him": S, K, Delta, Theta, Pi, Psi,
086, f1, f13, 28, 33, 565, 700, 892, 1010, 1241

PTET

You refer to my section: Most scholars believe that the NT evolved to meet the needs of the early church.

If you can quote an authority who disagrees with Ehrman & Metzger, do so. What you can't do, of course, is quote an authority who believes that the NT did not evolve to meet the needs of the early church, who will not also insist that the Bible is inerrant.

PTET





Facts For Fundamentalists

Amos

Hello PTET I am sure your pages are very good. I think it is much worse when Fundamentalist claim that their version is right because that, such interpretations, can easily lead to war. For example, when they point at the Euphrates and claim that to be the homeland for the Jews there is trouble ahead. Big trouble because that is not what the bible has in mind.

The land between these two rivers comes from Gen.2:10-14 where in the end of our journey we see the Tigris rise from the East . . . which is the place we left behind when we first left East [of Eden] in pursuit of happines along the Pishon and the Gihon where there is gold and pleasure and riches (the Gihon brings the opposite of power wealth and beauty). When we 'go' for the rising Tigris we will end up in the Eu-phrates which just "is" as in "I am" (eu -phrates is 'bright mind'). Of course the Fundamantalist will never see it that way because they have never arrived at that state of mind.

My point was that despite all of this, and it don't matter how wrong they are, they can still have intimations with reality through their 5th sense.

judge

This has nothing at al to do with whether the bible is inerrant. And I do not claim it is.

My point is this . It is foolish to follow any scholar who believes that the NT was written in greek but who has not bothered to examine claims that the peshita underlies the greek translations.

Seriously ,what is the point of quoting authorities who have not even considered the evidence?

Doctor X

Yet:

when they have and find them not convincing?

Or have you submitted your paper yet?

--J.D.