Mor-Atheist

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doctor X

What do you mean by "bible bash?"


This is a term used by LDS people to signify that they do not want to argue with someone about the bible. Bible bashing takes on an entirely new meaning on this forum

As you can probably guess, I am the brother in law that Mormon Mike referred too. Go easy on him, he is just learning the ropes here with us heathens

Doctor X

Mor-Atheist:

I had the suspicion that might be the case. I wanted to make sure that he did not think people on this forum "bashed" the texts as in, "they suck, you suck, ha!AHA!HA!HA!"

I do not think anyone does that in this particular forum.

Granted, some think if you disagree with a relgious or theological interpretation, that is "bashing" the text. I do not agree with that. If that is the case, in Mormon Mike's mind, then he may be uncomfortable here.

Similarly, few are outright rude here unless a poster behaves rudely: "You just don't know the Bible/read the Bible. You are an ATHEIST [Boo. Hiss.--Ed.] and are unqualified to comment. All atheists are biased, hatefilled defillers of sheep. I will pray for you, scum."

Most of the Recommended Reading is non-polemical in nature--neither ferverently pro-religion or anti-religion. I do not know what the statistics are these days, but most biblical scholars--professional academics--started religious and many remain religious.

--J.D.

Mor-Atheist

Doctor X,

He will not be uncomfortable, but the mormon belief is that no one ever benefits by arguing the bible to try to show someone else they have the wrong interpretation (usually this is done between mormon's and christians). This forum is different as it is questioning the bible itself, not someone's interpretation of it.

This actually could be a very strange thing seeing LDS people posting here, the reason I say that is that they believe the bible has many errors in it (which makes the Book of Mormon necessary) so from that standpoint they will agree with aethists. But on the flipside, if any LDS person is arguing LDS doctrine, the
Atheists will actually have the Xians as an ally as they really do not like Mormons (I speak from a LOT of experience here...).

This could throw the whole board out of alignment with debates going every which way, an ally from a LDS person on one point turns into an enemy on another. Mass chaos, I love it

Doctor X

Mor-Atheist:

That would try to deny centuries of biblical scholarship! I can understand the reason for the approach.

Somewhere there is a Chick cartoon on what to do when the Mormons invade! Anyways, people have wanted to discuss the B of M, but we have not had many Mormons. I am afraid most recognize it as the product of a guy named Joe! South Park did a wonderfully scathing treatment of Joe Smith and his hat. However, if someone wanted to discuss it specifically, then . . . well . . . I am not sure which forum it would go to. On of the Mods may have a suggestion.

"Dogs and cats living together. . . ."

On some of the other forums, people--usually former Mormons--have discussed various bits of the theology from the underwear to the planet you get to rule! Atheists tend to sit back smuggly because when people ridicule the religion, they tend to forget the ridiculous in their own religions!

--J.D.

Mormon Mike

That is not the case at all. Being new to the board I did not want anyone to think that I had hidden motives with my postings. I have opinions and I know there are many other opinions and information out there, I really just look forward to educating myself in areas that I have not fully studied.

Doctor X

Mormon Mike:

That is fine. I merely wished to understand what you considered to be "bible bashing."

--J.D.

Vorkosigan

With a name like Mormon Mike, nobody is going to imagine that you had hidden motives!

Anyway, "Who Wrote the Gospels" is great (my copy finally arrived from Amazon). But if you are seriously interested, you should read some of the major introductory works, like Ehrman's Introduction to the New Testament, Brown's Introduction to the New Testament or Schnelle's History and Theology of the New Testament Writings. All three are Christians. Brown is a Catholic priest and conservative, Schnelle is rigidly mainstream, and Ehrman is more liberal. All are good basic works, summarizing the scholarship and ideas.

If you want to know why we think the writers were not witnesses, Mor-Atheist, there are several reasons. First, Mark, Matt, and Luke tell very closely the same story. Scholarship has shown that Luke and Matthew copied Mark when they did so. For example, there are 666 verses in Mark, and about 600 of those wound up in Matthew. Very often even the same words are used, and further, when we look at the differences, we can see where Matthew and Luke corrected Mark's numerous errors and bad greek, as well as expanding mark's terse language. For example, Luke will have cried out where Mark simply wrote cried.

Now, a person analyzing this might well ask -- if Matt actually ran around with Jesus, why did he copy Mark?

A second issue is that the names do not appear attached to the gospels until almost the third century. They are not named by the church fathers until 180. If they had those names, why were they not used? It appears that they were given those names to give them more authority.

Another problem is that the gospels contain much that is demonstratably based on the Old Testament. For example, The whole Passion story is borrowed from Old Testament psalms and prophecies, particularly Psalm 22. Not only that, but the citations are from a version of the OT called the Septaugint. Again, if they actually were witnesses, and actually knew, why did they feel the necessity to make up stories out of the OT.

Hope this helps.

Vorkosigan

Mor-Atheist

Vorkosigan,

Your answers are exactly the type I am looking for, which of the books that you have read would you say offer the best of these types of arguments? I am not sure if I want to start with the books by the xians as they always seem to have an agenda, maybe you can offer a little more info on those? Thanks again!

Vorkosigan

There are no agenda-free books, so you are out of luck there. Just go with one of the basic intro texts, and start scoping out Peter Kirby's www.earlychristianwritings.com website, which is extremely balanced. Come to think of it, Kirby may well be the least agenda-driven person who writes and thinks on this topic.

After you've read one of the intro texts (Brown, Ehrman, Schnelle, Johnson) then read Helms Who Wrote the Gospels? and EP Sanders' The Historical Figure of Jesus for some interesting takes on your questions above. After that, it gets more detailed, and you'll just need to follow your interests. What do you like? NT social background? Pauline theology? The Church fathers? For example, I am very interested in HJ stuff, so I have a big collection of books on that, but very little on Paul, or the Dead Sea Scrolls -- limited budget, so I buy what I am most interested in <sob>.

Personally, I put, H. Koester's History and Literature of Early Christianity, John D. Crossan's The Birth of Christianity, and Thiessen and Merz' The Historical Jesus in the run-don't-walk category, but everyone will have their own ideas and preferences. Koester is an intro work, but it helps to have some background first. Crossan bulges with ideas, insights, and observations. And T & M covers the HJ in exhaustive detail, though their stance is openly apologetic. You might also want a good reference work, and if your interest is the Gospels (like mine) Ludemann's Jesus After 2000 Years is pretty good.

Anyway, good luck. The recommended readings list is absolutely first class and every book on it is useful.

Vorkosigan

Celsus

For the Dead Sea Scrolls, VanderKam and Flint's The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls is very good, and not on the reading list (though it should be, hint hint). While it's quite a hefty work I wouldn't trust many introductions shorter than it.

Joel