NO! I wasn’t avoiding anything, Vinnie. I read what I quoted. I scanned over some of the material. Just some. I found interesting points and I quoted them. That’s all I did, Vinnie. I thought what I quoted made a lot of sense. Don’t you think it makes sense to take a fresh perspective on trying to understand the books that present God to us? I want to know this stuff. I may get to know my King better or help someone who is searching
Goodbye Ralphie. God bless you.
1 Like
If you accuse me of lying, Vinnie, I’m not going to continue. Yes or no?
These questions are for anyone interested.
Why would anyone look to the bible to try to find the canon within the canon? Why not search Huck Finn or Catch-22?
Bear in mind some of the criteria scholars used to reject epistles allegedly written by Paul is based on the sentences were too long or the essay letters were too long. How flinsy can their standards be?
I don’t want to derail this particular thread, but the arguments around authorship of the pastorals is perhaps the best example I personally find of the agenda and presuppositions of the critical scholars pursuing a narrative, and even the theistic scholars such as Sparks near-blindly parroting what ought to be obviously erroneous arguments.
I may start a new thread devoted to this, using this as a prime example to rebut the idea that Sparks and similar scholars are simply objectively approaching the evidence and data…
I must demur. I find that Sparks approaches biblical criticism with a wholesale and near blind embrace and acceptance of the narrative proffered by the critical scholars, yet unfortunately the one thing he doesn’t seem to be critical of is the narrative he has embraced. To quote Lewis on the topic…
agnosticism is, in a sense, what I am preaching. I do not wish to reduce the sceptical element in your minds. I am only suggesting that it need not be reserved exclusively for the New Testament and the Creeds. Try doubting something else.
The authorship of the pastorals is one topic i’ve studied in depth, and the parroted erroneous arguments that remain as ubiquitous as urban legends are one of my biggest pet peeves. I genuinely do appreciate your charity toward Sparks, but i fear that it may be misplaced. I may start a thread to discuss this topic in particular and demonstrate why i believe that Sparks and similar scholars are hardly approaching the topic as an objective observer, honestly wrestling with the data, but rather are wholesale embracing a narrative while being very careless with the facts at hand.
1 Like
I’d be happy to see the positive evidence you can cite in favor of Pauline authorship. I am sure you are aware that merely trying to explain away objections to Pauline authorship is not remotely close to the same thing as providing actual evidence for Pauline authorship. Given the abundance of many Christian forgeries, including 3 outside the New Testament in Paul’s name, I am sure you are aware that positive evidence is needed for asserting Pauline authorship of every work bearing his name.
Also as for Sparks, he stated explicitly in his book that he does not agree with critical
scholars on every issue. So your charge of him blindly accepting them all is unfounded. That is a sweeping generalization. Second, most critical scholars feel the same about conservatives. Their hermeneutics and pious imagination never leads to a single negative judgment when evaluating the reliability of scripture. Something unheard of for any other document in existence.
Also, I have not shown Spark’s charity yet. He is presenting well argued thoughts right now. The nest of his model of inspiration should come after chapter 5 which I will get to soon. I am critical of every work I read, but also recognize good arguments and writing based on reading hundreds of scholarly books and many hundreds of scholarly journal articles on NT studies. Sparks is very sober.
Well, this type of sentiment would be immensely ironic for anyone thinking scripture is inerrant and goes out of their way to try to explain hundreds of obvious contradictions in the texts. As far as obviously erroneous arguments, those more frequently come from conservatives misrepresenting and misunderstanding critical scholars.
Vinnie
There are many errors in the scholary work of NT higher critics. Important to keep that in mind. One may get the impression that they are nearly beyond criticism themselves in their assessments. If you are told that a majority of them agree on something, ask if they are mostly liberal or conservative.
Is some the kickback with critical scholars a reflection of the persistent distrust of intellectuals in our society? Certainly, we need to hold all accountable, trained or not, but isn’t it the epitome of arrogance and pride to discount the opinions of those who have spend a lifetime of study in a subject without careful consideration, as many do in conservative circles?
4 Likes
Do you accept the good news that Jesus revealed to Paul personally?
Gal 1:11 “I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.”
Do you believe and know this to be true? That those who have placed their full trust in Jesus have been crucified with Him, united with Him in the crucifixion?
Rom 6:6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin
Rom 6:8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.
Gal 2:20 I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21
Gal 6:14 May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world.
Or do you not believe it and that Paul never said this.
Believing it and believing Paul wrote it are two different things. And, it is not black and white as Paul may have said it but not wrote it and someone else put it on papyrus. Paul’s letters even if all written by him are no doubt only a small portion of his work and teaching, but is evidently the portion God preserved for us to have in written form, even if penned by followers after Paul’s death.
1 Like
Are you referring to something specific? I always thought that real scholars loved to learn and share their knowledge and would field every question with sincere interest and a genuine desire to learn if they weren’t sure of the answer. They were inquiring machines, respectful of the process for gaining more knowledge and those who joined them in that pursuit.
I admire scholars, if they are sincere and fair and put scholarship ahead of agendas. It is also perfectly acceptable, in my book, to disagree, to question them and to challenge them.
There is an undercurrent of disdain and a rush to judge others who hold dear more conservative views. Some scholars present themselves not unlike the way we envision the Inquisitors and the Pharisees treated others not as together as they were.
Michael L. Brown is a Messianic Jew and is the finest Biblical scholar in the world today, imo. Love the guy.
Personally, I think it is good to be mindful that Christians are just people and like most people are doing the best they can. Don’t forget that hordes of people will use the tag, “Christian” loosely, or to ease their conscience, or out of habit, etc. Most “Christians” in the States are not born from above and don’t care. Jesus is the target of disrespect and hatred today and that He is deeply loved and appreciated by His followers merely serves as additional incentive to mock and humiliate Him in any way possible. It’s too bad. He’s a great guy.
Romans and Galatians are not the Pastorals. The majority of scholars have never really found any reason to call Pauline authorship in question. That does not mean it’s absolutely certain he wrote them but they are more likely at being genuine Pauline works than the Pastoral epistles according to the arguments marshaled and judgments of trained experts in NT studies.
Vinnie
Let me be more clear. Do you accept the Gospel that is proclaimed in the NT. That through the death and resurrection of Jesus and the union with Him in it, belivers die to the Law of Sin that is in the flesh. They become born of God, New Creations in Christ, freed from the slavery to sin and the devil.
You know what? Who cares? Is what is written pertinent? Is it God’s message, inspired by Him?
Proving Paul didn’t write certain letters is a separate issue. The key is, is the letter God breathed?
To tease out what is inspired in the NT is worthwhile. Dismissing all the miracles before engaging in such an endeavor disqualifies the project from the start automatically. Removing the miracles from such a study cannot be an examination of the NT by definition.
Isn’t it the epitome of arrogance and pride to assume that those in conservative circles who discount such opinions have done so without careful consideration?
But that said, I think Lewis’s words are spot-on (as I always seem to believe)… when we examine those who have spent a lifetime in such studies…
“While I respect the learning of the great biblical critics, I am not yet persuaded that their judgement is equally to be respected.”
2 Likes
If the verses that teach about salvation or faith in Jesus are the ones that are not factual, then it matters very much, no?
2 Likes
Just speaking from past experience. And it is misleading to make a generalization from a limited statement.
1 Like
The legends (worded in the ancient tribal hymn) lie cradled
In the seagulls call
And all the promises they made are ground beneath the sadists fall
Yes! Agreed. It liberates us from the evil of damnationism.