Burl

I read it. Ehrman was a literalist believer (Biola? IDK) and he does not seem well versed in modern Christian thought. He’s etched out a niche as a literalist debunker, but does not seem to do any exegesis or extend his criticism beyond the Darbyist domain. It’s 2019 and he is still arguing against a rather narrow 18c Christianity? Really? Maybe I am wrong. I grew bored with his lack of creativity long ago. If he has had an original thought lately let me know.

Paywalled, but it seems Ehrman is working from a fundamental (pun intended) error on the nature of sin. Sin is attitudes and intentions where the spiritual consciousness capitulates to selfish and animal natures. It is not limited to actions. In the ten commandments ‘Thou shalt not steal’ and ‘Thou shalt not commit adultery’ are purposefully followed by the ‘Thou shalt not covets’. The spiritual intentions and attitudes are expressly stated as equivalent to the acts, and everyone is sinful to some degree.

Jesus was clear that fornication outside of marriage was sinful.

Matthew 26 The Plot to Kill Jesus 26 When Jesus had finished all these sayings, he said to his disciples, 2 “You know that after two days the Passover is coming, and the Son of Man will be delivered up to be crucified.” 3 Then the chief priests and the elders of the people gathered in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas, 4 and plotted together in order to arrest Jesus by stealth and kill him. 5 But they said, “Not during the feast, lest there be an uproar among the people.” Jesus Anointed at Bethany 6 Now when Jesus was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper,[a] 7 a woman came up to him with an alabaster flask of very expensive ointment, and she poured it on his head as he reclined at table. 8 And when the disciples saw it, they were indignant, saying, “Why this waste?9 For this could have been sold for a large sum and given to the poor.” 10 But Jesus, aware of this, said to them, “Why do you trouble the woman? For she has done a beautiful thing to me. 11 For you always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me. 12 In pouring this ointment on my body, she has done it to prepare me for burial. 13 Truly, I say to you, wherever this gospel is proclaimed in the whole world, what she has done will also be told in memory of her.” ### My interpretation is that one should not criticize the charity of others.

Paul quits. Thormas wins.

Cut & paste. We do our own work here.

Gavina, there are many problems with your post but the greatest are that you not understand the nature of sin, you made an incomplete and misleading sub-selection of Romans, and have an outdated or weak translation. Romans 1:18-30 is the entire pericope. Use the ESV version where the word ‘homosexuality’ is (quite correctly) not used or go to the Greek.

Howdy, STranger. >>pulls up gunbelt; spits tobacco<<

My guess is that Jesus had a basic intro sermon he used every time there was a new crowd. I bet he used the same outline dozens of times.

You’re not wrong but you have not cleared anything up either. 1) All people are called to recognize the Christ within them through grace. 2) Justification is when one finally recognizes the Christ within: that personal connection with the ineffable which is both fully human and fully divine. 3) Faith (pistis) is a trust in that connection as a reliable guide to righteousness. Belief is nothing, but trust is everything. 4) Works of faith are when one acts according to faith. 5) With continued works of faith, prayer, worship inter alia the strength of the Christ connection increases. This ongoing process is sanctification.

The first question is, “what did the authors believe when they wrote the texts?”. One must determine that before making personal judgments. There also seems to be an unwarranted assumption that the NT books are all histories. In just the gospels alone there is indeed some history, but also folklore, biography, wisdom literature, educational simplifications and tropes, etc. Literary analysis is needed. History is just a fraction of the required deconstruction.

There are many churches that fall short, but remember in Christianity the focus is on improving the spiritual condition of the Christian giver. The metric is not how much poverty is relieved (the poor will be with us always) but on how much suffering the Christian is willing to accept on behalf of the sufferer (widow’s mite). “Giving until it hurts” requires faith. The well-off who give much out of their abundance are merely acting ethically. The Buddhist understanding is similar. The poor provide the better off with an opportunity for spiritual improvement.

Wrong website. Plenty of Non-Christian science forums out there.

How long are all y’all going to keep using Ehrman et.al. as an excuse for not reading the actual NT?

I identify evangelicalism with Billy Graham. It is a form of Protestant polity where dogma is linked to a single charismatic leader who owns and operates the church as a sole proprietor.

“You remind me of the man.” ”What man?” ”The man with the power.” ”What power?” ”The power of hoodoo!” ”Who-do?” ”You do!” ”I do what?” ”Remind me of the man.” ”What man?” . . .

Welcome, John!

It’s terrifying. There has never been a worldwide economic crash before.

No solution. We are on the cusp of an unfathomable worldwide depression and homelessness will increase exponentially in the next year. The only ‘solution’ to homelessness is to manage to not become homeless yourself.

Many do not know that the bible has no chapters, verses, sentences, capitals, punctuation or even spaces between words. Each book is simply one long and uninterrupted string of letters. Everything else is editorial insertions by the translators, and they do influence meaning. It’s not documented in the text, but anyone who has ever been out with commercial fishermen knows when Peter stepped out onto the water and then sunk the entire crew was 😂.

Most of Heathens! was culled from humor aggregation sites. Unfortunately they have all started focusing on reposting stupid subreddit animations. Lots of TicToks and tiddies but not many photographs. The last post was really just an imaginary wisecrack and not quite up to the Heathens! standard of genuine humor in religious life. I need new sources. I also think there is much unappreciated humor in the Bible and that Jesus was often rather snarky. This is one reason why it is important to read the Bible aloud. Verbal inflections can completely change the meaning of many passages.

Yes, my main source flaked out 😩

There were many interpretations of Jesus during his lifetime and after. Jesus had imitation apostles running around (Luke 9:49). 1 Corinthians 1:10-16 shows even in one church people were taking off in different directions before the NT even existed. Later on there were many different Christian churches, so there were undoubtedly miltiple viewpoints.

Reliability is exceptional. There is about 64,000 cross references within the NT and between the NT and OT. The graphic looks like this: Validity is harder to assess, and requires training in ancient literature. The Bible only claims that it is useful in the teaching of righteousness. It does not claim to be a historical record or inerrant, but before looking at validity one must read accurately and not simply parrot some preacher or professor’s secondhand opinion.