Religion vs. Religion

[cwes99_03]

Speaking specifically on the first author and the book "Misquoting Jesus" I have reviewed the following page. Perhaps I will view more on the subject as time permits.

 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5052156

 

However, might I elaborate on another illustration I have used on the parallel thread.

 

To understand this level of scriptural study, one must have attained a level of earlier study. After all we can't expect a 5 year old to learn relativity when he has no basis in math, algebra, geometry, or calculus.

 

Pyro, I believe you have a basis in the scriptures. How solid that basis is, I have questioned in the past. I have revealed misunderstandings I believe you have and you have never touched on those misunderstandings again, which I took to mean you realized you might not have all the knowledge you thought you had. I likewise have left you alone, realizing that you too have a lot of knowledge (whether accurate or not I do not know) on the subject that I did not have, such as these materials you have just presented.

However, the two of us have recognized each other's level to be above the level we are discussing here. That is to say that this discussion here, originates on whether or not some religions can be identified to closely follow the texts they posses.

I did touch on deeper things in that illustration, and if you like we should continue a discussion of these materials, whether here or on another thread is of your choosing, but we would otherwise be hijacking this thread if we chose to keep it here.

That being said, I have this initial response. On other threads I have pointed out that throughout time there have been attempts to rewrite the Bible through introduction of new material and adjustments made to material to suit the wants and needs of human philosophy on the subject. So this is not new to me. What these particular authors say on the subject, however, is unknown to me. This is why I continue my study of the scriptures in the manner I prescribed above in my illustration.

[catholiboy]

And there you have it. Who's to say what is "so fanatical?" Who judges? If its before it gets to the marketplace of ideas, then its only the individual, and the individual's circumstances drive them to decide whether a belief is reconciled with their view of the natural world. There need be little logic involved any many "objective aspects" of the natural world can easily be ignored based on those circumstances.

 

The beliefs of the *majority* influence the judgement of this consistency once in the marketplace of beliefs, which causes some to be seen as "fanatical" or "cults" but its rarely widely agreed upon.

 

 

Sorry, but realistically it isn't a single individual, even in a position of power, who "judges" as you put it...it is a general consensus formed from a group of people in power, acting not on individual feeling or sentiment, but as a result of their paradoxical belief in a higher being combined with a paranoid denial of any other noumenal possibility. No religion ever originates froma single person: as in, those who institute it, not those who suggest the idea.

Let's not dwell on this, and get back to the whole subject. This is an interesting thread.

[cwes99_03]

To continue on with Pyro's valid argument.

 

Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman

Amazon.com: Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why: Books: Bart D. Ehrman http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060738170

A reviewer on this page, Timmothy Kearney has stated:

 

I think if Ehrman had stayed with textual criticism itself, the work would have been helpful, but he then goes from presenting valid problems in the study of scripture to the world of speculation. He spends a good amount of time writing about the flaws of early copyists who either deliberately changed texts or mistakenly miscopied portions of scripture. In theory what Ehrman states could be possible, but it's still just speculation. The more I read the book, the more I began wondering what Ehrman is trying to accomplish in the book...It is one thing to say that we have copies of scripture that vary and the variants may be due to human error, it is another to say that all of scripture is wrong...It also seems to imply that people who take scripture literally or ignore, at least what Ehrman sees as flaws in scripture, they are at best unenlightened but more accurately not all that intelligent and this is a mistake. It's a religious form of the red state/blue state mentality that has overtaken politics and this can be dangerous.

 

While I do not espouse all of Kearney's views on the subject, it certainly lends to the idea that Bart Ehrman's line of reasoning is not without it's flaws. Thus again I come back to my earlier point.

 

If you find someone, who shows you what a trabilidon is from that book, and that person goes on to describe a trabilidon in a way that is inconsistent with the book, as well as many other things in the book, which would you believe, the person or the book? Until you could verify the book you would have to disbelieve both. However, as I already stated the book is full of factual things that you know are 100% accurate. It would however be dependent upon you to verify all things in the book, and search out the authority on the book (it's writer).

 

I'll continue checking into that book, Pyro. Meantime, I'll look into the others you posted.

[Pyrotex]

To continue on with Pyro's valid argument.

Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman

http://www.amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060738170

A reviewer on this page, Timmothy Kearney has stated:....

Having read Ehrman's book recently, I cannot understand why Kearney would jump to such an erroneous conclusion. Ehrman did NOT say that the Bible was "all wrong" or "mostly wrong" or anything to that extent. Ehrman's only speculation was in trying to reconstruct the motives behind certain variations in the NT script. That the variations exist is a fact. That many of them were done on purpose is a fact. However, having said all that, Ehrman goes on to say that most of the NT can be reconstructed to a point within a couple of centuries of their original creation. Not bad, actually.

[cwes99_03]

On Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration" (4th Edition)

Amazon posts the following comments by readers.

 

Amazon.com: The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration (4th Edition): Books: Bruce M. Metzger,Bart D. Ehrman http://www.amazon.com/Text-New-Testament-Transmission-Restoration/dp/019516122X/sr=1-1/qid=1163604473/ref=sr_1_1/102-8986468-2823343?ie=UTF8&s=books

 

The problem with this book is it's dated. Since it was written some quite substantial manuscript discoveries have been made. Metzger is bias towards the Alexandrian text and relentlessly degrades the Byzantine text at every opportunity the reader should not ignore this. However, he takes the Westcott & Hort approach that the Byzantine was very late and has no ancient readings. He presents a very compelling argument that validates his view. However, the Chester Beatty Papyri and Bodmer Papyri of around 200 AD disprove his theory entirely. These were found after this book's publication and I do believe Metzger has updated this title.

 

This 4th edition updates a classic by Metzger. The new co-author that joins the aging Metzger is from the liberal end of the spectrum, and a few of the new views expressed in the 4th edition put a lot of weight on a very few manuscripts that agree with a liberal interpretation. There is thus a section on the "Oppression of Women", for example. Although Metzger's well-balanced approach is thus in jeopardy, the book is on the whole a useful update to the 3rd edition.

 

Who is that new leftists? Why none other than Bart Ehrman from the above post.

Many facts concerning biblical Greek manuscripts that truly do exist can be found here, as well in books written by scholars of the opposite ideological bent. What makes for a challenge in reading such books is those occasions when assumptions and/or conclusions are presented as facts. Many of such "facts" can, and are, viewed differently by accomplished conservative scholars. Bart Ehrman, the brilliant Greek scholar who is the new partner in the latest edition of Metzger's work, is, unfortunately, radically bent toward a leftist viewpoint of the Scriptures. This leads to an over-confidence, typical of left-wing biblical scholars, that is deleterious to sound scholarship. In time, if the established history of left-wing scholarship holds, his work will become dated when another young and clever scholar devises some new theory concerning development of the ancient Greek text.

 

For a more balanced, erudite view of this subject, one might want to read Harry Sturz' work.

 

And for an opposing view, conservative to the bone, Maurice Robinson is the one to read. He is a capable scholar, though blinded somewhat by his right-wing prejudices, but one that can more than hold his own in the heated debate over the development of the Greek text, and who states categorically that Ehrman is guilty of several factual errors in this book.

 

Note: I don't say to consider the work of Harry Sturz. I have never read his work and would not know whether he makes good or bad suggestions.

[cwes99_03]

As to the next text mentioned, I found this to be the worst citation Pyro could have made.

 

"Who Wrote the Gospels?" by Randel McCraw Helms

 

I am an agnostic who received this book as a gift. I was very enthusiatic about the book, but it has been a bit disappointing. I disagree with the other reviewers, in that I don't think it's an easy read for the lay person. The author does not lay down sufficient groundwork before delving into his theses about the identities of the authors of the gospels. He assumes that the reader knows what Source Q and Septuagint Isaiah are, for instance. The book brings up some thought-provoking points but is generally disorganized and rambling. The result is a watered-down text that is not forceful enough to stir the intellect of a true believer. It preaches to the choir of skeptics. Because I am already cynical about the Bible and religious texts in general, I waded through it, but I would not recommend it.

 

R.M. Helms claims to be on the 'cutting edge' of Biblical scholarship with this book "Who Wrote the Gospels." The interesting thing about his remark in relation to his work is the fact that if one were to peruse the bibliography one could not help but notice that his sources are from the 50's and 60's (predominantly), some 70's and 80's, and a scant few from the early 90's. Cutting edge? Hardly.

The material in this work was very hard so swallow. In fact, most of his assertions regarding authorship were speculative at best (albeit the fact that he had no real serious sources to back up his claims). Moreover, his dating of the manuscripts are off base mostly due to the actual 'cutting edge' research that has surfaced since Colin Hemer's work 'The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History.'

 

Where is Helms use of the LXX? What sources did Helms actually use to date the Gospel accounts? None, is the answer, other than his wide use of the source Q. A source which has absolutely no historical backing or evidence, no extant manuscripts, and is purely speculative.

 

This work is wrought with problems. In fact, Amazon does not give me enough space to write a proper response dealing with all the problems which arise in this text, so I merely highlighted the major ones (and that, without much detail). There are far greater sources written by much better scholars than this one. For instance, I would certainly recommend any source material for the Gospels written by Bruce Metzger, or Alister McGrath, and the Colin Hemer text I mentioned above, but this one should be left on the bookstore shelf as a dust collector.

 

I have already pointed to reviews of Metzger's book.

[cwes99_03]

As far as Elaine Pagels goes.

 

Amazon.com: The Gnostic Gospels: Books: Elaine Pagels http://www.amazon.com/Gnostic-Gospels-Elaine-Pagels/dp/0679724532/sr=1-1/qid=1163606153/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-8986468-2823343?ie=UTF8&s=books

 

Amazon.com: Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas: Books: Elaine Pagels http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Belief-Secret-Gospel-Thomas/dp/0375501568/sr=1-2/qid=1163606153/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-8986468-2823343?ie=UTF8&s=books

 

Amazon.com: The Origin of Satan: Books: Elaine Pagels http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Satan-Elaine-Pagels/dp/0679731180/sr=1-3/qid=1163606153/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/102-8986468-2823343?ie=UTF8&s=books

 

Basically what we get out of just these three books by Pagels is this:

 

Elaine Pagels knows nothing about the teachings of the Bible other than what she herself has been taught (she believes that the gospel of John claims Jesus is equivalent to God)

Elaine Pagels believes that the Gnostic Gospels and other Apocryphal writings show that the original gospels were not divinely inspired.

Gnosticism's Christian form grew to prominence in the 2nd century A.D. Ultimately denounced as heretical by the early church, Gnosticism proposed a revealed knowledge of God ("gnosis" meaning "knowledge" in Greek), held as a secret tradition of the apostles. In The Gnostic Gospels, author Elaine Pagels suggests that Christianity could have developed quite differently if Gnostic texts had become part of the Christian canon. Without a doubt: Gnosticism celebrates God as both Mother and Father, shows a very human Jesus's relationship to Mary Magdalene, suggests the Resurrection is better understood symbolically, and speaks to self-knowledge as the route to union with God. Pagels argues that Christian orthodoxy grew out of the political considerations of the day, serving to legitimize and consolidate early church leadership. Her contrast of that developing orthodoxy with Gnostic teachings presents an intriguing trajectory on a world faith as it "might have become."

 

This last quote however I think is the hanging point for her works. 1) it shows us the reason why the Apocryphal writings are not cannonized (because they were written no less than 100 years after Jesus had died and after the apostles (including the ones they are attributed to, such as Thomas) had died, and they include teachings and statements that are not supported by other historical facts known about Jesus and his teachings.) 2) Pagels identifies a problem with "modern christianity" in that it no longer teaches based upon the Bible but based solely upon human philosophies about God, but she goes off the deep end of the other side of the argument to assume then that she can do the same and go off of human philosophies that are quite the opposite side of "modern christianity" but again missing the mark of the original texts.

 

Nice try on slipping that last one in Pyro, but that is where your downfall is.

While the other texts and authors have based their works (or at least originally based their works) on textual criticism, which is partly what I was talking about in my illustration of the trabilidon, Pagel obviously has not.

[Turtle]

A lot of debate here of late, but no good religion vs. religion the title promises. Let's kick 'er up a notch and make some reasoned and impashioned attacks against the religion you don't believe in. :shade:

 

I would like to line up the Mayan religion against its contemporaries, but unfortunately the Wholly Fodder saw fit to burn their sacred writings wholesale. Hey, did you know the Mayans used zero? Whether this knowledge came from God, transport from India, or secular cleverness of their own, it is a power the Jews, Christians, and Muslims lacked in the same age. :cup:

[Freddy]

As far as Elaine Pagels goes.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Gnostic-Gospels-Elaine-Pagels/dp/0679724532/sr=1-1/qid=1163606153/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-8986468-2823343?ie=UTF8&s=books

 

http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Belief-Secret-Gospel-Thomas/dp/0375501568/sr=1-2/qid=1163606153/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-8986468-2823343?ie=UTF8&s=books

 

http://www.amazon.com/Origin-Satan-Elaine-Pagels/dp/0679731180/sr=1-3/qid=1163606153/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/102-8986468-2823343?ie=UTF8&s=books

 

Basically what we get out of just these three books by Pagels is this:

 

Elaine Pagels knows nothing about the teachings of the Bible other than what she herself has been taught (she believes that the gospel of John claims Jesus is equivalent to God)

Elaine Pagels believes that the Gnostic Gospels and other Apocryphal writings show that the original gospels were not divinely inspired.

 

 

This last quote however I think is the hanging point for her works. 1) it shows us the reason why the Apocryphal writings are not cannonized (because they were written no less than 100 years after Jesus had died and after the apostles (including the ones they are attributed to, such as Thomas) had died, and they include teachings and statements that are not supported by other historical facts known about Jesus and his teachings.) 2) Pagels identifies a problem with "modern christianity" in that it no longer teaches based upon the Bible but based solely upon human philosophies about God, but she goes off the deep end of the other side of the argument to assume then that she can do the same and go off of human philosophies that are quite the opposite side of "modern christianity" but again missing the mark of the original texts.

 

Nice try on slipping that last one in Pyro, but that is where your downfall is.

While the other texts and authors have based their works (or at least originally based their works) on textual criticism, which is partly what I was talking about in my illustration of the trabilidon, Pagel obviously has not.

I would pay a lot of money to see you and Pagels debate this! Care to guess who I would put my money on?

[Southtown]

No.

[rising crescent]

Religion is not theology.

theology originated from greek.

True Religion originated from sacred chronicle and hints of the prophet

[cwes99_03]

Crescent what would you base that on? Furthermore, have you taken the time to read the thread, or at least the original question of it?

 

Here, read this since you can't find the first page. That goes the same for Turtle.

 

While most of the wheel spinning in this still very young forum to date has taken the spin of "Science vs. Religion", a clear spin off from this that has shown up several times is the issue of Religions natural conflict with one another based on differences in beliefs both large (e.g. monotheism vs. polytheism) or small (e.g. interpretations of requirements for salvation within Christian sects).

 

My question for this thread is two fold (which may mean splitting rather quickly, although they are intertwined):

 

1) How is the existence of varying beliefs reconciled theologically?

2) What are the various benefits and problems associated with resolving these conflicts?

 

Discuss.

Your personal comments are welcome as long as they stick to the thread topic. This is not a place to tear down a person for religious beliefs, but to discuss where and how those beliefs are different, and the problems associated with the differences.

[cwes99_03]

Having read Ehrman's book recently, I cannot understand why Kearney would jump to such an erroneous conclusion. Ehrman did NOT say that the Bible was "all wrong" or "mostly wrong" or anything to that extent. Ehrman's only speculation was in trying to reconstruct the motives behind certain variations in the NT script. That the variations exist is a fact. That many of them were done on purpose is a fact. However, having said all that, Ehrman goes on to say that most of the NT can be reconstructed to a point within a couple of centuries of their original creation. Not bad, actually.

 

So which is it then, Pyro. Is the Bible we have today chock full of innacuracies or misquotations, or are there various translations that correctly translate the best original documents we have at this time?

 

Certainly, this is a source of difference in religions and teachings. Is the same true of the various teachings (if any) of the other main religions, Islam, Budhism, Hinduism, Taoism? We are not talking about what makes these different from each other but what makes one Hindu's beliefs different from another Hindu's beliefs.

[rising crescent]

Crescent what would you base that on? Furthermore, have you taken the time to read the thread, or at least the original question of it?

 

Here, read this since you can't find the first page. That goes the same for Turtle.

I answered first questioned.

Since our religion,You and I is different,thats why from your logic point of view look my answer didnt match thread topic.

 

To be honest,I am from Indonesian,East World.

 

in ancient traditional Islam. There is no benefit from "what in "second question"

[Pyrotex]

On Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration" (4th Edition)

Amazon posts the following comments by readers...Note: I don't say to consider the work of Harry Sturz. I have never read his work and would not know whether he makes good or bad suggestions.

People who debate by screaming that their opponents are "liberals!!!!" (or "conservatives!!!" or "fascists!!!") are not to be trusted. With their own words, they give away their own unthinking, dogmatic bias.

 

Metzger may have preferences over which manuscripts he believes are more trustworthy but so what? EVERYONE who does textual analysis on the Bible WILL have their favorites! What Metzger brings to the table is a thoughtful review and analysis of the evidence with well-substantiated insights and without diatribes or preachments, something his opponents appear to be unable to do.

[Pyrotex]

So which is it then, Pyro. Is the Bible we have today chock full of innacuracies or misquotations, or are there various translations that correctly translate the best original documents we have at this time?

Why the loaded question? And why state it in such a way that suggests that I have contradicted myself? I haven't. Chill. You speak of "the Bible we have today". Surely you are aware that there are dozens of Bible variations. You got your Kings James, your Revised, and Buddha knows how many others, all based upon either different sets of manuscripts or different interpretations or both. WHICH Bible are YOU talking about?

...but what makes one Hindu's beliefs different from another Hindu's beliefs.

The same as between Christian beliefs. Interpretations, cultural attitudes (CA), and inherited values (IV). Scriptures, by their very nature, are ambiguous with respect to I, CA and IV. They teach by stories, by example, by myth, by parables. This demands that the reader *interpret* the meanings that were intended by the author. Given the reader's CA and IV, his interpretations will be different from another reader with different CA and IV.

 

For example, Jesus stopped Peter from using his sword, saying that His kingdom was not about conquest. There is another verse elsewhere where Jesus appears to advocate the necessity of taking up the sword. Different sects and denominations interpret them differently, prefering one verse over the other. So you got your pacifist Christians and your militant Christians. One uses the Bible to defend an anti-war stance in Iraq and the other uses the Bible to defend pouring more troops into Iraq.

 

All theology is 10% scripture and 90% interpretations.

[cwes99_03]

I guess this is where I once again turn toward the philosophy vs religion thread, however, you make a point. Most religions today have in some way incorporated human philosophy into their religious teachings. There are many different reasons for this, including the ones you have pointed out.

 

Many on this site infer from this that this has happened since the beginning of human activity as we know it. That the origin of religion was simply human philosophy which was attributed to a higher power to make it seem authoritative. While not completely absurd, I do not agree.

In fact, I agree that it has happened and that today's religion is nothing like it originally was, and I can see obvious reasons why it is different due to inclusion of human philosophy (considering the possibility that it was not originally human philosophy at all).

 

I suppose what I don't get then, is, if it really is just human philosophy, then why the problems? Why even worship according to such ways? Why not just live your life a certain way? Why are left wing radicals so bent on doing away with what they see as religious institutions? Why did the founding fathers of America feel that religion was more than just a human philosophy? Why do we differentiate between philosophy and religion at all?