Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

elaine · 05-03-09 3:43 pm

"The idea that to be a Christian you have to 'believe in the Bible' (meaning, believe that is in some sense infallible) is a modern invention. Church historians have traced the view, rather precisely, to the Niagara Conference on the Biblek, in the 1879s, held over a number of years to foster belief in the the Bible in opposition to liberal theologians who were accepting the results of historical scholarship. In 1878 the conference summarized the true faith in s series of fourteen statements. {The very first one--to be believed above all else--was not belief in God or in the death and resurrection of Jesus. It was belief in the Bible: We believe 'that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God,' [that] the Holy Ghost gave the very words of the sacred writings to holy men of old; and that His Divine inspiration is not in different degrees, but extends equally and fully to all parts of these writings, historical, poetical, doctrinal, and prophetical and to the smallest word, and inflection of a word, provided such word is found in the original manuscripts." (That there is not a single "original" manuscripts for a single Bible text or verse is completely ignored, the assumptions that there are is disconcerting, and ignorant.) "To make faith in the Bible the most important tenet of Christianity was a radical shift in thinking--away, for example, from traditional statements of faith such as the Apostles Creed and the Nicene Creed, which say not a word about belief in the Bible. "These fourteen statements of the so-called Niagara Creed were called 'The Fundamentals." Those who adopted such 'fundamentals' of the faith later called themselves 'fundamentalists.' But the basic fundamentalist faith in the inerrancy of Scripture has become a fixture of one segment of Protestant Christianity, especially in part of this county, largely the South. Here, to be a Christian meant believing in the Bible. "Throughout most of history most Christian thinkers would have seen this view as theological nonsense. Or blasphemy. The Bible was never to be an object of faith. God through Christ was. Being a Christian meant believing in Christ, not believing in the BIble. "The historical realities are: Christianity existed before the Bible came into being: no one decided that our twenty-seven books of the New Testament should be "the" Christian Scripture until three hundred years after the death of the apostles. Since that time Christianity has existed in places where there were no Bibles to be found, where no one could read the Bible, where no one correctly understood the Bible. "Yet it has existed. Christianity does not stand or fall with the Bible. "Biblical scholarship will not destroy Christianity. It might de-convert people away from a modern form of fundamentalist belief. But that might be a very good thing indeed." (Excerpted from an op-ed essay in the Washington Post, 3 May.

bob_2 · 05-03-09 5:27 pm

The only problem with the premise, the Bible is the vechicle that is used to tell about God, Jesus and salvation. You tear it to shreds, then we have to come to Fresno to get the truth, eh??? Or are you anticipating another, better prophetess to discribe it to us? Or, Elaine, do we continue to us goat herders and slime pond tenders for our truth. Take the record of the Bible away, and which historian, which dependable person do you turn to for the true story??? (Message edited by Bob_2 on May 03, 2009)

elaine · 05-03-09 7:41 pm

Bob, are you declaring that no one can know about God except through the Bible? How did all those good patriarchs know of God long before there was Scripture? If the Bible is the sole source for understanding God, it's done a very poor job and is very contradictory, but then how would you know if you havent' read it?

don · 05-03-09 8:20 pm

Bart Ehrman's essay excerpted by Elaine can be read at this link: <a href="http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2009/05/do_christians_have_to_believe_in_the_bible.html" target="_blank">**HERE**</a> Also, the dialogue which follows the piece is of interest. Several thoughts:<blockquote>1) Ehrman doth err not knowing the Scriptures. In this article, he addresses the infallibility of the Bible. The idea of believing in, i.e. relying on, every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God dates long before the Niagara conference. 2) Jesus, Himself, depended on Scripture. See Matthew 4, Matthew 22, John 10, Luke 24, and others.</blockquote>Ehrman states:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Here are the historical realities. Christianity existed before the Bible came into being: no one decided that our twenty-seven books of the New Testament should be "the" Christian Scripture until three hundred years after the death of the apostles. Since that time Christianity has existed in places where there were no Bibles to be found, where no one could read the Bible, where no one correctly understood the Bible. Yet it has existed. Christianity does not stand or fall with the Bible.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote><blockquote>3) He speaks of the "Bible" as one entity. It is not. He attempts to show distance of time, i.e. "three hundred years". This is misleading. Why does he do this? He certainly is not unschooled in these matters. Why not mention the evidence that manuscripts of writings now found in the New Testament date back to the end of the first century and early second century? Why not acknowledge that Christianity grew as the written record flourished?</blockquote>He also writes:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Being a Christian meant believing in Christ, not believing in the Bible.<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote><blockquote>4) This is kind of true but misleading. Being a Christian meant believing in Christ, as reported by the messengers of Christ; the apostles. Some of these apostles wrote down their accounts, others didn't, or their accounts have been lost. Paul presented his message as the word of God. See Romans 10, 1 Corinthians 12, 1 Corinthians 14, 2 Corinthians 2, Ephesians 1, Ephesians 6, Philippians 2, Colossians 3, 1 Thessalonians 1, 2, 3, and 4. 2 Thessalonians 3, etc. Luke wrote at the beginning of his Gospel<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:(NASB) 1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught. <!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote>5) Ehrman ignores the role of stories in the development of Christianity. Christianity is not only ideas. It is built on historical accounts of Jesus Christ. Christianity grew with the written word. The very first words of Jesus and the apostles were spoken but as time passed, the written word became indispensable in furthering the Gospel. That written word, to be effective, has to be reliable. (I do agree with Ehrman that it does not have to be infallible to be effective; reliable, yes; infallible, no.)</blockquote><blockquote>6) There are some thoughts relevant to Adventism here. Adventism, like early Christianity, flourished with the written word. In the case of Adventism, the printed word; in the case of early Christianity, the copied word.</blockquote> .

don · 05-03-09 9:05 pm

Church historians have traced the view, rather precisely, to the Niagara Conference on the Bible, in the 1879s, held over a number of years to foster belief in the the Bible in opposition to liberal theologians who were accepting the results of historical scholarship I am surprised that any scholar would say this. Didn't Copernicus and Galileo, two hundred plus years earlier get into hot water because the church determined that they taught "contrary" to the Scriptures? In effect, their opponents believed in the infallibility of the Scriptures, didn't they? In his Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas (1200's)said, "<a href="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1001.htm" target="_blank">The author of Holy Writ is God</a>." .

elaine · 05-03-09 9:25 pm

Don, glad to see you back! Ehrman is one of the foremost NT scholars today, so it is a little odd to claim that he is unaware of the NT. There were Christians from the beginning who interpreted much of the Scripture allegorically. Yes, the Church persecuted Copernicus and Galileo because of their scientific findings that had not previously been "approved" by the church. There were many: Spinoza, David Hume, and others who did not believe in the inerrancy or infallibility of the Bible, nor do I believe that you hold to that. The fundamentalists of all religions are the most vocal on the Bible as being inerrant and infallible. Erhman is correct in saying that the Scriptures (NT) were not canonized until the late third century. Before that date there were multiple letters and gospels that were being used by Christians. While we know that the Bible is an anthology, it is commonly referred to as one book. Erhman is very aware of that. Having read a number of his books, no NT scholar has challenged his assertions nor his scholarship. That "fundamentalists" were codified in the 1879 is an historical fact. There were Christians that may have already believed the same, but the term was first used then. He is also reporting the sentiment from the Bible Belt where he was raised, as the article states. It has only been in the past 200 or so years that Bible scholarship has become where it is today. The Germans with their theological studies, and the archaeologists with their findings have shown that many of the Bible stories cannot be substantiated by the evidence. Also, the findings at Qumram and Nag Hamadi were not available until the middle of the 20th century, so Bible scholarship has greatly benefited.

elaine · 05-03-09 9:28 pm

Don, the Scripture that Jesus and the apostles quoted was the Septuagint version of the OT. No NT writing was written until after his death.

bob_2 · 05-03-09 10:13 pm

Excuse me, isn't this rather simple, aren't we talking about current people and how they find out about God, Jesus and Salvation. Elaine, what is your answer to that question????

don · 05-03-09 10:13 pm

Elaine, thanks for the "welcome back". I continue to look over what is said here, though usually without comment. Don, the Scripture that Jesus and the apostles quoted was the Septuagint version of the OT. No NT writing was written until after his death. From this statement, shall I conclude that you believe that Jesus was an historical figure? <IMG SRC="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0> I am not convinced that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint. Even the OT verses used by the Gospel writers do not match perfectly. There is impressive similarity but questions remain. I rather doubt that Jesus spoke in Greek. It is possible that the writers utilized the Septuagint when writing down their story. I agree that the verses quoted in the Gospels of the OT match closest to the Septuagint. The differences remain a puzzle. Further to Ehrman, I am still concerned at his way of presenting matters. For a scholar of such undisputed reputation, what does this say about modern scholarship? It did not take me long to find statements as "fundamentalist" as the Niagara statement and they were made centuries before. I submit that the Christian world developed a strong view of the written word being infallible long before the 1800's. I believe that Ehrman is incorrect in pointing to the Niagara statement as the first expression of the concept of the infallibility of the Scriptures. .

don · 05-03-09 10:29 pm

no one decided that our twenty-seven books of the New Testament should be "the" Christian Scripture until three hundred years after the death of the apostles. Let's examine this assertion further. Ehrman certainly must be aware of the <a href="http://www.ntcanon.org/Muratorian_Canon.shtml" target="_blank">Muratorian Canon</a>. This, along with quotations of NT writings showing up in the writings of the "Fathers" provides convincing evidence that many people were "deciding" regarding books of the New Testament. Ehrman seems to contend that a written record is unnecessary for Christianity to be successful. Yet, the early Christians obviously decided to preserve the writings as quickly as they were produced. Elaine, I don't understand why modern scholars and their followers are so quick to minimize the early reliance on the written record. .

john8verse32 · 05-04-09 9:14 am

I am not convinced that Jesus quoted from the Septuagint. but that WOULD help explain why there are numerous quotes of Jesus from the OT which are NOT in our version of the OT....which is based on the Masoretic texts..

don · 05-04-09 5:19 pm

but that WOULD help explain why there are numerous quotes of Jesus from the OT which are NOT in our version of the OT....which is based on the Masoretic texts.. The New Testament certainly seems related to the Septuagint more than the Masoretic text. I consider the similarities and differences an interesting puzzle. It is one I share with my students as well. We recently looked at Matthew 4 and Jesus' use of the texts in Deuteronomy. The Masoretic text does not agree with the way Jesus quoted one of the passages. The Septuagint is closer, but it too does not fully agree. .

elaine · 05-04-09 6:00 pm

From this statement, shall I conclude that you believe that Jesus was an historical figure? I'm sorry, but I do not see how it is possible to conclude my beliefs from a statement made about the Septuagint. What is the connection you are trying to make? It is well known that the Septuagint was the version of the Hebrew OT (not every single book in that today, was included in the Septuagint, and there were also apocryphal books). There was no written NT until Paul, the earliest writer, and Mark, the earliest gospel, but they were not adopted into a final canon until the third century. Many gospels and letters were floating around and used by the early church for several centuries before the NT was canonized. THe writers of the NT quoted from the Septuagint, not the Masoretic text. "The writers of the NT seem often to differ from those of the Old, because they appear uniformly to quote from some copy of the Septuagint version; and most of their quotations agree verbally, and often even literally" (Clarke's Commentaries, The New Testament, Volume 5A, page 48). When Jesus told the Pharisees to search the scriptures, he was referring to the Greek OT (Septuagint) and the Hebrew OT books. There are multiple contradictions between the Septuagint and the Masoretic text; the KJV is translated from the Masoretic Hebrew, not the original Hebrew. THe Masorites, between the 8th and 10th centuries, took the liberty within themselves to add vowel signs to the to the original Hebrew Alphabet. This is why the NT quotations of the OT vary so much, because the writers of the NT quoted from the Septuagint, not the Masoretic Hebrew text. There are numerous differences between the two versions of the OT. It would take many pages to demonstrate this, but Google is a good source, although I have used many other sources to substantiate this. Jesus and the apostles most likely spoke Aramaic, but the NT was written in Greek, because the majority of Jews at that time were living in Greek-speaking areas, a result of the Diaspora. This was also the impetus for the Septuagint: to provide a Hebrew Bible for the larger number of Jews who spoke Greek. We cannot know for certain which language Jesus spoke, but most scholars believe it was Aramaic; but then neither he nor his immediate disciples wrote the NT, it was written by those who were conversant in Greek, and it is doubtful that fishermen were fluent in both reading and writing in Greek. Also, there were many much earlier than the Niagra Conference who believed in the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible. Ehrman was referring to the origin of the label: "Fundamentalists" which no one is disputing. Whether you accept him as a NT scholar is your personal belief, but that is not the position he holds with his scholarly colleagues. His personal beliefs are totally irrelevant to his scholarship. Would you not agree? Concerning the Muratorian Fragment, which was only a list of the NT books, most likely dates from ca. 300. At the end of the 2nd century and through the first half of the 3rd there is no evidence among the fathers of a need for, or interest in, definining a canonical list of NT books. There were numerous writings by the church fathers from the late first century which were used from the pulpit and instructionally. However, it is undisputed that the final and formal canonization of the NT was not until the early fourth century. There were also many apocryphal books used then, also, but were not selected for canonization.

don · 05-04-09 9:52 pm

His personal beliefs are totally irrelevant to his scholarship. Would you not agree? No. I believe a scholar can seek to be "objective" and that there can be a vast common ground in scholarship. But, personal beliefs color all a person asserts. I can predict quite accurately how a scholar will say things if I know what he believes about God and inspiration, for example. Biblical scholarship has a vast spectrum of possible assertions. Conservative scholars speak similarly, as do so-called liberal scholars. .

don · 05-04-09 9:56 pm

Elaine, I was playfully responding to this statement: the Scripture that Jesus and the apostles quoted As I read your post about Jesus doing so, I said to myself, "Hmmm, Elaine writes as though Jesus actually quoted... which means that she has accepted that Jesus existed in order to so quote." I won't hold your feet to the fire on this. Just a light observation. <IMG SRC="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/happy.gif" ALT=":-)" BORDER=0> .

elaine · 05-04-09 10:11 pm

Don, I accept your playfulness! But neither you nor I can ever know for certain what Jesus actually said, since there were no recordings available then, and the stories depend on recollections nearly a generation later. All the best professors should not state their personal opinions but teach the facts, as best they know. One can teach the Bible from history or theology. The first must be limited to known evidence, as can be ascertained by documentation. A theolgian teaches about God from a faith or religious aspect. Seminaries are usually designed to offer advanced degrees in theology; historians may graduate from universities that are not "divinity" schools. Yes, the subjects have overlap, but the seminaries offer pastoral subjects that are not part of academic history. Which is why I wanted a graduate degree from a university not affiliated with, or not a divinity school. I was reminded by my major professor that no assumption of Jesus' deity should be assumed (since it cannot be proved) nor should the date A.D. be used, as it is a prejudiced expresssion: in academic publications the proper usage is either B.C.E. or C.E.

bob_2 · 05-05-09 12:40 am

So Elaine, you want science to rein in the Biology lab and in the Seminary class room. Only what man can prove by direct observation. And can explain, the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection and the Ascension you exclude because you can't bring science to bear on those events. Right??? How Jeffersonian of you!!!<img src="http://www.atomorrow.net/discus/clipart/biggrin.gif" border=0>

elaine · 05-05-09 3:38 pm

More influences of the Septuagint in the NT. Heb. 11:35 refers to events that were only explicitly recorded in one of the deuterocanonical books, specifcally 2 Maccabees 7. Other NT authors also quote period literature which was familiar to the audience but that was neither included in the OT or the deuterocanonical books; i.e., Paul cites Greek philosophers, and the author of Hebrews references oral tradition which spoke of OT prophet who was sawn in half Heb. (11:37), two verses after the 2nd Maccabbees reference. Some cite 1 Cor. 15:29 "Ekle what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?" alluding to 2 Maccabees 12:44, "for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been useless and foolish to pray for them in death, whereas if he had in view thesplendid recompense reserved for those who make a pious end, the though was holy and devout. This was why he had this atonement sacrificed offer for the dead, so that they might be released from their sin."

don · 05-05-09 5:14 pm

More influences of the Septuagint in the NT. It is interesting to see these non-Biblical sources referred to in the NT scriptures. Why do some people consider this important? How does it affect our view of the canon? .

elaine · 05-05-09 7:07 pm

It doesn't; except for those who place all their faith in the inerrancy and infallibility of the Bible, and recognizing that it was humans and not God who wrote everything that is between the covers of the Bible. Doing so, allows us to see that they were no different than humans today: they wrote according to how they saw their world, and it is totally different from our world today in multiple ways. Comparing several BIble translations with both the Septuagint and the Masoretic, there are minor differences, which is much less important than the realization that trying to place the Bible on a pedestal and guide to our lives today ignores the history of how it was written. Even in the SDA 28 Fundamentals, the very first and foremost one is not belief in God, but: "The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of excperience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history." Even the key doctrines of Christianity--the deity of Christ, the Trinity, the idea of heaven and hell--cannot be found on the lips of the historical Jesus or the pens of his earliest followers. The idea that to be a Christian you have to "believe in the Bible" is still the description of Christians today. This ignores the many contradictions in Scripture and that it is not onebook, but a compilation of many, over a period of nearly a millennium. The Christian church both compiled the books of the NT and decided which would be the Christian Scripture not until 300 years after the death of the apostles. Christianity does not depend on the Bible; it depends on Jesus. Were it not for Peter and Paul there would be no Christian church today had it continued the Jewish practices--practices that were never abandoned by Jesus during His lifetime.

don · 05-06-09 7:08 am

Several Thoughts 1) Elaine, I assume that your statements above intend to reflect a "scientific", or empirical, point of view rather than a theological one. 2) It was humans and not God who wrote everything. If we are seeking to be "scientific" about this, we cannot say what you have said. We cannot use science to comment about God, one way or the other. We can use science to comment on the inerrancy of scripture, however. Theologically, if God does everything through humans and doesn't tamper with their world view in the process, then the Bible can be viewed as both the work of God and the work of humans. Theologians compare the written word to what they believe about Jesus. They believe Him to be fully human and fully divine and they believe the Bible to be so, as well. 3) Trying to place the Bible on a pedestal and guide to our lives today ignores the history of how it was written. I disagree. I believe that we can have both the pedastal and guide to living and the history. Historians are expected to develop theories about the past and demonstrate the validity of their view by the facts. African Americans look at USA history differently than White folk; Native Americans, too. Those in the women's movement see historical facts differently than others. Republicans have a different take than Democrats. They all lay claim to the same "historical" facts. In the history connected to the Bible, the facts stand on one level of thought and the interpretation of those facts on another. 4) Even the key doctrines of Christianity--the deity of Christ, the Trinity, the idea of heaven and hell--cannot be found on the lips of the historical Jesus. What are "the lips of the historical Jesus?" Are the writings of the Gospel of John part of that? The historical Jesus, according to something you said earlier, is a matter of science. If Jesus says that the Father sent Him, is that what the historical Jesus said? If He said, "Before Abraham was, I am." Are these the words of the historical Jesus? Can the historical Jesus say things that are theological in nature? Who decides who the historical Jesus is? It seems far better to say, "The Gospel of John reports this..."; Mark reports such and such... rather than making these grand conclusions about who is the real Jesus. .

don · 05-06-09 7:27 am

Even in the SDA 28 Fundamentals, the very first and foremost one is not belief in God, but: "The Holy Scriptures..." As though Adventist do some disservice to God by stating the basis of their theological conclusions first? The Christian Church... decided which would be the Christian Scripture not until 300 years after the death of the apostles. I think it is more accurate to say the Christian Church "in council". The individual books receive congregational and individual leadership endorsement probably as soon as the work was written by the author. The very fact that the Church in council had "favorites" to decide upon indicates an acceptance of the writings before the meeting began. Elaine, your way of bringing forward ideas illustrates my point that we present the facts based on our world view. I believe some historians ignore the role of individual Christian leaders and congregations in the developing of the New Testament writings because they want to establish distance from the times of Jesus. .

elaine · 05-06-09 3:08 pm

Don, I never intend to present theological views, but historical facts. Those are as previously demonstrated: . Humans wrote the Bible Do you dispute that? It is NOT a "scientific" statement, but a statement of fact, unless, of course, you have proof otherwise. Can you state unequivocally that God wrote the Bible? The attempt by many Christians to use the Bible as the last and final guide for every situation in life is "Biblolatry" and ignores that the context is not taken into consideration. As John so frequently shows here, if we followed the guide and the actions, commanded by God, in much of the OT, we would all be murderers and worse. Do you still truly believe that? It is the Hebrew's record as they wrote it, and just as the contemporary literature of Greece, portrays their god(s) as all-powerful and their heroes as much larger than life and wonderful examples. It is not the Assyrian, Roman, or Persian or Canaanite record, but limited to the story the Hebrews chose to write--not exactly an unbiased record (which can be demonstrated by the many anachronistic errors and other incorrect statements). I agree that it is much better to say: "The Gospel of John, or Mark" writes thusly...as the words of Christ are not always in agreement as the writers took liberties and reported differently. The Christian Church... decided which would be the Christian Scripture not until 300 years after the death of the apostles. Well...the councils that made such decisions was the ONLY Christian church for many centuries both before and after these decisions, so to be exact, "councils" should have been stated. Does that make a significant difference? Are you suggesting that others may have differed with "official" positions? That is always true, but the victors both make the rules and write the history. It is well known that many "scriptures" were used by the early church that were not later included in the NT canon we have today. As to: I believe some historians ignore the role of individual Christian leaders and congregations in the developing of the New Testament writings because they want to establish distance from the times of Jesus. Exactly what is the point your making? Will you supply those historians or leaders to which you refer? Of course, the historians I have studied acknowledge the many Christian leaders who were influential in developing both the NT writings and doctrines. As to the reason you state: because they want to establish distance from the times of Jesus. What has given you that impression? Actually, in my study it seems that they wanted to do the exact opposite: the closer in time to Jesus, the more authentic their writings would appear. to be. As to your saying that the individual books receive congregational and individual leadership endorsement probably as soon as the work was written by the author, may indicate acceptance, but not all writings were accepted by all the different congregations; they all had their favorites, often depending on their geographical location. Some were favored more in certain areas while other writers in another area. There were possibly more "scriptures" floating around in the first three centuries than there are books in our NT today. As there are some pseudoepigraphical sayings that have crept into our NT today is demonstration of that. One thing that should be repeated: It is likely that Jesus would not recognize the Christian church of the 2nd century. They were more predominatly composed of Gentiles; they neither believed in circumcision or the Jewish sacrifices of which he participated; they did not have a temple in which to offer sacrifices; and there were no longer sacrifices necessary; they often met on the first day of the week to celebrate the Resurrection; and they did not follow the "clean" and "unclean" rules that guided the everyday life of Jews in the early first century. Those were only a few of the changes made by early Christian apostles such as Peter and Paul. To say that we follow Christ in everything is to return to Judaism, and not Christianity as developed by the early apostles following his death.

pilgrim99 · 05-06-09 6:40 pm

Don, It's good to see you posting again. Elaine, If Peter is wrong in his statements in this passage, then the entire Bible is wholly unreliable and should be relegated to the mythology section in bookstores. I'd go as far as to say that if Peter is wrong, then the Bible is about as useful as my washing machine manual as a guide to salvation and to life.:<blockquote><hr size=0><!-quote-!>quote:Therefore, I intend to remind you constantly of these things even though you know them and are well established in the truth that you now have. Indeed, as long as I am in this tabernacle, I consider it right to stir you up by way of a reminder, since I know that my tabernacle will soon be removed, because our Lord Jesus Christ revealed this to me. Indeed, I will also make every effort that, after my departure, you have a testimony of these things. For we did not follow cleverly concocted fables when we made known to you the power and return of our Lord Jesus Christ; no, we were eyewitnesses of his grandeur. For he received honor and glory from God the Father, when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory: “This is my dear Son, in whom I am delighted.” When this voice was conveyed from heaven, we ourselves heard it, for we were with him on the holy mountain. Moreover, we possess the prophetic word as an altogether reliable thing. You do well if you pay attention to this as you would to a light shining in a murky place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you do well if you recognize this: No prophecy of scripture ever comes about by the prophet’s own imagination, for no prophecy was ever borne of human impulse; rather, men carried along by the Holy Spirit spoke from God. 2 Peter 1:12-21 NET<!-/quote-!><hr size=0></blockquote>It is my personal belief that you have missed the purpose of the scriptures entirely and have positioned yourself as a textual critic. The Bible is different than the works of Samuel Clemens. Being a textual critic of the works of Clemens, I can understand, being a textual critic of the Bible, after all of these years, seems to be nothing more than an excercise in stroking one's ego. Not to be mean spirited, but scholars with significantly higher credentials than you or Bart Ehrman have arrived at different conclusions after examining the historical evidence. As Don said, and I agree, there are historical facts which are interpreted based on worldview. One recognized scholar who reached far different conclusions than you or your latest guru, Ehrman, was Dr. Simon Greenleaf. Dr. Greenleaf was instrumental in establishing the basis for admissibility of evidence in the U.S. Court system. Is it remotely possible that you are wrong and that Dr. Greenleaf is right in his conclusions? As an aside, Jesus spoke more about hell, than about heaven, in contradiction to one of your other assertions. If the Bible truly is as you portray it, then I gently suggest that you pay more attention to an appliance manual of your own choosing, it will be of more value to you, until you confront and respond to the actual message of the Bible.

pilgrim99 · 05-06-09 6:49 pm

Elaine, Does our knowledge of Jesus come primarily from the Bible? If the Bible is indeed unreliable, how can we trust what it says about Jesus?

Adventists for Tomorrow

Announcement

#1 05-03-09 3:43 pm

Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#2 05-03-09 5:27 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#3 05-03-09 7:41 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#4 05-03-09 8:20 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#5 05-03-09 9:05 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#6 05-03-09 9:25 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#7 05-03-09 9:28 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#8 05-03-09 10:13 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#9 05-03-09 10:13 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#10 05-03-09 10:29 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#11 05-04-09 9:14 am

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#12 05-04-09 5:19 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#13 05-04-09 6:00 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#14 05-04-09 9:52 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#15 05-04-09 9:56 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#16 05-04-09 10:11 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#17 05-05-09 12:40 am

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#18 05-05-09 3:38 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#19 05-05-09 5:14 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#20 05-05-09 7:07 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#21 05-06-09 7:08 am

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#22 05-06-09 7:27 am

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#23 05-06-09 3:08 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#24 05-06-09 6:40 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

#25 05-06-09 6:49 pm

Re: Jesus Saves, Not the Bible

Board footer