Note: This is a reprint of last years article. Normally, a 40 share as I count attendance to an article, is our goal. The is article has garnered a 261 share since its writing. If you have heard of the "Eucharist" or the "Lord's Supper," tonight, Thursday, some 2000 years ago, Jesus, the man/God from Nazareth, dedicated the emblems of this supper. The next day, he was betrayed by nearly all who followed him and had attended that Thursday meeting.
Peter's denial , that "next" day, Friday, was not about fear at the Nazarene's trial, as some suppose. Rather, it was about Peter's own sense of humanity. He stood in the shadows and watched as they beat his friend. He knew that, this time, there would be no escape. He watched, not actually believing in a resurrection, "knowing" that this was the end of a wonderful, three year dream. His denials (there were three of them) was an admission, that hope had come to an end and reality had set in.
Some 30 years later, this same Peter, would die by crucifixion, for the very thing he denied years before. What happened to change his mind? Does anyone believe that this man, Peter, would die for an unproven dream? I do not. His denials prove, to me, that he was a man willing to face reality, no matter how unpleasant. It proves, to me, that he would die for reality (as in the garden, at The Arrest, when he drew his dagger, willing to fight a Roman command). Again, understand that on Thursday, in the garden, he was willing to fight an impossible battle (one man with a dagger against a troop of Roman soldiers), one that he knew he could not win, only to deny Jesus, 24 hours later . . . . . . . only to die for that reality some 30 years later.
With Peter, it was all about reality, not visions or wild claims of resurrection. He was not willing to die for a much desired but fantasy belief. THAT is what we know about Peter.
We are about to celebrate the Resurrection. I believe that this event, the "resurrection," turned Peter's intellectual decision to deny, into a life of faith that demanded of him, the strongest of validations - his own death.
Personally, I believe because of Peter. Other reasons abound, but that is mine.
There is nothing wrong with building your life upon the lessons of an ancient fable, as long as it's a good one, and the message promotes good things.
ReplyDeleteJust so long as you know it's a fable, like unicorns and dragons.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/13/half-of-new-testament-forged-bible-scholar-says/
You linked article has no scholastic backing whatsoever. Half the New Testament was written by Paul the Apostle, so either all of Paul is forged or such is the case for all four gospels and the remaining books/letters of the New Testament. Absurd and, again, no one, for example, believes the four "gospels" are forged . . . . . . . . . . and how in the world would anyone prove "forgery."
DeleteYou write: ". . . . nothing wrong with building your life upon the lessons of an ancient fable, as long as it's a good one . . . . " yet you believe the Obama fantasy that mankind is essential good, that a "hand" works far better than a fist against despots and men like Hitler, Stalen, and Castro, that your income and wealth belongs to everyone else, that you did not build your business and, therefore, should not mind when that business taken over by Central Planning, that the Jews of Israel are to be feared and destroyed, that it is fine to lie your ass off as long as it is for the common good as you define "common good," and, the biggest joke of all, that it is within man to direct his own way.
You may think you're a biblical scholar, but you're not. Dr. Ehrman is, one of the world's best.
DeleteIt has long been recognized that numerous Epistles of the New Testament bear names of authors who are unlikely to have written them. In Acts 4:13 the statement is made that both Peter and John were illiterate, yet entire books of the Bible were alleged to have been written by them.
These have been identified as forgeries:
Acts of the Apostles
First Epistle of Peter
Second Epistle of Peter
Epistle of James
Epistle of Jude
Second Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians
First Epistle of Paul to Timothy
Second Epistle of Paul to Timothy
Epistle of Paul to Titus
Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians
Epistle of Paul to the Colossians
These have been identified as falsely attributed, written anonymously.
Gospel of Matthew
Gospel of Mark
Gospel of Luke
Gospel of John
Acts of the Apostles (a special case since it is an anonymous text but falsely claims to have been written by an unnamed companion of Paul. It is therefore both a forgery and a work falsely attributed to Luke).
First Epistle of John
Second Epistle of John
Third Epistle of John
Just so you know, there is a mountain of scholarship and evidence to these claims which of course you will wish to remain ignorant of and dismissive.
I debated your Happy Agnostic (Ehrman) several years ago, and did quite well. In fact, he was as easy to debate as you. I referred you to that scripted debate, some time ago, but, apparently, you chose to ignore it. The arguments and evidence for accepting all of the above "falsified" books have the godless opposition out weighed, if we were to quantify such, 10 to 1.
DeleteAs to Acts 4:13 and the use of the word translated "illiterate" or "uneducated," the word can simply mean "undeducated as to formal training," and in this case (Acts 4:13) "uneducated in the common sense," thus the translation "common men" is added to the text, as well. Since you are in the habit of reading without critical consideration, those who say what you prefer, you would not know that all male Jewish children in the days of Christ, were educated in the Synagogue, where they were taken by their parents beginning with sun up, and studied, there, for six hours a day, six days a week, beginning when they were five years old. They were schooled in Jewish oral tradition and all things "Torah" (the law, the prophets and Jewish history). They were taught how to write and read, but only in the Jewish traditions. In the afternoons, these boys were taught a trade, usually the trade of their fathers. They had to memorize all of the Psalms, word for word, quote from the major and minor prophets and have a thorough understanding of the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Jewish scriptures). This training ran well into their teenage years, ending before they were 20 years old. They had more education than you, but only in the Jewish/Aramaic tradition.
The written language of the day was Greek . . . . and it is to this, that Acts 4:13 refers. There were no "uneducated Jewish boys" in 1st century times, except as regards Roman culture.
Clearly, then, to overcome this, they would have had to use a scribe to write the books that are assigned to them. Problem solved. Peter used Mark, and John's scribe is unnamed.
Yea, Greek... the source language that Ehrman has been studying since age 19 with a Princeton Scholar so as to be qualified to make the judgements about the authenticity of biblical manuscripts.
DeleteHow's your Greek, Smithson?
Your use of the term, "the godless opposition" is a term that supposes scholarship has an agenda to disparage or falsify religion ... where the only agenda for scholarship is the truth. This is the rub, you're not interested in the truth or the evidence, you're only interested in reinforcing what you 'believe' to be true.
You can rationalize any aspect of the bible to make it seem in accordance with your views, the same way the snake handlers do, and the people who kill gays. Not unlike the extremists in any religion who identify their 'scripture' as backing for their actions and beliefs... which we can see today has resulted in wars, death, violence, etc....
You write: "Your use of the term, "the godless opposition" is a term that supposes scholarship has an agenda to disparage or falsify religion ... where the only agenda for scholarship is the truth." How ridiculous. The conclusion, here, per your version of "reason," is this: true scholarship is that which can be verified and confirmed by the likes of . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . you. Good grief, how arrogantly silly is that? There are godless scholars and those who are not. The godless can make serious contributions to our growing epistemology, but not when that epistemology is theological . It would be like sending a gifted bicycle mechanic to work on my Lexus.
DeleteBart Ehrman is no more qualified to discuss Christianity than you are to discuss the ends and outs of pastoral counseling. My faith is not an extremist Christianity. so you can stop with the broad brush thing you whine about, when I do it to you.
I invite anyone who reads this to look up the vita of Bart Ehrman, it speaks for itself. Scholarship has nothing to do with being verified by me. I don't verify anything, I learn from people who show me the evidence.
DeleteThis 'us against them' attitude that Smithson espouses is typical of this 'christian persecution complex' we see all the time on Fox News, (ie war on Xmas, etc...). Godless vs non-godless scholars ... so ridiculous. It's the same reasoning that conservatives have for everything in their world view, it's black and white.
For example... you've heard of 'christian archeologists' like Ron Wyatt? He and others like him are not considered credible by professional archaeologists and biblical scholars. He is not a trained archaeologist yet christians around the world believe in his 'discoveries' of Noah's Arc and other biblical sites.
Readers take note, this is a major flaw in the reasoning ability of Smithson. He is not a seeker of the truth, he believes he HAS the truth and will make every effort to bolster his beliefs with anyone who will support him, regardless of credibility. It extends to his science denial and disbelief of universally accepted science - like evolution, climate change, etc... He will discount the entire scientific community, including even statements and observations of the US Military, but will readily accept some agenda driven Koch Bros funded Heartland Institute lackey as the provider of 'true science.' He even insinuated that the US Military put out a fraudulent report on climate change stating that the military was full of marxists / liberals ... he said, "like maggots, they're everywhere." To me and any casual observer, that would be the statement of a sick man.
This type of thinking is what is required for one to believe in religion as historical fact with all the supernatural events, grandiose claims of salvation, resurrection, heaven, hell, Armageddon, unicorns, dragons, and all the rest of it.
l. Here is the text of my debate/correspondence with Bart Ehrmann: http://barthandtheboyz.blogspot.com/2013/04/my-debatediscussion-with-bart-ehrman.html
DeleteErhmann is a failed Christian minister, determined to destroy the faith of all who come into his classrooms. He is a coward, "taking on" young Christian who have no clue what is about to happen to them. In my debate with phony, I make mention, early on ("2nd email"), of his opening comment on his blog. He was so embarrassed and defeat (by me) in the writing of that statement, that, immediately after our discussion, the man rewrote that comment, a tacit admission that his argumentation was not as well thought out as he had fantasized.
Ehrmann's problem in this debate had to do with his inability to deal with an existential/ontological line of reasoning in objection to his rather predictable rhetoric. Understand that this coward had spent years, in the classroom, fine tuning his godless arguments, giving him an overwhelming advantage in dealing with the unsuspecting student body enrolled in his classes. Besides my debate, the reader would do well to rent the movie, God is NOT Dead. It features a college professor committed to the destruction of faith . . . . . . . wildly similar to what Ehrmann was doing at the time of my discussion with him.
I have no idea as to the work or identity of Ron Wyatt. Nor, does my faith have anything to do with "Christian apologetics." I do not try to prove God. He is the Grand Assumption in my life, much like the opening words in our Bible: "In the beginning God . . . . ." The Bible nowhere argues for the existence of God, nor do I. Anonymous has accepted the premise that matter and particulate motion has always existed . . . . . . . . a philosophical conclusion that is accepted as a matter of sheer faith, and runs counter to the fact that all things in our universe are winding down to extinction. Faith versus faith.
DeleteIn the 4th paragraph in Anonymous' March 31 statement, he goes off the rails, changing his argument from a denial of God, in his opening statements, to his fantasy about global warming. You would not know this, because he does not mention global warming. He only morphs into that discussion, pretending that my comments about Government controlled science has something to do with my discussion with Bart Ehrmann. Understand that I do not accept as "science," any conclusion by that community (the scientific community) that is forced. The reader should know this: Central Planning punishes all within its purview who dare to disagree with its "global warming" stance. Sorry, but when "science" is forced to its conclusions, I do not give it the time of day . . . . . and the military opinion on global warming is a forced opinion. So much for "paragraph 4."
DeleteFinally, as to the March 31 statement, we have this last thought: "This type of thinking is what is required for one to believe in religion as historical fact with all the supernatural events, grandiose claims of salvation, resurrection, heaven, hell, Armageddon, unicorns, dragons, and all the rest of it. "
DeleteWhat Anonymous refuses to accept is this: my faith has nothing to do with anything that Anonymous mentions. If or when he wants to deal with the reality of my belief system, I will welcome that discussion. Until then, "see ya."
Just received a second post for the morning from Anonymous. It is an argument against me and my personal beliefs. While his assessments are rather silly, the fact remains, that this blog is not about me defending myself against folks who are faithless and trust in forced scientific conclusions. The readership is simply not interest is a failed attempt at proving me to be wrong.
ReplyDeleteI have moved this Anonymous submission into my "saved" file and will make a decision as to the best time and place to deal with Anonymous' conclusions. Should he want a public debate, that would be great. Or, perhaps he will give me his email address and I will respond, in kind . . . . . keeping his email address private, of course.
As things stand, now, this particle comment line is not the place to continue this discussion. I will try to include the comments of my opponent, but in due time.
The idea that science must be 'forced' into complying with 'central planning' is yet another delusion. Do you really think the US Navy Chief of Operations would lie in public brief about their observations on what IS happening and how they plan to deal with it? My point is that you do not process information well. Your intelligence is somehow stunted by an ideological filter. I am not trying to prove you wrong, I just am here to show people how you think.
ReplyDeleteIt's not about attacking this old man's religious beliefs, it's about demonstrating once again how he and others like him deal with information that don't support their conclusions, rendering him/them incapable of learning, progressing, improving, refining one's outlook for the sake of accuracy. Such a mindset leads to division and ignorance, and is no way to go through life.
I have no doubt you are a good hearted person despite your delusions and bigotry. We all have failings, it is the human condition.
Dear "Asleep At the Wheel." Have you been sleeping during the past six and half years.? Try reading the following, and then tell me there is no effort to criminalize anti-climate talk:
Deletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/24/science/science-museums-urged-to-cut-ties-with-kochs.html?_r=0
Only states with leadership denying climate change will be target for cuts in money from Central Planning: http://insideclimatenews.org/news/18032015/fema-states-no-climate-planning-no-money.
and, here: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/nation_world/20150322_FEMA_to_deny_funds_to_warming_deniers.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/bluesky/originals/chi-sxsw-al-gore-penny-pritzker-bsi-20150313-story.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/bluesky/originals/chi-sxsw-al-gore-penny-pritzker-bsi-20150313-story.html
We no longer live in an age of debate over global warming. It has now transmogrified well beyond Al Gore's hysterics, periodic disclosures about warmists' use of faked data, embarrassing email vendettas, vindictive lawsuits, crony green capitalism, and flawed computer models. Now Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, has taken the psychodrama to the level of farce in a two-bit McCarthyesque effort to demand from universities information about scientists who do not embrace his notions of man made global warming. Where are the ACLU and fellow Democratic congressional supporters of free speech and academic freedom to censure such an Orwellian move? http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-liberal-circus/
Congress investigating those who do not believe in man made global warming: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/02/climate_scientist_being_investigated_by_congress_for_not_believing_in_global_warming_emenoughem.html