Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
A passage from Ehrman's "Jesus Interrupted" in which he begins to point out some of the many errors or contradictions in the fundies' so-called inerrant bible.
Quote:For students who come into seminary with a view that the Bible is completely, absolutely, one hundred percent without error, the realization that most critical scholars have a very different view can come as a real shock to their systems. And once these students open the floodgates by admitting there might be mistakes in the Bible, their understanding of Scripture takes a radical turn. The more they read the text carefully and intensely, the more mistakes they find, and they begin to see that in fact the Bible makes better sense if you acknowledge its inconsistencies instead of staunchly insisting that there aren’t any, even when they are staring you in the face. To be sure, many beginning students are expert at reconciling differences among the Gospels. For example, the Gospel of Mark indicates that it was in the last week of his life that Jesus “cleansed the Temple” by overturning the tables of the money changers and saying, “This is to be a house of prayer . . . but you have made it a den of thieves” (Mark 11), whereas according to John this happened at the very beginning of Jesus’ ministry (John 2). Some readers have thought that Jesus must have cleansed the Temple twice, once at the beginning of his ministry and once at the end. But that would mean that neither Mark nor John tells the “true” story, since in both accounts he cleanses the temple only once. Moreover, is this reconciliation of the two accounts historically plausible? If Jesus made a disruption in the temple at the beginning of his ministry, why wasn’t he arrested by the authorities then? Once one comes to realize that the Bible might have discrepancies it is possible to see that the Gospels of Mark and John might want to teach something different about the cleansing of the Temple, and so they have located the event to two different times of Jesus’ ministry. Historically speaking, then, the accounts are not reconcilable.
Let's see if any of them will come to the defense of their fairy tale vision of things.
(October 27, 2010 at 2:46 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Let's see if any of them will come to the defense of their fairy tale vision of things.
I doubt it. Seems like the really hard-core space cadets leave after about a week.
"How is it that a lame man does not annoy us while a lame mind does? Because a lame man recognizes that we are walking straight, while a lame mind says that it is we who are limping." - Pascal
Hmm...sounds like a pretty interesting book. I'll have to find it the next time I'm at the bookstore. Thanks for the tip, Minimalist!
"If your god has to make peace with me in my final hour when he has my whole lifetime to prove his existence to me...do you think I should bother?"
"But the happiness of an atheist is neither the vacuous enjoyment of a fool, nor the short-lived pleasure of a rogue. It is rather the expression of a disposition that has ceased to torture itself with foolish fancies, or perplex itself with useless beliefs." - Chapman Cohen
(October 27, 2010 at 2:46 pm)Minimalist Wrote: A passage from Ehrman's "Jesus Interrupted" in which he begins to point out some of the many errors or contradictions in the fundies' so-called inerrant bible.
Quote:For students who come into seminary with a view that the Bible is completely, absolutely, one hundred percent without error, the realization that most critical scholars have a very different view can come as a real shock to their systems. And once these students open the floodgates by admitting there might be mistakes in the Bible, their understanding of Scripture takes a radical turn. The more they read the text carefully and intensely, the more mistakes they find, and they begin to see that in fact the Bible makes better sense if you acknowledge its inconsistencies instead of staunchly insisting that there aren’t any, even when they are staring you in the face. To be sure, many beginning students are expert at reconciling differences among the Gospels. For example, the Gospel of Mark indicates that it was in the last week of his life that Jesus “cleansed the Temple” by overturning the tables of the money changers and saying, “This is to be a house of prayer . . . but you have made it a den of thieves” (Mark 11), whereas according to John this happened at the very beginning of Jesus’ ministry (John 2). Some readers have thought that Jesus must have cleansed the Temple twice, once at the beginning of his ministry and once at the end. But that would mean that neither Mark nor John tells the “true” story, since in both accounts he cleanses the temple only once. Moreover, is this reconciliation of the two accounts historically plausible? If Jesus made a disruption in the temple at the beginning of his ministry, why wasn’t he arrested by the authorities then? Once one comes to realize that the Bible might have discrepancies it is possible to see that the Gospels of Mark and John might want to teach something different about the cleansing of the Temple, and so they have located the event to two different times of Jesus’ ministry. Historically speaking, then, the accounts are not reconcilable.
Let's see if any of them will come to the defense of their fairy tale vision of things.
What makes you think that John had to place the event, cleansing the temple, at a certain place in his writings. John's gospel is not one written to convey a straight line historical account. Only Luke's gospel tries in any way to tell a historical account and this was not his main intention. All four gospels were written as a wittness about Jesus and the order of the events are not that important, the spiritual truth is the great importance of the gospels. If you will look at the gospels the events are not always in the same order from gospel to gospel Mark and Luke are the ones with close time lines. We actually do not know which events happened when so as far as the event cleansing the temple is concerned John may have it in the proper order.
God loves those who believe and those who do not and the same goes for me, you have no choice in this matter. That puts the matter of total free will to rest.
October 28, 2010 at 12:23 am (This post was last modified: October 28, 2010 at 12:33 am by Anomalocaris.)
So is that a recognition that the content of the bible is not a rigorous literal truth, but a much more divinely sloppy "spiritual" truth? That is improvement. Religious minds usually seem too inertia driven to profit much from where this leads, but let's call it improvement nonetheless.
Careful, G-C. They'll throw you out of the fundie club. They have a zero tolerance policy!
The fact remains that whoever the author was ( it would a mere coincidence if the guy was named "John.") he DID place the event at the beginning, Chapter 2... ( and then goes on to describe other later events. I have to give that round to Ehrman. He clearly knows a lot more than you.
Still....glad to see you backing away from a literal reading. That's a sign of progress. Maybe we're rubbing off on you?
(October 28, 2010 at 12:08 am)Godschild Wrote: What makes you think that John had to place the event, cleansing the temple, at a certain place in his writings.
Because he's supposedly an eye witness (Even though the author wasn't born when Jesus died), and if his memory is that fucking terrible that while putting it into writing he gets it completely wrong it seriously damages the credibility of the testimonial (though it's just a story).
Quote: John's gospel is not one written to convey a straight line historical account. Only Luke's gospel tries in any way to tell a historical account and this was not his main intention. All four gospels were written as a wittness about Jesus and the order of the events are not that important, the spiritual truth is the great importance of the gospels.
None of them are witnesses buddy, Mark was the first gospel and was written around 55AD, Luke and Matthew use about 90% of Mark verbatim in their accounts, ruling out the possibility of them all being primary sources. It's clear that whoever wrote Matthew was using Mark and had a very Jewish influence, while whoever wrote Luke also had Mark and wrote from and had a more Alexandrian approach to Christianity.
John is something somewhat removed from the textural history, it appeared from much more contrived sources some time later, almost 30 years after the authorship of Mark and is fairly clear intended for preaching, it's much more poetry and enticement that the other 3.
Quote: If you will look at the gospels the events are not always in the same order from gospel to gospel Mark and Luke are the ones with close time lines. We actually do not know which events happened when so as far as the event cleansing the temple is concerned John may have it in the proper order.
Wait, you've just decried the difference by saying that John wasn't intended to be a historical account, and now you've said John may be the one who is correct? Do you want to explain all this flip-flopping?
