My book report pt1

[Drich]

For those of you who did not follow Minnie's last extended exchange with me, he offered to provide me with a faith shattering book written by Bart D Ehrman. The title : "Jesus Interupted."
Basically Mr. Erhman started out as a biblical scholar who has found reason to believe God does not exist through evidence he has compiled through his extensive studies in the bible, and it orginal texts.

My 'book report' will highlight a few of his more "faith crippling questions." and provide a perspective that not only satasifies the biblical account, but will also show where Mr. Erhman's understanding of faith is in error.

All Book Quotes will be taken directly from His book. If you want a copy look it up or Just ask Minnie, and I'm sure he'd be glad to sent you one.

To be sure, many beginning students are expert at reconciling
differences among the Gospels. For example, the Gospel of Markindicates 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.

Oh, yeah this would be a big problem to resolve if one assumes like Bart has that Gospels of John and Mark were both meant to chronoligcally account the events as they happen. Mark's account does seem to do this, but John's account reads like an adventure story. It starts out with a bang it grabs a hold of the reader/listner of the story and takes you on an adventure... After all, John quickly establishes the Main Protaginst, then the deciples, then tips his hat to all of the technical stuff, and then Bang! He does the unthinkable, He challenges the authority of the Old oppressive Regime, not by debating with them, but by turning over their money tables, and basically whiping them out of the temple! to which, all of those who suffered under that Regime would be hooked to see what happens next!

Remember the books of the bible were not written to be later compiled, nor were they written in such a way as to follow 21th century doctrine on book writting/historical accounting. They were written as the writter saw fit to compile their accounts. They were taylored to the audeience that the writter orginally intended the message to goto. For example, what may appeal to the people in the innercity of detroit (on mass) would most likly put the people who live in Beijing China off a bit. There is a way to communicate the same message to both, just not in the exact same way, using the exact same method.

Bart's critical error here is the belief that these two books were indeed written to the standard he has decided to judge them by. He has over looked the culture these writtings came out of and paired these ideas with his own standards... Something that someone with as many letters after his name, as he has, should know better than do.

The same can be said of Peter’s denials of Jesus. In Mark’s Gospel,
Jesus tells Peter that he will deny him three times “before the
cock crows twice.” In Matthew’s Gospel he tells him that it will be
“before the cock crows.” Well, which is it—before the cock crows
once or twice?

This one has been done to death. I got this explaination here: http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/matth...ird-denial

If a cock crows a second time, then it has crowed once before. The problem is that in Mark, after Peter denies the Lord for the third time (Mark 14:71), immediately a cock crows a second time (v. 72). The other gospels tell us that after Peter's third denial a cock then crows. How do we reconcile this difficulty?

Mark does not mention when the cock crowed the first time. Therefore, it is possible that after Peter's third denial, the cock then crowed twice.
(In short Mark accounts how many total times the Cock Crowed, and the other's mention that simple fact that it happened. As Mark was an understudy of Peter he would have access to this extra bit of info.)

The same problem occurs in the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection.
On the third day after Jesus’ death, the women go to the tomb to
anoint his body for burial. And whom do they see there? Do they
see a man, as Mark says, or two men (Luke), or an angel (Matthew)?
This is normally reconciled by saying that the women actually saw
“two angels.”

In my thread Messenger/Message I say that anyone who carries the Message of God is technically a 'Messenger' which is the defination of the word angel. In the orginal texts the word is pronounced: mal’āk̠ Which literally means Messenger. It does not differenciate between a spiritual messenger or a Human one. It is simply one who carries the message of God. So if the men were spiritual being or humans, if they carried the message of God then technically they were angels.

Bart's failure is based on the persupposition that all Angels are spiritual in nature. Which is a doctrinal teaching not a biblical one.

That can explain everything else—why Matthew
says they saw an angel (he mentions only one of the two angels, but
doesn’t deny there was a second), why Mark says it was a man (the
angels appeared to be men, even though they were angels, and Mark
mentions only one of them without denying there was a second),
and why Luke says it was two men (since the angels appeared to be
men). The problem is that this kind of reconciling again requires
one to assert that what really happened is unlike what any of the
Gospels say—since none of the three accounts states that the women
saw “two angels.”

Mat was a tax collector and very 'beurcratic/techinically correct." In his account if one of two men Carried the word of God, then technically one one would be an angel, the other need not be counted. The other accounts count the second man/angel out of association. I would tend to favor Mat's account because only one of them spoke. That would be like me standing next to the President and he introducing himself as a world leader, someone not in the know may assume that i too am a world learder because I simply share proxcimity. Other's may not be so inclinded. Does that make me right and them wrong? I guess the answer lies in the culture doing the judgement.

That should be enough to get us started. If there are no questions or objection I will post the next few segments.

[Angrboda]

From what I understand, Ehrman's change in belief was primarily motivated by the problem of theodicy, not because of his knowledge and experience with higher and lower criticism.

[Faith No More]

I find your defense lacking, to say the least.

[Drich]

I find your defense lacking, to say the least.

show me. lacking how?

---

From what I understand, Ehrman's change in belief was primarily motivated by the problem of theodicy, not because of his knowledge and experience with higher and lower criticism.

Bart's problem is outlined on the fist 10 pages of this book. I did not read anything pertaining to Theodicy. According to his book (And who knows maybe he is just trying to sell this book) his faith failed because of the falliablity he saw in the bible.

Theodicy is easily reconciled with a simple understaning and acceptance of Who/How God identifies Himself, and a departure of who/how we choose to identify Him in our various expressions of Christianity.

[John V]

Nice work.

Oh, yeah this would be a big problem to resolve if one assumes like Bart has that Gospels of John and Mark were both meant to chronoligcally account the events as they happen.

I considered noting this possibility in the recent John the Baptist thread but wanted to see how it would play out. John 1 has JtB giving testimony before the Word was made flesh. Doesn't seem like chronology was his main concern.

The same can be said of Peter’s denials of Jesus. In Mark’s Gospel,
Jesus tells Peter that he will deny him three times “before the
cock crows twice.” In Matthew’s Gospel he tells him that it will be
“before the cock crows.” Well, which is it—before the cock crows
once or twice?

Yeah, this and the angels are non-issues. If you saw two angels, you necessarily saw an angel. Saying that you saw an angel is not equivalent to saying that you saw only one angel.

[Faith No More]

I find your defense lacking, to say the least.

show me. lacking how?

Well, your first defense is that John and Mark were trying to portray a different message and were using a different writing style to appeal to the locals at that time, and they weren't meant to be chronological retellings of Jesus' life. You then claim Erhman is judging them by the wrong standard. You fail to state the proper standard to judge them except for vaguely claiming they were written for different people. Using that method, one could dismiss any discrepancy in any two stories, but it doesn't prove what you've set out to do.

The second one seems like a minor issue, so I'm not really concerned about that one.

The rest of your defense is an obfuscation of terms and an attempt to explain why one author would count some while not others, but this is the key plot point in the narrative of Jesus that the authors are describing. As C.S. Lewis has pointed out, all of Christianity hinges on the resurrection, so I find this explanation to be inadequate.

I just don't find your explanations adequate in explaining discrepancies in a message supposedly from an omniscient deity.

[John V]

Papias regarding gMark:

Mark, having become interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately everything that he remembered, without, however, recording in order what was either said or done by Christ. For neither did he hear the Lord, nor did he follow Him, but afterwards, as I said, (he attended) Peter, who adapted his instructions to the needs (of his hearers), but had no design of giving a connected account of the Lord's oracles.

[Drich]

Well, your first defense is that John and Mark were trying to portray a different message.

This is the failure in your analisis. Mark and John were trying to convey the SAME MESSAGE not a different one. They simply approached it in different ways.
Again the people Mark could have been focousing one may have been a little more educated and wanted structure in their account, while John spoke to the guys who like action movies over a documentry.

and were using a different writing style to appeal to the locals at that time, and they weren't meant to be chronological retellings of Jesus' life. You then claim Erhman is judging them by the wrong standard.

He is judgeing them by the standard Mark used which is a chronicological accounting of said events. When clearly John is not giving a Chronological retelling as witnessed by the temple events being placed at the front of his book. even in light of this events misplacement he continues to force the assumption that John and Mark's accounts are ment to be read as sequential events. When by the very placement of these same stories placed at either ends of the respective accounts dictates otherwise.

You fail to state the proper standard to judge them except for vaguely claiming they were written for different people.

and in that I expressly implied that John was not giving a history lesson in that his telling of Christ was not the sequencial order, yet Bart insists they were. The fact that they are not in order and the fact no one who compiled the bible put them in order suggests that neither book is in the wrong here. which means that they are to be read and accepted as written/John was not meant to repersent a chronological order of the events of Christ.

Using that method, one could dismiss any discrepancy in any two stories, but it doesn't prove what you've set out to do.

Actually no. The only thing what I said does is allow John the freedom to not chronical his account in the order the others did.

The second one seems like a minor issue, so I'm not really concerned about that one.

It's your show.

The rest of your defense is an obfuscation of terms and an attempt to explain why one author would count some while not others, but this is the key plot point in the narrative of Jesus that the authors are describing.

Your glancing over something you simply do not understand or something you know breaks your arguement so we need to revisit eitherway.

Let say someone asks you to describe a group of people standing over on a street corner, and you look and say there are 7 asian men and 3 women standing there. Another may say there are 10 'orenitals' (which is a racist term because orential describes a thing and not a person) standing over there, Then i may be asked the same question and Ill say there are 2 japanese men, 3Han Chineese men, 2 Tu women, 1 Han Korean woman(most likly north Korean) 2 korean men standing on that same corner.

Now who is right?

According to Bart we all can't be right because we did not describe the identical same thing, using the same identical words.

When if fact we simply described what we saw using all of what we have been given to understand. In other words we are all right to one degree or another, the variances we report are not because we are trying to describe something false, but rather we describe what we understand we saw. The more we understand the deeper the description.

As C.S. Lewis has pointed out, all of Christianity hinges on the resurrection, so I find this explanation to be inadequate.

Well, i find your quote to be inadequate.
How you like dem apples?

I just don't find your explanations adequate in explaining discrepancies in a message supposedly from an omniscient deity.

what does this have to do with what is being discussed?

[Faith No More]

This is the failure in your analisis. Mark and John were trying to convey the SAME MESSAGE not a different one. They simply approached it in different ways.
Again the people Mark could have been focousing one may have been a little more educated and wanted structure in their account, while John spoke to the guys who like action movies over a documentry.

That wasn't really the relevant part to what I was talking about. Why you decided to break that off is beyond me. I just was pointing out that you claimed that they were relaying the tales differently. I said "different message," which may not have been technically correct, but my intention was that they were telling the message in a different manner. Regardless, your rebuttle wasn't really relevant to the point at hand.

He is judgeing them by the standard Mark used which is a chronicological accounting of said events. When clearly John is not giving a Chronological retelling as witnessed by the temple events being placed at the front of his book. even in light of this events misplacement he continues to force the assumption that John and Mark's accounts are ment to be read as sequential events. When by the very placement of these same stories placed at either ends of the respective accounts dictates otherwise.

Here you are simply saying that the discrepancy at hand is proof that the standard of judgement is false. The claim is that the sequence of events do not agree. Your defense is that on of them isn't chronological. The proof you offer of your defense is the very discrepancy in question, which leaves you going in circles. You must demonstrate that one is not intended to be chronological without referencing the discrepancy...

and in that I expressly implied that John was not giving a history lesson in that his telling of Christ was not the sequencial order, yet Bart insists they were. The fact that they are not in order and the fact no one who compiled the bible put them in order suggests that neither book is in the wrong here. which means that they are to be read and accepted as written/John was not meant to repersent a chronological order of the events of Christ.

...which you attempt to do here, but simply state that the bible was not compiled in order. The problem is that how the bible was compiled has no bearing on each individual author's intention.

Let say someone asks you to describe a group of people standing over on a street corner, and you look and say there are 7 asian men and 3 women standing there. Another may say there are 10 'orenitals' (which is a racist term because orential describes a thing and not a person) standing over there, Then i may be asked the same question and Ill say there are 2 japanese men, 3Han Chineese men, 2 Tu women, 1 Han Korean woman(most likly north Korean) 2 korean men standing on that same corner.

Now who is right?

According to Bart we all can't be right because we did not describe the identical same thing, using the same identical words.

When if fact we simply described what we saw using all of what we have been given to understand. In other words we are all right to one degree or another, the variances we report are not because we are trying to describe something false, but rather we describe what we understand we saw. The more we understand the deeper the description.

Except it's not as though there is simply a discrepancy in what types of beings were present. They can't even agree on the number of beings, so your argument about labels isn't relevant.

DWell, i find your quote to be inadequate.
How you like dem apples?

I only like fujis.

what does this have to do with what is being discussed?

It was a restatement of my original point.

[Drich]

That wasn't really the relevant part to what I was talking about. Why you decided to break that off is beyond me.

Because you worded your response in such a way as to be in error of the biblical accounts being discussed.

I just was pointing out that you claimed that they were relaying the tales differently. I said "different message," which may not have been technically correct, but my intention was that they were telling the message in a different manner. Regardless, your rebuttle wasn't really relevant to the point at hand.

Then please restate you objection using technically correct terms, as I have answered your rebuttal as it currently reads. If you still seek a response.

Here you are simply saying that the discrepancy at hand is proof that the standard of judgement is false. The claim is that the sequence of events do not agree. Your defense is that on of them isn't chronological. The proof you offer of your defense is the very discrepancy in question, which leaves you going in circles. You must demonstrate that one is not intended to be chronological without referencing the discrepancy...

The money changers incident is recorded in all 4 gospels. Three of the four place the account at the end of Jesus' Ministry. John places it at the beginning. Which makes John's account not a chronologically correct account. But again who says it has to be.

Your working off the idea that there is a right and wrong way to write a gospel as is Bart. The fact that 3 of 4 record the account at the end of Christ ministry says this happening happens at the end of his ministry. John has it first. No matter the reason it does not make John's account any less factual. It only states that his account is not Chronologically correct. Now if you like Bart says John's account must be in chronological order then the burden of 'proof' rightly and logically shifts to you, to provide evidence that John had to write to that given standard.

...which you attempt to do here, but simply state that the bible was not compiled in order. The problem is that how the bible was compiled has no bearing on each individual author's intention.

Maybe it is better you do not understand my meaning. I was alluding to the fact that the books of the bible did not come with Book Name, Chapter denotations, or verse indexing. These were added much later to aid study. These accounts were written out line one long story or letter. It was up to those who compiled the bible without the aid of BCV to ensure continuity. Meaning if the monk or scribe who was incharge of the book of John pre BCV saw that John's account was indeed out of order, and there was a continuity problem it would have been changed. Again with out any way on indexing or separating one passage from another it was left up to the pastors who were given these letters and books to simply know (oral tradition) what order the story was meant to be relayed. Once the bible was compiled all of that was lost.

Except it's not as though there is simply a discrepancy in what types of beings were present. They can't even agree on the number of beings, so your argument about labels isn't relevant.

Again no. If a average guy sees two beings and is not in the know of what an actual angel is, and one speaks revealing himself as an angel of God then the average joe may simply assume the other guy is an angel as well. When technically only the guy who speaks is the actual 'messenger.' Just like above when you were describing a 'different message' and I corrected you and said they are speaking the same one. You may not have been technically correct, but you point was still made if you can over look the technical descrepency or simply do not know of the technical descrepency.

One Gospel writer may look at two guys being there and because even just one of them held the message of God he assumes the other guys was an angel as well. (He may well have been.) while someone like me may look at the same two guys (They could have been symeese twins joined at the Hip) and because only one spoke while the other did not, I would only have identified one angel. Because only one held the message of God and only one spoke.

I only like fujis.

You know they come from brazil right?