View Single Post
      07-14-2007, 08:25 PM   #63
Alpine's Avatar

Drives: e90 330i
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Nashville, TN

iTrader: (5)

Garage List
2006 330i  [0.00]
"Between the time of the original composition and the earliest manuscripts, as well as during the successive manuscript stages, numerous changes were made, both deliberate and accidental."
Lets see proof. What was specifically changed? How does this "scholar" know that things were 'accidentally' changed? Sounds like an opinion to me.

"The idea that the Bible is a book is comparatively modern. It is not one book but a library of 66 books, written by almost as many authors during a period of one thousand years and on three continents."
And? What's your point here? Is this "christian" scholar implying that God isn't great enough to use many people over a period of time to write down His word? God could have used one person to write down everything if He wanted to, but He decided to use people who, for the most part, saw everything first hand. Would you believe me if I wrote out 'The Gospel According to Alpine'? Of course not, I wasn't there.

But contradictions, scientific errors, absurd statements, exgerrations and immature views occur throughout the Bible
Show me a scientific error. Show me absurd statements. Does this "Christian" think that Jesus saying He is the Son of God is absurd? I suppose he believes feeding thousands with a few fish and a couple loaves of bread is an exaggeration.. or maybe even immature? Lets see his evidence. Otherwise, this 'scholar' is writing out opinions. Anyone can write opinions.

The 'occasional' or local and, at times, self-centred character of Paul's letters is proof that neither Paul nor his readers thought there was anything sacred about them"
Yes, you're right. Paul was eccentric. But to claim that his readers thought there was nothing sacred about them is absolutely ludicrous.
Beginning of Romans
"Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God- the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son, who as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead; Jesus Christ our Lord. Through him and for his name's sake, we received grace and apostleship to call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith. And you also are among those who are called to belong to Jesus Christ. ... Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ." Romans 1:1-6

Paul tells the Romans that he received apostleship from Christ to call people to the obedience. He tells them that Grace and peace come to them from God and from Jesus. Elsewhere in the book, he continually refers to how God feels, what God thinks, and what God wants. To say that the recipients of this letter didn't think this had any sacred value is untrue.. and again, an opinion. Unless he has evidence where the recipients of his letters said, 'these are not sacred by any means' then I wouldn't put much stock into this 'scholar.'

"He was writing personal letters to certain people, and, if he had been able to visit them in person he would not have written."
True. But God had a plan. I'm sure there were dozens of times where Paul visited instead of wrote. But that was God's plan. God knows what He's doing.

"It is also the oldest, but in spite of this it is not a book written by an apostle. At best is was written by an apostle's disciple."
There is absolutely no way that this 'scholar' can claim this without it being written in Mark's gospel that 'Hey, Mark isn't writing this, his disciple is!' Yet again, opinion.

" - the final section of Mark's Gospel (16, 19-20) is considered by modern authors to be tacked onto the basic work - - - - - -. This final section is not contained in the two oldest completet manuscripts of the Gospels."
Already addressed this. As I said, it's fine if you want to say it wasn't originally there, because it's included in Matthew 28, Luke 24, and John 20 already.

"Luke expresses ideas on the subject of Jesus' Ascension which contradict what he says in the Acts of the Apostles - - in his Gospel he situates the Ascension on Easter Day and in the Acts forty days later"
The 'ascension on easter' is when he rose from the grave after he was crucified on the cross. He defeated death and came back to life. The ascension 40 days later is when He left earth for good, and went to heaven.
I'm sorry, but this guy is not a scholar by any means. To call this a contradiction is just stupid. I learned this in Sunday school in like the 3rd grade.

"a unique book; different in the arrangement and choice of subject, description and speech; different in its style, geography, chronology. There are even differences on the theological outlook"
Exactly why I love the book of John. John was one of the closest disciples to Jesus. One of his many nicknames was 'the one who Jesus loved'. So.. 1. John was very close to Jesus. He probably knew more about him than others did. He was the one PRESENT at the crucifixion. He was there with Jesus' mother, and Jesus told him to take care of his mother. Now, 2, John was the youngest of all the disciples. Some say he was even a teenager when he was following Christ. His writing style SHOULD be different than the others. I can definitely say my writing style is different than someone who is 40+ years older than I am. But does any of this void his writings? Of course not. So what's the point.

The Bible will stand through any criticism anyone can throw at it. It is the truth.
I'm sorry if some of this sounds rude or anything- I really do come to you with the utmost respect, hks. I just really don't like when people who call themselves 'Christian' 'scholars' write things down, which are clearly untrue, and distort the minds of people who may be questioning Christianity. Those are the 'christians' you refer to when you see hypocrisy. They're definitely not following what Jesus taught.. but its not my place to judge. God's got that covered.

I'm not going to post an 'offensive' this time. You can throw whatever you want at the Bible, and I'll be happy to explain and/or defend it. It's not my job to 'convert' you, hks, but it is my job to let you know the truth.
Be well, hks.