Coolhand

I was trying to see where the division is between Pete's thoughts and Spong's thoughts. I was trying to get you to articulate the strengths of Spong's argument apart from what you think, but you keep repeating what you think; which I suppose answers my question.

I do not always agree with his conclusions. As I had suggested, we should discuss a bunch of examples so we can check them out for ourselves amongst us here so we can discuss them. What about Spong's argument that Paul's words are not the Words of God do you agree with? What do you think is Spong's strongest point regarding this?

I took it to mean that that he was saying that the bizarre theory was that they were altered to agree with the Latin texts. When you say "altered," are you refering to textual variants? Or are you referring to 'intended' changes to the texts? When referring to Dr Ehrman's work, it is crucial to not misunderstand what he is saying and what he is not saying. I find that most fundamentalists’ types view him and an enemy, and most liberal theologians view him as an ally. My thoughts are that when he is talking about the texts he is neither to either, rather, he is an authority that knows what he is talking about. However I will say I do not always agree with his conclusions; which after the research is done, the interpretation could vary. What about Spong's argument that Paul's words are not the Words of God do you agree with? What do you think is Spong's strongest point regarding this?

The citation for what Fawzo posted is page 112-116 which is an article about Johann J. Wettstein. The second paragraph on page 113, in referring to this theos to hos discussion in the Codex Alexandrian abbreviation is explained as lines that had bled through from the other side of the page. Page 114 and 115 tells about how Wettstein published his own Greek New Testment which was labeled dangerous. Page 115 Dr Ehrman refers to Wettstien's text as valuable, though the "textual theory lying behind it is usually seen as complelely retrograde." The last paragragh of the article (115-116) Dr Ehrman says that Wettstein's theory: "[He] maintained that the ancient Greek manuscripts of the New Testament could not be trusted because, in his view, they had all been altered in conformity with the Latin witnesses. There is no evidence of that having happened. . . ." Dr Ehrman concludes the paragraph by saying (in regard to his evaluation criterion) that "no leading scholar of the text subscribes to this bizarre theory."

Do you have a citation for that? Here is a comparison of the two. 16 Καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον· θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήφθη ἐν δόξῃ. The New Testament in the Original Greek : Byzantine Textform 2005, With Morphology. (Bellingham: Logos Research Systems, 2006), 1 Ti 3:16. 16 καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον· ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι,ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις,ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ. Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Matthew Black et al., The Greek New Testament, 4th ed. (Federal Republic of Germany: United Bible Societies, 1993), 545. Consider the passage in its context: 14 These things I write to you, though I hope to come to you shortly; 15 but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. 16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh, Justified in the Spirit, Seen by angels, Preached among the Gentiles, Believed on in the world, Received up in glory. The New King James Version. (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), 1 Ti 3:1416. 14 Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in Gods household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. 16 Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory. The Holy Bible : New International Version, electronic ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 1 Ti 3:1416. Whether the autograph (which we don't have) says theos or hos it is still refering to God, is it not?. Ask yourself who the pronoun "He" is refering to. The variant reading has little effect on what the text says if you read the whole text; just like the 1 John 5:7 example. When you read "Misquoting Jesus" look at the passages being referred to in thier contexts. Dr Ehrman knows what he is talking about in regard to the texts and thier variants, however, the claims that he makes in regard to how the meaning of the passage is changed are not very convincing to me. His conclusions seem to be influenced by his theological convictions. A question you may also consider: "What percentage of 1 Tim 3:16 is exact and word for word?" Is it 25 out of 26? And would that be 96% agreement? Is that important when you come to a conclusion about reliability? There are free Greek font downloads on line.

Niether Dan, nor I, nor anyone that has the position that the texts are not altered have the BURDEN OF PROOF in this discussion. This could easily be satisfied by presenting textual evidence, which no one can seem to do. The same secondary sources keep being repeated. Seems like a dead issue to me.

I like to be sure that I am answering specifically what is being asked, as in to accurately understand the questioner.

...reminds me of Da Jesus Book......

Does that bother you?

It reminds of Cronshaws article. I can't seem to find who produces the site, or what their acedemic credentials are. Still no text, which is the same issue I have with Cronshaw's article. The use of the word "proof" seems a bit strong for this discussion. That is what I think. I also think what we should do is have some lenghty discussion on each of these citations.

I'm not celebrating anything, I'm just responding to a specific question that was asked specifically to me. I do believe you are correct in regard to the disagreements in the Anglican Church. However I would refer to it as "disintegration" instead, which is what happens when unity in doctrine and mission is lost. Which is what happens when everyone thinks they are right. Which is why there are bylaws and missions statements, as well as Scripture. They should consider a split unless they want to see the whole denomination disintegrate. Why would I take the stance that only my view is the only one that counts? Why would you assume that is how I think? Why would I come to a discussion forum if I didn't want to hear any other views. My use of credible is in regard to belonging to one group and not espousing their fundamentals for what appears to be for personal gain. I have no idea what you mean by Elim and whether that includes Catholic, Presbyterian, Methodist, Baptist, and Independent. Yes I have read Spong's book. I feel it is a prerequisite to read a book or article in order to comment on its content. Which was why I made comments concerning it. In contrast, did you read "How to Read the Bible for all Its Worth" prior to your commenting on it?

He obviously marches to a different beat than I do. Choosing religious or denominational affiliations should be something that is done purposely and thoughtfully. My personal convictions lead me in a big circle in regard to denominational affiliations: Assemblies of God 1975-1985; none 1985-1994; Assemblies of God 1994-1998; Calvary Chapel 1998-2001; 2001-2004 ULC; 2004-2006 Non-Denominational; 2006-present Assemblies of God. Why all the changes? It is called being true to myself and the organizations that I represent. Sometimes I get to the point to where I just say; "No, I can't do it your way." That is when (in my opinion) a person has to be true to all involved and say: "Brothers, I am being lead in a different direction," and go in that direction. That takes a lot of guts to do. The whole point for affiliation with a denomination is to have a deeper fellowship with people who all agree on certain points of doctrine. There is unity in doctrine; there is unity in prayer, and in mission. As a minister you choose an affiliation because the denomination has a list of doctrines that you agree are biblically and spiritually sound that you feel accurately represent the truth, and then proclaim that truth. In regard to Spong, I am surprised that has been able to keep his position and be so vocal about his ideas. It almost seems that he keeps the affiliation so that people view his ideas and him as credible. It would seem to me that people who are true lifelong Episcopal that choose that denomination because its specific doctrines would have him removed. Normally, on the license or ordination certificate there is some phrase that says something like: “this license is granted and is valid so long as fellowship with (the denomination) is maintained and the standard of teaching is maintained.” My thoughts would be if someone wants to break in doctrine from the group they belong to, they should also break from the group. I know personally I did not go to Assemblies of God churches to hear Baptist doctrines taught, or non-denominational churches to hear pagan teachings. You can see from my record which I have shared what I would do if I were Spong; I would join up with people who were like minded or start my own fellowship. So the obvious question that comes up which would be directed back at me would be: “If you are not ULC anymore, then why are you here? Why don't you take your own advice and leave?” When I resigned my credential with the ULC , I asked that question also. At the time I was a moderator here on this forum, and I had informed the other mods and admins of what I was going to do, and asked since I was resigning my credential I assumed that I should resign as a mod and leave the forum also. The answer was "that is up to you."” I remained on the mod staff for some time after that and ultimately resigned mainly because of time constraints cause by adding school to work and ministry. Also, to participate in this forum, ordination from the ULC is not required, and this is a discussion forum where respectful discussion is desired from as many different points of view as possible. But to answer your question regarding Spong, I think he should change his affiliation.

Have you read the book?

So when he says on page x that he: "wants to place the biblical theological debates that are commonplace among scholars at the disposal of the typical church goer" Does that mean then that he wants to "arm" them with his conclusions so that when they run into someone who actually knows what they are talking about, that in the process of them looking foolish they will somehow "rescue the Bible from fundmentalism?" So the readers are to know what Spong thinks, without the benfit of a theological education that give the what, when, and why behind the arguments, and in this knowledge void they are suppose to "rescue the Bible from fundmentalism?" Isn't that part of the problem of fundamentalism, specifically: arguing the Bible from a point of ignorance? Which would be the result ACCORDING TO HIM from what he says on page 10 where he states: "That the average "pew sitter" in Catholic and Protestant churches is biblically illiterate." Strange strategy; but you may be right. Certainly not how I would go about it.

You have several things going on in your post a person could see the difference in (as I see it). 1) In regard to your comment on the Bible, you (and others here) have a set of talking points you are working from that consider the Scriptures to be altered. And some citation of the Church Fathers is used to enforce that. What I have presented is what, in my opinion, would be what the scholars who carry the weight in the argument (the UBS translators) and their comments on which of the Church Fathers testimony was accepted and why; which was based on verifiable evidence, not comments that are uncertain about which passages they were discussing. I would argue that the translators listed in the article from the Long Island Mystic that was posted have all produced a translation of the Greek New Testament that they claim is close to the original. And I have posted links to the New Testament portions that existed prior to Constantine even being born, which no one seems interested in. Attempting to drag actual textual evidence from the forum members or from academia is impossible because it doesnt exist. And somehow Im supposed to believe that because it does not exist that that is my proof. So do I see the difference in that? Yeah I do. But the fact still remains, both sides may have arguments, but nothing is proven until one of these magical autographs happens to surface. I would rather rely on original sources and let them say what they say and adjust my beliefs to that. Has that happened you might ask? Absolutely; you might ask someone who has been on this forum, back from the Snitz days when I first started here in like 2001. Contrivances are no reason (in my opinion) to switch from what is known to what could be. If heretical writings got through, would it not also make sense that some of the alleged unaltered texts would have made it through as well? 2) In regard to researching something to find evidence to prove your argument is not done by anyone that is worth listening to, because when you go into research with the outcome already determined, guess what the results are. When people pull little pieces of Scripture out that is called proof texting; which belongs in the eisegesis method. Which is not my approach to Bible studies or research. I hardly ever quote Scripture and when I do I do not proof text; I use at least enough to get the whole thought of that passage or pericope. So do I see a difference in that? Yeah I do. But that is not research and if you are claiming that is my method, then how do you account for the numerous requests that I have made in this topic for a text that evidences the alteration argument. 3) In regard to your research; I respect and admire you for your dedication to your studies. However, having the equivalent to a degree is not the same as having one. I have the equivalent of an engineering degree, and I use that in the commercial refrigeration field by because I do not have the actual degree, I do not get paid what an engineer should get paid. I know people who tell me all the time they have the equivalent of Phd in this or that. Even at that, who cares what degree anybody has when it comes down to it? My thoughts are if you want to be considered an authority in any area you need to appropriate degrees. For a discussion here, your degrees my degrees, or whoevers degrees are irrelevant; I cannot speak for you but I certainly am not claiming to be an authority at anything. Also, I have no idea how the equivalent of a masters degree in education would help you in the study of religion; it would appear to be two different fields to me. And if you are claiming to be an authority in a specific field, where are you published? So do I see a difference in that? Yeah I do; but it is irrelevant, so who cares. Blessings and peace to you as well my brother .

Pete, could you comment specifically on this: Specifically in regard to whether Spong lays out the topic and allows his readers to decide, or if he decides for the reader and criticizes opposing views.

I hate to disappoint you brother, but there was no masturbation taking place; mental or otherwise. The point in using those cumbersome terms were in response to a question that is all too commonly asked by Christians in a Bible study setting as kind of a "get to know you" "see if you can explain your way out of this" trap by someone new coming to the group, who was me at the time. The question asked was: “Do you think you can be saved and then fall away from the faith and not be saved.” That seems to be a common question Christians ask for some reason. In trying to give an adequate answer to that, I have always felt that the contrast between Calvinism and Arminianism must be understood: one is determinism and the other is free will. But then the issue of “not having original sin” or a sin nature usually also comes up with brings Pelagius into the picture with his thoughts that there is no sin nature passed down generation to generation, which then leaves you with three basic options: 1) the soul is pre-existing prior to conception; 2) the soul is created at the time of conception; 3) or as the traducionist believes, the soul is a product of the sperm and egg uniting. Which is the only way the teaching of original sin can stand in my opinion. One side says you can be “saved” and then lose your “salvation,” the other side says if you lose your salvation you never were saved to start with. So actually it turned out to be a win win situation; they now have a more accurate layout of the question they asked, and I have “proven my worthiness” to be a part of the group. This was not a bragging session either, this was an illustration to the first point that I made in regard to Spong’s comments about bringing the debate of scholars to the average pew sitting Christian. Which if one attempts to do should do it the way I did it (and I am not claiming to be a Bible Scholar either) by laying out the whole thing; both sides and let the hearers make an informed decision from what they now know about the subject, instead of taking the route that Spong did in this book and informing the reader of why he doesn’t go along with the orthodox ideas. Do you see the difference?

I guess we will see. By the way, you answered this question: "In your tolerance driven model, how would you deal with murder, lying, theft, and rape?" ....by not answering. And I seriously doubt that you would be as tolerant as you claim is proper if these four things were happening to you and your family. In fact, I would assume you would become surprisingly intolerant if your family was the target of these things. Read RabbiO's post on this. But also read my response to Blachthorn. So you are not sure? Or, you would not argue that?

I have a few thoughts that make sense to me in regard to who gets to claim that theirs is the point that is correct in referring to these passages, tell me if it makes sense to you (not just Blackthorn, but anybody). Regardless to whether a person holds to the documentary hypothesis or not, the Torah was kept (preserved, edited whatever) as a literary unit read from one scroll. The prophets and the writings all presuppose the Torah (teaching and narrative) as the background for their narratives and discourses. To take any of these writings as a whole or in part in anyway other than as the part of the literary whole in which they reside is to misunderstand and malign the portions being quoted. In other words, the parameters are set by the narrator(s), not the reader(s). This is regardless whether the narrative is historical or fictional. So, the ones who get to claim that their points are valid concerning their conclusions drawn from these texts, are the ones that draw their conclusions from the work as a whole and not in fragments. Comments? lol.....thanks. It aught to be a good time...like the old days (refering to sermon). Excellent.

Based on assumption and presumption you mean?

Suppose I was to take the position that these are examples of a hateful and vengeful god that is both dastardly and abominable; and hates children. How would I go about arguing that from what little we know about these alleged accounts?

I would argue that your comments are utopian and have little or no grounding in reality. In your picture there we would not need police, the court system, governments, or borders. I theory I agree with you, but I live in a world that I have to stand up for what is right, and assert what my boundaries are. Also, every time I have heard someone argue against "intolerance" they actually are in fact being intolerant to someone in the process of perusing this alleged tolerance. In my opinion have a self-defeating premise. In your tolerance driven model, how would you deal with murder, lying, theft, and rape? So what specifically is your objection?

Yeah, good point Dan, who was the advocate for those children? It appears that YHWH was on their side.

Right, I agree.

Since that is such a hotly contested debate I would prefer to AVOID a discussion about homosexuality because it only brings out the worst in everybody; and is unnecessary anyway. I would argue that if the redemptive-hermeneutic is to be recognized and practiced towards moving past the New Testament like you had originally suggested, I would suggest that actually getting past racism and reverse racism would be a sufficient start, since that is still a problem being dealt with that has been with mankind since mankind has had races. I would suggest that if mankind can ever get past racism that along that path he will discover some valuable tools to understanding the homosexual issue. Racism is the bigger issue, the problem has existed longer, it affects a larger number of people, and is more important in my opinion. Interesting claim.............