Agree completely.

Edited to add that from my readings Metzger did not agree with absolute inerrancy. I am curious as to whether inerrancy is taught as ironclad at seminary as it is in almost all church written statement of beliefs.

I can, you cannot find anything that seriously contests it. If you had the basic curiosity to read what the other Christians on this page have written they have stated the same thing with regard to the consensus view.

And like in science, fundamentalists fail at producing evidence. Remember YECs are basically the least objective lot you can find outside of flat earthers. And your approach to other subjects offers similar levels of intellectual honesty and evidence based reasoning.

And what Ehrman states with regard to conclusions is run of the mill. His views on authorship are mainstream.

There are people that believe that a plane didn't hit the pentagon on 9/11. I guess I should be surprised that people have a problem with something written 2000 years ago. (Before Google)

I think the most interesting thing is what is actually taught at mainstream seminary. I have a feeling that what is taught and what preachers preach differs or is avoided.

dermdoc said:

---

I think the most interesting thing is what is actually taught at mainstream seminary. I have a feeling that what is taught and what preachers preach differs or is avoided.

---

This is why I recommend calling a local seminary. Call one of your denominational seminaries and ask them if they will give you the syllabus for their introduction to the NT and OT classes. Or you could just search around for one that's listed. If you have the capacity, ask if you can sit in on an introductory lecture. You may even be able to audit a course at a discount. You can also just follow Open Yale Courses Intro to NT or OT here.

While books for the general public are fine, if you want something more serious, buy a textbook for an introductory NT or OT course. You're going to get a better presentation of the issues and the differing views from a textbook designed for an academic course than you will from a book for the general public written by the same authors.

I haven't read the following textbooks, but I've read some of their other works. These are moderate to liberal scholars who do quality work.

Ehrman's The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings 6th Edition
(I'm not the biggest fan of Ehrman. He's a fine scholar but he just bothers me some.)

Raymond Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament (Catholic - not that it matters all that much but the field is often dominated by Protestants)

M. Eugene Boring's An Introduction to the New Testament: History, Literature, Theology

Mark Allen Powell's Introducing the New Testament: A Historical, Literary, and Theological Survey

JJMt said:

---

You're right, doc. I suspect that most preachers want to avoid anything controversial for a number of reasons, the most important of which may be that it might drive some members off.

IMHO the church and pastors have lost site of discipleship as a primary purpose of the church. Churches are run as businesses rather than as places to make disciples. Everything at most churches is viewed through the lens of numbers and financials.

---

Not meaning to derail but interesting that our pastor talked about this very thing in his sermon two weeks ago. He talked about how the term "Christian" was only used three times in the Bible and was a term used by outsiders, like the Romans, to describe followers of Christ. He then taught how Christ used the term "disciples" which obviously has a totally different meaning and level of commitment.

I really enjoy our church.

aggiedad20 said:

---

Erhman has been discredited on numerous occasions. Scripture on the other hand...

---

Any provable occasions of this you have on tap?

dermdoc said:

---

aggiedad20 said:

---

Erhman has been discredited on numerous occasions. Scripture on the other hand...

---

Almost every author on religious or spiritual topics has been discredited. I am firm in my Christian faith and willing to read different points of view.

And that is why I requested sources from both sides of the debate.

---

This is my latest read and it was quite easy to absorb

https://www.amazon.com/Who-Wrote-New-Testament-Christian-ebook/dp/B00APGJZSC/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=who+wrote+the+new+testament&qid=1561485136&s=gateway&sr=8-2

It doesn't focus on the message but rather the beliefs of the earliest christian communities.

Thanks

JJMt said:

---

Dermdoc:

I don't know if there's any one book that answers all of the questions raised by AggGrad; there may be, I just don't know.

For conservative viewpoints, there are several such scholars at DTS. There's also Norman Geisler who just retired from Southeastern Evangelical Seminary. Dr. Geisler would be considered to be extremely conservative.

I'm in the middle of reading two books by Craig Blomberg, "Can We Still Believe the Bible" and "The Historical Reliability of the New Testament". I purchased them because another scholar I had been reading recommended one or the other, or both, and referred to them and Blomberg as authoritative. Blomberg would be seen by folks like AggGrad as conservative, but being one myself, I view him as somewhat less than that (i.e., he doesn't seem to hold to a strict or traditional view of infallibility).

In addition, the scholar I referred to above, Dr. Michael Kruger, seems very well informed and intellectually honest. He has a blog and its index to articles on the NT Canon can be found here:

https://www.michaeljkruger.com/category/nt-canon/

There are undoubtedly many, many others.

Sean McDowell, who is the son of the famous Josh McDowell and is a famous apologist in his own right (with a PhD and is now a professor at Biola) has done some interesting work on the martyrdom of the apostles, going through the historical evidence to determine the strength of the evidence for the martyrdom of each of the apostles. He is more than willing to admit that the martyrdom stories for some of the apostles is somewhat weak, but is not willing to back down at all with respect to the martyrdom of the other apostles for which the evidence is very strong.

---

Thanks to you also.

What is even more fascinating is reading the Chicago Statement on Biblical inerrancy. From reading a synopsis, they did not ascribe inerrancy as being literal, therefore leaving open different interpretations of the same "innerant" Scripture. And that has always been my hangup about how fundamentalists use the term "innerant" as seemingly being the same as literal.

JJMt said:

---

Dermdoc:

I don't know if there's any one book that answers all of the questions raised by AggGrad; there may be, I just don't know.

For conservative viewpoints, there are several such scholars at DTS. There's also Norman Geisler who just retired from Southeastern Evangelical Seminary. Dr. Geisler would be considered to be extremely conservative.

I'm in the middle of reading two books by Craig Blomberg, "Can We Still Believe the Bible" and "The Historical Reliability of the New Testament". I purchased them because another scholar I had been reading recommended one or the other, or both, and referred to them and Blomberg as authoritative. Blomberg would be seen by folks like AggGrad as conservative, but being one myself, I view him as somewhat less than that (i.e., he doesn't seem to hold to a strict or traditional view of infallibility).

In addition, the scholar I referred to above, Dr. Michael Kruger, seems very well informed and intellectually honest. He has a blog and its index to articles on the NT Canon can be found here:

https://www.michaeljkruger.com/category/nt-canon/

There are undoubtedly many, many others.

Sean McDowell, who is the son of the famous Josh McDowell and is a famous apologist in his own right (with a PhD and is now a professor at Biola) has done some interesting work on the martyrdom of the apostles, going through the historical evidence to determine the strength of the evidence for the martyrdom of each of the apostles. He is more than willing to admit that the martyrdom stories for some of the apostles is somewhat weak, but is not willing to back down at all with respect to the martyrdom of the other apostles for which the evidence is very strong.

---

Yeah, I was reading this the other day. It's interesting.

https://repository.sbts.edu/bitstream/handle/10392/4857/McDowell_sbts_0207D_10221.pdf

Thanks

Quote:

---

He is more than willing to admit that the martyrdom stories for some of the apostles is somewhat weak, but is not willing to back down at all with respect to the martyrdom of the other apostles for which the evidence is very strong.

---

And, this goes back to the original topic. It was a pointless exercise to get into an argument along the way...

If the evidence is strong for the martyrdom of apostles that knew for a fact if Jesus had been raised from the dead or not then it would make no sense for them to die for this known lie. It's stuff like this that has strengthened my faith over the years. God gave us logic and reason too. Why not use it?

Quote:

---

Sure but prove Papias was a honest scholar and not a biased writer who promoted his favorite version of oral stories being passed around.

---

"And the presbyter said this. Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered. It was not, however, in exact order that he related the sayings or deeds of Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor accompanied Him.

• Acts 12 gives us corroboration that Mark was with Peter.
• Papias accurately describes Mark's writing style, (Not in exact order) compare with the beginning Luke

In this little excerpt we have an outside source confirming there's a relationship between Mark and Peter, and he accurately describes the writing style. His "version" matches external and internal evidence.

There is still a long way to go to PROVE that the book called MARK is directly from the hands of the person Papias is speaking of.

Well it challenges the notion that the Bible is THE WORD OF GOD, passed on as absolute truth without error. If you are fine admitting that the Bible can have errors and obviously conflicts itself in several places, but it's more about the overall message, then I'm fine with that.

If God is perfect, why temp man with questioning the validity of the Bible because of lack of evidence to remove all doubt that the authors are who they claim to be? Why not make sure that at least the authorship is not in question and allow us humans to decide from there whether or not we want to follow God. Not weather or not we are persuaded by word of mouth.

JJMt said:

---

Call me slow or thickheaded today, but did you actually reply to any of the specific questions I asked?

---

Quote:

---

Well it challenges the notion that the Bible is THE WORD OF GOD,

---

If Mark wrote it then it is the word of God. If someone else wrote it then it's not?

As pointed out above, I did not provide a point by point rebuttal, but rather a blanket response to all of them. Why it matters if Mark was actually written by Mark. Why it matters if it can be proven ect.

JJMt said:

---

Yeah, that's what I don't understand. What if we found out that one of the other apostles wrote it?

---

Then it would not be a perfect, flawless book of absolute truth from the get go.

The Bible is NOT the word of God.

Jesus the Logos is the Word of God, as well as the Reason and Order of all creation.

The Bible is a product of the Apostolic Church, negotiated through the first 3 centuries, and codified by councils, deciding from Rome (literally, known as the Councils of Rome), mostly in the 3rd Century. Why is the Book of Enoch, quoted by St. Jude, out, while the extremely controversial Revelation and Hebrews, in? Because the Apostolic Church, through the councils, said so.

Redstone said:

---

The Bible is NOT the word of God.

Jesus the Logos is the Word of God, as well as the Reason and Order of all creation.

The Bible is a product of the Apostolic Church, negotiated through the first 3 centuries, and codified by councils, deciding from Rome (literally, known as the Councils of Rome), mostly in the 3rd Century. Why is the Book of Enoch, quoted by St. Jude, out, while the extremely controversial Revelation and Hebrews, in? Because the Apostolic Church, through the councils, said so.

---

This take is perfectly fine. It was mine when I was still a believer.

JJMt said:

---

Why not? The Bible never claims that the book of Mark was written by Mark. I'm missing your logic and argument.

---

If one claims the Bible is a perfect book by a perfect God who inspired the perfect word, one would think that the books would be properly labeled.

Why even argue that the book was written by Mark if you don't think it matters at all?

JJMt said:

---

You're the one making the argument that it matters. You justify your argument. Why are you arguing about the authorship of Mark if you agree it doesn't matter?

---

It matters if someone is going to claim the Bible is the perfect word of God. And many, many, many christians do.

Texaggie7nine said:

---

JJMt said:

---

You're the one making the argument that it matters. You justify your argument. Why are you arguing about the authorship of Mark if you agree it doesn't matter?

---

It matters if someone is going to claim the Bible is the perfect word of God. And many, many, many christians do.

---

What denomination did you grow up in?

I've been in Baptist, Full Gospel/Nondenominational and Church of Christ, but primarily Nondenominational.