Religion, Scripture and logical thinking

a reply to: Akragon

that doesn't make sense at all... Why would they be on the same day when Matthew was probably actually present on said day, and Luke wasn't even around at all?

It makes perfect sense if you are extremely aware of the minute details.

Because Jesus was speaking to the masses as they departed the temple, He said some astounding things to them, like the temple would be destroyed. Jesus was probably walking and teaching all the way to the Mount of Olives, which isn't all that far away. The other account is just the 4 apostles who ask Him privately to explain something a little differently, the end of the age.

Remember Mark is Peter's gospel, John Mark was his amanuensis. John Mark is the house he went to after the angel released him from prison.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Fair enough.... what makes you believe Dr. Ehrman "missed it" as you say?

Lets keep in mind he was a pastor for a good long time... he did the whole seminary thing so its more then likely he knows about exactly what you're saying but didn't find it necessary to go into detail on the issue... Its pretty hard to get something past seminary students, let alone graduates or practicing preachers... I know from experience

Theres no reason to think an ex-Christian would concern himself with Christian prophecy

a reply to: Akragon

Fair enough.... what makes you believe Dr. Ehrman "missed it" as you say?

I could link you to an hour and a half exegetical commentary on the Olivet Discourses, but we both know you won't watch. What specifically would you like to know and I'll try and explain, I'm not interested in a massive post, I've put in over 12 hours at work today.

Lets keep in mind he was a pastor for a good long time

Okay, so was Jim Jones and Fred Phelps. Jus sayin.

Theres no reason to think an ex-Christian would concern himself with Christian prophecy

Valid point, perhaps that's why he has missed the subtle details. Maybe his strong suit wasn't in exegesis.

a reply to: Kusinjo

Great reply!!!
Total respect my friend...

And thanks a lot..

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Yeah I did leave it for a few days, lol..Me BAD!

And yeah, why can't we all just "Live and let live" What a world we would have.

Cheers.. lol

a reply to: shauny

You are welcome and I look forward to some of your other posts. I checked out the one about the old bible earlier, very interesting. I will comment on it when I think I can without sounding like a tard. lol
Peace!

a reply to: NOTurTypical

I could link you to an hour and a half exegetical commentary on the Olivet Discourses, but we both know you won't watch. What specifically would you like to know and I'll try and explain, I'm not interested in a massive post, I've put in over 12 hours at work today.

True enough... Its not that I want to know anything about it, I wanted to know why you believe Bart Ehrman missed it for whatever reason you have... Perhaps he didn't find it to be important... that tends to happen when you're not a Christian or lost your faith in said religion... the prophecies don't mean squat anymore... ye know?

Okay, so was Jim Jones and Fred Phelps. Jus sayin.

True enough... Bart is a professor though... and his work and books are pretty solid

both of those guys are just cracked

Valid point, perhaps that's why he has missed the subtle details. Maybe his strong suit wasn't in exegesis.

Somehow I doubt that... hes probably one of the sharpest NT scholars I've seen... Not to mention he was trained by your hero Chucky

Though admittedly his strong suit is probably selling books... for good reason, what he writes makes sense...

Honestly his books should be required reading for Christians... Fundies could learn a thing or two

a reply to: NOTurTypical

He was a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist before being an author. I don't remember which paper though, maybe Boston Globe or Chicago Tribune. Anyways, Strobel is irrelevant to our discussion, you are the only one talking about him.

Ah.
I see.

Yes - you're complaining that Metzger and Ehrman don't agree.
And that Ehrman somehow 'turned left' or something like that -
so - how is Ehrman's research 'lesser than' Metzger's?

"Because you prefer Metzger" is the implication. That's cool - just say so! Some people prefer Pat Robertson to John Hagee, after all.

I'll see your Ehrman and Metzger, and raise you:
Dawkins
Harris
Hawking
Hitchens
Paine
Jefferson
Einstein
Magellan
Tyson
Sagan
Wright, R.
Wright, "Tom"
Armstrong
Hassnain
Carrier
Spong


.....

Would you like to throw in William Lane Craig and Ken Ham? (From your side, I mean?) Just wondering.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Yes - you're complaining that Metzger and Ehrman don't agree. And that Ehrman somehow 'turned left' or something like that - so - how is Ehrman's research 'lesser than' Metzger's?

Because Metzger is considered the greatest NT scholar and textual critic of the 20th century. Bart isn't. I've statded this several times now, why aren't you seeming to pay attention?

Bruce Manning Metzger (February 9, 1914 – February 13, 2007) was an American biblical scholar and textual critic who was a longtime professor at Princeton Theological Seminary and Bible editor who served on the board of the American Bible Society and United Bible Societies. He was a scholar of Greek, New Testament, and New Testament textual criticism, and wrote prolifically on these subjects. Metzger is widely considered one of the most influential New Testament scholars of the 20th century.

Metzger ~ Wiki

I'll see your Ehrman and Metzger, and raise you:

Nobody on that list that you compiled is a NT scholar or textual critic. That's the precise field of study we are talking about. And why would I refer to Metzger? He is considered the greatest NT scholar and textual critic of the 20th century. (once again) That's like asking me "Why would you refer to Einstein in matters of Quantum Physics?"

a reply to: Akragon

Perhaps he didn't find it to be important...

If he is arguing that the two narratives are a contradiction, don't you consider it relevant to point out that they are two different briefings by Jesus to two different audiences on the same day? I think that's quite important to point out myself.

True enough... Bart is a professor though... and his work and books are pretty solid

Okay, and so was Dr. Bruce M. Metzger. Who wrote 3 times as many books as Ehrman, and who was a professor at Princeton, whereas Bart was a professor at UNC Chapel Hill. I myself don't consider that to be very relevant, both were professors. but just saying, you mentioned that Ehrman was a professor. And only one of the two are considered the greatest NT scholar and textual critic of the 20th century, and it's not Dr. Bart Ehrman.

Somehow I doubt that... hes probably one of the sharpest NT scholars I've seen... Not to mention he was trained by your hero Chucky

No, his teacher and mentor was Dr. Bruce M. Metzger. Who co-authored a book with him. And you haven't seen Dr. Metzger, because his time was before Youtube videos, and I could be wrong, but I doubt you have ever read a single scholarly book by Metzger.

Here is a sample:


"Apostolic Letters of Faith, Hope, and Love: Galatians, 1 Peter, and 1 John" (2006)
"The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, And Restoration" (1964). 2005 4th edition with Bart D. Ehrman
"The New Testament: Its Background, Growth and Content" (2003, James Clarke & Co., Cambridge)
"The Oxford Essential Guide to Ideas and Issues of the Bible" (2002 with Michael D. Coogan)
"The Oxford Guide to People & Places of the Bible" (2001 with Michael D. Coogan)
"The Bible in Translation, Ancient and English Versions" (2001)
"Greek New Testament" (2000 with B. Aland)
"Breaking the Code: Understanding the Book of Revelation: Leader's Guide" (1999)
"Reminiscences of an Octogenarian" (1997)
"The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance" (1997)
"Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament" (1994)
"The Oxford Companion to the Bible" (1993 with Michael D. Coogan)
"The Reader's Bible" (1983)
"Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Palaeography" (1981).
"Lexical Aids for Students of New Testament Greek" (1969)
"List of Words Occuring Frequently in the Coptic New Testament" (Sahidic Dialect) (1961)
"Introduction to the Apocrypha" (1957)
"The Oxford Concise Concordance to the Revised Standard Version of the Holy Bible" (1962 with Isobel M. Metzger)
"The Making of the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible" (1991 with Robert C. Denton and Walter Harrelson)

Honestly his books should be required reading for Christians... Fundies could learn a thing or two

There is vast amount of criticism from his peers, that he is wrong in several areas. When your own peers don't even agree with you there is a problem. Think of a doctor of medicine who has numerous other doctors in their hospital saying they are wrong. That's not good.

All you need to know about Christian fundamentalism:


It's not religious. It's political.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Nobody on that list that you compiled is a NT scholar or textual critic. That's the precise field of study we are talking about.

You're kidding, right?
Karen Armstrong? Okay - whatever. Stick your fingers back in your ears lalalalalalala.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Nobody on that list that you compiled is a NT scholar or textual critic. That's the precise field of study we are talking about.

That may be the precise field YOU are talking about, but the OP title is Religion, Spirituality, and logical thinking.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

Because Metzger is considered the greatest NT scholar and textual critic of the 20th century.

By you.

Notice how in the wiki paragraph you so graciously bolded, it doesn't say that? It says:

Metzger is widely considered one of the most influential New Testament scholars of the 20th century.

It doesn't say "the greatest".
And here's what wiki says about Karen Armstrong.

Armstrong has been called "a prominent and prolific religious historian"[32] and described as "arguably the most lucid, wide-ranging and consistently interesting religion writer today".

a reply to: NOTurTypical

his teacher and mentor was Dr. Bruce M. Metzger. Who co-authored a book with him. And you haven't seen Dr. Metzger, because his time was before Youtube videos, and I could be wrong, but I doubt you have ever read a single scholarly book by Metzger.

My mistake... I have heard of Metzger but not much of him... Nor have I read his books

There is vast amount of criticism from his peers, that he is wrong in several areas. When your own peers don't even agree with you there is a problem. Think of a doctor of medicine who has numerous other doctors in their hospital saying they are wrong. That's not good.

Honestly it seems to me that the best doctors are the ones that prescribe less meds and actually care about their patients... which is pretty much breaking the rules... and not looked upon as a good thing by the rest of the medical community

a reply to: Akragon

Honestly it seems to me that the best doctors are the ones that prescribe less meds and actually care about their patients... which is pretty much breaking the rules... and not looked upon as a good thing by the rest of the medical community

You sorta missed my point there.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Nobody on that list that you compiled is a NT scholar or textual critic. That's the precise field of study we are talking about.

You're kidding, right?
Karen Armstrong? Okay - whatever. Stick your fingers back in your ears lalalalalalala.

She is an author. And A simple search of Wiki says her degree is in English. No training in Koine Greek or textual or form criticism whatsoever.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Nobody on that list that you compiled is a NT scholar or textual critic. That's the precise field of study we are talking about.

That may be the precise field YOU are talking about, but the OP title is Religion, Spirituality, and logical thinking.

I realize that. So then don't make comments like this:

I'll see your Ehrman and Metzger, and raise you:

The people you mentioned are not in the field of textual criticism or NT Greek. SO they don't trump the scholars mentioned, they aren't even in the same career field.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

By you.

No, I didn't author his bio.

And "lucid" means "easy to understand".

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
a reply to: Akragon

Honestly it seems to me that the best doctors are the ones that prescribe less meds and actually care about their patients... which is pretty much breaking the rules... and not looked upon as a good thing by the rest of the medical community

You sorta missed my point there.

More like side stepped it

His peers are likely Christians considering he is a NT scholar... I wouldn't expect them to agree with the things he says

Or even like the man... but hes still on point about what he talks about in his lectures and in his books