Raf

Another shooting star goes byAnd in the night the silence speaks to you and IAnd now the time has come at lastDon't let the moment run too fast

I'm going to add a few cents of my own. Leah, you said earlier (at least I think it was you) that you were agnostic, except when you are angry. Then you're atheist. I'm going to suggest to you that you are neither. I speak as an atheist. If you are angry at God, then you believe in Him. And that's okay. You have questions. You are not satisfied with the answers you have received. You are entitled to those emotions. But atheism is not an angry position. It's letting go of anger. You can only be angry at God if you believe in Him. I am not angry at God. I am disappointed in certain people (not all) who claim to speak in his name. People who hate and concoct a God who magically hates the same people they do. You know the type. (That was funny). I guess what I am saying is, don;t lose faith out of anger. There are plenty of reasons to be atheist. Anger is not one of them. If you decide, out of calm reflection, that you do not believe in God, and you have questions about what to do next, talk to me. I've been through it. But if you are angry with Him, then atheism is not going to help you. Plenty of people here will be happy to help out, and you have people in real life. Best wishes. And by the way, I have no bad memories of your dad. The worst I've heard of him comes from credible witnesses. And I was not impressed with his performance at the 1989 Rock. But I was still grateful, many times, for when he tried to teach positive messages from the Bible. Helped me through some pretty tough times. Not trying to defend him, but wanted you to know that along with all you've heard from GSC, our collective impression of him is just a bit more nuanced than that.

Meanwhile, in 14 days...

So you are telling me you have a signed document with contemporaneous Witnesses vouching for the identity of the author. Fascinating.

I will repay you for the earworm. So help me You Will Pay. Rapture, by Blondie

happy birthday!!

15. And still waiting for Twinky's answer.

I thought you were trying to throw off the countdown. Do you turn 25 on Tax day?

Oriental setting Where the city don't know what the city is getting. The creme de la creme of the chess world and the show with everythibg but Yul Brynner.

Are you sure she wrote it?

no, wait. 16

17

I get my kicks above the waistline, sunshine

No No. Not that I know of. Definitely no. It's either great news or not great news. Definitely not bad news, though it started that way.

It's a drag It's a bore It's really such a pity To be looking at the board Not looking at the city

I can only imagine the courage it takes to come forward. Welcome, Leah.

A final note on fiction: Jesus used parables to convey truths. He never claimed those parables (like the rich man and Lazarus) actually happened. So a problem with learning from fiction is a problem with learning from how Jesus taught. Right? Awkward.

Our Lips Are Sealed The Go Gos

17

18

In II Thess 2:2, readers are warned not to believe forged letters. Fun fact: II Thess is a forgery, warning people not to believe forgeries. Now you may not believe II Thess is a forgery. That's up to you. But if you believe it is authentic then you are forced to admit that Paul himself warned the early church to be on the lookout for letters falsely pretending to be from him. Such letters would claim to be from him, proving that just because a letter SAYS it's from Paul doesn't mean Paul wrote it. Whoever LUKE was, he undermines Paul's claim to have received the gospel directly from God and not from the apostles that came before him. One of them is lying. If Luke is lying, then how can he be trusted to give a reliable account of the resurrection? We KNOW he lied or was wrong about the circumstances of Jesus' birth (census in the wrong year, no flight to Egypt, Joseph would not have been required to go to Bethlehem, etc). What leads you to think he's above lying about the end of the story when he lied so casually about the beginning? Because he was a doctor? He never claims to be a doctor. Never even claims to be Luke! Someone pretending to be Paul said Luke was a doctor. Acts doesn't make that claim. If this were the claim of any other religion you would reject it for lack of supporting evidence.

Here's a good review of Ehrman's book for those who don't wish to buy it or subscribe to his blog.

Another article summarizing scholarship on textual criticism.

Here's a good article on how people can learn from fiction.

It's not about my views. It's about the scholarship of textual criticism. Every single case of forgery pretends to he written by someone who is not the author. It's silly to look at the "signature" as proof of authorship. Using a fictional example is a valid form of explaining how it works. But if you'd prefer a factual example: Hitler's diaries claimed to be written by Hitler but were not. The Book of Mormon claims to be written by people who were not its authors. The Gospel of Thomas was not written by Thomas The Gospel of Peter was not written by Peter. Colossians and Ephesians were not written by Paul. This is not "Raf's view." This is the position of the majority of mainstream scholars whose study goes beyond "well it says right here Paul wrote it. Must have been him."