Raf

Yes

Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio

Nope

Looking for the character: Cate Blanchett Audrey Hepburn Christie Laing

I was wondering if Ashley was Ash. Bruce Campbell

If you don't want me to argue authorship on this thread, you really need to stop counterarguing authorship on this thread.

Yes sir

Sorry for the delay. Work. The former crew of a destroyed spaceship must travel back in time to assist an accidentally abandoned pre-teen defending his house from inept burglars.

And in case I haven't mentioned it, I deeply appreciate how welcome you are of my input, even given my change of heart about the Bible, the existence of God, etc. I'm trying to keep my lack of faith in its place and engage in discussions on their own terms. Not that I make a secret of where I stand, but facts is facts. "The Bible contains errors and contradictions" is a fact, and I'm prepared to argue that (you seem to be somewhat in agreement, although we may quibble on what "error" means in the context of our discussions). But "therefore the God of the Bible is not real" is an opinion (or, more to the point, a conclusion), and that's not always a welcome viewpoint or fair game in a discussion. In THIS thread, it's out of line, so I refrain from saying it. (That's also why I moved the thread, and I appreciate your graciousness in accepting that decision). Get better.

Some Like It Hot To Trot

Hoping you're being melodramatic about your health, but otherwise, proceed at whatever pace makes you comfortable. Best wishes.

I've got at least three on my Kindle. Did Jesus Exist (probably. More than likely). Jesus, Interrupted. And Forged.

Oakspear: I wrote mostly from memory and I'm nopt going to wed myself to any particular line. That Ehrman cites eight books, and which ones they are, is definite. Why Revelation and not James? I don't recall specifically. I seem to remember him saying that Revelation was written by "John, but not THAT John," but maybe I'm wrong. Or maybe he gave some other reason that escapes my memory.

True story: A man was on trial for kidnapping and rape in Broward County. During one of the breaks, the judge was chatting with him, and the defendant said some things that made the judge question whether the defendant was sane at the time the crime was committed. This led the judge to ask, "Have you considered a mental health defense?" The defendant responded: " To tell the truth, I was demonically possessed?" Judge: "You were what?" Defendant: "I was demonically possessed." The defendant then explained that he had been exorcised between the time of the incident and the time of the trial, so it was no longer an issue. Judge: "Are you saying you were possessed when you committed these crimes?" Defendant: "Oh, no. I didn't commit any crimes. This incident was consensual." You heard it here first, folks: a demon possessed a man, causing him to engage in consensual sex with a willing participant. The defendant was convicted.

Right. I just wanted to he clear about why I wo I kdnt be chiming in on every show. I'm halfway through the Whiplash... I mean Reactron episode of Supergirl.

When it comes to the New Testament, scholars don't agree on everything. And of course, this becomes complicated by the fact that the people most interested in the subject matter are also the most biased (which is not to say they are untrustworthy, but you need to correct for it). I keep coming back to Bart Ehrman for a simple reason: He went into the field as an evangelical, biased up the wazoo, and ended up changing his mind because the evidence convinced him otherwise (that is, he changed his mind about matters of Biblical authorship. That he changed his mind on other matters is less interesting to me, but you may consider it evidence of a new bias in the opposite direction of his old bias if you're so inclined). Anyway, according to Ehrman, only eight of the 27 books of the Bible are correctly attributed (that is, they were all but certainly written by the people whose names are attached to them). Those books are: Romans, I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, I Thessalonians, Philemon and Revelation. Based on Ehrman's writings, I think he is being a little harsh here. I'll explain. Most of the New Testament letters whose authorship is undisputed by scholars were written by Paul. Revelation, according to Ehrman, was written by "John." The catch is, it's probably not the John who appears in the gospels. It's just some disciple named John. It's a common enough name. On that basis, I don't see how Ehrman excludes James from the list. There's no reason to believe the person who wrote James was not named James. There is, equally, no reason to believe that this James was the brother of Jesus. He never claims such a relationship and never asserts his authority as a leader of the first century church. He's just some dude what wrote a letter. I haven't looked at the Johannine epistles lately, but I have no reason to think they were written by anyone other than someone named John either. Maybe or maybe not the same John who wrote Revelation. Whatever. I don't know why Ehrman only lists eight when the same criteria he used to include Revelation can also be used to include James and possibly I, II and III John. There's no reason to think any of those people named John also wrote the gospel of John. Skipping the issue of the gospels, which we've beaten to death without coming to agreement, we move on to the disputed letters of Paul, and they are fascinating. It's important to note that scholarship is not unanimous on these matters, but I'm not inclined to take the time to sort out which scholars are which. Be assured, evangelical scholars will disagree with Ehrman. Period. Their faith will not allow them to do otherwise. But of the rest, I am not aware whether there is a consensus. Paul did not write Ephesians. Let that sink in. Ephesians actually conflicts with the other epistles on issues like salvation (in Romans, we will be saved; in Ephesians, we were). He didn't write Colossians (so much for Luke the Gentile physician). He didn't write II Thessalonians (which makes sense. Look at the second coming in I Thess and compare it to II Thess. See any differences? YEAH! How did we miss them for so long?) He didn't write the pastoral epistles! Timothy... Titus... those were not written by Paul! Well, yeah. In Corinthians, Paul is like, "If you're married, stay married. If you're single, stay single. Then you get to Timothy and suddenly he's like, "If you want to be a bishop, you should be married. And ladies, childbirth saves you." HUH? But, but, but... What about the verse at the end of II Thess? "The salutation of Paul with mine own hand, which is the token in every epistle: so I write." Wow. Except that's not the token in any of his undisputed letters. The letter is a fraud. By the way, there are some who believe I Corinthians 14:34-35 are an interpolation as well. You know the verses: A few chapters earlier, he tells women to cover their heads when they're praying and prophesying in church. So which is it: Cover your heads when you pray and prophesy? Or "SIT DOWN AND SHUT UP, B---! Make me a sammitch! Men are prophesying here!" Wierwille's explanation of I Corinthians 14:34-35 is simply laughable. Read the section again and skip over those verses. Makes a lot more sense now, doesn't it? No one has the slightest idea who wrote Hebrews. And no, Peter did not write I and II Peter.

Point of clarification: I no longer believe in the idea of "God-breathed," but as an academic exercise, I am willing to say that the presence of errors and contradictions doesn't rule out a work as God-breathed unless excluding errors and contradictions is part of the definition. For Wierwille (to cite an example), the presence of errors and contradictions disqualifies a work as God-breathed. This disqualifies his own work as well as the Bible. It would be out of place in this thread for me to argue that there's no such thing as God-breathed. So all I'm saying here is, assuming there is such a thing, errors and contradictions would not be disqualifiers. Hope that clears things up for anyone wondering.

Well, because of my answer, I can only go so far. But I will be more than happy to assist in the critical thinking department. :)

I think you and I have already agreed on what "God-breathed" does not mean, that the answer to the question posed in the title of this thread is "yes," but all we've done is dodge the question of what it does mean. That is, if "God-breathed" does NOT mean without error or contradiction, and if a work can be useful for doctrine reproof correction instruction in righteousness without being God-breathed, then what does God-breathed mean?

I missed Supergirl and I'm not keeping up with Gotham. I have Supergirl's recorded. I'm also recording arrow because I'm catching up on season 3 All that said, don't avoid spoilers on my account

The scholar I cited earlier in detail is Eugene Boring, in case anyone wants to check. Steve cited Bart Ehrman, leaving us with the false impression that Ehrman agreed Luke wrote Luke. I doubt that was intentional. I think Steve genuinely believed that when he wrote it. But it doesn't change the fact that Ehrman emphatically believes Luke-Acts was not only written by someone other than Luke, but that it was written by someone who was not a companion of Paul. That doesn't mean Ehrman is right. It only means you can't cite him as a scholar who believes the opposite of what he does.

Did someone say South Florida?

The story would have been shocking to the people who heard Jesus tell it, but it would absolutely not have been shocking to the Christian audience that had already been exposed to the letters of Paul. You are declaring, once again with no basis in fact, that a Gentile writer would include this story while a Jewish writer would not. Would Paul have included thst story? Yes. He would. So the fact that the story is included emphatically does not prove the gospel was written by a Gentile.

Portraying Samaritans in a positive light would not have come as a shock to Jesus audience in 80-90 AD, by which time Paul's message had been made clear and the church was chock full of Gentiles. To state that Jewish writers would have ignored the story is both baseless and, frankly, insulting to them. You're actually saying the God-inspired gospel writers would have left out a story they didn't like? Really? Remind me again what God-breathed means?

Now that's the best tasting pickle I ever heard.