Nice link Oui, thanks!

AMEN!

That's beautiful. The Dalai Lama is truly one of the greatest people alive, if not the greatest.

Yep, it kind of made my day.  I'm going to explore more of the web site.  He is just delightful!

Really good quote and i'm going over that site more now, reading things like that keep me motivated. I hear so much about bible prophecy these days it's nice hearing something good for a change.

Kind of sounds like something Jesus would say.

Or just different use of words to express the same principle.

Bolt

Hi Bolt!

Exactly!  There is NOTHING that Jesus says that can't be found in the Torah, the Tanakh, the writings of Confucius, Lao Tzu, the Buddha etc. etc.  God*s Truths are universal no matter whose mouth or pen they come fromÉ (sorry, no question marks - computer acting wonky) 

Perhaps the issue lies in how the beliefs of this statement are extrapolated. If its purpose is to promote peace and tolerance (and I don't mean the postmodern version of tolerance) among the followers of differing worldviews, then this seems in fact noble. However, if it is to be extrapolated that all of our differences in beliefs also do not matter, then the claims become problematic. Contrary to popular belief that all religions share the fundamentals in common, and that they only differ on peripheral aspects, it seems in reality to be the other way around. The majority of the fundamental teachings of world religions contradict each other, while only certain peripheral elements, such as the 'Golden Rule' ethic, are held in common. If we can honestly recognize this fact, and still live at peace with one another, then I think this is a better solution.

It is interesting that the Dalai Lama speaks of beauty, and a sense of inherent human dignity by the use of the word 'rights,' notions which do not make sense in a godless universe. In fact, the notion of innate human dignity is unique to the Judeo-Christian worldview.

Anyone who has actually read even sections of differing Holy writ of the world today could not honestly make such a claim. You mention "God's Truths" - whose, or which God?

Hi Geo!

"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""Anyone who has actually read even sections of differing Holy writ of the world today could not honestly make such a claim. You mention "God's Truths" - whose, or which God?""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Very true when you take into account references to God.  But give me some Christian scripture in regards to, say, moral conduct or treatment of your fellow man and let me run with it.  ;))

What a sad, sad statement. Surely, dismissing what Matthew, Mark, and Luke all have Jesus call "that on which hangs the Law and the Prophets" as a "peripheral" element, just so you can maintain a fallacious triumphalism, is one of the greatest in a long line of abuses that fundies do to Scripture.

Thank God we're outgrowing that.

DAvid

I was thinking the same thing. 

"Peripheral"?

I have to ask.  What's central?

*oops, I shouldn't have done that*

GR

I agree completely with you.

Some should read "The Great Transformation" by Karen Armstrong.  The basic principles on which all of the world's great faiths are founded are justice and compassion.

It is indeed a shame what the fundies have made of the Bible kind of like a paper god.

Shalom

Mate

Bibliolatry, eh?

Arminius

That is exactly what it is.  T. Harpur even went so far as to say that folks have made a paper pope out of the Bible.  My personal preference is paper god or bibliolatry.

Shalom

Mate

Amen to the idea of the Golden Rule being a central tenet per Jesus Christ himself. Whether you belive in salvation by grace or works, or an entirely different religion altogether, or nothing at all, I don't believe the world could work without this as a general guiding principle. Obviously I see a great deal of value in religion, as a practicing Christian myself, and certainly it is a great source to turn to in need of a moral compass; however, I do not see that as its sole purpose, and to the extent it is a focal 'raison d'etre' I hold all religions in THAT aspect, including atheism/agnosticism, equal. I know plenty of non-believers who are wonderful people who observe the Golden Rule quite strongly, and I know plenty of religious folks - Christian, Muslim, etc. - who overlook and abuse the true central morality of their faiths, including peace and tolerance, in the name of someone who would be very disappointed to see what they were being used to advertise.

Do I see Christianity as 'the truth' and is it my rock which helps me stick to my principles in times of struggle? Is the Lord who I turn to when I need a friend, and the entity whose work I look to do? Yes. Do I also recognize however that I am human, and therefore would in fact be sinning (hubris/pride) to impose that view on others (as I could be as wrong as I may consider them to be? And do I as such refuse to see them as wrong, and strive to see the value their belief set brings them, and understand that though their perceptions of beauty, love and all those things discussed by the Dalai Lhama might come from elsewhere but here, in this world, to themselves and therefore by extension myself, is just as valuable as my own? Yes. Anything else, anything beyond the here and now, is not for me, or them, to sort out. My husband and I can look at a beautiful sunset and have two different explanations for where it come from. One may or may not be right, one may or may not be wrong. But here and now, which is all we imperfect humans can sort out, we agree it is beautiful. And that's what matters.

Olivet

Your post is as beautiful as that sunset and expresses well what I feel and believe as well.

Thanks

Shalom

Mate

*applauding Olivet_Sarah's post*

Beautifully articulated.  Thank you.

Your point would have been well-taken if you hadn't misread my original post, and from there proceeded to attack a straw man of it.

Note first of all that I never downplayed the actual importance of the Golden Rule ethic - in fact, I agreed that peace and harmony among the world religions is desirable. My argument was not regarding the importance of the Golden Rule ethic itself, (to which I too personally hold, and in this sense I do not mean it to be of 'peripheral importance'), but only to demonstrate the fact that most religions contradict on their fundamental teachings on the nature of the divine (if such a notion even exists in some religions), and on how one acheives salvation, oneness, Nirvana, etc., on notions of eternal reality, and so on. It is fair to claim that all religions share some forms of the same truth, but to attempt to claim that the vast number of fundamental differences among the religions don't really matter represents a unique form of hypocritical arrogance. 

Second of all David, I find it peculiar that it seems you have conveniently become somewhat of a Biblical literalist in invoking the synoptics like that to further your point. Also, what I find 'sad' is how you seek to call me on 'fallacious' reasoning, when ironically your own accusation is a straw man, in which an appeal to ridicule can be found.

Well, I agree with Olivet_sarah's post too.

It's one thing to promote, it's another to impose.

Bolt

Thanks Mate and ninja -

And bolt; exactly. I am not shy about being a Christian, and I share my viewpoint without hesitation. But I have learned from the other end just what being forceful about that can do. My parents separated after 20 years of marriage, two children, and three years of marriage counselling (which continued into the separation, for the record). There had been a lot of messy stuff that went on between them which out of respect for their privacy I won't go into, and that I'm only learning about the half of it as an adult, and yet they broke up only after much effort, and remained good friends despite various transgressions, and a VERY effective co-parenting team. And yet shortly after the divorce I had a few more conservatively Christian friends come into my home, enjoying my mother's hospitality (food, drink etc.) and proceed to talk about what a sin divorce was, and how no one who had ever truly loved each other or put any kind of effort into their marriage or took it seriously would divorce.

This is all a matter of perspective again. To me, God called my parents to make the best decision they could to remain a good team, as difficult as it was. My 'friends' ' God obviously saw things differently, and yet we all call ourselves Christian. And they didn't see at all what had happened within my parents' marriage, yet chose to cast aspersions on their efforts. Since then, I refuse to judge or impose my viewpoint on others. That's Someone Else's job, not mine. I simply accept what they see as what they see, and I will agree or disagree on what I know, not on assumptions.

Your expression is honest & heartfelt.

I'm honored for you to share your heartfelt experience.

It is too bad people insist on sharing something that is meant to be a principle to promote a better understanding, without understanding the principle.

Bolt

This is why I promote relationship, as opposed to "religion".

Geo

As a Christian pluralist I agree with GR.  Triumpalism is a complete denial of all that Christ taught.

Shalom

Mate

Mate, perhaps you too did not correctly read what I have written.

I look to the scriptures - and especially the gospels, to gain an understanding of what Christ taught. Where do you look to be able to claim that indeed anything is against 'all' that Christ taught?

Geo

First of all we need to find the teachings and sayings that can be traced back to the historical Jesus.

Then we have to realize that the gospels are not biograph and were never intended to be.  They are developing tradition.  They are what the church came to believe about Jesus by the time of writing.  Jesus was inclusive rather then exclusive.

Are tje scriptures the absolute inerrant word of God?  Absolutely not.  That is pure human doctrine not supported by anything in the Bible.

Shalom

Mate

lol - "conveniently become a biblical literalist"???? Geo, Geo, Geo. You know full well that I'm a Christian. Why on earth would you think that I couldn't refer to the sacred text of our shared heritage? Trying to make that into some sort of derogatory comment toward me is just silly. You should read my book. Lots of biblical references in it.  None of them are literalist. Did you catch the phrasing - "Matthew, Mark and Luke all have Jesus call ..." ?

As to fallacious reasoning, sorry, it's a little late to back off of calling that on which the Law and the Prophets hang "peripheral". It's okay, Geo, most literalists, with their focus on "salvation through belief in Jesus, do the same. Like I said, sad. I know the intention is good. It just misses the message.

Mate - I am quite amused at how you unthinkingly just shot yourself in the foot. First, you want us to believe that something was against 'all' that Jesus had allegedly taught. Then you attempted to invalidate the very source on which you could possibly make such claims. Especially the part where you casted doubt upon the historicity of the teachings of Christ, and then in the very next sentence claim "Jesus was inclusive rather then exclusive." Or take your last sentence there - first you claim that the scriptures have no divine authority, on top of the already established fact that we cannot trust what it says - and then you appeal to the Bible as though we can now trust it to support your own view: "That is pure human doctrine not supported by anything in the Bible."

Again, I would have to ask you to clarify by what you mean about 'inclusive' and 'exclusive' here, and then to which sources you would appeal to supplement your view. I would agree that Jesus was inclusivistic in the sense that he associated with even the most marginalized of society. However, to uphold these teachings about Jesus, and then overlook all of his claims to deity, and the reasons for which he came to Earth (which were still 'Universal', though not in the sort of way which has ever been popular among all humanity) is an inconsistent practice which is all too common here and it is easliy detectable.

With regards to your attempts to invalidate the scriptures - There are very good reasons to believe that we have a very accurate account of what Jesus taught, as the NT texts have been BY FAR the most efficiently and extensively trasmitted literature of all antiquity. The runners up (ie. Homer's Iliad, Sophocles, Aristotle, etc.) pale in comparison both in terms of how many years elapsed between the events and of when they were penned, and in sheer numbers of available manuscripts. If you deny the validity of the scriptures, you must certainly also deny the validity of all of the rest of the writings of antiquity - which most people often unthinkingly accept to be reliable.

Further, experts of ancient literature have concluded that the gospels fall into the literary category or genre of 'ancient biographies' ('Developing traditions' occur after this fact). This makes sense, along with the fact that the biblical accounts of Jesus were based (if not firsthand, secondhand) on eyewitness accounts, of Luke's introduction to his gospel:

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

If you want me to believe anything you are going to tell me about what Jesus taught or didn't teach, you will also inevitably want to hold to that which I have just posted - otherwise, if you are right in those certain times that you claim we cannot trust what the Bible says, then why should we believe in or subscribe to anything it says? I think we're in luck though, and with the current information we have about the Bible, that this is not a reasonable option.

If you want to go on trying to force me to say something which I never said, have at er'. It's not my integrity which is in question - it is in the dude who walks around here literally parading the banner of the 'Law and the Prophets' on his avatar and whose actions that follow seem to quickly contradict it.

As for your first paragraph, I will bookmark it. I'm sure it won't be too long before it comes in handy

"peripheral elements, such as the 'Golden Rule' ethic," - hunh. coulda swore that was you. No sweat Shaggy  (oh - for those who might think that was somehow related to Scooby-doo -

Integrity?? lol - why do fundies jump into personal attacks when they can't come up with anything else? oh..... never mind.

Well, since the "banner of the Law and the Prophets" is just a peripheral element anyway, why on earth would it matter? 

ummmm. I don't know what to say, Geo. .... thanks??

Geo

I have never denied the validity of the Bible.  I take the Bible seriously but not literally.  History, science and archaeology do not support you contention that the Bible is accurate  As for your experts of ancient literature goes they do not all agree.  Many modern scholars and theologians simply do not agree.

If the gospels are biographies then we'd better take out the contradictions.

As for the manuscripts.  There were some 5 000 used in the compilation of the NT.  We do not have the originals.  What they had were copies of copies of copies etc.  Among the multple copies of each there were some 400 000 variant  Bart Ehrman, Dom Crossan, Marcus Borg and a host of others.

Yes the bible presents profound truths but not accurate history.  Something does not have to be historically true to present truth.  That is a mistake arising out of the enlightenment.

As far as the Bible as a book goes it has been redacted, altered, added to, subtracted from and probably some I've missed.  For instance.  It is now known that Jesus did not make the statement about Peter being the rock on which the church was built.  That was a later addition of the church.

The Christmas story is a piece of midrashic writing.  The Rev. Dr. Rabbi R. Daum along with others.  It is not history but it is true.

I'm see no where the Bible claims to be inerrant or accurate histoically.  That is human doctrine pure and simple.

Fundamentalism is a very human invention of the late 19th cent. and in no way relects the church of the Apostles.

Even the Jews who wrote the book understood the above.

Convince you.  Who cares?.

If yhou would like a list of scholars I will give some to you.

Shalom

Mate

Mate - I would love to have a discussion about this. How about starting a topic?

If you wish to start a thread go ahead.

Shalom

Mate

Again GR - refer back my post at 19:09. The moment you start employing 'turn-it-around' or 'water-down' tactics and other fallacious substitutes for arguments, I will no longer carry on discussion with you, as I have made the mistake of doing in the past. However, whenever it is evident that you desire meaningful discussion with me, I will gladly engage it.

ho-hum

Hi Geo

Your quote: I   would agree that Jesus was inclusivistic in the sense that he associated with even the most marginalized of society.

I agree with this statement. You know my beliefs are pretty scrambled up but if I think of Jesus or the NT in a literal sense I don't find Jesus to be inclusive,  or not the way people on the WC seem to believe. Jesus practiced the Jewish religion until the day he died and he went often to the synagogue. The Jews believed in the one God who was the God of the Old T.

I think Jesus required  that his followers or those who believe in him also believe in his Father as  in the Old T. They must repent of their sins against God the Father ( the old T. God) and they must obey the 10 commandments. I don't think he accepted those who weren't  interested in doing this although sometimes we only have a few words of his as a reply , so we can imagine he accepted everyone no matter what they believed in.

I think I stand pretty much alone having this view point. The Christ or Christ idea I may see differently as being about love no matter what you believe or maybe I mean the Christ Consciousness of love.  I'm speaking about Jesus meaning the man who lived and walked the earth 2000 years ago. He let others in but I'm not sure it was an unconditional love? He had some pretty tough ugly words towards the Jews whom he said were following Satan or am I wrong? Were he among us today would he be accepting and loving towards the atheists who deny the existence of God?

Tough questions! I'd like to hear what you think about it?

Mate

Ho...hum...lol....its all a great big can of worms!

lol - no worries young fella. I didn't expect you to answer. It was just a .... peripheral...element

Mate

Most of what you are writing about the bible is true. I've done about 5 years of research myself to be able to come to grips with it. Its incredibly difficult to let go of one's old beliefs held for many years. It shakes one to the very roots!  Venturing into such a new terrority of thought and beliefs makes one believe one has lost God. It takes time to appreciate and come to a totally new understanding of God and the bible.

I feel I have evolved. I'm going forward and yet I still find myself half  reverting back to Geo's   understanding of the bible which I never in my life was able to understand in any case. I think a lot of people experience the same difficulty. The transition is very painful and it feels on occasion as if one's lifelong security  rug is being pulled out from under one's feet.

Re: Simon Peter ...

Hi Mate,

Are you sure that we now know (as opposed to suspect, think, believe or imagine) that Jesus did not make the statement about Peter recorded in Matthew 16:18?

RAN

The Bible does not merely contain the God-Word. Every word in it is, due to verbal inspiration, the direct immediate God-word.

The God-Spirit spoke through the prophets. He is the God-word-author. The prophetic and apostolic Bible-Scriptures are authentic as written by the prophets and apostles.

A correct translation is the God-Word. It has the same meaning as the original Greek and Hebrew.

Aquila, I agree with you that the prophets were inspired by God - then again I believe each of us can be inspired by God.

However, the prophets - for the most part - did not write the Bible.  In some cases the authors were writing long after the prophets were no more.  Thus the words in the Bible have been filtered through years, individual perceptions, translators, printing errors even, all of which could very well be God inspired but could also have taken on the effect of that old Telephone game were what was said at the beginning is very different than what is said at the end.

Each of us can be inspired by what is written but I believe we should follow St. Augustine's advice on where that inspiration leads us: carefully turn over in our minds and meditate upon what we read till an interpretation be found that tends to establish the reign of love (City of God).

LB

Love, baby, love.  That's what its all about.     

Louis Armstrong, Its a Wonderful World

LBmuskoka,"However, the prophets - for the most part - did not write the Bible.  In some cases the authors were writing long after the prophets were no more.  Thus the words in the Bible have been filtered through years, individual perceptions, translators, printing errors even, all of which could very well be God inspired but could also have taken on the effect of that old Telephone game were what was said at the beginning is very different than what is said at the end."

Now this is interesting because I have always heard that the Bible has been meticulously transcribed throughout the ages. The Bible was the same before and after the council of Nicea and the Dead Sea Scrolls support the fact that there were only minute changes.

Would you please provide examples of how the Bible was changed?

I have to dash to work but even back in Augstine's day he was commenting on the mistranslations of the Bible.  He mentions differences between Greek, Italian and comments on the quality of the education of the interpreter - Augstine could be quite acerbic when he wanted to.

This obsession with literalism and absolute veracity is a relatively recent phenomenon and not one held by earlier Christians - there are countless sources, many I have posted over the past two years, to support this.

By holding a literal absolutism, IMHO, one eliminates the possibility to be inspired by, and grow with, God.

LB

You are the embodiment of the information you choose to accept and act upon.     Adlin Sinclair

Hi waterfall!

Gotta fly but pulled the below from my files that you might find interesting -

"The Torah is the five books of Moses (whether Moses is the author or not). The Tanakh, The Holy Scriptures, is divided into the Torah: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy; The Prophets (NEVI'IM); and the Writings (KETHUVIM). The order of the Tanakh is not the same as the Old Testament. Neither does it read exactly the same as the Bible."

Q:  Would you happen to have any idea how closely the compilation of books Eusebius presented to Constantine mirrored what became canon? Thanks!

A:  At Nicaea, Eusebius divided the extant books into three categories: "acknowledged," "disputed," and "rejected" writings. In his acknowledged category was a list of 20 books to be included in the canon that was eventually called the New Testament. This consensus dated back to 185 CE. when Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon in Gaul (France), had regarded these same 20 as canonical. Irenaeus also included Revelation and the Shepherd of Hermas in his canon, but they were in the "rejected" category of Eusebius.

One cannot present Eusebius’ list in a tidy little package. He did not want to include Revelation, for example, but he was compelled to acknowledge its almost universal acceptance. He lists Revelation as among the acknowledged and the disputed. He also doesn’t list the particular letters of Paul, and he includes Hebrews as both acknowledged and disputed as he did Revelation.

The 20 or 22, depending on the double category for Revelation and Hebrews;

Four Gospels
thirteen Epistles of St. Paul
Hebrews
Acts
I Peter
I John
Revelation

The final list of 27 that is in today’s Christian Bible dates to the list of Athanasius published in 367 C.E. In the 42 years intervening between Nicaea/Eusebius and Athanasius, the six books that were disputed or rejected had found their way into the acknowledged category.

Epistles of:
James
Jude
II Peter
II John
III John
 

"Jerome studied with Rabbis and realized that there were significant differences between the Hebrew and the Septuagint as he was putting together his Latin Vulgate. (The Septuagint had been the source for the Latin Bible used by the church until Jerome.) He turned away from the Septuagint as his source after many years studying with Jews. (He was the first churchman to propose that the Septuagint was not the divine version of the Jewish testament.) He was roundly criticized at first for that view, but by the 800’s, his was the version of the Latin church.

How strange for them to say that Jerome’s work is more accurate than our Hebrew text when Jerome himself tells us of his "conversion" in use from the Septuagint to the Hebrew when he realized that the Hebrew was the divine text."

Q::Where is your proof that Hippocrates existed?

A:  I am not sure why you think this question is relevant. I am not disputing the existence of the man you call in Jesus in the 1st century. I am admitting that I know very little about what he said and did during his life because the only record of those sayings and events is the Christian testament. (Don’t waste everyone’s time with Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny, etc. They are simply writing what they heard about Jesus from Christians. With the exception of Josephus’ offhand mention of Jesus as part of his description of James’ death, there are many contemporary historians, i.e. historians who were actually living in and around Jerusalem during his ministry, who never ever mention him. Neither is he ever mentioned in any Roman records so far revealed.) We have no record of his sayings and doings outside of Christian testament.

If you have faith in the evangelists record of those times as being what Jesus said and did, then that I can understand and our discussion would be over. There is no record of my people’s Exodus in world history outside of our sacred history either, but that is my faith in my Jewish ancestors’ recording of the event. I couldn’t prove that event to a non-Jew either. I recognize that it is my faith in the witnesses recording of that event.

In fact, non-Jews can make a pretty good case that the Exodus never took place. My faith does not depend on the case that they make.

I can make a pretty good case that Jesus of Nazareth was from Nazareth and that his Bethlehem birth was a literary device of the evangelists. I can make a pretty good case that his arrival in Jerusalem was written to match Zechariah’s account of how the messiah would arrive thanks to a grammatical error that Matthew failed to recognize because he was reading the mistake in his Greek version of Zechariah. I can make a pretty good case that we do not know his father’s name but that Joseph was chosen because Jesus’ name would then exactly match another Messiah’s name that was well known to Jewish audiences of the day.

None of that, however, has anything to do with your faith in the witnesses that thought he was the Messiah, or at least it shouldn’t, any more than those who deny the Exodus reduce my faith in the accuracy of my sacred Jewish accounts. I would suggest that the evangelists’ belief in his messiahship needed to be transmitted to you the non-witness, and the literary devices of Bethlehem, the donkey, and ben Joseph were their tools to do that.

Now getting back to ancient personages and proofs of their existence, it is irrelevant because I am not seeking to disprove the existence of Jesus in the first century. Unfortunately for you, as a student of that century, as a student of the origins of the early church from its Jewish roots, and of my own faith’s history, I think there is strong circumstantial evidence that Jesus did exist. I would even go so far as to say, historically speaking, that there may be better circumstantial evidence that he existed than Moses existed. It is unfortunate for you because it obviates your need to segue into irrelevancies, which I am sure you would prefer.

LBM and FloriB have made good points. One could also simply read the preface of any good translation to see the acknowledgement of, as the Revised Standard Version for instance says, "errors in transmission" by the translators themselves.

Modern honest scholars have come to the conclusion that 80% of the words, in the Bible, attributed to Jesus cannot be traced back to the historical Jesus.  The reflect the developing tradition of the church over the years.  None of the words in John can be traced back to the historical Jesus.  "The Historical Jesus: a Mediterranean Peasant", J. D Crossan.  In this book he goes to great lengths to explain how that conclusion has been arrived.  The covers at least a good third of the tome which is several  hundred pages long.  Crossan and Borg are geneerally recodngized as the premiers Jesus scholars in the world.

Yes Biblican inerrancy, while round it small bits during the centuries, came into full force in the late 19th cent.  This is hardly what one would call orthodoxy that goes back to the church of the Apostles.  It is a very human invention and I find it as do many to be idolatrous.  There is only one to whom the title of the "Word of God" belongs.  It is not a book but the risen one.

The Bible as I have said elsewher has several layers of interpretations:  the experiencer, the writer, the alterations and the translators.  All are interpretation of the human experience.

"Misquoting Jesus" is an excellent book by Bart Ehrman, a recognized Biblical scholar.  The works of Crossan, Borg. Armstrong, Vermes and a host of others attest to this position.

Theologian Hans Kung said "I am a Christian not because of a book but experience and the book simply attests to his beliefs."  (Paraphrased).

I use the word "honest" because honesty requires tou start without preconceptions and work to the conclusion not start the the conclusion and then try to mold the evidence to fit your particular view poin which is what far too many conservative Christians do.  An example is Albright, a conservative archaeologist.  He concluded that the walls of Jericho were crumbled as written in the Bible.  Most archaeologists deny that.  When Joshua was supposed to have been there it has been shown that it was a derelict, crumbled and abandoned town long before Joshua got there.

The archaeological evidence shows absollutely not exodus as written in the Bible.  Even the Jewish scholars agree with this.  The understand the nature of the ancient writings.  I'm always amused at people trying to tell the "authors" of the book what they meant.

Kenyon, Findelstein, Wagner, Meek and others. 

That is another problem the conservatives generallty distrust academia.  It's kind of like don't confuse me with the facts, I've already made up my mind.

Stardust is right about changing but when faced with the facts it becomes personally dishonest to do otherwise.

Shalom

Mate

Only 80%?

Oooh while the past few posts are completely off topic, they are juicy! Let's take this outside.

chansen

Yep, 80%.

This is not to deny the truths presented in that 80%.  They are what the church had come to believe about this Jesus by the time of writing.  It is the result of their experience or their forebears' experiences of this man.  I think it is a very healthy approach and disuades literalism which Brueggemann refers to as idolatrous.

Whether or not Jesus existed is immaterial to this point.  It is belief.

Shalom

Mate