tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post4795180919721547503..comments2023-06-24T01:15:34.627-07:00Comments on The Skeptic Zone: im-skepticalhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-9488510330798395542014-12-19T18:34:18.837-08:002014-12-19T18:34:18.837-08:00Bob,
When you have two different manuscripts that...Bob,<br /><br />When you have two different manuscripts that say two different things (and there are definitely examples of that), there's one thing that is 100% certain: the biblical texts were modified.<br />im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-91842533542375654752014-12-19T18:15:48.202-08:002014-12-19T18:15:48.202-08:00" The NT is loaded with contradictions that w..."<i> The NT is loaded with contradictions that were never papered over. I don't think they cared.</i>"<br /><br />If you truly believe this, then you really need to repudiate your accusation that the Scriptures were modified by the Early Church in order to conform to doctrine.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-6209703670778801522014-12-19T15:39:00.950-08:002014-12-19T15:39:00.950-08:00"self-evidently unaltered passages"
- I ..."self-evidently unaltered passages"<br />- I cited passages that were Paul's and one that wasn't, so that you could see the difference. You don't have to be as astute as the scholars to see it, you only need to be open to looking objectively at the evidence.<br /><br />"Had any alterations actually been made, then either one or the other of the passages you quoted would have been re-worded by your hypothetical modifiers in order to paper over any perceived conflict between them."<br />- What evidence do you have that they would do that? The NT is loaded with contradictions that were never papered over. I don't think they cared. These books were not available to the general public.<br /><br />"And as to your belief that no writer can contradict himself over time, that thesis is laughable on its face."<br />- So is your comprehension of what I said.<br /><br />"The lines you cite from the 14th chapter concern the formal office of liturgical preaching."<br />No, they refer to prophesying by members of the congregation. Not the same thing at all.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-89560070210868416302014-12-19T08:43:06.071-08:002014-12-19T08:43:06.071-08:00Skep, you are just too funny. First, you accuse th...Skep, you are just too funny. First, you accuse the Early church of modifying Scripture to comply with doctrine, and then you quote self-evidently unaltered passages of that very Scripture in an apparent attempt to prove your point. But all you've managed to do is prove that no such modifications were ever made. How else could you cite unaltered lines from one part of Paul to contrast them with equally unaltered lines in other parts of Paul?<br /><br />Had any alterations actually been made, then either one or the other of the passages you quoted would have been re-worded by your hypothetical modifiers in order to paper over any perceived conflict between them.<br /><br />And as to your belief that no writer can contradict himself over time, that thesis is laughable on its face. Although we have no pre-conversion writings of Paul (back when he was still Saul), one could well imagine that the content of anything penned by that firebreathing persecutor of the first Christians would bear little resemblance to the post-conversion letters we do have. But in any event, there is no contradiction between the two passages you quoted from First Corinthians concerning women. The lines you cite from the 14th chapter concern the formal office of liturgical preaching. The other passages do not. Even today in the Catholic Church, the <b>only</b> person permitted to give the homily after the Gospel reading is an ordained priest or deacon. No one else. <br /><br />In the 1st Century Eastern Roman Empire, the Greek world was chock-a-block with largely feminine mystery cults, characterized by hysterical "preaching", mostly by priestesses of dubious character, in ceremonies of dubious propriety - ceremonies that Paul was anxious to draw the greatest possible distinction from what would ultimately evolve into today's Mass. Thus the perfectly understandable ban on female preachers.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-66626434655751029982014-12-16T15:11:11.153-08:002014-12-16T15:11:11.153-08:00The different churches were busy modifying texts t...The different churches were busy modifying texts that would become the Scripture of the Church to form and support their versions of doctrine. The Doctrine of the Church was developed over time. jdhueyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14548783175350394626noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-26527563745607588352014-12-16T13:37:17.987-08:002014-12-16T13:37:17.987-08:00Bob,
I can understand that people sometimes chang...Bob,<br /><br />I can understand that people sometimes change their position, but that doesn't appear to be the case here.<br /><br />This so-called growth and development that you claim in Paul's thinking consists of reverting from relative enlightenment to paleolithic knuckle-dragger. I don't buy it. It makes much more sense if you understand that Paul was stepping outside the comfort zone of most people in his time. It was the church that reverted, not Paul. He didn't go from instructing women on praying in the church to telling them to keep their mouth shut in the space of three chapters.<br /><br />Even if this was Paul's position, why would he express it by making a clumsy insertion of this passage in the middle of a discussion of prophesying?<br /><br />You claim that we wouldn't see examples like this if the early church modified scripture to comply with doctrine. But that is exactly what we see. Not just in this case, but in many such cases. This is not the modern Vatican, we're talking about. It was a disorganized, disjointed group of congregations with no settled canon and ideologies that were in flux. And there are numerous examples of biblical manuscripts that contain various modifications (ie. two different manuscripts do not say the same thing), sometimes rather crudely done, without any effort to assure consistency outside the immediate context.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-44811318192211766442014-12-16T12:13:11.864-08:002014-12-16T12:13:11.864-08:00"This generally doesn't happen in the wri..."<i>This generally doesn't happen in the writing of a single author.</i>"<br /><br />Hmm... Let's see now. <b>November 1916:</b> Woodrow Wilson runs for re-election on the slogan, "He kept us out of War." <b>April 1917:</b> Woodrow Wilson declares war on Germany; U.S. enters WWI.<br /><br />"<i>Discrepancies and contradictions.</i>"<br /><br />My point exactly. Their very existence blow your thesis of alleged modifications clean out of the water. If, as you claim, the Early Church had been busily modifying Scripture to comply with doctrine, you wouldn't find anything even resembling such. Fascinating how you work so hard to prove yourself wrong. B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-63722208866168399802014-12-15T17:04:19.757-08:002014-12-15T17:04:19.757-08:00There are no "developmental" passages. ...There are no "developmental" passages. Paul's position is quite clear. And then, it is suddenly reversed. This is what we see all through the New Testament. Discrepancies and contradictions. This generally doesn't happen in the writing of a single author. We see it when comparing the work of different authors. For example, the gospels, written by different people contain significantly different, and even contradictory stories. But aside from examining books written by different people, we can see these discrepancies within a single book when more than one person has contributed to the version that we now have. <br /><br />Once again, this is not just my opinion. Scholars agree. The passage was inserted.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-6495787529424053482014-12-15T15:50:59.160-08:002014-12-15T15:50:59.160-08:00The evidence for what? So far, all the "evide...The evidence for what? So far, all the "evidence" you've produced has only disproved your going-in thesis (which is that the Early Church altered the Scriptures in order to conform with doctrine). This current posting is a classic example. You trot it out apparently under the impression it bolsters your case. How that be so? Had the Church actually done what you've accused it of doing, you'd never see such "developmental" passages as the ones you cited from Paul. They'd have been erased by your imaginary modifiers. The fact you can still read them today is evidence that <b>no such modification ever occurred.</b><br /><br />So to quote you, "You can believe whatever you want." And apparently you do, in the teeth of evidence to the contrary. So yes, "the evidence is [indeed] out there" - the problem is, it's evidence that you're wrong!B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-58447309598559369012014-12-15T08:51:11.939-08:002014-12-15T08:51:11.939-08:00Bob,
You can believe whatever you want. But if y...Bob,<br /><br />You can believe whatever you want. But if you're interested in getting to the truth, the evidence is out there.im-skepticalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08267710618719895303noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-221547022510742794.post-20202666977184878782014-12-15T08:44:32.964-08:002014-12-15T08:44:32.964-08:00Once again, Skep, you seem to be totally missing t...Once again, Skep, you seem to be totally missing the point about whether there were any Biblical modifications made by the Early Church in order to comply with dogma. Had there been such, you would not now be able to point to passages within Paul that indicate/suggest/hint at a growth in his thought. They would have all been either smoothed or papered over by your hypothetical modifiers in order to comply with the most recent ideas. The fact that you are able to see Paul's thinking on the role of women in the Church grow and develop over time is solid evidence that no such modifications were ever made.<br /><br />Sorry, Skep. No foul ball this time, but rather a clean swing and a miss. Strike three, and the batter walks into his dugout with head down low, dragging his bat behind.B. Prokophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10548980245078214688noreply@blogger.com