Versions of Christianity

Tim Robbins

How many versions of Christianity are there that are theologically different?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote: »

How many versions of Christianity are there that are theologically different?

I would guess about 2 billion. Each Christian believes different things to some measure or another.

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote: »

I would guess about 2 billion. Each Christian believes different things to some measure or another.

An interesting link on the subject:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_divi.htm

philologos

Wouldn't there be a rather large middleground between them all though? Usually from experience denominations differ very much on rather small issues compared to the general message of Christianity.

Pompey Magnus

Jakkass wrote: »

Wouldn't there be a rather large middleground between them all though? Usually from experience denominations differ very much on rather small issues compared to the general message of Christianity.

Most versions of Christianity today are similar because they all are derived from the sect that became orthodox Christianity. Early Christianity was much more diverse with some early Christians believing in 365 Gods, some believing Yahweh was evil, some believing Jesus was just a mortal man etc etc etc.

I wouldn't conclude that just because Christianity today is in relative agreement that this somehow means it has always been so and that this is a compliment to how clear and straight forward the general message of the religion is. The various versions of Christianity are similar because they are all just branches of the winning side in the early Christian battle for supremacy and orthodoxy.

philologos

Charco wrote:

Early Christianity was much more diverse with some early Christians believing in 365 Gods, some believing Yahweh was evil, some believing Jesus was just a mortal man etc etc etc.

That sounds like Manichaeism to me.

As for Early Christianity, there were Christians back then who believe in the same things that modern Christians do today.

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote: »

That sounds like Manichaeism to me.

As for Early Christianity, there were Christians back then who believe in the same things that modern Christians do today.

According to that link, there were 3 main versions of Christianity originally.
1. Pauline version.
2. Jewish only version.
3. Gnostic version.

I would agree with this.

Pompey Magnus

Jakkass wrote: »

That sounds like Manichaeism to me.

I don't know too much about Manichaeism tbh, but I think the main players in early Christianity would have been the proto-Orthodox, Ebionites, Marcionites and Gnostics.

As for Early Christianity, there were Christians back then who believe in the same things that modern Christians do today.

I'm not sure that this is exactly the case. I reckon there were Christians who roughly believed what Christians do today but I suspect you would not find any Christians back then who believe exactly what modern Christians do. By this I mean Christians in the first 200-300 years of the religion.

The fact that there was no structured New Testament canon until, at the very earliest, Athanasius proposed the modern 27 books that we have today in 367 AD would lead me to conclude that the full complexity of modern Christianity could not have developed until relatively late. Up until the formation of the NT followers of the proto-Orthodox often ignored one or more of the 4 Gospels we have today, they included books which are now considered Apocryphal such as the Shepherd of Hermas and the Acts of Paul and Thecla. I believe the Apocalypse of John was an unpopular choice for addition but managed to be squeezed in.

So whilst early Christians may have believed Jesus was a man and God I can't see how they would have been entirely comfortable with modern Christianity.

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote: »

According to that link, there were 3 main versions of Christianity originally.
1. Pauline version.
2. Jewish only version.
3. Gnostic version.

I would agree with this.

As would I but the Nazarenes did accept Jesus' divinity.

wikipedia wrote:

The Nazarene sect first mentioned in the Book of Acts chapter 24 verse 5, (Ναζωραίων from Hebrew נזרים) were an early Jewish Christian sect similar to the Ebionites, in that they maintained their adherence to the Torah, but unlike the Ebionites, they accepted the virgin birth and divinity of Jesus

(note italics)

Looks like many Jewish Christians at the time believed much of the same things that Pauline Christianity was putting forward.

Tim Robbins

Jakkass wrote: »

Looks like many Jewish Christians at the time believed much of the same things that Pauline Christianity was putting forward.

Paul brought it to the Gentiles and said you don't need to be circumcised. That's a major difference. Can't see a Roman Army wanting to mess with their foreskin.

Pompey Magnus

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Paul brought it to the Gentiles and said you don't need to be circumcised. That's a major difference. Can't see a Roman Army wanting to mess with their foreskin.

Paul got rid of the tough Mosaic laws and therefore made his religion more appealing to your average gentile (and the gentile's genitals), basically making Christianity into Judaism Lite.

Tim Robbins

Charco wrote: »

Paul got rid of the tough Mosaic laws and therefore made his religion more appealing to your average gentile (and the gentile's genitals), basically making Christianity into Judaism Lite.

Echo?

Pompey Magnus

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Echo?

Just emphasising the point really.

Soul Winner

Charco wrote: »

Paul got rid of the tough Mosaic laws and therefore made his religion more appealing to your average gentile (and the gentile's genitals), basically making Christianity into Judaism Lite.

Paul did? Nay not Paul. Jesus did. He freed both Jews and Gentiles from the bondage of the Law by becoming that law incarnate in the flesh and then had it nailed to a tree, which in the law itself makes it an accursed thing.

"Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree" Deut. 21:23

I know that sounds very Pauline but didn't Paul get his message directly from the risen Christ in the first place?

"I want you to know, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not something that man made up. I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ. For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. But when God, who set me apart from birth and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not consult any man, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went immediately into Arabia and later returned to Damascus." Galatians 1:11-17


If there is one thing that all Christians do agree on then its that Christ actualy rose from the dead, which as Paul says, " And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.” 1 Corinthians 15:14. So if that one event didn't actaully happen as a fact of history then the whole gob of Christianity is total and utter garbage and always was.

Pompey Magnus

Soul Winner wrote: »

Paul did? Nay not Paul. Jesus did. He freed both Jews and Gentiles from the bondage of the Law by becoming that law incarnate in the flesh and then had it nailed to a tree, which in the law itself makes it an accursed thing.

"Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree" Deut. 21:23

The thing is that you are trying to show how Paul is right by using Paul's explanation for why he is right. I don't know if that really counts.

Paul first makes the assumption that the Law is a curse (not too many Jews would agree with him, they regard it as a gift from God), Paul then goes on to claim that Jesus became the Law incarnate (he's making it up as he goes along), and finally justifies it by quoting Deuteronomy which clearly refers to individuals and has nothing to do with the Law. A dubious justification by Paul to my mind.

I know that sounds very Pauline but didn't Paul get his message directly form Jesus in the first place?

Well, at least he says he got his message from Jesus. The problem with people who claim to meet with dead people in their brains is that their claims are impossible to verify.

santing

Charco wrote: »

The thing is that you are trying to show how Paul is right by using Paul's explanation for why he is right. I don't know if that really counts.

The take the decision as taken by the Holy Spirit, the Apostles and the elders of the Church in Jerusalem, as stated in Acts 16:

Act 15:28-29 ESV For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: (29) that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell."

In the context it is clear that non jewish Christians do not need to obey the Law of Moses.

Pompey Magnus

santing wrote: »

The take the decision as taken by the Holy Spirit, the Apostles and the elders of the Church in Jerusalem, as stated in Acts 16:

Again this is coming from a very strongly Pauline source, Acts. A feature of Acts is that it tries to show a unity between Paul and the Jerusalem church that even Paul himself constantly neglects to mention. In Paul's own writing he doesn't refer to any kind of approval from the Apostles for the message he was teaching, in fact just the opposite he gets in heated arguments with them.

When Paul tries to defend his authority in his own letters he never refers to any apostolic authorisation of his preachings, a glaring ommission considering Acts claims that he had it. This would lead one to suspect that the author of Acts invented the claim in order to give Paul extra credibility.

PDN

Charco wrote: »

When Paul tries to defend his authority in his own letters he never refers to any apostolic authorisation of his preachings, a glaring ommission considering Acts claims that he had it. This would lead one to suspect that the author of Acts invented the claim in order to give Paul extra credibility.

Or it might lead one to suspect that your sources of information are a bit dodgy.

As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—those men added nothing to my message. On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews. (Galatians 2:6-9)

That sounds like a pretty clear apostolic authorisation of Paul's preaching to me.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

That sounds like a pretty clear apostolic authorisation of Paul's preaching to me.

OK, they approved of him going to the gentiles, but did they approve of what he was teaching? There seems to have been alot of tension between Paul and the Jerusalem hierarchy.

santing

Charco wrote: »

OK, they approved of him going to the gentiles, but did they approve of what he was teaching? There seems to have been alot of tension between Paul and the Jerusalem hierarchy.

If we presume that Acts tells Pauls version of events, we are looking at a conspiracy theory, and either Paul or Luke covering up some details. This is a serious charge that needs to be very well supported! For instance, what does it mean for Luke's gospel? And by implication, the other two synoptic gospels? Luke introduces himself as the scientist/historian among the Bible authors .... Do you think he was gullible and swallowed anything set before him without asking others? Do you think he lied?

Did Paul invent the events he mentions in Galatians 2, just as he has invented (or twisted) the account of Acts 16 when he told them to Luke?

Peter does endorse Paul's teaching:

2Pe 3:15-17 ESV And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, (16) as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. (17) You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability.

You might say that Peter didn't write this letter (but I strongly believe he did), but that is not enough. You have to prove that it is written by a Pauline Christian....
Do you want to be reckoned among the "ignorant and unstable"?

philologos

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Paul brought it to the Gentiles and said you don't need to be circumcised. That's a major difference. Can't see a Roman Army wanting to mess with their foreskin.

Hang on what about the events at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), it was more than just Paul's decision.

Pompey Magnus

santing wrote: »

If we presume that Acts tells Pauls version of events, we are looking at a conspiracy theory, and either Paul or Luke covering up some details. This is a serious charge that needs to be very well supported! For instance, what does it mean for Luke's gospel? And by implication, the other two synoptic gospels? Luke introduces himself as the scientist/historian among the Bible authors .... Do you think he was gullible and swallowed anything set before him without asking others? Do you think he lied?

Acts was written a generation after Paul by an anonymous scribe who obviously was biased towards Paul. The most reliable source we have about Paul's mission has to be Paul himself. We know for certain of a number of examples of Pauline Christians who invented stories about Paul in order to make him look good or to solve theological issues left hanging by Paul. The author of acts seems to have done just the same.

There was obviously a heated debate in early Christianity about Jewish law, Paul addresses the problem a number of times. Not once in his epistles does he refer to the Council of Jerusalem at which no less a figure than James supposedly decided that gentiles did not have to follow the Jewish law. If this was a historical event then Paul would have had a water tight case when he opposed the Judaizers, but instead he fails to ever mention it. This has led many scholars to suggest that the event did not happen, Luke (or one of his sources) made it up many years later to defend the mission to the gentiles by suggesting it had approval from Jesus' closest followers.

santing

Charco wrote: »

Acts was written a generation after Paul by an anonymous scribe who obviously was biased towards Paul. The most reliable source we have about Paul's mission has to be Paul himself. We know for certain of a number of examples of Pauline Christians who invented stories about Paul in order to make him look good or to solve theological issues left hanging by Paul. The author of acts seems to have done just the same.
...
This has led many scholars to suggest that the event did not happen, Luke (or one of his sources) made it up many years later to defend the mission to the gentiles by suggesting it had approval from Jesus' closest followers.

I think there is a strong conviction in Christianity that Acts and Luke have been written by the same person, and that person being Luke. One of the internal evidences (apart from the introduction to the book!) is the usage of the word "we" in Acts.
I presume only (very) liberal theologians doubt the authorship of Luke.
http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1329
Doubting the authorship of Luke brings us basically to a position where we cannot know anything about the historic events around the life of the Lord Jesus and his immediate disciples, and it challenges Christianity that its believe system is based on a bunch of lies (AKA the intro to Acts/Luke are fabricated stories and untrue.)

I don't think following that basis there is much to discuss on this forum!

Pompey Magnus

santing wrote: »

You might say that Peter didn't write this letter (but I strongly believe he did), but that is not enough. You have to prove that it is written by a Pauline Christian....
Do you want to be reckoned among the "ignorant and unstable"?

I don't think Peter actually wrote this letter. Peter was an uneducates, illiterate, Aramaic speaking fisherman who would have had a basic knowledge of the Hebrew Bible and who, as far as we know, had no role or interest in ministering to Christians in Asia Minor. The person who composed the letter attributed to Peter was an educated Christian with an advanced knowledge of Greek who used the Greek Septuagint and was writing to Christians outside Peter's known territory but inside Paul's.

As for proving that the author was a Pauline Christian, well the fact that the author uses concepts that strongly resemble Paul's is pretty good evidence. For example:

"He himself bore our sins in his body upon the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness, for by his wounds we are healed".

"For Christ also died for sins once and for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might lead us to God, having been put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit."

Sounds Pauline to me. Do you really think it credible that the very same Peter who, by Paul's own admission, did not always see eye-to eye, would right a letter to Paul's congregation pretty much throwing his whole support behind Paul's message?

Or do you think it possible that perhaps an entirely different person who supported Paul's message but was worried at the disagreements that Paul admitted to having with the Rock of the church wrote the letter and then attributed it to Peter so that Christians close to 2000 years later would still use it to show how Paul and Peter were in close agreement?

What makes you believe that the author was in fact Peter? What criteria do you use to conclude that this letter is genuine Peter whilst the non-canonical Letter of Peter to James, in which "Peter" describes Paul as his enemy, is a forgery?

santing

Charco wrote: »

I don't think Peter actually wrote this letter. Peter was an uneducates, illiterate, Aramaic speaking fisherman who would have had a basic knowledge of the Hebrew Bible and who, as far as we know, had no role or interest in ministering to Christians in Asia Minor. The person who composed the letter attributed to Peter was an educated Christian with an advanced knowledge of Greek who used the Greek Septuagint and was writing to Christians outside Peter's known territory but inside Paul's.

I am glad you have a good insight in the person of Peter the Apostle! Even the Pharisees were surprised that this uneducated, common man (Acts 4:13) had such a grasp of Scripture and such a boldness!
I think you forget that the Gallilea of the Gentiles where Peter grew up had Greek as mother or second tong, and that all Hebrew boys learned to read and write the Sacred Scriptures - something Peter shows off in Acts 4. O, no, I forgot that Acts is Pauline propaganda to bring down the character of Peter ...

Charco wrote: »

As for proving that the author was a Pauline Christian, well the fact that the author uses concepts that strongly resemble Paul's is pretty good evidence. For example:

"He himself bore our sins in his body upon the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness, for by his wounds we are healed".

"For Christ also died for sins once and for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might lead us to God, having been put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit."

Sounds Pauline to me.

It sounds like Christs yes. As 1 Peter is very close to 2 Peter in doctrine, I wonder what is left of the Bible authors!

Charco wrote: »

Do you really think it credible that the very same Peter who, by Paul's own admission, did not always see eye-to eye, would right a letter to Paul's congregation pretty much throwing his whole support behind Paul's message?

Yes, I think that's probable. From the gospels we learn that Peter sometimes was too quick to act, but always looking for restorations if he did it wrong. Since both served the same Master, I do think that they came to a common understanding and friendship.

Charco wrote: »

Or do you think it possible that perhaps an entirely different person who supported Paul's message but was worried at the disagreements that Paul admitted to having with the Rock of the church wrote the letter and then attributed it to Peter so that Christians close to 2000 years later would still use it to show how Paul and Peter were in close agreement?

The time the letter is written, there was not such a person yet as the Rock of the Church - except Christ. The Bishop of Rome only made it to supremacy after the 6th century. He grew stronger overtime, but it took a long time before he was the undisputed ruler - and that only lasted till the Eastern Church decided to drop out.

Charco wrote: »

What makes you believe that the author was in fact Peter? What criteria do you use to conclude that this letter is genuine Peter whilst the non-canonical Letter of Peter to James, in which "Peter" describes Paul as his enemy, is a forgery?

I think the first criteria is what does the book say, who does the book say it is written by. If you cannot trust the opening lines, better not trust it at all!

The second criteria would be the historic evidence: how did the first Christians receive this letter. That makes it then easy to drop out the letter of Peter to James!

The third then would be how does this book compare with other books (supposedly) from the same author.

You can read about a study along these lines at: http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1363

BTW I don't have a copy of the letter of Peter to James, but I used material posted at: http://books.google.com/books?id=8CSOhcvg05AC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=Letter+of+Peter+to+James&source=web&ots=bxE0KwyqXu&sig=atnHRKlf5mhrjD7Nr-tncEgqmhM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result#PPA45,M1

Pompey Magnus

santing wrote: »

I think you forget that the Gallilea of the Gentiles where Peter grew up had Greek as mother or second tong, and that all Hebrew boys learned to read and write the Sacred Scriptures - something Peter shows off in Acts 4. O, no, I forgot that Acts is Pauline propaganda to bring down the character of Peter ...

I don't know where you got the idea that all Hebrew boys learned to read and write the Scriptures, this is absolutely wrong. At the peak of classical education in antiquity, when the Ancient Greek education system was at it absolute most successful, no more than 15% of the population had any literacy whatsoever. This 15% was dominated by the upper classes who could afford the money to employ a teacher and had the resources available so their children could spend time learning instead of working.

The figure of literacy in the 1st Century Roman Empire has been estimated as being even lower, at about 10%. This again would have been dominated by the upper classes and priests. I'm afraid that a poor fisherman in a rural outpost in Judea was almost certainly illiterate. Jesus himself may well have been illiterate, although there is slight evidence to suggest he may have had some reading ability.

Now for the question of whether all Judeans were trilinguial and could speak Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek. This is stretching things again. We know they spoke Aramaic, that was their mother tongue, not Greek. We also know that there were Hellenized cities in the region, however we can get an idea about how often your average Jew had any encounters with these cities from the Gospels. Not once does Jesus bother to visit the Greek speaking areas, he keeps instead to the Aramaic areas. Would a lowly fisherman like Peter have much need for Greek? Certainly not. Perhaps, just perhaps, he may have had a few words. Enough to write a detailed theological argument? No.

The time the letter is written, there was not such a person yet as the Rock of the Church - except Christ. The Bishop of Rome only made it to supremacy after the 6th century. He grew stronger overtime, but it took a long time before he was the undisputed ruler - and that only lasted till the Eastern Church decided to drop out.

Jesus said that Peter was the Rock on whom he would build his church. That is what the name Peter means.

I think the first criteria is what does the book say, who does the book say it is written by. If you cannot trust the opening lines, better not trust it at all!

But just because a book says it is written by Peter doesn't actually mean it was written by Peter. We have numerous examples of Christians forging letters and attributing them to apostles, it was a practice rife in the early years of the religion. This is not helpful as a criteria in the slightest.

The second criteria would be the historic evidence: how did the first Christians receive this letter. That makes it then easy to drop out the letter of Peter to James!

Not surprisingly the Pauline Christians quite happily accepted this as being authentic Peter, after all it justifies Paul's teachings and is supposedly from the great Peter himself. Non-Pauline Christians rejected it as a forgery. And vice versa, non-Pauline Christians accepted the Letter of Peter to James as it made them look correct whilst Pauline Christians rejected it as a forgery.

Again this as a criteria is next to useless in deciding if the letter really was written by Peter.

The third then would be how does this book compare with other books (supposedly) from the same author

This is probably the worst of the three criteria provided. All this can tell you is that the second letter was probably written by the same person who wrote the first. It doesn't bring us any closer to identifying who the actual author is.

santing

Charco wrote: »

I don't know where you got the idea that all Hebrew boys learned to read and write the Scriptures, this is absolutely wrong. At the peak of classical education in antiquity, when the Ancient Greek education system was at it absolute most successful, no more than 15% of the population had any literacy whatsoever. This 15% was dominated by the upper classes who could afford the money to employ a teacher and had the resources available so their children could spend time learning instead of working.

The Ancient Greek education system has no impact on the Jewish nation, neither has statistics of the Roma Empire in general.

• Jews were people of the Book
• Jews were instructed to teach their children
• Jews translated the OT in Greek to facilitate Greek speaking Jews
• Galilee is called Galilee of the Gentiles - it was a mix of Greek / Hebrew speaking people
• Jews build synagogues that were used for meeting (assembling), eductaion etc. There were several synagoges in Galilee
• Peter owned his own boat (Luke 5:2), was married, and could leave his family (at least Mother in Law) at home while he was traveling with Jesus.
• Peter had a cooperation with James & John and there were hired men as well. 4 sons of the two partner families joined the enterprise - one son was acquaintaince of the current High Priest (John 18:15). so they must have had some money
• The inscription of the cross of the Lord Jesus was published in three languages - and read by many Jews. (John 19:20)
• The Lord Jesus (who had the same 'official' training as Peter)presumes reading capabilities in his discourses: Mat 12:3,5; 19:4; 21:42, 22:31, 24:15,
• The Lord Jesus could read himself Luke 4:16

I could also mention that the first letter of Peter is actually written by Silvanas (1 Peter 5:12) and the second letter - which uses simpler Greek - could have been written by another helper, or by Peter himself.

See wikipedia for an execelent discusiion on Peter.

Pompey Magnus

santing wrote: »

The Ancient Greek education system has no impact on the Jewish nation, neither has statistics of the Roma Empire in general.

• Jews were people of the Book
• Jews were instructed to teach their children
• Jews translated the OT in Greek to facilitate Greek speaking Jews
• Galilee is called Galilee of the Gentiles - it was a mix of Greek / Hebrew speaking people
• Jews build synagogues that were used for meeting (assembling), eductaion etc. There were several synagoges in Galilee
• Peter owned his own boat (Luke 5:2), was married, and could leave his family (at least Mother in Law) at home while he was traveling with Jesus.
• Peter had a cooperation with James & John and there were hired men as well. 4 sons of the two partner families joined the enterprise - one son was acquaintaince of the current High Priest (John 18:15). so they must have had some money
• The inscription of the cross of the Lord Jesus was published in three languages - and read by many Jews. (John 19:20)
• The Lord Jesus (who had the same 'official' training as Peter)presumes reading capabilities in his discourses: Mat 12:3,5; 19:4; 21:42, 22:31, 24:15,
• The Lord Jesus could read himself Luke 4:16

I could also mention that the first letter of Peter is actually written by Silvanas (1 Peter 5:12) and the second letter - which uses simpler Greek - could have been written by another helper, or by Peter himself.

The Ancient Greek system does have relevance because it is fully regarded by historians as being the pinacle of human literacy in the ancient world. 15% was the absolute most that any society managed to educate its population in literacy. If ancient Judaism in the 1st Century had taught all their boys how to read and write then historians today would be in awe of this society with 50% literacy in such a period. But historians don't do this because the Jews had nowhere close to 50% literacy, not within a donkey's roar of it in fact and there is not a shred of evidence to support such a claim.

Jews were "people of the book", this doesn't mean that the average Jew could read it.

They may have been instructed to teach their children, but how exactly illiterate parents are supposed to teach children how to read and write is not exactly clear.

The Bible was translated into Greek for the Jews diaspora who lived abroad and no longer spoke Hebrew. It was very rarely (if ever) in Judea or Galilee.

If the Jews could speak as many languages as you think then why would Pilate have needed to use three languages for the sign over the cross? One would have done.

I repeat, there is simply no evidence of Jews having a 50%+ literacy rate. It is an unbelievably high estimate, a figure never even come close to in the ancient world. The ancient Greeks with their great schools of philosophy and mathematics in the hight of their power in the Mediterranean when trade was pouring into Athens and the people had a relatively good life yet they struggled to reach 15%. But you think that the Jews were able to outclass the mighty Athenians even though Judea was under the foot of Rome, people struggled to to pay their taxes of 12-13% to Rome plus 20% to the Temple. Yet despite all this the even poor Jews were able to send their young boys off to school to learn languages that would be of no benefit to them? Really???

This just did not happen. As soon as a boy was old enough to work he was off working with his father. This is how things worked back then. For you to suggest otherwise is for you to go on something other than fact and history.

JimiTime

Charco wrote: »

Jesus said that Peter was the Rock on whom he would build his church. That is what the name Peter means.

I've noticed you call into question the authority of 'Pauline' books etc, then you say in no uncertain terms the above. Inconsistant, is a word that springs to mind. Using certain texts in certain contexts to back up an arguement. The above is very much disputed, and in context of many other passages, its not the meaning that the RCC give it. Not that I'm getting into that debate. I'm just saying, you can't speak so certainly about certain scriptures just because it suits. If you are subjecting certain elements to scrutiny, you should subject it all to the same standard. Its a practice that has stained Christianity through the ages.

Soul Winner

Charco wrote: »

I don't think Peter actually wrote this letter. Peter was an uneducates, illiterate, Aramaic speaking fisherman who would have had a basic knowledge of the Hebrew Bible and who, as far as we know, had no role or interest in ministering to Christians in Asia Minor.

How do you know that he had no role or interest in ministering to Christians in Asia minor?

Charco wrote: »

Non-Pauline Christians rejected it as a forgery. And vice versa, non-Pauline Christians accepted the Letter of Peter to James as it made them look correct whilst Pauline Christians rejected it as a forgery.

What is a non-Pauline Christian? And what do they believe?


Assuming you are correct, why can't Peter be included in the 10% of literate people of that time? Because he was fisherman? It would be foolish of us to think of him as a scholar but to arbitraliy dismiss him as ilitereate because he was a fisherman is jumping the gun a bit too. Jesus picked him for a reason, he had to have something going for him and I don't think it was for his fisherman skills.

And if the book of Acts is merely Pauline propaganda then why does it carefully catalogue with daming inferances all the mis-deeds of one Saul of Tarsus? Wasn't he the same guy? Pauline propaganda would have made sure all that was omitted wouldn't it?

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

I've noticed you call into question the authority of 'Pauline' books etc, then you say in no uncertain terms the above. Inconsistant, is a word that springs to mind. Using certain texts in certain contexts to back up an arguement. The above is very much disputed, and in context of many other passages, its not the meaning that the RCC give it. Not that I'm getting into that debate. I'm just saying, you can't speak so certainly about certain scriptures just because it suits. If you are subjecting certain elements to scrutiny, you should subject it all to the same standard. Its a practice that has stained Christianity through the ages.

But, Jimi, this is the beauty of the liberal approach to the Bible. They can construct any theory they want to. They can cite any Bible verses that support their theory as evidence, and then arbitrarily reject any contradictory evidence by saying, "Oh, but of course those verses are not authentic. They were edited in later, or written hundreds of years after the event" etc.

This makes such theories tremendously difficult to disprove, or even to argue against, because it is like trying to nail down a blob of jelly. Of course the flipside to that is that they are also utterly unconvincing.

Pompey Magnus

JimiTime wrote: »

I've noticed you call into question the authority of 'Pauline' books etc, then you say in no uncertain terms the above. Inconsistant, is a word that springs to mind. Using certain texts in certain contexts to back up an arguement. The above is very much disputed, and in context of many other passages, its not the meaning that the RCC give it. Not that I'm getting into that debate. I'm just saying, you can't speak so certainly about certain scriptures just because it suits. If you are subjecting certain elements to scrutiny, you should subject it all to the same standard. Its a practice that has stained Christianity through the ages.

Fair point, so I will explain why I regard the passage in which Jesus calls Peter the Rock on whom he will build his church as being quite plausible as having some historical reliability.

We have historcally independent sources which confirm that Jesus had a disciple called Peter/Cephas. Off my head we know of at least the Q Gospel, the Gospel of Mark, Epistles of Paul, the Gospel of John, the Gospel of Thomas. These were relatively early, independent writings and all confirm that Simon was also known as Cephas, "The Rock". We can also be quite confident that it was Jesus who gave him the name as again independent sources agree on this. Matthew makes the claim that after naming his the Rock, Jesus says "Upon this Rock I will build my church". There is nothing implausible about this statement, as far as Gospel claims go this one has nothing going against it.

We can be pretty sure Jesus named Simon "The Rock", it is not too unlikely that Matthew's claim may have had some historical truth to it. I can't be certain about it of course but it follows on from independently attested evidence, it fits with the high position Simon held in the Jesus Movement, and it does not make an impossible claim like other parts of the Bible.

I am quite happy to accept that there is quite a bit in the Bible that is historically accurate and reliable.

PDN wrote:

They can construct any theory they want to. They can cite any Bible verses that support their theory as evidence, and then arbitrarily reject any contradictory evidence by saying, "Oh, but of course those verses are not authentic. They were edited in later, or written hundreds of years after the event" etc.

I think you will find that when passages are contested as being inauthentic there is usually good evidence for supporting the claim and is certainly not arbitrary. When we find that the oldest manuscripts do not contain the contested passages we usually regard this as being pretty strong evidence to conclude they are later additions.

This makes such theories tremendously difficult to disprove

It would be quite easy to disprove actually. If the passages are authentic then just show us even older sources which do contain the passage (eg Jesus and the adultress). Then you win the argument and we lose. I'm pretty confident you won't find such manuscripts though.

Pompey Magnus

Soul Winner wrote: »

What is a non-Pauline Christian? And what do they believe?

Non-Pauline Christians were usually Jewish Christians who wanted to continue following the Jewish law. They regarded Paul as a false prophet who was twisting the words of Jesus and creating a new religion focusing on the figure of the Christ instead of abiding by the very religion that Jesus himself followed. The author of the Gospel of Matthew may well have been a fairly typical non-Pauline Christian.

Assuming you are correct, why can't Peter be included in the 10% of literate people of that time? Because he was fisherman? It would be foolish of us to think of him as a scholar but to arbitraliy dismiss him as ilitereate because he was a fisherman is jumping the gun a bit too. Jesus picked him for a reason, he had to have something going for him and I don't think it was for his fisherman skills.

Peter was an unskilled worker from the lower rung of Jewish society. This is where Jesus drew his support from, not from the learned upper-classes. There is no reason to assume he was literate. (I may be wrong but does Acts not claim that Peter was illiterate and unlearned?)

And if the book of Acts is merely Pauline propaganda then why does it carefully catalogue with daming inferances all the mis-deeds of one Saul of Tarsus? Wasn't he the same guy? Pauline propaganda would have made sure all that was omitted wouldn't it?

Paul had admitted that he was a persecutor of Christians in his own letters (Corinthians, Galatians). A cover up wouldn't have been really possible by the time Acts was written. The conversion of Saul was a kind of PR coup for Christians anyway, I don't think they would have wanted to cover it up even if they could. It was the equivalent of the Robinho transfer to Manchester City in the 1st Century.

Soul Winner

Charco wrote: »

Non-Pauline Christians were usually Jewish Christians who wanted to continue following the Jewish law. They regarded Paul as a false prophet who was twisting the words of Jesus and creating a new religion focusing on the figure of the Christ instead of abiding by the very religion that Jesus himself followed. The author of the Gospel of Matthew may well have been a fairly typical non-Pauline Christian.



Peter was an unskilled worker from the lower rung of Jewish society. This is where Jesus drew his support from, not from the learned upper-classes. There is no reason to assume he was literate. (I may be wrong but does Acts not claim that Peter was illiterate and unlearned?)



Paul had admitted that he was a persecutor of Christians in his own letters (Corinthians, Galatians). A cover up wouldn't have been really possible by the time Acts was written. The conversion of Saul was a kind of PR coup for Christians anyway, I don't think they would have wanted to cover it up even if they could. It was the equivalent of the Robinho transfer to Manchester City in the 1st Century.

It appears to me that you have clearly taken a position against Paul and do not accept him as a true apostle of Christ and the only way you can justify that position is to just discredit any so called Pauline scriptures. Scriptures that have been accepted as Holy Writ from earliest times, and yet you are really quick to cite Gnostic texts in order to support your anti Pauline position. Its a bit like what Marcion did in the early years of the Church except he went the other way, he only accepted what Paul said and nothing else. Both positions are heretical if you ask me but then that's just my opinion.

Christ had to pick Paul because most of the disciples were preaching that Jesus was the Messiah that was to come, but now that He's come and died for the sins of the world and taken away the curse of the law by taking the penalty for sinning against it on Himself, we are now free from it but we must first prove that we are worthy to receive Christ by keeping the law???? Sounds ridiculous. Paul rescued the true message of Christ. We are free from the curse of the law. As he said: If righteousness came by works of the law then Christ died in vain. Paul was persecuted for this stance by the Jews who were still bound in the law of Moses, as was Jesus in His earthly ministry and as is anyone else today who preaches this message, who are free in Christ. The law is dead. It died with Christ, who was the law incarnate. Who said of the law that not one jot or tittle of can pass away until it was fulfilled. Well it was fulfilled and it had to die so that we could be saved from the curse of it. We could not have been freed from it until it did, just like a wife is not free to marry another until her husband dies. Without Paul Christianity would be nothing but a splinter shoot off Judaism. Jews who accept Christ as Messiah but who also keep the law. That was not in God's program. Christ died for everyone not just the Jews and that is why He sent Paul to the Gentiles (non Jews) to tell them this wonderful news.

Just one more thing.

Charco wrote: »

I don't think Peter actually wrote this letter. Peter was an uneducates, illiterate, Aramaic speaking fisherman who would have had a basic knowledge of the Hebrew Bible and who, as far as we know, had no role or interest in ministering to Christians in Asia Minor.

How do you know that Peter had no role or interest in ministering to Christians in Asia minor?

Pompey Magnus

You are correct that I don't accept Paul as a true apostle. I don't believe the dead Jesus actually appears to anyone in visions and so I do not believe that he had a better insight into Jesus' teachings than the actual people who knew Jesus.

We keep coming back to the question of the Law and how it is always assumed without question by Christians that the Law was a curse and was removed by Jesus' death. This was an invention by Paul with no basis in the teachings of Jesus. Jesus never advised his followers to abandon the law, in fact he told them to follow it even more closely than the Pharisees. Is it any wonder they continued to preach that the Law must be followed after Jesus' death, they were only following his instructions and the example he set.

Jesus never said that he was going to become the law incarnate and with his death Jews would be free of its curse. He never said anything like it because he was a devout, Law abiding Jew.

How do you know that Peter had no role or interest in ministering to Christians in Asia minor?

I don't know it. But as I said in my post "as far as we know (Peter) had no role or interest in ministering to Christians in Asia Minor". Asia Minor was the territory of Paul, not Peter.

PDN

Charco wrote: »

You are correct that I don't accept Paul as a true apostle. I don't believe the dead Jesus actually appears to anyone in visions and so I do not believe that he had a better insight into Jesus' teachings than the actual people who knew Jesus.

So, let's get this straight. You reject certain parts of the New Testament on the grounds that you don't believe in supernatural events. Then you argue, on that basis, that someone was not a true apostle of One whose entire message is based on supernatural events.

Can you understand why no-one here finds that line of reasoning to be convincing?

JimiTime

PDN wrote: »

So, let's get this straight. You reject certain parts of the New Testament on the grounds that you don't believe in supernatural events. Then you argue, on that basis, that someone was not a true apostle of One whose entire message is based on supernatural events.

Can you understand why no-one here finds that line of reasoning to be convincing?

It is odd. Surely if the belief is that the supernatural stuff is bogus, you could not trust 'any' of teh writers not just paul.

I is confused Charco?

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

So, let's get this straight. You reject certain parts of the New Testament on the grounds that you don't believe in supernatural events. Then you argue, on that basis, that someone was not a true apostle of One whose entire message is based on supernatural events.

Can you understand why no-one here finds that line of reasoning to be convincing?

Absolutely. If you insist on believing in some supernatural events then there is nothing I can do to disprove you in this field, just like you can't disprove other ridiculous supernatural events like St Peter supposedly resurrecting a smoked tuna or that Jesus swapped bodies with Simon of Cyrene prior to the crucifiction and so didn't actually die.

However, I am not arguing on the supernatural events but on historical, real world events concerning historical documents from historical characters. A historical discussion, by the very nature of the study of history, must discount supernatural events.

JimiTime

Charco wrote: »

Absolutely. If you insist on believing in some supernatural events then there is nothing I can do to disprove you in this field, just like you can't disprove other ridiculous supernatural events like St Peter supposedly resurrecting a smoked tuna or that Jesus swapped bodies with Simon of Cyrene prior to the crucifiction and so didn't actually die.

its not about proving, its about weighing up the evidence.

However, I am not arguing on the supernatural events but on historical, real world events concerning historical documents from historical characters. A historical discussion, by the very nature of the study of history, must discount supernatural events.

But to discount the supernatural events is to call the writers liers and decievers. Surely, you cannot admit this as evidence if you've already established how untrustworthy your sources are?

Pompey Magnus

JimiTime wrote: »

It is odd. Surely if the belief is that the supernatural stuff is bogus, you could not trust 'any' of teh writers not just paul.

I would have varying levels of trust for the different authors in the New Testament when trying to construct a picture of who the real Jesus of Nazareth was and the message he preached. Mark is probably the most reliable as it is the oldest source which concentrates on Jesus himself (Paul is ealier but he doesn't talk about Jesus much). Then Matthew and Luke are on a pretty even standing, John I would regard as the least reliable Gospel as it was written late and has been heavily infused with theology, I would regard Paul's authentic letters as being less reliable again as Paul shows no interest in the real Jesus and instead focuses on the mystical figure of the Christ, information of which he proudly admitts he recieved in a vision.

I do not trust Paul as a historical source for Jesus because he wasn't interested in the historical character of Jesus, unlike the Gospel writers. I do not trust them completely, far from it, but I trust them more than I do Paul.

Pompey Magnus

JimiTime wrote: »

its not about proving, its about weighing up the evidence.

And there is exactly the same evidence to suggest Jesus swapped bodies with Simon as there is to suggest Paul saw the real Jesus in a vision. In other words there is no evidence for either.

But to discount the supernatural events is to call the writers liers and decievers. Surely, you cannot admit this as evidence if you've already established how untrustworthy your sources are?

When looking at historical claims containing supernatural events you certainly can accept the sources as being relatively trustworthy. It is a common theme in historical documents to attribute real world events to the gods, if we through out every source with supernatural events as being unreliable then we would have a very poor understanding of the ancient world. Instead we seperate fact form fiction and try to understand why the author would include the supernatural accounts in their text, in other words what was he really trying to say?

JimiTime

Charco wrote: »

And there is exactly the same evidence to suggest Jesus swapped bodies with Simon as there is to suggest Paul saw the real Jesus in a vision. In other words there is no evidence for either.



When looking at historical claims containing supernatural events you certainly can accept the sources as being relatively trustworthy. It is a common theme in historical documents to attribute real world events to the gods, if we through out every source with supernatural events as being unreliable then we would have a very poor understanding of the ancient world. Instead we seperate fact form fiction and try to understand why the author would include the supernatural accounts in their text, in other words what was he really trying to say?

Ok, we are from 2 very different schools of thought, so I wont get into an arguement with you. But, a question. What, in your opinion, were the gospel writers trying to say when pretending these supernatural events took place?

Fanny Cradock

Charco wrote: »

the Q Gospel

Is this not a postulated document? Something to fill in the gaps? You speak of it like a certainty.

PDN

Charco wrote: »

However, I am not arguing on the supernatural events but on historical, real world events concerning historical documents from historical characters. A historical discussion, by the very nature of the study of history, must discount supernatural events.

Not true at all. If a historical discussion starts by automatically discounting supernatural events then any of its conclusions concerning claims of supernatural events are logically invalid. It's called 'begging the question': http://skepdic.com/begging.html

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Is this not a postulated document? Something to fill in the gaps? You speak of it like a certainty.

Yes, indeed it is. But, in the weird and subjective world of theological liberalism, postulated non-existent documents are considered to be more reliable than actual eye-witness reports.

Fanny Cradock

PDN wrote: »

Yes, indeed it is. But, in the weird and subjective world of theological liberalism, postulated non-existent documents are considered to be more reliable than actual eye-witness reports.

Ah! Curiouser and curiouser.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

Not true at all. If a historical discussion starts by automatically discounting supernatural events then any of its conclusions concerning claims of supernatural events are logically invalid. It's called 'begging the question': http://skepdic.com/begging.html

Historians work by establishing what probably happened in the past. Supernatural explanations for an event, by their very nature, are the least probable explanations for that event. Historians don't need to automatically discount supernatural events and thereby "beg the question", all they need to do is put any natural explanation alongside the supernatural one and the natural one will always be the preferred explanation by the historian.

For example: Did Paul see the risen Jesus in a vision?

The supernatural explanation is: Yes, he did.
One natural explanation is: No, he lied.

This natural explanation is then preferred and the supernatural one is put aside. This is not to say that Paul really lied, just that it is more probable than seeing a dead person resurrected. Maybe an even more likely explanation than a bare faced lie could be that it was an epileptic fit in which Paul thought he saw a vision but really it was just a result of his seizure and changed his whole way of life as a result. We know the brain is capable of some amazing things, so this is also more probable than actually seeing Jesus.

There is no event concievable in which a supernatural event must be considered by historians to be the most probable explanation.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

Yes, indeed it is. But, in the weird and subjective world of theological liberalism, postulated non-existent documents are considered to be more reliable than actual eye-witness reports.

Firstly, there is very good evidence supporting the Q document and as it was earlier than any of our Gospels it should indeed be regarded as more reliable.

Secondly, the autograph does not exist of Q but we still do know what some of it said. By comparing Matthew and Luke with Mark we can extract some of Q.

It is just like even if we lost every copy of Mark we would still have a fair idea of what Mark said because it is encorporated into the later synoptics.

Thirdly, as you well know there are very strongs reasons for assuming that none of the Gospels were written by eye witnesses.

Soul Winner

Charco wrote: »

Firstly, there is very good evidence supporting the Q document and as it was earlier than any of our Gospels it should indeed be regarded as more reliable.

Secondly, the autograph does not exist of Q but we still do know what some of it said. By comparing Matthew and Luke with Mark we can extract some of Q.

It is just like even if we lost every copy of Mark we would still have a fair idea of what Mark said because it is encorporated into the later synoptics.

Thirdly, as you well know there are very strongs reasons for assuming that none of the Gospels were written by eye witnesses.

To say that supernatural events 'don't' happen simply because they 'can't' happen is only looking at it from a purely naturalistic point of view. Of course we know that these supernatural events don't normally happen by any means that we can understand, which stands to reason why the Gospel writers bothered to report them in the first place. If somebody came along today that could walk on water, you'd want to get it recorded wouldn't you?

It’s not a very good basis to dismiss Paul as a charlatan and a fraud simply because he claimed to have visions wherein he claims Christ spoke to him. You are better off just saying that you don't believe what Paul says. That's fine. To write him off the way you are doing makes you look like you have a hidden agenda, that you're not too concerned about how you discredit those who claim that supernatural events took place, once you discredit them. That is not how to do it.

If they are truly frauds it should be very easy to see it. The fact that we can't see it makes those who don't want to believe what they are reporting come up with all sorts of weird theories to explain away and replace what they actually did say with nonsense that they never said. We can't prove that these events happened in the same way that you can prove they didn't. You need to weigh up the texts together and get a general consensus and when you do that you will find that all the writers of the New Testament texts believed in a resurrected from the dead Christ not just an historical Christ, even those who walk and talked with Him in His earthly ministry.

The first message of the Church was preached by Peter in Acts 2 where he says: “Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up.” So even before the first ever Epistle or Gospel was written they believed in Miracles. Or was Luke just lying again about this in Acts 2? If so then why does he have Peter (the one who failed Jesus the most) be the one that preached the first message of the Church? If all he’s doing is lying then why not just say that it was Paul who preached the first message? Your sliced, conveniently packaged and sealed hypotheses fails to shore up and explain events like this which are also reported in the texts.

Why can't you scientifically minded people apply the same approach to Biblical studies as you do to Scientific studies? I know it’s hard and requires a lot of hours but, it does deserve it you know. You can't come to a conclusion first then try to squeeze whatever facts you can into that conclusion in order to support it and then simply relegate all other non supportive facts to the rubbish bin simply because they don't fit into or support your pre-concluded assumption about the events.

"The present writer takes the view that Luke's history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness...You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian's. and they will stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment, provided always that the critic knows the subject and does not go beyond the limits of science and of justice...

...Acts may be quoted as a trustworthy historical authority....Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense; he fixes his mind on the idea and plan that rules in the evolution of history; and proportions the scale of his treatment to the importance of each incident. He seizes the important and critical events and shows their true nature at great length, while he touches lightly or omits entirely much that was valueless for his purposes. In short, this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians." Sir William Ramsay

santing

Charco wrote: »

Firstly, there is very good evidence supporting the Q document and as it was earlier than any of our Gospels it should indeed be regarded as more reliable.

I dont understand your thinking ... There is good evidence for something we have never seen, but that was is handed down is corrupt?

From WikiPedia

The Q document or Q (from the German Quelle, "source") is a postulated lost textual source for the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke. It is a theoretical collection of Jesus' sayings, written in Greek.

Postulated, lost and theoretical ...

Pompey Magnus

Soul Winner wrote: »

To say that supernatural events 'don't' happen simply because they 'can't' happen is only looking at it from a purely naturalistic point of view. Of course we know that these supernatural events don't normally happen by any means that we can understand, which stands to reason why the Gospel writers bothered to report them in the first place. If somebody came along today that could walk on water, you'd want to get it recorded wouldn't you?

I am looking at it from a historical point of view. If you want to believe that Jesus appeared to Paul then that is fine, it is a theological statement and can't be disproven. However it can never be accepted by historians because history doesn't work like that. I am interested in the history of the event, the theology is important to me only as a tool to better understand the history.

It’s not a very good basis to dismiss Paul as a charlatan and a fraud simply because he claimed to have visions wherein he claims Christ spoke to him. You are better off just saying that you don't believe what Paul says. That's fine. To write him off the way you are doing makes you look like you have a hidden agenda, that you're not too concerned about how you discredit those who claim that supernatural events took place, once you discredit them. That is not how to do it.

I would disagree, my agenda is not hidden at all. I dismiss Paul specifically because he claims Jesus spoke to him privately in visions in his own head. If a man came up to me on the street and said that God speaks to him and has given him instructions for a mission he is to carry out I would dismiss him as a crackpot and potential threat to himself or others. I don't see why I should regard another person who heard voices in his head 2000 years any different.

If they are truly frauds it should be very easy to see it. The fact that we can't see it makes those who don't want to believe what they are reporting come up with all sorts of weird theories to explain away and replace what they actually did say with nonsense that they never said. We can't prove that these events happened in the same way that you can prove they didn't. You need to weigh up the texts together and get a general consensus and when you do that you will find that all the writers of the New Testament texts believed in a resurrected from the dead Christ not just an historical Christ, even those who walk and talked with Him in His earthly ministry.

Frauds obviously aren't easy to see. I assume you believe Mohammed was a fraud yet he founded the world's 2nd largest religion on his lie.

Why can't you scientifically minded people apply the same approach to Biblical studies as you do to Scientific studies? I know it’s hard and requires a lot of hours but, it does deserve it you know. You can't come to a conclusion first then try to squeeze whatever facts you can into that conclusion in order to support it and then simply relegate all other non supportive facts to the rubbish bin simply because they don't fit into or support your pre-concluded assumption about the events.

I was a Christian up until I started viewing religion scientifically and critically. I was a relatively devout believer but was unhappy that I did not have a great understanding of the Bible or the people who wrote it. At the time I was almost fours years into a Natural Sciences course and was still a proud and practicing Catholic among a majority of non-believers in the class who were bemused by the few believers in, of all courses, Science. This did not bother me, I was never one to fall for peer pressure and if anything it strengthened my belief. I was proud to be the only person wearing ashes on their forehead during experiments in the Organic Chemistry lab on Ash Wednesday. Coming up to my exams I took a night off studying so I could pray privately in the Pro-Cathedral for Pope John Paul II after he died. I was not your typical disbeliever.

I did approach my examination of the Bible with a conclusion already made, however my conclusion was that the Bible was inerrant and historically accurate (well, the New Testament certainly, I was not devout enough to believe the Old Testament was inerrant I'm afraid) and I expected my research to support this. It didn't. The more I found out about it the less convinced I became by its claims. I did not approach the Bible expecting to find holes in it, and I certainly did not want to find holes in it.