Originally Posted by ute4ever (Post 296908)

If there are attributes taught in any book of scripture that bring you the peace and comfort of the spirit, live them. If you don't feel right about it, don't. Life isn't about racking up enough points to qualify on paper for the BCS; it's about who you become.

Originally Posted by Anthesian (Post 296904)

I understand what you mean. I have been reading the Pauline letters and I have decided what I consider to be authentically Paul.

Authentic:
1 & 2 Corinthians
Philipians
Galatians
Philemon
Romans
1 Thessalonians


Fraudulent:
Ephesians
2 Thessalonians
1 & 2 Timothy
Titus
Colossians

The tone and attitudes in the fraudulent letters are very different from the authentic. I spoke with Dr. Metzger at Princeton about this. He agrees with some of my assumptions. The only authentic letter,IMO, that he disagrees with is 1 Thessalonians. He thinks it is fraudulent as well.

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ (Post 297401)

Please forgive my questioning the obvious, but am I the only one that notices Anthesian's smirking?

He just independently read those letters and comes to decisions that are widely discussed by scholars. He name drops, leaves the impression that he is just now noticing all of this ("have been reading,") and claims a conversation with a man who has been dead for almost two years.

Originally Posted by Archaea (Post 297412)

Yes I think he's full of it, if that is what you mean. He just forgot some of us might remember somebody is dead and then he mirrored his opinions with what liberal scholars opine.

Originally Posted by Anthesian (Post 297425)

But I actually don't give a shit what any of you think so it doesn't really matter, right?

Originally Posted by Anthesian (Post 297425)

Actually, it was an honest mistake. I was thinking of Bart Ehrman of UNC Chapel Hill (and not of Princeton Divinity) who was one of Metzger's students. I don't mirror my understandings after any of them per se. I can agree with their understandings but may not completely understand them in their entirety. Who doesn't get some of their ideology from other writers? I know many people who get theirs from McConkie, Packer or Talmage. Is it wrong...absolutely not. I happen to agree with Metzger and Ehrman because of what I have been studying in my NT class. But I actually don't give a shit what any of you think so it doesn't really matter, right?

Originally Posted by ute4ever (Post 296769)

I don't mean to sound cheeky, but I don't understand why this would lead anyone to believe that the books were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. They are four different people, each with a different perspective, who I assume were familiar with what had been written previously, and sought to add to that. For example, my dad, my brother, my daughter, and my BFF would each give a different account of who I am and what I did with my life.

Originally Posted by BlueK (Post 298657)

In none of them does the author ever mention himself by name, so then we're left with believing the tradition or not. The tradition could be wrong. After all, there was plenty of fraudulent stuff written and assigned an author's name for the purpose of giving it credibility. It doesn't matter much to me who the actual authors were, nor that the accounts differ. If I were a literalist evangelical who believed in biblical infallibility then it would make a difference. It shouldn't matter to LDS however.

Originally Posted by Anthesian (Post 296770)

I agree. Essentially, I'm trying to recognize and understand the effects of a possibly fabricated story this is 2000 years old.

Is the abstract idea we call 'faith' enough? Faith lacks physical merit. I'm okay with that. Is it possible that we allow a possibly fictional story to dictate the way we live our lives?

The idea of a 'testimony' which is based solely on that warm fuzzy feeling in our chest isn't enough either. It isn't a blanket that keeps us warm but a blanket that clouds our vision of a possible truth instead of supposed known truth.

To the point...What if Jesus isn't who we have been told he was? I'm not trying to create doubt. I will leave that up to the individual. But what does this mean for Christianity? What course do we choose if this is true?

Or is Nietzche right when he stated that the only true Christian died on the cross and the rest are all hypocrites? Does this mean that Christianity died with the supposed son of God?

These are just things I have been thinking about from my NT class and my philosophy class.