Oh Poppy....

[Goober McTuber]

(CNN) - A frail man sits in chains inside a dank, cold prison cell. He has escaped death before but now realizes that his execution is drawing near.

“I am already being poured out like a drink offering, and the time of my departure has come,” the man –the Apostle Paul - says in the Bible's 2 Timothy. “I have fought the good fight. I have finished the race. I have kept the faith.”

The passage is one of the most dramatic scenes in the New Testament. Paul, the most prolific New Testament author, is saying goodbye from a Roman prison cell before being beheaded. His goodbye veers from loneliness to defiance and, finally, to joy.

There’s one just one problem - Paul didn’t write those words. In fact, virtually half the New Testament was written by impostors taking on the names of apostles like Paul. At least according to Bart D. Ehrman, a renowned biblical scholar, who makes the charges in his new book “Forged.”

“There were a lot of people in the ancient world who thought that lying could serve a greater good,” says Ehrman, an expert on ancient biblical manuscripts.In “Forged,” Ehrman claims that:

* At least 11 of the 27 New Testament books are forgeries.

* The New Testament books attributed to Jesus’ disciples could not have been written by them because they were illiterate.

* Many of the New Testament’s forgeries were manufactured by early Christian leaders trying to settle theological feuds.

Were Jesus’ disciples ‘illiterate peasants?'

Ehrman’s book, like many of his previous ones, is already generating backlash. Ben Witherington, a New Testament scholar, has written a lengthy online critique of “Forged.”

Witherington calls Ehrman’s book “Gullible Travels, for it reveals over and over again the willingness of people to believe even outrageous things.”

All of the New Testament books, with the exception of 2 Peter, can be traced back to a very small group of literate Christians, some of whom were eyewitnesses to the lives of Jesus and Paul, Witherington says.

“Forged” also underestimates the considerable role scribes played in transcribing documents during the earliest days of Christianity, Witherington says.

Even if Paul didn’t write the second book of Timothy, he would have dictated it to a scribe for posterity, he says.

“When you have a trusted colleague or co-worker who knows the mind of Paul, there was no problem in antiquity with that trusted co-worker hearing Paul’s last testimony in prison,” he says. “This is not forgery. This is the last will and testament of someone who is dying.”

Ehrman doesn’t confine his critique to Paul’s letters. He challenges the authenticity of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and John. He says that none were written by Jesus' disciplies, citing two reasons.

He says none of the earliest gospels revealed the names of its authors, and that their current names were later added by scribes.

Ehrman also says that two of Jesus’ original disciples, John and Peter, could not have written the books attributed to them in the New Testament because they were illiterate.

“According to Acts 4:13, both Peter and his companion John, also a fisherman, were agrammatoi, a Greek word that literally means ‘unlettered,’ that is, ‘illiterate,’ ’’ he writes.

Will the real Paul stand up?

Ehrman reserves most of his scrutiny for the writings of Paul, which make up the bulk of the New Testament. He says that only about half of the New Testament letters attributed to Paul – 7 of 13 - were actually written by him.

Paul's remaining books are forgeries, Ehrman says. His proof: inconsistencies in the language, choice of words and blatant contradiction in doctrine.

For example, Ehrman says the book of Ephesians doesn’t conform to Paul’s distinctive Greek writing style. He says Paul wrote in short, pointed sentences while Ephesians is full of long Greek sentences (the opening sentence of thanksgiving in Ephesians unfurls a sentence that winds through 12 verses, he says).

“There’s nothing wrong with extremely long sentences in Greek; it just isn’t the way Paul wrote. It’s like Mark Twain and William Faulkner; they both wrote correctly, but you would never mistake the one for the other,” Ehrman writes.

The scholar also points to a famous passage in 1 Corinthians in which Paul is recorded as saying that women should be “silent” in churches and that “if they wish to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home.”

Only three chapters earlier, in the same book, Paul is urging women who pray and prophesy in church to cover their heads with veils, Ehrman says: “If they were allowed to speak in chapter 11, how could they be told not to speak in chapter 14?”

Why people forged

Forgers often did their work because they were trying to settle early church disputes, Ehrman says. The early church was embroiled in conflict - people argued over the treatment of women, leadership and relations between masters and slaves, he says.

“There was competition among different groups of Christians about what to believe and each of these groups wanted to have authority to back up their views,” he says. “If you were a nobody, you wouldn’t sign your own name to your treatise. You would sign Peter or John.”

So people claiming to be Peter and John - and all sorts of people who claimed to know Jesus - went into publishing overdrive. Ehrman estimates that there were about 100 forgeries created in the name of Jesus’ inner-circle during the first four centuries of the church.

Witherington concedes that fabrications and forgeries floated around the earliest Christian communities.

But he doesn’t accept the notion that Peter, for example, could not have been literate because he was a fisherman.

“Fisherman had to do business. Guess what? That involves writing, contracts and signed documents,” he said in an interview.

Witherington says people will gravitate toward Ehrman’s work because the media loves sensationalism.

“We live in a Jesus-haunted culture that’s biblically illiterate,” he says. “Almost anything can pass for historical information… A book liked ‘Forged’ can unsettle people who have no third or fourth opinions to draw upon.”

Ehrman, of course, has another point of view.

“Forged” will help people accept something that it took him a long time to accept, says the author, a former fundamentalist who is now an agnostic.

The New Testament wasn’t written by the finger of God, he says – it has human fingerprints all over its pages.

“I’m not saying people should throw it out or it’s not theologically fruitful,” Ehrman says. “I’m saying that by realizing it contains so many forgeries, it shows that it’s a very human book, down to the fact that some authors lied about who they were.”

Your thoughts, tart?

[Felix]

All of the New Testament books, with the exception of 2 Peter, can be traced back to a very small group of literate Christians, some of whom were eyewitnesses to the lives of Jesus and Paul, Witherington says.

absolute horseshit....

funny that I have a better understanding of the history of the bible than a so called biblical scholar....obviously they make this shit up as they go along

[poptart]

Vincent Bugliosi released a book recently in which he discredits God and the Bible.

He claims that there is no Scriptural Basis for the immortality of the soul.
This is his claim, and yet there is overwhelming Scriptural evidence for the exact opposite.
One of many...

John 11:25,26
Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?


He also said this on Morning Joe a few weeks back, "The Bible itself proves, not just beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond ALL doubt, that Jesus was not born of a virgin.

He went on to explain how he arrived at this supposed 100% PROOF - by discrediting the English virgin translation used in Isaiah 7:14.

But what he said was COMPLETELY wrong.
His PROOF is quite easily refuted, and the use of the word virgin is ABSOLUTELY correct in that Scripture.


My point is that here we have V. Bugliosi, one of the really bright minds of our time, making such claims.
And he's OUT TO LUNCH.

But he's Vince Bugliosi - and people can think that he's found something new and important.

So when I see such things as this, a modern 'renowned biblical scholar' saying such-and-such to discredit the Bible, I expect it.

The very first thing satan said to us was, "Did God really say...?

And it continues to this day.


You're a good guy who wants to do what is right, Goober.
I have no doubt.

If God is real, you want to go with Him.

So I recommend you find out.
Soften your heart, say that you want to go with Him if he's real.
Christ is that way.

The spiritual reality which is now dark becomes clear that that time.

That's what I think.

[Goober McTuber]

I don’t think frighten is a fair word, Sam. People have different belief systems for any number of reasons. I think you’re just about as irrational in this area as anyone on this board, considering how worked up you get about people who hold beliefs different from your own. Live and let live.

[Felix]

My point is that here we have V. Bugliosi, one of the really bright minds of our time, making such claims.
And he's OUT TO LUNCH.

of course he's out to lunch because he disagrees with you

i'm sure you can find somebody considered intelligent that agrees with you and of course, he's knows what's up right pop?

[poptart]

Well, look at what he said.


1. He claims there is no Scriptural basis for the immortality of the soul.

John 11:25,26
Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

This Scripture (one of MANY) is certainly speaking of the immortality of the soul, isn't it?

If not, what do you imagine it is talking about?


2. He said the Bible itself proves, not just beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond ALL doubt, that Jesus was not born of a virgin.

Quite a stunning remark.

I'll give a very short summary of why he is mistaken, and why at the very least, he must allow for the possibility that the Bible itself says that Jesus was born of a virgin.

Isaiah 7:14
Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

"Sign" is the translation of the Hebrew word oat, which is used 80 times in Scripture.
In most instances, oat is used when speaking about something miraculous that God will do.
And when it was used not speaking of a 'miracle,' it was at the very least speaking of something God is showing, which is of very great importance.

If a 'young woman' (which is what those like Bugliosi says should have been used instead of virgin) is going to conceive and bear a son, is this any kind of sign, or miracle, that God is giving?

Obviously not.
It's silly to even propose it.

Further, the Hebrew word almah, which has been translated to English as virgin, is used 7 times in the Old Testament.
In NO instance is it used when speaking about a married woman or a woman who has had sexual relations.

That is a very short response to Bugliosi's emphatic claim, and it is certainly enough for him to need to retract that very bold and strange claim.

[Felix]

seriously, quoting the bible to prove the bible is true is pretty fucking stupid

[poptart]

Felix, - VINCE BUGLIOSI - made those two claims about the Bible.

1. That it shows no basis for the immortality of the soul.
2. That it proves beyond ALL DOUBT that Jesus was not born of a virgin.

I'm simply pointing out (by showing what is IN the Bible, of course) that the two claims he made about the Bible are wrong.

[Felix]

Felix, - VINCE BUGLIOSI - made those two claims about the Bible.

1. That it shows no basis for the immortality of the soul.
2. That it proves beyond ALL DOUBT that Jesus was not born of a virgin.

I'm simply pointing out (by showing what is IN the Bible, of course) that the two claims he made about the Bible are wrong.

but I noticed that you've pretty much avoided the entire point of the original post, in that Bart Ehrman claims that most of the bible is a forgery....so lets get back to that

how would you respond to his assertion that much of the new testament was forged by literate christians and were attributed to illiterates that supposedly followed this jesus character?

[poptart]

Very long story short, Felix, if Ehrman wants to claim that New Testament books were not written by who we accept them to have been written by, he can feel free to tell us the names of those who DID write them.

He can begin anytime.


I hold that it is possible that certain Books were physically 'penned' by someone other than the stated author, while the one doing the physical penning was being told the story by the person who's name the Book is authored after.