I wanted to expand a little bit on the "Jesus, Interrupted" post. I really felt like I left the reader (you) hanging a bit. I didn't come full circle as it were. I really wanted to finish the post with, what I consider, a very important point that Dr. Ehrman puts forth.
As I recall I left off with the point that you have to read each gospel writer for themselves. You can't read John for Luke or Mark for Matthew. To do so is to miss the theological point that the writer was trying to convey (e.g. In John's gospel Jesus' divinity is of extreme importance compared to Mark, for instance). From here, while it is implied, when you mash gospels together you end up making your own gospel (e.g. the nativity story or the crucifixion). Therefore, in making your own gospel you inadvertently (or, for some, on purpose) change what was described by the author.
It is true that there are many discrepancies and errors in the Bible; this is to be expected, since it was written by many different authors; with different theological views; over large expanses of time. Because there are errors, does this mean that we can say anything about the existence of god? Absolutely not. The big idea to grasp here is that the Bible is a very human book. So this leaves us with a question: Have those who believe that the Bible is inerrant misplaced their faith? In other words, do people have faith in the Bible or god?
No comments:
Post a Comment