Should a woman's bodily autonomy be disregarded when it comes to pregnancy?

[leibowde84]

Well I am surprised by this but very well.


You said the Jews have the burden of the Mosaic law. Usually burdens come with rectifying factors. Either a great reward, or the burden is actually an advantage. Here it just seems incidental.




I am trying my best not to open a debate on any of these issues but it is hard to not do so. Anyway appreciate the information.

This

Time is not the issue. Intent is.

I think he is trying to show that intent might not be necessary if enough time passes.

 

[1robin]

You are assuming that this aspect of Christ's teaching was accurately portrayed in the Gospels. I disagree, as the founders of the Church had a major interest in making sure that joining their Church was a requirement for salvation. All I am saying is that taking the Bible as it is seems to be a sure way to miss the point. God gave us reason to be able to figure out ourselves what the messasge of Christ was.

1. Why would God care if we worshiped him?
2. Are we supposed to follow the Jewish Rules as Mark said, or was there a new covenant, as Paul stated?
3. Is belief in Jesus necessary for salvation, or can it be achieved through living your lilfe like Jesus did.
4. Jesus was very adamant about socialism, or its equivalent. He ordered on several occassions to give up all your posessions, and there are lines in the Gospels about taking in all posessions of the members of the Church, and distributing them evenly. Was Jesus against personal property?

These are just a few questions I have that cannot be answered by scripture alone. I have to think about my understanding of God and what would make sense, following that reasoning. I do not rely on writers living thousands of years ago. I understand a lot more than they did then, so why should I be limited to that?

You can't resolve anything if you try and resolve everything at one time. Lets start with your first claim and see which argument is better.

Your first claim was:

You are assuming that this aspect of Christ's teaching was accurately portrayed in the Gospels. I disagree, as the founders of the Church had a major interest in making sure that joining their Church was a requirement for salvation. All I am saying is that taking the Bible as it is seems to be a sure way to miss the point. God gave us reason to be able to figure out ourselves what the message of Christ was.

1. There are very reliable ways to know whether one section of the bible is unreliable. Especially for the NT. There is nothing textually or historically unique about this doctrinal passage. It has just as much textual and historical reliability as the Gospels and Paul's writings.
2. I have given the hard and inescapable numbers for NT reliability as a whole. It is about 95%. And even the critics admit no core doctrine (which this is) has any meaningful errors known.
3. This issues are so well established and by so many means that I can only fit one aspect of how this is done for just your initial claim in a whole post. We know this passage is textually reliable, unlike for example we know the last chapter of Mark is not. We know where the textual errors are, this is not a historical claim, so the next thing we should look at is whether what these verses teach is consistent with the rest of what Christ and the apostles taught. IOW is the idea that we must be born again consistent with the over all NT narrative. So lets see:

Ephesians 2:8-9 - For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: (Read More...)

1 Peter 1:23 - Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Romans 6:23 - For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 6:6 - Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

John 3:1-8 - There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: (Read More...)

John 1:12 - But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Joel 2:28-32 - And it shall come to pass afterward, [that] I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: (Read More...)

1 Corinthians 3:17 - If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] ye are.

Romans 10:10 - For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Acts 22:16 - And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:1-7 - There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: (Read More...)

Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

2 Peter 3:9 - The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Romans 6:4 - Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Romans 5:8 - But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Acts 2:38 - Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

John 3:36 - He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Matthew 6:24 - No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Matthew 3:13-17 - Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. (Read More...)

2 Corinthians 5:17 - Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

There are actually more than thirty two verses that suggest we are to be born again to reach heaven. Every single Gospel contains them, John says more on it than the rest, and even most of Paul's works contain them. So you have two choices here.

1. The NT is reliable according to all the evidence and it says over and over we are to be born again.
2. The NT despite all the evidence is unreliable in every place it says we must be what you find inconvenient.

And BTW they did not require anyone be born again to join the church. Anyone could go to any church, especially those who had no faith. The Church in those early days is where you heard the word that led a person to becoming born again. Being born again is how church members became Christians not how they qualified to attend church.

Anyway before we move on to any other point you have to show me actual evidence and reasons to believe the bible was wrong or right except for where you don't like what it says. I have shown that it is historically reliable, it is textually reliable, we know where the errors are and even the critics agree core doctrine is free of them. You have to over turn all of this plus everything I will throw at you to make your first point even considerable.

 

[1robin]

Sorry for the confusion. Here is the questions:

Which of the following is a more reasonable (or likely) explanation for the development of what we consider to be objective morality? Is our notion (which is all we have to go on in this case) that there actually is a "right" and "wrong," objectively, better explained by societal evolultion or a supernatural source. Which explanation is more reasonable?

Actually I think the best or "most reasonable" explanation is both. However it is not actually true in one of them. IOW evolution alone can lead to the belief that morals are objective but alone they are not. If God exists then we have another line of reasoning to believe morals are objective and in that case they actually are. Combined they can produce very strong belief in objective morality but in only one does it actually exist.

 

[metis]

And BTW they did not require anyone be born again to join the church. Anyone could go to any church, especially those who had no faith. The Church in those early days is where you heard the word that led a person to becoming born again. Being born again is how church members became Christians not how they qualified to attend church.

There's more to that story, and we know this from 2nd and 3rd century records.

The general practice (it did tend to vary since the church was less tied together during these two centuries) was that one convinced a sponsor, who introduced the person to the assembly, and the person could attend the early part of the service but not the "agape meal" in the latter part. If the person decided to convert, they had to publicly confess their sins, and if a member of the church knew that the person wasn't being entirely forthright, then the person was not allowed in-- at least at first.

If the congregation accepted the person, (s)he had to attend with unkempt hair and old clothing and sit silently in the back. After an indefinite length of time, the presbyterios (elder-s) would announce that s(he) was now in full membership and that they were welcomed fully into the congregation. No other confession was needed, but if a person back-slid they could find themselves being removed.

Since the churches were scattered over a very wide area, and since we don't have records from probably most of them, we cannot assume that the same procedure was uniform, and it probably wasn't.

 

[1robin]

This

What did that have to do with what is below. They were two different posts to two different people about two very different issues.

I think he is trying to show that intent might not be necessary if enough time passes.

That only shows that the problem is not understood. What I am talking about occurs almost all the time. I am not talking about something that has occurred once in a million years but billions of times a day. Time is not ever going to explain this, time is the determinists enemy here.

 

[leibowde84]

You can't resolve anything if you try and resolve everything at one time. Lets start with your first claim and see which argument is better.

Your first claim was:

1. There are very reliable ways to know whether one section of the bible is unreliable. Especially for the NT. There is nothing textually or historically unique about this doctrinal passage. It has just as much textual and historical reliability as the Gospels and Paul's writings.
2. I have given the hard and inescapable numbers for NT reliability as a whole. It is about 95%. And even the critics admit no core doctrine (which this is) has any meaningful errors known.
3. This issues are so well established and by so many means that I can only fit one aspect of how this is done for just your initial claim in a whole post. We know this passage is textually reliable, unlike for example we know the last chapter of Mark is not. We know where the textual errors are, this is not a historical claim, so the next thing we should look at is whether what these verses teach is consistent with the rest of what Christ and the apostles taught. IOW is the idea that we must be born again consistent with the over all NT narrative. So lets see:

Ephesians 2:8-9 - For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: (Read More...)

1 Peter 1:23 - Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Romans 6:23 - For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Romans 6:6 - Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with [him], that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.

John 3:1-8 - There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: (Read More...)

John 1:12 - But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Joel 2:28-32 - And it shall come to pass afterward, [that] I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, your young men shall see visions: (Read More...)

1 Corinthians 3:17 - If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which [temple] ye are.

Romans 10:10 - For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Acts 22:16 - And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.

John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

John 3:1-7 - There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews: (Read More...)

Mark 16:16 - He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

2 Peter 3:9 - The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Romans 6:4 - Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Romans 5:8 - But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Acts 2:38 - Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

John 3:36 - He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Matthew 6:24 - No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Matthew 3:13-17 - Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him. (Read More...)

2 Corinthians 5:17 - Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

There are actually more than thirty two verses that suggest we are to be born again to reach heaven. Every single Gospel contains them, John says more on it than the rest, and even most of Paul's works contain them. So you have two choices here.

1. The NT is reliable according to all the evidence and it says over and over we are to be born again.
2. The NT despite all the evidence is unreliable in every place it says we must be what you find inconvenient.

And BTW they did not require anyone be born again to join the church. Anyone could go to any church, especially those who had no faith. The Church in those early days is where you heard the word that led a person to becoming born again. Being born again is how church members became Christians not how they qualified to attend church.

Anyway before we move on to any other point you have to show me actual evidence and reasons to believe the bible was wrong or right except for where you don't like what it says. I have shown that it is historically reliable, it is textually reliable, we know where the errors are and even the critics agree core doctrine is free of them. You have to over turn all of this plus everything I will throw at you to make your first point even considerable.

Can you provide the evidence (not opinions of scholars or critics, but the actual evidence) that shows that the Bible is 95% historically and textually accurate? You keep on claiming that you have already provided this, but I have not seen it yet. You've shown that a lot of people think it is accurate, but that is not surprising and certainly does not prove anything. You've made claims that the Bible can be shown to be accurate as to what Jesus actually said, but, beyond repetition you have not shown this.

And, again, I am not looking for the opinion of others, but the facts/evidence that led them to those conclusions. I'm sorry, but I've studied a great deal of scholars who certainly do not agree with your assessment here. And, Bart Ehrman is a Christian. Sure, he is more skeptical than most, but he is certainly not the best source in this matter.

But, we really aren't getting anywhere. You seem to think that the teachings of Jesus can only be found in the Gospels, and that everything in the Gospels is accurate. This is something that I have not seen evidence of, and, in fact, I've seen a lot of evidence to the contrary, but I am all ears if you can present the evidence.

Until you show that the Bible is as trustworthy as you claim it is, I think we won't be able to get anywhere.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Will there be a return to the topic of a woman's bodily autonomy upon pregnancy? If not I suggest splitting the thread.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Wait, the title says autonomy? I thought it was anatomy

I don't even know what autonomy means!

 

[Revoltingest]

Wait, the title says autonomy? I thought it was anatomy

I don't even know what autonomy means!

Independence from the control of others.

 

[Smart_Guy]

Independence from the control of others.

Um, okay!

I'll try to understand what that means too!

 

[1robin]

Can you provide the evidence (not opinions of scholars or critics, but the actual evidence) that shows that the Bible is 95% historically and textually accurate? You keep on claiming that you have already provided this, but I have not seen it yet. You've shown that a lot of people think it is accurate, but that is not surprising and certainly does not prove anything. You've made claims that the Bible can be shown to be accurate as to what Jesus actually said, but, beyond repetition you have not shown this.

Of course I do not have the codex vaticanus or a 5th century Alexandrian codices. Let me suggest how you should go about this. If you do so you will learn as much as fast as you can by any method. Look up DR James White versus DR Bart Ehrman videos on utube concerning textual criticism. They are among the most knowledge on either side. White I think has handled more extant manuscripts that any NT critic. You will learn in a few hours what the topics are, what the evidence is, how to go about resolving textual accuracy issues. Or I can give you my copies of the transcripts. However it is quicker and more entertaining to watch them. Don't think of this as merely an argument. Think of it as a great chance to learn about one of the most important issues in human history. Then you can look into any manuscript, fragment, or topic you wish by reading NT Wight, Brown, Bruce etc.... You can even get software that has the manuscripts in their data bases and will find every single disagreement between thousands of textual traditions. Ancient codices are just not something I carry around in my pocket. Textual accuracy is no an opinion. That is between very very early manuscripts and modern bibles. Use the sources I mentioned above and lets get the facts about textual accuracy straightened out first. If we do not have accurate modern texts we cannot go any further.

And, again, I am not looking for the opinion of others, but the facts/evidence that led them to those conclusions. I'm sorry, but I've studied a great deal of scholars who certainly do not agree with your assessment here. And, Bart Ehrman is a Christian. Sure, he is more skeptical than most, but he is certainly not the best source in this matter.

No Bart Ehrman is not a Christian. He is the most famous bible critic alive. He had sort of the faith that you do as a child but when he started seeing the bible has errors he lost his faith. WE need to start somewhere. The obvious first and easiest place is textual accuracy. All the big names in textual criticism like, Ehrman, White, FF Bruce, N.T. Wright, Raymond Brown etc..... come to the same conclusion. The biblical tradition has about 300,000 - 400,000 errors. Doing the simplistic math that ends up being about 95% accurate or one meaningful error every three pages. They all come up with that conclusion. However the next step is whether Ehrman's loosing his faith because of 5% error or White's faith being strengthened by it are the best response. Lets do first things first, and conveniently it is among the easiest to determine. Either read the books, watch the videos, get the software, whatever it takes but we have goy to start by agreeing how accurate the modern bible is before we can go any further.

But, we really aren't getting anywhere. You seem to think that the teachings of Jesus can only be found in the Gospels, and that everything in the Gospels is accurate. This is something that I have not seen evidence of, and, in fact, I've seen a lot of evidence to the contrary, but I am all ears if you can present the evidence.

We can't even cover one aspect of this thing fully at a time. I can't go into al l the other arguments involved until we get the foundations built. We need to know how reliable is our modern texts to ancient texts before we can move on to anything else. I can't put two thousands years of scholarship, and several decades worth of personal study into a few posts. If you want to actually get to what matters by the proper and well established methodologies this is going to be slow and thorough.

Until you show that the Bible is as trustworthy as you claim it is, I think we won't be able to get anywhere.

Until you check into what I mentioned above I can't. I do not have a pocket full of 2000 years worth of research and manuscripts.

I do not have an emotional preference that I am looking to defend by throwing anything at the wall that will stick. I have a faith based on personal experienced coupled with decades long intense research. This is the most profound and divisive issue in the history of man. We are dealing with the most scrutinized and debated book of all time. This is not a simple thing to do. We have to start at the proper place, slowly pick our way to a resolution, then move to the next step. If any subject is deserving of this level of scrutiny it is Christianity. You cannot shotgun your way to any where with me on this. I have done too much homework on it. Machine gunning a bunch of unrelated points from various points is how emotional positions are defended not how serious studies are carried out.

Do you have the desire and patience to get into this? This can't be done quickly nor should it be. No other truth is as important. I don't want to get invested if you are not willing to take this seriously. What do you want to do? There is no easy or quick way about this.

 

[1robin]

There's more to that story, and we know this from 2nd and 3rd century records.

The general practice (it did tend to vary since the church was less tied together during these two centuries) was that one convinced a sponsor, who introduced the person to the assembly, and the person could attend the early part of the service but not the "agape meal" in the latter part. If the person decided to convert, they had to publicly confess their sins, and if a member of the church knew that the person wasn't being entirely forthright, then the person was not allowed in-- at least at first.

If the congregation accepted the person, (s)he had to attend with unkempt hair and old clothing and sit silently in the back. After an indefinite length of time, the presbyterios (elder-s) would announce that s(he) was now in full membership and that they were welcomed fully into the congregation. No other confession was needed, but if a person back-slid they could find themselves being removed.

Since the churches were scattered over a very wide area, and since we don't have records from probably most of them, we cannot assume that the same procedure was uniform, and it probably wasn't.

I agree it is a complex issue. I was trying to deny it being over simplified. The churches had distinct characters and were wide spread. The apostles infused the church traditions they had started with their own perspectives of the events they taught. I however do not recall a single church (though there is not a huge amount of data available) that demanded anyone first be saved before they attended. That is inconsistent with the Church's purpose. The Church's primary purpose is to inspire faith not to demand it before entry.

I also agree that certain church rights would not have been appropriate for members without faith. That is consistent with their purpose. One of the worst practices is to baptize a person who has not been born again.
But what is a preacher to do if he is asked to baptize someone. Many Church practices produce paradox's that have no good solutions. I can go on for days about these things.

 

[1robin]

Will there be a return to the topic of a woman's bodily autonomy upon pregnancy? If not I suggest splitting the thread.

I can not deny any request for a question to be answered about my faith but let me give you one about the thread.

Where does a women get the right to autonomy from? I am not asking how on what she may claim it on. I am asking how does any one actually have any inherent right in any objective way. This is a very very hard question so do not take it lightly.

 

[leibowde84]

Of course I do not have the codex vaticanus or a 5th century Alexandrian codices. Let me suggest how you should go about this. If you do so you will learn as much as fast as you can by any method. Look up DR James White versus DR Bart Ehrman videos on utube concerning textual criticism. They are among the most knowledge on either side. White I think has handled more extant manuscripts that any NT critic. You will learn in a few hours what the topics are, what the evidence is, how to go about resolving textual accuracy issues. Or I can give you my copies of the transcripts. However it is quicker and more entertaining to watch them. Don't think of this as merely an argument. Think of it as a great chance to learn about one of the most important issues in human history. Then you can look into any manuscript, fragment, or topic you wish by reading NT Wight, Brown, Bruce etc.... You can even get software that has the manuscripts in their data bases and will find every single disagreement between thousands of textual traditions. Ancient codices are just not something I carry around in my pocket. Textual accuracy is no an opinion. That is between very very early manuscripts and modern bibles. Use the sources I mentioned above and lets get the facts about textual accuracy straightened out first. If we do not have accurate modern texts we cannot go any further.

No Bart Ehrman is not a Christian. He is the most famous bible critic alive. He had sort of the faith that you do as a child but when he started seeing the bible has errors he lost his faith. WE need to start somewhere. The obvious first and easiest place is textual accuracy. All the big names in textual criticism like, Ehrman, White, FF Bruce, N.T. Wright, Raymond Brown etc..... come to the same conclusion. The biblical tradition has about 300,000 - 400,000 errors. Doing the simplistic math that ends up being about 95% accurate or one meaningful error every three pages. They all come up with that conclusion. However the next step is whether Ehrman's loosing his faith because of 5% error or White's faith being strengthened by it are the best response. Lets do first things first, and conveniently it is among the easiest to determine. Either read the books, watch the videos, get the software, whatever it takes but we have goy to start by agreeing how accurate the modern bible is before we can go any further.

We can't even cover one aspect of this thing fully at a time. I can't go into al l the other arguments involved until we get the foundations built. We need to know how reliable is our modern texts to ancient texts before we can move on to anything else. I can't put two thousands years of scholarship, and several decades worth of personal study into a few posts. If you want to actually get to what matters by the proper and well established methodologies this is going to be slow and thorough.

Until you check into what I mentioned above I can't. I do not have a pocket full of 2000 years worth of research and manuscripts.

I do not have an emotional preference that I am looking to defend by throwing anything at the wall that will stick. I have a faith based on personal experienced coupled with decades long intense research. This is the most profound and divisive issue in the history of man. We are dealing with the most scrutinized and debated book of all time. This is not a simple thing to do. We have to start at the proper place, slowly pick our way to a resolution, then move to the next step. If any subject is deserving of this level of scrutiny it is Christianity. You cannot shotgun your way to any where with me on this. I have done too much homework on it. Machine gunning a bunch of unrelated points from various points is how emotional positions are defended not how serious studies are carried out.

Do you have the desire and patience to get into this? This can't be done quickly nor should it be. No other truth is as important. I don't want to get invested if you are not willing to take this seriously. What do you want to do? There is no easy or quick way about this.

I've already seen those debates, and many others with Ehrman. There is no concensus on whether the Gospels accurately portray the words of Jesus. Those conversations are mostly about the lack of changes when texts were copied, but that says nothing of the accuracy of the original texts, of which we have none, btw. I've been studying both sides of this argument for quite some time, and I am very familiar with the debates you mention. But, they do not make the assumptions that you do. I, of course, could be wrong, so I ask that you provide some proof besides just pointing me in the direction of others speaking about the issue.

 

[metis]

I agree it is a complex issue. I was trying to deny it being over simplified. The churches had distinct characters and were wide spread. The apostles infused the church traditions they had started with their own perspectives of the events they taught. I however do not recall a single church (though there is not a huge amount of data available) that demanded anyone first be saved before they attended. That is inconsistent with the Church's purpose. The Church's primary purpose is to inspire faith not to demand it before entry.

I also agree that certain church rights would not have been appropriate for members without faith. That is consistent with their purpose. One of the worst practices is to baptize a person who has not been born again.
But what is a preacher to do if he is asked to baptize someone. Many Church practices produce paradox's that have no good solutions. I can go on for days about these things.

We know how the procedure was done from the records kept, but obviously the records are incomplete as I mentioned. We also know that the acceptance of a person trying to convert in was done in stages, and the issue of "born again" simply doesn't show up by that name but one may feel that it is implied. One of the things that was extremely important to the congregation was sincerity, especially since the 2nd & 3rd century churches were often persecuted with informers being planted.

Baptism of adults was the norm, but we also know that some infants were baptised from late 2nd century records. The end of the 2nd century and the 3rd century church produced many records, and this was pre-Constantine of course. Since I did my research on this through the use of many books decades ago, it should be even easier today with info gathered on-line. But what one has to watch out for is what I sometimes call "B.S. theology", by which I mean denominations touting the company line versus actually citing the actual documents.

The best I ever ran across was one entitled "Tradition In the Early Church" by Dr. Hanson (Anglican theologian). What makes his book worth its weight in gold is that he heavily documents and quotes extensively from 2nd-early 4th century manuscripts.

 

[metis]

I've already seen those debates, and many others with Ehrman. There is no concensus on whether the Gospels accurately portray the words of Jesus. Those conversations are mostly about the lack of changes when texts were copied, but that says nothing of the accuracy of the original texts, of which we have none, btw. I've been studying both sides of this argument for quite some time, and I am very familiar with the debates you mention. But, they do not make the assumptions that you do. I, of course, could be wrong, so I ask that you provide some proof besides just pointing me in the direction of others speaking about the issue.

What I ran across through reading what I call "serious theologians" (those not interested in touting the company line) is compatible with what you feel. The "N.T," texts were written decades after the fact, mostly by those who never saw Jesus, and they are very subjective in nature, as is the "O.T.". Sometimes we have to try and read between the lines to try and ascertain what really may have been said, but that's a very imprecise art and the source of many an argument.

The mistake that some make is believing that the scriptures came floating down from heaven and miraculously landed into the arms of the church. Hardly. When choosing the canon, arguments and disagreements occurred and lingered, thus encouraging "heretical" groups to splinter off.

As Gandhi used to say, the truth is rarely simple.

 

[1robin]

I've already seen those debates, and many others with Ehrman. There is no concensus on whether the Gospels accurately portray the words of Jesus. Those conversations are mostly about the lack of changes when texts were copied, but that says nothing of the accuracy of the original texts, of which we have none, btw. I've been studying both sides of this argument for quite some time, and I am very familiar with the debates you mention. But, they do not make the assumptions that you do. I, of course, could be wrong, so I ask that you provide some proof besides just pointing me in the direction of others speaking about the issue.

Ok, so you agree with the conclusions that Ehrman and White shared correct? That the bible between oldest manuscripts and modern bibles is about 95% accurate and that virtually no error exists in core doctrine between those periods, correct? Since they both agreed with those points and all the other scholars I mentioned do as well? Can we start at that point? We can begin from the point made in what I bolded above and then move onward. IOW if you can agree that the extant manuscripts from about 200 years after the originals and modern times are textually highly accurate with each other then we can bridge the 200 years left. Can you agree?

 

[1robin]

We know how the procedure was done from the records kept, but obviously the records are incomplete as I mentioned. We also know that the acceptance of a person trying to convert in was done in stages, and the issue of "born again" simply doesn't show up by that name but one may feel that it is implied. One of the things that was extremely important to the congregation was sincerity, especially since the 2nd & 3rd century churches were often persecuted with informers being planted.

Baptism of adults was the norm, but we also know that some infants were baptised from late 2nd century records. The end of the 2nd century and the 3rd century church produced many records, and this was pre-Constantine of course. Since I did my research on this through the use of many books decades ago, it should be even easier today with info gathered on-line. But what one has to watch out for is what I sometimes call "B.S. theology", by which I mean denominations touting the company line versus actually citing the actual documents.

The best I ever ran across was one entitled "Tradition In the Early Church" by Dr. Hanson (Anglican theologian). What makes his book worth its weight in gold is that he heavily documents and quotes extensively from 2nd-early 4th century manuscripts.

I am sure you are very knowledgeable about early Church practices and we could learn a lot from a discussion about them, but that is going way beyond where the original intent was in my statement. Someone said something kind of general about the apostles or early Christians inventing the idea of being born again because it had some kind of advantage for them. I was in a hurry to simply cancel that accusation so I pointed out that being born again was not mandatory for church attendance. I believe you sort of confirm that above. I could have added that the message they spread was the opposite of convenient, it alienated the mainstream of the nation they lived in, and the empire that nation was under. The Christian message whether true of false was not made to be convenient for those spreading it.

So to start a conversation based on my original post about the early church is to try and build a house of detailed glass on shifting mud. I did not intend it to be an opening statement in a sophisticated discussion on the early church, just a brutish way to end an unjustifiable accusation.

If you want to discuss the early church I need to back up and make a more meaningful opening statement.

 

[leibowde84]

What I ran across through reading what I call "serious theologians" (those not interested in touting the company line) is compatible with what you feel. The "N.T," texts were written decades after the fact, mostly by those who never saw Jesus, and they are very subjective in nature, as is the "O.T.". Sometimes we have to try and read between the lines to try and ascertain what really may have been said, but that's a very imprecise art and the source of many an argument.

The mistake that some make is believing that the scriptures came floating down from heaven and miraculously landed into the arms of the church. Hardly. When choosing the canon, arguments and disagreements occurred and lingered, thus encouraging "heretical" groups to splinter off.

As Gandhi used to say, the truth is rarely simple.

Very articulately put, Metis. That is exactly how I feel, but I cannot get this accross to 1Robin.

 

[leibowde84]

I am sure you are very knowledgeable about early Church practices and we could learn a lot from a discussion about them, but that is going way beyond where the original intent was in my statement. Someone said something kind of general about the apostles or early Christians inventing the idea of being born again because it had some kind of advantage for them. I was in a hurry to simply cancel that accusation so I pointed out that being born again was not mandatory for church attendance. I believe you sort of confirm that above. I could have added that the message they spread was the opposite of convenient, it alienated the mainstream of the nation they lived in, and the empire that nation was under. The Christian message whether true of false was not made to be convenient for those spreading it.

So to start a conversation based on my original post about the early church is to try and build a house of detailed glass on shifting mud. I did not intend it to be an opening statement in a sophisticated discussion on the early church, just a brutish way to end an unjustifiable accusation.

If you want to discuss the early church I need to back up and make a more meaningful opening statement.

You, again, overgeneralize. I did not say that the "Christian Message" waas made to be convenient for those spreading it. Again, you are putting words in my mouth. I was merely arguing that the requirement itself COULD have easily been explained by the Early Church's interest in getting people to join them.