cont...

I understand what Anne is saying in her post and I think it's brilliant. She's reclaiming life in Christ as opposed to life in Christianity. She's committing to Jesus as opposed to an institution committed to Jesus.

One observation: I've found that when a criticism is made, it rings most true in those that take offense to the criticism.

Friends of mine, who are not Christians, think what Anne has done is a great thing. They recognize the universal good in what Jesus taught and that the advertised Church, in many ways, is in direct opposition of Jesus' teachings.

They are not offended by her criticism.

Christians, however, those who are committed to the institution of Church, have taken great offense to her comments. They say that her critisism of the Church is unfair and perhaps it is. Rather than humbly saying, "That doesn't really describe my experience" and moving on, they respond in the exact manner that Anne describes in her "anti- statements".

Great post, Captain! :-)

It is my understanding that Christianity is not a term that the first followers of Jesus used. The first followers of Jesus were known as Followers of the Way or the Third Way.

'Christian' was a derogatory term used by those who did not follow Jesus to describe those who did follow Jesus.

However, words only mean what the person using them mean. There may be a common understanding between some people, words do not have/maintain a universal meaning.

Thanks for the link! I had began to read that some time ago, but did not complete it for one reason or another. Just finished it.

I do not presuppose incredibility as the basis for my argument. I simply ask the question as to how we know these particular writings are in-fact reliable to their originals. Seeing as though we do not possess any originals, it seems an impossibility to state that the texts we read today are reliable to the originals.

Sources! Yeah. Foot in mouth the last time, though I still maintain oral history as unreliable; at least in my own experiences.

I am in no way a scholar of textual criticism, but I have read much on the subject. Seeing as how our faith is derived from the words that are given to us by these men and women, I believe this area of study to be incredibly important.

Textual Critics I've read are Ehrman, Exum, Clines, and Kenyon. Though in no particular order, I really enjoy reading Ehrman.

As a blanket statement, I can agree that there are many manuscripts that point to, what some believe as, the validity of happenings in the NT. However, among those 25,000 manuscripts, how many errors and variations do they contain? Scholars have documented some 200,000+ errors (intentional or otherwise) within those 25,000 manuscripts.

To me, that's great cause for pause. However, for me, it is not reason enough to discontinue belief in God or Jesus. I believe the Bible does not contain God. It tells stories of peoples interactions with God, but it does not contain God.

I like the Kahler quote with this exception: Christ didn't teach the Bible as we know it. He taught a form of scripture but not the scriptures as we know.

I don't believe in Christ because of the Bible. I believe in Christ because when I didn't know anything about him, I was compelled beyond myself to follow him. But that's the mystic in me.
:-)

This argument starts with the premis that the Bible is in-fact a trustworthy collection of works. How does one prove this collection of works is reliable, trustworthy, and/or even authoritative?

In my personal studies, I have found that many textual critics would agree that what we have come to know as the Bible is not the same as the originally penned words. They would also submit that because we have, with 100 percent accuracy, none of the original documents, but copies of copies of copies of documents, it is extremely difficult to say for certain that the copies which we have today are unaltered from the originals.

In my opinion, it's a very difficult leap to say that the Bible is in-fact reliable, trustworthy, and/or even authoritative.