Cheryl: I call myself Christian, even though I – like many theologians – question many things in the Bible. In part because 1) I believe that deep down the BIble questions its own tradition. And the Bible itself 2) opens up to an entirely different, far more self-questioning message than what most people hear in church. One that is not based on total faith in church traditions at all.

I’m interested for example, in the CHrist who questions other religious authorities, and even himself: “who do you say I am?” “My God … why have you abandoned me”?

Latte Links (10/10)…

Stuff I’ve been reading over the weekend (and during the Iowa-Michigan game – go Hawkeyes!).  Anyway, enjoy the miscellany!

The Gospel Coalition: Walking a Mile in Their Shoes by Peter Beck

The Washington Post: Tort Reform Could Save $54 Bill…

Joe,

There is something I am really wondering about. I am assuming you call yourself a Christian since you have never said otherwise and have been commenting on this Christian blog for a long time now.

However, going way back before we ever knew you here as “Joe”, you often seemed to question the authority of the Bible. Or if not questioning it’s authority, you seemed to question whether we could ever interpret it with any degree of accuracy.

I am wondering on what you base your Christian faith since the Bible seems to be so “iffey” in your mind? After all, it is the place where the Christian world goes to learn about God and what it means to be a Christian in the first place.

Yes, 1) Jesus remains sure of himself. But 2) how sure is the Bible and Jesus, about PETER? The author of two books of the New Testament? When the Bible and Jesus call Peter – author of two books of the New Testament – “Satan”? 3) And if Peter is occasionally “Satan,” then how reliable are the two books in the Bible. The two books by the man Jesus himself called “Satan”?

Joe, let me quote you…

“Or for that matter, noting it’s own self-doubts. As when Jesus calls Peter – the author of two books in the New Testament – “Satan”; in Mat. 16.23.”

it’s own self-doubts???????

“But He turned and said to Peter, Get behind Me, Satan! You are a snare to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”

I understood what Jesus said.

Peter expressed what Satan desired, that Jesus NOT become our Savior. He presented a temptation to Jesus.

Jesus did after all pray “…saying, O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.” (Matthew 26:39)

Mike: My own opinion is probably that we hope the Bible is reasonably accurate; but that given so many variations, we probably should have some reservations about any given Bible.

So that I quote the Bible as authority … but with reservations.

Or for that matter, noting it’s own self-doubts. As when Jesus calls Peter – the author of two books in the New Testament – “Satan”; in Mat. 16.23.

What I want to know is who “invented” this science of textual criticism and its assumptions. It would seem easier to alter the Bible by “cutting out” a word here or there than to try to add into the text. This “critical text” that is used currently, have the textual critics that compiled it been investigated into what kind of men they were? I am referring to Westcott and Hort who compiled the “critical text” in the mid-1800′s. These men were occultists, not Christians, and we have trusted our modern bibles to their work?
Also, to dismiss the Majority text and defer to variants seems to be perverse. The assumptions I read here seem to be contrary to truthful logic and reflect the work of deception. I don’t buy it no more, and plan to go KJV and be free of doubt producing footnotes. Satans first trick to play on mankind in Genesis was to cause them to doubt God’s Word and this footnoting skeptical approach to scripture is no more than a re-play of Satan’s trick.

Thanks Scott. I thought so, but wasn’t sure.

Good stuff. I’ve had many conversations about this. thanks for the research!

Same. I’ve down sized :^)