Thought-provoking.
Incidentally, Revelation is a book that is particularly valuable to Christians facing persecution - because it gives a picture of God who sees what is happening and will not allow it to continue forever. I understand it is a lot more valuable and meaningful in such circumstances than it is to us - who feel persecuted if the hymn book is changed, and who therefore end up spending more time arguing about which bits are meant literally.
David, thanks for a refreshing perspective. I used to often cring whenever someone one quote the Revelation passage about adding to or taking away from "this book" and act as if John was talking about the whole Scripture rather than the letter. Those people probably aren't aware that Revelation almost didn't make it.
Personally, I like it because of the many Isaiah references, the astronomy (sun at the shoulder of the virgin, moon at her feet, moon like blood, etc), and the tieing together of the Beginning and the End, the One who sits on the Throne, and "I, Jesus." If you focus on the chronology, you miss a lot.
David,
Nice post.
In regards to New Testament and the Canon. While I have no proof, I believe the Church Fathers knew exactly what was inspired.
The books they included all were completely consistent with Church (i.e. Catholic) teaching while the books they excluded probably had some contradictions that were evident.
I think something that Protestants may forget at times is that the Church (and its key teachings) precedes the Scripture. So, when reviewing the letters and Gospels, the Church Fathers would have reviewed them and if there were conflicts with what they knew as correct (as handed down from oral Tradition) then it was excluded.
So, yes, it was "infallibly delivered" but there was also reason and logic in making their choices. It's not like they used a "Sacred Dartboard" to determine what was going to be included--at least I hope not. 
Dennis,
Just to be clear, I meant not disrespect to Rome. I was just pointing out that Catholics have a reason for their confidence in the canon, given that they in general accept, under proper circumstances, extra biblical revelation as binding and infallible.
And yes the process was reasoned. However, I believe consistency was a necessary but not sufficient requirement. Apostolic endorsement was also required.
David,
I know you meant no disrespect.
I just wanted to add to your thought.
Interesting understanding of the verses quoted - since they are really misunderstandings of the nature of God. Reminds me of the science professor in university who asked if any of his students believed in prayer. Every year he would ask them to stand. He would explain that he was going to drop a flask. He asked these students to pray to show every one else in the class that God was real by praying that the flask would not break. Every year the flask broke. Does that really mean that God is not real or that prayer doesn't work - it would seem you would believe so. Too simple and too manipulative and definitely no idea of the concept of GOD. However, one student, one year, prayed out loud. He explained to God that this professor had abused His name to often. He asked God to honour His name that day, not because He needed to, but to share His love toward a professor who had no idea that He did indeed love him. That day the flask did not break and that day was the last day he ever challenged his students again. That's simply cool!
Just wanted to let you know I had a chuckle over your Machiavellian comment.
Dave,
You might add Esther to your list of books as well. It makes no reference to God save one indirect statement by Mordecai. I believe the inclusion in the OT Canon was something the scribes agreed upon based on content and the pivotal nature of it's events.
Also, don't forget that Luther thoroughly disliked the book of James because of his position on "grace alone."
Always enjoy your blog
Wayne
I think I've got this now:
1) The original manuscripts as penned by the apostles (or their secretary, as you will, e.g. Luke for Paul or Mark for Peter) are assumed to be inspired.
2) We don't have copies of these original manuscripts, but take our (human) word for it, they are inspired.
3) Our human scholarship has shown that some parts of our present day Bible are not in the oldest manuscripts, so we can humanly guess that maybe they aren't inspired.
4) But the following passages (and many more like them) are all genuine and inspired unless future (human) scholarship shows they aren't:
EXODUS 12:29 Now it came about at midnight that the Lord struck all the first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharaoh who sat on his throne to the first-born of the captive who was in the dungeon, and all the first-born of cattle. [God will occasionally kill a few hundred thousand kids to show off.]
Psalm 137:8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction, happy is he who repays you for what you have done to us- 9 he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks. [Biblical family values - smash some other person's kid's brains out.]
[The reason the original Bible Belt consisted of the former slave states is because the Bible explicitly (and presumably infallibly, since no scholarship has shown the following passages to be false) supports Southern-style chattal slavery as practiced in pre-Civil War America.]
EXODUS 21:4 "If his master gives him [a slave] a wife, and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall belong to his master, and he shall go out alone. [More Bibllical family values.]
EXODUS 21:7 "And if a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male [Israeli slaves sold to Israeli owners] slaves do.
EXODUS 21:20 "And if a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished.
EXODUS 21:21 "If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.
LEVITICUS 25:44 'As for your male and female slaves whom you may have - you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you.
45 'Then too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their
families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession.
46 'You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.
1 CORINTHIANS 7:21 Were you called while a slave? Do not worry about it; but if you are able also to become free, rather do that.
EPHESIANS 6:5 Slaves, be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ;
6 not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.
COLOSSIANS 3:22 Slaves, in all things obey those who are your masters on earth, not with external service, as those who merely please men, but with sincerety of heart, fearing the Lord.
1 TIMOTHY 6:1 Let all who are under the yoke as slaves regard their own masters as worthy of all honor so that the name of God and our doctrine may not be spoken against.
2 And let those who have believers as their masters not be disrespectful to them because they are brethren, but let them serve them all the more, because those who partake of the benefit are believers and beloved. Teach and preach these principles.
So embrace Biblical morality, everyone, just like the Confederate states did, for the Bible is an infallable guide to morality except for the parts that aren't.
Dave, you might have a legitimate criticism of your writer if he's only challenging Christians with the poison passage and ignoring all the far nastier passages that nobody disputes.
Dave Mullenix,
No, I believe all the passages you have provided are legitimate inspired scripture. God certainly commanded genocide on several occasions, including killing women and children, and approved slavery for the Jews of biblical Palestine.
I also agree that such passages have been misused to support slavery.
I also know that they were the civil laws established for a now non-existent nation, and they disappeared with that nation—which logically ceased to exist when Christ arrived and literally was destroyed in AD 70. As Christians, we have no nation as the Jews did, we are pilgrims in this land, citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven. As such our new law for dealing with one another is summarized by the great commandment to love one another, which certainly serves in my mind as a prohibition against slavery. And that slavery as mentioned in the New Testament is of the variety: if you are a slave, then bear witness to Christ as a slave. Likewise, if you are falsely imprisoned, then bear witness to Christ as a prisoner—and doing so does not imply a biblical endorsement of false imprisionment. The NT was not a social or political gospel. It said nothing about undoing evil institutions through political activity. Its message is to spread the gospel.
Your insinuation that we are waiting for a scholar to free us from the burden of these troubling passages is just wrong.
I also know that they were the civil laws established for a now non-existent nation, and they disappeared with that nation.
This makes all the difference.
To Dave's comment about Psalm 137:9:
I see this used all the time as an accusation against God. Here is a very good explanation from Clarke's Commentary on godrules.net:
Verse 9. Happy-that taketh and dasheth thy little ones ] That is, So oppressive hast thou been to all under thy domination, as to become universally hated and detested; so that those who may have the last hand in thy destruction, and the total extermination of thy inhabitants, shall be reputed happy- shall be celebrated and extolled as those who have rid the world of a curse so grievous. These prophetic declarations contain no excitement to any person or persons to commit acts of cruelty and barbarity; but are simply declarative of what would take place in the order of the retributive providence and justice of God, and the general opinion that should in consequence be expressed on the subject; therefore praying for the destruction of our enemies is totally out of the question. It should not be omitted that the Chaldee considers this Psalm a dialogue, which it thus divides: - The three first verses are supposed to have been spoken by the psalmist, By the rivers, &c. The Levites answer from the porch of the temple, in ver. 4, How shall we sing, &c. The voice of the Holy Spirit responds in ver. 5, 6, If I forget thee, &c. Michael, the prince of Jerusalem, answers in ver. 7, Remember, O Lord, &c. Gabriel, the prince of Zion, then addresses the destroyer of the Babylonish nation, in ver. 8, 9, Happy shall be he that rewardeth thee, &c. To slay all when a city was sacked, both male and female, old and young, was a common practice in ancient times. Homer describes this in words almost similar to those of the psalmist: - uias tÆ ollumenouv, elkusqeisav te qugatrav, kai qalamouv keraizomenouv, kai nhpia tekna ballomena proti gaih en ainh dhiothti, Æelkomenav te nuouv olohv upo cersin acaiwn.
This same idea applies to every act of destruction...God was working with people who understood violence, fear, anger and power. He had to deal with them as such. It is only because of Jesus that there is civility in the world. It will be interesting to watch what happens as paganism takes root and spreads.
Jesus changed/changes everything!
I think you nailed it right there at the end. For all who studied Roman history...remember how the destructive games ended; remember how people could not understand other people helping each other, giving from what they had very little themselves; selling what they had to make a difference to those who had nothing. The pagan world watched and then turned upside right as the new Christian era ushered in a new order -civility. It's hard to watch the world taking a different turn(bad is good, good is bad) and then trying to explain how much they know God.
Erwin, what was that professor's name, what university did he teach at and when did your story take place? Frankly, it sounds an awful lot like a Jack Chick tract.
David H., that's a very grave concession there - "God certainly commanded genocide on several occasions, including killing women and children, and approved slavery for the Jews of biblical Palestine."
Sometimes religious people just take your breath away. A few problems with your "explanations" of why this isn't Nazi-like behavior:
First, the passages weren't "misused" to support slavery. Their plain meaning was used to prove that the Southern slave owners were operating entirely within the bounds of Biblical morality. Since they were in full compliance with the scriptures on Biblical slavery, it's hardly a "misuse" of those passages to demonstrate that. With regard to the nation of Israel, you forget that the New Testament, which contains the "great commandment to love one another" hardly constitutes a prohibition against slavery since it condones Roman slavery, which continued until Rome fell to the barbarians centuries later. And those NT passages do a lot more than instruct slaves to bear witness to Christ. Ephesians 6:5 says slaves should serve their masters, "with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart, as to Christ; 6 not by way of eyeservice, as men-pleasers, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart." In other words, serve your owners as you would Christ himself and you are doing the will of God. Colossians 3:22 says the same thing. First Timothy 6:1 says a slave owner is worthy of all honors by his slave, presumably even if his name is Simon Legree while 1 Tim 6:2 says slaves should serve their masters all the more if the masters are Christians too. And we should all "Teach and preach these principles." Wish I were in Dixie. Titus 2:9 also urges utter submission to Simon Legree so that they "may adorn the doctrine of God our Savior in every respect."
Let's consider the claim that these passages "... were the civil laws established for a now non-existent nation..". Do you really think this excuses God? The Third Reich established a lot of civil laws for what is now a non-existent nation too, but we don't excuse those who condoned those laws and I don't see any reason to let God off the hook either.
I think you know enough about the Bible to understand why those NT passages are in there. The Romans were scared to death of slave revolts, the Christians were widely (and probably correctly) believed to be opposed to slavery and that put them in grave danger from the Roman government. So up go a few pro-slavery passages to keep the heat off their backs. Understandable for a group of human writers, but hardly for God.
As for killing children, we know why God did that in Egypt: to show off. God knew that Pharaoh would give up before the ultimate blood bath. He even told Moses that he would cave before things even started: Exodus 4:21 And the Lord said unto Moses, When thou goest to return into Egypt, see that thou do all those wonders before Pharaoh, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he shall not let the people go. And again, in Exodus 7:3 "But I will harden Pharaoh's heart that I may multiply My signs and My wonders in the land of Egypt. In Ex 7:13 and 9:12 he actually hardens Pharaoh's heart. "Multiply My signs and My wonders". When humans do that, we call it bragging or showing off.
Oh, and I'm not waiting for a scholar to free you from the burden of these troublilng passages. Scholars cast enough doubt on the inspiration of the Bible back in the nineteenth century to free anybody with eyes to see or ears to hear. It hasn't gotten any better since then. Now it's up to you.
Jennifer, I'm sorry but that is NOT a good explanation of Psalm 137. Jacking the Bible verses up and writing an entire new story under them that only touches the Bible story occasionally and awkwardly is just a cheap trick, not an explanation, and Professor Clarke should be embarassed.
Come on people, if you believe in the Bible, defend it, don't excuse it.
Dave, I think you missed the point. The Bible needs no defense - it stands on it own. Hence the discussion to discredit it as opposed to asking questions to understand it. It's weird, but this is not a natural book. It is actually a living book with words not meant to be haggled over but a spirit which wants to live in you, be a part of you. But if held at a distance, cannot be seen clearly and definitely not understood until its embraced. How can a mere person defend such a book?
Dave Mullenix,
Keep on going with Ephesians 6. It also says this:
"And masters, do the same things to them, and give up threatening, knowing that both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no partiality with Him."
That's fairly significant wouldn't you say? Masters are to treat their slaves the same way the slaves are to treat their masters and they both have a master greater than each in heaven who has given us all the commandment to love one another.
The point being that the Bible as a whole...the whole story, cannot be broken down into these singular pieces as if the story/history/revelation depends upon them. Slavery, child/human sacrifice, domination of men over women, war, genocide, and whatever else you want to throw in is a part of human history.
I don't want to preach at you..I just encourage you to read the Bible as it is and see if it's as bad as all that. I'm not implying you have not read the Bible or don't know much, just that you may find something you didn't see before if you read it afresh.
Peace,
Jennifer
Dave Mullenix,
David H., that's a very grave concession there
No concession at all, grave or otherwise—it’s right there in the text.
First, the passages weren't "misused" to support slavery. Their plain meaning was used to prove that the Southern slave owners were operating entirely within the bounds of Biblical morality. Since they were in full compliance with the scriptures on Biblical slavery,
Yes they were, as I pointed out. We are talking about civil laws for ancient Israel. Others, for example, include that if a woman is having her period and sits on a chair, the chair is unclean. If we start requiring ceremonial cleansing of such furniture, we would be following the letter of the law from the same civil code as the slavery laws, and we’d be abusing them such as the slavery laws were—because they are not our laws, they are the laws for a nation that no longer exists. There are about a gazillion laws that have gone the way of the Dodo. Part of God’s redemptive plan was to give Israel every possible benefit—and even then they failed—demonstrating the need for a savior.
I’ll translate what you are saying, because it’s the same-old same-old transparent argument. You are saying : the southern slave owners used the Levitical laws properly—because it is convenient for you repeat, ad nauseum, that the bible supports slavery. It doesn’t matter if an ounce of understanding shows that the bible does not support slavery, that Jesus’ teaching is so clearly anti-slavery—that just won’t do; it is simply not the answer you want even though it is the correct exegesis.
The New Testament does not condone slavery, it acknowledges that it exists, and that in light of that it instructs slaves how to behave. This is evidence not of condoning slavery but of the primacy of the gospel message. Apostolic Christianity was never about overturning immoral laws or making sin illegal—a lesson modern evangelicals out to take notice of. If was about preaching the gospel regardless of your circumstances, even if those circumstances were unjust. As for slave owners, both Christian and not, they are put on notice that they should treat slaves kindly. As for Christian slave owners, the case of Philemon demonstrates that Paul is hoping that he will free his slave willingly—but as with the bulk of the teaching on sin in the NT, sinful activity is not declared illegal—for the sin is in the heart and making it illegal is of no actual consequence. Philemon must willingly free Onesimus if it to mean anything in terms of repentance—and perhaps he did.
Is the distinction that is being made in the post then between 'scripture' and 'bible'? Scripture is/was inerrant, but none of the books of the bible, because of the events you listed, necessarily are? (Not to insinuate that all the books have obvious errors, but if we found out they did, that may be because of the fallibility of humans distorting the original inspiration, and not because the original was not inspired) Subsequently, no one actually knows what inerrant 'scripture' actually said?
I had thought that in the past you had claimed that the Bible was inerrant, which to me required a pretty much neutered definition of 'inerrant', but I may have been mistaken and you may have referred to scripture. Assuming there is a distinction being made between the two terms 'scripture' and 'bible', I find that a more intriguing 'inerrancy' argument. My apologies if I'm missing something obvious here though.
Dave L,
I was probably, at times, sloppy with the language. I may have said "the bible", but I would always have meant the original manuscripts of those books that were indeed inspired. A secondary question is then, how confident am I that the modern scholarly translations are sufficiently reliable so as to adequately approximate inerrant scripture? And there I would say very confident, apart from the caveats already mentioned.
Jennifer, I don't want to preach at you, I just incourage you to actually read the Bible like you would any other book. Don't sort of glance at it sideways while whipping any embarassing parts into sort of compliance with your belief that it's God's Word and God is Good. Ex 12:29 says that "...the Lord struck all the first-born in the land of Egypt.." YOUR GOD KILLED CHILDREN AND BABIES according to the Bible. The Bible IS "as bad as all that." You can no more overlook, ignore or explain away the horrible verses than you can overlook somebody's torture-rape-murder because he was such a nice man most of the time. If the Bible is true, then your God IS a self-confessed murderer and you're going to have to deal with that someday. But don't worry, if I ever come to own you, I'll be nice to you. Much nicer than the Bible commands. See Ex 21:20,21.
David H: The point is not that these were "...civil laws for ancient Israel." The point is that if the Bible is accurate then your God APPROVED them. Ex 20:1-17 The Ten commandments. Ex 20:22 Then the LORD said to Moses,... Ex 21:7 "If a man sells his daughter ..." Ex 21:20 "And if a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. Ex 21:21 "If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.
Lev 25:1 The LORD said to Moses on Mount Sinai, "Speak to the Israelites and say to them:..." Lev 25:44 44 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."
These are GOD's words, according to the Bible and if they are true, they give us God's morals - and they are terrible, not only with regards to slavery but with regards to murder and genocide. Talking about what those societies were like in those days misses the point that according to the Bible, God was just as bad - worse actually because he could have prohibited it instead of allowing slavery let alone committing murder and genocide. As for Philemon, if Paul had just come out and ordered Philemon to release Onesimus or even hinted that maybe slavery was, you know, immoral and evil, it would mitigate some of the Bible's sins. After all, Paul did have the very much pro-slavery Roman Empire breathing down his neck. But he didn't.
As for the "original manuscripts", I wouldn't be surprised if no such thing had ever existed, at least as far as the OT goes. Some or maybe most of those stories started out as oral tales. We've been able to investigate a few of the remaining story-tellers, people much like the people who told the OT stories around campfires. We've found that no two tellings are alike and that the length and details in the story vary according to how the story teller feels, how the story is recieved and, probably, the weather and the phase of the moon. The longer versions can be twice as long as the shorter ones. When the stories were transcribed, there were probably different versions with different lengths and containing different parts of the tales and there probably never was an "official" version.
Erwin, if I want the name of that professor or the university he taught at, I'll ask Jack Chick.
Dave, see how it bothers you when you just want the absolute truth. My word isn't good enough, your words hold no power, is it possible that our modern day translations have issues with them - what it boils down to is - who holds the truth? The answer better not be the original manuscripts because I'll through in the Dead Sea Scrolls and that will mess the whole thing up. But there is no doubt that we really want to know the truth - if it is not the scriptures or the Bible than what or whom is it?
Dave M.,
I'll keep this short.
The Bible is unique. I see it as an anthology. A friend of mine calls it "anthology of covenants" and that about sums it up for me. I do not think it needs to be 100% inerrant, I do not think it needs to be intact as it is now.
Pick any one subject in the Bible and it's up for debate as to what exactly is being taught or suggested. The same goes for any other book from which people derive morality.
What does matter, is that someone, at some point DID get these ideas into their heads and these PARTICULAR ideas have shaped and changed cultures and the hearts of men so that they are inclined to treat one another with respect and LOVE.
Rene' Girard, a French historian/philosopher, is the author of what is called mimetic desire. If you haven't heard of it you may be interested in looking it up as it is EMPIRICALLY proven. He found this common thread in all cultures, but when he examined the Hebrew and Christian sacred texts, he found the opposite. His work on mimetic desire is considered to be a sort of psychological law. Once again...he found the opposite in the Hebrew and Christian texts.
It is said that the Jews gave the world a conscience. It is true if you read back through history IN DEPTH. It is also said that the fact that the Jews are alive is proof that there is a God. It is pretty amazing when studying them. I'd recommend "Scattered Among the Peoples: The Jewish Diaspora in Twelve Portraits" by Allan Levine. Or a shorter book written by a Catholic, "The Gifts of the Jews: How A Tribe of Desert Nomads Changed the Way Everyone Thinks and Feels" by Thomas Cahill.
The Bible is like no other book. Whether it is inerrant in every detail is not a problem because it is the story of God interacting with man WHERE he is. If God told people to kill another nation's children, pregnant women and geriatric men and women so be it. Scripture makes it absolutely clear that He was relating to people who were violent and degenerate in their very nature. Think of Vladimir Putin...can he behave like a lamb when he's leading wolves? That is not a slam on Russians either. It's just the dynamic of a people who have been mistreated and oppressed for generations.
If you don't believe the Bible is the source of the best morality the world has known, tell us where it comes from. The Enlightenment? Now think of where Voltaire, Jefferson, Spinoza, Rousseau etc... were raised and what the major influences in their lives were. They all came from Christianized nations. While they each denounced the God of the O.T., it was the N.T. principles and teaching which shaped their social outlook.
Even if some books of the Bible, or some passages are removed, someone wrote those ideas down at some point. There was a source for those ideas. In the face of textual criticism it doesn't matter to me if some errors are found. The truths contained in the writing were written, the authors claim their inspiration was from God (whether original authors or redaction) and it has produced the civilization of man as we in the West have known it.
That's as short as I could make it.
Peace,
Jennifer
Jennifer, like you I believe that some people at some point did get all of those ideas in their heads and told them / wrote them down in what eventually became the Bible, but I stop there and see no reason to think anything supernatural was involved. I'd say that the "miracle" of Jews surviving to this day is best accounted for because the Christians (and in the last century the Muslims) didn't manage to get them all. According to James Carroll, "Jews accounted for 10% of the total population of the Roman Empire. By that ratio, if other factors such as pogroms and conversions had not intervened, there would be 200 million Jews in the world today, instead of something like 13 million." Can you name even one anti-semite who isn't Christian or Muslim? I've certainly never heard of a Hindu, Buddhist, Shinto or Sikh Jew-hater. And why should they? Christianity and Islam are both offspring of Judiasm and that's the combination for really deep hatred between religions. A sect doesn't usually break off from the Mother Religion peacefully. Christianity certainly didn't, just look in the New Testament for "synagogue of Satan" and other examples of nasty anti-Semitism.
I would hardly say that the core moral beliefs of any of the Abrahamic religions are unique. The Golden Rule goes back at least as far as Confucius and he was born in 551 BC. Someone, human or sacred, sacrificing their lives for their people is hardly a new idea either. And I can't say much for present day Christian morality. Assuming you are one of the better specimens, your statement, "If God told people to kill another nation's children, pregnant women and geriatric men and women so be it. Scripture makes it absolutely clear that He was relating to people who were violent and degenerate in their very nature," chills me. It reminds me of another Christian, a Catholic named Adolf Hitler, who picked up his Jew-hatred (anti-Semitism is a 19th century euphemism for Jew-hater) from the Christian culture around him. He and his nation of Christians murdered six million people because he sincerely believed they were degenerate in their very nature. That's why the Final Solution could only be death - he didn't believe Jews could possibly be redeemed.
What do you consider good morality to be? Can you give us any guidelines? Feel free to distill Biblical principles down to guidelines if you think the Bible is the source of morality.
Erwin, your reply is a little hard to parse. All I'm asking is which professor acted in such a mind-numbingly stupid way? It really sounds like it came from a Jack Chick tract or a 1950s anti-Communist screed. You have the evil pompous authority figure bashing something held sacred by the reader, the plucky Christian / Red Blooded American standing up to him and then he gets his well-deserved comeuppance when the flask refuses to break. It's a classic theme. If it really happened, I'd like to know more about it. If you just heard it somewhere, that's an acceptable answer, but if you can give me a name and a university, that's even better.
Heard this story many years ago in an oral presentation.
(Revelation—is this awful to say?—I could do without—I can’t really use a book that is impenetrable to any advantage.)
Martin Luther called James a "strawy epistle". As it is confession time can i confess that i agree with him ?
The gospel message is accurately contained, presented, and preserved in the books for which there was no debate, those books whose apostolic seal of approval is certain.
Amen. For what is the Gospel if not simply the proposition that Jesus Christ died for our sins and rose again ?
Commenting by HaloScan
