Would you delete a copy of the Koran?

[nohmi2]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

that was the whole deal though with Harry right? that he broke off with Rome, began the church of england, placing himself (and all other future monarchs) as the head of the church, therefore putting himself in the place of the pope and giving himself the religious power and right to rule. sort of an endless logic loop.



I don't know what to tell you Florence, like I said before, any college level 101 entry to European Studies textbook starts with discussing the church (papacy) in Europe. that book I mentioned will give a good look at the Crusades, the power of the church, the monarchs of several nations and the Templars which were a major player during the time. otherwise, just enter the google phrase I gave you and start reading.

Since Europe was so influenced by the Papacy, a good book to start with is 'Vicars of Christ' by Peter de Rosa. The Crusades were a form of jihad, and were an excuse for barbarity that killed thousands.

Cheers.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by nohmi2

Since Europe was so influenced by the Papacy, a good book to start with is 'Vicars of Christ' by Peter de Rosa. The Crusades were a form of jihad, and were an excuse for barbarity that killed thousands.

Cheers.

I'm not familiar with the book, but the notion absolutely!

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by nohmi2

Since Europe was so influenced by the Papacy, a good book to start with is 'Vicars of Christ' by Peter de Rosa. The Crusades were a form of jihad, and were an excuse for barbarity that killed thousands.

Cheers.

I've never heard the Crusades referred to as jihad, but certainly the terminology is appropriate. We hold the church to a higher standard, but sadly it has fallen as hard as any.

I also laughed when I read your post, but I inserted a comma: "The Crusades were a... barbarity that killed thousands, Cheers."

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

well behaved women rarely make history!

Nor do well behaved Popes, it seems. (Sorry, couldn't resist.)

-Pie

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

Actually, you have to be careful here. More accurately, it's that bits may have been added over time. One scholar I know, Bob Siegel, studied the "floating passage" (The Adultrous Woman) and concluded it was actually removed by "some prude of a monk" as he puts it.

What's important, though, is that, while we don't know for sure if they were in original manuscripts or not, they are left in our modern Bibles but flagged (typically put in brackets) with a notation stating that they're somewhat suspect.

In terms of the effects of errors, let me cite a modern scholar named Bruce Metzger.



Technically, the Canonized Bible did not exist during Constantine's reign. All of the books of the New Testament, except Revelation, were included during the Council of Laodicea in 363 AD. So I'm not sure what "whole swathes" you're referring to here.


Now we get to the more consipracy-theory oriented stuff I was referring to in my initial post. Not the known corrupt texts, or the different manuscripts that vary from the oldest copies, but the wholesale denial of the extant texts.

There are certainly some scholars that dissent from the thousands of year of accepted teachings. There was even the Jesus Seminar which voted on which particular passages were spoken by Christ himself, eliminating quite a bit of the gospels in the process.

So, sure, you can find modern scholars who will say many things. But let's just take the most basic question to illustrate how problematic this case is: How do we know the books were written by an "admirer" of Peter or Paul? Especially when -- in the case of Timothy -- we have a direct claim of authorship, and no other evidence supporting a specific "other" author?


I'm not sure where you got this information. Passive voice is very powerful... "it is judged" sounds official, but judged by whom is the real kicker.

The books of Paul were "judged" by the Council of Laodicea to be written by Paul himself. Authorship was a key component to inclusion in the original Canon. There is one specific book which some Bibles attribute to Paul's, but its authorship remains in question, and that's Hebrews. But it passed other tests of authenticity to earn it a spot in the Canon, regardless of authorship.

Okay, so my point was simply that adding or deleting from a book is a bad thing. (I would also now add to that making unsubstantiated claims about books is also a bad thing.) This, however, is totally different than deleting your own copy of the book. You're not editing or changing. You are merely deleting something you disagree with, don't like, or simply need to free up space.

-Pie

Some books, such as II Peter, have been in dispute since the early days of Christianity. Others have been questioned by later Christian authorities, such as when Martin Luther famously called James the "epistle of straw."

In his New Testament course for The Teaching Company, Professor Bart D. Ehrman offers for reasons why people forged writings in the name of famous authors: (1) profit (new libraries would often pay generously for new works by famous authors), (2) to honor a beloved teacher, students often attached the teacher's name as an act of gratitude and modesty, (3) to gain an audience, and (4) the belief that had the person named as author had a chance to address the issue, this is what they would have said. In the last case, I might add that such persons may have felt "inspired" to write their books.

That there were forgeries written in Paul's name, such as III Corinthians and the Pauline epistles to Seneca, is not in dispute. The only question is to whether any of these made it into the accepted NT canon.

II Thessalonians and Colossians still tend to be hotly debated by scholars, but there seems to be considerably less support for Pauline authorship for the book of Ephesians. Scholars argue that the style is entirely unlike other Pauline works. Long, convoluted sentences are used by this author, whereas Paul tended to write in short, abrupt sentences. Also there is the choice of vocabulary. There are 116 words used in this short work that are found in none of the undisputed works. Such a deviation is quite untypical of any author. There is even less support for the Pastoral Epistles of I and II Timothy and Titus. Critical scholars are virtually unanimous in their opinion that Paul was not the author. Not least among their reasons for that judgment is that the historical backdrop of these books seems to be more appropriate to a later historical period than the one in which Paul lived and worked. In addition, the author's opinion of women's role in the churches (usurp no authority and remain silent) seems to be at odds with the prominent role they played in Paul's own ministry. (For that reason alone the idea that Paul didn't write these books elevates him, in my opinion.)

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Some books, such as II Peter, have been in dispute since the early days of Christianity. Others have been questioned by later Christian authorities, such as when Martin Luther famously called James the "epistle of straw."

Yep, these are indeed the case. One explanation about II Peter (again courtesy of Bob Siegel) is that it could be that Peter was terrible at writing Greek, and had someone transcribe the first letter, but he tried his own hand at the second, as it's apparently quite poor grammar.

In his New Testament course for The Teaching Company, Professor Bart D. Ehrman

Ehrman is an extremely controversial writer, and I do not actually accept his scholarship wholesale. Though I do believe he has brought up some good points.

If you see the citation I made above about 99% of the Bible being reliable, attributed to Bruce Metzger. That was Bart Ehrman's mentor, and Ehrman himself admits said mentor would not agree with his conclusions.

offers for reasons why people forged writings in the name of famous authors: (1) profit (new libraries would often pay generously for new works by famous authors), (2) to honor a beloved teacher, students often attached the teacher's name as an act of gratitude and modesty, (3) to gain an audience, and (4) the belief that had the person named as author had a chance to address the issue, this is what they would have said. In the last case, I might add that such persons may have felt "inspired" to write their books.

These would be some of those good points.

That there were forgeries written in Paul's name, such as III Corinthians and the Pauline epistles to Seneca, is not in dispute. The only question is to whether any of these made it into the accepted NT canon.

II Thessalonians and Colossians still tend to be hotly debated by scholars, but there seems to be considerably less support for Pauline authorship for the book of Ephesians. Scholars argue that the style is entirely unlike other Pauline works. Long, convoluted sentences are used by this author, whereas Paul tended to write in short, abrupt sentences. Also there is the choice of vocabulary. There are 116 words used in this short work that are found in none of the undisputed works. Such a deviation is quite untypical of any author. There is even less support for the Pastoral Epistles of I and II Timothy and Titus. Critical scholars are virtually unanimous in their opinion that Paul was not the author.

You had me up till that last sentence there. If they were "virtually unanimous" then the scholars who chose the Canon would not have included it. No?

But the main thing is that your statement is a logical fallacy. It can't be proven true or false. How do you show something is "virtually unanimous."

Not least among their reasons for that judgment is that the historical backdrop of these books seems to be more appropriate to a later historical period than the one in which Paul lived and worked. In addition, the author's opinion of women's role in the churches (usurp no authority and remain silent) seems to be at odds with the prominent role they played in Paul's own ministry. (For that reason alone the idea that Paul didn't write these books elevates him, in my opinion.)

Sure, these are possibilities, and historical context and writing style are methods for dating books.

We can continue to debate. But these books were not pulled out of a vacuum. There were strict criteria for Canonization, including accepted authorship, consistency with other scripture, and general acceptance within the church as a whole. New theories and ideas don't necessarily hold a trump card simply because they are new. I already cited the Jesus Seminar as how far afield things can go.

-Pie

[HarryT]

WT Sharpe is of course referring to modern scholarship. The ancient scholars who selected the NT canon did not have access to the tools of linguistic analysis that are now available. A person's choice of grammar and vocabulary is as distinctive as a fingerprint.

[JimKal]

Originally Posted by terrazoids

Well back to the original post of this thread I have an interesting take on it. I think that in the eyes of Muslims deleting a copy of the Koran is possibly equivalent to burning it. However its not a bad thing to read what that ol' books got to say. There sure are some interesting stories there.

But At this point in time we should burn a few Korans and delete a few maybe publicly, because it'll teach those guys over there that there book,... aint the word of God. Its a book.... just like any other with one exception of course. So the burning of it helps those guys to see that they're wrong on that one point about the Koran being the actual Word.

Yep, we could rig up a computer and invite a bunch of journalists, hell... even al jazeera!! And then we just press that delete key... beep. Op... its gone. Guess it wasn't the word of God huh...

I don't want to be offensive but these statements leave me perplexed. In the first post you assert the right to be offensive by publicly deleting a copy of the Koran to demonstrate that it is not the word of God. While that is a right protected by our concept of free speech, it really doesn't prove anything. I would submit to you that any religious work can be deleted without a deity stopping the process. This would include the religious text you seem to prefer - the Christian Bible. If I were to delete a copy of the Bible would it make you less likely to accept it as the word of God? If you think that isn't the case, why would you expect by this act of public deletion to show any believing Muslim that the Koran is not the word of God?

Originally Posted by terrazoids

Well what do you think? I did state that it wasn't written by God. But this book is obviously incomparable. Its in another category. Its self evident that on the one hand hand you've got all these other books... and on the other the One. Hey.. just like the Word of God!

You have used the words "incomparable" and "self evident" to bolster your assertions about the religious text you prefer. Have you read the other texts? Why are they not comparable? The Koran is a holy text to one third of the human race. I find the words of the "Tao Te Ching" to be very moving. Any text that helps you connect with the divine (however you define that term) is helpful in confronting the complexities of life. But you need to be aware of the context in which it was written as demonstrated elsewhere in this very interesting discussion. I am glad you find comfort in the text you prefer. Try not to be so dismissive of the beliefs of others.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by EatingPie

You had me up till that last sentence there. If they were "virtually unanimous" then the scholars who chose the Canon would not have included it. No?

But the main thing is that your statement is a logical fallacy. It can't be proven true or false. How do you show something is "virtually unanimous."

There would be no logical fallacy if it were true that all but a very few doubted if it's authenticity, but I must nevertheless ask your forgiveness and admit to a bit of hyperbolic language in my earlier post. In truth, the authorship of Ephesians is still in dispute. What I should have said is that most critical scholars reject Pauline authorship. To quote Ehrman from the syllabus to his NT course, "With Ephesians, there is less debate. Most critical scholars are fairly persuaded that Paul did not write it." And again, "Was Ephesians written by Paul, then? There is still debate, but most critical scholars think not. If it was not written by Paul, then it was likely written by a follower after Paul’s death."

Metzger disagreed on linguistic and historical grounds, but even he admitted that Philemon, James, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John do not appear in the works of Clement.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

There would be no logical fallacy if it were true that all but a very few doubted if it's authenticity, but I must nevertheless ask your forgiveness and admit to a bit of hyperbolic language in my earlier post. In truth, the authorship of Ephesians is still in dispute. What I should have said is that most critical scholars reject Pauline authorship. To quote Ehrman from the syllabus to his NT course, "With Ephesians, there is less debate. Most critical scholars are fairly persuaded that Paul did not write it." And again, "Was Ephesians written by Paul, then? There is still debate, but most critical scholars think not. If it was not written by Paul, then it was likely written by a follower after Paul’s death."

According to the "Oxford Bible Commentary" (my personal favourite commentary), the consensus of scholarly opinion is that it was most likely written by a "second generation" follower of Paul.

[vugtitan]

Originally Posted by AprilHare

There has been controversy recently in the press (and parts of the the rabidly religious world) about people burning the Koran (and other religious books).
Would you delete a copy of the Koran from your liseuse?
Do you believe it would resonate as badly as burning a paper copy of the book?

hello April Hare.

if you are going to delete it you must put up on youtube your proclamation as to the date and time at least a month ahead.

And inform the press so they can film you do it.

put your finger over the delete button on the youtube video.

this way you will guaranteed at least a month of fame and you could down in history as a koran deleter.

also write a speech how you are doing this to help the war on terror.

you might even get sponsorship deals and interviews,even your own chat show if you have any talent.please pay me 10% of your net revenue for this idea.

[terrazoids]

Originally Posted by JimKal

I don't want to be offensive but these statements leave me perplexed. In the first post you assert the right to be offensive by publicly deleting a copy of the Koran to demonstrate that it is not the word of God. While that is a right protected by our concept of free speech, it really doesn't prove anything. I would submit to you that any religious work can be deleted without a deity stopping the process. This would include the religious text you seem to prefer - the Christian Bible. If I were to delete a copy of the Bible would it make you less likely to accept it as the word of God? If you think that isn't the case, why would you expect by this act of public deletion to show any believing Muslim that the Koran is not the word of God?



You have used the words "incomparable" and "self evident" to bolster your assertions about the religious text you prefer. Have you read the other texts? Why are they not comparable? The Koran is a holy text to one third of the human race. I find the words of the "Tao Te Ching" to be very moving. Any text that helps you connect with the divine (however you define that term) is helpful in confronting the complexities of life. But you need to be aware of the context in which it was written as demonstrated elsewhere in this very interesting discussion. I am glad you find comfort in the text you prefer. Try not to be so dismissive of the beliefs of others.

I didn't make the claim that the bible is actually the word of God. I don't believe it is. My point is this. In these times theres a whole lot of trouble being caused by a few folks from the Islamic community. I don't think they represent the Islamic community entirely, but their actions are bringing out some problems that were hiding under the floorboards for a few hundred years. Why do those guys over there think that they can chant "Death to America!", "Death to the Pope!", burn our flag, burn our religious texts, without us making so much of a peep of protest?! And then when one guy over here comes out and says hes going to do a Koran burning to give em something of there own medicine.... suddenly ...oh we can't because it would upset them too much... oh, they believe the Koran was written by God so its a sin to burn it... oh yeah, they're so sensitive! I don't see rallies in America every week threatening Koran burning... this was a one off.

And the problem is this. In Islam its believed that Gabriel dictated the Koran to Mohammed on Mt. Ararat in Arabia. No... Mohammed didn't make any of it up, oh yeah... it was dictated by an agent of God! So according to them, while its ok to burn the Bible or any other book for that matter, its not ok to do so with the Koran cause its unique. Incidentally this goes hand in hand with another belief that states that Muslims accept 'people of the book' ie Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians ect. but only if the Islam has political and legal authority in any given society. Well... I speak for everyone in America when I say .... Yeah right!! Over my dead body! See ... if they really accept us they wouldn't need to be in control! Anyway... tough luck pals... aint gonna happen.. ever.

So if you deleted the Bible, I wouldn't have a problem with that, such an act means nothing to me. The Bible is a compilation and account of Gods activites in this world, and includes the ancient accounts up to the point when He sent his son to save us( and a few things after that). This makes the Bible incomparable and a special compendium of knowledge. It deals with the most important things in life. Now muslims say that Mohammed was a prophet. They say Jesus was not the son of God but a prophet too, and thats how they claim superiority for their religion. Gee... kind of reminds me of that guy who claimed he spoke to Gabriel right here in America and then formed a sect based of it.

Look folks, with the coming of Jesus the game plan changed! Theres no need for prophets anymore, and there will never be any more. So Mohammed was not a prophet. Mohammed wrote the Koran, and while some of the information in it is correct and taken from the Bible, other stuff is literature, and 'different' versions of biblical stories.

So look... heck I'm not into book burning. I don't want to routinly burn books like the Koran anymore than I want to burn the Lord of the Rings . Literature and ideas is sacred too... but in this case a one time public act shows these people that we aint afraid to stand up for ourselves. And we aint afraid of Jihad or the Koran. Yeah.... you're right in this country we've got free speech so the citizens can decide what speech actions to take. If you're raising a kid and that kid keeps throwing temper tantrums ever time you don't give him a candy bar, do you say... oh no better not make him mad... hey, heres your twix! No way! You say, sorry, thats not how do things. And guess what... the kid eventually learns its pointless and focus on other things.

See... I don't think that what I'm saying is really offensive at all. Its a call for a protest at the extreme behavior levelled at us. And this kind of behavior gives terrorists the backing they need.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by vugtitan

you might even get sponsorship deals and interviews,even your own chat show if you have any talent.please pay me 10% of your net revenue for this idea.

Don't forget to refer 10% of the assassins to him as well....

[terrazoids]

Originally Posted by vugtitan

hello April Hare.

if you are going to delete it you must put up on youtube your proclamation as to the date and time at least a month ahead.

And inform the press so they can film you do it.

put your finger over the delete button on the youtube video.

this way you will guaranteed at least a month of fame and you could down in history as a koran deleter.

also write a speech how you are doing this to help the war on terror.

you might even get sponsorship deals and interviews,even your own chat show if you have any talent.please pay me 10% of your net revenue for this idea.

If it was done publicly, it would resonate as bad.

[EatingPie]

Originally Posted by HarryT

WT Sharpe is of course referring to modern scholarship. The ancient scholars who selected the NT canon did not have access to the tools of linguistic analysis that are now available. A person's choice of grammar and vocabulary is as distinctive as a fingerprint.

Yes I know. But, once again, WT Sharpe's statement is a logical fallacy. You cannot prove "virtually unanimity" of anything -- or any other statistical amount, even a majority (which I would highly doubt anyway).

He used the word "virtual" because he could not say "unanimity," as it only takes one citation to refute that (and I've already provided it, by citing Bruce Metzger).

It's a phrasing that made his argument sound strong. But in logical sense it is completely and utterly unsound.

-Pie

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

According to the "Oxford Bible Commentary" (my personal favourite commentary), the consensus of scholarly opinion is that it was most likely written by a "second generation" follower of Paul.

The Oxford Bible Commentary looks good. Here in the States, the hardcover runs $50.37, but my wedding anniversary is coming up in a couple of months, so I think I'll ask the wife for that. A related work, The Oxford Companion to the Bible, is co-edited by Bruce Metzger. Our Pie Eating friend (Shoutout: Hi, EP! ) should like that, but it's even pricer at $58.86.

I already have the New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha, Augmented Third Edition, and it's a wonderful study Bible.

As soon as I hit the lottery, I'm going to spring for a complete set of Anchor Bible Commentaries. Should be any day now.