Fred Phelps Dies

Post Reply New Topic

I wouldn't go quite that far but I agree with the sentiment.

In the sense that he's provided an "enemy" to rally against, I can actually see why. Sometimes, when you're fighting for a cause, you kind of need to have a scapegoat.

Christ in fact fulfilled the law in our place, which meant it no longer had any hold over us.
And as a matter of fact, Christ himself was very critical of the legalists and literalists of his day, because they had put the letter of the law ahead of it's spirit. Christ was one to always put mercy before punishment. When did he ever advocate killing anyone?
And no, I don't take a lot of the OT literally.

How?


Do we come from differing universes where things said are the opposite of their stated word or are you simply refusing to acknowledge what is said below?

Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished Matthew 5:17-18

By saying this Jesus is confirming that if anyone break the law they shall suffer the consequences laid down by the previous prophets.



Well moviefan does, and by what right do you, as a Christian decide what is and what is not the inerrant word of your God?

Rather, he was so extreme most moderates who would not otherwise care, have come out in opposition to his worldview.

Despite saying that, Christ was undeniably critical of the Pharisees who were the fundamentalists of his day, in part because of their literalism. Remember, Christ was criticized for allowing his disciples to pick grain to eat on the Sabbath. He was critical of the Pharisees for hypothetically allowing a donkey or child to remain in a pit if falling into said pit occurred on the Sabbath. Then there's the famous story of the adulteress who was going to be stoned, but Christ interceded for her. To say that Christ didn't put the spirit of the word ahead of it's letter is definitely wrong. I'm sure that the much afflicted and set upon moviefan would agree with this.

I agree with you, infact the most likely truth is that the vast majority of the supposed teachings of Jesus have nothing to do with him, much in the gospels is manipulated or downright forged. That is not my point.

If you are going to be a literalist then you need to read that line from matthew and go back to the OT. The OP is a literalist except in the bits that do not sit well with him. My point is you either take the whole book as of its time, and then from both a scientific and moral viewpoint discard that which is either proven false or immoral by todays knowledge and ethical standards, or you believe the whole thing warts and all.

I do suspect from what I have read on Jesus that he was in todays parlance a conservative Jew with liberal tendencies and he would not have supported Christians not following Jewish Law.

What evidence is there that the Gospels are forged? What surviving documents contradict their accuracy?

Just for starters

Pauline Forgeries

And I would suggest Bart D. Ehrman "forged'

Wikipedia "Forged"

Even Martin Luther and other theologians have questioned if Paul had written all the epistles attributed to him. That doesn't mean that those documents are promoting information that the author knows to be untrue. And it's accepted that Paul had in fact authored part of the epistles attributed to him.
As for Ehrman's Forged, even Wikipedia takes exception of his use of the word, as it's use implies a purposeful misleading of the reader with a document that has been purposely faked. Even Ehrman concedes that's not what he means when using the word "forgery," but rather, he says the Gospels were written by students of the disciples, using the names of said disciples because they were the source of the information.
Or in other words, your implication that the NT is made of of forged documents (using the word "forged" to mean that they are a purposeful misrepresentation or doctored sources) is without merit. Now, if you had documents from the first century that clearly contradicted the NT, perhaps demonstrating the Christ had never taught, or had never died by crucifixion, or hadn't been resurrected, then you could argue that it was indeed a forgery.

Yeah, scholars can disagree on exactly how much is forged but there is a consensus that the bible includes pseudepigrapha. People writing under someone else's name.

Ehrman's argument is that forgery is an appropriate term because we know of ancient writers who took exception to the practice, one who specifically wrote about how to identify forged material in his name, and that the practice was referred to in unflattering terms in the ancient world.

Ehrman is very much saying that its intent was to sway opinion and cites the discrepancy between Paul's earlier view of women and the views expressed in his name later. He specifically argues that these are people trying to win arguments in the early church by using famous names. Joe Schmo of Antioch's name would carry no weight. The Apostle Paul's name carries a bit more.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GwjfUFyY6M[/youtube]Fred Phelps is dead? Time to celebrate! YAY!! !! Since hes not having a funeral a picket at the wbc church is an order as well encouraging the LGBT community to show up outside their church to rub it in! Simultaniously I think Anonymous shoud hack their website again as well!

While I wouldn't wish death on someone, I think the world is a far better place with him gone from it. I wouldn't even stoop to the WBC's level and suggest picketting them over his death. Why ruin your own karma for someone who's dead and gone? Spite is pretty pointless when the person isn't around to see your spite. lol To those saying he should rot in hell or those who say you hope there is a hell so he can rot in it I would say that he probably already lived in his own personal hell. People with happiness and joy in themselves don't live their lives the way he did and if you really stop and think about what his internal environment must have been like for him to be the person he was....well, it's kind of a scary thought. lol So, I think he lived his hell in this life, personally. I hope maybe he finds something else in death.

Incorrect, have you read Forgery? I assume not. He makes a very clear case that much of what is thought to be "written in the name of" would indeed be regarded as a forgery at the time, he also demonstrates that there is little to no evidence of anyones students be they student of disciples or otherwise not accepting authorship for themselves.

The issue at hand here is quite simple, if someone claims false authorship to give a document greater clout then it is of great concern, it means that what is written has no real authority.

To be fair... those documents have no real authority except what people let them have... AND... this is derailing the topic

http://www.policymic.com/articles/85993 ... -protested