You say all this yet you post link to such things as an alternative view of the Hebrew Gods or whatever it is called which makes much less sense in comparison to the common viewpoint simply because of your skewed beliefs.
Any course on Christian history will mention
Ebionites,
Marcionism and
Gnosticism, explain their texts, their scripture, their perspectives and philosophy. You can't read anything from the early Church Fathers or 19th century discoveries (like the
Nag-Hammadi library) without stumbling on these groups. If you call that "opinion" you have taken a very distant position than the academic community around biblical history.
Now, calling these movements "wrong" is something else. However, it is a common rule to not take the leading party's position when dealing with ancients and that is what one would do if one held everything the Church of Rome wrote about these alternative groups to be self-evident. The only justifiable position to take, is that there were a disagreement and it's solution was at least partially political.
Not saying htat you are wrong, just saying your beliefs fail to make sense to me based on the ark of the covenant rituals in Exodus 25.
I dunno what Exodus 25 have to do with the history of the gospels or the new testament really. Several early Christian groups rejected the Hebrew religion. Some groups saw the Hebrew God and the Creator God as evil like the Neo-Platonists and their
Demiurge.
There are several vital differences between the New Testament and the Old Testament theologically, such as the behavior of God, beliefs about the afterlife and the spiritual realm etc that played a strong role in the early debate. These politics also play a vital part in the birth of anti-Judaism, which traces still can be found even in modern bibles.
Corwin spoke about Hermeneutics. Knowing real history is important to understand some of the reasoning within the Bible, including understanding the distinction between the Hebrew Religion and the Greek Philosophy and platonic ideas in the Epistles of Paul. What those who claim "The Bible is coherent and consistent" won't accept is that the books of the Bible have history in different groups, different cultures and different political agendas.
I didnt say anything because i could be wrong because I dont have ALL the facts as it is impossible to have all the facts. Because i dont have all the facts there is a chance that i could be wrong. That is the key issue with you. You dont seem to accept the possibility that you could be wrong on the topic at hand.
To the contrary. I am the one who argued against the position that someone can hold the truth and present the "straight scoop" from the first post I made in this thread. I also pointed out the value of having both the "valid" and "invalid" theory in your head at the same time and right from the start take the position "wrong" and "right" then work from there. No historical sources have a 100% right position ever, although there are 100% wrong sources like the
Hitler Diaries and
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. You thus can hold the "truth" that something is "false". We know these sources are fakes, it's true.
I have pointed out the positive habit of changing ones position when more facts are added (and always assume that more facts can be added at any time) and when facts are discarded thanks to new facts proving old facts invalid.
So adapting to new evidence is a very honorable position to me. Rejecting evidence however is inexcusable.
