Im sorry I get frustrated dealing with so much apologetic fanaticism.
Apology accepted, and I apologize for reacting to perceived arrogance.
That's why I was specific to historical criticism.
I never stated you were completely uneducated. You just lack NT historical knowledge, as well OT.
Ridiculous. My class on Paul at Harvard with Laura Nasrallah, Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity was very fair across the board, and was not centered in bias as you describe. Your factually in error here, and if you did study you would know this.
Yale on the NT is historical under Dale B martin who is well respected, was not biased either.
It is pretty pathetic and desperate on your part to talk down to credible historical classes because you refuse modern education and knowledge.
"modern education and knowledge" that denies the Resurrection is revisionism and there is nothing credible about it.
Reality is that there was no Exodus or creation, Abraham, Moses, and Noah, are literary creations. This leaves Jesus in a book that is known to produce mythology. Its not even up for debate. The NT gospel authors are unknown at this time, and no eyewitnesses wrote any part of the NT.
I'm glad you don't say Jesus didn't exist. Reducing His words and actions to myth is a belief you hold, it ignores the legacy that He left.
You denounce through faith, not education or knowledge. I can accept that.
But all it takes is a simple statement from you that is, it is my personal opinion, that would solve everything. His historicity as written makes no difference.
Faith is compatible with reason, faith without reason is dangerous. I denounce nothing based on faith alone. Your faith is based on education and knowledge, the foundation of your belief system. My faith is based on sound intellectual principles, contrary to the straw man mantra of "blind faith" we get from atheists.
FACEPALM.
Does not denounce a word I have written, unless you completely lack understanding of context of what I said.
Divine covenants, has nothing to do with what has been explained to you.
Divine covenants are historical to 2 world religions, with billions upon billions of people within 3 millennium. If modern scholarship reduces ALL of it to literary creations, then modern scholarship is making extraordinary claims. Sorting out literary forms is the task of the exeget, who needs the historian. Have you ever read
Dei Verbum?
12. However, since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, (6) the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words.
To search out the intention of the sacred writers, attention should be given, among other things, to "literary forms." For truth is set forth and expressed differently in texts which are variously historical, prophetic, poetic, or of other forms of discourse. The interpreter must investigate what meaning the sacred writer intended to express and actually expressed in particular circumstances by using contemporary literary forms in accordance with the situation of his own time and culture. (7) For the correct understanding of what the sacred author wanted to assert, due attention must be paid to the customary and characteristic styles of feeling, speaking and narrating which prevailed at the time of the sacred writer, and to the patterns men normally employed at that period in their everyday dealings with one another. (8)
But, since Holy Scripture must be read and interpreted in the sacred spirit in which it was written, (9) no less serious attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture if the meaning of the sacred texts is to be correctly worked out. The living tradition of the whole Church must be taken into account along with the harmony which exists between elements of the faith. It is the task of exegetes to work according to these rules toward a better understanding and explanation of the meaning of Sacred Scripture, so that through preparatory study the judgment of the Church may mature. For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God. (10)
13. In Sacred Scripture, therefore, while the truth and holiness of God always remains intact, the marvelous "condescension" of eternal wisdom is clearly shown, "that we may learn the gentle kindness of God, which words cannot express, and how far He has gone in adapting His language with thoughtful concern for our weak human nature." (11) For the words of God, expressed in human language, have been made like human discourse, just as the word of the eternal Father, when He took to Himself the flesh of human weakness, was in every way made like men.
Does any of this conflict with what they teach at Yale, Harvard or Princeton? Do you think Dei Verbum is based on myths and legends? Maybe we should collaborate on a historical board game and make lots of money. Then I can spend the rest of my life sipping Pina Coladas on a warm beach.
Sorry not my cup of tea. I don't read works unless I know the author and it involves a subject I am researching. Like advancing Hengel's work on Hellenistic Judaism.
If you want to research Covenant Theology someday, I recommend the book. Scott Hahn is a world renowned biblical scholar that you never heard of.
Kinship by Covenant - Hahn, Scott W - Yale University Press
I don't even know who this atheist is or if his work is even credible, but I do know if I want apologetics or orthodox theology, I go to the Pope. NOT history.
A wise decision
