'All of the writers of the New Testament were witness to the life, death and resurrection (not resuscitation) of Jesus' - some evidence, please. All the scholarship I've read suggests much was written decades after Christ's death by people (men) who had never met Jesus so relied on notoriously unreliable hand-me-down accounts

Paul was not Jesus but rather a Jewish Rabbi who was a latter day convert who had his road to Damascus conversion post the crucifixion and ascension? And like Constantine, may have been a pretender that merely espoused religious fervor as a means to an end and power?

Inside every man is the god given ring of truth and Paul's words strictly reflected the cultural norms for him, of the day! And not necessarily either the truth or the teachings of a far more inclusive J.C. Who suffered little children (of either sex) to come unto him!

And appropriately stern, if still comparatively gentle, to correct some of the misplaced cultural norms of his erroneous disciples/apostles. And highly placed Rabbis, like Nicodemus!

Paul was a Rabbi and a religious scholar and much of what he taught remained true to his, inculcated from birth, religious/cultural norms! Much of which J.C. was at some pains to correct!

As we should directed by that small still voice or ring of truth within!

Let God chose his bishops rather than misguided men/politicians, regardless of their gender!

And then we wonder why fewer and fewer are turning up at any church at all or for any reason!

[Homophobes, bigots, paedophiles and politicians plainly serving mannon!?]
Alan B

Duncan,
Your are, of course correct, none of the writers of the NT actually met Jesus. The letters attributed to Peter were not by the Peter who denied Jesus three times. When I say that the writers were witnesses to the life, death etc of Jesus I should have said that they were involved in the early traditions regarding him. These witnesses do differ in orientation according to their context. It is out of these differing witnesses that the central thrust of Christianity has evolved. All of the writers were involved in a theological task. They were not just recording angels. This means that, the theology of Mark, being the earliest gospel writer differs substantially from that of John, the last. This difference is a difference of evolution and context. Modern historiography has a problem with this because it has inherited the Enlightenment obsession with "what actually happened." The gospel writers did involved themselves in historical events but they did not stop there, their central role was the interpretation of these events so that they came close to saying who this Jesus is.

So what youre saying sells is that the writers of the bible just made it up as they "wanted" it to be and not as it really was and that we should read into it what we "want" to see and forget about finding about what really happened?
How dishonest and pointless could you possibly be?
Do you care about the truth?
Do you know what the word "witness" means?

This essay clarifies the situation re the religion ABOUT "Jesus" created by Paul. http://www.dabase.org/up-5-2.htm
And thus over time, the religion ABOUT "Jesus" created by the institutionalized church "fathers", who won the "religious" culture wars of their time and place, which thus gave them the POLITICAL power to define the "official" church doctrine.

The dudes who (perhaps) wrote the various gospel texts as consolidated in the "new" testament could only have participated in an already institutionalized version of the life and teaching of Saint Jesus of Galilee.

And of course the "resurrection" never happened.

Sometimes I just love ideology with its minimal thinking involved. It's very suitable for the intellectually lazy!

I was present at an Anglican ordination ceremony and I remember (though not the exact words) that the newly-ordained deacons and priests vowed that "All that I preach will be based on the bible".

Coming to think of it, they did not vow to support or accept each and every verse of the bible. This leaves open the possibility of selectivity, which I think is good, since the bible is a patchwork containing anything from the most holy to the most profane.

Yes Yutustu, and the oldest known bible is in a Munich museum and is a completely different book in both word and substance, from the ancient scribblings relied on today.

On another topic and because some assertions need an informed reply. Our God given instinctive behavior is the result of completely autonomous behavior and has absolutely nothing whatsoever, [like left handedness,] to do with choice!

People that are left handed just are and as the maker made them; and their completely autonomous instinctive behaviour, which like the gender specific sex instinct, is sometimes more powerful than the survival instinct and may still be motiating some of our behavior and normal cravings, right up until the day before we die!

Apologies for straying off topic, but some massively ignorant assertions cannot be left to stand unchallenged!

As far as I'm aware the gay community don't pose a threat to the hetrosexual community. Except in the transmission of a disease bisexually, which needs to be criminalized and treated as attempted murder!

Particularly as a rubber and safe sex practises, would prevent the spread of HIV/aids!

As for other non related issues like paedophillia and child rape I know of no genic cause that would excuse any of this! And would see the (incurable) offenders removed from civil society for the term of their natural lives!
Alan B.

To Peter.

I have to say that your resolve to talk on Christianity in these articles is a refreshing sight among so many voiced views against Christianity and religion as a whole. However I'm troubled by your view of the bible as a general rule. I hope I'm wrong but it seems you say in a few different ways to not read the bible and trust it as it's written.

"To do otherwise, to simply read the bible as if it actually reflected the will of God is to make an idol of it"

"The Evangelicals, who insist on a dumb reading of the bible disregard over a hundred years of historical criticism of biblical texts that gives us valuable insight into the formation of those texts."

To me it seems like your distancing yourself from the bible. If that's the case, I have to ask. What is your foundation of faith based on? What would you recommend the foundation be for those of us who are pew sitters with little or no further study available outside of the bible, or bible studies and books from the book store.

This is a bit off topic from women being bishops, so I apologize. But I think I'd like to know where your coming from with at least a few if your points. If not from the bible where do you recommend a Christian to rely on as the foundation of their faith?

Not_Now.Soon,

Scripture is central to Christian theology. It is the witness upon which everything depends. However, this is not to say that "if it is in the bible it must be true". Are we to accept that the two creation stories really give us an account of how the world came to be? Wellhausen (1844-1918) was one of the first to understand that the bible could not, by a rational person, be taken literally. The subsequent study of the bible has given us a new understanding of its context and objective. This, I would contend, is to take the bible seriously. That is not to say that it is removed from being central to Christian faith. However, it should be read by the community of faith so that it can be properly understood. That is the role of preaching and an educated clergy. The bible is the Church's book. The problem is that Protestantism has overemphasised the piety of the individual. Taking the bible as it reads leads to all kinds of problems that bring it into disrepute in our time and does not serve the modern world.

I think Genesis 3:1 sums up Sells. Did God really say? Sells obviously thinks not leading to many other denials of God's Word.

To Peter.

I get that reasoning, and for a while I accepted it as my own understanding for some scriptures as well. However I think the issue for me is "where do you draw the line?" When Jesus says one thing do we interpret His words to mean something other then what He's said, like we've done with Genesis? Do we rob the possibility of God's power by explaining miracles in the Old Testament to being exaggerations or something else? After all Christians all believe in Jesus dying and coming back to life, healing a few who have passed on, and other healings. Can anything be impossible for God?

The other element at least with the Genesis accounts are context within the bible that reference those accounts. Often they are used as a means to further teach something, but never do they say it in a way to suggest they didn't happen as recorded, or that they have been corrupted over time. I would thing if they weren't accurate a later prophet would say that they were not real events but still for our understanding. Something of that nature that our modern approaches are tempted to say.

Therefore even the Genesis accounts I'm revisiting with a newer outlook then my old one, to wonder on God's power rather then explain it as something else. I would rather my foundation of faith be rooted in scripture to keep me steady, instead of root scripture in the foundation of my interpretations and wavering understandings. I am not that steady of a foundation, neither are hundreds of years of scholar criticisms more sturdy then God's own inspired words. Just my opinions and conclusions.

Not_Now.Soon,
As the hymn tells us "The Church’s one foundation Is Jesus Christ her Lord". It does not say that the bible is the foundation. We must face up to the fact that the bible as witness to Christ requires interpretation. Otherwise we are faced with endless conundrums. To dismiss this all by talking about the unlimited power of God is a bad theological short cut. The reason we train priests and ministers for ministry by training them in biblical studies, church history and systematic theology is that faith cannot be nurtured by the individual reading the bible in a room alone. It takes the whole church to nurture faith, it is an exercise in community.

To quote Hauerwas, "In a world without foundations, the only foundation is the Church."

To Peter.

I agree what Jesus is our foundation. But so us the bible, and so is the Holy Spirit. What is unique about the bible though is that it points to Jesus, and teaches us about both Jesus and God. As Paul wrote to Timothy, all scripture is God-breathed, and good for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness.

It's not that I have an issue with interpretations, or with in depth theology. But they need to have a solid foundation to be their standard. I need to know Jesus's warning to the rich when He says "woe to you" so that I am not caught up in a televangelist's encouragement and persuasiveness that ends with a statement that God will bless me with riches if I give to the televangelist $50+ dollars, or $100+ or even more. There is a damaging theology in Christian perspectives that God promises us to be rich if we have faith in Him or the correct faith. I'm sure that is not the only theology out there that is not based on what the bible has written. So having the bible as the standard to test all other theology is the standard I know that can be reliable. If not that, or if there is another, please let me know. A foundation to be sure of and to steady us, and correct us when we are wrong.

Peter, you said:

[To dismiss this all by talking about the unlimited power of God is a bad theological short cut.]

I don't see how counting God as all powerful is a means to dismiss our interpretation of the bible. I don't mean to say don't interpret the bible. But I'm saying have the bible as the standard our interpretations be measured by, instead of having our interpretations be the standards that the bible must conform to.

Here is the summation of my issue. I will use myself as the example to consider for needing a solid foundation. When you encounter a person who was raised in an environment of more then one religion, but still chose Christianity, what would you offer them or advise them so they can grow in their faith and not be swept away by either Christian theology that is in error; nor by beliefs that are not Christian but of that other religion. What would you offer a younger less experienced me, as a foundation to stay steady and grow from?

Not_Now.Soon,

"But I'm saying have the bible as the standard our interpretations be measured by, instead of having our interpretations be the standards that the bible must conform to."

I think that you have locked yourself into a circle. There is no non-interpretive reading of any text. You will always bring presuppositions to the bible depending upon your theological orientation. While you may be suspicious of theology, we all have a theology even if it is not conscious. There is no neutral reading of biblical texts. So they cannot be treated as some kind of standard. What we have is a grand collection of texts with many different backgrounds that often contradict each other. It is the task of biblical studies and systematic theology to make some sense of it. This process cannot be discarded. If we try, we will end up with our own interpretations that are coloured by our own presuppositions.

As far as advice to the new believer is concerned I would suggest he or she joint a mainline denomination and investigate the theological education of the clergy. Choosing a church is a minefield, but belonging to a church is absolutely essential if there is to be any progress. The alternative is navel gazing.

To Peter.

Being involved in a church is good advise for a foundation. But again what you've written concerns me. Are you saying that the bible can not correct our prepositions? Fellowship and bible study help us understand bible verses, scriptural concepts and applying the teaching we know. All of this is good, including sharing and developing our understanding, our theology. However it is my opinion that there is false theology and false teachings.

By studying the bible our understandings can be corrected. It only can be if we trust God and don't try to choose some verses while ignoring other verses. Where we find conflict in verses I would say trust God anyways and leave the issue with the conflict as an unknown until you better understand it. So far that method has worked well for me, and has allowed scripture to take on a teaching role when it's read or studied in a bible study.

As for the topic of women in leadership. I don't see an issue with it. Women can be just as good in a leadership role as well as a teaching role as men can be. There have been women prophets in the bible, some who prophesied to Paul on his journey to Jerusalem. Esther became a strong character as a queen who through her efforts averted Isrealites from being killed by a king's permission. And one was even a Judge in the times of Judges before Israel had kings.

I don't have an issue with it, but the bible says it clearly in 1Timothy 2:11-15 that women shouldn't have that role, or at least not the traditional role as a teacher over everyone. That might sound sexist, but for whatever reason that still seems to be the standard. This is where faith come in sometimes. Not to hold on to beliefs that we understand and agree with, but even with the things that we don't understand but still trust God on it anyways.

Applying the teaching often is the issues more then understanding them in my opinion. With maturity and growth our understanding grows too. But before understanding them and after understanding them our actions matter quite a bit.