Reza Aslan trashes biblical literalism: The gospels are absolutely replete with errors

lynnjcksnjck

Well-Known Member
Let me put this in the simplest form.....:doh:


Religious scholar Reza Aslan blasted the idea of “biblical literalism” — the core belief of fundamentalist Christianity — by noting that the Bible was full of contradictions and historical errors.

Aslan said during a February address to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council that people mistakenly believed Christians had always interpreted the Bible as historical fact. The idea of biblical literalism is actually only about a century old, he explained.

“I think the best skill that we can learn is how to read the gospels,” he said in video uploaded to YouTube last week. “We come from a world in the 21st century in which we assume that Biblical literalism, the notion that the Bible is literal and inerrant, is just sort of an inherent part of belief in the Bible. It isn’t. The concept of Biblical literalism, in the 2,000 year history of the New Testament, is a little more than 100 years old.”

“Let me just say that one more time: in the 2,000 year history in which the gospels have existed, the idea that what you are reading in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is literal and inerrant is a little more than 100 years old. It was the result of a very interesting movement, a backlash to Christian liberalism and the Scientific Revolution at the end of the 19th century by a group of American Protestants who began a movement that was launched by a series of tracts that were written called ‘The Fundamentals’ and that is where we get the term ‘fundamentalism’ from. It’s a very new phenomenon.”

Biblical literalism is a poor way to interpret the Bible, Aslan continued, because the holy book is full of contradictions.

“I’ll put it in the simplest way possible: the gospels are absolutely replete with historical errors and with contradictions. The gospel of Matthew says that Jesus was born in 4 B.C. The gospel of Luke says Jesus was born in 6 A.D. That’s ten years difference! Which one was right?”
Aslan said the fathers of the early Christian church certainly didn’t read the gospels as a collection of historical facts

“Now, let me ask you a much more important question than which one is right: do you think that the Church fathers who in the 4th century decided to put both Matthew and Luke in the canonized New Testament didn’t bother to read them first? They didn’t notice that they have different dates for Jesus’ birth? They didn’t notice that the gospel of John absolutely contradicts the entire timeline of Matthew, Mark, and Luke? They didn’t notice that there are two completely different genealogies for Jesus in Matthew and Luke? Of course they did! They didn’t care, because at no point did they ever think that what they were reading was literally true.”

Early Christians were more concerned with the spiritual truth revealed by the story of Jesus than the verifiable facts about his life, Aslan explained.

“We think that truth and fact mean the same thing. Indeed, science tells us, ‘that which is true is that which can be factually verified.’ But that’s not what the ancient mind thought. They were not as interested in the facts of Jesus’ life as they were in the truth revealed by Jesus’ life. When they constructed these stories about Jesus, and I mean that quite literally, they constructed these stories. If you asked them, ‘Did this really happen?’ they wouldn’t even understand the question. What do you mean did this really happen? You’re missing the point! The point isn’t ‘Are these facts true?’ the point is: what does this story reveal about the nature of who Jesus is.”
Reza Aslan trashes biblical literalism: The gospels are absolutely replete with errors
 

maryrae

Well-Known Member
Where's the exploding smiley when you need it??!
:pin Doesn't he :read: his:bible: ????? :frust:
All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 2 Timothy 3:16

What could be plainer than that?
 

Kist

Well-Known Member
Funny how he mentions the early church actually saw it as a spiritual thing. And he's right that some did, he just forgets to mention that, arguably the most important preacher after Jesus went to heaven, you know Paul, slammed people that made that distinction. I don't know, but Paul seems more like an authority on what the early church, and the current day church, aught to believe and teach than some deluded man. Claiming himself to be wise mister Aslan became a fool. A lot of that seems to be going around lately. The big problem with current day religious scholars is, they forget to be humble. Not read much of Jesus words either I suppose. There is no wisdom but for the Wisdom of God, and you will not get the Wisdom of God unless you humble yourself before His throne. These days, people think they can argue with God, that is not being humble, that is being prideful and elevating yourself to the status of god. It's also buying yourself a one way ticket to destruction.
 

Micki

MARANATHA!!
Back when our Savior was born the years 4 B.C and 6 A.D. didn't exist. In fact, I've never even noted any specific Hebrew year mentioned in any Gospel. The early church definitely believed in Sola Scriptura. It's apparent Reza Aslan's dissertation is replete with contradictions and historical errors.
 

lynnjcksnjck

Well-Known Member
Back when our Savior was born the years 4 B.C and 6 A.D. didn't exist. In fact, I've never even noted any specific Hebrew year mentioned in any Gospel. The early church definitely believed in Sola Scriptura. It's apparent Reza Aslan's dissertation is replete with contradictions and historical errors.
:pound::pound:
 

Hol

Worships Him
What a shame. When I first began going to church in 2009, a very kind Presbyterian pastor allowed me to simply attend Wednesday Bible studies (though not a member or ready to spend my Sundays in a stuffy old church building). They use a study called Kerygma. The Holy Spirit worked on me, and in year two, I sensed something was wrong. I searched the USA Presb. website, studied their papers, and thought it was only in my head. Finally the Lord led me to modern church history where the word 'fundamentalist' was first coined for those who were battling to keep the Presbyterian church out of liberal hands. It was a sermon delivered in NY by a man named Fossick (I think -- maybe Henry M.?). His sermon was titled, Shall the fundamentalists Win? Anyhow, the Lord delivered me (now I attend a fundamentalist Calvary Chapel). It is an important chapter in our modern history. His Word is truth, and those of us who are sitting at His feet can not deny how historically real all of His Word is, and His Word will accomplish all He intends.
 

lynnjcksnjck

Well-Known Member
Franklin Graham Slams Muslim Service at National Cathedral

The Rev. Franklin Graham, son of "America's Preacher" the Rev. Billy Graham, has slammed the Washington National Cathedral for allowing Muslims to hold their first prayer service there Friday.

On his Facebook account, Graham wrote, "Tomorrow, the National Cathedral in Washington, D.C. — one of the most prominent Episcopal churches in America — will host a Muslim prayer service to Allah.

"It’s sad to see a church open its doors to the worship of anything other than the One True God of the Bible who sent His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, to earth to save us from our sins.

"Jesus was clear when He said, "I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me" (John 14:6)."

The Muslim prayer service, called a "Jummah" or Friday call to prayer, was hosted by Ebrahim Rasool, the South African ambassador to the U.S., who is Muslim, and the Rev. Canon Gina Campbell, pastor of the cathedral, in cooperation with the All Dulles Area Muslim Society, Council on American-Islamic Relations, Islamic Society of North America, Muslim Public Affairs Council and The Nation's Mosque, Christian Today reported.

Muslims, in two separate groups, men and women, doffed their shoes, spread their prayer rugs facing east toward Mecca, turning their backs on the crucifix in front of the chapel, knelt and prayed.
The Rev. Campbell said the cathedral was a "place of prayer for all people," adding, "Let us stretch our hearts and let us seek to deepen mercy for we worship the same God."

However, the Rev. Graham disagreed strongly, as did Christine Weick, 50, from Michigan, who rose in the midst of the prayer service and shouted, "Jesus Christ died on that cross. He is the reason we are to worship only Him. Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior. We have built … allowed you your mosques in this country. Why don’t you worship in your mosques and leave our churches alone? We are a country founded on Christian principles."

She was escorted from the cathedral and turned over to police, who took her outside and let her go without charges.

The Rev. Gary Hall, dean of the cathedral, told the Washington Times, "If we could inspire those of us who are not extremists to find a way to be together … we could begin to build something that will bless us, bless our children, bless all the people on the earth."

The Rev. Campbell told the Times, "We here at the cathedral have embraced a steep challenge to grow in our identity as a house for people. This prayer marks a historic moment. This prayer symbolizes a grand hope for our community. As we get to know each other, more bridges are built and there is less room for hate and prejudice to come between us."
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com Franklin Graham Slams Muslim Service at National Cathedral
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
 

araj54

Well-Known Member
The Rev. Gary Hall, dean of the cathedral, told the Washington Times, "If we could inspire those of us who are not extremists to find a way to be together … we could begin to build something that will bless us, bless our children, bless all the people on the earth."
There is a way Mr. Hall, point them to the cross of Jesus Christ. What you build apart from Jesus Christ will fail, just as it always has. But of course Mr. Hall is probably including bible believing Christians in the extremist element. :tsk:

Galatians 1:8,9,10
…8But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! 10For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.
 

AndyM

Saved by the grace of God through Jesus Christ
And who is she to make such a blunt comment for she is only human. Oh how the Lord looks down on such small sinful minds. Praying she sees the light of salvation for she will regret this belief.
 

DanLMP

Well-Known Member
Either

1) Our Father COULDN'T make the Bible his inerrant word. Then he is not omnipotent.
or
2) Our Father WOULDN'T make the Bible his inerrant word. Then he is a deceiver.
or
3) The Bible is our Father's inerrant word and needs to be understood with help from the Holy Spirit.

Choose.
 

dave-o

Well-Known Member
It seems that every few years now someone pens a new "Bestseller" painting Jesus as nothing more than a nice man who set a good example for people by runnung around doing good deeds.

I have no need to read his stupid book to know that he'll claim that there is no evidence that early Christians believed that Jesus walked out of that grave.

Sorry Mr. Aslan but I KNOW that He did and such knowledge cannot be obtained from merely reading words on paper.
 
Last edited:

WKUHilltopper

Well-Known Member
Aslan said the fathers of the early Christian church certainly didn’t read the gospels as a collection of historical facts
I agree. They didn't read them. They wrote 'em--mostly from eyewitness accounts. I guess this guy, among other things, is a time traveler and just knows stuff, eh?
 

David T. McKee

Jesus is Truth
The idea of biblical literalism is actually only about a century old, he explained.
Ahem... Once again we have a "scholar" so called who apparently is unable to do simple math.

I have on my bedside stand a copy of the Geneva Bible, printed in 1560, and reprinted in 1599. As I count it, that is more than 100 years (which would be 1914). In fact that is 415 years. From the footnotes in this Bible I see that the people who printed and commented on it believed it to be absolutely true (regardless of what their personal interpretations of it was).

So.... another crackpot.
 

Micki

MARANATHA!!
Crackpot. Liar. Either or both work, but the best description for this person is "agent of satan".
 
Top