Interpretation the Trinity is polytheistic

[JonathanL]

Cresswell’s work is well researched and very interesting. He has also written for the Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism, published by McMaster Divinity College. Nor is he the only academic working in this area.

If you are all trying to insinuate that this is an unreliable work then I recommend you read it for yourselves and then decide. You may not agree with his conclusions or theories but that is another matter.

I'm trying to insinuate that based on the credentials of Cresswell, the sensationalist claims of the blurb/summary on amazon and the information found on the website about the book, anyone who was interested in the field of textual criticism and scribal corruption would be far better served to read books by actual experts in the field, or as you refer to them those other "academic [scholars] working in this area" . If someone was interested in reading about a field of study the last thing I would do is recommend a book written by someone without the proper education and training in said field.

If someone wanted to read Cresswell's book they would probably benefit from reading about/studying textual criticism from actual experts in the field beforehand, so that they would be more equipped to accurately judge the arguments and conclusions that he brings to the table.

[Christian3]

As far as I can tell it seems to have gone by largely unnoticed by scholars in the field of textual criticism in general. They do not seem to have interacted very much, if at all, with Cresswell. I'm trying to come up with a reason why someone should even consider buying this book, but I'm not really coming up with any reasons that would be good enough. If someone wanted a to read a book about textual criticism that tried to argue for significant and impactful scribal corruption (intentional and accidental) one would be far better served reading something from Ehrman, because even if he tends to overstate his case on occasion, at least he's an expert in the field.

You can hear some of Cresswell's thoughts here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRv0jgkZ8GE

A real textual Anayslist would make mincemeat of this guy, which is probably why he hasn't debated one.

[Christian3]

Why?

Isn't it obvious?

I do not "believe they are true". Unlike yourself mine is not a matter of faith. However, I hold that the various academic works I have cited in recent days make valid points.

I was an atheist for a very long time. I studied Christianity from an academic approach, starting with "is there a God".

I read every attack against Christianity that I could find.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I would call it an incarnation. How a first century Galilean Jew (ascetic or not) would regard it

That is what the flesh and blood man behind the Jesus of the four canonical gospels was.

would depend partly on whether they responded positively or negatively to the words of Jesus, and partly on how exactly they understood those words.

I suspect the words of Jesus, the man of God, warning of the End Times and exhorting his fellow Jews to repent, sell all they had, give the proceeds to the poor, and then follow him, would indeed have had some effect. All the rest is another matter.

My "bungling" was based on a reasonable inference that you were speaking mainly about religious beliefs because that's what the context of your posts so far was suggesting.

Yet not precisely in what I wrote at that point.

True, and it cuts both ways (and I'm not saying you're claiming otherwise Secular/non-believing NT scolars are no less likely to be biased in their conclusions than their religious peers.

There are some very polemical works available, I would not dispute that.

However, many NT scholars [at least those I have read] even if they hold religious beliefs [and that includes Judaism] wear those beliefs lightly and do not [generally] allow their personal beliefs to affect their academic comments.

[JonathanL]

You can hear some of Cresswell's thoughts here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRv0jgkZ8GE

A real textual Anayslist would make mincemeat of this guy, which is probably why he hasn't debated one.

I'm 3 minutes and 22 seconds in and I already want to bang my head on my desk in frustration.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Isn't it obvious?

If it was so, I would not have asked the question. What is so special about Wallace and why do you expect Cresswell to have debated with him?

I was an atheist for a very long time. I studied Christianity from an academic approach, starting with "is there a God".

I read every attack against Christianity that I could find.

Important to you though your personal history undoubtedly is, I fail to see its significance here.

[37818]

I can't find any Internet debates between Peter Cresswell and tectual analysts. Do you?

http://www.theinventionofjesus.com/about-the-book/

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I'm 3 minutes and 22 seconds in and I already want to bang my head on my desk in frustration.

He's right on the earliest version of Mark 16. It does cut - for whatever reason - and makes no mention of a resurrection. The writer uses ἠγέρθη not αναστήθηκε.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I'm trying to insinuate that based on the credentials of Cresswell, the sensationalist claims of the blurb/summary on amazon and the information found on the website about the book, anyone who was interested in the field of textual criticism and scribal corruption would be far better served to read books by actual experts in the field, or as you refer to them those other "academic [scholars] working in this area" . If someone was interested in reading about a field of study the last thing I would do is recommend a book written by someone without the proper education and training in said field.

I am not pushing Cresswell as the definitive work in this area but he does make some very interesting observations.

If someone wanted to read Cresswell's book they would probably benefit from reading about/studying textual criticism from actual experts in the field beforehand, so that they would be more equipped to accurately judge the arguments and conclusions that he brings to the table.

I entirely agree. Anyone with an interest in NT studies and paleography should read various authors and cross reference.

Nor is it prudent to repeatedly quote from the same author, as if theirs is the only opinion worthy of consideration.

[JonathanL]

He's right on the earliest version of Mark 16. It does cut - for whatever reason - and makes no mention of a resurrection. The writer uses ἠγέρθη not αναστήθηκε.

My frustration was not about the ending of Mark 16 (and even in it's shorter form it still heavily implies a resurrection), but about his spurious claim that it was the pagan converts who introduced the concept of Jesus dying and resurrecting rather than Jesus' own disciples. As far as we know the belief in and preaching of Jesus' resurrection arose among Jesus' earliest Jewish disciples. Most scholars, though they do not necessarily believe the disciples were correct in their assumption, do believe that the disciples had experiences that led them to believe that Jesus had risen from the dead.

[DesertBerean]

I'm 3 minutes and 22 seconds in and I already want to bang my head on my desk in frustration.

I didn't go through the entire thing but it seems to be the same theme as his article in the Journal.

You go ahead and bang your head..I'll settle for crying.

[Christian3]

I'm 3 minutes and 22 seconds in and I already want to bang my head on my desk in frustration.

Yeah, we can almost feel sorry for the guy.

[Christian3]

I didn't go through the entire thing but it seems to be the same theme as his article in the Journal.

You go ahead and bang your head..I'll settle for crying.

It can bring tears to the eyes.

[DesertBerean]

It can bring tears to the eyes.

Oohhh, be nice.

[Christian3]

If it was so, I would not have asked the question. What is so special about Wallace and why do you expect Cresswell to have debated with him?

Because if he thought his analysis is true, he would want to prove it by debates.

Wallace if a real tectual critic.

Important to you though your personal history undoubtedly is, I fail to see its significance here.

I did my homework.