So is it true that Zeus kicked your ass then?
You have confused him with Kronos. Kronos/[symbol]Kronos[/symbol] was the father of Zeus. Chronos/[symbol]Cronos[/symbol] is the personification of Time.
I stand corrected. Thanks.
As opposed to Menthos, who was the personification of Thyme. 
I took you at your word; I thought you really were the anthropomorphic personification of time.
Next you’ll tell me that Diogenes is NOT a cynic.
I’ll never again believe anything that I read, hear over the radio or see on TV is real.
How do they explain Matthew 5:21 - “All your base are belong to us” ?
No, I didn’t know that. On what criteria is your criticism based? (Not snarky, I’d like to know why you believe that.)
I also read Goggle News, Fox News, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, and Al Jazeera although I don’t usually go too much beyond their headline stories.
Just a general Internet meme and observation of the articles, flavors and viewpoints they tend to put forward over the years. I doubt if most people would put the Huff in the same company of the NY Times or Washington Post, although they aren’t Weekly World News, either.
The news they gather and how they frame it has a left-leaning bias and is designed to provoke a reaction. That their news content is intermingled with People Magazine-caliber celebrity scuttlebutt diminishes the former. That they have a history of lending any credence to homeopathy is suspect.
The HuffPo has it’s place, but I put it in the same category as the New York Daily News, rather than the New York Times.
Word. Ehrman is a funny fellow, producing serious Bible scholarship but also churning out books with titles designed to be provocative. Those who pick up the books and read them then find that the contents have little or nothing to do with the title; indeed, according to the definition Ehrman puts forward in this column many of his titles are “lies”. For example, if you only saw the title of Misquoting Jesus: The Story of Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, you’d come away with a highly erroneous impression of what’s in the book. It deals only with the New Testament, not the entire Bible; it says very little about anyone “misquoting” Jesus; the changes under discussion involve only a fraction of percent of the text of the New Testament; and it doesn’t actually tell us “who changed the Bible and why”, but instead gives us only a few speculations.
The particular column linked to by the OP is a definite example of ‘bad Ehrman’ rather than ‘good Ehrman’, chiefly in that it’s not explicating scholarship but just using it as an excuse to bash groups of Christians, as in quote such as “the passage is still used by church leaders today to oppress and silence women”; I know many Catholic and Evangelical women and all would be extremely surprised to learn that they’re being silenced or oppressed. It also errs in a number of other points, such as the el cheapo implication that anybody who disagress with Ehrman on the authorship issue must be a “fundamentalist” who’s uninterested in facts. However, the “all scholars agree with me” claim in this area just doesn’t cut the mustard. (See this threadfor a discussion on gospel authorship.) Furthermore Ehrman is wrong about this:
This is a gross oversimplification of the concept of authorship in ancient times. To associate a work with an author might mean that the author actually put pen to paper and wrote the work, but it also might mean that the author presented it orally and someone else wrote it down, or that the author created some material and someone else added to it, or so forth. This sort of thing was already happening in the ancient world long before Christianity, as for instance with works of Pythagoras that were not actually written by him.
The belief that St. Paul did not write 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus, and that St. John, St. Peter, St. James, and St. Jude did not write the epistles attributed to them is a scholarly consensus, rather than something that is obviously true.
New Testament authors make astonishing assertions about Jesus: most obviously that he performed a lot of miracles, including his own resurrection. These miracles are embarrassing to secular scholars of the New Testament. These secular scholars are attracted to the person of Jesus, or they would be scholars of something else. Nevertheless, they assume a priori that the miracles did not happen. Why? Well because miracles do not happen.
On the basis of this assumption, they place late dates for the Gospels, deny that St. Matthew and St. John wrote the gospels attributed to them, and they deny that St. John, St. Peter, St. James and St. Jude could have written the epistles attributed to them, even though the authors claim to be these saints. If eye witnesses wrote parts of the New Testament, and if they talked to others who did also, the miracles are more likely to have happened.
Secular scholars are most prone to acknowledge that St. Luke, a traveling companion to St. Paul, did write the Gospel According to St. Luke, and Acts, but they give dates as late as after 80 AD for these books.
I cannot read the ancient Greek. I have read the New Testament in several different English translations. St. Paul is generally believed to have been martyred before 66 AD, when the Jewish Uprising began. The Jewish Uprising was finally crushed in 73 AD. It is important in evaluating the New Testament, because it devastated the Holy Lands. It resulted in the destruction of written accounts to the ministry and crucifixion of Jesus. It also resulted in death and dispersal of eye witnesses to those events. Anything in the New Testament written before the Jewish Uprising is bound to be more accurate than anything written later.
From my reading of Acts I cannot see anything in it that indicates that it was written after St. Paul was executed. While reading the Gospels one is often reminded that Jesus is going to be crucified. There is nothing like this in Acts. The book ends with St. Paul experiencing a fairly comfortable house arrest in Rome. The reader has been told that he has broken no Roman laws, and no Jewish laws. Jews visit him to hear about Jesus. He convinces some that Jesus is the Messiah. Others remain unconvinced, but the conversations are cordial. There is no suggestion of approaching doom.
If Acts was written before 66 AD, the Gospel According to St. Luke was written earlier. The Gospel of St. Mark is usually considered by the secular scholars to have been a source for the Gospel of St. Luke. An early date for Luke, and Acts, would mean an earlier date for Mark. This would mean that all three books were written when eye witnesses to the life and death of Jesus were available as sources, and that they were almost certainly consulted.
From Ehrman:
*It may be one of the greatest ironies of the Christian scriptures that some of them insist on truth, while telling a lie. For no author is truth more important than for the “Paul” of Ephesians. He refers to the gospel as “the word of truth” (1:13); he indicates that the “truth is in Jesus”; he tells his readers to “speak the truth” to their neighbors (4:24-25); and he instructs his readers to “fasten the belt of truth around your waist” (6:14). And yet he himself lied about who he was. He was not really Paul. *
There is another possibility that has not been covered. Just as the last verses of Mark 16 and the final chapter, the 21st, of John are strongly considered to be appendages, it’s possible that Ephesians was altered with a claim of Paul’s authorship by yet a third person. Then it would still “contain” a lie, but if the original author wasn’t complicentthe deception, he would be innocent.
ETA: I just recalled that C.S. Lewis was skeptical of the questioning of traditional authorship. He claimed that his writings were sometimes claimed to be the work of other people, based on shifts in style. Perhaps he thought that the only case against traditional authorship was based on style, rather than conflicting content as well.
I always thought Mentos was The Freshmaker.
S/H/B “complicit in the” and I missed the edit window. 
FunnyIthoughtyouweretryingtowriteinthesametextualstyleasIveseenintheoriginalmanuscripts
I thought you were an executioner.
When he says that they are “Not Who We Think They Are,” he’s not talking about who serious Bible scholars think they are; he’s talking about your rank-and-file Christians in the pews.
Most Christians in America think not only that the four Gospels were written by the folks whose names are on the books, they think these were eyewitnesses. Further, they think that all the “Pauline” epistles were written by Paul, and that the other books were written by those who have been traditionally assigned.
For example, the OP, LouisB. He seems to be an intelligent fellow, but just had never been exposed to this info before. The vast majority of Christians are in the same boat.
Goodone.
Both of you are being way too dismissive about the intellectual integrity of many believers. I learned all about this biblical scholarship in college over 20 years ago (private non-religious university) and did not “not believe” it or “hand wave it away.” Neither did my religion professors (who were believers); nor most of the students in my classes, nor most of the clergy I have met in my lifetime - and I am active enough in the church to know dozens of priests.
The fact that the true authorship of many of the books of the Bible are unknown, and in many cases are manifestly not the traditional author, is no more troubling for thoughtful believers than the evidence for evolution or the incosistancies in the Gospel narratives. Educated Christians have known about this for centuries, and Ehrman is just trying to sell books by being breathlessly provocative.
ETA: Upon re-reading I may have misinterpreted Wheelz when he said “believers will believe” which I guess I just proved. My point is the same, though; it’s not by ignorance or intellectual laziness.
Sorry. This is just wrong.
The various examinations of authorship, (typically occurring among religious scholars, not secular scholars), tend to be based on many things, but discarding something because the scholar does not believe in miracles never figures into it.
Let’s take a simple example, the dates of the four canonical gospels. Luke, Matthew, and John are always dated after 70; Mark frequently is. Why? Because they have “foretellings” of the destruction of Jerusalem which was not destroyed until 70. Now, you might wish to claim that the scholars are asserting that the authors could not have known about the destruction of Jerusalem and that the scholars are denying that Jesus could have predicted that destruction. That is not what is going on. Instead, the (mostly religious) scholars realize that had the authors written the predictions of the destruction of Jerusalem before it was destroyed, any audience prior to 70 would have dismissed that gospel as the ravings of a lunatic. Until the actual destruction occurred, (since Jesus is not quoted as having given a date for the event), any “prophecy” would have been seen as nonsense. Thus, a gospel that talks about the destruction of Jerusalem is much more likely to have been written after it was destroyed, regardless whether Jesus actually predicted it or not.
Similarly, other known events are used to date other works. Paul was executed in the early 60s. There is no indication that the church actually had bishops, (episkopoi) or priests or elders (presbyteroi), by the time of his death. There were communities which appeared to lack those offices as late as the second century. It is that sort of analysis that leads to the conclusion that 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, and Titus are not the works of Paul.
Analyses of the other works get more complicated, relating to style, other historical events, the development of the theology displayed in the works, etc. However, it remains true that the vast majority of Christian scholars consider the catholic epistles and about half of Paul’s epistles to be pseudonymous.