A
Anonymous
Guest
hospitaller said:
He asked that first!
He asked that first!
Hospitaller
Ephemeral Spectre
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2001
- Messages
- 427
- Location
- Ireland
I'm not asking him to tell me which bits are true/false. I'd go to a decent book on the topic if I wanted to know that! I want his opinion on a matter which obviously means a great deal to him!
A
Anonymous
Guest
But how do the people who write the books know?
A
Anonymous
Guest
Is There A Philologist In The House?
I'm more interested in why US Christian Fundamentalists appear to believe the King James I (VI of Scotland) version of the Bible is the only really authorative version. As handed down By God, so to speak.
I've read of it being, perhaps, the best work of poetry ever put together by a committee, but that doesn't seem justification enough, by itself.
I'm more interested in why US Christian Fundamentalists appear to believe the King James I (VI of Scotland) version of the Bible is the only really authorative version. As handed down By God, so to speak.
I've read of it being, perhaps, the best work of poetry ever put together by a committee, but that doesn't seem justification enough, by itself.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Re: Is There A Philologist In The House?
You'd think a real fundamentalist would want to learn Greek, wouldn't you?
You'd think a real fundamentalist would want to learn Greek, wouldn't you?
Off topic
I guess you havent read the evidence for the basis on which the names atributed to the gospels were given...
For starters I find that very ofensive to sugest that such a thing is compleatly untrue just because it dosen't fit with your opinion, althogh I'm not an aithiest I do not go around makeing offensive statements about aithisam, I'm not B***** M********* and do try my best not to offend anyone whos belifs do not match my own and would hope that people would extend the same curticy to me. :sad:
OK rant over, I supose in the iterests of fairness you may like to see the evidence for the gospels authourship.
The following are lecture notes taken from a university couse in religious studies and are mateer of fact and to the point, they are not preachy and are fairly easy to read but as they are lecture notes are rather long so downloading the pages to read them at your leasure if you are interested in the evidences about who wrote the gospels bear in mind also it is dificult to prove either way because so much time but most of the evidence thats given in these links is sound stuff IMO.
Case for John's authourship
Case for Matt's authourship
Case for Mark's authourship
Case for Luke's authourship
Also because it's been mentioned here is a simmilar peice from the same site of the possible authours and cases for thier possible authourship of Revelation.
Hope these links are of interest to those interested in that
Now can we get back on thread this aside is nothing to do with AVs question...
Conners_76 said:
I guess you havent read the evidence for the basis on which the names atributed to the gospels were given...
For starters I find that very ofensive to sugest that such a thing is compleatly untrue just because it dosen't fit with your opinion, althogh I'm not an aithiest I do not go around makeing offensive statements about aithisam, I'm not B***** M********* and do try my best not to offend anyone whos belifs do not match my own and would hope that people would extend the same curticy to me. :sad:
OK rant over, I supose in the iterests of fairness you may like to see the evidence for the gospels authourship.
The following are lecture notes taken from a university couse in religious studies and are mateer of fact and to the point, they are not preachy and are fairly easy to read but as they are lecture notes are rather long so downloading the pages to read them at your leasure if you are interested in the evidences about who wrote the gospels bear in mind also it is dificult to prove either way because so much time but most of the evidence thats given in these links is sound stuff IMO.
Case for John's authourship
Case for Matt's authourship
Case for Mark's authourship
Case for Luke's authourship
Also because it's been mentioned here is a simmilar peice from the same site of the possible authours and cases for thier possible authourship of Revelation.
Hope these links are of interest to those interested in that
Now can we get back on thread this aside is nothing to do with AVs question...
A
Anonymous
Guest
Re: Re: Is There A Philologist In The House?
Oh! I see. You mean the language. Some do. But, only in order to prove they were right all along.
That's a shocking statement, round these parts (Holland) mate! :eek!!!!:Inverurie Jones said:
Oh! I see. You mean the language. Some do. But, only in order to prove they were right all along.
Hospitaller
Ephemeral Spectre
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2001
- Messages
- 427
- Location
- Ireland
Depends on the type of book. John because he was there, for example, whilst Paul was merely writing letters. Apocalyptic literature is based on a visionary experience, whilst the historical books are as different from our idea of history as will be the history of 3045 from ours (Does that make any of these three styles of history less historical? I often balk at the 21st century opinion that we have it all so right). Often we can't say who write the books. And if you think it's all b^llsh1t, hey, why give a f**k?
As for the KJV only heads, I think their idea of inspiration is that not only is the original text verbally (word-for-word) inspired, but that the translation is too.
A
Anonymous
Guest
As I stated earlier, I find it hard to see how anyone believes that the tracts selected by the Councils of Alexandria are the given word of God, same with the Koran, same with the Torah, the same with every 'holy' book I have studied. When viewed as simply philosophical guides then its easy to see how one can be selective and how they can work. You simply pick the underlying concept you like.
To view it as the given word does make it seem that god could have found better chroniclers than he did, if people have to be selective to get the construct to work. And, I posted earlier, RC biblical apologists say that one has to select.
In the end if comes down to faith, I suppose.
Having said all that. Much of religious belief is NOT based on the holy books of any given religion, but more on the commentaries of 'wise men'.
In Christianity's case, therefore, you are working with an interpretation of a translation from aramaic to greek to latin to the native tongue of the commentator, although a lot of Christian religious dogma was written by people fluent in latin. so you're choosing to believe the bit they selected as True, allegorical or filler. Very few choose to see any of it as filler but try and lever it into divine prophecy or unrevealed meaning. So the question is not the infalibility of the book, but of the commentator on the book.
Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
[edit] Excellent set of references there Lord_Flasheart. They will keep me entertained for a few days[/edit]
To view it as the given word does make it seem that god could have found better chroniclers than he did, if people have to be selective to get the construct to work. And, I posted earlier, RC biblical apologists say that one has to select.
In the end if comes down to faith, I suppose.
Having said all that. Much of religious belief is NOT based on the holy books of any given religion, but more on the commentaries of 'wise men'.
In Christianity's case, therefore, you are working with an interpretation of a translation from aramaic to greek to latin to the native tongue of the commentator, although a lot of Christian religious dogma was written by people fluent in latin. so you're choosing to believe the bit they selected as True, allegorical or filler. Very few choose to see any of it as filler but try and lever it into divine prophecy or unrevealed meaning. So the question is not the infalibility of the book, but of the commentator on the book.
Welcome to the Twilight Zone.
[edit] Excellent set of references there Lord_Flasheart. They will keep me entertained for a few days[/edit]
A
Anonymous
Guest
Post-Modernist Tangent
Hospitaller,
Why is this (current) thread more offensive than this thread ? Or for that matter this one ?
Hospitaller,
Why is this (current) thread more offensive than this thread ? Or for that matter this one ?
Hospitaller
Ephemeral Spectre
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2001
- Messages
- 427
- Location
- Ireland
I think it's definitely down to faith Hugo. I also think that (untenable hypothesis ahead, but only way to make my point!) that if every last part of the bible were proven beyond doubt "true" tomorrow, that a great deal of people would still choose not to believe it.
I think that many of those who hold a detrimental opinion of these texts don't base their personal faith (in whatever) on this opinion, but can't help but hold such an opinion because of what they alread believe in. Come on, as if a non-Christian is going to sing the praises of the bible
That's expecting a bit much. What I find surprising is that they even bother thinking about these texts (and go on about them more so than do some Christians I know). One would wonder how sound their faith is when it has to be continually underpinned and reassured in this manner...
When Christianity began there was no "New Testament" - it is not the object of Christian belief, Christ is. The "New Testament" neither proves nor disproves the belief of the Christian, which is a matter of personal faith and experience. Those who would seek to denounce Christianity need to denounce Christ as a person, not mere books.
As for the Councils of Alexandria it wasn't there but at the Council of Trent (1545-1563) that the final selection of texts took place ("New" and "Old Testament"). To say that other Councils decided the canon is not true, Trent had the final say. Yet there are whole "bibles" predating this Council, proof that in pronouncing the canon, a Council pronounced what was already the practice in order to create a legal/official basis for the stamping of "heretics".
I think that many of those who hold a detrimental opinion of these texts don't base their personal faith (in whatever) on this opinion, but can't help but hold such an opinion because of what they alread believe in. Come on, as if a non-Christian is going to sing the praises of the bible
That's expecting a bit much. What I find surprising is that they even bother thinking about these texts (and go on about them more so than do some Christians I know). One would wonder how sound their faith is when it has to be continually underpinned and reassured in this manner...When Christianity began there was no "New Testament" - it is not the object of Christian belief, Christ is. The "New Testament" neither proves nor disproves the belief of the Christian, which is a matter of personal faith and experience. Those who would seek to denounce Christianity need to denounce Christ as a person, not mere books.
As for the Councils of Alexandria it wasn't there but at the Council of Trent (1545-1563) that the final selection of texts took place ("New" and "Old Testament"). To say that other Councils decided the canon is not true, Trent had the final say. Yet there are whole "bibles" predating this Council, proof that in pronouncing the canon, a Council pronounced what was already the practice in order to create a legal/official basis for the stamping of "heretics".
Hospitaller
Ephemeral Spectre
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2001
- Messages
- 427
- Location
- Ireland
I don't find this thread in the slightest bit offensive Hugo! The arrogance/ignorance of some posters is irritating, to no-one's loss but their own! it's quite an interesting thread actually (as much for the underlying psychology apparent than the actual content). Now I must check out the others...
[Edit] just did, interesting, but I have nothing to contribute there! Fortunately I'm not as hung up on Atheism as some Atheists are on Christianity!
The arrogance/ignorance of some posters is irritating, to no-one's loss but their own! it's quite an interesting thread actually (as much for the underlying psychology apparent than the actual content). Now I must check out the others...[Edit] just did, interesting, but I have nothing to contribute there! Fortunately I'm not as hung up on Atheism as some Atheists are on Christianity!
A
Anonymous
Guest
The initial winnowing out of the books that didn't fit with the creed laid down by the Council of Nicea occurred at Alexandria, presided over by St. Athanasius and St. Eusebius of Vercelli IIRC. As you say the Trent Council was the finalisation of the book, but it was something that was forced on the church due to dissension from Luther, rather than a final codification. The changes between the book that was produced from Alexandria, which largely execrated the Gnostic gospels and the one which emerged from Trent are pretty much as you say, but in terms of content of what became the RC version of the NT, is minimal.
Hospitaller
Ephemeral Spectre
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2001
- Messages
- 427
- Location
- Ireland
Emperor Zombie, I agree 110%!
A
Anonymous
Guest
Adrian Veidt said:
Well, there's good evidence for some parts being literally true, and good evidence that some parts aren't. In general, I think you'll find that the older parts are pretty much fable, while the newer parts are pretty much history. You've got to recall that the oldest parts were kept as oral histories for ages before anyone ever wrote them down. Just because something didn't literally happen doesn't mean that it can't impart a spiritual lesson, though. The details of what physically occurred might be changed or forgotten, while the spiritual truth (or allegory) remains.
Beakmoo
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2001
- Messages
- 2,968
Because we're Forteans, it naturally interests us. All belief systems interest us, and this is the one that's "in our face" in our daily lives. We've not been subjected to the Book of Mormon much in London,hospitaller said:
If we were in Utah, no doubt we'd be "bothered" by that. (For "bothered" read "interested").I'm very interested now that you seem to feel so threatened by AV's enquiry.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Re: Off topic
but that's the point, I have read the evidence, extensively. As I say in my post, I don't expect people to accept my points without reading up for themselves. I've include some salient facts and pointed anyone interested in vaguely the right direction.
I'm sorry my post upset you, Oll, but I don't see why you're making it a personal issue: I'm just stating my point emphatically, and I wasn't rude about it. I could take offence at your unfounded accusation that my views are coloured by personal prejudices, and that the only reason I disagree with what you said is because I have a predetemined opinion on the matter.
There's a reason why I'm saying that the gospels weren't written by the guys whose names are on the cover: because of the overwhelming historical evidence that shows when, how and where the names were tacked on.
Your links looks very interesting though, I'm looking forward to tackling them now.
I do believe that this subject is on-thread, because Adrian's initial question was sufficiently broad in scope that it was bound to stir up debate about individual aspects of the bible, as well as the thing as a whole, but that's for the mods to decide I guess.
Hospitaller: claiming Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the gospels is a meaningless statement. You've no reason to think these people ever existed, and no basis for supposing that they authored the gospels that now bear their name. Pointing this fact out doesn't mean one holds a "detrimental opinion of these text". It just means one doesn't agree with your interpretation of the text.
You find it surprising that non-Christians bother thinking about these texts? Why? Finding out about the origins of soimething that underpinned the laws and culture of so many nations for so long is a fascinating area of history.
Why can't secularists be interested in the bible?
I can certainly imagine why you don't want rational thought applied to its contents and the question of its authorship, but fortunately for future generations, no-one is banned from applying objective analysis to religious tracts.
Lord_Flashheart said:
but that's the point, I have read the evidence, extensively. As I say in my post, I don't expect people to accept my points without reading up for themselves. I've include some salient facts and pointed anyone interested in vaguely the right direction.
I'm sorry my post upset you, Oll, but I don't see why you're making it a personal issue: I'm just stating my point emphatically, and I wasn't rude about it. I could take offence at your unfounded accusation that my views are coloured by personal prejudices, and that the only reason I disagree with what you said is because I have a predetemined opinion on the matter.
There's a reason why I'm saying that the gospels weren't written by the guys whose names are on the cover: because of the overwhelming historical evidence that shows when, how and where the names were tacked on.
Your links looks very interesting though, I'm looking forward to tackling them now.
I do believe that this subject is on-thread, because Adrian's initial question was sufficiently broad in scope that it was bound to stir up debate about individual aspects of the bible, as well as the thing as a whole, but that's for the mods to decide I guess.
Hospitaller: claiming Matthew, Mark, Luke and John wrote the gospels is a meaningless statement. You've no reason to think these people ever existed, and no basis for supposing that they authored the gospels that now bear their name. Pointing this fact out doesn't mean one holds a "detrimental opinion of these text". It just means one doesn't agree with your interpretation of the text.
You find it surprising that non-Christians bother thinking about these texts? Why? Finding out about the origins of soimething that underpinned the laws and culture of so many nations for so long is a fascinating area of history.
Why can't secularists be interested in the bible?
I can certainly imagine why you don't want rational thought applied to its contents and the question of its authorship, but fortunately for future generations, no-one is banned from applying objective analysis to religious tracts.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Looking at the evolution of this thread to to this point I think an equally interesting question would be:-
Can one be a Christian AND a Fundamentalist?
Looking at what I have gathered empirically by my own probings, and by things posted to this thread, it is apparent that what is fundamental to one person is not necessarily fundamental to another. For me, the divinity of Christ is not essential to following the concepts as outlined and generally accepted as the basis of being a 'good person' within the 'Christian' paradigm. Mostly they're pretty damned good ideas.
Any thoughts?
This, potentially, could be another thread, so mods feel free to split.
Can one be a Christian AND a Fundamentalist?
Looking at what I have gathered empirically by my own probings, and by things posted to this thread, it is apparent that what is fundamental to one person is not necessarily fundamental to another. For me, the divinity of Christ is not essential to following the concepts as outlined and generally accepted as the basis of being a 'good person' within the 'Christian' paradigm. Mostly they're pretty damned good ideas.
Any thoughts?
This, potentially, could be another thread, so mods feel free to split.
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 407
Good post EZ I enjoyed reading that
A
Anonymous
Guest
Bravo EZ
One of the best posts I've read in a long time.
Thank you
One of the best posts I've read in a long time.
Thank you
A
Anonymous
Guest
Hospitalizer:
I have to say that I took ofence to some of your posts. Your claim that athiasts read the bible because they don't have a secure faith? Why do christians then try to understand athiests? Is it because they don't have a strong faith.
I read the bible because it's one of the most inportent books in understanding judao/ christian ethics and therefore in understanding the wester world.
Anyway back to thread:
The bible is not to viewed as historical fact and to beleve EVERYTHING in it (as some do) creats a faith structure wich is self contridictory. The histories have recently had alot of intrest directed towards them and I'm sure there is someone here who can coment on their acurisy far more than I can.
The Psalms are a colection of songs and as such are a self concious atempt to poetisise as is the Song of Songs.
The law books must be taken as red or rather taken as read along with a good comentry. However they are of little practical intrest to contempory christians.
The gospils? They have been discused already.
Paul et al: these are documents pertaning to the policing and formulation of the early church and as such are endlessly facinating if endlesly misinterpited.
Damn I could actualy write an essay on each of the above groups but I havn't got the time (perhaps not the inclanation.)
what's true in the bible? All of it, in it's own way. You don't choose what is true you choose wich truth you apply to each book.
I have to say that I took ofence to some of your posts. Your claim that athiasts read the bible because they don't have a secure faith? Why do christians then try to understand athiests? Is it because they don't have a strong faith.
I read the bible because it's one of the most inportent books in understanding judao/ christian ethics and therefore in understanding the wester world.
Anyway back to thread:
The bible is not to viewed as historical fact and to beleve EVERYTHING in it (as some do) creats a faith structure wich is self contridictory. The histories have recently had alot of intrest directed towards them and I'm sure there is someone here who can coment on their acurisy far more than I can.
The Psalms are a colection of songs and as such are a self concious atempt to poetisise as is the Song of Songs.
The law books must be taken as red or rather taken as read along with a good comentry. However they are of little practical intrest to contempory christians.
The gospils? They have been discused already.
Paul et al: these are documents pertaning to the policing and formulation of the early church and as such are endlessly facinating if endlesly misinterpited.
Damn I could actualy write an essay on each of the above groups but I havn't got the time (perhaps not the inclanation.)
what's true in the bible? All of it, in it's own way. You don't choose what is true you choose wich truth you apply to each book.
Hospitaller
Ephemeral Spectre
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2001
- Messages
- 427
- Location
- Ireland
No offence meant your majesty! Please allow me to clarify myself! I do not believe for a moment that Atheists read the bible due to their insecure faith in no-God. It is evident from some posts I read here from time to time that many posters make flippant sweeping pronouncements on the "bible" without one shred of academic evidence to back up their all-encompassing claims.
Some comment on it in a very similar manner to which my Muslim friend Saeed would do. He too would subtly suggest it's there's something amiss, all the while failing to come out with his honest belief that it's almost all bollox 'cos that's what Islam teaches. His faith was quite secure, indded arrogantly so. Not content with his own wonderful belief system he had to denounce everyone else's, trying to convince them of their error. Some posters (and we can't assume they're all Atheists!) have a similar deport on this board.
I have no idea why Christians in general would try to understand Atheists, or if they do, as a great deal of them (if not most IMHO) have been there, believed that and have the t-shirt.
I agree 99%, adding that "to believe EVERYTHING LITERALLY in it creates a faith structure that is self contradictory". This is not what the authors intended. Some of them had no word for what we mean by "literally", and probably no such concept either.
As for the rest of your comments, I agree with you generally. I don't think the "bible" is of much "practical" use to anyone really. You get American Fundy-types trying to teach leadership and stuff out of it, but they are only using the text to illustrate modern management theory then claim that this is God's Word! The most interesting thing I find about the Jewish Law is that Christ believed that he was its fulfilment, even (if one reads between the lines - and this is where the original languages are fascinating) that he actually was it in the flesh. Like yourself, I could go on.
I like the rendering of my name above, alas I never honed my fighting skills to that extent! I humbly await your royal pardon
Hospitaller
Ephemeral Spectre
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2001
- Messages
- 427
- Location
- Ireland
Oh, there's more!
Interesting idea EZ, and one I'd love to hear more about as I am very much interested in the actual transmission of the text of these books. I get your general jist, but not completely. Does this idea apply to the Hebrew bible used in modern synagogues too or just the "New Testament"? What about pre-Benedictine manuscripts used for modern translations? Again, I'm not sure exactly what you meant...
I'm also interested in the history of monasticism in general so you'd be satiating my desire for knowledge at two-for-the-price-of-one! Thanks in anticipation! Enjoyed your post also, thought-provoking. If everyone believed in the "bible" that would prove a great deal of it wrong straight off!
IMHO you're right Hugo. Belief in the divinity of Christ is not necessary in order to try to be a "good person". I think that the "good ideas" espoused within the "Christian paradigm" are more or less Jewish, and that's what Judaism is about isn't it? (Being a good person, but not believing in the divinity of Christ). Often Christians are slow to realise (or are ignorant of) the Jewish roots of their belief. This is evident in Jesus Christ tying for 13th place with Bill Clinton in a recent American poll for the 100 greatest Americans (please tell me it's a U/L!)
Indeed Conners! What's in a name!?! Jesus wasn't Jesus at all, he was actually called Yeshua! I suppose you're right to an extent, it's the contents that are important. Absolute belief in named authorship isn't a basic Christian belief as far as I'm aware. Some early Christians died before these texts were even widely circulated. Again, it's Christ and not the gospels that are the object of Christian belief, despite what the bibliolaters say.
And objective analysis of such texts is exactly what we need Conners. I suppose a non-Christian could engage in such a task as an amateur (and that's not meant to be derogatory - I'd only be derogating myself for starters!), but where oh where would they find the time for objective analysis!?!? Not to mention the motivation! Really! I've been trying to apply objective analysis to Chapter 6 of "Matthew's" gospel for two months now and I'm only half-way through! Not only does it require experience in qualitative research (where the objectivity of one's analysis is a key issue), but also familiarisation with Koine Greek and the manuscripts on which the various translations are based as well as with the hostory and culture of that time. Objective analysis is needed, but not something that is attained, or should be claimed, lightly.
Not threatened beakboo, irritated, and not by AV. Firstly, if only people wishing to pronounce their belief in whatever would be straight out with it - unlike my mate Saeed (described above). Maybe I'm wrongly attributing his logic to some people here, but there have been posts on the board asking questions about the "bible" and Christianity that are as rhetorical, predictable and worthy of reply as are a politician's. If I felt threatened I wouldn't be here. I do reply to some such posts if only to clarify matters of fact of which my reading has made me aware. Of late I've wondered at the motivation behind such posts... if people genuinely want to find out about these things there's a wealth of literature and sites out there and I'll gladly give references. Alternatively they could go to http://www.beliefnet.com
I come here to discuss matters that remain largely unexplained in academic literature; road ghosts, horses with the heads of men, stick figures darting out in front of cars and Indrid Cold - but I never get a chance!!!
Oh, and you don't know what you're missing if you haven't had the Mormons round yet! Discussing Kolob, Joseph Smith's mummies and sacred underwear is such fun
Interesting idea EZ, and one I'd love to hear more about as I am very much interested in the actual transmission of the text of these books. I get your general jist, but not completely. Does this idea apply to the Hebrew bible used in modern synagogues too or just the "New Testament"? What about pre-Benedictine manuscripts used for modern translations? Again, I'm not sure exactly what you meant...
I'm also interested in the history of monasticism in general so you'd be satiating my desire for knowledge at two-for-the-price-of-one! Thanks in anticipation! Enjoyed your post also, thought-provoking. If everyone believed in the "bible" that would prove a great deal of it wrong straight off!
IMHO you're right Hugo. Belief in the divinity of Christ is not necessary in order to try to be a "good person". I think that the "good ideas" espoused within the "Christian paradigm" are more or less Jewish, and that's what Judaism is about isn't it? (Being a good person, but not believing in the divinity of Christ). Often Christians are slow to realise (or are ignorant of) the Jewish roots of their belief. This is evident in Jesus Christ tying for 13th place with Bill Clinton in a recent American poll for the 100 greatest Americans (please tell me it's a U/L!)
Indeed Conners! What's in a name!?! Jesus wasn't Jesus at all, he was actually called Yeshua! I suppose you're right to an extent, it's the contents that are important. Absolute belief in named authorship isn't a basic Christian belief as far as I'm aware. Some early Christians died before these texts were even widely circulated. Again, it's Christ and not the gospels that are the object of Christian belief, despite what the bibliolaters say.
And objective analysis of such texts is exactly what we need Conners. I suppose a non-Christian could engage in such a task as an amateur (and that's not meant to be derogatory - I'd only be derogating myself for starters!), but where oh where would they find the time for objective analysis!?!? Not to mention the motivation! Really! I've been trying to apply objective analysis to Chapter 6 of "Matthew's" gospel for two months now and I'm only half-way through! Not only does it require experience in qualitative research (where the objectivity of one's analysis is a key issue), but also familiarisation with Koine Greek and the manuscripts on which the various translations are based as well as with the hostory and culture of that time. Objective analysis is needed, but not something that is attained, or should be claimed, lightly.
Not threatened beakboo, irritated, and not by AV. Firstly, if only people wishing to pronounce their belief in whatever would be straight out with it - unlike my mate Saeed (described above). Maybe I'm wrongly attributing his logic to some people here, but there have been posts on the board asking questions about the "bible" and Christianity that are as rhetorical, predictable and worthy of reply as are a politician's. If I felt threatened I wouldn't be here. I do reply to some such posts if only to clarify matters of fact of which my reading has made me aware. Of late I've wondered at the motivation behind such posts... if people genuinely want to find out about these things there's a wealth of literature and sites out there and I'll gladly give references. Alternatively they could go to http://www.beliefnet.com
I come here to discuss matters that remain largely unexplained in academic literature; road ghosts, horses with the heads of men, stick figures darting out in front of cars and Indrid Cold - but I never get a chance!!!
Oh, and you don't know what you're missing if you haven't had the Mormons round yet! Discussing Kolob, Joseph Smith's mummies and sacred underwear is such fun
A
Anonymous
Guest
hospitaller said:
Usually the other way around these days...
As a non-Christian, the bible is only interesting to me from an archeaological point of view: Lots of big battles and semi-mythical shiny things.
Hospitaller
Ephemeral Spectre
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2001
- Messages
- 427
- Location
- Ireland
I suppose one "bible truth" Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, whatever would agree on is the many called/few chosen bit.
I know a few of those too, usually a product either of the American market economic churches or an older pre-packaged religion. Waste of time on their part? Who knows...
Certainly the vast majority of the people I was conveyor-belted through the RC "sacraments" with no longer believe in anything Christian, I reckon. Yet a lot of them then have kids and put them through the same process. It's religion as socialisation really, particularly here in Ireland with history and identity and what have you.
I've come fresh from a long 'phone conversation with a good mate who's an ex-"Born-Again Christian". He's eagerly awaiting tomorrow's delivery of "The History of the Bible as Literature" for which he's shelling out over 100 euros. He's Agnostic, but thinking of becoming a Freemason! Anyway, we discuss spirituality and religion and such like in much depth.
With the benefit of hindsight it is now discernable that what he believed in as a "Born-Again Christian" probably wasn't really Christianity in the original or core sense at all, but the outward profession of some American Christian religion (No offence to "Born-Again Christians or Americans meant - merely telling as it is, or seems!).
He loves the "bible" now as literature, is a positive fan of Tyndale and Wycliffe and is learning Koine Greek. None of this appealled to him when he was a "Born-Again Christian" as the answers were all prepackaged. It was this prepackaged, black & white religion that he despaired of in the end (and woe betide its proponents who now cross his path!), he is now discovering answers for himself, as are we all I suppose...
A
Anonymous
Guest
I really don't see the 'divinity' in any of the books, or certainly no more divine inspiration than, say, in 'It's a Wonderful Life', as was mentioned by a previous poster,but not in that context. As far a lack of knowledge of the Judaic roots of the Christian faith, you are quite right, a lot of people who are Christian either don't know or don't give it much thought. I think your average Jew would say there is a bit more to being Jewish than what you suggest. Its like saying Christians are Jews who believe Jesus was the Messiah, when the tenets of the two religions have parted a long way.
My source was the Harper's Index for March 2003, pulled from the Google Cache but there is a live link to the sources for the March Harper's Index here towards the bottom of the page.
[edit] It appears that Harper's is Ground Zero for this story. Everything else I can find on the subject goes back to Harper's March 2003 [/edit]
Hospitaller
Ephemeral Spectre
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2001
- Messages
- 427
- Location
- Ireland
Indeed! I had no intention of launching into a summary of Judaism in its entirety
Being Jewish is different from other religions in that it's also an ethnic/racial group. Are they (Jews) unique in that regard?Whatever we believe about the divinity of Christ, he certainly believed himself to be God incarnate, (for debates on same go to: http://www.beliefnet.com or read "Was Christ God? by Zodiathes, for starters).
As for the divine inspiration of ancient texts, if we are to believe that the Divine has had a hand in their authorship, it isn't direct authorship as they were patently written by men who, granted, could be said to be "inspired", which in itself is a human idea with many variants.
The same belief system that attributes Divine inspiration to these texts (through the mediation of men: even for the most extreme model - 'verbal plenary inspiration') attributes the unaided creation of nature by the same Divinity. Therefore nature itself is more directly inspired by God than biblical texts or good movies. The latter two, I reckon, all draw on similar ideas (those "pretty damned good ideas") many of which are universal to world religions and secular belief systems.
OVerrated ideas of biblical inspiration often leave casual readers (and even some "believers") disappointed with these books, which turn out to be something not less, but other than they expected. I mentioned it before, but I believe the problem here lies in the elevation of the "Bible" to Quranic status.
Hospitaller
Ephemeral Spectre
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2001
- Messages
- 427
- Location
- Ireland
Thanks for the question EZ, which lends clarity to my point, which I now see I worded badly. If everyone believed in the bible, it wouldn't prove "a great deal" of the text itself wrong. It would, however, prove a basic tenet of the Christian scriptures wrong (and one that I am surprised you are not familiar with, given your previous posts), as illustrated in the following few quotes. I am not one for the one-liners that some Evangelicals bandy about as if they are all encompassing, but given the fact that I don't have the time or the space (or the commission!) to write a book on the topic (which no doubt others have already succeeded in doing anyway), here's a brief outline:
One of Christ's most quoted phrases is the "For many are invited, but few are chosen" (Matthew's Gospel 22:14). Also well known to many who have never read this Gospel is the allegory of the 'narrow gate' from Matthew 7:13-14 - "Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."
And again in Luke's Gospel (13:23-24) - "Someone asked him, "Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?"
He said to them, "Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to"
If the entire populace were to adopt solid beleif in all things biblical tomorrow, quite a nonsense would be made of the above. Not that believing in the text's veracity of itself would "save" them, but what can be safely assumed is that those who reject the Gospels as unreliable are not those referred to therein as entering by the narrow gate.
Also, I look forward in anticipation for some background on the corruption of the biblical text as it stands by the Benedictines. I've learnt a lot on these boards, and hopefully you can add to this
A
Anonymous
Guest
So, are you suggesting some sort of gnostic message, something hermetic, hidden in the text? Something rather dualistic? Many are invited, but in the end, this is an exclusive club? How very elitist.hospitaller said:
Is it proof of works, redemption through acceptance, or begging for forgiveness, or some more arbitary method. Do you have to be good, smart, or 'special?'
Why are people so dismissive of the oral tradition these days? Is it some sort of assumed predominance of the written text?
It is not enough to have faith and belief that the text is true, in every word, it must simply be 'true,' else none of it may be true?
Suspend Ye thine disbelief, all Ye who enter here!