navwin » Discussion » Philosophy 101 » religion
Philosophy 101
Post A Reply Post New Topic religion Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space

0 posted 2005-01-18 09:44 PM


just what seperates mythology from religion?

© Copyright 2005 raphael giuffrida - All Rights Reserved
Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
1 posted 2005-01-18 09:55 PM



Quick definitions (Mythology)

noun:   myths collectively; the body of stories associated with a culture or institution or person

Quick definitions (Myth)

noun:   a traditional story accepted as history; serves to explain the world view of a people

Quick definitions (Religion)

noun:   a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
2 posted 2005-01-18 10:02 PM


i know the definitions Huan,

that doesnt answer the question. the greeks had "a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny". temples were built, priests/priestesses and acolytes devoted themselves to them, and yet we now look at it as greek mythology, not greek religion. where was/is the line drawn?

Alicat
Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
3 posted 2005-01-18 10:40 PM


I guess when the cultural dominance of the Greeks went into serious decline, when their own temples weren't safe from native builders.  Much like Egypt, Assyria, Babylonia, and the Roman Empire.
Krawdad
Member Elite
since 2001-01-03
Posts 2597

4 posted 2005-01-18 11:08 PM


"just what seperates mythology from religion?"

That's easy, Raph.
Disdain and sanctimony.

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
5 posted 2005-01-18 11:19 PM


oh i understand that ali, perhaps i should rephrase the question.

what seperates mythological tale from sacred word?

what makes the sumerian account of the flood, mythology, and the biblical version of the flood sacred fact?

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
6 posted 2005-01-18 11:21 PM


grins Ed..
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
7 posted 2005-01-19 12:41 PM


Raph,


Though revelation plays a major role, I would have to say that a literal history (over against mere fanciful story telling) is an equally important part of the difference.


That's at least what I believe sets the Christian faith apart from the older paganism.  I think the Gospel narratives are not easily dismissed like the Greek stories of their "gods".  In fact it's a whole different style of writing.  Consider what C.S. Lewis wrote, concerning this difference, in an essay entitled "Modern Theology and Biblical Criticism":

quote:
... Whatever these men may be as Biblical critics, I distrust them as critics.  They seem to me to lack literary judgement, to be imperceptive about the very quality of the texts they are reading.  It sounds a strange charge to bring against men who have been steeped in those books all their lives.  But that might be just trouble.  A man who has spent his youth and manhood in the minute study of New Testament texts and of other people's studies of them, whose literary experiences of those texts lacks any standard of comparison such as can only grow from a wide and deep and genial experience of literature in general, is, I should think, very likely to miss the obvious things about them.  If he tells me that something in a Gospel is legend or romance, I want to know how many legends and romances he has read, how well his plalate is trained in detecting them by the flavour;  not how many years he has spent on that Gospel.


and


...  I have been reading poems, romances, vision-literature, legends, myths all my life.  I know what they are like.  I know that not one of them is like this.  Of this text (referring to the gospel of John) there are only two possible views.  Either this is reportage- though it may no doubt contain errors- pretty close up to the facts;  nearly as close as Boswell.  Or else, some unknown writer in the second century, without known predecessors or successors, suddenly anticipated the whole technique of modern, novelistic, realistic narrative.  If it is untrue, it must be narrative of that kind.



However, that amazing possibility of a "myth" being written during that time, in the guise of historical narrative, is still a possibility.  Therefore the questions surrounding the veracity of it's history are still to be asked.  It's just that the alternative theories (the reconstructions which would deny the Biblical historicity), don't hold as much weight as the text as they stand, taken at their word.  The reconstructions seem more "mythical" in the sense of creating more historical problems than they solve.


But I do admit, there is also a similarity to "myth" that the Christian faith has which is undeniable.  Lewis himself was drawn to J.R.R. Tolkien's explanation of Christianity as "The myth which also happened to be true".  Both greatly influenced by the beauty and ability of myth to resonate with "truths" in the human heart,  they were drawn to Christian faith not merely because of it's literal and prosaic truth, but because of it's poetic truth.  It seemed for them to ring equally strong in both spheres.  Only in the ancient paganisms, it was always one sphere or the other.


Pardon me for one more quote from "Jack" ... I really don't mean to quote Lewis to death (though I know I quote him more than anyone else), but I just happened to read these things just today about his views on myth, before even seeing your thread.  So I wanted to at least share the main idea of what I read, so well fitted for this thread (at least in my estimation) ...


quote:
Now as myth transcends thought, Incarnation transcends myth. The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. The old myth of the Dying God, without ceasing to be a myth, comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history. It happens--at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences. We pass from Balder and Osiris, dying nobody knows when or where, to a historical Person crucified (it is all in order) under Pontius Pilate. By becoming fact it does not cease to be myth: that is the miracle.


(from the essay "Myth Became Fact")



So some find it is the hardest to believe because it IS so similar to the "ever after" kind of stories they've always wanted to believe, but couldn't.  So similar, in fact, that the marked difference may be missed or skeptically denied.  Oh, but if it really could somehow be true, then there was, after all, some reason we all loved the fairy tales.  There was, after all, a spiritual and soulish reason that we all rejoiced when the hero, having saved the fair kingdom and left the dragon's carcass smouldering in the valley, was crowned with glory and honor.  


Stephen

Alicat
Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094
Coastal Texas
8 posted 2005-01-19 09:48 AM


There is another book which touches on this issue, though it's fiction.  "Small Gods" by Terry Pratchett, one of my favorite fantasy authors.  Though it's part of the Discworld series, it can stand on its own (it doesn't have characters from prior books in the series).

Every culture has or has had deities.  Some, like Greek, Norse, myriad Native American, and Middle Eastern have gods, deities, and heros who are just like the people worshiping them, with the exception that they are a bit 'more'.   Stronger, faster, emotional, vengeful, passionate.  More more and more.  And in due time, they become larger than life, like Jason, Achilles, Hercules, Gilgamesh.  Then there were cultures where again the gods and dieties were more, but they looked different, as in the Egyptian and Hindu cultures, where animalistic qualities were applied, usually as heads on human/humanoid bodies.  Then there were Asian dieties, which (and I could be way off here), started off for the most part as normal people, who rose through the ranks by storytelling and became local and regional deities and gods.

When a religion is tied to a culture, and mimics that culture, and said culture is either amalgamated into another or utterly destroyed, that religion fades from the minds of men.  I recall reading as a child thick tomes on Norse, Grecian, and Celtic mythology, and later Middle Eastern, Asian, Indian, and Southeast Asian mythology in World Lit in college.  Many of those religions had faded into mythology by the 1600, being resurrected briefly by the Enlightenment.  Even Christianity and Judahism have their mythic beings: Saints and Prophets.

Susan Caldwell
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-12-27
Posts 8348
Florida
9 posted 2005-01-19 10:30 AM


Raph,

Do you want me to assume, when answering this, that one/the other/or both is non-fiction?

"cast me gently into the morning, for the night has been unkind"
~Sarah McLachlan~

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
10 posted 2005-01-19 12:30 PM


Stephanos, first let me say i'm glad to see you here as i always enjoy our conversations.

In speaking of literal history, I'll concede you have a point when it comes to Christianity, though, I'd argue you're view that "the alternative theories (the reconstructions which would deny the Biblical historicity), don't hold as much weight as the text as they stand, taken at their word."

But before delving into Christianity, does the argument for literal history apply to the Old Testament? Are these stories to be read as legends/parables or are they fact to the faithful?

If they are to be read as fact, what seperates the Sumerian myth of the Flood, or of creation, from their Biblical counterparts? Why is one myth and one sacred fact despite their similarities?

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
11 posted 2005-01-19 12:36 PM


Yes Susan, you know my thoughts already. I view it all as fiction, but I'm am genuinely curious how or what seperates fiction from non-fiction in the eyes of believers.

As Stephanos mentioned, literal history at least applies, in part, to christianity. But even then the lines are blurred between historical Jesus and sacred Jesus.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

12 posted 2005-01-19 01:54 PM


a suspension of disbelief


Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
13 posted 2005-01-19 02:11 PM


wrong smilie you
that's the one

grins.

LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296

14 posted 2005-01-19 02:53 PM


Perhaps true believers do not have to ask these questions, they just believe...

We as a society tend to be pesimistic...maybe you could ask the same question about love?

Its difficult to define...and yet, you know...and one thing for certain...someone/something had to create all this beauty?  

But then, I suppose, I'm naturally agnostic...whew, looking back, have my beliefs changed.  

I suppose it's all about believing in something, if we didn't what in the world would we have?  


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
15 posted 2005-01-19 07:44 PM




Pascal’s Wager

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
16 posted 2005-01-19 08:53 PM


LeeJ, i think you have to ask yourself these questions, whether you're a true believer or a non-believer. how do you truly know what you believe in without questioning or challenging it. It's why, while i don't necessarily agree with them, i do greatly respect believers like Stephanos.

Huan Pascal's Wager is a rather vague, it doesn't concern itself with any specifics. Believe in God just in case there is one, isn't exactly an argument for or against specific choices which is what i'm seeking here.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
17 posted 2005-01-19 11:22 PM


Whereever you go back into "mythology" you find hints of the daughter "religion" whereever you go forward to "religion" you find hints of the mother "mythology".  That is because mother and daughter are always part of each other and part of a special bond.  The distances or difference between them in space and time, I therefore don't see as "separtion" but rather new ways thro which they always keep in touch.  
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
18 posted 2005-01-19 11:29 PM


Somewhere around 1665 or 1666, a young man watched an apple fall from a tree and theorized that the force that governed the motion of the apple might be the same force that governed the motion of the moon. He calculated what it would take to hold the moon in its orbit as compared with the force pulling an object to the ground, and found some marked similarities. It was some twenty years later, in 1687, that Newton published the three-volume Principia Mathematica, establishing the hypothesis that would eventually be known as classical mechanics.

Classical mechanics reigned supreme for some two hundred years. Every application of Newton's Laws of Motion proved adequate to man's needs. Eventually, however, problems began to surface. There were anomalies, for example, in Mercury's orbit that could not be predicted or explained by Newton's classical mechanics. Then, in 1887, two guys named Michelson and Morley turned classical mechanics upside-down. Newton was clearly wrong. A few years later, a young patent clerk came along and set things right again, and the relative mechanics of Einstein superseded those of Sir Isaac Newton.

Newton's theories weren't wrong so much as they weren't quite right. Turns out Einstein wasn't entirely right either, and his Relativity is still fighting battles with quantum mechanics, the new kid on the block. Such is the path to truth.

Just as science tries to explain the physical world, religion tries to explain our spiritual one. When it works, enriching our lives and making them better, we embrace it. When it doesn't work, we look for something new. It's the same path to truth followed by Newton, Einstein, and Heisenberg.

Myths, I think, are theories that worked for a while. Like Newton, I suspect most of today's myths were founded on truth. It just wasn't the whole truth, and just as with Newton, people eventually began questioning why their beliefs were starting to fail them. When faith no longer provides an adequate answer to man's questions, it fades into myth.

Religion is an hypothesis that still works.


Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
19 posted 2005-01-20 12:06 PM


Ron that's what I'm after. For believers, what seperates the working hypothesis from the failed? Or why, do they chose one hypothesis over the other. I'm not out to disprove their beliefs, only to understand what drives them.

Thank you Essorant as well, an excellent response.

RSWells
Member Elite
since 2001-06-17
Posts 2533

20 posted 2005-01-20 01:32 AM


"just what seperates mythology from religion?"

The question is when may humans be seperated from all this nonsense?

I'll concede a higher power. Something started all that is. I feel we are too puny to dare imagine this supreme being let alone name it with a primative grunt of a word. It surely takes no human form (the guile to suggest it so, the audacity to tint it to our liking!) and we have no reason to believe it is concerned with us in any specific way as is taught.

One definition of myth is "a fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology." One synonym is "delusion."

All religions are therein described and these all consuming faiths of today will be the myths of future peoples (providing these death embracing religions allow a future).

Jung's "collective subconscious" which suggests a shared psyche running like a thread through all living things becomes easier to embrace in the light of recent archeological and DNA discoveries; The "hobbit people," recent North American discoveries of human bones at least 50,000 years old, new results of DNA testing on chickens that show they share 60% of human DNA, another "missing link" unearthed etc.

I believe that when it's all said and done it will be proven that we all started from the same slimy beginnings and that the earth that we abuse and neglect has more right to claim maternity than any paternal fantasy invented by controlling men.

We rose and evolved. We stood upright and somewhere a simple reasoning developed, a conscious awareness. It is here where our bipedal predecessor started to stumble, mostly out of fear. When our brains grew and we had to face the stiff, cold loved one we looked to the intangible, the sky, and both pleaded and demanded answers.

The journey from ourselves started here and climate, geography, food sources and other environmental factors changed our appearences. These eons spent apart created the races and added to our suicidal adherence to tribalism.

The earliest beliefs were those of a female god. Since it is from where we hail and lacking any answer as to where we go this makes sense. Why wouldn't early man worship the source?

A handful of men invented religion in order to soothe the unsophisticated concerns of the hoi polloi, to dismount the female and to control power (control will always be the key word when discussing religion or for that matter, men).

The tales that, first the jew then the catholic and muslim spun, had to include that essential ingredient of a mystic secret that only a select few "holy men" were capable or worthy of grasping. In order to make this sale the long held and tangible beliefs of the "pagan," the "nonbeliever" had to be included.

It is here that religious holy days (holidays) were wrapped around seasons and solstices, in order to wean the "primitive" from worshiping common sense things like the sun, moon, rain and all that he knew with certainty was needed to live and that should be honored. More "sophisticated" civilizations would include wine and emotions such as love and vengeance as gods.

The truths claimed by the jew was upset by the christian and then by the muslim but all the while the power remain in the hands of males. To read the phantasmic stories in talmud, bible or koran and live in 2005 should prompt a pitying, shaking head instead of unsupportable, feverish faith.

I laugh now at my own forefathers and their belief that they were superior to those natives that they claimed to both conquer and reform. What have we replaced the respect for the land and all its life with?

To think that even now hapless urban dwellers would look down on the rural tucked in a quiet valley, raising and canning his/her own food as beneath them. How do they plan to feed themselves in the days when there is no electricity or WalMarts? After the self fulfilling "end times" or the outraged planet shakes us off as fleas?

We've electroniked ourselves into sterile environments by plundering an earth to make water filters for a cleaner water, air filters for a cleaner air while fouling its source in the very production of such vanity. We pollute, level and strip an earth as though some distant, feral nuisance and create the very climatic hazards that occasionally send us to our knees (where these new gods seem to prefer us) and will ultimately send us to our graves within her.

The reason this persists is the tribalism that keeps us apart from each other and the truth of our shared beginnings. Skin pigmentation is a glaring example of immediate differences but eventually the truth of evolution would erase that.....would were it not for religions.

Far more wars have been fought, more human beings tortured and murdered in the name of the major religions and their godlier god than otherwise. It continues to this minute. And what god would endorse such?

How can one not be tired of the hypocrisy in those espousing the peaceful words of man made texts while fomenting death to all who disagree with their version? These impious adherents who would bludgeon us with both "fearful" and "loving" gods while quoting passages as ambiguous as a psychic-fraud's probing questions seek to profit in confusion.

The greatest threat man faces has always been man. Soon an overcrowded earth promises to tire of us. To rectify this would take time and a patience we don't possess. The answer in the meantime will be provided by religions who will war as a way to keep a few in power by overwhelming the meek with a moral authority they never had.

Most worrisome is this "end times" nonsense. It's a major industry and the single most dangerous fairy tale in the man made beliefs of all the major religions. Death is longed for in order to be saved (please say that aloud) and if pressed into an ignorant palm long enough is relegated to the category of unquestioned blind faith. The trouble here is that it will be self-fulfilling and doesn't exclude we sane.

The same madness and greed for control that eliminated those who would question power and Inquisitioned heretics, drowned witches, dismissed Darwin still exists. You are expected to believe that man started with Adam 5,000 or so years ago (and Eve his rib) in light of the overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary and that if you hold your mouth a certain way you may be delivered after death to a heaven no one has ever seen.

There is no heaven or hell. This is it folks. We feed the earth, our mother, like so much fertilizer as all is sucked down into its furnace and rise again in its lava unless a tree decides to seed in our ribs. No proof whatsoever exists that any of these modern myths are true and we are well past the time to move on and accept our fragile time as one where we here and now make our own heaven or hell.

I didn't always feel this way. It was a liberating epiphany of sorts after this last farce of an election that allowed me to see too clearly the true evil in the world. Those I'd too automatically granted a vague moral high ground revealed themselves as liars and murderers and dare to hold the symbols of their outdated beliefs high as proof of the right to control us and defy any who didn't share their archaic myths.

If the beliefs are quiet and nearly as peaceful as is claimed it wouldn't have mattered to me if one worshipped a souvenir catcher's mitt/key chain from Cooperstown. But I'm roused by the hateful clatter and sickened at the prospects of rampant hypocrisy cloaked in the soft robes of the bless'd. No wonder that great man Jesus hung out with prostitutes, beggars and the disenfranchised. There is closer to truth.

"just what seperates mythology from religion?"

A calendar and sanity.        

Poets against the war is redundant

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
21 posted 2005-01-20 04:42 AM


quote:
For believers, what seperates the working hypothesis from the failed? Or why, do they chose one hypothesis over the other. I'm not out to disprove their beliefs, only to understand what drives them.

In my opinion, Raph, religion isn't just about life after death, because that would make it an untestable hypothesis. Religion has to be about life BEFORE death if it's to have any value. And on that basis, I think, religion is testable.

Does it work?

If your belief system makes you angry, bitter, hateful, and generally all-around miserable much of the time, as appears to be the case with many systems, then I'm going to hazard a guess that something is inherently wrong. It might be the way you're practicing that belief system, either due to lack of understanding (again, as appears to be the case with many) or lack of commitment, and certainly those possibilities should be examined. But if you can honestly say you are following the precepts of your faith, and are miserable because of it, in my opinion it's time to reject that hypothesis and look for another.

At this point, of course, I can only speak for myself. I have found that if I try to live my life as I believe Jesus would have lived it, things tend to go pretty well for me. I'm not only more successful outwardly, but I'm invariably (though certainly not continuously) more content inwardly as well. I can still blow it with the best of them, reacting out of anger or malice, but those instances only seem to contrast what I've learned, 'cause those times always lead to far less satisfactory results. When I follow the recipe, it works.

Does that mean I'm going to heaven?

In the Bible, one of the criteria for being a prophet is 100 percent accuracy. Even one teeny-tiny mistake blows the deal, because those who speak for God can't ever be wrong. Seems to me, that's a pretty good test. I can't know that I'm going to heaven, I can't know if anything the New Testament says about death is valid, but I can and have tested much of what the Book says about living. If even one thing it tells me about living is wrong, everything is called into doubt, including what it tells me about death and what is to follow death. Even one mistake makes it just a good philosophy, but not a religion and way of life. There's room for nothing but perfection.

So far, after nearly 55 years, all the mistakes have been mine.  

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
22 posted 2005-01-20 07:38 AM


Aenimal,

“I'm not out to disprove their beliefs, only to understand what drives them.”

"If after the manner of men I have fought
with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not?
let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.”

Corinthians 15:32

Ron,

“In the Bible, one of the criteria for being a prophet is 100 percent accuracy. Even one teeny-tiny mistake blows the deal, because those who speak for God can't ever be wrong.”

Bible or Qur'an?
I don’t think the Bible is considered wholly the word of God,
(directly or indirectly), whereas the Qur'an is.

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
23 posted 2005-01-20 03:58 PM


quote:
I believe that when it's all said and done it will be proven that we all started from the same slimy beginnings and that the earth that we abuse and neglect has more right to claim maternity than any paternal fantasy invented by controlling men.


RSWells, l@ved, absolutely l#ved that response.


quote:
In my opinion, Raph, religion isn't just about life after death, because that would make it an untestable hypothesis. Religion has to be about life BEFORE death if it's to have any value. And on that basis, I think, religion is testable


Ron, i think effectiveness of spirituality is testable but not necessarily the dogma(is that a negative word?). argh. I'm having trouble wording this correctly. With regards to the 'words' themselves, do they stand up as fact or are they simply parables? Divinely dictated history, or mythology?

quote:
At this point, of course, I can only speak for myself. I have found that if I try to live my life as I believe Jesus would have lived it,


Ron when you say you live as you believe Jesus would have lived it, do you mean as the Bible depicts Jesus, or do you have your own ideal or opinion of what Jesus was?
I'm still curious regarding opinions of the Old Testament. ?

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
24 posted 2005-01-20 04:13 PM


quote:
Stephanos, first let me say i'm glad to see you here as i always enjoy our conversations.



Thanks.    

quote:
In speaking of literal history, I'll concede you have a point when it comes to Christianity, though, I'd argue you're view that "the alternative theories (the reconstructions which would deny the Biblical historicity), don't hold as much weight as the text as they stand, taken at their word."



That would be a great thread, if you ever wanted to start one.  They were either lying, or suffered for delusional hallucinations about the ressurrection of Jesus.  It's my opinion that those theories have been pretty much dismantled, but I would like to hear your views on them ... and allow me to ask questions.  

Oh yeah, there's the "texts were probably changed from the originals which related the much less miraculous historical Jesus" argument as well.  We could talk about that one too.


quote:
But before delving into Christianity, does the argument for literal history apply to the Old Testament? Are these stories to be read as legends/parables or are they fact to the faithful?



To a large degree it does ... and yet it doesn't in some places.  Admittedly a text describing events that happened before mankind was even created (even before the Earth was created) is more like divinely revealed truth, in allegorical/ mythical form.  It's certainly not "History".  However, that doesn't mean that it's unhistorical, so to speak. Others may indeed be historically based, with much literary embellishment that happens with legend.  Job is probably a good example of this.  That doesn't mean he didn't exist as a historical person.  It just means that whoever wrote it, wrote it as a homiletic story with theological lessons attached ... something fit for passing down by written or oral tradition, to teach the faithful in an entertaining and therefore memorable way.


I think literary determination of whether a text was meant to be legendary or factual is a legitimate quest.  


The difference between that and the "quest for the historical Jesus" embodied in the "Jesus seminar", is that the main of scholars looking at the gospels, were using a shaky criteria for determining whether or not certain portions were authentic.  They were all influenced heavily by enlightenment philosophy, where miracles were declared to be impossible, a priori.  So when they were cruising along in their examination of the gospels, and encountered a description of a miracle, they automatically concluded that it couldn't be a true historical statement.  Why?  Becuase miracles can't happen, of course.  The question is begged, but they didn't tell the public their criteria.  Philosophy determined the slant of historical/ textual criticism.


If you want to read a historian who didn't limit the inquiry by the enlightenment assumption of "prima facie no miracles allowed", I'd suggest N.T. Wright or Gary Habermas.


Stephen.    

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
25 posted 2005-01-20 06:09 PM


RSWells
quote:
I believe that when it's all said and done it will be proven that we all started from the same slimy beginnings and that the earth that we abuse and neglect has more right to claim maternity than any paternal fantasy invented by controlling men.



It's interesting to me, that when someone rejects the Fatherhood of God as "mythology", they do not end up rejecting all mythical mystical elements they would otherwise ridicule.


You're matriarchal "rights-invested" description of what you would otherwise tell me is a wholly material and impersonal universe, seems to smell of the same sin of personal projection that you would accuse the religious of.  You even go on to say that we "violate, abuse, and neglect" her, as if a monistic impersonal cosmos even could be neglected or violated ... as if one part of her, even could rebel against the other parts.  And who or what would have the authority to say which side of the rebellion is good and which side is evil?  Where does the idea of good and evil come from in an impersonal materialistic cosmos anyway?  


My point is that your deeply personal view of the universe and the right way to stay in tune with "her" is just as "religious" in nature as my belief in God.


Stephen.

RSWells
Member Elite
since 2001-06-17
Posts 2533

26 posted 2005-01-20 09:03 PM


Stephen,

I do reject all man made contrivances that invent a god they couldn't possibly know or prove exists beyond their fertile and biased imaginations.

My point would be that those who preceeded the males who invented the dangerous nonsense that has caused the earth and its inhabitants untold suffering and death were closer to the target in their worship of a feminine deity then the paper shuffling controllers who wrote in carrot and stick to control the cheese and invented a male deity in their own image.

I fear you read me wrong.

I have no agenda here. All religions are foolish and hypocritical. The "her" to which I referred was earth itself, no goddess.

I spoke not of the universe but would safely venture that the motivation behind the invention of religion was materialistic and indeed the impersonal nature would be removing responsibility for ourselves and each other by inventing a grand and absent pooh-bah to throw our own failings and blame on.

I believe in no god. None can be produced and the fictitious ones seem to be sleeping or unconcerned with the mess proudly made in their/his/her name.  

Again, my point was it seems more common sensible that "primative" man went to a female icon tens of thousands of years before a cabal rearranged it to suit their ends. It is from women we come after all.

We slaughtered indigenous peoples in god's name. People we considered savages and who respected the environment. And what have we replaced it with?

How anyone could look another even mediocre intellect in the eye and claim to believe such things as a 5,000 year old human history is beyond me. To have tax free pulpited bigots demand that their sheep vote for someone with a perpetual war agenda is criminal. We are well past the finale to this comedy turned tragedy.

If the piety claimed in these worshipper's stated beliefs was practiced we wouldn't be having this discussion. I attended a funeral last week for a 92 year old primative baptist. I am proud to have known him and his wife of 70 years. These were salt of the earth people no matter how one looks at it. They were ardent church people but never pushed it on anyone. They lived the word which, in its basic form, ie the commandments and the golden rule, would be an admirable way for anyone to strive to live. I was aghast at the preacher's assertion that the deceased never cursed or spoke badly of anyone. I confirmed it with several members of his family as well as his wife. I know no one else like this.

I truly didn't want to single out any religion. All the three majors are guilty of most the world's ills. Each stole something from its predecessor. All have birthed myriad branches of magicians all claiming special knowledge of an unseen god. All seem quite phat and none will readily allow any truthteller to overturn their tables upsetting the money changing. A very honest and good man named Jesus tried it two thousand years ago and we know the end of that story.

Poets against the war is redundant

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
27 posted 2005-01-20 10:58 PM


RSWells:
quote:
If the piety claimed in these worshipper's stated beliefs was practiced we wouldn't be having this discussion. I attended a funeral last week for a 92 year old primative baptist. I am proud to have known him and his wife of 70 years. These were salt of the earth people no matter how one looks at it. They were ardent church people but never pushed it on anyone. They lived the word which, in its basic form, ie the commandments and the golden rule, would be an admirable way for anyone to strive to live. I was aghast at the preacher's assertion that the deceased never cursed or spoke badly of anyone. I confirmed it with several members of his family as well as his wife. I know no one else like this.




I think most of your intellectual problems with the Christian faith, may stem more from your heart.  You are offended, obviously.  You've seen a great disparity between action and doctrine among many.  I too share the same feelings, and sympathize with you.  But I also understand that if the Christian faith is true, then regardless of how many have been unable or unwilling to keep it, it is my duty to try and remain faithful to God.  The way I see it, no amount of hypocrisy in others, has much to do with me on judgement day.  And I have been shown, and have examined to the best of my ability the evidences, and I cannot but believe that it's true.  


You mentioned these exceptional friends of yours.  Do you think their faith in God might have something to do with their admirable qualities?  I do.  And I feel that they would have been grieved to know that you deny God, if you had shared that with them.  They would have not been as much personally offended, I'll bet, as they would have become deeply anxious for you to have the peace that they have in knowing.


And I assure you there are others.


If you concede that Jesus was an honest and good man ... then there may be more who truly love him and follow him.  And please remember that this Jesus most emphatically taught men to trust and believe in God.  Be careful not to rejoice so much in his rebuke of the religious, while ignoring his instruction for the impious.  Jesus was a Jewish man and prophet who was right with God, not a sharp-tongued irreligious man whose only goal was to expose hypocrisy, so that the faith itself could be discredited.      


No offense, and no hard feelings ...


Stephen.  

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
28 posted 2005-01-20 11:18 PM


quote:
That would be a great thread, if you ever wanted to start one.  They were either lying, or suffered for delusional hallucinations about the ressurrection of Jesus.  It's my opinion that those theories have been pretty much dismantled, but I would like to hear your views on them ... and allow me to ask questions.


Some perhaps but not all. Until original transcripts or historical documents are found the questions will always remain. A most important resource would be the release of the full Qumran material. But after 50 years, access is still severely limited to scholars and the care and control of material in the hands of the wrong people. But that's another discussion    

quote:
Admittedly a text describing events that happened before mankind was even created (even before the Earth was created) is more like divinely revealed truth, in allegorical/ mythical form.  It's certainly not "History".  However, that doesn't mean that it's unhistorical, so to speak.


Divinely revealed truth from whom? Again, is the biblical God one and the same as the Sumerian God(s) who revealed the story of the Deluge? Or is one version of the story fact, and the other fiction? This and why is my question.

I don't mean to contest anyone's beliefs, I'm just not sure how people have reached their decisions and belief systems and that, not proving or disproving them, is what i'm most concerned about. But if you'd like to understand my own disbelief I'll offer a little summary.

The questioning began early on but came to a head when I left Catholic school for a Public High School. Suddenly introduced to an incredible array of faiths, I was thrust into incredible debates and conversations, learning much of people's cultures and, of course, their convictions. In arguing beliefs you manage to expose limitations and contradictions of others, but more importantly I discovered the limitations and contradictions of my own. (which is why i l#ve these discussions forums, continuously try to challenge my own views by listening to those of the people here, and that is partially the intent here)

I began challenging my beliefs. When tracing the roots through to Judaism and its predecessors. i found, not proof of a unique and definitive God, but an strange amalgamation of earlier deities, cultural traditions and folklore. I thought if these are passed off as mythology why not their successor? The further I read, the more the line between mythology and sacred word faded.

The Talmud, an extension of the Bible, features God as a warrior hero, battling the Prince of Darkness and the Prince of the Sea. In defeating or imprisoning them, establishes his supremacy as the ultimate warrior god. But this would seem to conflict with the monotheistic view that there is, and always was, only one God. The Alpha from which all things eminate.  

All of these, again this is only my opinion, challenged the validity and existence of the biblical Yahweh. And I find him no more fantastic then the mythologies before and after his creation. By extension, unable to believe in the father I've never been able to believe in his 'son.' But that's a whole other can of worms we've touched upon a few times..
quote:
..is that the main of scholars looking at the gospels, were using a shaky criteria for determining whether or not certain portions were authentic. They were all influenced heavily by enlightenment philosophy..Philosophy determined the slant of historical/ textual criticism.


But what was the criteria used in determining the canonical books of the New Testament? The earliest attempt, by the Bishop of Lyons(180 AD), determined that the validity of gospels was to be judged by whether or not they were apostolic. In other words, written by the apostles themselves. How anyone could prove whom the original authors of the works were, let alone determine if they were indeed apostles of christ sems rather shaky to me.

There is also the Hellenization and Romanization of the accounts to consider. It suggests a large potential not only for misinterpretation, but for alteration/bias with regards to appeasing a Roman audience. Versions where Romans are, for the most part, absolved of guilt or their images/involvment polished as with Pontius Pilate as an example.

Finally, one has to consider the enormous pressure faced to keep the splintering factions of early christianity together, while competing with rival religions. Is it so difficult to imagine that concessions to practice and text would have been made by the time the councils of Hippo finally ratified the canon NT? For example, i've read evidence that some early Saints are merely Christianized pagan dieties, used to keep the peace appeasing the conquerors and the conquered.

RSWells
Member Elite
since 2001-06-17
Posts 2533

29 posted 2005-01-20 11:52 PM


Stephen,

"I think most of your intellectual problems with the Christian faith, may stem more from your heart."

"..not a sharp-tongued irreligious man whose only goal was to expose hypocrisy, so that the faith itself could be discredited."

"No offense, and no hard feelings ..."

Oh of course not.

The disparity between "action and doctrine" exists at the highest levels of these psuedo-political orgainizations of immense wealth.

I really didn't intend on zeroing in on one culprit but condemn all hypocrisy. It wouldn't be palatable or in any spirit intended by the gracious site administrator or the majority of its gentle members for me to weigh into the christian faith. I had hoped my portion of the discussion would be permitted to address, in general terms, the three major offenders of judaism, christianity and islam. It certainly is not anything resembling fear on my part that we not go there as much as it is the abandonment of civility that is sure to follow.

As far as my friends go I'm delighted they were able to live by those kinder and wiser tenets that are common sense such as the commandments and golden rule. Again if even a majority of those who profess to follow these did so we wouldn't be having this discussion. Why would I shake up the long held faith of sweet elderly folks who lived and live right by discussing my beliefs with them? That would end up were this will if you allow it.  

We tread too closely towards your own beliefs and I fear if we delve too deeply there you will be far more offended by my responses than you apparently already are. It's a shame that the threat of divine retribution is needed for some people do simply do what is right in life.    

I was raised catholic and the christian faith is the one I am most knowledgable (and disappointed) with. We could sally there but what purpose would be served? You would hold even more steadfastly to your beliefs while never being able to prove them to me or disprove mine.

If possible I would desire to make all this foolishness disappear all at once. But no such magical power exists does it?


Poets against the war is redundant

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 2000-02-02
Posts 27738

30 posted 2005-01-21 02:08 AM


smile...

I have't fully read the exhanges of Stephanos, Raph, & Richard, so if I accidentally touch on that, please understand that this post is simply a clarification of my earlier reply.

"a suspension of disbelief"

Which can also translate into "Faith."

(I promised Alicat I'd be back, because I wouldn't let his answer be ignored, but actually, it's not selfless--he and I had discussed this topic previously and had come to fairly the same conclusion.)

I have a certain amount of faith in a Divine presence (or energy) of creation. My pagan beliefs do not have argument with my acceptance of tenets of Christianity, Buddhism, and yes, now with some study, even Islam, and many, many other practices not as generally well known.

I consider the mythologies inherent in all religions as pathways, nodding, rather parables of understanding to enhance our understanding of an otherwise indefinable presence. And maybe presence is too mystical a word to describe--more like, a formula, that others, undoubtedly greater minds than mine, have heretofore described in better detail and with more understanding than my meager comprehension allows.

"Small Gods" as Ali volunteered, (and I think we agree) are no less a true component of the whole entity than saying, "This is my toe, and it is me."

But what we have is semantics, as those who have recognized different aspects of what is a force beyond human understanding as the only truth.

I personally believe that it is all correct, as individuals must ascribe to personal experience.

"suspension of disbelief" or "faith"?

It's a matter of choice, and sometimes perspective.

And just as any reasonable diet, (with nods to another thread) that recommends "eat less, exercize more" will result in weightloss, I believe that religions that offer practical spiritual guidance will also be successful.

I think I'm in agreement with Ron somewhat on theory, although the linear line of belief as growth chaffes at me a bit.

I believe it's all there, for our choice and benefit, and that we should feel free to borrow the ideologies as needed, and we can do that, and honor the choice as something as needed at the time, without quibbling over one belief system as a forerunner to the others as a sort of "kindergarten" of understanding. I think it's more cyclic than that. One system of belief might be more beneficial than another at specific times in our life, and I don't think that has anything to do with "maturity."

They don't actually vary much. Not when you drop the words, the names, that describe the description of one and the same--the subconscious language that is spoken beneath the surface conflicts of our limited understanding, and voiced and illustrated with symbol and metaphor enculturated into our individual comprehension.

Almost any diet will help you lose weight, but you have to follow it.

Almost any religion will help you find peace of mind, but you have to practice with faith.

And hugs, Ali. I hope I did our conversation justice.

"Small Gods" it is...as soon as I pay that library fine.

nite good poets

be a hero



ice
Member Elite
since 2003-05-17
Posts 3404
Pennsylvania
31 posted 2005-01-21 11:09 AM


­
­­Reading this thread has given me an amazing uplift,
There is  great interchange of thought here, in this cyber lyceum.

Emerson would be proud of this place...

The thread is "religion" a hard word to define...

To make sure that what I say is relevant to this thread, I must ask the following questions...

Do pantheist beliefs qualify as religious thought?

Does not attending a lineal minded, physical church, make one who concentrates on spiritual thought, under roofless spatials, a heathen?

Does believing in an energy entity as being the catalyst of all physical, and mental realities qualify that entity to be titled a religious type of "God"?

Does one who believes if you take out the first four commandments and the repetitiousness of several others that what is left are the pure human laws inherent to all members of the species, and are innate laws?

If one believes that that energy entity is indifferent to human suffering, and that only human thought and action can save others who  have disobeyed its laws, simply by being in the way..If this is religious thought..

Then perhaps I have something to add to this thread...

____________ice
   ><>

­

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
32 posted 2005-01-21 02:53 PM


quote:
I believe it's all there, for our choice and benefit, and that we should feel free to borrow the ideologies as needed, and we can do that, and honor the choice as something as needed at the time, without quibbling over one belief system as a forerunner to the others as a sort of "kindergarten" of understanding. I think it's more cyclic than that. One system of belief might be more beneficial than another at specific times in our life, and I don't think that has anything to do with "maturity."


quote:
But what we have is semantics, as those who have recognized different aspects of what is a force beyond human understanding as the only truth.

I personally believe that it is all correct, as individuals must ascribe to personal experience.

"suspension of disbelief" or "faith"?

It's a matter of choice, and sometimes perspective


Excellent points K, that's why I can still appreciate the OT and NT not as divine fact or historical truths, but I can appreciate them as basic guidance as a means of spiritual growth. The recognition of something beyond ourselves and the ideal we are all bound as a species is an important one.
quote:
Do pantheist beliefs qualify as religious thought?


ice, you have already added to the thread       and please feel free to expand on Pantheism.


I believe it to be more of a spiritual than religious belief, but that's not at all a negative but a positive to me. Modern Pantheism, at least as I understand it, isn't mired by adherence to any definitive set of practices or based on the teachings of any specific spiritual leader. Leaning more on spiritual aspects than the dogmatic ones, as it should be.

I hope that made sense?

quote:
Does not attending a lineal minded, physical church, make one who concentrates on spiritual thought, under roofless spatials, a heathen?


As a former Roman Catholic, my own misgivings began with the physical church. I couldn't overlook it's clear pagan leaning. both in practice and idolatry. And in the end I decided, if God was indeed omnescient, then it simply didn't matter where I worshipped.

quote:
Does one who believes if you take out the first four commandments and the repetitiousness of several others that what is left are the pure human laws inherent to all members of the species, and are innate laws?


I once read an excellent essay on the origin of the Commandments and their initial intent. For example, Thou Shalt Not Kill was essentially Thou Shalt Not Kill A Fellow Jew. Which makes a little more sense, amending the obvious condradiction of God assisted/directed the attack and slaughter of thousands throughout the Bible. Murder was bad, but not when furthering and defending his name it seems.


quote:
If one believes that that energy entity is indifferent to human suffering, and that only human thought and action can save others who  have disobeyed its laws, simply by being in the way..


You mean take responsibility for our own actions? Gasp.grin, That's alot for most humans to take on, much easier to deflect and place the onus of our survival onto a Godhead.


Copperbell
Senior Member
since 2003-11-08
Posts 956

33 posted 2005-01-25 09:56 PM


People here have an incredible amount of respect - I have not seen a discussion about religion (with differing views) so thoughtful and respectful in other forums - or amongst friends even.

Raph, I have a simple explanation to why I believe. I've seen lots of stuff happen.

a couple examples:
  I had severe neck pain that wouldn't go away.  Someone prayed for me and I felt a bone move in my back.  I had picked up my son and hurt my back some months previous but didn't attribute it to the pain.  Anyway, it was gone and never came back.
  I used to fiddle around with the ouija board and had a disturbing experience that went on for quite some time and when I prayed to God, it went away.
  I have prayed and sensed an overwhelming love for all people that was out of character for me that went on for weeks

In terms of doctrine, I know that historically Jesus lived and I believe the things He said - not that I understand all the things He said... Why do I believe in only Christianity -because I believe that He is God and I've seen that when I pray to Him, He answers

I believe that He died on the cross and that He had the power or choice not to - if we didn't need His gift of forgiveness, then it was a waste of His time and life
  

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
34 posted 2005-01-25 10:34 PM


Copperbell,

“ a couple examples”

Why would God take care of your back and ouija fears,
and ignore the countless men, women, and children who
begged in prayer not to be killed?


Copperbell
Senior Member
since 2003-11-08
Posts 956

35 posted 2005-01-25 11:38 PM


I don't know - but there are many difficulties I have experienced as well - my faith isn't about life being rosy - its about being convinced that He is faithful. That will include the day that I die
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
36 posted 2005-01-25 11:51 PM


Thanks for sharing your views copperbell. faith is an amazing healing tool, there is a chapter devoted to it in Michael Murphy's 'The Future of the Body', i've mentioned it often but only because i keep coming back to read it again and again.

as for Christ. my belief in the historical Jesus prevents me from believing in the diefied Jesus. but that makes him no less important or interesting to me. i admire the things he said and the values attributed to him.



Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
37 posted 2005-01-26 01:06 AM


"Though a good deal is too strange to be believed, nothing is too strange to have happened."

Thomas Hardy

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
38 posted 2005-01-27 09:11 PM



"A poet, any real poet, is simply an alchemist who transmutes his cynicism regarding human beings into an optimism regarding the moon, the stars, the heavens, and the flowers, to say nothing of Spring, love, and dogs."

George Jean Nathan

“the moon, the stars, the heavens,”

So maybe it’s just the poet in us…

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
39 posted 2005-01-27 11:11 PM


Raph,

This is an exhaustive subject, and I’ll have to go slow, taking one thing at a time.  I do want to address some of your other points.  But I want to take the one about the absence of autographs first...  


quote:
Stephanos: It's my opinion that those theories have been pretty much dismantled, but I would like to hear your views on them ... and allow me to ask questions.

Aenimal:  Some perhaps but not all. Until original transcripts or historical documents are found the questions will always remain. A most important resource would be the release of the full Qumran material. But after 50 years, access is still severely limited to scholars and the care and control of material in the hands of the wrong people. But that's another discussion 


I was wondering if you could clarify what you meant by:  "Until original manuscripts or historical documents are found, questions will always remain".  Are you suggesting that unless the actual autographs are found,  we can't appreciate a text as "historical"?  That criteria would be true of no ancient literature that I am aware of.


There are three basic tests of historiography.

1) The bibliographical test

2) The internal evidence test

3) The external evidence test


Your doubt of the textual integrity of the New Testament, because of an absence of the autographs (original manuscripts) is best addressed by the bibliographical test.  This test basically determines reliability based upon two questions 1) How many manuscripts are there?, and 2) What is the time interval between the original writing and the current copies?


I have no problem with you choosing to doubt the integrity of the NT based upon the absence of the autographs.  But if you do so, I just want you to know that this is actually where the New Testament is the sturdiest among other ancient writings.  Few scholars, if any, try to falsify the New Testament on these grounds.  Let me explain ...


There is no other ancient text which has more manuscripts.  And there is no other ancient text where the existing manuscripts are so close to the originals.  There are now close to 25,000 partial and complete manuscripts of the New Testament.  Homer’s Iliad, in second place, boasts about 640.  The earliest copies we have of the New Testament are of the 3rd/ 4th centuries, which far exceeds any classical literature in proximity to the originals.  For example, the first complete text of Homer dates from abouth the 13th century.


The following quotes explain this in further detail ...



"Perhaps we can appreciate how wealthy the New Testament is in manuscript attestation if we compare the textual material for other ancient historical works. For Caesar's Gallic War (composed between 58 and 50 BC) there are several extant MSS, but only nine or ten are good, and the oldest is some goo years later than Caesar's day. Of the 142 books of the Roman History of Livy (59 BC-AD 17) only thirty five survive; these are known to us from not more than twenty MSS of any consequence, only one of which, and that containing fragments of Books iii-vi, is as old as the fourth century. Of the fourteen books of the Histories of Tacitus (c. AD 100) only four and a half survive; of the sixteen books of his Annals, ten survive in full and two in part. The text of these extant portions of has two great historical works depends entirely on two MSS, one of the ninth century and one of the eleventh. The extant MSS of his minor works (Dialogue dc Oratoribus, Agricola, Gcrmania) all descend from a codex of the tenth century The History of Thucydides (c. 460-400 BC) is known to us from eight MSS, the earliest belonging to c. AD 900, and a few papyrus scraps, belonging to about the beginning of the Christian era The same is true of the History of Herodotus (c. 488-428 BC). Yet no classical scholar would listen to an argument that the authenticity of Herodotus or Thucydides is in doubt because the earliest MSS of their works which are of any use to us are over 1,300 years later than the originals.

But how different is the situation of the New Testament in this respect! In addition to the two excellent MSS of the fourth century mentioned above, which are the earliest of some thousands known to us, considerable fragments remain of papyrus copies of books of the New Testament dated from 100 to 200 years earlier still. The Chester Beatty Biblical Papyri, the existence of which was made public in 1931, consist of portions of eleven papyrus codices, three of which contained most of the New Testament writings. One of these, containing the four Gospels with Acts, belongs to the first half of the third century; another, containing Paul's letters to churches and the Epistle to the Hebrews, was copied at the beginning of the third century; the third, containing Revelation, belongs to the second half of the same century.
" (F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents)


and ...


"... besides number, the manuscripts of the New Testament differ from those of the classical authors ... In no other case is the interval of time between the composition of the book and the date of the earliest extant manuscripts so short as in that of the New Testament.  The books of the New Testament were written in the latter part of the first century; the earliest extant manuscripts (trifling scraps excepted) are of the fourth century- say from 250 to 300 years later.  This may sound a considerable interval, but it is nothing to that which parts most of the great classical authors from their earliest manuscripts.  We believe that we have in all essentials an accurate text of the seven extant plays of Sophocles; yet the earliest substantial manuscript upon which it is based was written more than 1400 years after the poet’s death." (Frederic G. Kenyon, Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the NT)



So my first question to you, before we proceed to questions of internal and external evidences, is:  Do you hold the same standard (necessity of originals) to other widely accepted ancient works, before you consider them to be authentic?  


Stephen.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
40 posted 2005-01-28 12:15 PM


Aenimal:
quote:
Divinely revealed truth from whom? Again, is the biblical God one and the same as the Sumerian God(s) who revealed the story of the Deluge? Or is one version of the story fact, and the other fiction? This and why is my question.



From the only real and living God.


No, the Biblical God is not the same as the Sumerian gods.  But it's not that simple.  I've always believed that Paganism held a shadow of truth, albeit distorted.  So if there was a universal flood, it's not incredible that other cultures might attempt to describe it.  It's also possible that such a story was in the psyche of many cultures and peoples before it actually happened.  Just as the mystery religions (taking their cue from the dying and rising of corn in their crops), portrayed something very close to the death and ressurrection of Christ, in their dramatizations.  But the historical veracity of the NT sets the Christ story apart.  The mystery religions do not even claim historicity.  But Jesus manifested something which was already a theme in nature:  Out of death comes life.  And it really happened.  


Admittedly the historical veracity of Noah's flood, being much more ancient, is harder to show than that of the NT.  But because I believe in the New Testament, and in Jesus Christ, who was prefigured in the Old Testament, I accept such Old Testament accounts by authority.  I think the Jews were obviously guided by Heaven in their selection of what is considered to be "Canon".  It is all authenticated (in my eyes) by the teaching of Christ from the Old Testament.  And much of Old Testament history is confirmed in archaeology ... though not all of it.  Such a infintesimal amount of history is discoverable by archaeology anyway.  At any rate, it is certainly not unreasonable to believe it as historical where meant to be literally historical and poetic where meant to be purely poetic.  And I do concede that these two categories (espcially in ancient writings) are not always exclusive.  Sometimes there's a mixture.  And sometimes it's hard for us to tell.


Much of what I find compelling about the Old Testament, is in what it says about mankind in general.  It's not such a flattering story that would be written by men, about themselves.  Sin, law, love, and vicarious suffering and redemption, are all themes which we find meaningful in some way or another.  Alternate philosophies, or explanations of the whole, do not have such explanatory power to me.  


When anyone talks history with the Old Testament, I've found that their reconstructions are at least as doubtful as the traditional views.  Therefore, it's just as reasonable to believe the traditional views.  And the host of problems, philosophical, psychological, and theological, I encounter when I would disregard the Bible as false, more than convince me that it is a book of certain truth.


I'd be willing to attempt to discuss any historical problems you have with the Old Testament.  Just be particular rather than general.  But I'm not nearly as versed here, as I am in the New Testament.


quote:
In arguing beliefs you manage to expose limitations and contradictions of others, but more importantly I discovered the limitations and contradictions of my own. (which is why i l#ve these discussions forums, continuously try to challenge my own views by listening to those of the people here, and that is partially the intent here)



That's actually a good thing.  It's good to be challenged.  However, I think it's good to make somewhat of a distinction between arguments and the things they attempt to defend.  Just because your argument has limitations, doesn't mean that you're wrong.  Then again it doesn't mean that you're right either.  But finding that the faith wasn't as simple as I had imagined, and that it's "apologia" wasn't as nice and tidy as I had thought, ended up confirming the faith for me in many ways.  I just encourage you to scrutinize your more mature doubts as much as you do the teachings of your nurse-maids.  I've found that things doubted on the lips of Sunday-school-teachers are generally made to look silly because of their simplistic expressions.  But very complex things can be put in catechismal forms.  Therefore, it's much too easy to think that when someone seems to rip apart the catechism, they've ripped apart the truths behind it.  


quote:
I began challenging my beliefs. When tracing the roots through to Judaism and its predecessors.



What could you lead me to, specifically,  to suggest that Judaism was merely a conglomeration of previous paganisms?


More later,


Stephen.  

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
41 posted 2005-01-28 08:43 PM


Unfortunately time, and other restraints, mean I won't be able to answer this just yet. Allow me a few weeks and I promise to further expand on my comments, as well as answer the interesting questions you've posed. Take care and see you soon(ish)
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
42 posted 2005-01-28 09:45 PM


Oh, you mean you actually have a life outside of philosophy 101?     I fully understand.  I'm in no hurry.  Some of the best discussions are missed simply because they are rushed along.


Stephen.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
43 posted 2005-01-30 12:45 PM



“Thousands of people have demonstrated in support of a Moroccan newspaper which claimed that the tsunami was an act of divine retribution.

The newspaper of Morocco's Islamic party, PJD, said the disaster showed God's displeasure with South-East Asia's sex tourism industry.”


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4219755.stm

Aren’t there at least shades of this God
in the Old Testament?  Sodom and Gomorrah.

Midnitesun
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Empyrean
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647
Gaia
44 posted 2005-01-30 10:00 PM


LOL, Raphie. I thought I had a response to this, then read what Ed wrote and am still laughing so hard I can't reply except to say
it's just a question of semantics in my mind.
They are one and the same to me.
I have had things thrown at me for saying that, so with that, I shall duck out of here and continue my bellicose laughter.
But seriously, I might think about this and come back in a day or two, if permitted.

OK, I came back and read MOST but not all of the lengthy replies. And I still have to say, religion and mythology are one and the same to me. I've always thought Jesus was really cool and had some great ideas that somehow got corrupted by less compassionate minds.  But I don't worship him or what he said, as I believe (can I say that?) there were many many 'prophets and holy men/women' and that there will be more down the road. We can take the good from each of them. In the long run, I think there is some kind of force or prime mover out there, but s(he) sure doesn't match the descriptions I usually hear or read about. More like a trickster or coyote some days, and others? well, the good, the bad, the ugly all rolled into one giant ball of energy. And it's all in how we interpret it...with our puny minds and selfish hearts, we always think it's all about US.

[This message has been edited by Midnitesun (01-30-2005 11:47 PM).]

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
45 posted 2005-01-31 03:52 AM


To refer to Mythology and Religion as one we have perfect english words:  Belief and Lore

And most of all, Truth

~DreamChild~
Senior Member
since 2001-04-23
Posts 544
in your dreams
46 posted 2005-01-31 07:39 PM


Religion is a way of life, with rules, regulations, traditions, and so on. Faith however, is a decision one makes in their heart to belive in something, even when it cannot be sensed physically.

I am a christian, but am not religious. Religious people feel deep down that they must earn their salvation, by works. I simply believe Christ, and need no evidence. That is faith.

While mythology is discredited today, it WAS an actual religion, with worship, sacrifices and offerings, and such.


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
47 posted 2005-01-31 11:17 PM


quote:
Aren’t there at least shades of this God
in the Old Testament?  Sodom and Gomorrah.



What do you mean by "This God"?  Do you mean a God who judges and punishes?  The prerogative for God to both judge and punish individuals and larger communities is evident in the Old Testament and no less in the New Testament.


Of course the theology of "suffering = God's punishment" is tempered in the Old Testament by the themes set forth by the book of Job and Ecclesiastes.  Not all suffering is attributed to divine punishment.  Solomon mused that the righteous seem to suffer along with the wicked.  And Job's friends were rebuked for insensitively placing their one-size-fits-all theology on Job.


It is also tempered in the New Testament, with Jesus' warning about imagining that sufferers of tragedy are evidently worse sinners.  


I think therefore it's a belief we should hold, but be very careful how we apply that belief.  


Stephen.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
48 posted 2005-02-11 02:34 AM


/pip/Forum29/HTML/001817.html


“So she experienced no other existence in the coma years?  What does
that bode in all our futures?”

Also what does it say of faith’s confidence that everyone
seems glad the girl finally did not die and go to whatever
they might believe is then beyond?


littlewing
Member Rara Avis
since 2003-03-02
Posts 9655
New York
49 posted 2005-02-11 10:08 AM


Ok, I just got done reading, but am just replying to this:

just what seperates mythology from religion?

In my humble opinion, a whole lot of religion stems from mythology. It is seen in all religions, holy books, faiths, folklore, practices, etc.

It is the same when you look at Celtic Druids and the Catholic faith.  There are so many practices which carry over from the Druids to the Catholics and even Native American practices.  The use of smoke (cigarettes), incense (church), and candles (by all) are used for the same purpose.  Many people call Celtic (myth) and Native (folklore), yet Catholic is a known and recognized religion.

The only fact that can be derived from any story in any religion/myth is the belief of something greater than ourselves.  

In my opinion, they all overlap each other and myth was probably at one time, fact.  In short, I, personally see many instances of myth flooding into religion without it being recognized as old practice.

Who knows?  One day we may be myth.

Make sense?  *smile*  

If you want me to cite examples, I will be back to do so.

Raph?  I believe you answered your own question here:

but I'm am genuinely curious how or what seperates fiction from non-fiction in the eyes of believers.

That's it, freewill, the choice to believe what we choose. (whatever works for us)  

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
50 posted 2005-02-11 06:39 PM



What, when, and where was man's first religion?  


~DreamChild~
Senior Member
since 2001-04-23
Posts 544
in your dreams
51 posted 2005-02-11 09:23 PM


That's a good question...


-Merriam Webster-

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective  


If the bible is correct, Adam and his sons began exercizing religious activities after mans fall into sin. Adam and his sons offered sacrifices to God by means of burning them.

I'm not an expert on the subject, but I don't recall reading of a commandment from God, or law requiring burnt offerings, until the time of Moses, or after.

God required these burnt offerings and sacrifices as "pentance" , so to say, to appease his long-suffering wrath for the sins of man.

I would think to say, that according to the bible, religion originated during the exodus of the Hebrew people from egypt. That is when God gave his commandments to the Hebrews. I believe that this was when the ideah was officially born, that man would inherit eternal life and happiness by works and sacrifice.

In regard to Adam's offerings, they were offered in grief, and repentance. This pleased God. And so perhaps the ideah that sacrifices please "gods" was around even before God's commandments were.

So in sum, i would say religion is as old as man.


fractal007
Senior Member
since 2000-06-01
Posts 1958

52 posted 2005-02-12 02:08 AM


Stephanos:

I'm glad to have come back and seen you continuing around here.  Perhaps you could clarify this claim:

the host of problems, philosophical, psychological, and theological, I encounter when I would disregard the Bible as false, more than convince me that it is a book of certain truth.


It seems as though you are discussing a personal preference rather than some more objective argument for the authority of scripture.  

As for my own beliefs about the existence of God?  I must confess that I have neglected philosophical arguments for the existence of God.  I have seen a belief in Him as more of a choice of fundamental beliefs.  For example, one might place a measure of faith in science as a legitimate means for arriveing at the truth.  Perhaps logic (a foundation whose validity Philmont seems to be having some trouble with) serves as a foundation.  Essentially, it is impossible to go through life without some fundamental set of beliefs - metaphysical or otherwise.  God, at least for the religious person (or rather, perhaps one whose religion holds that He exists) finds a place in that set of underlying propositions.  

So, the reader can tell, no doubt that I am a Christian theist, but not one who feels in some way obligated to demonstrate the existence of God.  But I suppose that demonstrating the truth of our own fundamental propositions would be a challenge - no matter what those propositions are.  Can one demonstrate the validity of science as a means for arriving at the pure, unadulterated and obviously unbiased truth?

The debate between yourself and Aenimal is very fascinating and I've enjoyed reading both sides of the argument.  Reminds me of the days when I used to be interested in apologetics.  Maybe I should get back into that again....

As for what defines religion....heh.  I don't know.  That's a tough question and one that assumes that religion is some abstract entity one can simply crawl out from at one's liesure to examine and critique.  I have been surprised at the variety of definitions for it.  For some it implies staunch hypocritical conservativism - as though the two terms hypicritical and conservative were guaranteed to walk hand in hand - while for others it implies rules and regulations or a "way of life."  Obviously not everyone is arguing about the same thing.  

I will not propose a definition here, though I am itching to do so.  Were I to define it I would only add to the confusion primarily because, as C.S. Lewis often said of himself in relation to theology, I am merely a layperson.

Any idiot can see that the result is true.
-- argumentum ad idiotum
Me!

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
53 posted 2005-02-13 12:07 PM


Frac,

Also good to see you peeking in from time to time.


I said:
quote:
the host of problems, philosophical, psychological, and theological, I encounter when I would disregard the Bible as false, more than convince me that it is a book of certain truth.


you said:
quote:
It seems as though you are discussing a personal preference rather than some more objective argument for the authority of scripture.



Though I believe in the authority of scripture, I also believe that that authority is confirmed and verified in many different fields.  That really isn't so much "personal preference".  For example, I do believe there's a great amount of objectivity to philosophy, psychology, and theology.  But the subjective part is that we all have to make the call.  There's a certain amount of "faith" involved, no matter which way you believe.  I've always liked to say that I haven't quite got the faith to believe in an impersonal naturalistic process that gave rise to what we now see.  I have to just believe that God did it.  We all have to decide in one way or another.  


So I guess my answer is that I believe there is objectivity to the faith which matches reality .... so much so that, as the creed says, "Every knee will bow and every tongue confess".  But I also believe that "personal preference" is involved, in that we will believe what we really want to believe.  No amount of objectivity will be able to take away our choice of one path or the other.  Truth may rule out the lie, but it also creates the possibility of it.  The lie has to be strong, because the truth is so strong in itself.  


Stephen.     

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
54 posted 2005-02-14 09:48 AM


Stephanos:


quote:
So my first question to you, before we proceed to questions of internal and external evidences, is:  Do you hold the same standard (necessity of originals) to other widely accepted ancient works, before you consider them to be authentic?


In the case of Christianity, non edited, non-Pauline, non-Greek/Roman friendly manuscripts would suffice. Manuscripts from the pre-Pauline christian sects. Where the intent was the restoration of the Temple and Jewish Law. I suscribe to Robert Eisenmann's view that the Dead Sea Scrolls are such a source, and were the stranglehold of the scrolls loosened I'd like to see the debate furthered.

quote:
From the only real and living God.
No, the Biblical God is not the same as the Sumerian gods.



Well, I disagree, I believe they are one and the same. It seems quite evident the biblical God is an ammalgamation of Mesopotamian(Sumerian,Akkadian,Babylonian) dieties and that much of Genesis is an abridged version of more ancient tablets.

quote:
Much of what I find compelling about the Old Testament, is in what it says about mankind in general.  It's not such a flattering story that would be written by men, about themselves.


But not exclusive to the bible. The Mesopotamian tales are painfully human at times. And of course the  tales of ancient Greece were no less flattering to men, or for that matter, to the Gods being worshipped. As we mature,we discover that our parents were not the infallible, 'godlike' creatures we viewed them to be. That doesn't make us revere or l#ve them any less. Instead it makes us understand them, and ultimately, ourselves better. The Mesopotamian/Greek and other Pagan religions mythologies capture that wonderfully. By writing of gods and men as they did,  followers better understood themselves and the universe around them.

quote:
When anyone talks history with the Old Testament, I've found that their reconstructions are at least as doubtful as the traditional views.


The historical accuracy of the tales themselves or the history/roots of the stories told? If its the latter then I strongly disagree, reading Mesopotamian mythology challenges the assertion of the bible as an original, let alone, divinely dictated text. If the tales were indeed, handed from God to Moses, then I'd challenge that God was a plagiarist.

quote:
But very complex things can be put in catechismal forms.  Therefore, it's much too easy to think that when someone seems to rip apart the catechism, they've ripped apart the truths behind it


No arguments there, but then why not view god and other mythologies as poetic interpretations of natural processes? I find scientific/rational explanations no less wonderous or awe inspiring. A flower is no less beautiful through the eyes of science then by the hand of god. I'm no less spiritually fulfilled by the kiss of a l#ver than by a belief in an all l#ving/omnipresent diety.

quote:
What could you lead me to, specifically,  to suggest that Judaism was merely a conglomeration of previous paganisms?


Again, the Mesopotamian tales are a great start. You'll find parallels between creation myths, the flood story, and an Assyrian 'Tower of babel' tale. Read the works of Benjamin Foster, Stephanie Dalley, L.W King for excellent translations and commentary.  

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
55 posted 2005-02-14 10:08 AM


Sue:

quote:
In my opinion, they all overlap each other and myth was probably at one time, fact.  In short, I, personally see many instances of myth flooding into religion without it being recognized as old practice


Undoubtedly, I wish more people would realize this before desparaging other beliefs as false, or mythology. Also,a good point discussing the link between Catholicism and Pagan/Celtic myth. Few know that many saints and their churces were Celtic deities/temples modified to appease, and ease, the transition to Catholicisim in amongst the conquered.

quote:
That's it, freewill, the choice to believe what we choose. (whatever works for us)


I haven't questioned the right to choose, but am curious of the reasoning behind the choice/dismissal of others.

littlewing
Member Rara Avis
since 2003-03-02
Posts 9655
New York
56 posted 2005-02-14 10:16 AM


gotcha, ok hmmm . . . I would have to say that their reasoning behind what one believes originates with their upbringing and then escalates into their adulthood/teen years where they then deduce what works for them dependant upon their lifestyle, their hurts, their experience, their successes and failures, all adding to their spiritual beliefs, outlook on one's self and soul and true love for oneself.

It also helps to have positive/helpful/life-experienced people around you to help you discern what it is you are looking for, even though you have to find that yourself.  

I tend to believe that the more one is hurt internally and the more loss one experiences, the more chance that person has to lose any belief.  I was there, many days I am there.  Many days I am not.  I say this only because it seems to me the people I have met that have been through complete Hell, either come out of it shining or they go down in flames, while the rest sit staring wondering when they can go spend their tax return on an inground pool.

Ok, I am rambling.  Lil' off the subject.


Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
57 posted 2005-02-14 11:36 AM


Stephanos:

I might add that when we discuss biblical history, you have to take into consideration that the control of religious and historical manuscripts by the Vatican.

There are manuscripts that will never see the light of day, do you honestly believe they would release non-edited manuscripts, religious or historical, that may conflict with their teachings?

We know for certain documents exist(ed) and have been hidden or edited.

I've mentioned it before but its worth mentioning again. The discovery of a letter from Clement to Theodore casts light on the church's editing and coverup of the original gospel of Mark. Its an example of the church releasing only what it feels should be released, and not neccesarily what is written.

There are others of course, more important too. Missing or edited historical manuscripts such as the work of Hegesippus and Josephus.

If the church is so sure in its path, release it all and let scholars and followers truly decide for themselves.

Copperbell
Senior Member
since 2003-11-08
Posts 956

58 posted 2005-02-16 12:58 PM


Raphael do you mind explaining more about Josephus?

"If the church is so sure in its path, release it all and let scholars and followers truly decide for themselves."

I agree - if its true, it will prove itself

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
59 posted 2005-02-16 02:00 AM


(Raph, please excuse the length of my next several replies ... I'm trying to be thorough.  I'm enjoying this exchange BTW.)


quote:
Stephen:  So my first question to you, before we proceed to questions of internal and external evidences, is:  Do you hold the same standard (necessity of originals) to other widely accepted ancient works, before you consider them to be authentic?


Raph:  In the case of Christianity, non edited, non-Pauline, non-Greek/Roman friendly manuscripts would suffice. Manuscripts from the pre-Pauline christian sects. Where the intent was the restoration of the Temple and Jewish Law. I suscribe to Robert Eisenmann's view that the Dead Sea Scrolls are such a source, and were the stranglehold of the scrolls loosened I'd like to see the debate furthered.


Hold on a sec ...  All I asked you was whether the New Testament manuscripts could be reasonably doubted on the basis of an absence of autographs, seeing that  we possess the originals for virtually NO ancient literature, and that the copies we do have of the NT documents are closer to the original date of writing than ANY other ancient writing.  For that's the reason you gave earlier.  I'm assuming that your answer is "No", since you are now arguing that the authenticity of the Gospels should be doubted on the basis of the supposed existence of earlier, more pure and unaltered manuscripts ... not on the basis of a lack of autographs.  So you're not clarifying your argument so much as introducing a new one.    


But your present argument also requires some verification/ explanation.  All I've heard so far is your suspicion.  Why should we assume there are documents from a "purer" time of pre-Pauline Christianity, which invalidate the canonical Gospels?  From what I've seen, the differences between Jesus and Pauline theology are exaggerated.  And the claim that "purer" gospels were deliberately altered by Paul and his retinue, for political reasons, is an attempt at reconstruction based upon something already assumed ... namely that there ARE such documents.  It's a reconstruction based upon a theory, and a suspicion, but with very little evidence to back it up, in my opinion.  Of course I'd be open to follow you where the evidence leads, if you have anything substantial that you could point me to.  


Likewise, saying that the Vatican may hold captive such supposed documents does little in the way of argument.  How do you know this, seeing there is no other historical indicators of such “Gospels”?  I could just as easily suspect that Left-wing Bible Scholars are hiding even earlier documents (written before the ones you claim the Vatican holds) which accord completely with the Canonical Gospels.  Conspiracy theories are great for the movies, but that’s about it.  (again, unless you have something more substantial you can share)  


And as to the "secret Gospel of Mark", there are several things to remember ...


1)  There is stronger evidence that it is a gnostic “gospel” that was not at all written by Mark.  There’s actually textual evidence that the “Secret Gospel of Mark” was derived from John (since the Gospel of John is the closest thing to Gnosticism that Orthodoxy can afford).  And since Much of John was derived from Mark, the claim that the SGM was written by Mark doesn’t comport with textual evidence ... The SGM can’t be the source of John, and derived from John at the same time.  


2)  Clement (though not clearly a heretic) had a tendency both toward gnosticism and the uncritical acceptance of other pseudo-gospels ... that were in no way reflective of what the Church recognized as a whole.  


3)  A common gnostic practice and theme was “hiding texts for the initiated, and elite” ... In other words, not a common practice of Orthodoxy.  Therefore Clement’s letter shows that the SGM was a gnostic work, and was hid for that elitist reason, rather than for concealing information as a cover-up.


So, the Markian authorship of this document is highly doubtful.  Clement's reputation for only accepting historically verifiable texts is extremely doubtful.  Clement's tendency toward gnosticism lends support to the claim that the SGM was a Gnostic work, not from the pen of Mark.  And the whole context of Clement's reference to hiding the text, fits most naturally with the elitist heresy of the Gnostics, not an ecclesiastical cover-up of damning information.  It's just a bad example for you to use.  It doesn't fit your purposes when closely examined.


  
When you mentioned the SGM (in a similar fashion) at an earlier date, I replied in greater detail (it’s in the second part of my reply).  But you never responded to what I presented.  If you want to review what I wrote, here is the link.  (you have to scroll down to get to the part about the "secret Gospel"- in which I quoted the entire fragment of the letter, in case anyone wants to read the letter for proper context).

/pip/Forum8/HTML/000466-4.html#95





So in summary (to avoid muddling the issue) ...


1)  You seem to be conceding / admitting that it's not valid to doubt the Bible, due to a lack of autographs alone.


2)  You are putting forth another argument of supposed textual corruption, by Paul and his aficionados.  
Is that pretty much correct?
  


quote:
Stephen:  No, the Biblical God is not the same as the Sumerian gods.

Raph:  I disagree, I believe they are one and the same. It seems quite evident the biblical God is an ammalgamation of Mesopotamian(Sumerian,Akkadian,Babylonian) dieties and that much of Genesis is an abridged version of more ancient tablets.



I think the parallels of Genesis in particular, and of the Old Testament in general, with pagan literature is overplayed.  Yes, there are similarities.  But do these similarities prove that the Bible Narratives are simply “borrowing” from earlier works?  I don’t think so.  Many scholars don’t think so either (which I’ll get back to, in a bit).  


One thing to remember is that even the writers of the Bible were often Pagans, who were immersed in Pagan culture.  Moses was an Egyptian, educated and brought up in the Royal family long before he came to identify with the Hebrews.  Abraham came from Ur in Mesopotamia.  Daniel was dragged off into captivity into Babylon, where he was educated in the Babylonian “wisdom”.  So, having come up in religious / cultural climates of religious idolatry, is it incredible that some Jews would use the same idioms, themes, or even phrases in their writings about the one true God once that revelation came to them?
  

For example, Psalm 104 states “... O Lord my God, you are very great.  You are clothed with honor and majesty... He makes the clouds his chariot, who walks on the wings of the wind.”  Of course the god Baal was portrayed as “The rider of the clouds”.  And no doubt this Old Testament phrase was a direct application of a description of Baal to the One True God.  But understanding the mindset of the monotheistic Jew, who would naturally consider all praises of pagan idols to be usurped in a sense from YHWH, makes this phenomenon completely understandable.  I see no problem here.  There are many other examples too, but they are similar to what I just described.  


There are also similarities between the “Wisdom Literature” of the Jews and other Ancient Near East nations.  Most of the similarities exist in literary forms.  Even the format of Proverbs (a book of thirty three chapters) is most likely using the pattern of a type of  Pagan instruction manual for young men.  The Biblical “Proverbs” is thirty chapters, and in chapter 22:20, it reads “Have I not written for you thirty sayings of admonition and knowledge to show you what is right and true?”  This is very similar to the Egyptian writing, “Instruction of Amenemope”, which has a line that reads “see thou these thirty chapters ...”.  There are also similarities of theme in these works.


But what exactly does a common culture, and a common vernacular suggest?  Certainly not inauthenticity.  And I would also add (though that is a separate argument entirely, and we haven’t gone there yet), it would not cast doubt on Divine Inspiration either.  The Church has never held that God gave scripture via dictation method, but used the available personality and mindset of the writer.  So the need for “total originality” is not necessary at all.  It’s a false criteria.  Actually I think there’s a strong argument that since pagans have always attempted to describe “creation” and “worship” in their legends, it seems that such a tendency is something that it is pervasive among peoples and cultures, and represents a universal knowledge of God, though imperfect and mistaken.  And that’s precisely what Paul tells us in Romans chapter one.


As for Genesis ... There are many scholars who recognize similarities, but have not come to the conclusion that there is “borrowing” involved.  I’ll quote just a few of them for you in my next reply, without adding any comments of my own.  Then I’ll try to comment more on this afterward.


Stephen.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
60 posted 2005-02-16 02:32 AM


quote:
The individual themes of creation and flood ... recur in other writings. Thus the Babylonian epic Enuma Elish (called 'Babylonian creation' in most books), completed by circa 1000 from older sources, has been repeatedly compared with Gen. 1-2. But despite the reiterated claims of an older generation of biblical scholars, Enuma Elish and Gen. 1-2 in fact share no direct relationship. Thus the word tehom/thm is common to both Hebrew and Ugaritic (north Syria) and means nothing more than 'deep, abyss.' It is not a deity, like Ti'amat, a goddess in Enuma Elish. In terms of theme, creation is the massively central concern of Gen. 1-2, but it is a mere tailpiece in Enuma Elish, which is dedicated to portraying the supremacy of the god Marduk of Babylon. The only clear comparisons between the two are the inevitable banalities: creation of earth and sky before the plants are put on the earth, and of plants before animals (that need to eat them) and humans; it could hardly have been otherwise! The creation of light before the luminaries is the only peculiarity that might indicate any link between the Hebrew and Enuma Elish narrative; but where did it earlier come from? Not known, as yet. Thus most Assyriologists have long since rejected the idea of any direct link between Gen. 1-11 and Enuma Elish, and nothing else better can be found between Gen. 1-11 and any other Mesopotamian fragments.

(K A Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament)


and ...

quote:
Similarities between Genesis and Enuma Elish have been frequently cited in great detail. While superficial parallels may be noted and do exist, the only substantial similarity occurs in the dividing of the body of Tiamat by Marduk to create the two separated spheres of water. This is comparable to God's dividing the waters of the firmament on the second day of creation...In summary, then, it is difficult to discuss comparisons between Israelite and Mesopotamian literature concerning creation of the cosmos because the disparity is so marked. Differences include basic elemental issues such as theogony verus cosmogony, polytheism versus monotheism, and emphasis on organization versus emphasis on creative act. Similarities are either linguistic in nature or, as in most cases, due to the fact that the accounts are descriptive of the cosmos of which both are a part. . .
. . . The similarities between Genesis and Enuma Elish are too few to think that the author of Genesis was in any way addressing the piece of literature we know as Enuma Elish. . .


. . . The second possibility, that the Israelite account was borrowed from the Babylonians, has enjoyed an overabundance of popularity. In reality, there is nothing that would lend substantiating credence to this belief. The fact that Israel on occasion exhibits cultural characteristics assimilated from Babylon, as did most of the Ancient Near East, can in no way serve as independent proof that any given item was borrowed. Each potential case of borrowing must be studied on its own merits, for it is clear that there are several cultural elements from Mesopotamia that Israel rejected... The only evidence that can be produced to support the case for Israelite borrowing is the similarities we have already identified. These are hardly convincing, in that most of the similarities occur in situations where cosmological choices are limited. For example, the belief in a primeval watery mass is perfectly logical and one of only a few possibilities... Since there is little to suggest direct borrowing on the part of the Israelites, we would be inclined to accept a more cautious position...

(John H. Walton, Ancient Israelite Literature in it’s Cultural Context)


and ...

quote:
The similarities between the Genesis account and the 'Atra-Hasis Epic' do not support the idea that Genesis is a direct borrowing form the Mesopotamian but do indicate that Mesopotamian materials could have served as models for Genesis 1-11, as Jacobsen holds. P.D. Miller also admits that 'there were Mesopotamian models that anticipate the structure of Genesis 1-11 as a whole.' K. A. Kitchen notes a similar outline, namely 'creation-flood-later times,' and a common theme, namely 'creation, crisis, continuance of man,' of the 'primeval proto-history' in the 'Atra-Hasis Epic,' the Sumerian Flood story, and the Sumerian King List, as well as in the Genesis account. He recognizes here 'a common literary heritage, formulated in each case in Mesopotamia in the early 2nd millennium b.c.'...However, there are also many differences between the Mesopotamian traditions and the Genesis account, in addition to the basic concepts of divine-human relationship. . .

(David Tsumura, “I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood": Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1-11)


and ...

quote:
the differences between the biblical and the Mesopotamian accounts are much more striking that their similarities; each of them embodies the world outlook of their respective civilizations. In Genesis there is a total rejection of all mythology...[Differences include:]...Cosmogony is not linked to theogony. The pre-existence of god is assumed--it is not linked to the genesis of the universe. there is no suggestion of any primordial battle or internecine ware which eventually led to the creation of the universe...The primeval water, earth, sky, and luminaries are not pictured as deities or as parts of disembodied deities, but are all parts of the manifold work of the Creator...The story in Genesis, moreover, is nonpolitical: unlike Enuma Elish, which is a monument to Marduk and to Babylon and its temple, Genesis makes no allusion to Israel, Jerusalem, or the temple.

(S.M. Paul, Encyclopedia Judaica, s.v. “creation”)


and ...

quote:
"Genesis I is obviously a cosmogony, though (as will be seen) its dependence on other ancient cosmogonies cannot be specified with any exactness... Though its prefatory function is paralleled in Mesopotamia, attempts to show that Genesis I is directly dependent on Enuma elish cannot be judged successful. . .


Given our present knowledge, however, it is difficult to prove that any single work is the source of Genesis I. . .


Genesis 2-11 moves in a different direction than the creation-flood genre of Mesopotamian literature...Atrahasis is a critique of the gods; their assembly is bumbling and fragmented; their leader is the bullying and cowardly Enlil [sic]. This unflattering picture is relieved only by the introduction of the wise and compassionate Enlil [sic] and Nintu. Fault lies with the gods rather than with human beings. The gods' miscalculations lead to the annihilation of the race, and their needs to its restoration. In Genesis, God does it right the first time and after the flood re-blesses the human race with his original words...Both Atrahasis and Genesis were written with a sense of confidence. Atrahasis shows confidence in the human race; people are necessary because the gods are generally lazy, shortsighted, and impetuous. Confidence in Genesis is founded on God's justice and mercy, and the reliability of the created world. . .


Though Egyptian wisdom literature directly influenced such biblical books as Proverbs, Egyptian cosmogonies evidently have no direct influence. . .

(Richard J. Clifford, Creation Accounts in the Ancient Near East and in the Bible)


and ...

quote:
myths about a cosmic battle at the beginning of time appear in the Bible in fragmentary form, and the several allusions have to be pieced together to produce some kind of coherent unit. Still, the fact that these myths appear in literary compositions in ancient Israel indicates clearly that they had achieved wide currency over a long period of time. They have survived in the Bible solely as obscure, picturesque metaphors and exclusively in the language of poetry. Never are these creatures accorded divine attributes, nor is there anywhere a suggestion that their struggle against God could in any way have posed a challenge to His sovereign rule.

This is of particular significance in light of the fact that one of the inherent characteristics of all other ancient Near Eastern cosmologies is the internecine strife of the gods. Polytheistic accounts of creation always begin with the predominance of the divinized powers of nature and then describe in detail a titanic struggle between the opposing forces. They inevitably regard the achievement of world order as the outgrowth of an overwhelming exhibition of power on the part of one god who then manages to impose his will upon all other gods.

(Nahum Sarna, JPS Torah commentary, Genesis)


and ...

quote:
As a literary production, Genesis 2 and 3 have no parallel in ancient Near Eastern literature. The Epic of Adapa, often presented as a parallel, is not really so, either in literary structure, in moral emphasis, or in theological content.

(G. Herbert Livingston, The Pentateuch in its Cultural Environment)


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
61 posted 2005-02-16 02:48 AM


Raph,

My whole aim in giving you the quotes above, is to show that the assumption of overt "borrowing" is not at all certain.  And even that, in a common culture, a kind of unconscious "borrowing" is unavoidable.  Also, that in light of the differences and uniqueness of the Hebrew texts, such borrowing is inconsequential.  


Stephen.


Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
62 posted 2005-02-16 11:42 AM


I never need a religion to be perfect to believe in it.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
63 posted 2005-02-16 05:00 PM


No, but if a historically based religion is false, then you end up believing a myth.  Christianity is different in that it claims to be sharply different from paganism in this very category.  Furthermore, it claims to be of no particular benefit (by one of it's own Apostles) unless these things about it are true.


I'm not trying to show that it is "perfect".  I'm trying to show that the best conclusion we can come to, is that the central events which it claims to have happened, really happened.  Or at least that most of the common objections are more problematic than the original problem.


Stephen.    

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
64 posted 2005-02-16 11:25 PM



First, let me be completely honest, I haven't the time or patience for this argument in my current state of mind so i'll keep this brief.

quote:
Hold on a sec ...  All I asked you was whether the New Testament manuscripts could be reasonably
doubted on the basis of an absence of autographs..So you're not clarifying your argument so much as introducing a new one.    



For the sake of moving the conversation along, I gave you the standard by which the NT would be acceptable
to me. I never put forward the argument of autographed versions, so what am I to clarify but my initial proposal?
No new proposal, just a continuation of my earlier comments.

quote:
But your present argument also requires some verification/ explanation.  All I've heard so far is your suspicion. Why should we assume there are documents from a "purer" time of pre-Pauline Christianity, which invalidate the canonical Gospels?


If you suscribed to certain views I've mentioned on the Dead Sea Scrolls,  then you'd view them as evidence of such documents. If you
do not, there's nothing I can say that you wouldn't dub suspicion or reconstruction.

quote:
From what I've seen, the differences between Jesus and Pauline theology are exaggerated.  And the claim that "purer" gospels were deliberately altered by Paul and his retinue, for political reasons, is an attempt at reconstruction based upon something already assumed ... namely that there ARE such documents.  It's a reconstruction based upon a theory, and a suspicion, but with very little evidence to back it up, in my opinion.  Of course I'd be open to follow you where the evidence leads, if you have anything substantial that you could point me to.


As you said, in your opinion. That you see them as a exaggerated, or reconstructions, doesn't make them any less feasible. Detached from
beliefs, many of those arguments as plausible, in my opinion. Many of the counter arguments and dismissals I've read seem religiously
biased and heavily dependent on faith which to me is insubstantial as these views are to you.
I won't elaborate but have offered you some of the authors that have.

quote:
Likewise, saying that the Vatican may hold captive such supposed documents does little in the way of argument.  How do you know
this, seeing there is no other historical indicators of such “Gospels”?


Well, the clearest modern example is the handling and control of the Dead Sea Scrolls by the Vatican through the Ecole Biblique.
I won't go into that, again Eisenman's work, if you chose to read it, mentions their role (as does Baigent/Leigh's interesting but layman  
Dea Sea Scrolls Deception) in suppressing what could be a link to the sect led by James and the apostles. Information supression/destruction
is not a new or bold accusation against the Vatican. If a church adamant on supressing scientific theories, like those of Galileo, because
they conflicted with its views isn't it at least possible they would have the same determination against texts/historical documents that
would do the same?

A few years agao, when Vatican archives were explored. A Vatican official, Father Pagano, stated in an interview that the Church had
a tradition of burning many of the more delicate files.  For example, the inquisition's archive was almost entirely burned on Pope Paul IV's
death in 1559.  More than 2,000 volumes were burned in 1810. The Vatican only 4,500 volumes, of which only a small part referred to
heresy trials still exist.  The rest detail theological controversies and spiritual questions.

Does this prove the Vatican has or destroyed pre-Pauline texts. No. Does it raise point to a serious potential to do so? Yes.
quote:
1)  You seem to be conceding / admitting that it's not valid to doubt the Bible, due to a lack of autographs alone.


There are no autographed versions of Homer's work. While it's wildly accepted that both the Illiad and the Odyssey are Homer's,
there are convincing arguments against this. Or at least, that portions of the latter are decisively nonHomeric either by editing or
addition. In this case tone, inconsistencies and historical cast doubt on the text(specifically the ending). Those, not autograph alone,
are what cast doubts on the NT.


2)  You are putting forth another argument of supposed textual corruption, by Paul and his aficionados.  
Is that pretty much correct?

Actually, my argument against Paul is not so much textual corruption, but corruption of the entire message and ideals of Jesus.
My argument against the church and others is yes, textual corruption in order to better serve a roman/gentile audience or the
vaticans needs.

quote:
I think the parallels of Genesis in particular, and of the Old Testament in general, with pagan literature is overplayed.  Yes,
there are similarities.  But do these similarities prove that the Bible Narratives are simply “borrowing” from earlier works?  I don’t
think so.


There's more than just a passing similarity between the stories Stephanos, the similarities are striking. Would you dismiss the statement
that many modern movies are simply revised/transformed versions of older literature? The comedy Clueless was a transformation of
Jane Austen's Emma, West Side Story is a transformation Romeo and Juliet the list goes on.

Here's a very small, and brief comparison for example http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-285.htm

quote:
As for Genesis ... There are many scholars who recognize similarities, but have not come to the conclusion that there is “borrowing” involved.


And there many who have lol. We can bounce around quotes and theories for days, the intent of the thread was not to prove/disprove
your religion, but I got caught up in the questions and it seems that's where it's now going.

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
65 posted 2005-02-16 11:26 PM


quote:
I'm not trying to show that it is "perfect".  I'm trying to show that the best conclusion we can come to, is that the central events which it claims to have happened, really happened.  Or at least that most of the common objections are more problematic than the original problem


More, no, at the most I'll concede equally problematic.

Essorant
Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada
66 posted 2005-02-17 02:13 AM


"No, but if a historically based religion is false, then you end up believing a myth.  Christianity is different in that it claims to be sharply different from paganism in this very category. "

But even history doesn't claim to be without myths.  
Myths are not false stephenos.  They are just a part of telling the truth.  In the course of cherishing someone, or something, and telling about those, glorification happens.  Maybe it changes the accuracy a bit but it doesn't change the basic truth and the sentiment.  It is still the truth, it's just not perfect.  But even a truth without a myth is not perfect because there is always some specification or reality that may be seen or believed as missing. This is where it comes in that truth shouldn't need to be perfect to be acknowledged as a truth.  If it is strongly true, that is still a strong truth.  And That may be the closest thing to perfection any religion may get      

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
67 posted 2005-02-18 12:11 PM


quote:
Me:  But your present argument also requires some verification/ explanation.  All I've heard so far is your suspicion. Why should we assume there are documents from a "purer" time of pre-Pauline Christianity, which invalidate the canonical Gospels?


RaphIf you suscribed to certain views I've mentioned on the Dead Sea Scrolls,  then you'd view them as evidence of such documents. If you
do not, there's nothing I can say that you wouldn't dub suspicion or reconstruction.



That's not exactly true.  Go ahead and say it.  The evidence for the Gospels accurately reflecting the "cradle" of Christianity is textual evidence, and can be looked at in light of the standards of historiography.  I mentioned those earlier.


But what textual evidence is there, even from the Dead Sea Scrolls, which would lead us to think there might be an earlier "purer" form of Christianity?  

If you say, there were indeed texts but they were all destroyed or suppressed, what evidence is there of that?  Is that speculation, or have such texts been seen and documented by anyone before they were destroyed?  It still sounds purely speculative to me.  I know there is speculation involved with any view ... but there has to be something more substantial and supportive alongside it, or it's not very convincing.  Again, I'd like to hear more, if you can provide it.  I love to learn.


quote:
As you said, in your opinion. That you see them as a exaggerated, or reconstructions, doesn't make them any less feasible. Detached from
beliefs, many of those arguments as plausible, in my opinion. Many of the counter arguments and dismissals I've read seem religiously
biased and heavily dependent on faith which to me is insubstantial as these views are to you.
I won't elaborate but have offered you some of the authors that have.



Please do elaborate.  It lets me know that you've thought these issue through in detail and aren't just repeating someone else's conclusions.  You don't have to understand or express them the way a historian would, just show that you understand what they're saying.  And it also gives me a chance to consider and respond.  You may change my outlook on certain points.  I don't have all the answers.  


If it's a matter of lacking the time to do so, don't let that stop you.  Take your time.  Since when have you known me to take a very long leave from philosophy 101?  


But, if you don't, it's cool.  I will look into the authors you have mentioned.


quote:
Information supression/destruction
is not a new or bold accusation against the Vatican. If a church adamant on supressing scientific theories, like those of Galileo, because
they conflicted with its views isn't it at least possible they would have the same determination against texts/historical documents that
would do the same?



Yes, but each allegation must be examined in turn, and supported by it's own merits.


Since the "church" has equally or more often been a means of preserving and elucidating texts  ... it can't so easily be construed that she has been deceptive across the board.  There always were tares in a wheat field.


The Church, leaning too heavily on the accepted science of the day (Aristotelian views), made the mistake of persecuting someone really bright who went against the tide.  But since these issues were markedly extrabiblical, not being supported or refuted by scripture in any convincing way, they are different issues altogether.  The questions we are dealing with are more historical / textual in nature and are more easily settled by those methods.  But I admit that the dishonesty, or the cruelty of churchmen in the time of Galileo is lamentable.  It reflects badly on the Church as a whole (rightly or wrongly), and may even help others to carelessly doubt her testimonies when they have been pure.


quote:
There are no autographed versions of Homer's work. While it's wildly accepted that both the Illiad and the Odyssey are Homer's,
there are convincing arguments against this. Or at least, that portions of the latter are decisively nonHomeric either by editing or
addition. In this case tone, inconsistencies and historical cast doubt on the text(specifically the ending). Those, not autograph alone,
are what cast doubts on the NT.



I think you might have misunderstood what I meant by "autographs".  I do not mean "autographed versions", in the sense of signing something.  One definition of autograph, is the original text.  The first edition.  Even anonymous works may be an "autograph" in this sense.


And before you go too far in trying to cast doubt on Homer's Iliad ... even if that's true, that's another issue.  The period of time between Homer and the first extant copy is very long in comparison to the period of time between the events of the NT, and its first copies.  


So, though I don't know enough about such arguments to debate you about the Iliad being authentic, I do know that it matters little to our discussion.  Why?  Because if you care to look, virtually ALL ancient literature is in the same boat of having a large span of time between the time of writing and the first copy.  So pick whichever accepted text you want to.  Surely there is some undoubted authentic text in the ancient world that you could find.  That ONE will prove my point.  It is accepted despite it's lack of autographs, and despite the fact that it's manuscripts are few.  


The New Testament literally has the best textual attestation in the garden of ancient writings.  


It passes the Bibliographical test with flying colors.
That was my point.


quote:
There's more than just a passing similarity between the stories Stephanos, the similarities are striking. Would you dismiss the statement
that many modern movies are simply revised/transformed versions of older literature? The comedy Clueless was a transformation of
Jane Austen's Emma, West Side Story is a transformation Romeo and Juliet the list goes on.



No I don't dismiss that.  It's true.  But do mere similarities warrant this claim?


There is an ancient hymn called "The Cannibal Hymn to Pharaoh Unis", in which cannibalism is described.


Cannibalism is a very unusual thing in literature (not an extremely popular thing to write about).  Does that mean that Apion's "Blood Libel" against the Jews was derived from the Egyptians?


Or that the movie "Dahmer" borrowed from both?


Or let's say that the producer of "Dahmer" influenced by the fictitious movie "Halloween", used some of it's screen effects and motifs in the movie about Jeffery Dahmer.  Does this mean that Jeffery Dahmer, the cannibalistic serial killer did not exist?  


To say the least, determining "borrowing" is not a simple question.  And jumping to the wrong conclusion is easier than you may think.
  

quote:
Me:  As for Genesis ... There are many scholars who recognize similarities, but have not come to the conclusion that there is “borrowing” involved.


Raph:  And there many who have lol. We can bounce around quotes and theories for days, the intent of the thread was not to prove/disprove
your religion, but I got caught up in the questions and it seems that's where it's now going.

Again, I like to "bounce around quotes and theories", and mostly to hear them expounded in our own words.  That's the only way to analyze something and consider how reasonable each perspective view may be.


But if the threads gone awry in your eyes, it's yours, and you have the prerogative to pull it back in the direction you prefer.


Stephen.

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
68 posted 2005-02-18 10:14 PM


Copperbell, sorry i missed your question earlier. Flavius Josephus is an ancient historian whose book 'Jewish Antiquities' purports to encapsulate Jewish history from the Creation to the revolt of A.D. 66. Quotes from this text were used in other historical documents, but these quotes are now absent from the versions we read today.

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
69 posted 2005-02-18 10:16 PM


Stephanos, I'll return to this later to at least address your last replies.
Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
70 posted 2005-02-21 10:49 PM


Stephanos, i answered your question, in part, about textual links of the scrolls to the early sect in the sermon thread, but i'll return to address the ot tales with mesopotamian versions here later.
LeeJ
Member Patricius
since 2003-06-19
Posts 13296

71 posted 2005-02-22 02:46 PM


Aenimal

LeeJ, i think you have to ask yourself these questions, whether you're a true believer or a non-believer. how do you truly know what you believe in without questioning or challenging it. It's why, while i don't necessarily agree with them, i do greatly respect believers like Stephanos.

I do believe in God, very much so...but not as others believe...and I do respect believers like Stephanos...please don't ever think I meant any insult to them or their beliefs...this is how we learn....and if I in anyway, wrote anything to lead you to believe that I don't respect other people for their opinions and beliefs...for that I greatly apologize....forgive me for not being able to articulate myself in a better way...

Also, when it comes to questions about God, I don't believe all our questions will be answered until the day we meet God and then all will be made known to us..but until then, I remain patient in the Lord's ability to give me the answers in His time...not mine....and He has given me answers along the way for my own personal journey...really He has.  But I think there are things not for us to know, until then...and so, we can debate this issue until the cows come home, but no one really knows for certain...do they?  Look at all the scholors, scientists and sheeshh, I am merely a woman with a high school education, never holding a candle to some of you...perhaps that is why I love this page so much...but long story short...no one really knows...do they?  And I believe it states that in the Bible somewhere as well, something like, all will be made known to you then....

And I was never one who could quote the Bible or remember what books I read what out of, geezze Louise, I'm lucky if I can remember how old I am????

I have learned a great many things from this web site...and it's forums, and it's many many opinions & beliefs....and I hope I never reach a point in my life when I think I know all there is to know, I pray, always to remain open minded, that nothing anyone writes is written in stone...I believe books, thoughts, movies, etc are one persons opinion, and it is from those opinions we grow, but as in everything else, God gives us choice of belief, as well as fee will...as I want to learn more....but...in the same....my beliefs in God are different from most religions now...and whose to say, I'm right, as I'm always open for debate and thoughts....but how does anyone really really know for certain?  

Sorry...my apologies to all of you....but I meant nor ever mean any insult or condiscention of anyone's beliefs, just sharing my thoughts....and learning from yours

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
72 posted 2005-02-23 12:13 PM


Raph,

Look forward to your replies.  I've begun to respond to your points about the DSS in the "Sermon" thread too.  


LeeJ:
quote:
my beliefs in God are different from most religions now...and whose to say, I'm right, as I'm always open for debate and thoughts....but how does anyone really really know for certain? 



So you don't think anyone can be right?  Or do you merely think no one can know or prove that they are right?  


Just remember that the assumption that "know one can really know anything" is an absolute epistemological claim ... not exactly religious, but of the same nature as religious belief.


Humility, and the admission of partial knowledge is one thing.  The doubt that anyone can know anything of religious matters for sure, is another.


Not sure if that's what you were getting at.  But it sounded like it.


Stephen

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
73 posted 2005-02-27 04:15 PM


quote:
Yes, but each allegation must be examined in turn, and supported by it's own merits.Since the "church" has equally or more often been a means of preserving and elucidating texts  ... it can't so easily be construed that she has been deceptive across the board.  There always were tares in a wheat field.


Elucidating texts makes the church's views sound definitive, they are merely interpretations that serve their particular interests.
By no means are they definitive interpretations, the continued debate amongst christian factions/historical/biblical scholars
is proof of this. Your church's 'elucidations' are the 'heresies' of another. Consider for example, Marian doctrine or the argument of
Jesus having siblings.

When historical evidence suggests, and the church's admission verifies, a policy of destroying and suppressing 'heretical' texts (heretical being anything that did not fit into the rigid interpretations of the church) the potential for deception greatly increases. The Roman Catholic church's monopoly and suppression over the dead sea scrolls is evidence enough of how the church reacts
to any threats to it's dogma.

While I agree, each allegation should be examined in turn, it's difficult to do when countless texts have been destroyed and knowledge of
their contents lost or hidden. Call it of profiling, but in the case of the church, where there's smoke there's fire, too often, literally.

Tell me, had their been definitive evidence linking the scrolls to the early sect, do you honestly believe the church would release it, toppling
2 millenia of power and spiritual authority?

quote:
think you might have misunderstood what I meant by "autographs".  I do not mean "autographed versions", in the sense of signing something.  One definition of autograph, is the original text.  The first edition.  Even anonymous works may be an "autograph" in this sense. And before you go too far in trying to cast doubt on Homer's Iliad ... even if that's true, that's another issue.  The period of time between Homer and the first extant copy is very long in comparison to the period of time between the events of the NT, and its first copies.


No Stephanos, I understood, and no it's not another issue. Nor is time an issue concerning authenticity. Let's deal with time first. The
span of time between the editing and release of a modern book, cd or film is miniscule in comparison to the events that lead into the NT.
Yet, the difference in the original or intended works and those released are often collosal. How many overzealous editors and producers
have altered works to soothe or appease certain groups and their pandering publishers? It is not at all unreasonable to assume that the NT works did or could have been edited to suit specific views or targets.

As for the Illiad it's a valid point, regardless of non-autographed versions or the passage of time, doubts on the authorship of its ending and allegations of editing or additions were based on tone and inconsistencies. Allegations that can and have been leveled against the NT books.

quote:
No I don't dismiss that.  It's true.  But do mere similarities warrant this claim?


No, but they're not mere similarities Stephanos. The biggest difference between the flood stories is simply the amount of gods
involved. But let's look at the similarities:

God(s), angered by humankind, decree that all shall be destroyed by means of a flood. Someone is chosen to carry on the human race. This person is given incredibly detailed instructions on building an ark, and told to store it with all manner of animal species to repopulate the earth after the flood.

Mere similarities, motifs and themes? Hardly, this alone would be enough to win a plagiarism suit. Surely the use of incredibly specific dimensions between the Babylonian and the Genesis myth is more than mere coincedence? Also, consider this passage:

"And when Yahweh smelled the pleasing odor, Yahweh said in his heart, 'I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from yourth; nor will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done" (Genesis 8:21).

God expresses what seems to be remorse, after smelling Noah's first offering after the Flood. In the Sumerian myth, after smelling the
offering from the ark survivors, Anu realizes and admits the folly of his actions against humankind.

There are of course more themes and motifs linking Genesis to Sumerian/Mesopotamian 'mythologies' and if you wish to discuss them I
will. The irony is that few, if any, would argue the evolution of Sumerian mythology to Akkadian to Babylonian, but applied to the OT,
many become adamant in seperating them.

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
74 posted 2005-02-27 04:16 PM


LeeJ, i found nothing offensive about your views and thank you for adding them to the discussion.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
75 posted 2005-03-02 09:43 AM


Raph:
quote:
Elucidating texts makes the church's views sound definitive, they are merely interpretations that serve their particular interests.
By no means are they definitive interpretations, the continued debate amongst christian factions/historical/biblical scholars
is proof of this. Your church's 'elucidations' are the 'heresies' of another. Consider for example, Marian doctrine or the argument of
Jesus having siblings.


Despite differences in interpretation, the Church (universal) has been in essential agreement about the core doctrines of Christianity, including the historicity of the gospels and the death and resurrection of Jesus.


And anyway, not all "beliefs" among Christian groups hold the same weight of support.  For example, certain Marian doctrines must be supported by RC tradition alone, with little (if any) support from the historical texts of the Bible.  So again, each claim must be examined in turn.  The fact that there has not been unanimity about the texts of the Bible, does not invalidate it.  Just like every other discipline has been subject to the manifold opinions of men.  But some opinions still remain better than others, no matter what field of study.


And the idea that ALL interpretations are only differing means to power and control, is not a view that I accept.  As far as I can tell, that's the conclusion of much of postmodern Linguistic philosophy.  But under that umbrella, even your own interpretation needs to be chalked up to a purely personal agenda.  


Regardless of the often questionable motives of men, there remains the possibility of honesty, and the evaluation of historiography.  So let us talk about real methods to determine whether a hypothesis may be sound, rather than pointing to disagreement in general to discredit the other side.  By doing that you only end up discrediting many claims that you yourself consider to be true.  Overly general argumentation ends up as it's own casualty ... a victim of "friendly fire".


quote:
When historical evidence suggests, and the church's admission verifies, a policy of destroying and suppressing 'heretical' texts (heretical being anything that did not fit into the rigid interpretations of the church) the potential for deception greatly increases. The Roman Catholic church's monopoly and suppression over the dead sea scrolls is evidence enough of how the church reacts
to any threats to it's dogma.



The Church used standards for the canonization of scripture ...


1) Authenticity (was apostolic authorship (or someone who knew an apostle) verifiable?)

2) Catholicity (was it widely accepted and used by the Church as a whole, as opposed to being recongnized only in isolated segments?)

3) Orthodoxy (did it line up with what the Church understood to be apostolic doctrine?)


There is no evidence that the early church suppressed the truth, to establish dogma.  Rather, it protected the truth it had received in the form of dogma.  


All of the pseudepigraphal writings failed the above tests for canonicity.  The fact that you are suppressing is that THEY ARE ALL STILL AROUND for anyone to see why and how they failed the test.  If the church was so good at eradicating heretical texts, why are there so many of them in existence today?  I just want to establish that the alleged texts you keep mentioning about the “early sect” have never been found, nor have they ever been documented in other works as having been found.  They are theoretically presumed by you ... based upon charges against the Roman Catholic Church at a much later date.  I personally wonder what proof you have of the "thousands" of documents that the RC Church destroyed in later times.  But even if those charges were true, it would not incriminate the "Pauline" Christians.  Or at least, you’ve failed to give a reason as to why it should.  


These alleged "early documents" would have been quite numerous and at least as difficult to round up and destroy as the pseudepigraphal works were.  When a few people, in contrast to the larger community, promote error (like the pseudepigrapha), it is difficult or impossible to contain because of the copying and dispersion of texts.  That’s why the Church chose to make proclamation about which works were genuine and which ones weren't, rather than try to destroy them all.  But how much more difficult to contain would written works be, if they represented the knowledge of a larger community whose writings were being opposed and destroyed by a smaller group?  And that's exactly what you are proposing!  Was a comparatively smaller group of heretics able to stamp out without a trace the genuine writings of the first Christians, and then to become the majority, without anyone writing anything in opposition?  You have more faith than me.             


quote:
While I agree, each allegation should be examined in turn, it's difficult to do when countless texts have been destroyed and knowledge of
their contents lost or hidden. Call it of profiling, but in the case of the church, where there's smoke there's fire, too often, literally.



Again, what can you cite me, that would give reasonable attestation that the Church has destroyed "countless texts", with the knowledge of their contents "lost or hidden"?  That’s a big allegation.  It requires more than just saying it is so.  At the very least, I suspect you are greatly exaggerating.  But I'm open to what you can point me to, to verify your claims.  I’ve never been one to make light of, or deny the faults of churchmen through the centuries.  But understand that this is an entirely separate issue from the honesty of those who dealt with the earliest documents ... the early Christians, or the "Pauline" Christians as you would call them.


quote:
Tell me, had their been definitive evidence linking the scrolls to the early sect, do you honestly believe the church would release it, toppling
2 millenia of power and spiritual authority?



Tell me, had there been definitive evidence linking the scrolls to the early Church, do you honestly believe that I would be so opposed to your theory?  All you would have to do is point me to this evidence.


Honestly, I believe that the nature of the connection would be such that the church couldn't cover it up, even if it desperately wanted to.  There would have been ample expression from the early community that couldn’t have been quieted or contained.  The early Christians would have reacted against the "Pauline" heresy with great zeal.  As I explained before, if the Church couldn't eradicate the pseudepigriphal documents (but instead had to officially define and declare what is and is not divinely inspired scripture), it’s hardly likely that they could have done so with the alleged early Christian documents.


quote:
Nor is time an issue concerning authenticity. Let's deal with time first. The
span of time between the editing and release of a modern book, cd or film is miniscule in comparison to the events that lead into the NT.
Yet, the difference in the original or intended works and those released are often colossal. How many overzealous editors and producers
have altered works to soothe or appease certain groups and their pandering publishers? It is not at all unreasonable to assume that the NT works did or could have been edited to suit specific views or targets.



Nor is time an issue concerning authenticity?  Historians disagree with you.  I already discussed their standards, and how the amount of time between extant copies and the original events, IS a consideration when authenticity is in question.  

But you originally said : " Until original transcripts or historical documents are found the questions will always remain."


Now if you say that time doesn’t matter, then certainly a lack of original manuscripts doesn’t matter either.  My only point in saying what I did, was that the absence of original manuscripts is not the reason for doubting the integrity of any other ancient text.  In fact there are many undoubted as to integrity, whose extant copies are much farther removed from their time of writing, than the documents of the New Testament.  Do you agree with this?


quote:
As for the Illiad it's a valid point, regardless of non-autographed versions or the passage of time, doubts on the authorship of its ending and allegations of editing or additions were based on tone and inconsistencies. Allegations that can and have been leveled against the NT books.



No the Illiad is not a valid point IF we are still talking about a lack of original manuscripts.  But if you’re talking about going beyond your original contention that I addressed, then yes, it is valid to consider. But, if The Iliad is questioned because of “tone and inconsistencies”, you need to demonstrate that the New Testament should be also doubted because of it’s own problems with tone and inconsistency.  You haven’t done that yet.


I just wanted to say that as far as manuscript attestation goes, the New Testament has no match in the world of ancient literature.  It was a proper thing to clear out of the way first, since you brought up the lack of autographs as a possible source of doubt.  If you want to move on to other contentions you might have (of internal evidence), then by all means do so.  


quote:
No, but they're not mere similarities Stephanos. The biggest difference between the flood stories is simply the amount of gods
involved. But let's look at the similarities:



And I maintain that they ARE, or at least can be mere similarities.  Consider the legends of Romulus and Remus written by Livy and Plutarch, written between 30 B.C. and 100 A.D.  



- When Romulus and Remus were born Amulius took them and put them into a basket and threw them in the Tiber river, hoping they would drown.


- They were rescued by a wild wolf, who fed the babies with her own milk. A woodpecker also helped and fed them berries.

- They were later rescued by the shepherd Faustulus and his wife who raised them as their own sons.


- Romulus killed Remus with an axe in a quarrel.  Romulus later founded the city of Roma.


- The legend ends by telling how Romulus was carried up to the heavens by his father, Mars,  


Note that there are more than a few striking similarities between these legends and writings in the Jewish Old Testament:  Moses was placed in a river in a basket.  Elijah was fed by ravens.  Pharoah's daughter found and raised Moses as her own.  Cain killed Abel in a fit of anger, and afterward went and founded a city called Nod.  Elijah was carried up into the Heavens in a Chariot of fire.  


But you’ll not find anyone linking the Jewish Old Testament and the Roman Legends of Romulus and Remus.  hmmmm.  Seemingly obvious similarities, do not always indicate borrowing.

But then again, I have no problem (since I view the universal flood as an historical event) with accounts of the flood being passed down through several veins of oral tradition, and therefore being manifest in more than one culture’s writing.  This to me, would seem to verify the historicity of a large-scale flood, since many cultures have a similar flood tale passed on by oral tradition.  So bottom line, there may be a common event as the source of the accounts of Gilgamesh and Noah.  But then again, the similarities do not in themselves indicate literary borrowing, because there are significant differences as well.  And like the myth of Romulus and Remus demonstrates, a text may have remarkably common themes as, and yet be totally unrelated to another earlier work.


Stephen.

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
76 posted 2005-03-04 03:10 PM


quote:
Despite differences in interpretation, the Church (universal) has been in essential agreement about the core doctrines of Christianity, including the historicity of the gospels and the death and resurrection of Jesus.


Essential agreement, not total agreement.  And consider the  'heretic' beliefs, like Arianism and Socinianism before them, that exist in christian denominations today. Jehovah's Witnesses,Unitarians and Mormon's for example, all strongly reject church doctrine and interpretation.

quote:
The fact that there has not been unanimity about the texts of the Bible, does not invalidate it.  Just like every other discipline has been subject to the manifold opinions of men.  But some opinions still remain better than others, no matter what field of study.


Nor does church doctrine validate it. Indeed, some opinions remain better than others, we disagree on which ones those would be.

quote:
Regardless of the often questionable motives of men, there remains the possibility of honesty, and the evaluation of historiography.


I've often stated my belief that the gospels, or some of their contents were whitewashed for a roman audience, especially events of the crucifixion, an assertion you would deny. Let's look at the events of the crucifixion on an historical level, specifically the blame of the Jews and the exoneration of Pilate and the Romans as a motive.

First, let's begin with the trial before the Sanhendrin in the house of the high priest. Haim Cohn, former attorney general/member
of the Supreme Court of Israel and expert on historical law, listed 6 reasons revealing why the trial described couldn't have taken
place:

1. Sanhedrin could not, and never did, exercise jurisdiction in the house of the high priest or anywhere outside the courthouse
and the temple precinct.

2.  no session of the criminal court was permissible at night, criminal trials had to be conducted and finished during the daytime

3.  a criminal trial was not allowed to take place on the eve of a feast day, nor on the feast day itself, and the setting is Pesach or Passover.

4.  no man might be found guilty on his own confession.

5.  a conviction must proceed from the testimony of at least two truthful and independent witnesses, giving evidence both as to
the commission of offence in their very presence, and as to the knowledge of the accused that the act was punishable by a particular
penalty.

6.  the offence of blasphemy is not committed unless the witnesses testify that the accused had, in their presence, pronounced the ineffable name
of God, the tetragrammaton which might only be pronounced once a year on the Day of Atonement by the High Priest in the innermost sanctuary
of the Temple in Jerusalem, the Kodesh Kodashim.

“The apparent violation of all rules of procedure and all provisions of the substantive criminal law, furnishes the propounders of the Jewish trial theory with the well-nigh conclusive argument that both the trial and the sentence were illegal. But so far from disproving their theory, this illegality only adds infamy and opprobrium to the perversion and miscarriage of justice which characterized the trial. On the other hand, however, it has been maintained that such wholesale violation of all the rules of law and procedure is not only highly improbable, but in view of the rigorous and formalistic exactitude for which the Pharisees were of course notorious, rather inconceivable.”

“that the Sanhedrin sentenced Jesus to death upon hearing his blasphemy is thus certainly unhistorical. Since there was no blasphemy and since there was no trial, there was no sentence.”

H. Cohn


Second let's look at Pontius Pilate, governor of Judea and, according to gospel depictions; a just, tolerant and reluctant crucifier of Jesus.

"... he caused them to bring with them their ensigns, upon which were the usual images of the emperor. The ensigns were brought in privily by night, put their presence was soon discovered. Immediately multitudes of excited Jews hastened to Caesarea to petition him for the removal of the obnoxious ensigns. For five days he refused to hear them, but on the sixth he took his place on the judgment seat, and when the Jews were admitted he had them surrounded with soldiers and threatened them with instant death unless they ceased to trouble him with the matter"
~Josephus

"another time he used the sacred treasure of the temple, called corban (qorban), to pay for bringing water into Jerusalem by an aqueduct. A crowd came together and clamored against him; but he had caused soldiers dressed as civilians to mingle with the multitude, and at a given signal they fell upon the rioters and beat them so severely with staves that the riot was quelled."
~Josephus

Philo mentions that Pilate was 'cruel by nature' and recounts that he commited 'countless atrocities and numerous executions without any
previous trial' Pilate's flair for cruelty and intolerance was such that it led to interventiond by Caesar Tiberius and in the last historical reference Josephus, describes Pilate's removal from office after the slaughter of innocent Samaritans at Mt. Gerizim.

Hardly a meek Procurator who would, against his better judgement, gave in to the will of the crowd.

The gospels also attempt to exonerate Pilate by alleging he offered to free Jesus or Barrabas, as per custom or law as Luke suggests. Most scholars agree that there is absolutely no historical basis for this practice within Judea, under any other procurator or any other province of the time. Again Haim Cohn weighed in stating that "the incongruities of this story are so many that no historicity can be attributed to it."

quote:
1) Authenticity (was apostolic authorship (or someone who knew an apostle) verifiable?)

2) Catholicity (was it widely accepted and used by the Church as a whole, as opposed to being recongnized only in isolated segments?)

3) Orthodoxy (did it line up with what the Church understood to be apostolic doctrine?)


All that proves Stephanos, is that the church accepted those that conformed to their core of beliefs. Not that their interpretations
were the correct ones.

1. The authenticity of bible's contents are still questioned to this day. It's important to note that serious critical inquiry into the NT only
really began with 18th century theology, long after the canon was established. When looking at the texts one has to look at their history.

As early as 161 AD,  Bishop Dionysius refers to the tampering of certain texts and suggests:  "small wonder, then, if some have dared to
tamper even with the word of the Lord Himself" By the time real attempts to unify the church were made, one wonders just what texts
were out there and what modifications had already been made.

One must also consider the effects Emperor Diocletian, an intolerant pagan who succeeded in destroying a large part of early christian
work. Just what was destroyed, and what survived this destruction?

And most importantly, the bible was rewritten in 322 AD, commisioned by Emperor Constantine in his effort to unify the church who also
ordered the destruction of all texts and commentary that did not align with them. It's important to note that it's under Constantine's influence
that christianity's pagan elements first appear. He was a shrewd politician seeking a convergance and unification of sorts, of Christianity,
Mithraisim with those of the Cult of Sol Invictus, his personal belief.

How many revisions, translations and codices have existed since then? If the translations of the bible are still being revised, then so to should
their interpretations and those of non-canon texts.

2.Catholicity, what does this matter? The catholicity of documents doesn't confirm a proper interpretation, only a catholic interpretation.
Because an ideal is more widely accepted it invalidates those of an 'isolated' segment?

3. Again, what the church viewed as orthodoxy, all else was considered heretical and by edict either destroyed or surpressed.

quote:
The fact that you are suppressing is that THEY ARE ALL STILL AROUND for anyone to see why and how they failed the test.  
If the church was so good at eradicating heretical texts, why are there so many of them in existence today?


ONLY BECAUSE THEY WERE DISCOVERED IN 1945, and only because they were hidden by monks of St. Pachomius to escape DESTRUCTION in the church's campaign for orthodoxy. As for the Dead Sea Scrolls, we've discussed the church's attempted suppression and that pressure from scholars and public forced them, after 40 years, to finally be shared with the rest of the world.

quote:
Again, what can you cite me, that would give reasonable attestation that the Church has destroyed "countless texts", with the knowledge of their contents "lost or hidden"?  That’s a big allegation.  It requires more than just saying it is so.  At the very least, I suspect you are greatly exaggerating.


Um..well aside from the admission by church officials that this was a common practice? Besides the ruthlessness of the inquisition that not only would have seen the texts destroyed, but those who believed in them? Aside from the edict under Constantine that saw documents not aligning with the rewritten bible destroyed? Or Clement's suppresion of the Secret Gospel of Mark? (Whatever your views on the gospel itself, the fact remains that it was to be surpressed.) You're right, there's no reasonable attestation to my comment.

quote:
But even if those charges were true, it would not incriminate the "Pauline" Christians. Or at least, you’ve failed to give a reason as to why it should.....But understand that this is an entirely separate issue from the honesty of those who dealt with the earliest documents ... the early Christians, or the "Pauline" Christians as you would call them


Because the quest for 'Pauline' orthodoxy was ruthless, and over the course of it's history, rife with lies, forgeries and scandal.The ends justify the means in church history.

'How it may be Lawful and Fitting to use Falsehood as a Medicine, and for the Benefit of those who Want to be Deceived’
~Title 32nd Chapter of the Twelfth Book Evangelical Preparation by Eusebius

“But it is not our place to describe the sad misfortunes which finally came upon [the Christians], as we do not think it proper, moreover, to, record their divisions and unnatural conduct to each other before the persecution—[by Diocletian, 305 A.D.]. Wherefore we have decided to relate nothing concerning them except things in which we can vindicate the Divine judgment. ... But we shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity.”
~Eusebius

"...Sometimes, it is true, they are compelled to say not what they think but what is needful; and for this reason they employ against their opponents the assertions of the Gentiles themselves. I say nothing of the Latin authors, of Tertullian, Cyprian, Minutius, Victorinus, Lactantius, Hilary, lest I should appear not so much to be defending myself as to be assailing others. I will only mention the Apostle Paul, whose words seem to me, as often as I hear them, to be not words, but peals of thunder..'The proofs which yon have used against the Jews or against other heretics bear a different meaning in their own contexts to that which they bear in your epistles. We see passages taken captive by your pen and pressed into service to win you a victory which in the volumes from which they are taken have no controversial bearing at all"

".....(they)presume at the price of their soul to assert dogmatically whatever first comes into their head.”

~St. Jerome

"Do you see the advantage of deceit?...For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind ...And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived."
~Chrysostom

“It is lawful, then, either to him that discourses, disputes, and preaches of things eternal, or to him that narrates or speaks of things temporal pertaining to edification of religion or piety, to conceal at fitting times whatever seems fit to be concealed; but to tell a lie is never lawful, therefore neither to conceal by telling a lie.”
~Augustine

"To undo the creed is to undo the Church. The integrity of the rule of faith is more essential to the cohesion of a religious society than the strict practice of its moral precepts"

Catholic Ecyclopedia

"The Greek Fathers thought that, when there was a justa causa, an untruth need not be a lie. ... Now, as to the just cause, ... the Greek Fathers make them such as these self-defense, charity, zeal for God’s honor, and the like."
~Cardinal Newman

These are the attitudes, and admissions, that lead me to question and attack the Pauline church and their rule over what was to be released and what was to supressed.

quote:
Tell me, had there been definitive evidence linking the scrolls to the early Church, do you honestly believe that I would be so opposed to your theory?  All you would have to do is point me to this evidence


The question wasn't directed at you, I asked if you believed the church, had it discovered definitive evidence, would confirm or release such evidence. Long standing church policy and the sake of maintaining orthodoxy shows it would not.

quote:
Nor is time an issue concerning authenticity?  Historians disagree with you.  I already discussed their standards, and how the amount of time between extant copies and the original events, IS a consideration when authenticity is in question


Consider the apparentely brief time involved in the creation of the gospels. Now consider just how many variations on the texts were in existence. Yes you did give me the standards used to acheive the canon, but again, those standards you spoke of mean nothing with regards to actual authenticity of the gospels as a continuation of Jesus, they only confirm that those sepcific texts are authentically catholic or orthodox in nature.

quote:
But, if The Iliad is questioned because of “tone and inconsistencies”, you need to demonstrate that the New Testament should be also doubted because of it’s own problems with tone and inconsistency.  You haven’t done that yet.


Well for one, let's look at the ending of Mark. Most NT critics are in agreement that the ending (or endings there were anywhere from 4 to 9 versions) of Mark were later additions.First of all, the earliest extant copies, including the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Codices all end at 16:8. Also, and with regards to tone, scholars have argued that the narrative shift between 16:8 and 16:9 is awkward. Verse 8 ends abrubtly with Mary, the Magdelene and Salome fleeing in terror from the sepulchre and immediately introduces a new story in 9. Beginning more like a new Chapter than a continuation of the story, it also reintroduces the Magdelene, which is also strange, having already been introduced at the beginning of the chapter.

The New Testament as a whole has the synoptic problem to deal with, plus the differences between those gospels and the almost gnostic John, and the differences in James and Paul(you deny they exist, many argue they do)

quote:
But you’ll not find anyone linking the Jewish Old Testament and the Roman Legends of Romulus and Remus.  hmmmm.  Seemingly obvious similarities, do not always indicate borrowing.


Um, actually some have, and more importantly they've linked Moses' tale to the Akkadian ruler Sargon who built the empires of Mesopotamia, another of the myths I was prepared to mention. Most importantly it's not one or two coincedences, but many that link the Bible with older traditions. As these are quite exhaustive, and because I'm getting lazy,  I'll lead you to an excellent link and strongly suggest you read the books I mentioned earlier.
http://cc.usu.edu/~fath6/bible.htm  is an fantastic essay and starting point on the subject.

Raphael

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
77 posted 2005-03-13 10:53 AM


Raph,

Sorry this took so long.  I wanted to be somewhat thorough, and things have been busy enough to make sitting down to this kind of thing difficult.  But better slow than “no.”                      


Raph:  
quote:
Essential agreement, not total agreement.  And consider the  'heretic' beliefs, like Arianism and Socinianism before them, that exist in christian denominations today. Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians and Mormon's for example, all strongly reject church doctrine and interpretation.


I never claimed "total agreement".

What you fail to mention is that these heresies, (including the more modern ones), need to be interpretively defended by exegesis of scripture.  And that's exactly the area where they lack strength.  Equality and arbitrariness of doctrines can only be the assumption of those who haven't looked at scripture closely themselves.  For example, with the New Testament taken for granted, do you think Arianism is defensible?  


When exegetical analysis is done concerning the Arianism of the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Hinduistic doctrine of Eternal Progression of the Mormons, or the essentially Greek philosophical relativism / skepticism of the Unitarian Universalists, contradictions abound.  The truth is, all of these heresies are only repackaged versions of the early ones, and are refuted in the same manner ... by their incongruity with the whole context of the Bible.


Really, doctrinal truth cannot exist in any form without heretical teaching.  Even Paul wrote that "There MUST be hereies also among you, that those which are approved may be manifest".  


quote:
First, let's begin with the trial before the Sanhendrin in the house of the high priest. Haim Cohn, former attorney general/member of the Supreme Court of Israel and expert on historical law, listed 6 reasons revealing why the trial described couldn't have taken place


To me, such arguments arise out of nothing more than a charge of modern "political incorrectness".  Cohn, being a Jew, wants to show that the Jews had nothing to do with the crucifixion of Jesus.  But there’s a whole lot of evidence that such a reconstruction leaves out, such as the animosity of the Jewish leaders throughout the ministry of Jesus, and the threat they would feel from the Zealot-hating Romans if Jesus' popularity were allowed to continue unchecked.  And if you don't think Cohn is a reconstructionist, remember that he puts forth the view that the Jewish leaders actually tried to help Jesus avert the execution of the Romans, by counselling him.  Where did that come from??  I haven’t read his book, but I have examined his reasons as to why the trial of Jesus couldn't have taken place as is written in the Gospels.  I want to comment briefly on each one ...


quote:
1. Sanhedrin could not, and never did, exercise jurisdiction in the house of the high priest or anywhere outside the courthouse and the temple precinct.


But the Gospels don’t say that they had the trial "outside" of their jurisdiction.  In Luke 22:54 we read "Then seizing him, they led him away and took him into the house of the high priest".  Are we to conclude therefore that the trial was held at the house of the high priest?  No ... For in John  we read that he was first taken to Annas the high priest, and then delivered to Caiaphas (the high priest who resided over his trial).  "Then Annas sent him, still bound, to Caiaphas the high priest.".  This confirms that the interlude with Annas, at his house, was not a formal trial but an informal interrogation, followed by the official trial in the temple precinct.  Luke 22:66 confirms this too, by telling us, "At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and the teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them ..."  


Am I missing something here?  This is cogently explained from the various accounts of the Gospels, that this "jurisdiction" was not violated.


quote:
2.  no session of the criminal court was permissible at night, criminal trials had to be conducted and finished during the daytime


According to Luke this rule was not violated.  see 22:66 where he tells us that they met "at daybreak".  Also Matthew 27:1 says "Early in the morning, all the chief priests and the elders of the people came to the decision to put Jesus to death."  

Again, how do you substantiate the claim that the trial occurred at night?

quote:
3.  a criminal trial was not allowed to take place on the eve of a feast day, nor on the feast day itself, and the setting is Pesach or Passover.


There were indications in Jewish writings of potential exceptions to this rule.  Even within the framework of the Mishna Tractate rules (which are not certain to have been in effect prior to 70 A.D., and was not compiled until around 200 A.D.) Jesus could have very well been regarded as a "seducer" of the people, leading the populace astray and speaking blasphemy against God.  


Consider Deuteronomy 13:1-5 ... "If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, ‘Let us follow other gods’ (gods you have not known) ‘and let us worship them,’ you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you."


Rudolph Pesch argues that Jesus, by his symbolic demonstration in the Temple, and by his teaching, was seen as a preacher of rebellion against the established order of God.  And even the Qumran Temple Scroll describes a seducer as "one who betrays his people to a foreign nation".  Caiaphas also said "it is better that one man die, than for the whole nation to perish", concering Jesus.  Doesn’t this support that this was just the type of "seducer" that the Jewish leaders considered Jesus to be?  Also there was a charge made that Jesus was "subverting the nation" in Luke 23:1.  


Pesch also tells us that the Sanhedrin had special regulations for whenever such a case might be encountered.  He refered to the principle of horaath sa’ah or "as time demands".  One Jewish interpretation of the matter also suggests that seducers should be executed "precisely on a pilgrim’s feast day in Jerusalem", in order to warn the people publically (Rudolph Pesch, The Trial of Jesus Continues, 32).  That would fit the Gospel accounts perfectly, and all of it’s context.  Another excerpt from the Qumran Temple Scroll tells us (commenting on Deut. 21:21) that crucifixion is an ideal punishment for the treasonous man.  


Though I reject using the Dead Sea Scrolls for reconstructionist history linked arbitrarily and speculatively to the Christians, I do think they are valuable in revealing intricacies of Jewish thought in the time period of Jesus and before.  


Another example of "exceptions" in Jewish legal history is recorded in the The Tosephtha Sanhedrin 7:11 ... "For all who are guilty of the punishment of death by law, one may not set traps, except for the seducer”  Pesch also noted that this casts an entirely new light on the role of Judas as well.  


There is also the possibility that the "trial" of Jesus was not official since the Jews at that time had no juridiction concerning Capital offenses.  (though I tend to believe otherwise, that it was an "official" trial with the Sanhedrin).  If this were true, then the Jews would be performing a mere informal trial, in order to present to the Roman authorities a more orderly account of the charges brought against Jesus ... in which case the normal "rules" for a formal trial need not apply.


quote:
4.  no man might be found guilty on his own confession.


Two notable points here.  

1)  This Jewish practice was contrary to Roman criminal procedure, where the confession of the accused was enough.  Jesus' "confession" was subsequently used by the priests to convict him in the Roman Court before Pilate.  Thus the question by Caiaphas was put forth to obtain a political charge that Pilate would recognize ...claiming to be "The King of the Jews".  Whether or not it was used to convict him in the Jewish Court, is irrelevant.    

2)  Jesus' confession WAS the crime itself, not technically a mere confession of a crime.  When Jesus said that he was the Christ, it was a crime in and of itself ... witnessed by the high Priest and Sanhedrin.  Naturally that’s why Caiaphas exclaimed "Why do we need anymore witnesses?", because he himself had witnessed the "crime" firsthand.


quote:
5.  a conviction must proceed from the testimony of at least two truthful and independent witnesses, giving evidence both as to the commission of offence in their very presence, and as to the knowledge of the accused that the act was punishable by a particular penalty.



This is no problem if the Sanhedin witnessed the crime themselves ... (see above).


quote:
6.  the offence of blasphemy is not committed unless the witnesses testify that the accused had, in their presence, pronounced the ineffable name of God, the tetragrammaton which might only be pronounced once a year on the Day of Atonement by the High Priest in the innermost sanctuary of the Temple in Jerusalem, the Kodesh Kodashim.



A few points ...

1)  Cohn is depending upon the assumption that the MIshna rules WERE in effect during the time that Jesus was tried.  That is a mere assumption.  No certainty of this exists, but only that such rules were probably in place after 70 A.D.  

2) Even if this Mishna rule was in place, there is no certainty that they were strictly observed.

3)  There are other examples in Scripture where "blasphemy" is defined in broader terms.  For example, Jesus was accused of blasphemy for claiming to be able to forgive sins.  This was the blasphemy of a man infringing upon the unique prerogatives of God.  Since only God could forgive sins, and Jesus claimed this prerogative, then he was a Blasphemer.  This is an example of "constuctive blasphemy".  But did Jesus commit such constructive blasphemy when answering Caiaphas?  Let’s see ...

" The high priest said to him, 'I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.' 'Yes, it is as you say,' Jesus replied. 'But I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.' Then the high priest tore his clothes and said, 'He has spoken blasphemy! Why do we need any more witnesses? Look, now you have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?' 'He is worthy of death,' they answered."  (Matthew 26:63-66)


"sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One" and "Coming on the clouds of Heaven" Are both attributes of Divine Power and Authority, that any Jewish religious leader would have understood.  This was clearly blasphemous in their eyes.  

There is also a likelihood that a self claim to Messiahship would have also entailed "blasphemy".  


But even IF the Jews could not condemn Christ in an official manner for Blasphemy (and that is by no means proven), one has to remember that the whole trial in the scriptures is portrayed as a mock trial, a pretense.  This is also harmonious with the other places in scripture that talk of some of the Jewish religious leaders "plotting to kill Jesus".  When someone in corrupt leadership is plotting to kill, formalities in a trial tend to mean very little.  And that brings me to my last point ...


Again, though there is no certain evidence that the Mishna Sanhedrin rules (the sole source that Cohn depends upon for his points) were even practiced at the time of Jesus' crucifixion, even if they were, it is doubtful whether or not they would have been strictly practiced in the Jewish system.


A.E. Harvey states, in his "Jesus on Trial", " ... it is far from certain that they (the Mishna rules) were in force before the fall of Jerusalem, or, even if they were, that they would have been observed in an emergency."


And would fastidious rules, automatically rule out the breaking of those rules, in the case of an unjust trial?  History ought to teach us better.  The politics of our own nation ought to teach us better.  


As Pesch noted, these kinds of arguments "insinuate, of course, that nothing would ever happen which is forbidden by law. The world, our history, is full of transgressions against laws! If one wanted to make valid laws the measuring rod for the reconstruction of actual history, then one would, at every turn, be led astray."


quote:
Second let's look at Pontius Pilate, governor of Judea and, according to gospel depictions; a just, tolerant and reluctant crucifier of Jesus.


There is no incompatibility of the Bible with any historical depictions of Pilate being cruel or oppressive.  The Gospel narratives present a Pilate who is 1) apathetic and unconcerned with matters of Jewish religion, such as whether or not someone is a "blasphemer", 2) untrusting and unsympathetic with the Jewish leaders, 3) unconvinced of the Zealot charge given to Jesus, by his very appearance and demeanor, as a man whose experience has taught him what an inssurrectionist looks and acts like.  4) In fear of the powers that rule and bear over him, which might come down upon him if there were an uprising of the Jews that he let get out of hand.  


Do the gospel narratives exonerate Pilate? Hardly.


Rather they present a man who knows better, but who for political reasons of his own refused to take responsibility and allow Jesus to go free.  The halfhearted attempt to state his own detachment from the decision, was only a farce attempt to escape responsibility which could not be escaped.  The Jews did not have power or legal rights to crucify.  So it was still Pilate’s hand that crucified Jesus.  His reluctance to crucify, coupled with his unwillingness to let Jesus go free, was an act of cowardice.  And NONE of that is incompatible with cruelty.  I think you have misrepresented the Gospel narrative of Pilate, and are missing the more subtle expose' of his poor character.

quote:
The authenticity of bible's contents are still questioned to this day. It's important to note that serious critical inquiry into the NT only really began with 18th century theology, long after the canon was established. When looking at the texts one has to look at their history.


What you are referring to is "higher criticism" of the Bible.  I personally think that the Church, and the authenticity of the Bible has nothing to fear from higher criticism (criticism aimed at larger issues of authorship authenticity and authority).  It’s not that questions of authorship and authenticity weren’t approached by the early church (they were), it's just the degree of knowledge, archaology, and detail that we now possess has allowed us to ask many more questions, and answer many more of them as well.


Here is the illegitimate part of "higher criticism" that I have issue with, that didn’t show up until the 1800s for a specific reason ... 19th century German Rationalism, and post enlightenment methodological naturalism.  These philosophical underpinnings were taken a priori and uncritically into the arena of Biblical Criticism.  And much of it went (& goes) like this...


- We know miracles don’t / can’t happen.  

- Therefore text “A” in the gospels can’t be really historical.

- Therefore we know miraculous event “A” didn’t really happen.


Such circular argumentation is based upon philosophic presupposition.  And that was used by many scholars associated with "The Quest for the Historical Jesus", and "The Jesus Seminar".  Therefore I have no problem with the questions and challenges of higher criticism.  I think they enrich the studies of scripture.  But there is a reason that much of the "criticism" didn’t arise until after 1800, and alot of it is philosophically based rather than textually based.  


quote:
By the time real attempts to unify the church were made, one wonders just what texts were out there and what modifications had already been made.


The only problem with that is that in reality, one does not have to wonder at all.  As F.F. Bruce (among others) has pointed out, the fast dispersion and copying of manuscripts that happened in the early centuries of Christianity actually makes any deviations stand out with embarrassing obviousness.  When many early Alexandrian text-type manuscripts were discovered in the 17th century, they proved to be amazingly consistent with the later Byzantine text-type manuscripts already possessed.  As a matter of fact there is a remarkable consistency all the way back through the very earliest manuscripts.  The alterations that exist are minor, and inconsequential, touching and effecting no major doctrinal or historical points.  

Yet the vague complaint, "who knows what has been altered" isn’t based upon texts that are possessed.  It is speculative, ultra-suspicious, and plays on the love of conspiracies within us all.  But if the texts were really altered, then why wouldn't there have been a plethora of copies of the alleged originals too?  Why was everything else copied like mad, except for the authentic texts?  And not only would that be incredible in any community, but how much more in a community that was so close to the events at hand, and among the direct descendants of whom these events happened to?

quote:
One must also consider the effects Emperor Diocletian, an intolerant pagan who succeeded in destroying a large part of early christian work. Just what was destroyed, and what survived this destruction?


For one, how likely would it be that an intolerant pagan would eradicate authentic Christian texts and leave the others?  As a Pagan, he would not care one whit about such subtleties of texts.  In other words, he would not discriminate in his destruction.  


Also, by the 300s, all of the New Testament works were being copied like mad and well dispersed abroad.  Diocletian may have destroyed many texts of Churchmen.  But he couldn’t have destroyed ONE text of the Church.  That would have been like trying to rid your house of roaches with a fly-swatter.


quote:
And most importantly, the bible was rewritten in 322 AD, commisioned by Emperor Constantine in his effort to unify the church who also ordered the destruction of all texts and commentary that did not align with them.


Again, you place to much faith in Constantine to eradicate such widely disperesed texts.  Who cares if he ordered the destruction of heretical texts?  He didn’t destroy them all, as evidenced by the existence of them today.  Why should we think he was able to destroy ALL of the alleged “authentic” texts you keep trying to postulate, when he couldn’t destroy these others?

quote:
How many revisions, translations and codices have existed since then?


Many.  But we still have very early manuscripts to compare them with to see whether or not they are accurate.  So it really wouldn’t matter if there were another millenium's accumulation of translations.  


quote:
If the translations of the bible are still being revised, then so to should their interpretations and those of non-canon texts.


I really don't know what you mean by "so should their interpretations".  Interpretations are revised only if there is textual reason to do so.  And that is my whole argument (with the proof in the earliest of manuscripts) that there has been very few changes textually speaking, the existing changes being inconsequential to dogma or history.  


I have no problem with revising or interpreting non-canonical texts, as much as anyone pleases.  Still the likelihood of those texts reflecting the life and teaching of Jesus, and the early Christians still have to be judged on their OWN merits.  That’s where the non-canonical texts have failed the test of canonicity and still do.


quote:
Catholicity, what does this matter? The catholicity of documents doesn't confirm a proper interpretation, only a catholic interpretation.  Because an ideal is more widely accepted it invalidates those of an 'isolated' segment?


It wouldn't matter as much, except in a community so relatively close to the events in question.  There were many in the Church who were directly associated and descended from those to whom these events happened.  Legitimate texts about the life of Jesus, would naturally be accepted in such a community.  Spurious texts would naturally be shunned in such a community.  


quote:
Again, what the church viewed as orthodoxy, all else was considered heretical and by edict either destroyed or surpressed.


Not really.  All else, proved in that early Christian community to be rejected in practice.  Whenever a late text came out claiming to be written by Apostle X, or Peter, or Barnabas, or whoever, usually only a small segment of people would recognize it, or believe it to be genuine.  Their late dates, along with the consensus of that early community, along with adherence to what was already known to be revealed truth, is what determined whether or not it was "Kosher".  

I know of no pseudepigraphal work that was "destroyed" do you?  You keep saying that.  The Church never was able to destroy the New Testament "Apocrypha", the evidence being they are still around.  Yes, they were suppressed I’m sure, as to their influence, after they were determined to be spurious texts of doubtful authorship and content.  That’s hardly surprising.


quote:
ONLY BECAUSE THEY WERE DISCOVERED IN 1945, and only because they were hidden by monks of St. Pachomius to escape DESTRUCTION in the church's campaign for orthodoxy.


I’ve already answered the "Dead Sea Scroll" argument, in that no damning texts have shown up.  You only suspiciously assume that there might be some that we don't know about.  So that argument is off the table as far as I’m concerned.

But as for pseudepigraphal texts being discovered in 1945, be specific and tell me what was discovered for the first time.  We can't really discuss it until you do.  


quote:
Um..well aside from the admission by church officials that this was a common practice?


Burning texts was a common practice in the ancient world ... period.  Not just the Church.  It was felt that it something was subversive, harmful, or politically threatening, it should be destroyed.  So each instance needs to be examined to see whether or not destroying texts was from an admirable motive or not, rather than condemning the destruction of texts, as wrong in itself.

I’ll need specific citations of who said what, in what works, so that I can read them in context.  As it stands your argumentation is to general, and seems like little more than ad hominem.  When you give me more specific info I’ll respond.

And I will look into what exactly Constantine was responsible for destroying.

quote:
Or Clement's suppresion of the Secret Gospel of Mark? (Whatever your views on the gospel itself, the fact remains that it was to be surpressed.)


I’ve already explained WHY the "Secret Gospel of Mark" was suppressed ... not by it's enemies, but by it's advocates.  It was because secretiveness was the common practice toward ALL gnostic texts, not of those who wished to destroy or suppress them, but of those who wished to keep them from the "uninitiated" and common herd.  That IS the very teaching of Gnosticism ... exclusive texts for exclusive classes of people.  And it's already been shown too that Clement, though orthodox in his heart and in the main of his teaching, was still influenced by Gnosticism.

Saying that a text willingly concealed by it's advocates, is really a text that was suppressed by it's enemies represents either a serious misunderstanding on your part, or bait and switch tactics of argumentation.  I do want to give you the benefit of the doubt that you haven't fully understood this issue yet, or else you wouldn’t keep bringing it up.


quote:
These are the attitudes, and admissions, that lead me to question and attack the Pauline church and their rule over what was to be released and what was to supressed.


Raph,  I read those quotes.  A few of them I already am aware of.  It seems as if you are attempting to practice the very thing you describe, because so many of these have been taken quite out of their context for your use.  If you don't think there is a legitimate use for deceit (though I myself wouldn’t call it that) then you never should even think of a surprise birthday party, or of acting cool and collect when your boss calls you to the office about a problem.  You're being unfair I think in assuming that these men mean that it's okay to manipulate others for personal profit.  I'm not even going to try and respond and defend each quote, because I think the defense is that you have not put forth a legitimate offense.


quote:
Consider the apparentely brief time involved in the creation of the gospels. Now consider just how many variations on the texts were in existence.


Though there are differences, they are minor, affecting no substantial point of doctrine or history.  All the texts in existence support what you consider to be a later form of Christianity.  There ARE no earlier texts, to support your suspicion that the gospel has been changed at will.  The best you can do, if you want to maintain that, is to do what some of the advocates of Form Criticism have done, and argue from theoretical documents, such as "Q" and other postulations.  


quote:
Yes you did give me the standards used to acheive the canon, but again, those standards you spoke of mean nothing with regards to actual authenticity of the gospels as a continuation of Jesus, they only confirm that those sepcific texts are authentically catholic or orthodox in nature.


Just remember that by the time "lists" began to appear in the writings of the early Church Fathers, and by the time any claims to a definite canon had been made, it was getting into the late 2nd / early 3rd century.  This is when the spurious pseudepigraphal writings began to appear.  So the question of authenticity DID have to do with whether the documents actually reflected the life and teachings of Jesus.  It was a defense of earlier documents over and against later ones.


quote:
Well for one, let's look at the ending of Mark. Most NT critics are in agreement that the ending (or endings there were anywhere from 4 to 9 versions) of Mark were later additions.First of all, the earliest extant copies, including the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Codices all end at 16:8. Also, and with regards to tone, scholars have argued that the narrative shift between 16:8 and 16:9 is awkward. Verse 8 ends abrubtly with Mary, the Magdelene and Salome fleeing in terror from the sepulchre and immediately introduces a new story in 9. Beginning more like a new Chapter than a continuation of the story, it also reintroduces the Magdelene, which is also strange, having already been introduced at the beginning of the chapter.

Most Biblical scholars agree that Mark originally ended at 16:8, and that the remainder was added by a scribe zealous to harmonize Mark with the other gospels.  The opinion that the original ending of 16:8 is "awkward", and therefore must represent an intentional deletion, an accidental loss of text, or the death of Mark prior to finishing the gospel, is just that ... an opinion.  Others have seen the ending as quite appropriate to the mood and suspense of the whole scenario ... leaving the reader with a vivid picture of the tremulous fear and hope that must have characterized the events surrounding the empty tomb.

As for the addendum ... There is nothing of essence in it, which isn't recorded elsewhere in the other gospels.  I have no problem in saying it was not originally part of Mark's gospel, and there is no great loss in saying so.  In fact most of the Bibles I have read underscore that very point ... telling the reader that the addendum is absent from the very earlierst manuscripts.  In summary it neither adds anything unique to the gospel tradition, nor does it cover anything up.


quote:
The New Testament as a whole has the synoptic problem to deal with


What is called a "problem" as far as I can see, is simply the attempt to describe how the gospel narratives are related, and whether or not there were other written sources that they commonly drew from.  What dire difficulties, other than strictly acedemic, are raised by the synoptic "problem"?  


quote:
plus the differences between those gospels and the almost gnostic John,


There's good reason that you have to say "almost".  For John does not go as far as the gnostics did in their doctrines.  There’s a kernel of truth, even in gnosticism (which is true of heresy in general), and John, one might say, expresses that kind of truth.  

Different, yes.  Contradictory, no.  In content, John's Gospel deals mostly with Jesus' ministry in Jerusalem, while the synoptic Gospels deal with his Galilean ministry.  


quote:
and the differences in James and Paul(you deny they exist, many argue they do)

I’ve never denied differences.  What I have denied is incongruity.  Hopefully that will be what I address in my next reply in the "Sermon on the Mount" thread.


(to be continued ... my reply was too long for one entry)


Stephen

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
78 posted 2005-03-13 01:14 PM


( ... continued.)

Raph:  
quote:
Most importantly it's not one or two coincedences, but many that link the Bible with older traditions.


But there wasn’t only "one or two coincidences" with my Romulus and Remus example either ... and that doesn’t even begin to link such newer Roman mythology with the the more ancient OT writings.  


And I’ve already mentioned that we should take it for granted that the writers of the Old Testament were "linked" with older traditions.  They lived in the same regions and shared much of the same praxis and assumptions ... and of course the literary idioms would be similar.  You act like Christians have to believe the "dictation-model" of divine inspiration, which of course your examples would tend to disprove.  For if God gave his chosen scribes everything word by word, I suppose he wouldn't tend to use any of the regional or cultural references at all.  But that is absurd.  God chose to reveal himself to mankind, through men.  And there are reasons for that, most of them relational.  But there's also the added possiblity and danger that someone will be able to find some frailty within scripture to justify unbelief.  That possibility was meant to be there.  It was there with Jesus himself.  Someone could always ask, in spite of his claims, “Isn't this Mary and the Carpenter's son?”.  The living word of God was human and divine.  And so is the written word of God.




I’ve read that link you posted ... and however interesting, I wonder how an archaologist ventures to become also an authority in anthropology and history.  Of course I know that his discipline touches these, but I think he’s taken too much liberty in coming to unwarranted conclusions.  


A couple of examples ...

Many feel sure that the linguistic relatedness of "El" and "Elohim" prove that the God of the Bible was an evolutionary religious creation which arose naturally out of Pagan religion.  But "El" was only a generic word for "god" or "deity" in the ancient world.  Kind of like "Allah" is the generic word for “god” in arabic, not merely the personal name of the Muslim "god".  In fact, I’m quite sure that the word "Allah" was derived somewhere down the line from "El".

So, it's hardly surprising that the One True God would be expressed and revealed in the commonly understood language of that time.  Everyone knew what a "god" or "deity" claimed to be.  Therefore when God was revealed to his people, his claim was that he was that very reality which their idolatry poorly attempted to express.  


That hardly proves that the God of Hebrews was a creation.  All it proves, is that he was expressed as a deity or a "God".  That seems quite natural and understandable to me.  In fact, if all the other pagan idols were only counterfeits, in the final analysis, what would be more fitting?  "Elohim" is more like God’s title and office than his personal name.  


The second example is YHWH, the tetragrammaton, which is the personal name of God.  The article you gave, points out two inscriptions in or near Israel which say something like "Yahweh of Teman and his ashera".  


This proves that Yahweh once meekly accepted his place in the polytheistic pantheon, since "ashera" is a pagan deity, right?  Wrong.  First of all, "ashera" used in this context is in reference to a cult object, not a personal name.  Since I can’t really demonstrate that from the language myself, I will provide a link to demonstrate this.  


Secondly, the conclusion that the name YHWH evolved from pagan religion into Jewish monotheism is not warranted.  The inscriptions that professor Crapo points out are both in close proximity to Israel ... one outside of Judea, the other near Hebron.  Perhaps professor Crapo, in order to avoid overly-ambitious theories of reconstruction, should simply read the Bible.  It is full of accounts of the Jewish people admixing worship of YHWH with pagan worship.  


It is recorded in the book of Exodus that Aaron made golden calf (an ashera), of which the people said "This is your god, O Israel, that brought you out of the land of Egypt".  Aaron also built an altar before this same cult object of worship, and made a proclamation, "Tommorow is a fest to YHWH".  (Exodus 32:4-5).  There is also more explicitly in Deuteronomy 16:21-22, the command, "You shall not plant for yourself an Asherah of any kind of tree beside the altar of the Lord your God, which you shall make for yourself.  Neither shall you set up for yourself a sacred pillar which the Lord your God hates."


These two examples, are just two of many many in the scriptures which prove that admixing pagan "Ashera" and Yaweh worship was very common.  But it was never sanctioned by God, or the prophets of Israel, as evidenced by their historical records.  And Archaeology has only confirmed this historical aspect of the Bible.


Here is the link I mentioned:
  
http://www.Christian-thinktank.com/godswife.html


Stephen

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
79 posted 2005-03-13 04:19 PM


quote:
When exegetical analysis is done concerning the Arianism of the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Hinduistic doctrine of Eternal Progression of the Mormons, or the essentially Greek philosophical relativism / skepticism of the Unitarian Universalists, contradictions abound.


As they do with analysis concerning the glaring Paganism of Christianity.

quote:
Even Paul wrote that "There MUST be hereies also among you, that those which are approved may be manifest".


How convenient. But I agree, the heresies that make up christianity were approved by the church, and manifested themselves in christian dogma.  

quote:
To me, such arguments arise out of nothing more than a charge of modern "political incorrectness".  Cohn, being a Jew, wants to show that the Jews had nothing to do with the crucifixion of Jesus.


I can't say that comment surprises me, but its still quite sad. Cohn, being an expert on his own people's laws and their historical application, wants to show that the Jews were not to blame for his crucifixion in the manner christianity asserts, and their whitewashing of Roman involvement

quote:
But the Gospels don’t say that they had the trial "outside" of their jurisdiction.  In Luke 22:54 we read "Then seizing him, they led him away and took him into the house of the high priest".  Are we to conclude therefore that the trial was held at the house of the high priest?  No ... For in John  we read that he was first taken to Annas the high priest, and then delivered to Caiaphas (the high priest who resided over his trial).  "Then Annas sent him, still bound, to Caiaphas the high priest.".  This confirms that the interlude with Annas, at his house, was not a formal trial but an informal interrogation, followed by the official trial in the temple precinct.  Luke 22:66 confirms this too, by telling us, "At daybreak the council of the elders of the people, both the chief priests and the teachers of the law, met together, and Jesus was led before them ..."  


Am I missing something here?  This is cogently explained from the various accounts of the Gospels, that this "jurisdiction" was not violated


Actually, yes, you are missing something. Jesus is sent from Annas to Caiphas(not in the synoptics), and at the conclusion of the trial, John clearly states:

Then they led Jesus from the house of Ca'iaphas to the Praetorium
~ John 18:28

Meaning the trial did take place within Caiphas' home.

As for the synoptics, they are clear in stating that Jesus is led to the home of the high priest, Caiphas, where the trial takes place and testimony is given against him. Where they came to their decision and ship Jesus off to Pilate in the morning.

quote:
According to Luke this rule was not violated.  see 22:66 where he tells us that they met "at daybreak".  Also Matthew 27:1 says "Early in the morning, all the chief priests and the elders of the people came to the decision to put Jesus to death."  

Again, how do you substantiate the claim that the trial occurred at night?


Came to the decision in the morning. With the exception of Luke (one of many inconsistencies within the ironically named 'synoptic' gospels), Jesus is arrested and the trial takes place, AFTER which, morning comes (signaled by the cock's crow) and a verdict is made. Jesus is then brought before the Pilate in the early morning.

quote:
Consider Deuteronomy 13:1-5 ... "If a prophet, or one who foretells by dreams, appears among you and announces to you a miraculous sign or wonder, and if the sign or wonder of which he has spoken takes place, and he says, ‘Let us follow other gods’ (gods you have not known) ‘and let us worship them,’ you must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. The LORD your God is testing you to find out whether you love him with all your heart and with all your soul. It is the LORD your God you must follow, and him you must revere. Keep his commands and obey him; serve him and hold fast to him. That prophet or dreamer must be put to death, because he preached rebellion against the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt and redeemed you from the land of slavery; he has tried to turn you from the way the LORD your God commanded you to follow. You must purge the evil from among you."


But where does it state that he may be put to death on the eve or day of the passover? As for Pesch, interesting, you can accept his work as authoritive (meshing with the christian account), whereas Cohn, despite being a leading authority of historical Jewish law, the former attorney general and of the Supreme Court of Israel is just a Jew trying his people off the hook? You also agree with Pesch where it suits your view, but then disagree with his hypothesis that the trial was informal.

quote:
the question by Caiaphas was put forth to obtain a political charge that Pilate would recognize ...claiming to be "The King of the Jews".  Whether or not it was used to convict him in the Jewish Court, is irrelevant.


No it's not irrelevant, the question took place within 'the Jewish Court' and was used in their decision to condemn him before he was brought to Pilate.

You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?" And they all condemned him as deserving death.
~Mark 14:64

Actually, with the exception of Mark(oh those synoptics!), Jesus deflects the question and so never really admits to anything. In Matthew he says:
"You have said so. But I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven."
In Luke:
"And they all said, "Are you the Son of God, then?" And he said to them, "You say that I am."
in John:
"Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me, what I said to them; they know what I said." and "If I have spoken wrongly, bear witness to the wrong;"

It seems more likely that Roman appointed Caiphas(you forget we're dealing with a puppet high priest), unable to condemn Jesus by Sanhendrin law, is forced to send him to Pilate on charges of treason. Surely if it was well within Jewish law to condemn and put him to death, Jesus could have been stoned or beaten as Stephen or James the Just. Why then is he brought before Pilate?

quote:
Again, though there is no certain evidence that the Mishna Sanhedrin rules (the sole source that Cohn depends upon for his points) were even practiced at the time of Jesus' crucifixion, even if they were, it is doubtful whether or not they would have been strictly practiced in the Jewish system.

A.E. Harvey states, in his "Jesus on Trial", " ... it is far from certain that they (the Mishna rules) were in force before the fall of Jerusalem, or, even if they were, that they would have been observed in an emergency.".


Lol. You've chastized me for suppositions, but I'm hearing alot of maybes and ifs in that argument. "well even if it were in place..." This is why I didn't want to continue, because whatever anyone brings forth challenging the history of the gospels is 'suspect', 'reconstructionism' or motivated by 'politically correctivism.'

quote:
Rather they present a man who knows better, but who for political reasons of his own refused to take responsibility and allow Jesus to go free.  The halfhearted attempt to state his own detachment from the decision, was only a farce attempt to escape responsibility which could not be escaped.  The Jews did not have power or legal rights to crucify.  So it was still Pilate’s hand that crucified Jesus.  His reluctance to crucify, coupled with his unwillingness to let Jesus go free, was an act of cowardice.  And NONE of that is incompatible with cruelty.  I think you have misrepresented the Gospel narrative of Pilate, and are missing the more subtle expose' of his poor character.


No, I think the bible has misrepresented the true Pilate, and that you are missing the unsubtle ways in which Pilate dealt with the slightest threats and uprisings according to historical accounts including those of Josephus.

quote:
The alterations that exist are minor, and inconsequential, touching and effecting no major doctrinal or historical points.


How can you say that when the entire ending, the addition to Mark is KEY to the docrine of spreading the message worldwide?!

quote:
But if the texts were really altered, then why wouldn't there have been a plethora of copies of the alleged originals too?  Why was everything else copied like mad, except for the authentic texts?


Did you miss the point where Emperor Diocletian destroyed much of the early work in an effort to wipe out christian beliefs? Or more importantly where Emperor Constantine decreed that texts not aligning with the 'official' christian vision were to be destroyed?

quote:
For one, how likely would it be that an intolerant pagan would eradicate authentic Christian texts and leave the others?  As a Pagan, he would not care one whit about such subtleties of texts.  In other words, he would not discriminate in his destruction.


I never claimed he gave a toss about the subtleties of the texts Stephen. The point was, just how many early texts were lost under his intolerance, the real kicker is that whatever did remain after his onslaught, some were used to solidify the orthodox vision, and the rest were ordered destroyed under Constantine's verdict.

quote:
He didn’t destroy them all, as evidenced by the existence of them today.  Why should we think he was able to destroy ALL of the alleged “authentic” texts you keep trying to postulate, when he couldn’t destroy these others?


Because it's a possibility. If one sect was small enough, or certain texts were scarce enough then the destruction of one could have been enough to eradicate that line christianity. Just because you dont want to believe it, doesnt mean its IMPOSSIBLE.


quote:
Many. But we still have very early manuscripts to compare them with to see whether or not they are accurate.  So it really wouldn’t matter if there were another millenium's accumulation of translations.


The oldest, and only semi-complete, copies of the gospels are the Constantine era Codex Vaticanus. Or do you mean the incomplete Papyri? Most of which are tiny fragments, or orthodox writings of the early church. And then which texts do you rely on for clarity? There are still arguments between critics who favor the Alexandrian texts vs those who prefer the Byzantine. Read the different versions of the NT that are out there and see why there contines to be arguments over passage interpretation.

quote:
It wouldn't matter as much, except in a community so relatively close to the events in question.  There were many in the Church who were directly associated and descended from those to whom these events happened.  Legitimate texts about the life of Jesus, would naturally be accepted in such a community.  Spurious texts would naturally be shunned in such a community.


If indeed the community that arose was associated and descended from those to whom the events happened. We have only their word, and the word of the church may hold water for you, but for MANY, it doesn't.
.....i'm bowing out half way through my own response because, i'll be frank, this is rather pointless to me. our ideals are set, no matter what the other would bring forth, the other would bring arguments against them in turn. we could continue this ad nauseum, what would we conclude in a battle that's been raging for millenia? maybe you see this as a copout, believe me it's not, there's a good chance that despite me writing this, frustration or strong opposition to something you've said here will lead me to continue later(especially with regards to the links between OT and mythology!!) i'm stubborn like that (to any friends thinking of chiming in..shurrup)

but before i head to my cave one last thing you should consider..

While I agree with what you say, you must understand that where you see the "..danger that someone will be able to find some frailty within scripture to justify unbelief." many of us see the danger in Christian arguments searching for some frailty within analysis/critique, to justify their beliefs and actions.

Michelle_loves_Mike
Deputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Senior Member
since 2003-12-20
Posts 1189
Pennsylvania
80 posted 2005-03-13 05:29 PM


"just what seperates mythology from religion?"

To me,,it's all how a person sees it.

I guess for the most part, "religion" is (for the most part) an orginized and taught way of how we are to behave to recieve good rewards, or punishment if we don't follow the rules.

"Mythology" on the other hand, is more like storys that were told as entertainment, that, like our more modern urban legends, took on a life of their own.

No one really cares,,why should I?

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618
Statesboro, GA, USA
81 posted 2005-03-13 05:32 PM


Raph:  
quote:
i'm bowing out half way through my own response



That's okay, I've thought about bowing out myself, but haven't come to that conclusion yet.  It's been enjoyable, and it's a learning experience.  But time restraints abound, and this requires much time if it's done right.  

But I would like to respond to the half that you did leave me with.  Maybe in a few days, maybe a couple of weeks.


Stephen.

Aenimal
Member Rara Avis
since 2002-11-18
Posts 7350
the ass-end of space
82 posted 2005-03-16 11:26 PM


Michelle, one could just as easily say that religions are mythologies that took on a life of their own


stephanos, you're choice.

btw, i highly recommend "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts" By Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman i'm half-way through the book now and it's excellent.  

Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » Philosophy 101 » religion

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary