Freethought & Rationalism Archive

temporalillusion · 06-22-2009, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Weally?

I wish Christians would actually read their Bibles.

To be fair, a lot of Christians really do.. the thing is they read it devotionally, which short-circuits any ability to see broader themes, or differences in themes between the authors, etc..

I know when I read the Bible back when I was a fundie, there's no way I'd have noticed something like what you mention, because every scripture was read with respect to "how does this help me today", or "what is God trying to tell me through this verse", or some such. We were never taught to read it more objectively, and it never dawned on me to read it the way we read and examined other books in literature classes (for example).

It wasn't until I set aside my supposition that the Bible is a single work and stopped buying the story that it was completely self-consistent and perfect that I started to read it the other way.. and all of a sudden this stuff pops right out.

So maybe it's a case of they're reading it, but not being able to see the forest for the trees?

Toto · 06-22-2009, 12:22 PM

I think most Christians actually read the Bible the way the Taoists read the Tao Te Ching - they select a verse at random and wait for their subsconscious to suggest a meaning, which they take for inspiration from the Holy Spirit. (I recall in 1999 or so that Al Gore made some campaign decisions that way.)

I guess one could do worse - for example by trying to believe what it says.

arnoldo · 06-22-2009, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Mark 3:14-15 merely says that the 12 were appointed. You don't see them actually doing anything. . . .

Sure you do, the text plainly states Jesus rebuked them for rejoicing in the things they were doing. . .

Luke 10: 17-20

arnoldo · 06-22-2009, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

. . I guess one could do worse - for example by trying to believe what it says.

Such as?

Toto · 06-22-2009, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Mark 3:14-15 merely says that the 12 were appointed. You don't see them actually doing anything. . . .

Sure you do, the text plainly states Jesus rebuked them for rejoicing in the things they were doing. . .

Luke 10: 17-20

That's the seventy, not the twelve, and it's in Luke, not Mark.

show_no_mercy · 06-22-2009, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Sure you do, the text plainly states Jesus rebuked them for rejoicing in the things they were doing. . .

Luke 10: 17-20

That's the seventy, not the twelve, and it's in Luke, not Mark.

Quote:

Originally Posted by temporalillusion

It wasn't until I set aside my supposition that the Bible is a single work and stopped buying the story that it was completely self-consistent and perfect that I started to read it the other way.. and all of a sudden this stuff pops right out.

heh

arnoldo · 06-22-2009, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

That's the seventy, not the twelve, and it's in Luke, not Mark.

Quote:

Originally Posted by temporalillusion

It wasn't until I set aside my supposition that the Bible is a single work and stopped buying the story that it was completely self-consistent and perfect that I started to read it the other way.. and all of a sudden this stuff pops right out.

heh

Many highly intelligent people have convinced themselves that the entire bible is a book of myths. The Copenhagen Schools of Thought, which prides itself upon speculative historical interpretation of texts, have developed an elaborate hypothesis which supports a MJ rather than a HJ. Perhaps mountainman is onto something after all . . .

Clivedurdle · 06-23-2009, 11:38 AM

And what exactly is wrong with their arguments?

Quote:

penhagen School.

Biblical minimalism (also known as "The Copenhagen School") is a school of biblical exegesis which treats the bible as purely story rather than as historiographical literature which can shed light on actual history: within the minimalist paradigm, archaeology, and not the bible, should be used for reconstructing history. Minimalist scholars date all or of most of the Bible to a period many centuries later than the majority of scholars.

Minimalism arose in the late 1960s from the need to deal with the increasing contradictions between the findings of Syro-Palestinian archaeology and the Bible's version of history: "For decades ... scholars interpreted archaeology in light of what the Bible said ... [taking] for granted that what the Bible said, was true—not just morally and religiously, but historically and scientifically. So, as an archaeologist back in the 19th century, you would pick up your Bible and expect to find Noah's Ark somewhere on top of Mount Ararat in Turkey, just as the Bible said; or that you could dig in Jerusalem and find the remains of David's and Solomon's palace."[1] The belief in the accuracy of the first few chapters of Genesis and stories such as that of Noah's Ark had been abandoned by the end of the 19th century; by the middle of the 20th, the archaeological evidence for the remainder of Genesis (the stories of the Patriarchs), for Moses and the Exodus, and for Joshua and the Bible's version of the conquest of Canaan, was also coming into conflict with the archaeological evidence, or rather the lack of such evidence; and the focus of debate had begun to move to the historical reality of the Bible's picture of the United Kingdom of Israel and its kings David and Solomon.

Biblical minimalism starts by treating the historical narratives of the Bible as literature rather than as history, with a plot, a set of characters, and a theological theme concerning the nature of the covenant between the people of Israel and their God. The Biblical episodes are therefore broadly comparable to Shakespeare's Julius Caesar: the play is based in real history, but was not written for the purpose of retelling that history. "Israel" as we know it from the Bible is in fact a literary construction rather than an objective reality. By historicising the text, the traditional approach to Biblical scholarship created a false ancient "Israel" which fails to fit into the archaeologically established context of Iron Age Syria and Palestine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Minimalism

mountainman · 06-23-2009, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I am merely pointing out that the orthodox view of the disciples before the Resurrection is that they are clueless.

Historically this claim Toto is false. It might be true today, after a century of liberating academic scholarship, but it is not true for any period prior to say 1900. The orthodox view is that the apostles were historical figures who were instrumental in the authorship of the books of the new testament which today bear their name. This view was dominant from Eusebius, who presents the apostles as historical authors. The apostles were super-heroes for Eusebius and Augustine and Damasius and Jerome, etc, etc, etc in the fourth century and any suggestion that these superheroes were clueless was met with authority rejection.

The author os this tractate writes:

Quote:

Then the apostles answered and said, "Lord, we would like to know the deficiency of the aeons and their pleroma."

The author is a gnostic. He is Hellenistic.
But why is the author being presumed to be a christian?
Because we are wearing our standard-issue "christian glasses".
Every story about Jesus must have been written by an orthodox christian!!
This is an immature and baseless conjecture.

IMO it is far more reasonable to suspect that this gnostic letter/story
was written as a satire at the expense of the christian state religion
and its new testament in the fourth century. That is, its author was
not an orthodox christian. We have a non christian satirist author.

Quote:

The cononical gospels, especially Mark, portray the disciples as clueless boneheads who don't understand what Jesus says. It's a literary device. The twelve don't become superheros until the Book of Acts.

The literary device was not intended to engender humor.
The overriding purpose of the NT was to provide authority.
There is little or zero humor in the orthodox new testament.
Period.

On the other hand, this letter cited is a clear example of satire.
The author is specifically trying to send up the bonehead apostles.
Therefore, if we set down our christian glasses, we might even
contemplate that the author was not an orthodox christian at all.

OMG. Heaven forbid!

Toto · 06-23-2009, 04:58 PM

Just read the gospels. The disciples are a clueless bunch before the resurrection - it is only after Jesus rises from the dead and appears to them, and they are annointed by the holy spirit, that they become superheros.

Why is it Christian? Read the end - it is not completely orthodox, but if it's not Christian, what is it?:

Quote:

Then Peter gathered together the others also, saying, "O, Lord Jesus Christ, author of our rest, give us a spirit of understanding in order that we also may perform wonders."

Then Peter and the other apostles saw him, and they were filled with a holy spirit, And each one performed healings. And they parted in order to preach the Lord Jesus. And they came together and greeted each other saying, "Amen."

Then Jesus appeared saying to them, "Peace to you all and everyone who believes in my name. And when you depart, joy be to you and grace and power. And be not afraid; behold, I am with you forever."

Then the apostles parted from each other into four words in order to preach. And they went by a power of Jesus, in peace.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-22-2009, 12:22 PM	#12
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I think most Christians actually read the Bible the way the Taoists read the Tao Te Ching - they select a verse at random and wait for their subsconscious to suggest a meaning, which they take for inspiration from the Holy Spirit. (I recall in 1999 or so that Al Gore made some campaign decisions that way.) I guess one could do worse - for example by trying to believe what it says.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.