Benjamin Franklin

Do you have any evidence to back up the claim Luke
in very good historian

BF

[ October 19, 2002: Message edited by: Benjamin Franklin ]</p>

leonarde

Posted by Kind Bud: 1)Though I very much like this line of inquiry, the formulation is such that it implies
that the Bible is one "text". It ain't. To mutate
that old expression "Don't judge a book by its cover" one could say "Don't judge a book by its
binding". The "Bible" is a compilation of
many, many "texts" written by many many people,
mostly anonymously, over the centuries. (See my
reference to this in a post to Steven Carr this
thread page 1)

2)There is, overall, comparatively little known
about the discernment process of these things:
how the Jews selected what religious texts would
be in their "canon" and how Christians did the
same for the New Testament canon. (And what is known about it, ain't known by me: I'm no Biblical
scholar)

3)Though the printing press and the later fundamentalist movement of about a century ago
made the Bible readily available to all on an
individual basis the decisions about what
went into the canon was something that originated
when individuals had limited access to
the Bible (ie there might be a parish Bible but there were no individual Bibles until long
after the canon(s) were established...and yes, there are minor differences between Catholic and
Protestant Bibles).

4)Therefore, given the above, the notion that individuals using their intellects solely can
determine for themselves what constitutes a "divinely inspired" religious work, is a shockingly new (modernist)one: certainly no one before Martin Luther had such a notion (as far as we know). Even most of the mainline Protestant denominations do not claim such a thing.

5)The individual-as-the-sole-judge-of-Scripture concept is closely tied with Fundamentalism (though the "fundies" in question almost always find that the canon is just fine).

6)Like so much else here at II, the above concept
is implicitly (in Kind Bud's post explicitly)accepted by many (most?)of the non-theists here.
They judge "the Bible" as late 20th Century/early
21st Century people are wont to and invariably
find it non-divinely inspired.

7)But since they don't believe in god(s) to begin
with there's no referent to such inspiration.

8)In my view, logically faith is necessary before one can see "divine inspiration" (or
else who will do the "inspiring"?). It doesn't
always go in that order but frequently (see
C.S. Lewis).

Cheers!

Ion

I would like to emphasize this post by Vibr8gKiwi:
It was not considered accordingly by the theists here, but it expresses powerfully consistency.

Butters

Posted by Leonade,
This is true, and one of the main reasons for not believing the stories within. Why should I believe an anonymous book?
If I did, why can't I believe any other anonymous book? The stories in the Hindu Vedas' are much more colorful, far older, and the concept of Karma and reincarnation are much more moral than the Christian concept of Hevan and Hell.

This is also true, and another reason not to believe them.


Minor differences? Minor enough for them to kill each other over?

This of course answers why there are so many contradictions in the Bible, since the layman was never intended to read it, the priests could find a passage to support any position on anything.
(The Devil can site scripture for his own purpose-W.S.)

Of course not, you are only supposed to believe what the CHURCH says it means. If you interpreted it for yourself, you might find that they were wrong.

Well, although I disagree, I think it is very important to fundies that the Bible be read as literal, execpt were it cannot possibly be, and then the layman should accept their churchs inperpretaion. I would say that the individual as the sole judge of Scripture is used more by liberal Christians, to cling to their faith, despite disagreeing with the scripture.
(Discussing the Bible and Doctrine is very dificult with these people, That believe what they want of the Bible, and disregard the rest, but when you point out that you are doing the same, execpt that you disregard all of it, then the screaming starts.)

Not true. As late 20th century/early21st century people we have discovered that much of what was believed in the past if false, and the only way to discerne the truth from fiction is through, logical thinking, and a hard examination of ALL the facts.
I myself gave up Christianity at an early age, because the doctrines are morally bankrupt.
I few years ago I strted asking myself "If so many people believe it, couldn't some of it be true? Mabye what I had been taught was distorted.
So I went to examine it all, actually with the hope it was true, what I found was it was more false than I had ever thought!

I for one believe that SOMETHING is out there, but it sure as hell is not the Christian God.

Let's is this logic "You have to first believe it's true, before you can examine the issue to dertmine if it is true" right.
Just as you have to believe in gosts BEFORE you can see one.
You have to believe in mind reading BEFORE it works.

Family Man

Which you have only done in that dream world you live in.

Family Man

That is exactly what we do get: absurdities. Like this ridiculous notion that a Jewish peasant was really God in disguise. BTW: I take that latter position.

Precisely, modern historians don't accept everything written in ancient history texts. But suggest that much of what is written in the NT isn't exactly accurate and somehow the objectivity that is applied to Thucydides is thrown out the window. If Vanderzyden's theory is accurate, Luke misreported how Judas died. Doesn't that make you wonder what else he got wrong?

The above comment applies just as well for Heroditus

I'll bet many, not few, as Luke was actively promoting a sectarian point of view and not writing a work of history.

Yes, they do to their great embarrassment. However, Christians just don't seem to understand how embarrassing the many gaffes in their favorite book are.

Agreed. Let's not gloss over the blatant errors in the NT.

[ October 19, 2002: Message edited by: Family Man ]</p>

Family Man

And that, Leonarde, is not history. It's religion. And that's why Luke was not writing history.

leonarde

Partial post by Butters: How can one determine whether you are "inspired",
Butters, when you make such a declaration of faith?

Cheers!

leonarde

Ion,
I think in this matter of history's status, you are hindered by your experience in Eastern Europe:
from 1917 onwards in the Soviet Union and the late 1940s onward in Czechoslovakia, Poland, Rumania, Bulgaria, E. Germany, Hungary, Albania
(let's put Yugoslavia to the side for a moment)
"Marxist-Leninism" was declared, not just the
official state ideology but a "science". Since it
was tied in with the "immutable laws of class warfare" it had claims to be a science of the very
pith and pitch of history itself.
In the West, history took a far different trajectory: NO modern historians (as far as I know) claim that history, as a field of study is a "science". There are probably multiple, multiple reasons for that. A couple:

1)much of MODERN concepts of science are tied in
with the so-called "scientific method": one does
an experiment and determines the result with or
without a "control group".

2)the experiment is confirmed or refuted by subsequent experiments.

3)science makes claims about predictability.

History on the other hand CAN'T do experiments:
the events, nations, personalities, factions, ideologies, slogans etc. can't be replicated in
a laboratory.

History can't be repeated: there is no way of knowing precisely what would have happened
had Trotsky won the battle for power with Stalin
in 1922-26.

Historians don't even try in most instances
to make predictions about future events.

Nor can there be "control groups" for nations,
states, and other geographical and political entities.

Ion, If you don't believe me, go to UCLA or USC or
whatever university is near you and ask a
history professor whether he considers himself to
be practicing science.

Cheers!

leonarde

Posted by Family Man: It isn't clear to me what "that" (in your first
sentence) refers to: my statement? of my
understanding of Scripture??? But I don't claim
to be writing in any sense history. Or do
you mean that any book held by certain persons
to be Scripture can't be history because it is
'contaminated' by the religious element????

If that is your point then you have a very narrow
concept of what texts historians look at to understand the past. Alas for those whose only
acquaintance with history is the watered-down, far
from-the-original-and-primary-sources version available in American high schools it is perhaps
understandable.

Historically, whether we are talking about ancient
Egypt or pre-Columbian Meso-America, the priest
class (ie the "religious elite" of the given society) was the primary, sometimes the only, segment of society that was literate. That meant
that the "priests/shaman(s?)/seers" of the given
religion were the only people, in many instances,
who could write history.

I assure you that historians and archaeologists
don't stick up their noses at such texts and say
"Hummph! That's not history! It's religion!".
They don't do that because they understand:

1)the priest class (whatever its local designation)is the scribe/history-writing social class as well.

2)religion is an integral part of history: the pyramids of Egypt (and much much else about ancient Egypt) would be completely indecipherible
without relation to the regnant beliefs about life
after death and the gods.

Contrary to the impression given in these pages,
historians wish they knew more about
the beliefs of ancient peoples: they definitelyconsider such documents to be of
tremendous historical value.

When a religious document itself is in the form
of a historical narrative (eg. The Acts of the Apostles) that makes it even more valuable
for the historian.

But the above is lost on those brought up intellectually on the "History for Dummies" stuff that most people look at (if they look at anything at all).

Cheers!