Org Mobile Site
Yes, I am giving a lecture on the Bible and I am afraid I will not be too kind.
I am looking for some positives to throw in to make it a more balanced view, and I know there are some good minds here with honest and positive views of this compilation of books.
This is more an overview and not a verse by verse lecture. A bit history thrown in and spiced with the importance of this book in some denominations.
I am looking for some positives to throw in to make it a more balanced view, and I know there are some good minds here with honest and positive views of this compilation of books.
This is more an overview and not a verse by verse lecture. A bit history thrown in and spiced with the importance of this book in some denominations.
Originally Posted by :
While the bible has been used by individuals and countries throughout hisory to give precidence and moral backing to many an atrocity, we must remember that for every war there are countless individuals who have been bettered by following the guidlines set down in this old tome. We should keep in mind when discussing scripture that how misinterprited and warped it has been, it is ultimately providing and encouraging the model of a "good christian" and has ingrained in entire continents an appreciation and application for many of the values that we need for an accepting society.
Howzat?While the bible has been used by individuals and countries throughout hisory to give precidence and moral backing to many an atrocity, we must remember that for every war there are countless individuals who have been bettered by following the guidlines set down in this old tome. We should keep in mind when discussing scripture that how misinterprited and warped it has been, it is ultimately providing and encouraging the model of a "good christian" and has ingrained in entire continents an appreciation and application for many of the values that we need for an accepting society.
Also:
Originally Posted by :
The bible has generally provided many a foundation for the core of just law "Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house," Name one respectable court today that does not enforce similaredicts and I will name you a hole in the ground, christianity spread those commandmants and provided an inescapable justice system for it's believers.
The bible has generally provided many a foundation for the core of just law "Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house," Name one respectable court today that does not enforce similaredicts and I will name you a hole in the ground, christianity spread those commandmants and provided an inescapable justice system for it's believers.
Originally Posted by :
The bible has generally provided many a foundation for the core of just law "Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house," Name one respectable court today that does not enforce similaredicts and I will name you a hole in the ground, christianity spread those commandmants and provided an inescapable justice system for it's believers.
This is like saying that the Bible has some Copyright on things like "Do Not Kill". The bible has generally provided many a foundation for the core of just law "Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house," Name one respectable court today that does not enforce similaredicts and I will name you a hole in the ground, christianity spread those commandmants and provided an inescapable justice system for it's believers.
Pretty much EVERY society and culture stand by those rules, it seems strange to somehow credit the bible for it, no?
He asked for some positives, just because everyone else does it does not deminish the good effects caused, no?
Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV:
This is like saying that the Bible has some Copyright on things like "Do Not Kill".
Pretty much EVERY society and culture stand by those rules, it seems strange to somehow credit the bible for it, no?
Yes.... but then there's not a lot to say about the moral teaching of the Bible. Indeed, there is not a lot to say about the moral teaching divorced from the construction of the "moral God".This is like saying that the Bible has some Copyright on things like "Do Not Kill".
Pretty much EVERY society and culture stand by those rules, it seems strange to somehow credit the bible for it, no?
Sigurd, can you give us some idea of the audience? Is this a local Church thing or what? Young? Old?
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
Yes.... but then there's not a lot to say about the moral teaching of the Bible. Indeed, there is not a lot to say about the moral teaching divorced from the construction of the "moral God".
Sigurd, can you give us some idea of the audience? Is this a local Church thing or what? Young? Old?
I am not entirely sure about the exact composition of the audience. It could be a mix crowd of Christians and "normal" Norwegian kids. I say kids, but they will be post secondary school. Around 18 - 20 maybe. Yes.... but then there's not a lot to say about the moral teaching of the Bible. Indeed, there is not a lot to say about the moral teaching divorced from the construction of the "moral God".
Sigurd, can you give us some idea of the audience? Is this a local Church thing or what? Young? Old?
But the fact that they have asked me, indicates that they want a more neutral opinion on the subject. Someone not staunch atheist or theist.
I am going to do the history, so no advice needed on the positives following Luther's grievances. I will move through some of the myths regarding its origins and some of the claims. I am more interested in the follow up... The "despite all this negative, there is still some positives" and some recent examples would be excellent. As a band aid on the hurts I am gonna inflict on the believing part of the audience.
A ... its not all bad ... kind of way
Oh in that case, look at the the promotion of family values and a sense of community, ie look at the mormons episode of southpark and apply the ending speech by the mormon kid to christianity as a whole.
Also you could point out that the bible's new testemant has jesus preaching a mainly pacifistic love they neigbor message and as much as it is warped it ultimately says "play nice and love your fellow man"
Also you could point out that the bible's new testemant has jesus preaching a mainly pacifistic love they neigbor message and as much as it is warped it ultimately says "play nice and love your fellow man"
See... this is what I am talking about... South Park.. I am too old for that 
and it wouldn't have entered my mind to look there.
I might just have a looksie, and if I use some of it, the audience will notice that I am an old man not familiar with silly cartoons.
and it wouldn't have entered my mind to look there. I might just have a looksie, and if I use some of it, the audience will notice that I am an old man not familiar with silly cartoons.
Originally Posted by Sigurd:
I am not entirely sure about the exact composition of the audience. It could be a mix crowd of Christians and "normal" Norwegian kids. I say kids, but they will be post secondary school. Around 18 - 20 maybe.
But the fact that they have asked me, indicates that they want a more neutral opinion on the subject. Someone not staunch atheist or theist.
I am going to do the history, so no advice needed on the positives following Luther's grievances. I will move through some of the myths regarding its origins and some of the claims. I am more interested in the follow up... The "despite all this negative, there is still some positives" and some recent examples would be excellent. As a band aid on the hurts I am gonna inflict on the believing part of the audience.
A ... its not all bad ... kind of way
So mostly pre-University level?I am not entirely sure about the exact composition of the audience. It could be a mix crowd of Christians and "normal" Norwegian kids. I say kids, but they will be post secondary school. Around 18 - 20 maybe.
But the fact that they have asked me, indicates that they want a more neutral opinion on the subject. Someone not staunch atheist or theist.
I am going to do the history, so no advice needed on the positives following Luther's grievances. I will move through some of the myths regarding its origins and some of the claims. I am more interested in the follow up... The "despite all this negative, there is still some positives" and some recent examples would be excellent. As a band aid on the hurts I am gonna inflict on the believing part of the audience.
A ... its not all bad ... kind of way
OK.
How long until you have to give this lecture?
I'm digging through my little library here but my material on Norse reception-history is necessarily quite limited by my field.
Originally Posted by Sigurd:
Yes, I am giving a lecture on the Bible and I am afraid I will not be too kind.
I am looking for some positives to throw in to make it a more balanced view, and I know there are some good minds here with honest and positive views of this compilation of books.
This is more an overview and not a verse by verse lecture. A bit history thrown in and spiced with the importance of this book in some denominations.
Don't be balanced, be honest and truthful. Don't weaken your position by worrying about how others may feel; however, be calm and disarming to make your audience more receptive.Yes, I am giving a lecture on the Bible and I am afraid I will not be too kind.
I am looking for some positives to throw in to make it a more balanced view, and I know there are some good minds here with honest and positive views of this compilation of books.
This is more an overview and not a verse by verse lecture. A bit history thrown in and spiced with the importance of this book in some denominations.
I hope you do well. I'd likely be rolling my eyes in the background; negative lectures about the Bible don't impress me as I generally don't care for the agendas of those giving them. It's nothing against you but I'm tired of hearing that kind of negativity. If you want Truth, remember that it sheds light on large periods of history that we may not know about without it.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
So mostly pre-University level?
OK.
How long until you have to give this lecture?
I'm digging through my little library here but my material on Norse reception-history is necessarily quite limited by my field.
I am doing this presentation twice, but the first time is tomorrow (2nd next Tuesday). I will however have room for improvements, better notes, experience etc. the second time.So mostly pre-University level?
OK.
How long until you have to give this lecture?
I'm digging through my little library here but my material on Norse reception-history is necessarily quite limited by my field.
Originally Posted by Vladimir:
Don't be balanced, be honest and truthful.
I can go toe to toe in any religious verse by verse discussion of the Bible and discuss intricate theology. I am also fully aware of what the bible is and what it claims. The different religious denominations' beliefs of what it claims and the many fallacies and misuses of the Bible. The many Christian in-fights on particular doctrine, of diverse interpretations, the version issues. The adding and taking from the canon, the authority issue, the originals issue etc..Don't be balanced, be honest and truthful.
But it is how you wrap all of this into a presentation. There is a great difference between the lecture header: "The Great Bible Fraud", and "The Bible, misused by men?" I could basically say the same things but with different approach, the one being hostile and the other informative and balanced.
Originally Posted by :
I hope you do well. I'd likely be rolling my eyes in the background; negative lectures about the Bible don't impress me as I generally don't care for the agendas of those giving them. It's nothing against you but I'm tired of hearing that kind of negativity. If you want Truth, remember that it sheds light on large periods of history that we may not know about without it.
I am not going there... I am not going to look into what the Bible claims is history. Not going to address when Emp. Augustus proclaimed the census, Maria being heavy with child and relate it to whether this happen around Christmas or not. I hope you do well. I'd likely be rolling my eyes in the background; negative lectures about the Bible don't impress me as I generally don't care for the agendas of those giving them. It's nothing against you but I'm tired of hearing that kind of negativity. If you want Truth, remember that it sheds light on large periods of history that we may not know about without it.
And it is as the Mormon kid says in South Park (yep.. finally seen it), all though he speaks about the Book of Mormon and not the Bible; it doesn't really matter when - it is the message that counts. The good will be to men. The magic of Christmas where everyone follows the two great commandments (well the second part).
Originally Posted by Sigurd:
I am doing this presentation twice, but the first time is tomorrow (2nd next Tuesday). I will however have room for improvements, better notes, experience etc. the second time.
OK, well I know you’re quite knowledgeable about this – so I shall try not to labour my points.I am doing this presentation twice, but the first time is tomorrow (2nd next Tuesday). I will however have room for improvements, better notes, experience etc. the second time.
I would begin by saying that the “Bible” as we know it today in a single volume is a relatively recent invention of the later middle ages that first appeared when preachers started moving around and needing a mobile copy of the scriptures. I would also point out that the Greek and Latin words for the Bible (I can’t speak to the Norse) literally mean a collection of writings.
I would then just briefly say that until the 15th Century and the invention of the printing press all manuscripts had to be copied by human hand, and the various books of the Bible were originally copied independently. With the best will and most strenuous effort in the world we know the scribes made mistakes because we have their manuscripts.
The reason for saying all this is that it is true and not widely recognised and it will place everything you subsequently say in the context of human fallibility rather than as an attack on Christianity.
I would then briefly mention Saint Augustine and the Council of Carthage, and then Saint Jerome’s rigorous and scholarly translation into Latin. It is worth noting that Jerome and Augustine corresponded, starting in 395, and this produced a theological controversy – namely that Augustine was concerned that Jerome’s interpretation that St. Paul was guilty of falsehood in his presentation of Peter’s views on Jewish customs in Galatians 2.11-14. Augustine was concerned that if the general public were exposed to this sort of opinion they would doubt the validity of the whole of the Bible.
Unfortunately, the letter was accidentally left in Rome and word of it reached Jerome by second hand before the actual letter. This is no. 28 in Augustine’s letters.
I found it online: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102028.htm
Moving briskly forward to the 11th Century, Christianity was spread through Norway by the King Cnut, who used missionaries from England – who repeated what they had accomplished among the Danes in England a few generation previously. The English missionaries would have brought with them a tradition of vernacular religious writing, which can help to explain why Christian poetry and prose with Biblical echoes appears relatively early in Norse literature.
The Evangelium Nicodemi appears quite early in poetic fragments in a Norse context – circa the 12th Century in West Norse in Iceland. Depending on how much time you have a gesture to the Gospels that didn’t make it into the Bible, and the fact that the medieval Church often encouraged their translation and dissemination, are worth mentioning.
It may be worth just noting that the first serious translation of the Bible since Jerome was made in Oxford in the 1370’s-1390’s. The Prologue to the Wycliffite Bible might be worth a quick look as it informed later Lutheran thinking on translation and exegesis.
I don’t know if it’s worth mentioning that there is still quite a close connection between the English and Scandinavian Churches, who are in full Communion – mostly worth mentioning for making a joke about the English being Nordics who got mugged by the French in 1066. Some Norse I know find that amusing.
From then on we’re into Germanic Lutheranism and the Nordic break with Rome, which is where my knowledge ends.
Hope that helps.
I think the message of tolerance and forgiveness preached by Jesus in the gospels is very positive; there should be a lot to draw from there. You might also consider presenting something on the bible as literature. It's certainly had a considerable influence on western literature as a whole, and contains numerous moving stories and memorable turns of phrase.
Ajax
Ajax
So basically you want to rip it apart and then say that it is not quite as evil as it could be. Wow, I can definitely see why you would categorize your views as neutral. I would give you suggestions if I thought that you were even a bit open-minded or fair, but honestly I think that would be like throwing pearls before swine.
Originally Posted by Vuk:
So basically you want to rip it apart and then say that it is not quite as evil as it could be. Wow, I can definitely see why you would categorize your views as neutral. I would give you suggestions if I thought that you were even a bit open-minded or fair, but honestly I think that would be like throwing pearls before swine.
Funny, because I was thinking exactly the same thing about you.So basically you want to rip it apart and then say that it is not quite as evil as it could be. Wow, I can definitely see why you would categorize your views as neutral. I would give you suggestions if I thought that you were even a bit open-minded or fair, but honestly I think that would be like throwing pearls before swine.
I don't suppose you've ever seen a manuscript of the Bible, in any language, have you?
As has been said one of the first things to point out would be that the Bible is a collection of books with many different authors, since many people do not realise this.
I would try to explain how the Bible came to be commonly accepted (more or less) in the form that it is today, and obviously Judaism will be just as important as Christianity in that respect. Go into how the unification of Israel/Judah led to the old scrolls being rediscovered, then how they were compiled in captivity in Babylon etc.The Bible is about 80% Old Testament after all, getting across that perspective is pretty important since a lot of people don't appreciate that.
And of course for the New Testament you would go into Athanasius etc.
I would also try to explain to the audience how the Old and New Testaments relate to each other. Most importantly would be the idea for Christians that the Old Testament is generally understood in light of the New Testament. As opposed to being made obsolete or being outright contradictory (in their perspective).
I would try to explain how the Bible came to be commonly accepted (more or less) in the form that it is today, and obviously Judaism will be just as important as Christianity in that respect. Go into how the unification of Israel/Judah led to the old scrolls being rediscovered, then how they were compiled in captivity in Babylon etc.The Bible is about 80% Old Testament after all, getting across that perspective is pretty important since a lot of people don't appreciate that.
And of course for the New Testament you would go into Athanasius etc.
I would also try to explain to the audience how the Old and New Testaments relate to each other. Most importantly would be the idea for Christians that the Old Testament is generally understood in light of the New Testament. As opposed to being made obsolete or being outright contradictory (in their perspective).
Originally Posted by Vuk:
, but honestly I think that would be like throwing pearls before swine.
, but honestly I think that would be like throwing pearls before swine.
The last refuege of the man who has lost the arguement
Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr:
I would try to explain how the Bible came to be commonly accepted (more or less) in the form that it is today, and obviously Judaism will be just as important as Christianity in that respect. Go into how the unification of Israel/Judah led to the old scrolls being rediscovered, then how they were compiled in captivity in Babylon etc.The Bible is about 80% Old Testament after all, getting across that perspective is pretty important since a lot of people don't appreciate that.
I would not go into this - the argument is vexed, obscured and the simple fact that we do not agree demonstrates it is probably not a good topic for general discussion. There is no evidence for the "rediscovery" of "old scrolls", nor for their having been lost.What is known is that the Hebrew books was compiled around perhaps 600 BC - then continuously added to.I would try to explain how the Bible came to be commonly accepted (more or less) in the form that it is today, and obviously Judaism will be just as important as Christianity in that respect. Go into how the unification of Israel/Judah led to the old scrolls being rediscovered, then how they were compiled in captivity in Babylon etc.The Bible is about 80% Old Testament after all, getting across that perspective is pretty important since a lot of people don't appreciate that.
Originally Posted by :
And of course for the New Testament you would go into Athanasius etc.
Athanasius is not so interesting a character as Augustine, not as complex or controversial.And of course for the New Testament you would go into Athanasius etc.
Originally Posted by :
I would also try to explain to the audience how the Old and New Testaments relate to each other. Most importantly would be the idea for Christians that the Old Testament is generally understood in light of the New Testament. As opposed to being made obsolete or being outright contradictory (in their perspective).
This is certainly worth mentioning, but one must always be careful when discussing the Old Testemant as one's audience may include Jews. By which I mean, they will have a different perspective and a different Canon in a different, and older, language.I would also try to explain to the audience how the Old and New Testaments relate to each other. Most importantly would be the idea for Christians that the Old Testament is generally understood in light of the New Testament. As opposed to being made obsolete or being outright contradictory (in their perspective).
Originally Posted by Strike For The South:
The last refuege of the man who has lost the arguement
Hmm, if that's true, Vuk is probably the first person I've seen lose an argument before he even got his first reply.The last refuege of the man who has lost the arguement
One of the Bible myths I am addressing is the Nicean council. And therefore Athanasius will be mentioned (his influence in the making of the canon). I just have to be disciplined enough to not address the whole Nicean controversy (Arius vs.Athanasius vs. orthodox doctrine on the Godhead). I could easily spend half the time discussing Trinitarianism.
Thank you for the link PVC.. I might use it.
I might not have the time to prepare anything on the actual literature ajax, but I will definitely look into it.
Considering that we don't really have a Jewish community in Bergen, the likelyhood of having a person with Judean religious views could be 1 to entire audience. But yes I agree. It is the Bible I am dealing with, not the Tanakh and it should be understood under the Christian umbrella.
I will however be very honest in my approach on extra-canonical or similar stories to the bible. Some lecturers would use texts predating the Bible texts which have very similar content as evidence for fraud and simple copying.
I would suggest that if the Christian God is is the creator, then his gospel would have been taught from the beginning and hence the stories would be expected to be similar. They would all look to the Christian God for salvation, from Adam to Abraham to Jacob to Moses and to the Christian era. Surely the prophets of old would have been taught about the Saviour and the 12 that followed him. Surely there would be communities like Enoch's Zion who were blueprinted by others. The righteous Enoch who the wicked feared, because he could crush an army with his voice. You would expect remnants of the original religion in the ancient civilizations of Egypt, Sumeria etc.
In just over 2000 years the Christian message and religion has been transformed into 35 000 variants. How long did it take after Christ's death before you found deviations? The clues can be found in the Bible itself.
The Lord had to revitalize the religion with Enoch after Adam, with Noah, with Abraham - Isaac - Jacob, with Moses and with Christ. Those who adhered to it, corrupted it within generations.
You can even look to the Norse religion. A God who hung himself on a three and had a spear pierce his side. Familiar? copy? who copied who?
Thank you for the link PVC.. I might use it.
I might not have the time to prepare anything on the actual literature ajax, but I will definitely look into it.
Considering that we don't really have a Jewish community in Bergen, the likelyhood of having a person with Judean religious views could be 1 to entire audience. But yes I agree. It is the Bible I am dealing with, not the Tanakh and it should be understood under the Christian umbrella.
I will however be very honest in my approach on extra-canonical or similar stories to the bible. Some lecturers would use texts predating the Bible texts which have very similar content as evidence for fraud and simple copying.
I would suggest that if the Christian God is is the creator, then his gospel would have been taught from the beginning and hence the stories would be expected to be similar. They would all look to the Christian God for salvation, from Adam to Abraham to Jacob to Moses and to the Christian era. Surely the prophets of old would have been taught about the Saviour and the 12 that followed him. Surely there would be communities like Enoch's Zion who were blueprinted by others. The righteous Enoch who the wicked feared, because he could crush an army with his voice. You would expect remnants of the original religion in the ancient civilizations of Egypt, Sumeria etc.
In just over 2000 years the Christian message and religion has been transformed into 35 000 variants. How long did it take after Christ's death before you found deviations? The clues can be found in the Bible itself.
The Lord had to revitalize the religion with Enoch after Adam, with Noah, with Abraham - Isaac - Jacob, with Moses and with Christ. Those who adhered to it, corrupted it within generations.
You can even look to the Norse religion. A God who hung himself on a three and had a spear pierce his side. Familiar? copy? who copied who?
I think that with Nicea it suffices to say this: that the Council was not directly concerned with which books could be considered canonical, but that they agreed doctrines which would later influence which books were accepted or rejected. However, it is necessary that the Church Fathers at Nicea had certain books in mind during their deliberations.
The first part of that is snappier, sorry.
On non-Canonical books: The "Canon" is actually composed of those books which are considered to have reliable authorial attributions, but we must not surpose that because of this all "non-Canonical" books were considered to be wholly without authority.
Now, I shall just quote myself:
The Gospel of Nicodemus is an expanded apocryphal account of Christ’s trial before Pilate and what became known as the Descensus Christi ad Inferos or “Christ’s Descent into Hell”, on Easter Saturday when he storms hell to rescue the Patriarchs and Prophets and takes them up to Heaven.
The Gospel was one of most popular pieces of New Testament Apocrypha in medieval Europe, as demonstrated by its translation into every major vernacular and the variety ways it was adapted or borrowed from for popular consumption. The Gospel’s subject matter and its attribution to the Pharisee Nichodemus of John’s Gospel go a long way to explaining its popularity.
From "Unremarked Heterodoxy in the Gospel of Nicodemus", (unpublished) delivered at the University of Exeter, 1st May 2012, by Philip John Wallinder BA MA.
Oh, yes, the copyright is held by the university.
It is also worth noting that while Enoch is not part of the Jewish canon he is quoted repeatedly in the New Testement.
The first part of that is snappier, sorry.
On non-Canonical books: The "Canon" is actually composed of those books which are considered to have reliable authorial attributions, but we must not surpose that because of this all "non-Canonical" books were considered to be wholly without authority.
Now, I shall just quote myself:
The Gospel of Nicodemus is an expanded apocryphal account of Christ’s trial before Pilate and what became known as the Descensus Christi ad Inferos or “Christ’s Descent into Hell”, on Easter Saturday when he storms hell to rescue the Patriarchs and Prophets and takes them up to Heaven.
The Gospel was one of most popular pieces of New Testament Apocrypha in medieval Europe, as demonstrated by its translation into every major vernacular and the variety ways it was adapted or borrowed from for popular consumption. The Gospel’s subject matter and its attribution to the Pharisee Nichodemus of John’s Gospel go a long way to explaining its popularity.
From "Unremarked Heterodoxy in the Gospel of Nicodemus", (unpublished) delivered at the University of Exeter, 1st May 2012, by Philip John Wallinder BA MA.
Oh, yes, the copyright is held by the university.
It is also worth noting that while Enoch is not part of the Jewish canon he is quoted repeatedly in the New Testement.
Originally Posted by Sigurd:
One of the Bible myths I am addressing is the Nicean council. And therefore Athanasius will be mentioned (his influence in the making of the canon). I just have to be disciplined enough to not address the whole Nicean controversy (Arius vs.Athanasius vs. orthodox doctrine on the Godhead). I could easily spend half the time discussing Trinitarianism.
Thank you for the link PVC.. I might use it.
I might not have the time to prepare anything on the actual literature ajax, but I will definitely look into it.
Considering that we don't really have a Jewish community in Bergen, the likelyhood of having a person with Judean religious views could be 1 to entire audience. But yes I agree. It is the Bible I am dealing with, not the Tanakh and it should be understood under the Christian umbrella.
I will however be very honest in my approach on extra-canonical or similar stories to the bible. Some lecturers would use texts predating the Bible texts which have very similar content as evidence for fraud and simple copying.
I would suggest that if the Christian God is is the creator, then his gospel would have been taught from the beginning and hence the stories would be expected to be similar. They would all look to the Christian God for salvation, from Adam to Abraham to Jacob to Moses and to the Christian era. Surely the prophets of old would have been taught about the Saviour and the 12 that followed him. Surely there would be communities like Enoch's Zion who were blueprinted by others. The righteous Enoch who the wicked feared, because he could crush an army with his voice. You would expect remnants of the original religion in the ancient civilizations of Egypt, Sumeria etc.
In just over 2000 years the Christian message and religion has been transformed into 35 000 variants. How long did it take after Christ's death before you found deviations? The clues can be found in the Bible itself.
The Lord had to revitalize the religion with Enoch after Adam, with Noah, with Abraham - Isaac - Jacob, with Moses and with Christ. Those who adhered to it, corrupted it within generations.
You can even look to the Norse religion. A God who hung himself on a three and had a spear pierce his side. Familiar? copy? who copied who?
I once read a course on "the world religion". It is quite interesting how many shared traces can be found, that most likely predates any of the religions we have today. One of the Bible myths I am addressing is the Nicean council. And therefore Athanasius will be mentioned (his influence in the making of the canon). I just have to be disciplined enough to not address the whole Nicean controversy (Arius vs.Athanasius vs. orthodox doctrine on the Godhead). I could easily spend half the time discussing Trinitarianism.
Thank you for the link PVC.. I might use it.
I might not have the time to prepare anything on the actual literature ajax, but I will definitely look into it.
Considering that we don't really have a Jewish community in Bergen, the likelyhood of having a person with Judean religious views could be 1 to entire audience. But yes I agree. It is the Bible I am dealing with, not the Tanakh and it should be understood under the Christian umbrella.
I will however be very honest in my approach on extra-canonical or similar stories to the bible. Some lecturers would use texts predating the Bible texts which have very similar content as evidence for fraud and simple copying.
I would suggest that if the Christian God is is the creator, then his gospel would have been taught from the beginning and hence the stories would be expected to be similar. They would all look to the Christian God for salvation, from Adam to Abraham to Jacob to Moses and to the Christian era. Surely the prophets of old would have been taught about the Saviour and the 12 that followed him. Surely there would be communities like Enoch's Zion who were blueprinted by others. The righteous Enoch who the wicked feared, because he could crush an army with his voice. You would expect remnants of the original religion in the ancient civilizations of Egypt, Sumeria etc.
In just over 2000 years the Christian message and religion has been transformed into 35 000 variants. How long did it take after Christ's death before you found deviations? The clues can be found in the Bible itself.
The Lord had to revitalize the religion with Enoch after Adam, with Noah, with Abraham - Isaac - Jacob, with Moses and with Christ. Those who adhered to it, corrupted it within generations.
You can even look to the Norse religion. A God who hung himself on a three and had a spear pierce his side. Familiar? copy? who copied who?
Kind of obvious, as a species we date back far longer than written history, and religion wasn't a new invention when we started to write. So one might have copied the other, or, the original story dates way way way further back in time.
Again, obvious. As obvious as religious celebrations (from whatever religion) "coincidentally" match astrological patterns.
If you have to search for good things to say, maybe there just aren't that many. More kids should know the absurdity of religion before they are indoctrinated, although by 18-20, you would more than likely be trying to break that indoctrination.
It's like a Neo-Nazi giving a lesson on the Talmud. Who asked a guy who hates the bible to give a lecture on it? The best lecturers love what they are lecturing about, passionately. Why don't you just analyze it like any textual mythology? Your speech is bound to be an attack, but would you attack the Iliad and the Odyssey? The Kojiki? Why wouldn't you treat them like beautiful and time honored texts. Your perspective seethes of vitriol and is odd, seeing as the books is merely of traditional/historical value.
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg:
It's like a Neo-Nazi giving a lesson on the Talmud. Who asked a guy who hates the bible to give a lecture on it? The best lecturers love what they are lecturing about, passionately.
No, the best lecturers have a vivid interest of what they are lecturing about.It's like a Neo-Nazi giving a lesson on the Talmud. Who asked a guy who hates the bible to give a lecture on it? The best lecturers love what they are lecturing about, passionately.
People who LOVE the stuff they talk about tend to be less open to other peoples opinion.
When you are giving a lecture you are not required to be open to other peoples opinions. He didn't say that he was leading a discussion, he said that he was giving a lecture. He seems to be interested in the Bible to tear it down. One professor that I had learned to read Akkadian and Hittite and tearing the culture down had nothing to do with why he did that. Or they could excavate ancient tombs to prove to themselves and others how stupid the ancient Egyptians were... But that would be kind of silly, wouldn't it?
Treat it like the important document that you believe it is, not the modern devil that you obsessively hate. One of my favorite teachers was an Atheist, Britain obsessed socialist who ate, slept, and breathed modern and early-modern British history. She taught it as though she were J.S. Mill on estrogen, listening to sex pistols. I appreciated her love for the subject and I learned that I loved her, hated the movement, but learned quite a bit about it.
Treat it like the important document that you believe it is, not the modern devil that you obsessively hate. One of my favorite teachers was an Atheist, Britain obsessed socialist who ate, slept, and breathed modern and early-modern British history. She taught it as though she were J.S. Mill on estrogen, listening to sex pistols. I appreciated her love for the subject and I learned that I loved her, hated the movement, but learned quite a bit about it.
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
If you have to search for good things to say, maybe there just aren't that many. More kids should know the absurdity of religion before they are indoctrinated, although by 18-20, you would more than likely be trying to break that indoctrination.
Which is one of the many reasons why my daughter is not being raised christian like I was. I will not have her bound by the same petty fears drilled into her mind throughout her youth like were me. One doesn't need religion at all to raise a child to be a moral, good person. My wife and I don't believe that crap at all any more to begin with.If you have to search for good things to say, maybe there just aren't that many. More kids should know the absurdity of religion before they are indoctrinated, although by 18-20, you would more than likely be trying to break that indoctrination.
@ Siggy - One of the more interesting things I read some time ago was that the earliest versions of "organized" christianity as preached by Saint Paul of Tarsus were supposedly wildly different than what Hayzeus actually taught, AND what the surviving disciples interpreted and believed to be correct. In short, the disciples wanted christianity to be essentially a slightly different flavor of judaism with most all jewish requirements, rituals, observations, and ecclesiastical laws intact. I don't remember all the specifics, but one of the bigger sticking points was circumcision being a requirement. Most adult men tended to shy away from this, so Paul removed it from his "official" version of doctrine in order to make it more attractive. I'll try to find out where I read that. It might have been the big catholic encyclopedia online.
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger:
If you have to search for good things to say, maybe there just aren't that many. More kids should know the absurdity of religion before they are indoctrinated, although by 18-20, you would more than likely be trying to break that indoctrination.
What is with the language of "indoctrination" etc?If you have to search for good things to say, maybe there just aren't that many. More kids should know the absurdity of religion before they are indoctrinated, although by 18-20, you would more than likely be trying to break that indoctrination.
Originally Posted by Whacker:
@ Siggy - One of the more interesting things I read some time ago was that the earliest versions of "organized" christianity as preached by Saint Paul of Tarsus were supposedly wildly different than what Hayzeus actually taught, AND what the surviving disciples interpreted and believed to be correct. In short, the disciples wanted christianity to be essentially a slightly different flavor of judaism with most all jewish requirements, rituals, observations, and ecclesiastical laws intact. I don't remember all the specifics, but one of the bigger sticking points was circumcision being a requirement. Most adult men tended to shy away from this, so Paul removed it from his "official" version of doctrine in order to make it more attractive. I'll try to find out where I read that. It might have been the big catholic encyclopedia online.
The issue with the "Judaizers" and the conflict it caused within the church is well documented in the New Testament itself.@ Siggy - One of the more interesting things I read some time ago was that the earliest versions of "organized" christianity as preached by Saint Paul of Tarsus were supposedly wildly different than what Hayzeus actually taught, AND what the surviving disciples interpreted and believed to be correct. In short, the disciples wanted christianity to be essentially a slightly different flavor of judaism with most all jewish requirements, rituals, observations, and ecclesiastical laws intact. I don't remember all the specifics, but one of the bigger sticking points was circumcision being a requirement. Most adult men tended to shy away from this, so Paul removed it from his "official" version of doctrine in order to make it more attractive. I'll try to find out where I read that. It might have been the big catholic encyclopedia online.
I have a Spiritual interest in the bible, but I also appreciate it for its historical value. I appreciate the Koran and various Religious texts and am fascinated by them. There was a time when my interest was to help destroy man's foolish adherence to these things, but then I grew up and became more in-tune with God and our ancestors.
Absent my moral universality, I default to moral nihilism. It is more important to defer to my curiosity than to adhere to the man-made illusion of morality, absent God. I don't believe that there are moral people who don't believe in transcendent purpose in life. I think that they are just confused and complicated animals. You delude yourself to believe that there is right and wrong without some concept of deity as we poorly understand it. Just go out there and do what you will absent any "moral" boundaries, only the boundaries created by your mind to prevent negative consequence that you aren't open to dealing with at some point. Or fake humanist ethics to fit in and aggrandize yourself in their culture, as people have done within Religion for years.
I believe that this scenario is Hell on earth.
Absent my moral universality, I default to moral nihilism. It is more important to defer to my curiosity than to adhere to the man-made illusion of morality, absent God. I don't believe that there are moral people who don't believe in transcendent purpose in life. I think that they are just confused and complicated animals. You delude yourself to believe that there is right and wrong without some concept of deity as we poorly understand it. Just go out there and do what you will absent any "moral" boundaries, only the boundaries created by your mind to prevent negative consequence that you aren't open to dealing with at some point. Or fake humanist ethics to fit in and aggrandize yourself in their culture, as people have done within Religion for years.
I believe that this scenario is Hell on earth.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO