The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

crazyhorse1 wrote:Why should I care what they think about a book or a movie?

You may or may not. Just as anybody in this board may or may not care about any one given post or poster.

At:

http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm?action=ne ... ewsID=5400

Ryan McCarl writes:

But do Christians really have anything to fear from The Da Vinci Code? It is true that the novel's characters make assertions that challenge much conventional wisdom about Christian history and raise difficult issues for believers. But anyone who loses his or her faith by reading The Da Vinci Code, or any single book, needed a stronger foundation for his or her beliefs before reading it.

and:

If the tough questions are openly examined and discussed, the truth ought to prevail without the help of boycotts, political intervention, or force. As St. Paul advises us, "test everything; hold fast to what is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

I'll try to state my thought in a clearer way. Why should I care that the church calls Dan Brown wrong when it, in fact, can't prove its own case. Church records and the Bible are no more provable than the DaVinci code. Of the two stories it is the church's story that is the most improbable in that it involves supernatural phenomena of a highly unlikely order.

crazyhorse1 wrote:I'll try to state my thought in a clearer way. Why should I care that the church calls Dan Brown wrong when it, in fact, can't prove its own case. Church records and the Bible are no more provable than the DaVinci code. Of the two stories it is the church's story that is the most improbable in that it involves supernatural phenomena of a highly unlikely order.

I think you take the argument too far. I mean, we can positively identify the author of the Divinci Code, and everyone knows the story itself is fictional.

@Chad and others, to help you better understand my point of view, let's change things around a bit. What if this discussion weren't about the Bible, but instead about the Book of Mormon? Are your views on the Book of Mormon similar to my views on the Bible? Are a Mormon's views on the Book of Mormon similar to your views on the Bible?

The problem with the book of mormon is that there is absolutley nothing backing it up.

The NT is backed up by a ton of evidence suppoting it's validity as a historical document. I dont know the details regaiding the evidence and what not, as I always had faith. Those who did not have faith, like, Lee Stobel, author of Case for Christ, went out and found the evidence. He was a non-believer, and was determined to find proof that the NT was false, but after doing the research, found undeniable evidence that the NT is valid. Now, I have not read this book, but plan to in the coming weeks, but I hear it is an excellent.

I hope what I'm about to say does not come across as negative, but to those you you who do not believe that what the Bible has to say is true, and have been saying that if the Da Vici code or any other book for that matter can alter someone's faith, then their faith clearly was not very strong to beigin with (which I agree with). Then I challenge you to read Case For Christ, as I think the idea works the same way. If you want Christians to with an open mind read and aknowdelge something that basically says their faith means nothing, then why not read something with an open mind that might contradict what you believe?...Just a thought.

redskins12287 wrote:The problem with the book of mormon is that there is absolutley nothing backing it up.

The NT is backed up by a ton of evidence suppoting it's validity as a historical document. I dont know the details regaiding the evidence and what not, as I always had faith. Those who did not have faith, like, Lee Stobel, author of Case for Christ, went out and found the evidence. He was a non-believer, and was determined to find proof that the NT was false, but after doing the research, found undeniable evidence that the NT is valid. Now, I have not read this book, but plan to in the coming weeks, but I hear it is an excellent.

I hope what I'm about to say does not come across as negative, but to those you you who do not believe that what the Bible has to say is true, and have been saying that if the Da Vici code or any other book for that matter can alter someone's faith, then their faith clearly was not very strong to beigin with (which I agree with). Then I challenge you to read Case For Christ, as I think the idea works the same way. If you want Christians to with an open mind read and aknowdelge something that basically says their faith means nothing, then why not read something with an open mind that might contradict what you believe?...Just a thought.

Well, I wasn't one of those who said that about people's beliefs being altered by this book (though it is certainly a resonable statement), but what makes you think that I (and others like me) who disbelieve the Bible haven't read things that contradict my viewpoint? I do it all the time, and it's one of the reasons I enjoy the various debates on this board. I've also probably read more of the Bible than many self-professed Christians, in addition to taking at least two religion courses focusing on Christianity and taught by ministers. Don't make the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you came to their viewpoint through ignorance.

Well, I'm heading to see the movie tonight! Wish me luck!

In early May, after reading The Davinci Code, I thought it presented an interesting view of the church and its teachings. That is why I started this thread. This thread, honestly, has been a great voyage demonstrating differing views, thoughts, and theories. I can say that after reading The Davinci Code, I felt it only fair to give another book a shot at informing me about the history of Jesus – The Bible. So, I decided to start reading the New Testament. I have been taking a leisurely pace in reading the New Testament, recently half way through the book of John.

Tonight, I saw The Davinci Code – the movie. As with most movie adaptations of books, it did stray here and there but for the most part it did a good job of hitting the highlights of the book. For those of you that read the book, I’d recommend the movie.

But, upon getting home from the movie, thinking about the movie, the book, the contents and views found in this thread, and the New Testament, something “hit” me. All of the sudden, I had what many might call an epiphany. Others might call it being “born again”. Whatever you want to call it, I felt a strong sense that I finally “got it”. I finally found the only true symbol worth following…..worth getting on my knees and honoring….worth standing on a mountain top and singing to the top of my lungs.

Although I’m not one of those “bible thumpers” or the type of person that pushes my beliefs on another person, I feel obligated to share with all of you the symbol that I have found that has helped me make sense of it all:

redskins12287 wrote:The problem with the book of mormon is that there is absolutley nothing backing it up.

I'm sure it contains some historically verifiable facts. There was really a Joseph Smith, etc. I'm sure Mormons are just as adamant about the factuality of their text as you are about yours. It all has to do with perspective.

chaddukes wrote:I was the one who stated that the bible was the most historically accurate document we possess. Notice that I said document. Of course it is full of unverifiable occurences. I mean to say that no one can verify that the Red Sea actually parted, nor can they do any more than claim that it in fact didn't. Its simply unverfiable. That doesn't make it true or false.

The Bible has been demonstrated in several ways to be a document with an enormous amount of historical truth. To look at the Bible in historic terms you must look at it from a number of angles; textual criticism, internal congruity, predictive prophecy, non-biblical texts, archeology, etc.

The Texts themselves make a powerful argument for accuracy. The Dead Sea Scrolls found only 50 years ago contained manuscripts of the Old Testament that were written prior to the coming of Christ (if you believe in that). These manuscripts were almost identical copies of what we have in todays OT. For over two thousand years the text of the OT has remained almost exactly the same. The few differences that do exist are typographically errors such as misplaced letters and punctuation. If you are willing to throw this evidence out on the basis of a misplaced comma then you must also throw out every document composed prior to 1450 and the invention of the printing press. The fact is that the OT has survived over two thousand years with over 99% consistency from copy to copy. There are over 5300 copies of the New Testament dating back to 200 A.D. and earlier....only 168 years after Christ death. To put this in Perspective there are less than 700 copies of Homer's Illiad which is the second largest body of ancient manuscripts and only 8 surviving copies of the works of Herodotus. The copies of the Illiad that exist have only 95% accuracy.....and substantially fewer coppies exist...So there is little...practically no variation in the written word of the Bible in the last 2400 years.

The Bible has tremendous internal congruity and the unique phenomenon of predictive prophecy, that is that the Bible predicts events that are later corraborated. There are people who will list for you the innacuracies of the bible text and point out the places where the bible has contradictions, but when you get down to it these arguments are pedantic at best. For example, Scott Bidstrup claims that the story of Jesus should be thrown out because of this glaring example of inconsistency,”,’He is not here, he is raised, just as he said." (Matt. 28:6) or "He is not here, he has been raised." (Mark 15:6, Luke 24:6)’,” I’ll deal with that much difference in a 2000 year old text where it has zero impact on the texts meaning. Other differences he sites are errors in transcribing numbers such as….”While describing the same incident, 2 Samuel 8:4 states that King David captured 1700 horsemen, and 1 Chron. 18:4 claims he captured 7,000.” I’ll accept that criticism and move on quite happily when dealing with an even that occurred over 2500 years ago.

There are instances of other surviving documents that speak to biblical events such as the works of Josephus, Tacitus, and even the Talmud. Yes, I am aware that there is criticism of some of those texts but the burden of those errors should fall upon those authors, and should not be ascribed to the Bible.

Then there are the accounts of Jesus ministry on earth. These were written within the lifetimes of the apostles themselves. And while you can say that they aren’t primary source material they are about as close as your going to get for any ancient document.

There is a surprisingly accurate discussion of all this here http://answers.yahoo.com/question/;_ylt ... 6022508775

Another interesting series of articles I stumbled on a while back. I haven't read them all!
http://www.aish.com/literacy/jewishhist ... istory.asp

Then there is archeology which has generally supported the claims of the Bible down to finding the Walls of Jericho, Lot’s Cave, the city’s of Sodom and Gomorrah. These are items thought to be mythological in natures for over a thousand years that were recently discovered.

To say that the bible is only accurate when corroborated by other evidence shows a pretty shallow understanding of the historical process. And if you want to take an incredibly strict secular/materialist point of view on this topic then you also have to throw out all other history as well. Now, I don’t know how you define fact and fiction, but it is quite clear that the bible is no more fiction than are the crusades, the fall of Rome, etc.

There are obviously disagreements on the historicity of the Bible with the minimalist claiming that there is no absolutely indisputable proof of the bibles history, and with maximalist claiming that its a reliable historical document. The problem with using this to discredit the bible is that this spectrum of debate exists for most historical documents...so again you must throw out not only the bible but most other works of ancient history as well.

Chad

I think you have been so thoroughly indocrinated in your faith that you fail to see the mythic/fantastical elements of the Bible in true perspective. Absolutely no historical documents I know of (unless associated with religion) of such obvious fantasy are taken seriously by modern scholars. The notion that Jesus may have the offspring of God directly is not one single bit more plausible, historically speaking, than the Roman notion the Helen was born of the physical union of Leda and the swan (Zeus). The Bible contains talking serpents, rocks gushing water, the dead rising, seas dividing, and endless entertaining, even, instructive stories; but for the church to try to support the historical truth of something like the Passover and the geological turbulence concurrent with the death of Christ and at the same time attack Dan Brown's comparatively small bit of speculative mythmaking is hypocritical.
Nevertheless, kudoes to you on a thoughtful, intelligent post that bears much fruit for one interested in the topic. I plan to pursue this matter further by following you advice as to what to read next.
I still find myself a bit hostile to the church, however, insofar as it seems to have down hard on a novelist who has worked hard on a book of great interest. I don't think its a great book, but it's not a bad one either (contrary to the manufactored opinions of media idiots); further, whether or not the reader is correctly indocrinated or not in the mysteries, he learns a lot about Rome, the church, architecture, history, DaVinci, etc. Most popular novels fail to offer as much.
My advice to the church: Don't like Dan Brown's fantasies. Fine. Get back to me when you've stopped teaching your own as historical truth. It's one thing to uncover the ancient walls of Jericho; it's quite another to prove they fell by supernatural agency.


i

crazyhorse1 wrote: Absolutely no historical documents I know of (unless associated with religion) of such obvious fantasy are taken seriously by modern scholars.

Again, when political passion gets the best of you, nothing but broken logic and outrageous allegations are made.

Your political activism is so entrenched that you fail to appreciate the historical facts and confuse them in a black and white scenario the likes of the tired Bush diatribes that you love to engage in.

One day, you just may wish to stop and -think- whether blunt and utterly false statements like the one made above, and other failures in the fundamental logical framework of some of your arguments, do more harm than good to the "causes" that you seem to espouse and defend so adamantly.

I would have hoped for a bit more sophistication from you. The fact that many posters do not engage in the political threads, that you love to love and others love to hate, does not mean that the level of arguments must fall so low that they end up lacking any persuasive power at all.

In western culture we have the Illiad and the Odyssey, as well as a number of other magnificent Greek works, still considered among the best written by man. Nothing by Sophocles, Euripides, or any other Greek playwright is taken seriously as history, nor is Beowulf, the Norse classic. Neither the Matters of England (Arthur tales) or Matters of France (Roland) are taken seriously, nor are the actual attempts at history of Geofrey of Monmath in the middle ages.
It is generally accepted in my profession that there are few reliable historical accounts of anything surviving from the Old English period to the Norman conquest. The situation is as bad in France and the rest of the civilized world, perhaps the historical writings of Roman historians being the most reliable. The historical essays of the British historian Trevor-Roper on the middle east are a must read for anyone researching what is perhaps best established as known about the writing, tribes, goings on in the time of Christ. As to myths and stories and tales comparable to materials in the Bible, or other writings that are religion related, there are plenty, from many cultures all over the world.
But back to your major point. If you know of any other book of the period that contains such miracles and metaphysical mapping as does the Bible and is not part of a religion but taken seriously as history by genuine scholars, please tell me what it is. This is not the stuff of proof. This is the stuff of faith. As to whether it's true or not, I have no idea.

cvillehog wrote:

redskins12287 wrote:The problem with the book of mormon is that there is absolutley nothing backing it up.

The NT is backed up by a ton of evidence suppoting it's validity as a historical document. I dont know the details regaiding the evidence and what not, as I always had faith. Those who did not have faith, like, Lee Stobel, author of Case for Christ, went out and found the evidence. He was a non-believer, and was determined to find proof that the NT was false, but after doing the research, found undeniable evidence that the NT is valid. Now, I have not read this book, but plan to in the coming weeks, but I hear it is an excellent.

I hope what I'm about to say does not come across as negative, but to those you you who do not believe that what the Bible has to say is true, and have been saying that if the Da Vici code or any other book for that matter can alter someone's faith, then their faith clearly was not very strong to beigin with (which I agree with). Then I challenge you to read Case For Christ, as I think the idea works the same way. If you want Christians to with an open mind read and aknowdelge something that basically says their faith means nothing, then why not read something with an open mind that might contradict what you believe?...Just a thought.

Well, I wasn't one of those who said that about people's beliefs being altered by this book (though it is certainly a resonable statement), but what makes you think that I (and others like me) who disbelieve the Bible haven't read things that contradict my viewpoint? I do it all the time, and it's one of the reasons I enjoy the various debates on this board. I've also probably read more of the Bible than many self-professed Christians, in addition to taking at least two religion courses focusing on Christianity and taught by ministers. Don't make the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you came to their viewpoint through ignorance.

I wasn't trying to single anyone out, and I certainly did not just assume you or anyone else had never read anything that contradicted their beliefs.

Have you read Case for Chrsit? Call me a hyporite if you want, seeing as how I have not read this book yet keep advocating that others should, but still, I think you should read it. It's all about facts, and it seems like thats what you want.

cvillehog wrote:

redskins12287 wrote:The problem with the book of mormon is that there is absolutley nothing backing it up.

I'm sure it contains some historically verifiable facts. There was really a Joseph Smith, etc. I'm sure Mormons are just as adamant about the factuality of their text as you are about yours. It all has to do with perspective.

But as far as the old prophests in the book of mormon, I remember a friend of mine who goes to Washington Bible College saying that experts, historians, etc. just cant find any historical evidence of the older stuff in the book of mormon like they can for the bible.

redskins12287 wrote:

cvillehog wrote:

redskins12287 wrote:The problem with the book of mormon is that there is absolutley nothing backing it up.

I'm sure it contains some historically verifiable facts. There was really a Joseph Smith, etc. I'm sure Mormons are just as adamant about the factuality of their text as you are about yours. It all has to do with perspective.

But as far as the old prophests in the book of mormon, I remember a friend of mine who goes to Washington Bible College saying that experts, historians, etc. just cant find any historical evidence of the older stuff in the book of mormon like they can for the bible.

Right, fine, but you aren't seeing the forest for the trees here. The way you feel towards the book of mormon (or any other non-Christian religious literature) is the way that I (and others like me) see the Bible. That is my only point, not to argue the validity of some book I've never so much as looked at.

crazyhorse1 wrote:In western culture we have the Illiad and the Odyssey, as well as a number of other magnificent Greek works, still considered among the best written by man.

Even more fundamental and important to the development of western culture are the pre-Socratic texts, such as those written by Parmenides and Heraclitus among others equally influential. BUT none of these texts can be found in its entirety today. They have been lost over more than two thousand years! Only a few isolated fragments are quoted by second, third and fourth iterations of other authors throughout history. Knowledge and history had an oral tradition and the amount of information written, let alone the much smaller amount of information about them which got transcribed, is tragically very small. Epistemological continuity has been lost almost as a rule rather than as an exception. I would enjoy nothing more than to have had access to the texts of the Pythagorean School. I do not feel that there would be a greater cultural discovery in the history of humankind than if the actual written opera omnia of Aristotle would have been found somewhere. Too bad Caliph Omar of Medina had other plans to heat the baths of his military staff with the wonderful texts contained in the Library of Alexandria. He must have been a one-way radical activist that saw the world in black and white.

crazyhorse1 wrote:Nothing by Sophocles, Euripides, or any other Greek playwright is taken seriously as history,

Do you mean to say that the classic tragedies in the Greek world did not, and perhaps even most importantly, could not have drawn inspiration from real-life events? Kudos for their prolific imagination. But even more importantly, who cares? Their main contribution to our culture and to our civilization does not lie on whether they were true or not, or even partially true or not. No, their main value lies in the power of the VALUES presented in those texts.

Could stories like Aedipus and Elektra be considered as tragedies today? Could they have happened? I feel the answer is yes on both counts. But it does NOT MATTER. What matters in those stories are the VALUES brought up to conform our universal ethical standards independently of the religion, or lack thereof, that any one individual can follow. Their importance lies in their contribution to the development of our culture and our understanding of the dignity of the human person and its universal rights.

crazyhorse1 wrote:nor is Beowulf, the Norse classic. .

Wrong again. The Norse Sagas have A LOT of them based on FACT. Surely, not every word and the plot follow history. But the cultural framework and the war rivalries involved are based on cultural reality. Just ask any educated Icelander ...

crazyhorse1 wrote:Neither the Matters of England (Arthur tales) or Matters of France (Roland) are taken seriously, nor are the actual attempts at history of Geofrey of Monmath in the middle ages.

We could go through a much longer list of medieval -literature- and I would still argue that the VALUES espoused in it take place in a an actual social context that makes it possible to create VALUES. But as an English professor, you conveniently leave out ALL of the magnificent medieval philosophical and theological writings by Jewish, Arab and Christian scholars during the lower and upper middle ages. Moses Maimonides, Avicenna, Averroes, St Albert, St Thomas, the list does not and can not do justice to them all. Maybe the world of knowledge is a bit wider than the view through literature alone. But a Sophist probably would argue otherwise...

crazyhorse1 wrote: It is generally accepted in my profession that there are few reliable historical accounts of anything surviving from the Old English period to the Norman conquest.

If historical accounts is understood to be -written- accounts, it took you a long time to figure that one out notwithstanding the existence of a few texts. But if as -historical- evidence one considers the WHOLE archaeological evidence, the situation is not as grim. A lot has been learned lately about the occupation of England during the Roman period during the present century, for example. But again, I fear that your angle is exclusively through literature, an understandable formative bias if you may.

crazyhorse1 wrote: The historical essays of the British historian Trevor-Roper on the middle east are a must read for anyone researching what is perhaps best established as known about the writing, tribes, goings on in the time of Christ.

I beg to differ again. You are talking about territory that has been covered by so many authors and scholars from so many different disciplines and perspectives through history that this is yet another over-simplification, which while understandable from the biased perspective of an English speaker, fails to grasp the full breadth of research conducted and still being conducted in this vast field.

crazyhorse1 wrote: As to myths and stories and tales comparable to materials in the Bible, or other writings that are religion related, there are plenty, from many cultures all over the world.

I fail to see the indictment behind this paragraph. You might wish to review the work by Frankfort, Henri, H. A. Frankfort, John A. Wilson, and Thorkild Jacobsen The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man: An Essay of Speculative Thought in the Ancient Near East. It might provide a little insight about the religious social and cultural context in which the Old Testament evolved.

crazyhorse1 wrote: But back to your major point. If you know of any other book of the period that contains such miracles and metaphysical mapping as does the Bible and is not part of a religion but taken seriously as history by genuine scholars, please tell me what it is.

Many events and stories described in the Bible, and particularly the New Testament, have been documented as historical facts. No, I can not open the Red Sea for you today, nor can I get anybody to walk on water for you because I am a bit busy typing a long post but otherwise I might.

crazyhorse1 wrote: This is not the stuff of proof. This is the stuff of faith.

Yes and no.

If the question is whether a human being can come rationally to the conclusion that here is a God, the answer is YES. Philosophy has taught us that for over 23 centuries now.

If the question is whether God is Jesus christ under the Judaeo-Christian tradition, the answer is NO. This is a matter of faith.

But my main point is that IT DOES NOT MATTER. For as long as we learn from the VALUES contributed to our culture and civilization from Christianity and other enormously valuable religions, we would expand our knowledge and respect for the dignity of the human person and universal rights.

Some of the most important spiritual contributions made by Christianity have been forgotten and they are coming back to us from other religions such as Buddhism and Shintoism.

Yet other extremely influential contributions to the development of the dignity of the human person have been made by non-Christians or anti-Christians. Someone quoted Jefferson as an authority in this thread. Yes, free masons had a profound influence in the development of fundamental democratic texts including but not limited to the US Constitution. As a Christian, I do not see them as a threat on the contrary.

crazyhorse1 wrote: As to whether it's true or not, I have no idea.

And that is why some of us engage in the pursuit of knowledge, happiness and God in our journeys through life.

Redskin in Canada wrote:

crazyhorse1 wrote:In western culture we have the Illiad and the Odyssey, as well as a number of other magnificent Greek works, still considered among the best written by man.

Even more fundamental and important to the development of western culture are the pre-Socratic texts, such as those written by Parmenides and Heraclitus among others equally influential. BUT none of these texts can be found in its entirety today. They have been lost over more than two thousand years! Only a few isolated fragments are quoted by second, third and fourth iterations of other authors throughout history. Knowledge and history had an oral tradition and the amount of information written, let alone the much smaller amount of information about them which got transcribed, is tragically very small. Epistemological continuity has been lost almost as a rule rather than as an exception. I would enjoy nothing more than to have had access to the texts of the Pythagorean School. I do not feel that there would be a greater cultural discovery in the history of humankind than if the actual written opera omnia of Aristotle would have been found somewhere. Too bad Caliph Omar of Medina had other plans to heat the baths of his military staff with the wonderful texts contained in the Library of Alexandria. He must have been a one-way radical activist that saw the world in black and white.

crazyhorse1 wrote:Nothing by Sophocles, Euripides, or any other Greek playwright is taken seriously as history,

Do you mean to say that the classic tragedies in the Greek world did not, and perhaps even most importantly, could not have drawn inspiration from real-life events? Kudos for their prolific imagination. But even more importantly, who cares? Their main contribution to our culture and to our civilization does not lie on whether they were true or not, or even partially true or not. No, their main value lies in the power of the VALUES presented in those texts.

Could stories like Aedipus and Elektra be considered as tragedies today? Could they have happened? I feel the answer is yes on both counts. But it does NOT MATTER. What matters in those stories are the VALUES brought up to conform our universal ethical standards independently of the religion, or lack thereof, that any one individual can follow. Their importance lies in their contribution to the development of our culture and our understanding of the dignity of the human person and its universal rights.

crazyhorse1 wrote:nor is Beowulf, the Norse classic. .

Wrong again. The Norse Sagas have A LOT of them based on FACT. Surely, not every word and the plot follow history. But the cultural framework and the war rivalries involved are based on cultural reality. Just ask any educated Icelander ...

crazyhorse1 wrote:Neither the Matters of England (Arthur tales) or Matters of France (Roland) are taken seriously, nor are the actual attempts at history of Geofrey of Monmath in the middle ages.

We could go through a much longer list of medieval -literature- and I would still argue that the VALUES espoused in it take place in a an actual social context that makes it possible to create VALUES. But as an English professor, you conveniently leave out ALL of the magnificent medieval philosophical and theological writings by Jewish, Arab and Christian scholars during the lower and upper middle ages. Moses Maimonides, Avicenna, Averroes, St Albert, St Thomas, the list does not and can not do justice to them all. Maybe the world of knowledge is a bit wider than the view through literature alone. But a Sophist probably would argue otherwise...

crazyhorse1 wrote: It is generally accepted in my profession that there are few reliable historical accounts of anything surviving from the Old English period to the Norman conquest.

If historical accounts is understood to be -written- accounts, it took you a long time to figure that one out notwithstanding the existence of a few texts. But if as -historical- evidence one considers the WHOLE archaeological evidence, the situation is not as grim. A lot has been learned lately about the occupation of England during the Roman period during the present century, for example. But again, I fear that your angle is exclusively through literature, an understandable formative bias if you may.

crazyhorse1 wrote: The historical essays of the British historian Trevor-Roper on the middle east are a must read for anyone researching what is perhaps best established as known about the writing, tribes, goings on in the time of Christ.

I beg to differ again. You are talking about territory that has been covered by so many authors and scholars from so many different disciplines and perspectives through history that this is yet another over-simplification, which while understandable from the biased perspective of an English speaker, fails to grasp the full breadth of research conducted and still being conducted in this vast field.

crazyhorse1 wrote: As to myths and stories and tales comparable to materials in the Bible, or other writings that are religion related, there are plenty, from many cultures all over the world.

I fail to see the indictment behind this paragraph. You might wish to review the work by Frankfort, Henri, H. A. Frankfort, John A. Wilson, and Thorkild Jacobsen The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man: An Essay of Speculative Thought in the Ancient Near East. It might provide a little insight about the religious social and cultural context in which the Old Testament evolved.

crazyhorse1 wrote: But back to your major point. If you know of any other book of the period that contains such miracles and metaphysical mapping as does the Bible and is not part of a religion but taken seriously as history by genuine scholars, please tell me what it is.

Many events and stories described in the Bible, and particularly the New Testament, have been documented as historical facts. No, I can not open the Red Sea for you today, nor can I get anybody to walk on water for you because I am a bit busy typing a long post but otherwise I might.

crazyhorse1 wrote: This is not the stuff of proof. This is the stuff of faith.

Yes and no.

If the question is whether a human being can come rationally to the conclusion that here is a God, the answer is YES. Philosophy has taught us that for over 23 centuries now.

If the question is whether God is Jesus christ under the Judaeo-Christian tradition, the answer is NO. This is a matter of faith.

But my main point is that IT DOES NOT MATTER. For as long as we learn from the VALUES contributed to our culture and civilization from Christianity and other enormously valuable religions, we would expand our knowledge and respect for the dignity of the human person and universal rights.

Some of the most important spiritual contributions made by Christianity have been forgotten and they are coming back to us from other religions such as Buddhism and Shintoism.

Yet other extremely influential contributions to the development of the dignity of the human person have been made by non-Christians or anti-Christians. Someone quoted Jefferson as an authority in this thread. Yes, free masons had a profound influence in the development of fundamental democratic texts including but not limited to the US Constitution. As a Christian, I do not see them as a threat on the contrary.

crazyhorse1 wrote: As to whether it's true or not, I have no idea.

And that is why some of us engage in the pursuit of knowledge, happiness and God in our journeys through life.

I agree with virtually everything you've written here. So, where do we differ? It also does not matter that Dan Brown speculates that Jesus was married. It's still more likely he was married than that he rose from the dead. Note: I didn't say he didn't rise from the dead. Considering the world of physics, as we know it today, he might have done both in one reality, neither in another.
I'm sixty three. These matters seem less interesting the older I get. I don't know why. Maybe because I'll find out for sure soon enough, or maybe I won't. By the way, no artifact has ever been found that has supported the divinity of Christ. You could find the robe, the cave, the spear, the crown, the log book of executions, a first-hand account signed by a hundred witnesses and you would still have nothing. You know this. And you and both know old myths contain facts that are revelatory of historical periods; it's a bit over the top to claim as much for them as you have in you response.
Nevertheless, I am very impressed by your argument and scholarship and thank you for your reading recommendations.
Incidently, I was raised a Christian and attend Christian churches; I don't accept the NT literally but embrace the teachings of Christ, which form the core of my valvues, political and otherwise. I won an award as a Christian writer a few years backs and if you've followed my posts here you know that I am anti-war with Iraq, anti-corruption in government, anti-death penalty and abortion, anti-tax breaks for the wealthy, pro union, pro health care, pro most social programs for the poor, hate lying in government, pro-law, pro-honoring geneva conventions, etc.

Redskin in Canada wrote:

But my main point is that IT DOES NOT MATTER. For as long as we learn from the VALUES contributed to our culture and civilization from Christianity and other enormously valuable religions, we would expand our knowledge and respect for the dignity of the human person and universal rights.

Well, RiC, I follow your point. However, in the context of this thread it most certainly does matter. The argument here is not about the values that can be imparted by religion, but the historical veracity of the bible's claim that Christ was the son of God, etc etc etc. I still fail to see why such a conclusion would be reached from reading a book.

And I'll reiterate the point that I made earlier in the thread, referring back to the title of the thread - DaVinci Code clearly is influential, because here we all are still talking about the questions raised by the very existence of the book. Maybe not influential in a historical context, but nevertheless exerting influence on the posting activities of a number of people around here!

UK Skins Fan wrote:The argument here is not about the values that can be imparted by religion, but the historical voracity of the bible's claim that Christ was the son of God, etc etc etc.

I think that this is where alot of the disagreement is coming from. While I clearly believe that Christ was the son of God, I wouldn't be so presumptious as to call the Bible proof of that assertion. As I stated earlier those are things that are unverifiable. When I speak about the historical value of the Bible I mean as it pertains to the history and culture of the peoples in the bible. I do not mean to say that the miracle are a verifiable fact. But what information is verifiable has predominantly been proven true. For instance, its not that God raized Sodom, its that the society even existed. Until recently no one believed that it did.

The difference with Dan Browns book is that there is proof that his asserions are false....on the items which can be verified.

Chad

Chad

chaddukes wrote:The difference with Dan Browns book is that there is proof that his asserions are false....on the items which can be verified.

Well, Brown's book also doesn't claim to be the Truth(TM) with a capital T and that rhymes with P which stands for pool, and that means... Wait, I got my musicals mixed up...

cvillehog wrote:

redskins12287 wrote:

cvillehog wrote:

redskins12287 wrote:The problem with the book of mormon is that there is absolutley nothing backing it up.

I'm sure it contains some historically verifiable facts. There was really a Joseph Smith, etc. I'm sure Mormons are just as adamant about the factuality of their text as you are about yours. It all has to do with perspective.

But as far as the old prophests in the book of mormon, I remember a friend of mine who goes to Washington Bible College saying that experts, historians, etc. just cant find any historical evidence of the older stuff in the book of mormon like they can for the bible.

Right, fine, but you aren't seeing the forest for the trees here. The way you feel towards the book of mormon (or any other non-Christian religious literature) is the way that I (and others like me) see the Bible. That is my only point, not to argue the validity of some book I've never so much as looked at.

oh, ok, understandable.

crazyhorse1 wrote: I agree with virtually everything you've written here. So, where do we differ?

We differ in that I maintain that there is nothing wrong with scholar and historical research to be conducted which may or may not support the fundamental premises on which the Christian faith is supported. You, on the other hand, give equal credit to a rag that is not only not supported by scholar and historical research to attempt find the TRUTH but it is a deliberate distortion of reality based on fiction with the explicit objective to profit economically.

crazyhorse1 wrote: It also does not matter that Dan Brown speculates that Jesus was married. It's still more likely he was married than that he rose from the dead.

Not as the son of God. And only if speculation and sensationalism is what you are after.

crazyhorse1 wrote: Note: I didn't say he didn't rise from the dead. Considering the world of physics, as we know it today, he might have done both in one reality, neither in another.

Actually, -reality- is one and the same in physics. If -space-time dimensions- or -probabilities- in those dimennsions are the words you are after, that would be quite a different proposition which do not exclude Aristotelian logic and Newtonian physics.

crazyhorse1 wrote: I'm sixty three. These matters seem less interesting the older I get. I don't know why. Maybe because I'll find out for sure soon enough, or maybe I won't.

Advanced age often may bring one of the following two choices:

a) wisdom; or
b) cynicism.

And often both.

crazyhorse1 wrote: By the way, no artifact has ever been found that has supported the divinity of Christ. You could find the robe, the cave, the spear, the crown, the log book of executions, a first-hand account signed by a hundred witnesses and you would still have nothing.

Oh but that is not true. I have two thousand years of Christianity. I have two thousand years of VALUES backing up not only the relevance of the Bible but the work of God and the foundation of an entire civilization.

crazyhorse1 wrote: You know this. And you and both know old myths contain facts that are revelatory of historical periods; it's a bit over the top to claim as much for them as you have in you response.

Oh! the Power of Myth to explain and answer Who? instead of What? I will argue the opposite and suspect that the name Joseph Campbellmay man something to you. And this is central to my argument. The medium is the message. That is why the Bible is so important even if you are not a believer.

crazyhorse1 wrote: Incidently, I was raised a Christian and attend Christian churches; I don't accept the NT literally but embrace the teachings of Christ, which form the core of my valvues, political and otherwise. I won an award as a Christian writer a few years backs and if you've followed my posts here you know that I am anti-war with Iraq, anti-corruption in government, anti-death penalty and abortion, anti-tax breaks for the wealthy, pro union, pro health care, pro most social programs for the poor, hate lying in government, pro-law, pro-honoring geneva conventions, etc.

Well, if this is all true, it is nothing short of amazing that the deliberate distortion of beliefs for profit do not offend you. This debate is about a book fundamentally flawed from the most important ethical perspective.

One thing is the creation of different scholar interpretations and even a different serious historical reconstruction of facts on which the Christian faith is supported. And quite another it is the deliberate distortion of those beliefs based on fiction articulated for profit alone.

UK Skins Fan wrote:Well, RiC, I follow your point. However, in the context of this thread it most certainly does matter. The argument here is not about the values that can be imparted by religion, but the historical voracity of the bible's claim that Christ was the son of God, etc etc etc. I still fail to see why such a conclusion would be reached from reading a book.

First, I am sure you mean veracity as opposed to voracity (a typographic error, no doubt).

Second, there is -nothing- wrong with professional scholarly research that aims to find the truth in science, history and philosophy. After all, the truth will set us free (Veritas vos liberabit) particularly if this research results in a more accurate historical reconstruction of the foundations on which the Christian faith lies. All Christians would support the outcome of that research.

Quite a different story is the creation of sensationalist allegations made not only without scholarly research aimed to support them but with the deliberate fabrication of lies and deception.

No, I can not make Christian believers out of those who are skeptic enough to either doubt the existence of God or furthermore that God is the one recognised in the Christian faith. The history and list of names of skeptics and non-believers in God is very long and spans over 23 centuries. Many of these are highly prestigious people for whom I have nothing but the highest respect as philosophers and scientists. The author of this rag with his greedy lies is not one of them.

Joseph Campbell is a douchebag! Oh, Wait has this made it to the Smack forum yet?

Chad

Redskin in Canada wrote:One thing is the creation of different scholar interpretations and even a different serious historical reconstruction of facts on which the Christian faith is supported. And quite another it is the deliberate distortion of those beliefs based on fiction articulated for profit alone.

That is so incredibly hypocritical. Christians everywhere support all kinds of fiction and conjecture around the stories in the Bible as long as they support their own world view. It's only when these same types of products go against their world view that Christians rail against them.