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

Okay, just finished reading the Gospel of Mark tonight. To me it seemed very repetitive of the Gospel of Matthew. I am wondering whether the reason for that is to make both more worthy of belief, corrobrating each other or is there some other reason? Redeemed? Care to help a brutha out?

Matthew and Luke both used Mark as a source. The order of "writing" seems to have been <sources now lost>, Mark, Matthew, Luke + Acts (a continuation of Luke). Note that Luke starts by saying that others have written accounts.

The Epistles of Paul are probably the oldest works we have; Luke seems to have been a co-worker with Paul.

Bart Ehrman is very good on explaining the way the earliest churches copied and passed around written versions of the books that, around 400, were established as the NT canon.

Important to remember that:

- very few people in the anicent world were literate

- of those who could read or write, all were from the powerful upper class.

- Jesus preached to and gathered followers from the poorest and least respected. Peter and his crew were fishermen; Jesus always seemed to have many women followers, and several of them were important leaders of the earliest congregations. Paul mentions some by name. This at a time when women were oyherwise almost invisble (note how many women speak in Plato's dialogues? About none.)

- (Once Romans took notice of Christians, one of the first criticisms were that Christians were nobodie: poor, outcasts, women, slaves. Early Christian apologists did not dispute that.)

- early congegations met in the houses of the one or two members wealthy enough to have a house big enough. They might have been literate enough to make copies of Pauls letters and the other rare and treasured collections of saysings and doings of Jesus that formed the foundations of the gospels.

- given the copying, given the mistakes that naturally happen (try hand-writing a copy of Luke and see how many mistakes you make!) there came to be slight variations in the texts. People would misunderstand a passage and "correct" it to what they assumed the original authaor had written, or they would fill in something that seemed missing.

- For example, note the last 10 or 15 verses of Mark (I think from v7 to the end). Mark has been talking about Mary Magdelene going to the tomb, discovering a young man in white who say, "He's not here. He is risen. Go tell the others" (approximately). Mark says Mary and companions are frigethened, so they run away. Bang, in the next verse, the traditional text re-introduces Mary M., identifying her as "the Mary who", as if the last sentence hadn't been about the same Mary. It seems likely that an early copiest either had a copy of Mark missing its ending, or disliked the endiong, so they pulled out another story and copied it.

- Good source, if you have time, is Bruce Metzger on the establishment of the NT text. He led the RSV and NRSV team of translators for many years.

- See also several books by Bart Ehrman, a student of Metzger's. For example "Lost Christianities", which describes the various early documents that did not make it into the canon, including the gnostics. Also his just-published "Misquoting Jesus", which, in spite of its sensationalized title, is a sober account of how textual critics work to compare the variant readings of all the several thousand NT documents that have been discovered.

- On the original question, for more on the Gnostics, (a) do a Google and read their books (b) keep in mind that there were many different sects, rather than one single and coherent set of Gnostic beliefs (c) Elaine Pagels wrote one of the earliest introductions to them in "The Gnostic Gospels"; Pagels has since written many books about variants (d) the recently published "Gospel of Judas" comes from only one sect; in it, Jesus tells Judas the secret of the universe, and that's a pretty wild story.

Scandalous allegations + conspiracy theories + greed + sensationalism + fiction = Da Vinci Code

Among ALL the great books and documentary scripts that have been written lately for for non-professional people eager to learn something truly interesting about the religions (e.g., Three religions: One God) and the philosophies (e.g., the Aristotle's Children) that shape the ethical standards of most countries around the world, the Da Vinci Code is a terrible waste of time and a counter-productive search for true historical evidence.

Good to know that smart marketing and morbidity are alive and well kicking around the world. Propaganda sells no doubt.

welch wrote:"Gospel of Judas" comes from only one sect; in it, Jesus tells Judas the secret of the universe, and that's a pretty wild story.

Here's a story from the Gospel of Thomas (not written by him), another gnostic document:

13. Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to something and tell me what I am like."

Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a righteous angel."

Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher."

Thomas said to him, "Teacher, my mouth is utterly incapable to say what you are like."

Jesus said, "I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended."

And he took him, and withdrew, and spoke three sayings to him. When Thomas came back to his friends they asked him, "What did Jesus say to you?"

Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the sayings he spoke to me, you will pick up rocks and stone me, and fire will come from the rocks and devour you."

frankcal20 wrote:I'm facinated with all types of religion but one thing that I've noticed they all have the same foundation: FAITH AND LOVE. Be a good person. Don't break the law and you'll get into heaven.

Sorry, frankcal20. Don't know how I missed this on first read, but that is exactly what the New Testament preaches against. The whole point of the New Covenant was that man was not "good enough," and could not simply "be good and not break the law." God's level of law is simply impossible to maintain, and even with his system of sacrifices we humans could not "earn" our way into heaven. Thats why Jesus came and was the perfect and final sacrifice. He was to be the final atonement. The New Testament shows up that we can't "earn" our salvation, that it is a gift from God given to those who simply believe.

And, no, going to chirch is not a requirement for salvation. However, Church is for many where they grow, are refreshed, challanged, etc. For me, and many others it isn't going to a building a being preached to. Instead, Church is about a family of fellow believers to help each person to be accountable and to rely on each other for strength.

Chad

chaddukes wrote:And, no, going to chirch is not a requirement for salvation. However, Church is for many where they grow, are refreshed, challanged, etc. For me, and many others it isn't going to a building a being preached to. Instead, Church is about a family of fellow believers to help each person to be accountable and to rely on each other for strength.

Chad

Many people also believe that the Shepherd (pastor/bishop/etc) of the house brings revelation to the Word that you may or may not catch. My father doesn't believe he has to attend church, which is his choice but the Bishop of my church breaks stuff down in ways that make you go "wow, I never thought of it like that".

Just a couple of stories documenting the fraud behind the Da Vinci rag:

The Priory Of Sion

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/ ... 2009.shtml

The battle of 'The Da Vinci Code'

http://www.cnn.com/2006/SHOWBIZ/Movies/ ... index.html

Among many others ...

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/DaVinciCode.htm

http://www.ad2000.com.au/articles/2004/ ... _1725.html

Look, all I know is my mother says Jesus lives in my everyday life and he doesn't pay me a DIME in rent

Hard for me to understand why DaVinci Code is being taken so seriously. Crikey, it's a book, a work of fiction, not to be taken seriously, surely?

UK Skins Fan wrote:Hard for me to understand why DaVinci Code is being taken so seriously. Crikey, it's a book, a work of fiction, not to be taken seriously, surely?

Unfortunately, it's been overhyped in the media so much that some people are thinking it is a reliable source, despite the fact that it was "intended" to be fiction.

Oh yeah...and DON'T call me "surely"!!

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:

UK Skins Fan wrote:Hard for me to understand why DaVinci Code is being taken so seriously. Crikey, it's a book, a work of fiction, not to be taken seriously, surely?

Unfortunately, it's been overhyped in the media so much that some people are thinking it is a reliable source, despite the fact that it was "intended" to be fiction.

Oh yeah...and DON'T call me "surely"!!

Well, these people need to be taken outside and beaten with umbrellas until they get a grip on themselves. Probably the same fools who end up on Big Brother.

Perhaps it's the agnostic in me, but I just don't see why some feel the need to "defend" Christianity against this book. Just as puzzling is the desire of some to hold it up as a work of reference. It's been so outrageously hyped that I probably won't feel any urge to read it for years. It's this year's Harry Potter.

UK Skins Fan wrote:Hard for me to understand why DaVinci Code is being taken so seriously. Crikey, it's a book, a work of fiction, not to be taken seriously, surely?

Thanks for making my point with a lot fewer lines. But just review this and other threads to notice that others think differently. Whether some of us are religious or not, all religions have played and do play an important role in the cultural development of societies. This is particularly true of modern society where most beliefs and axioms are borrowed knowingly -or- unkowingly in practice or law by individuals and countries from different traditions.

Books and writers that deliberately lie should be exposed for doing so in the best interest of all others.

UK Skins Fan wrote:Hard for me to understand why DaVinci Code is being taken so seriously. Crikey, it's a book, a work of fiction, not to be taken seriously, surely?

Yeah, what he said, but replace "DaVinci Code" with "Bible."

cvillehog wrote:

UK Skins Fan wrote:Hard for me to understand why DaVinci Code is being taken so seriously. Crikey, it's a book, a work of fiction, not to be taken seriously, surely?

Yeah, what he said, but replace "DaVinci Code" with "Bible."

OK, I understand that you're trying to get a rise out of people, but what is your basis for calling the Bible a work of fiction?

Chad

chaddukes wrote:

cvillehog wrote:

UK Skins Fan wrote:Hard for me to understand why DaVinci Code is being taken so seriously. Crikey, it's a book, a work of fiction, not to be taken seriously, surely?

Yeah, what he said, but replace "DaVinci Code" with "Bible."

OK, I understand that you're trying to get a rise out of people, but what is your basis for calling the Bible a work of fiction?

Chad

Perform and exercise in logic, and figure it out.

cvillehog wrote:

chaddukes wrote:OK, I understand that you're trying to get a rise out of people, but what is your basis for calling the Bible a work of fiction?

Chad

Perform and exercise in logic, and figure it out.

Hey, you made the statement....now back it up.

Chad

chaddukes wrote:

cvillehog wrote:

chaddukes wrote:OK, I understand that you're trying to get a rise out of people, but what is your basis for calling the Bible a work of fiction?

Chad

Perform and exercise in logic, and figure it out.

Hey, you made the statement....now back it up.

Chad

It's not that difficult to understand. Unless you are a Believer(TM), you have to view the Bible as fiction. If there is no God, and there is a book where God talks to people, that falls under the classification of fiction. See, a simple exercise in logic. You should try it sometime.

cvillehog wrote:See, a simple exercise in logic. You should try it sometime.

This "logic"thing you talk about....

Is it always foolproof?
Can it ever be wrong? If so, is "logic" fiction, too?

cvillehog wrote:It's not that difficult to understand. Unless you are a Believer(TM), you have to view the Bible as fiction. If there is no God, and there is a book where God talks to people, that falls under the classification of fiction. See, a simple exercise in logic. You should try it sometime.

I'm curious about exactly how you intend to logically demonstrate that there is no god. From a historical point of view how do you prove the bible wrong? If you discount the historical accuracy of the bible then you better be willing to call all other historical documents older than 100 year old works of fiction as well. Do you have the conviction to follow this line of logic to its conclusion?

Chad

cvillehog wrote:

chaddukes wrote:

cvillehog wrote:

chaddukes wrote:OK, I understand that you're trying to get a rise out of people, but what is your basis for calling the Bible a work of fiction?

Chad

Perform and exercise in logic, and figure it out.

Hey, you made the statement....now back it up.

Chad

It's not that difficult to understand. Unless you are a Believer(TM), you have to view the Bible as fiction. If there is no God, and there is a book where God talks to people, that falls under the classification of fiction. See, a simple exercise in logic. You should try it sometime.

You could just come out and state your position from the get-go instead of giving stupid little hints from post to post until someone asks you enough so that you finally do have to explain yourself. Its called not acting like a schmuck, you schould try it sometime.

redskins12287 wrote:You could just come out and state your position from the get-go instead of giving stupid little hints from post to post until someone asks you enough so that you finally do have to explain yourself. Its called not acting like a schmuck, you schould try it sometime.

I'm not a MOD (now), but I'm thinking this response is completely inappropriate.

This is "SMACK". This is not the "Smack forum".

Capiche?

As for cville's comments, he sounds like a "lawyer" doesn't he? "Just give me the facts. That's all I will believe!"

Well, the Bible is more than that. It's a collective series of stories setting forth the life of JC and his many works. I agree that to discount the Bible as "fiction" without backing it up further is a meaningless argument.

I, for one, am expecting more from cville to support his argument that the Bible is "fiction".

The "If-Then" argument just doesn't cut it, in my humble opinion.

I can tell you are all offended, but if you will catch your breath and think for a moment, you will see that I did not claim to try and prove God doesn't exists. It is up to Believers(TM) to prove (or not prove) their beliefs. Because I don't share your belief in God, and because the Bible says that God, among other things spoke to Moses and had a son to a virgin named Mary, the Bible qualifies as fiction. I know it can be hard to get your prejudices out of the way and recognize the simple logic of that statement.

Also, I'd like to see you back up the statement of the Bible being "the most historically accurate document" ever with something other than "the preacher told me."

What are these irrefutable historical facts you claim are in the Bible? God made the world in 6 days? Or, are you just concentrating on who begat whom? And, this extremely historically accurate bible you have been reading, what does it say about Methuselah? Does it leave that part out, or is it just metaphor? Or do you need additional historical information to ferret out the truth from the claims of the Bible? The point is, the Bible is only "factual" from the standpoint of someone who is predisposed to believe what it says already -- that is, believes in God and miracles and virgin conception.

And, I should add that "fact" is completely the wrong word here, the right word is "truth." If you believe in God, the Bible is true. Facts aren't required to decide truth, only convictions.

REDEEMEDSKIN wrote:This "logic"thing you talk about....

Is it always foolproof?
Can it ever be wrong? If so, is "logic" fiction, too?

Logic doesn't purport to be "right or wrong." It is a thought process, not a destination.

i cant belive this conversation... obviously no body can discount the existance of a higher being, duh its impossible even with your so called logic..

are you cville because you go to UVA? bet that gives you the ability to be above everything and use circular logic to accomplish a proof that has never been proven before.

the best scientists in the world cant discount a god, a lot of them belive in a greater power.. im a biologist and i cant discount god, now i dont belive in the christian view of things but that dosnt mean that the bible isnt an historic account of the period of our past when jesus was alive.. he was a real person though he may not have been the son of god. thomas was a real person, the romans were a real empire, the jews were real tribes, the egyptions were really a civilization now if jesus wasnt the son of god but he is real that makes the bible flawed, but not fiction. i cant think of one historical text that isnt flawed.. they all are because they are written by the winners.. you win a war and you have power or money you get to write history to serve your future.. now if the bible is a work of fiction then we cant trust any historical texts can we? then what happens, we dont have a unified view of the past and we cant learn from it as a population..


"if there is no god, and there is a book where god talks to people that falls under the classification of fiction." --cvillehog

if this logic isnt predicated on a false or unproven premise i dont know what is

TincoSkin wrote:i cant belive this conversation... obviously no body can discount the existance of a higher being, duh its impossible even with your so called logic..

are you cville because you go to UVA? bet that gives you the ability to be above everything and use circular logic to accomplish a proof that has never been proven before.

the best scientists in the world cant discount a god, a lot of them belive in a greater power.. im a biologist and i cant discount god, now i dont belive in the christian view of things but that dosnt mean that the bible isnt an historic account of the period of our past when jesus was alive.. he was a real person though he may not have been the son of god. thomas was a real person, the romans were a real empire, the jews were real tribes, the egyptions were really a civilization now if jesus wasnt the son of god but he is real that makes the bible flawed, but not fiction. i cant think of one historical text that isnt flawed.. they all are because they are written by the winners.. you win a war and you have power or money you get to write history to serve your future.. now if the bible is a work of fiction then we cant trust any historical texts can we? then what happens, we dont have a unified view of the past and we cant learn from it as a population..


"if there is no god, and there is a book where god talks to people that falls under the classification of fiction." --cvillehog

if this logic isnt predicated on a false or unproven premise i dont know what is

1. No, i don't attend, nor did I ever attend UVa.
2. I didn't say I proved God doesn't exists.
3. The entire Bible is predicated on "God said this" and "God did that" and "God told me that" and "Jesus is God's son." If all of those parts are fabrications, why would that not make it fiction? Want a modern equivalent, just look to James Frey.

What you people fail to understand is that I am not trying to prove anything. I am merely giving my viewpoint, which clearly makes some of you feel threatend, even though it should not.

justice hog you are a man of law and logic.. can we as a people disprove the existance of god?

based on your answer can we make a conclusion over the fictional or factual statments made in the bible?

can we then ever come to a conclusion to this argument? or if i may propose a solution.. as an alternative except eachothers belifes and come to a mutual understanding that we will never know while we all live on this planet as we are now.

TincoSkin wrote:justice hog you are a man of law and logic.. can we as a people disprove the existance of god?

It's impossible to prove a negative.