The 10 Commandments and the laws of Western Society

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

If we've learned one thing from these religious threads, and we haven't, it's that every believer essentially interprets it 'their' way. You clearly do. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Exactly. We're merely discussing it. Nothing wrong with that.

I don't know where Jim Jones comes into it.

Jim Jones is one of the more extreme cases with someone taking the Bible and interpreting it their way.

Religion can be a deadly tool.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Cross which lines?

Does the Bible set those lines for you? Where does your sense of morality come from?



I'm certainly not going to compare you to Jim Jones, but he is a prime example of someone taking the Bible, interpreting it 'their' way...and brainwashing a bunch of people to follow 'that' way.

As hokey as it may sound my sense of morality comes from my heart.

I'm suggesting for everyone to think for themselves, the antithesis of Jim Jones or any preacher or religion.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

As hokey as it may sound my sense of morality comes from my heart.

I'm suggesting for everyone to think for themselves, the antithesis of Jim Jones or any preacher or religion.

Isn't that even more spiritual than almost anything? (I agree by the way)

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by photon

Question for you Textcritic, a bit off topic in this thread but close enough I hope; I didn't want to start a whole new thread just for this.

In another thread Azure and I were discussing something and the subject of non-canonical books that were in circulation by Christians in the first few hundred years but were eventually not included in the canon.

His contention was that the books that were left out were left out because they dealt with mundane things, or they re-stated things already contained in the other books, etc.. my contention was that some books were left out because they had different doctrines and such in them, things that would have gone against the Nicene Creed or significantly contradicted the eventual canon. I mentioned the Gospel of Thomas because of it's gnostic slant (understanding the saying would unlock the secret teachings of Jesus I think is what it says).

I haven't had a chance to go do some research on that from where I got the idea, just wondered if you had some input?

Thanks in advance.

This may help a bit Photon...long read.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...lor/canon.html

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

As hokey as it may sound my sense of morality comes from my heart.

I'm suggesting for everyone to think for themselves, the antithesis of Jim Jones or any preacher or religion.

Doesn't sound hokey to me.

Just trying to better understand where you're coming from.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Cheese

This may help a bit Photon...long read.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...lor/canon.html

Why would an Atheist want to teach Bible History?

Answer: To discredit it with half truths and omissions. This guy is hardly credible like most of your sources. I like how he pretends the Canon is still in question.

For the record: The Jews and the Protestants as well as the Baptists/Anabaptist have the exact same Old Testament canon. The Catholics formally inserted a part of the Apocrypha(12 of the 15 books) into their canon at the council of Trent which was actually a series of three councils between 1545 and 1563 A.D. Jerome(340-420A.D.) only inserted 4 of them into his Vulgate after some friendly pressure. The rest were added after his death. A Catholic historian would call the Apocrypha the "deutero-canonical" books; meaning second canon. They would also say there are 7 books because the other 5 are actually additions to Old Testament books already within the canon. All extant copies of the Apocrypha are written in greek.

[Azure]

Didn't Luther include the Apocrypha in his original translation?

I'm pretty sure it is still included in the original German Bible.

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Azure

Didn't Luther include the Apocrypha in his original translation?

I'm pretty sure it is still included in the original German Bible.

It was put in the first edition of the King James Version as well. Not in the Old Testament text but, at the back as supplemental material. It was considered benefitial because of its historical relevance but, uninspired.
The books were written during the period between the Old Testament and the New Testament known as the 400 silent years. They give insight into what took place between the return from exile in Babylon and the birth of
Christ.

[LIP MAN]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Claims that law and morality comes from the bible are humourous.. More often than not in history people used it as a justification for breaking laws and acting immorally.. Most of the basis for our laws today come from Roman times, not the bible..

While it doesn't come from the Bible, it also doesn't come from Roman times either, which is a common misconception. Most of OUR modern law comes from 16th century comparative law which was evolved from allocation-type "tribalism". Basically it was allocating power and property rights, and was the first system to come up with solutions to what were otherwise unmitigated property disputes.

But I would say roman democracy had more to do with our modern law than the Bible itself. And I think human common sense and nature take precedent for the most part in any mass organizing of a belief system. Although subtle and not so subtle differences are bound to occur culturally.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Why would an Atheist want to teach Bible History?

Answer: To discredit it with half truths and omissions. This guy is hardly credible like most of your sources. I like how he pretends the Canon is still in question.

Lol what? So who is qualified to teach Bible history then? An atheist can't because he clearly will use half truths and omissions to discredit it right? By that logic, then a Christian can't either because they will do the opposite to give it more merit than it warrants and won't be objective when criticism is called for.

So I guess the only good resource is a neutral one, a Biblical scholar who Buddhist maybe?

Christianity and the Bible are huge parts of history, that people of any faith and lack of faith would want to study it isn't surprising.

Plus the writer's motivation shouldn't disqualify their research, as creationists are fond of pointing out.

The canon is still in question to a small extent, rather some parts of Christianity use slightly different books. Some include other books in the NT such as Jubilees and the Book of Enoch (the Ethiopian Bible I think).

And of course there are groups like Mormons who add more books into what they consider scripture, so they have a different canon as well.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by photon

...In another thread Azure and I were discussing something and the subject of non-canonical books that were in circulation by Christians in the first few hundred years but were eventually not included in the canon.

His contention was that the books that were left out were left out because they dealt with mundane things, or they re-stated things already contained in the other books, etc.. my contention was that some books were left out because they had different doctrines and such in them, things that would have gone against the Nicene Creed or significantly contradicted the eventual canon. I mentioned the Gospel of Thomas because of it's gnostic slant (understanding the saying would unlock the secret teachings of Jesus I think is what it says).

I haven't had a chance to go do some research on that from where I got the idea, just wondered if you had some input?

Thanks in advance.

The link provided by Cheese does a decent job of explaining the historical development of the Jewish and Christian canons of Scripture. It needs to be noted that the very concept of "canon" is reactionary: by this, I mean that pressure was placed upon certain religious sects to provide ever narrower clarification of doctrine, and official lists of sacred teachings resulted from this. I believe that in the earliest Christianities, it would have been preferable for there to be no canon at all! For the Jews, much of the need to come to agreement about what was official religious scripture was accelerated by two things: First, the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple essentially and eternally de-centralized the Jewish cult, and out of a need to preserve their religious culture and self-identity, the Hebrew scriptures become suddenly more important than ever before. Second, the rapid and pervasive growth of the new Christian sects, and their own rudimentary canonical programme presented a heightened need for the rabbi's to delimit their scriptures.

Something else I should like to add to all of this is that the importance and centrality of "scripture" prior to the second or even third century is greatly exaggerated. In Judaism, the Temple and the cult that had developed around it over the course of the past several centuries was the focal point of their religious beliefs and practice. "Scripture"—if there ever was even such a thing—was little more than collections of liturgy and "histories" which supplemented the cultic practices. In the Church, all that mattered was Christ. There is much evidence that in the late first and through the second century, the "scriptures"—which were never very well defined—were read and cherished, but that these, along with the whole of their developing theology was subject to the "rule of faith". That is, to the teachings and leadership of the Apostles, and the Apostolic Fathers.

One only need glance at the earliest of the Christian creeds to guage how important "scripture" was in the first few centuries. The Apostles Creed—widely regarded as the most ancient—makes no mention whatsoever of "scripture". The first affirmation of a sacred, closed collection of religious literature does not occur until the fourth century, where it is the seventh article in the Nicene Creed. The state of the early Church is at substantial odds with modern evangelicalism, where an affirmation of "Scripture" is often one of the first three tenents of any so-called "statement of faith"!

My favourite part of the linked essay—and perhaps the most telling, in this discussion—is where Mr. Taylor makes the following observation about fundamentalism:

"If the Word of God is inerrant, or something close to it, then deciding that a book is a member of the canon of the Bible is to proclaim it infallible. The true believer now regards a canonical book as no mere human creation, but God-breathed and incapable of error. It now has magical powers. It has been observed by some Christians that fundamentalists do not so much worship Jesus as worship a book; thus, they are bibliolaters."

One of the very reasons, I believe, that the early Church was distinctly not a "people of the Book", was in an effort to safeguard against this very disingenuine form of idolatry. In the vast majority of evangelical churches today, God has been replaced. Jesus Christ has become little more than an icon. THE BIBLE is the supreme object of devotion, veneration, and worship. Hymns are sung in praise of its supremecy. Prayers are uttered to God, but their content is primarily that he might aide our understanding of it; God has become the Bible's handmaid. The pulpit has replaced the altar, and the sermon has replaced the sacraments.

Evangelicals are fanatical in their devotion, but I sincerely question where that devotion lays. In my observance, they are idolators and apostates of the worst kind: they have usurped the supreme being with something as common as scripture.

[photon]

Wow, I never thought about it like that before, but yeah the Bible itself does hold a supreme position. Very interesting!

It makes sense that eventually scripture would become so important to Christianity. Before Christianity religion was mostly about ritual, religion was defined by the actions taken (sacrifices, observing the law, making a shrine, whatever).. With Christianity, when it turned from the religion OF Jesus to the religion about Jesus with Paul, all of a sudden what was believed was the thing that was important. If what is believed is so important then a source (EDIT: source is a bad word, authority maybe?) of that belief has to be established.

It's almost like a circular argument.. beliefs came out of oral histories and authoritative figures, which became writings.. and the writings that were chosen to be authoritative were the ones that were in line with the beliefs.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Calgaryborn

Why would an Atheist want to teach Bible History?

Answer: To discredit it with half truths and omissions. This guy is hardly credible like most of your sources. I like how he pretends the Canon is still in question.

I work in the field, and I know a great number of biblical scholars and historians personally. Whether atheist, Jewish or Christian, they all tend to arrive at similar conclusions in their research, discussions and debates regarding the minutia of biblical literature. For most, their interest lies in the fact that the Bible and its appendages are interesting literary creations. Their faith should have little bearing on the conclusions reached. Bart Ehrman is a prime example of this: He is a New Testament critic, and his work is widely received as some of the most accurate, enduring, and engaging. He is not a Jew or a Christian, but not because of what the Bible says or does not say. It is because of his own experience with the world that his own belief is inhibited. On the other side, Ziony Zevit and Jon Levinson are Jewish in practice, but have a clear understanding of the history behind the biblical literature that is quite contrary to its propaganda. Christian scholars John Barton and James Barr have both been highly critical of the "biblicists", but have maintained and argue for faith commitment that rejects wholesale the concept of biblical inerrency.

The present shape of the "canon" may not be a matter of debate anymore, but don't think for a second that its place within the church is ever changing. Furthermore, scholars are engaged in a rapidly developing discussion about the shape and function of scripture in history, and this will invariably continue to affect its use within the modern church. The canon may be stable, but that does not mean that it will always function statically. For the record: concepts of the Bible's authority and use have never been firmly established enough that they have remained intact for very long. Things change.

[troutman]

Text - I'd love you to write a book on this. And send me an autographed copy!

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by troutman

Text - I'd love you to write a book on this. And send me an autographed copy!

Make that two...and Ill buy you the beer as we sit and discuss it!

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by photon

Wow, I never thought about it like that before, but yeah the Bible itself does hold a supreme position. Very interesting!

It makes sense that eventually scripture would become so important to Christianity. Before Christianity religion was mostly about ritual, religion was defined by the actions taken (sacrifices, observing the law, making a shrine, whatever).. With Christianity, when it turned from the religion OF Jesus to the religion about Jesus with Paul, all of a sudden what was believed was the thing that was important. If what is believed is so important then a source (EDIT: source is a bad word, authority maybe?) of that belief has to be established.

It's almost like a circular argument.. beliefs came out of oral histories and authoritative figures, which became writings.. and the writings that were chosen to be authoritative were the ones that were in line with the beliefs.

Precisely.

Personally, I believe that the vast majority of Christians miss the point altogether when it comes to who Jesus was and what he accomplished. Jesus was never about establishing a new religion. He was a Jew, and only ever engaged with fellow Jews, so all of his own teachings were limited to what happens within Judaism.

"Christianity" was essentially invented by Paul and the Apostolic fathers out of their devotion to Jesus. Jesus himself probably cared less about whether one practiced Christianity, or Judaism, or any of the Greek and Roman cults. While we really do not have any evidence for this, it is quite interesting that in his parable about the Good Samaritan, he contrasts different forms of religious observance and tradition—his conclusion has NOTHING to do with religious belief and observance, but everything to do with right conduct. Perhaps with the benefit of several centuries, this parable could be re-written to feature a Christian, an Orthodox Jew, and a Shi`ite Muslim. Would Jesus conclusions be any different?

[photon]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

Bart Ehrman is a prime example of this: He is a New Testament critic, and his work is widely received as some of the most accurate, enduring, and engaging. He is not a Jew or a Christian, but not because of what the Bible says or does not say.

He actually even started out his studies as an evangelical Christian, and over time now terms himself as agnostic (though I don't know how much his work contributed to that).

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by troutman

Text - I'd love you to write a book on this. And send me an autographed copy!

You may be waiting awhile. The dissertation takes precedence, but in my spare time I have been putting my thoughts on such matters on paper, and would like to write and publish them at some point. CP will certainly get a mention in the Preface if this little dream of mine is ever realized.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by photon

He actually even started out his studies as an evangelical Christian, and over time now terms himself as agnostic (though I don't know how much his work contributed to that).

I've never met him, but have colleagues who have. The critical study of Scripture inevitably has a similar effect on all of us, but I will take him at his word, and from reports that I have heard, his agnosticism is a product of the age old question: why do bad things happen to good people? I would suspect that this is at the heart of the vast majority of faith-rejection; certainly moreso than whether or not the Bible is genuinely divine.

[photon]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

I've never met him, but have colleagues who have. The critical study of Scripture inevitably has a similar effect on all of us, but I will take him at his word, and from reports that I have heard, his agnosticism is a product of the age old question: why do bad things happen to good people? I would suspect that this is at the heart of the vast majority of faith-rejection; certainly moreso than whether or not the Bible is genuinely divine.

Yeah, his new book I think is something along those lines:

http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Problem-A...0421808&sr=1-5