The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Decoding the Code > Comments

Decoding the Code : Comments

By Bill Muehlenberg, published 19/5/2006

The Bible is light years ahead of 'The Da Vinci Code' for both adventure and startling claims.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 17
  8. 18
  9. 19
  10. All
This is so funny I've hurt myself to stop laughing. If truth be told Dan Browns book has less error of fact in it the the fictions stories in the bible itself.
Posted by Kenny, Friday, 19 May 2006 9:16:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I must admit that I am rather wondering what all the fuss is about.

I am not religious. Not even interested in religion. I tend to think that there is no Christan God, and that the Christian prophet "Jesus" is a figure of history, or perhaps philosophy, but that he is not a deity or the offspring of a deity.

But what I think is not really important. That para was more or less a disclosure.

So a book has been written, and a movie made, which challenges the Christian stories about this "Jesus" bloke. Christians, including our author here, are arcing up because it departs from the "truth" of Jesus. But how do they know? I mean really, beyond having blind faith that the gospels are somehow the authoritative story of what happened two thousand years ago, how can they tell what is truth and what is not? And don't give me that "because God says so" crap. Blind faith is blind faith, no matter how you dress it up.

Why does any of this matter?
Posted by Anth, Friday, 19 May 2006 9:24:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"But how do they know?"

Anth, it's based around an analysis of the various books and texts that biblical scholars have come across from around that time. Note that in the article to which you are responding is a discussion of the Gnostic gospels, some written hundreds of years after the first four gospels. Biblical scholars can observe the growth in various philosophical movements throughout the region in which these texts were produced, and can observed the literary traits of the time, and come to a conclusion about the validity or authenticity of a certain bit of text. It's literary criticism, not blind faith. The four gospels of the New Testament are around 60 years old, with some possibly younger. Some of the gnostic gospels are around 300 years old and show a distinct influence from eastern religions which came into that area through the Persian region. These migrations of religion can be looked at and the correlation between them and the gnostic movement is too startling to be discounted.

When it comes to biblical scholarship, it's purely historical and scientific when seeking to ascertain the authority and weight of certain texts... that's how it was done when Saint Athanasius decided upon the final configuration of the New Testament, and that's how it is done now. Of course, when the New Testament was being collated, they couldn't carbon-date and relied more on a consistant philosophical thread found in the gospels.

I must agree with you on one thing you imply, that one cannot rely wholly on the bible, and that is the expressed position of the Orthodox Church, Catholic Church, Lutheran Churches and High Anglicans - sola scriptura is the reformation idea of the primacy of the bible. All should agree, knowing the history of the Gospels and their collation, that although these are the most authoritative texts that we can discern by research and debate, but that the apostolic traditions of the church must also be considered because in them lies the second clue to the validity of the four main gospels.
Posted by DFXK, Friday, 19 May 2006 9:51:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
DFXK
A few points.
1) The gospels were not written 60 years after the events they describe. The consensus of biblical scholars date the gospel of Mark (60 CE); Luke & Matthew (70-80 CE) & John (110 - 120 CE) about the same date as the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas was written.

2) The gospels were NOT written by apostles. They were written by followers of followers of the apostles. So all we have are not the words of Jesus but the words of people who said that others said that he said & did certain things. Hear say in other words.

3) The apostolic tradition to which you refer is known as oral tradition. It has ZERO reliability as far as historical accuracy is concerned. Oral tradition tends to develop & change over time. As many experiments have shown. Consult any anthropologist you like to check that fact.

4) We have little to no direct evidence that the historical figure of Jesus existed at all. He is mentioned by NO contemporary account. All we possess are christian forgeries & interpolations.

All the above being so it's rather hard for Dan Brown to have gotten his Gospel history wrong don't you think? Especially when there ain't no such animal.
Posted by Bosk, Friday, 19 May 2006 10:18:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I dont believe anything written by another mortal or a group of mortals. Neither should any of you.
Posted by Realist, Friday, 19 May 2006 10:38:44 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Author of this book,and his story is for those that perhaps are ignorant,and do not even know much about Jesus Christ,but his teaching has stood the test of time,I still remember the words of the historian,that said,that some day,people from far away,will stand on the remains of westminster bridge,to "SKETCH" the ruins of St.Pauls,but the church of Rome,will still be there,a vibrant living church,these are not the exact words,but thereabout,it also withstood invading hordes,it also held out against the mighty NAZI REGIME,a convincing statement made by Jesus Christ,that I WILL ALWAYS BE WITH YOU TILL THE END OF TIME,Also,the teaching of Jesus Christ,has been and still is a source of consolation for many,just as an example in South Africa,I REMEMBER,the poor and OPPRESSED,during BRITISH SEGREGATION,the APARTHEID,their only source of HOPE,was not the CHARITY,but the FAITH in their religeous believes,that kept them going,and none of the two BRITISH SEGREGATION NOR APARTHEID,could stop their TRUE BELIEVE in their faith and hope for Better times to come.SEGREGATION ans APARTHEID has been TURFED into the history books of time,but their FAITH in JESUS CHRIST IS ALIVE and VIBRANT.
Posted by KAROOSON, Friday, 19 May 2006 10:40:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. ...
  7. 17
  8. 18
  9. 19
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy