For_England

I went there and found a forum. Is there anything with articles you would recommend? Also, I've read a lot of biblical scholarship, and read the NT in Greek, but I've never come across the views you mention - not as a consensus anyway. In fact I'm quite surprised at just how 'conservative' most scholars are today - John Robinson being the best example (Redating the New Testament).

BonnieDundee

You are treating it as if it is not the Church established. It is and if you break from it you are not part of the Church established in England, pretty simple.


I take it you are at all familiar with the subject.

No the consensus is they were written between 60-120 and by no one who knew Jesus or probably knew anyone who knew Jesus.


Conventional is the Niceanan creed and the general baggage of orthodox xtianity. I was quite liberal in my beliefs.
The above given source and general reading a while ago(it has been along time since I have had this kind of debate.).


Few believe they were made later than 90AD, but many would not hazard a guess that the sayings came straight from Matthew. In fact Matthew and Luke are both said to be based on Mark and the mysterious Q gospel. If these figures existed most scholars consider the line from them to the canonical gospels quite long and tenuous.

That is the general xtian view. It is not the one taken by non-apologist scholars in general


May I suggest you check out IIDB.org then. They really know there stuff there. They have debates almost like proper scholarly ones between posters rather than the usual stuff you get on internet forums.

I'm not sure what the orignal question was here, it does not come through on the topic review.

__________________
"It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state."
-Bruce Schneier

How to Overthrow the System: brew your own beer; kick in your TV; build your own cabin and p*ss off front porch whenever you bloody well feel like it.
Edward Abbey

Leopold Kohr.

BonnieDundee

I'm not sure about articles but check out the forum on biblical scholarship.These people know there stuff far more than I do, I've largely lost interest for quite some time.

I'm aware of the conservative nature of such scholarship. Many sceptics just dismiss it all and have little time for it and alot of scholars don't have the guts to do what might be seen as attacking xtianity.

__________________
"It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state."
-Bruce Schneier

How to Overthrow the System: brew your own beer; kick in your TV; build your own cabin and p*ss off front porch whenever you bloody well feel like it.
Edward Abbey

Leopold Kohr.

For_England

But you are treating it as a department of the state, and not as a church with an organic history.

I read a fair amount of books written by mainstream academics (though I stay away from the far-out liberal ones, like the Jesus Seminar and the various 'gnostic' theories that tend to sell controversy), simply because I find mainstream scholars far more imaginative and original than conservative ones (the opposite was the case during Victorian times, and I tend to read conservatives there), and I just don't come across all this stuff in the mainstream, leaving me with the impression it's very out of date, or confined to the extreme edge of liberal academics. Some liberals even tend to date earlier than conservatives scholars (who are bound to late dates for John's writings etc), John Robinson being the most radical.

What do you object about in the Nicene Creed?
I'm not aware of any scholar who would eliminate Matthew, and some (mainstream, not conservative) would identify Q with Matthew's logia (as I would).

Funny you say that, I'm reading a mainstream scholar on John right now (Culpepper - like I said, they are far more interesting than the conservative ones - they seem to have lost their way). Like all these kinds of books, he'll give a 'survey of the literature', and all assume that someone called John, who had met Jesus in the flesh, wrote John. Culpepper seems to identify the author with John Mark, not the son of Zebedee - I think he's probably right (again, most conservatives wouldn't be open enough to even explore this, but Culpepper, who isn't a conservative, and writes for the Uni of South Carolina, does, and doesn't come out with anything like you are saying).

BonnieDundee

Perhaps, I only talk of the established church in England since the reformation.


I mainly read mainstream scholars as well. I did like find the Jesus Seminar good as well and before abandoning Xtianity read texts like the Gospel of St. Thomas which is as old as the canonical gospels. It has been a long time though since I was deeply interested in this kind of thing. I'm a spiritual person, I even sometimes believe in the xtian god but I'm not about to start persecuting homosexuals because of what a dubious, ancient document states,

The fact it is based on a fixed and dubious canon which largely picks and chooses the source son Jesus.

Well some posit him very far back along the train no doubt. I don't know any mainstream scholars who believe he had a large immediate impact on the gospel.

From memory I believe it is John who is most discounted and latest. The gospel even bears the marks of Gnostic ideas. Anyway this no longer interests me greatly, as I said from memory I know few mainstream - no apologist- scholars who claim any of the gospels were written by people who knew Jesus. The best place for this discussion is not here however, it is rather off-topic, IIDB.org is much better. They even have old threads on this kind of thing. There are people there who really knwo their stuff.

Here's a starting thread.

need help on gospel authorship - IIDB

__________________
"It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state."
-Bruce Schneier

How to Overthrow the System: brew your own beer; kick in your TV; build your own cabin and p*ss off front porch whenever you bloody well feel like it.
Edward Abbey

Leopold Kohr.

Mikeuk

Christianity is nothing if it is not Bible-based and the Bible condemns homosexuality in no uncertain terms in both the Old and New Testaments.

This condemnation is specific, and those who oppose homosexuality have scripture on their side whereas those who promote it do not.

It's as simple as that. Now it's time for Christians to roll back the tidal wave of filth and immorality that has inundated our once-great nation.

I want to see UKIP take the lead in the battle for decency and I think we can swing things that way.

There seems to be little doubt that UKIP is swinging to the right and that's good news.

Good for UKIP; good for Britain.

BonnieDundee

Well me and For_England were discussing the validity of xtian scripture particularly the NT but it is not a discussion I want to enter into here at any length, it doesn't interest me much at the moment.

It would be suicide for UKIP to parrot the kind of homophobic and borderline fundamentalist xtian stuff you have talked about in your posts. I can't believe you were a candidate, you would have done very poorly if they'd known about the kind of views you exhibit here.

__________________
"It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state."
-Bruce Schneier

How to Overthrow the System: brew your own beer; kick in your TV; build your own cabin and p*ss off front porch whenever you bloody well feel like it.
Edward Abbey

Leopold Kohr.

Mikeuk

I did quite well, actually, and successfully ensured the defeat of the Tory candidate.

Even if only 10% of the populace supported these views, UKIP would stand a chance of getting a much better vote than it does at present.

I don't se why I should put up with criticism from you. You aren't even a member of UKIP whereas I was a member on day 1.

The Bear

I do wonder how many of the bible bashers realise that there is a strong argument that the prohibition on homosexuality in Leviticus is not quite what it seems when taken in context with the chapter.

Lev 20 starts with

“Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever [he be] of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth [any] of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones”

Molech? Who was he?

In general terms Baal.

The big competitive religion to Judaism at the time that Leviticus is supposedly written was Baalist and so it was essential that the attractions that Baalist worship included, and there were many, were dealt with.

Witches, Wizards, Necromancers, all based in the Baalist religions that were endemic in the region at the time.

So was incest, wife swapping in orgies, homosexuality, bestiality, (goats were especially popular for men and women) menstrual sex, (a popular means of birth control as was and still is anal sex) the passing on of wives (another particularly Baalist thing) and in fact in Lev 20:23 there’s a catch all that says don’t do ANYTHING the lot you’ve just given a kicking to got up to.

There’s also a prohibition on what to eat that rules out a great deal that the indigenous population had been eating even a prohibition on what can be eaten as a recipe or at the same meal that might replicate Ballist practice.

Lev 22 carries on the same theme. Don’t do anything the Baalists did.

So the bottom line is that the oft quoted prohibition of homosexuality in The Bible is not about homosexuality as an entity in itself, it is about putting clear blue water between Judaism and Baalism.

Prohibition of homosexuality in the NT?

Only in the writings of Paul.

Homosexuality in the OT? Probably the best known is that relationship between David and Jonathan. At it like knives they were.

As for Jesus, the real root of Christianity, REAL Christianity, there is compelling evidence that he was not adverse to engaging in a same sex physical encounter.

Then there is always Mark 7: 14 & 15

Hearken unto me, every one of you, and understand. There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him.

Theologians rightly see “every one of you” as meaning that what he was about to say was addressed to everyone of every persuasion or prejudice and that “There is nothing from without a man, that entering into him can defile him” means exactly what it says.

My late father, a very good, kind ad decent man in spite of being religious nut, was always ready to defend the different when Christians forgot the Christian message and concentrated instead on the cant. I remember a great deal of what he taught me, much has served me well and made me a better person, (other bits turned me into a devout atheist but that’s another matter!)

__________________
I am an old man. I have eaten much salt.

BonnieDundee

You are a on a public message board and have what I consider very negative views. Don't display them if you don't want them to be criticised.

And there is no way 10% share the views and intensity of views you have.

__________________
"It is poor civic hygiene to install technologies that could someday facilitate a police state."
-Bruce Schneier

How to Overthrow the System: brew your own beer; kick in your TV; build your own cabin and p*ss off front porch whenever you bloody well feel like it.
Edward Abbey

Leopold Kohr.