A
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I'm ready to be enlightened. The subject is fascinating.Well, that's exceptionally poor biblical interpretation.
It might have already been asked (long thread), but how much of that Xtianity stuff do you actually think is true?
Which do you think is just myth? And which leaves you uncertain?
Note: No challenging or arguing intended here....jess curious.
Which do you think is just myth? And which leaves you uncertain?
Note: No challenging or arguing intended here....jess curious.
Last edited:
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
It would take me a while for a full analysis, but here are the general problems of the link:
1) There is no consideration whatsoever of the date the texts were written
2) There is no consideration of authorship of the texts (some texts, like Colossians, are considered Pauline)
3) There is no consideration of development of tradition - it seems like everything sprung out of Zeus's leg, fully developed.
4) Every author is given equal authority to historicity despite their time period, geographical location, political bias, reliability of the rest of the text, etc.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
That's a pretty big question.
I'm a Pauline scholar, so I haven't had to wrestle with the complex question related to myth and Jesus.
It seems to me, though, that "myth" is a good way to explain "theology" to non-Christians, especially atheists. Believers actualize the myth, making it a part of their reality.
I don't busy myself with sifting through the Bible and classifying stuff as myth or history. These two elements are fused together in such a way that we can't understand one without the other.
Instead, I try to make myself sensitive to the truth of the message of Scripture.
Interesting.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I think that you mean very interesting.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I'll be glad to address questions that another Chrisitan refuses to answer.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I don't have a question, but I have a friend with your last name who was one of the scholars who worked on the NLT version of the Bible.
That is all.
Tell him the NLT sucks.
Songbird
She rules her life like a bird in flight
Tell him the NLT sucks.
I'll pass that on. He's fluent in Hebrew and almost so in Greek, and he only worked on 1 & 2 Kings, so I doubt he'll do more than laugh. Maybe he'll agree.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
Ask him how he sleeps at night. :biglaugh:
Songbird
She rules her life like a bird in flight
Hm, I guess I do have a question for you. Is that version not very true to the original texts? Or what do you not like about it?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
That's a good question.
For regular Christians and others: I come in contact with a surprisingly wide variety of folk, and normally I don't volunteer stuff unless I'm directly asked. For some reason I attract people where-ever I go so I just talk about whatever they bring up. Eventually they ask me what I do and religion is always an interesting topic. I make it a point to pay attention to what might set them off and either avoid it or let them ask me what I think.
For the congregation - I've found that most Christians are so helplessly uneducated in their faith that it really doesn't matter what I believe. They just want to live their lives in peace and go to church to be uplifted. I could preach that I have an alien growing out of my knee, end with Jesus loves them and all is well. It's kinda sad but also liberating.
And then there's the few that read theology, history, etc. They're fun.
For students - I make it a point to brutally challenge them. I love it.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I don't think that I've caused any controversy, and I hope that I do the right thing if I do.
The scary thing is that my "views" etc can make or break me, so a lot of people in my position end up promoting things that they don't support so they don't have to move, get another job, or get fired. Thankfully, I've been able to see many professors get fired over their beliefs (and two for simply being women!), so I was able to see first hand how people can handle that kind of thing in a healthy way.
The best thing about avoiding controversy is finding a church / school with a long heritage of tolerance and a stable faculty/administration.
Outside of my own university / church I intend to fight tooth and nail, but inside I want nothing but harmony.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Angellous.
Do you find being a scholar is hard on your faith?
Or are you able to reposition/simplify your faith as you become more Knowledgeable?
Does Faith Override Historical detail and subsequent dogma based on it?
Do you find being a scholar is hard on your faith?
Or are you able to reposition/simplify your faith as you become more Knowledgeable?
Does Faith Override Historical detail and subsequent dogma based on it?
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
For some reason, I've never found being a scholar hard on my faith. I committed at the beginning to change as a learn, and I think that paid off rather well.
Yes, I'm able to reposition and simplify my faith as I become more knowledgable.
I don't think that faith over-rides historical detail and it informs and shapes dogma. That is to say - if faith over-rides historical detail then faith can dictate history, which doesn't make sense. And I think that dogma should be the product of faith rather than its master.