The Christian Theology Education Thread

[vikingTON]

7 hours ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

Nearly. Secular myths rely on, or are based on information which is subject to revision, improvement or even being disproved by those kryptonite-like irritations called research and evidence.   

That's not even remotely true for the vast majority of people, whose views end up constituting 'common knowledge' or secular forms of mythology at any given time. 

Educated people in the middle ages did not think that the Earth was flat before Columbus: many people now think that was the case based on a 19th century idea without any evidence to support it. Huge numbers of people in the US and other Western countries subscribe to at least one variant  conspiracy theories that are by definition impervious to almost any amount research and evidence-based revision. That's before we deal with political ideology. 

The only two major differences are:

1) We don't concern ourselves with metaphysical outcomes as much as immediately tangible outcomes in our mythology and

2) There's usually a plurality of myths that make it difficult for one to be imposed on others with significant victimisation or coercion - as opposed to say 12th century Christendom for example, where a single fundamental orthodoxy shaped everyday life.

Although when you look at the identity culture wars playing out and the rose of social media echo chambers, you can see just how close to the surface that dynamic is. 

[Salt n Vinegar]

4 hours ago, virginton said:

That's not even remotely true for the vast majority of people, whose views end up constituting 'common knowledge' or secular forms of mythology at any given time. 

Educated people in the middle ages did not think that the Earth was flat before Columbus: many people now think that was the case based on a 19th century idea without any evidence to support it. Huge numbers of people in the US and other Western countries subscribe to at least one variant  conspiracy theories that are by definition impervious to almost any amount research and evidence-based revision. That's before we deal with political ideology. 

The only two major differences are:

1) We don't concern ourselves with metaphysical outcomes as much as immediately tangible outcomes in our mythology and

2) There's usually a plurality of myths that make it difficult for one to be imposed on others with significant victimisation or coercion - as opposed to say 12th century Christendom for example, where a single fundamental orthodoxy shaped everyday life.

Although when you look at the identity culture wars playing out and the rose of social media echo chambers, you can see just how close to the surface that dynamic is. 

What "the vast majority of people" think is not even remotely a guarantee that what they believe is correct. So called common knowledge can change given evidence.  I try to remember that looking at evidence is more productive than looking at opinion or belief. 

That's a major problem with religion. They can't all be true. They could all be false, or just one might be true. What's at issue is the likelihood of which, if any, is the true one. How would a religious person suggest that someone decides which religion they should accept? 

Given "the truth" of John 14:6, how would the Archbishop of Canterbury convince a Rabbi, or an Imam, or a Hindu Priest, or a Bhuddist Lama, or an Operating Thetan level 8 of the error of their ways?   It also seems to me that the existence of John 14:6 and, for balance, the Islamic insistence that the Quran is the final revelation, means that talk of religious unity are pie in the sky. 

And with that, and a large malt, night night. 

 

[hk blues]

16 hours ago, Crawford Bridge said:

That's a stereotype. 

There's a significant amount of Americans who pronounce it "warter". 

Wadyamean? 

[101]

13 hours ago, Cosmic Joe said:

This word of mouth passing down of information is interesting. 

My Great Grandfather died in 1938 aged 80. He received an obituary in the Tully on account of his death being unusual, having dropped dead "overcome by excitement" watching Lochee Harp. What intrigued me was the reference to having one arm. 

He was originally a stonebreaker to trade so I assumed that he had lost an arm building railways or suchlike - the proverbial 19th century Irish navvie.

But no, just recently I came into contact with a nephew a couple of times removed who was able to confirm through an elderly relative, a great granddaughter of my Great grandfather that he had been born with one arm. This would have been in 1858. 

This information would have been passed down through three generations simply by word of mouth. 

He didn't do anything especially noteworthy in his life, but was remembered over 150 years after his birth. 

A one armed stone breaker is a hell of a hard life. I guess we take for granted being able to change jobs that suit, us but I mean there must have been something that would have been a bit easier for him to graft as.

[coprolite]

11 minutes ago, 101 said:

A one armed stone breaker is a hell of a hard life. I guess we take for granted being able to change jobs that suit, us but I mean there must have been something that would have been a bit easier for him to graft as.

Like a bandit? 

[The_Kincardine]

21 hours ago, VincentGuerin said:

It's a debate, yes, but I think it's fair to say the general view is that Mark was most likely written around 70AD, and then used as a source for the later ones. And it's not the common view at all that Luke was written by 75AD, it's most commonly placed around a decade later at best.

While there is the factor of oral tradition to be respected, I think that's a long enough gap to be extremely wary of eye-witness claims.

Any human being, for example, can imagine easily how a meeting with five or six people at it in a house could have evolved (!) so much as to become the feeding of the 5,000 after thirty-odd years of re-telling.

Eye-witness testimony is deeply flawed yet uniquely respected.  "I saw it with my own eyes" counts for a lot - from football matches to the High Court.

It's reasonable to regard theology as a methodology, framework and series of lenses through which the building blocks of Christianity are assembled into a belief system.  It is never neutral and one aspect that was never really explored when I was at Uni was the extent to which theologians got the answer they were looking for in the first place.  In context, if you dislike/want to discount eye-witness testimony then the easiest way is to dilute it and the easiest way to do that is to date the Gospels as late as you can (reasonably) justify.

20 hours ago, Hillonearth said:

From what I understand, the current consensus is that Mark is the earliest-written of the four and there are some references in it that date it to no earlier than 66 or 67AD...interestingly, that's the one that doesn't mention a resurrection or indeed a virgin birth.

Mark was used by the authors of Matthew and Luke as a source document, with the current guesstimates dating Matthew to 80-90ADish and Luke slightly later...maybe into the second century.

Not sure there is a consensus although the dates you suggested are probably quite popular.  I'm not sure, either, that much concerted effort has gone into this area since John Death of God Robinson came out with his book claiming the whole NT was written before 70AD.  I think the later dating of the NT is, generally, a product of laziness and casual assumption rather than hard research.  Simpler times when casual dating meant something different...

Certainly, when I wrote essays on this I was more convinced by Robinson - a man with no particular axe to grind - than I was by alternative views.  Few 'liberal arts' subjects ever have 'gotchas' but the absence of any mention of the fall of Jerusalem in the Gospels - purportedly written after said event - Is as close as you'll get.

[Hillonearth]

1 hour ago, The_Kincardine said:

Eye-witness testimony is deeply flawed yet uniquely respected.  "I saw it with my own eyes" counts for a lot - from football matches to the High Court.

It's reasonable to regard theology as a methodology, framework and series of lenses through which the building blocks of Christianity are assembled into a belief system.  It is never neutral and one aspect that was never really explored when I was at Uni was the extent to which theologians got the answer they were looking for in the first place.  In context, if you dislike/want to discount eye-witness testimony then the easiest way is to dilute it and the easiest way to do that is to date the Gospels as late as you can (reasonably) justify.

Not sure there is a consensus although the dates you suggested are probably quite popular.  I'm not sure, either, that much concerted effort has gone into this area since John Death of God Robinson came out with his book claiming the whole NT was written before 70AD.  I think the later dating of the NT is, generally, a product of laziness and casual assumption rather than hard research.  Simpler times when casual dating meant something different...

Certainly, when I wrote essays on this I was more convinced by Robinson - a man with no particular axe to grind - than I was by alternative views.  Few 'liberal arts' subjects ever have 'gotchas' but the absence of any mention of the fall of Jerusalem in the Gospels - purportedly written after said event - Is as close as you'll get.

As you say, with a subject like this there are always a subset on either side of the fence who coming to it with a predetermined bias and are consequently overly-invested in coming to the "right" conclusion. When I say "consensus" I was attempting to ignore those commentators approaching the question with their minds already made up either way and to include the more dispassionate commentators without an axe to grind. I hadn't heard of Robinson, but he certainly seems to be something of an outlier in his conclusions.

While it appears that there might be elements of eyewitness testimony in the case of Mark, and just possibly traces in John. the author of Luke (most likely the last-written) seems to happily admit he wasn't an eyewitness right from the get-go though:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning,

Even in Mark though, there's clear evidence of tampering which fundamentally alters the story the author originally intended to tell...perhaps the most egregious being the much later addition of a longer ending which explicitly and anviliciously rams home the resurrection.

[Aim Here]

17 minutes ago, Hillonearth said:

As you say, with a subject like this there are always a subset on either side of the fence who coming to it with a predetermined bias and are consequently overly-invested in coming to the "right" conclusion. When I say "consensus" I was attempting to ignore those commentators approaching the question with their minds already made up either way and to include the more dispassionate commentators without an axe to grind. I hadn't heard of Robinson, but he certainly seems to be something of an outlier in his conclusions.

While it appears that there might be elements of eyewitness testimony in the case of Mark, and just possibly traces in John. the author of Luke (most likely the last-written) seems to happily admit he wasn't an eyewitness right from the get-go though:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning,

Even in Mark though, there's clear evidence of tampering which fundamentally alters the story the author originally intended to tell...perhaps the most egregious being the much later addition of a longer ending which explicitly and anviliciously rams home the resurrection.

It's pretty obvious that Luke and Matthew aren't eyewitnesses on the grounds that if they were, why did they both rip so much stuff from Mark (who isn't even claimed as an eyewitness by the traditional attributions)? Why do none of the gospels actually use the first person or claim to be from named individuals (unlike a fair few of the non-canonical New Testament gospels)?

And the Gospel of John was written by a highfalutin' Greek-speaking intellectual with a familiarity with concepts from abstract Greco-Roman philosophy and an apparent dislike of Jews. The disciple John was an illiterate Aramaic-speaking Jewish fisherman from the arse end of Bumfuckville, Galilee. The bible even uses the word 'illiterate' to describes him in Acts 4:13. These are surely not the same person.

On the face of it, the traditional attributions of the evangelists are highly implausible. Of all the people who were around the first century Judea, the traditional attributees are among the least likely to have written the gospels.

[The_Kincardine]

 

31 minutes ago, Hillonearth said:

As you say, with a subject like this there are always a subset on either side of the fence who coming to it with a predetermined bias and are consequently overly-invested in coming to the "right" conclusion. When I say "consensus" I was attempting to ignore those commentators approaching the question with their minds already made up either way and to include the more dispassionate commentators without an axe to grind. I hadn't heard of Robinson, but he certainly seems to be something of an outlier in his conclusions.

While it appears that there might be elements of eyewitness testimony in the case of Mark, and just possibly traces in John. the author of Luke (most likely the last-written) seems to happily admit he wasn't an eyewitness right from the get-go though:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning,

Even in Mark though, there's clear evidence of tampering which fundamentally alters the story the author originally intended to tell...perhaps the most egregious being the much later addition of a longer ending which explicitly and anviliciously rams home the resurrection.

Robinson was Bishop of Woolwich and mostly known for Honest to God - an attempt at reconciling Christianity and existentialism.  Very controversial at the time.  He was the liberal's liberal so his redating of the NT was a bit of a bombshell.  I've not read it for years but I remember it being quite an enjoyable piece.  But apart from him and WF Albright - who dated the NT before 80AD - most other supporters of early dating tended to be much more conservative evangelical types.  So definitely had a certain bias.

So Robinson was not an outlier so much but definitely not mainstream.

7 minutes ago, Aim Here said:

It's pretty obvious that Luke and Matthew aren't eyewitnesses on the grounds that if they were, why did they both rip so much stuff from Mark (who isn't even claimed as an eyewitness by the traditional attributions)? Why do none of the gospels actually use the first person or claim to be from named individuals (unlike a fair few of the non-canonical New Testament gospels)?

And the Gospel of John was written by a highfalutin' Greek-speaking intellectual with a familiarity with concepts from abstract Greco-Roman philosophy and an apparent dislike of Jews. The disciple John was an illiterate Aramaic-speaking Jewish fisherman from the arse end of Bumfuckville, Galilee. The bible even uses the word 'illiterate' to describes him in Acts 4:13. These are surely not the same person.

On the face of it, the traditional attributions of the evangelists are highly implausible. Of all the people who were around the first century Judea, the traditional attributees are among the least likely to have written the gospels.

Yet John's Gospel has the easiest Greek in the NT and is - probably always - where new NT Greek learners start.  Besides, If a fermer fae Alloway can pen Tam O'Shanter why can't a fisherman from Galilea write a Gospel?

Anyway, I doubt that the gospels were written by their purported authors except, maybe, Luke.  But even then I tend towards Luke-Acts being tidied up numerous times from some original material - possibly including stuff from Luke.

[Aim Here]

27 minutes ago, The_Kincardine said:

So Robinson was not an outlier so much but definitely not mainstream.

Yet John's Gospel has the easiest Greek in the NT and is - probably always - where new NT Greek learners start.  Besides, If a fermer fae Alloway can pen Tam O'Shanter why can't a fisherman from Galilea write a Gospel?

Anyway, I doubt that the gospels were written by their purported authors except, maybe, Luke.  But even then I tend towards Luke-Acts being tidied up numerous times from some original material - possibly including stuff from Luke.

John writes his gospel (the one with high metaphysical ideas) with a fairly clear language that is good for learners. Doesn't mean his gospel is crude. Far from it. It means his language is clear and relatively concise, and the consensus is that the author is a native Greek speaker.

The crudest gospel, by far, in terms of language, is the gospel of Mark, which reads like a breathless run-on sentence from a non-native speaker - notice the way that most of the verses of the KJV (or any literalist translation) all start with 'And' (which matches kai in greek). The other 'badly written' book of the New Testament is the book of Revelation, and, like Mark, it's not considered among the easy passages. It's by *a* John, but not necessarily that John!

As for the Burns comparison - one thing is that a hundred and fifty years of Presbyterian educational doctrine meant that even farmer's boys in Ayrshire were generally sent off to school and could read and write in their own language. Rural Galileian fishermen in a society with ~1-5% literacy in the first century almost certainly couldn't, and even if they could, they wouldn't be reading and writing Greek, and even if they could, they wouldn't suddenly be turning into Neoplatonic philosophers in middle age.

Edited February 24, 2023 by Aim Here

[Hillonearth]

20 minutes ago, Aim Here said:

John writes his gospel (the one with high metaphysical ideas) with a fairly clear language that is good for learners. Doesn't mean his gospel is crude. Far from it. It means his language is clear and relatively concise, and the consensus is that the author is a native Greek speaker.

The crudest gospel, by far, in terms of language, is the gospel of Mark, which reads like a breathless run-on sentence from a non-native speaker - notice the way that most of the verses of the KJV (or any literalist translation) all start with 'And' (which matches kai in greek). The other 'badly written' book of the New Testament is the book of Revelation, and, like Mark, it's not considered among the easy passages. It's by *a* John, but not necessarily that John!

As for the Burns comparison - one thing is that a hundred and fifty years of Presbyterian educational doctrine meant that even farmer's boys in Ayrshire were generally sent off to school and could read and write in their own language. Rural Galileian fishermen in a society with ~1-5% literacy in the first century almost certainly couldn't, and even if they could, they wouldn't be reading and writing Greek, and even if they could, they wouldn't suddenly be turning into Neoplatonic philosophers in middle age.

I suppose one way of looking at it is that if the gospels were an album, Mark would be a collection of rough early demos, Matthew would be the finished album with extra tracks added to the running order, Luke would be the 30th anniversary remaster and John would be a weird album of extended remixes.

[Miguel Sanchez]

Alternatively:

[topcat(The most tip top)]

Has anybody else read Exodus?

it seemed a bit strange to me that this burning supernatural bush spirit turns up promising glory, power and vengeance and Moses doesn’t even suspect that this might be evil, or doesn’t care

As a first born son I might be biased in my judgment but the big message of the book is that the supposed “God” character is a total arsehole

 

[The_Kincardine]

8 hours ago, Aim Here said:

John writes his gospel (the one with high metaphysical ideas) with a fairly clear language that is good for learners. Doesn't mean his gospel is crude. Far from it. It means his language is clear and relatively concise, and the consensus is that the author is a native Greek speaker.

The crudest gospel, by far, in terms of language, is the gospel of Mark, which reads like a breathless run-on sentence from a non-native speaker - notice the way that most of the verses of the KJV (or any literalist translation) all start with 'And' (which matches kai in greek). The other 'badly written' book of the New Testament is the book of Revelation, and, like Mark, it's not considered among the easy passages. It's by *a* John, but not necessarily that John!

As for the Burns comparison - one thing is that a hundred and fifty years of Presbyterian educational doctrine meant that even farmer's boys in Ayrshire were generally sent off to school and could read and write in their own language. Rural Galileian fishermen in a society with ~1-5% literacy in the first century almost certainly couldn't, and even if they could, they wouldn't be reading and writing Greek, and even if they could, they wouldn't suddenly be turning into Neoplatonic philosophers in middle age.

I think you're giving both too much credit yet too little credit to John.  Hellenistic ideas with a Palestinian Jewish community were by no means rare - see Qumran - so his motifs weren't exactly out of step with the time.  Plus Koine Greek was a weel-kent  language of the time and NT Greek is a subset of that.  Plus - with the widespread use of amanuenses - John needn't have been especially good at joined-up writing.

Where essay-writing morphs into sermonising is that the Gospels are compelling pieces of literature and all four have a sense of authenticity.  This either means their authors were close to the events or the combo of authors and editors (my preferred option) were drawing on tales and anecdotes which, themselves, were close to the events.

You don't have to be either a believer or a cynic - and I'm in the middle - to value the Gospels as remarkable and immediate literature 

[CarrbridgeSaintee]

On 24/02/2023 at 00:36, Salt n Vinegar said:

Given "the truth" of John 14:6, how would the Archbishop of Canterbury convince a Rabbi, or an Imam, or a Hindu Priest, or a Bhuddist Lama, or an Operating Thetan level 8 of the error of their ways?   It also seems to me that the existence of John 14:6 and, for balance, the Islamic insistence that the Quran is the final revelation, means that talk of religious unity are pie in the sky. 

Religious adherents will always be tempted by other arguments, even if it conflicts with their existing beliefs.

Even members of cults, with doctrines saying they’ll suffer devastating consequences for even listening to conflicting points of view, can be tempted.  The Jehovah’s Witnesses are  hemorrhaging members due to this.

There’s always a chance for a free thinker to listen to religious or anti-religious views IMO.

The Kalam Cosmological Argument, along with the intellectual and apologetic arguments of William Lane Craig, were part my journey to Christianity.

Edited February 27, 2023 by CarrbridgeSaintee

[Cosmic Joe]

On 24/02/2023 at 23:06, topcat(The most tip top) said:

Has anybody else read Exodus?

it seemed a bit strange to me that this burning supernatural bush spirit turns up promising glory, power and vengeance and Moses doesn’t even suspect that this might be evil, or doesn’t care

As a first born son I might be biased in my judgment but the big message of the book is that the supposed “God” character is a total arsehole

 

He did say we were made in his image

[topcat(The most tip top)]

45 minutes ago, Cosmic Joe said:

He did say we were made in his image

Suddenly it all makes sense

The argument that Atheists use of asking why does god allow terrible suffering to happen in the world evaporates instantly if we just assume that he's an utter c**t

Edited February 27, 2023 by topcat(The most tip top)

[tamthebam]

7 hours ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

Suddenly it all makes sense

The argument that Atheists use of asking why does god allow terrible suffering to happen in the world evaporates instantly if we just assume that he's an utter c**t

Which in some way is what the Cathars thought.

To them there were two Gods- a goodie and a baddie.

Funnily enough this got up the nose of the RC Church who launched crusades against them. The phrase "Kill them all and let God sort it out" dates from the Albigensian Crusades 

[topcat(The most tip top)]

10 hours ago, tamthebam said:

Which in some way is what the Cathars thought.

To them there were two Gods- a goodie and a baddie.

Funnily enough this got up the nose of the RC Church who launched crusades against them. The phrase "Kill them all and let God sort it out" dates from the Albigensian Crusades  

Me getting a couple of red dots from his fans for suggesting that God might not be a nice guy is basically getting off lightly compared to the poor old Cathars

That’s progress

Edited February 28, 2023 by topcat(The most tip top)

[tamthebam]

3 hours ago, topcat(The most tip top) said:

Me getting a couple of red dots from his fans for suggesting that God might not be a nice guy is basically getting off lightly compared to the poor old Cathars

That’s progress

You know, you could just have given us a coloured circle instead of all this fuss..