Biblical experts seek to make ancient texts widely available

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: conjur
That's it exactly!

Myself, I like to focus on the truth. And, being a Catholic-turned-atheist, I'm very interested in the archeaology and that actual historical truth (as much as I can find of it.)

But, yeah, for Christianity, in general, Jesus's teachings should be all that's necessary. It shouldn't matter if Jesus was a man or was divine; married or celibate; died on the cross or survived and lived another 20-30 years. What matters are his teachings. And what are those? Well, I think the Beattitudes sum it up well. Too bad too many so-called Christians today feel the need to focus on supernatural events and miss what Jesus was teaching.

Yup, I feel the same way. I have have posted this countless times but IMHO this sums up Jesus' teaching pretty well..

Mathew 22: 35-40

Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

This is the first and great commandment.

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

If people would just use these 2 I think we would all be better off.

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: UbiSunt

-My challenge remains: Do not attack others' for not doing their homework when you yourself refuses to provide a single shred of primary documents, archeological evidence, or otherwise credible scholarly documents.


-

That's a statement not a challenge. I bet you actually believe the gospels were written by the Apostles, huh.

 

[UbiSunt]

No, its a challenge to not attack someone's beliefs until he actually has some evidence to prove otherwise.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: UbiSunt

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: UbiSunt

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: UbiSunt

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: UbiSunt
So, by listening and blindly adhering to what some self-professed experts claim the original texts contain is different from people blindly following religious leaders who teach their interpretation of the original texts? Do you even listen to how hypocritical and ignorant you sound? Sounds like you have the makings of an extraordinary Books-A-Million theologian.

I'll ignore your ad hominem and focus on the meat of your rant.

So, by listening and blindly adhering to what some self-professed experts claim the original texts contain is different from people blindly following religious leaders who teach their interpretation of the original texts?

Yes, VERY different. You see, it can be proven that the Catholic church has intentionally altered the content of the Bible over the course of the centuries to turn Jesus into a divine being and to turn his mother, Mary, into a virgin. They even went so far as to issue an edict that all depictions of Mary must have her clothed in blue and white. That gets away from the traditional garb that would have been red, green, or black and would have meant that Mary (and Mary Magdelene) were normal women and actually held respected levels in their society.

So, YOU came to these conclusions upon your own? Interpreted from what PRIMARY texts?

-Way to be Dan Brown's Janeane Garofalo.

So you don't think anyone should be able to discuss these matters without first learning dead languages and creating their own interpretations?

No, that is what translations are for.

-However you have to be caeful even there, look at all the different versions of the Bible. BTW, the bible is not simply the New Testament.

Really? I never would have known that. Gee...guess I read Who Wrote The Bible? by mistake. What's this Old Testament to which the author kept referring?

-My point is that none of the books cited above are credible are significant scholarly works upon the topic. They are commisioned garbage from the publishers who wish to capitalize from the success of the Da Vinci Code. Look at how bookstores fill with relevant topics depending on the most recent Hollywood production.

You just lost ALL credibility right there. How about you check out the books I listed above and see when they were first printed. Compare that to when Brown wrote The DaVinci Code.


I'll be waiting here for you to remove your foot from your mouth.

I know the publication dates, and yes, some are before the release of the Da Vinci Code. My comment is what you call a generalization or "to make vague or indefinite statements". However, I am not the one mistaking works of fiction for historical fact.

-My challenge remains: Do not attack others' for not doing their homework when you yourself refuses to provide a single shred of primary documents, archeological evidence, or otherwise credible scholarly documents.

-My foot may have been in my mouth as I generalized, but at least my head is not up my a$$.

-

Yeah. No one can debate anything anymore on any topic unless they've written a doctoral thesis on it.

get a fvcking life.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: azazyel

Originally posted by: UbiSunt

-My challenge remains: Do not attack others' for not doing their homework when you yourself refuses to provide a single shred of primary documents, archeological evidence, or otherwise credible scholarly documents.


-

That's a statement not a challenge. I bet you actually believe the gospels were written by the Apostles, huh.

I think that's fairly obvious. When something someone believes devoutly in gets attacked (at least perceived to be attacked), the person that lashes out irrationally does so out of ignorance and out of fear. His faith is apparently rather thin.

 

[azazyel]

I think more atheists should read "The Five Gospels". By reading that one book you will know more about Christianity then 75% of all Christians.

 

[sandorski]

Should be interesting. Especially if there are numerous instances where the Codex ends, but current translations continue.

 

[UbiSunt]

Exactly where did I claim to believe? Please point it out.
-Also, how is my call for logic to support your claims IRRATIONAL? It was a plea for rational thought!
-How is someone who devoutly believes have a very thin faith? Explain you lack of logic (That is a statement BTW).
-Are you not challenging/attacking me? And in a pompous manner by not addresing me directly?

 

[Genx87]

Are we finally nearing the time of the end of centuries of lies and propaganda from the Catholic Church? Will this be the time that the Prieuré de Sion releases all it knows and all of this Grail/Jesus as Divine controversy is finally put to rest?

Maybe we are nearing the time when the Catholic church is vindicated???

Goes two ways which I am sure you know.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Are we finally nearing the time of the end of centuries of lies and propaganda from the Catholic Church? Will this be the time that the Prieuré de Sion releases all it knows and all of this Grail/Jesus as Divine controversy is finally put to rest?

Maybe we are nearing the time when the Catholic church is vindicated???

Goes two ways which I am sure you know.

And just how would that be accomplished?

 

[Genx87]

Yeah. No one can debate anything anymore on any topic unless they've written a doctoral thesis on it.

Lets become more of a drama queen while we are at it?

I think he is asking you to not be a hypocrit on this issue. Go ahead and debate but dont bash people for doing the same thing you are doing.

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: UbiSunt
-How is someone who devoutly believes have a very thin faith? Explain you lack of logic (That is a statement BTW).

IMO, those who can not stand to have their faith called into question, or challenged have no real faith. So far you have gotten up in arms about nothing. The OP was about how scientist are making available the oldest physical bible in existence today. This book does not contain versus that are in some of today's translation. This can allow one to 'speculate' that additional versus have been added to the current bible by someone. Who did it and why are not answerable questions.

As to the whole Prieuré de Sion, that IMO was troll bait and you bit it hook line and sinker.

 

[UbiSunt]

Originally posted by: azazyel
You do know that the author of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" doesn't even believe it. It was a hypothesis, nothing else. Also, Umberto Eco thought that some of Brown's conclusions were laughable.

Also, this is really nothing new...

http://virtualreligion.net/forum/

Troll bait or not, it didn't stop YOU from jumping on the Da Vinci Code argument rather than discussing the Codex Sinaiticus.

-Looks like you're suffering from that nasty bit of hypocrisy going around.

 

[UbiSunt]

Originally posted by: azazyel

Originally posted by: UbiSunt
-How is someone who devoutly believes have a very thin faith? Explain you lack of logic (That is a statement BTW).

IMO, those who can not stand to have their faith called into question, or challenged have no real faith. So far you have gotten up in arms about nothing. The OP was about how scientist are making available the oldest physical bible in existence today. This book does not contain versus that are in some of today's translation. This can allow one to 'speculate' that additional versus have been added to the current bible by someone. Who did it and why are not answerable questions.

As to the whole Prieuré de Sion, that IMO was troll bait and you bit it hook line and sinker.

BTW that "statement" comment was troll bait and you gobbled it up; damn near ate the rod.

Anyway, is there anything more on the Codex, links, sources. I would like to read a little more about it and any help would be appreciated.

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: UbiSunt

Originally posted by: azazyel
You do know that the author of "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" doesn't even believe it. It was a hypothesis, nothing else. Also, Umberto Eco thought that some of Brown's conclusions were laughable.

Also, this is really nothing new...

http://virtualreligion.net/forum/

Troll bait or not, it didn't stop YOU from jumping on the Da Vinci Code argument rather than discussing the Codex Sinaiticus.

-Looks like you're suffering from that nasty bit of hypocrisy going around.

I didn't say that I didn't, I love arguing about the D code. I can't even tell you how many people have asked me about it. I usually just tell them it's Foucault's Pendulum for Dummies. Also, unlike you the D code doesn't have anything to do with my beliefs so I really don't care if it is true or not. I just get pissy when people try to pass it off as law when they haven't even gone to the trouble to read anything else. 'Holy Blood Holy Grail' is a dead give away that someone has actually gone past the novel and done some research.

As to the whole Codex, again I don't care what they find out their either. Hell, they could get rid of 90% of and I wouldn't care. I posted the 5 versus that I found to be the best representation of my own personal Jesus. Everything else IMO is just commentary.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: UbiSunt
Anyway, is there anything more on the Codex, links, sources. I would like to read a little more about it and any help would be appreciated.

FWIW

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04085a.htm
http://www.christiantoday.com/news/min/206.htm


http://www.christiantoday.com/files/min/min_20050314_0315pic6.jpg
(The Codex Sinaiticus was originally produced on high-grade papyrus with state-of-the-art ink and pens- the best available at the time. It marks a dramatic shift from a culture in which texts were transmitted in scrolls to the bound book. It is arranged in eight narrow columns across a double-page and may be modelled on the arrangement of columns on papyrus scrolls. (The British Library))

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: UbiSunt

Originally posted by: azazyel

Originally posted by: UbiSunt
-How is someone who devoutly believes have a very thin faith? Explain you lack of logic (That is a statement BTW).

IMO, those who can not stand to have their faith called into question, or challenged have no real faith. So far you have gotten up in arms about nothing. The OP was about how scientist are making available the oldest physical bible in existence today. This book does not contain versus that are in some of today's translation. This can allow one to 'speculate' that additional versus have been added to the current bible by someone. Who did it and why are not answerable questions.

As to the whole Prieuré de Sion, that IMO was troll bait and you bit it hook line and sinker.

BTW that "statement" comment was troll bait and you gobbled it up; damn near ate the rod.

How do you figure that?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur
Which is the scam that has been perpetuated by the Church of Rome for centuries. It also had to do with the fact that Peter and Saul were not very tolerant of women being in power in the priestly line. Jesus having been married was in direct conflict with that attitude so the early followers of Jesus split into two factions with the "true" followers actually following James, Jesus's brother - also known as Joseph of Arimathea (which is a titular name only...there were multple Josephs of Arimathea - Ha Rama Theo) to Europe (notable, the south of France and then expanding on into Britain and through Europe. The other faction (following Peter/Saul - Paul), ended up being used by Constantine later on to consolidate power and and the military.

As usual, only considering one side of the coin. You'll never even consider the possibility that Rome might be right, nor will you hear or see any evidence of it. You made up your mind before reading your limited selection of literature and chose it to suit your position. Where is the merit in this approach?

 

[UbiSunt]

-Because it obviously bothered you and you felt the need to immediately respond. I was really just trying to lighten up the argument anyway by talking a little smack.

-Anyway, I'll concede that Holy Grail.. is a heck of a lot better than Dan Brown's "work" but here is a scholarly review of it:

?Insofar as The Murdered Magicians is a serious scholarly book whereas Holy Blood, Holy Grail is not, one assumes instinctively that the approach, methodology, and research design of the former must stand head and shoulders above those of the latter. And within the traditional canons of history, that is undoubtedly so: one accepts Partner?s conclusions in ways that would be unthinkable in the case of his rivals, authors whose previous work gives credentials primarily as a photographer, a novelist, and a television producer. Still, it is not entirely perverse to argue that, for readers of this journal, Holy Blood, Holy Grail is conceptually by far the more interesting book. This is not to suggest that anyone should actually read it: the improbability of its thesis is fully matched by the wretchedness of its style. At the same time, though, both in spite and because of such obvious shortcomings, Holy Blood, Holy Grail ends up raising many more interdisciplinary issues than does The Murdered Magicians.?

Michael Baigent; Richard Leigh; Henry Lincoln. Holy Blood, Holy Grail.
and
Partner, Peter. The Murdered Magicians: The Templars and Their Myth. Reviewed by Charles T. Wood Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 14, No. 3. (Winter, 1984), pp. 658-659.

Edit: Its a dual review

 

[azazyel]

Originally posted by: UbiSunt

-Anyway, I'll concede that Holy Grail.. is a heck of a lot better than Dan Brown's "work" but here is a scholarly review of it:

Where's the link? I would like to see who this scholar.

Also, as I have stated I don't really care for the whole argument in the first place. I don't care if Jesus had kids or was married, (I doubt he did though) I don't care about the Templars and their secrets, I don't care about most any of it. Why, because it doesn't matter. If you faith is based on the idea that Jesus was a bachelor then your faith is rather pathetic IMO. The corner stone of Christianity should (again IMO) be the message that Jesus preached, peace, love and understanding. Getting all up in arms defending the bible is a waste of time.

 

[UbiSunt]

It's not a link, its just an excerpt from the journal. The guy's name was right below it:

Reviewed by Charles T. Wood Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 14, No. 3. (Winter, 1984), pp. 658-659.

You might be able to find it on their website, I don't know.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
Which is the scam that has been perpetuated by the Church of Rome for centuries. It also had to do with the fact that Peter and Saul were not very tolerant of women being in power in the priestly line. Jesus having been married was in direct conflict with that attitude so the early followers of Jesus split into two factions with the "true" followers actually following James, Jesus's brother - also known as Joseph of Arimathea (which is a titular name only...there were multple Josephs of Arimathea - Ha Rama Theo) to Europe (notable, the south of France and then expanding on into Britain and through Europe. The other faction (following Peter/Saul - Paul), ended up being used by Constantine later on to consolidate power and and the military.

As usual, only considering one side of the coin. You'll never even consider the possibility that Rome might be right, nor will you hear or see any evidence of it. You made up your mind before reading your limited selection of literature and chose it to suit your position. Where is the merit in this approach?

I have 30 years' of Catholic education to bolster the other "side of the coin". You?

And, where is your evidence to refute the last 30 years' of research that proves that the Church of Rome not only altered the content of the Gospels and selected which works to include in the New Testament but also killed millions of people in order to keep the secret hidden?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: conjur
I have 30 years' of Catholic education to bolster the other "side of the coin". You?

And, where is your evidence to refute the last 30 years' of research that proves that the Church of Rome not only altered the content of the Gospels and selected which works to include in the New Testament but also killed millions of people in order to keep the secret hidden?

Evidence requires an open mind to be meaningful. You'd never get on the jury - you're one of those 'he looks guilty to me' people that has his mind made up before seeing all the evidence. Nothing I say or show you will matter.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: conjur
I have 30 years' of Catholic education to bolster the other "side of the coin". You?

And, where is your evidence to refute the last 30 years' of research that proves that the Church of Rome not only altered the content of the Gospels and selected which works to include in the New Testament but also killed millions of people in order to keep the secret hidden?

Evidence requires an open mind to be meaningful. You'd never get on the jury - you're one of those 'he looks guilty to me' people that has his mind made up before seeing all the evidence. Nothing I say or show you will matter.

READ: I have nothing to offer up to support my ignorant claims.


Why don't you start off with defending the first Council of Nicea in which the Church first proffered that Jesus was actually divine and was "one in being with the Father."

 

[PatboyX]

wasnt there some lost gospel?
i heard some dude on NPR months ago talking about his book about...thomas? maybe...
sounded interesting.