or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › The Davinci Code
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Davinci Code - Page 7

post #91 of 117
Le Monde d'aujourd'hui :

L'un des films les plus attendus du Festival de Cannes, Marie-Antoinette, de la réalisatrice américaine Sofia Coppola, a raté son entrée en compétition, mercredi 24 mai. Huées, sifflets, la réaction de la salle, à l'issue des deux heures de projection, a été l'une des plus négatives depuis le début du Festival. L'accueil a été plus froid encore que celui réservé au Da Vinci Code.
post #92 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabienne
Le Monde d'aujourd'hui : L'un des films les plus attendus du Festival de Cannes, Marie-Antoinette, de la réalisatrice américaine Sofia Coppola, a raté son entrée en compétition, mercredi 24 mai. Huées, sifflets, la réaction de la salle, à l'issue des deux heures de projection, a été l'une des plus négatives depuis le début du Festival. L'accueil a été plus froid encore que celui réservé au Da Vinci Code.
BOO, BOO…wait I’ll reserve my booing when I see the film on HBO. Jon. (you got to love the French: they booed at the screen!)
post #93 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlanC
Those dates are within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses and apostles. (I would put Luke in the early to mid 60s.) 100 years ago scholarship was in the ascendancy that placed the gospels much later. Evidence has now pushed the dates solidly into the 1st Century much to the dismay of liberal scholarship. The current fascination with the Gnostic gospels is the latest attempt to undermine the Canon. If someone is desperate to find a reason not to believe he can always find one.

I don't really understand how those dates could still be within the lifetimes of eyewitnesses and apostles.

The numbers I used were supposedly the general scholary consensus in the mid 90s so we're not talking about scholarship 100 years ago.

Even if we were to believe the Gospels were written in the 1rst century, I still don't see how those dates prove they were written by apostles or eyewitnesses. For example, let's use your date that Luke was written in the early to mid 60s AD. So, 60 years would have passed when Luke was there when Jesus was crucified. However, Luke would have also been at least 20+ years old when that happened so by 60 AD, Luke coud have been been at least 80 years old when the Gospel of Luke was written. And, that's the best case scenario. If Luke was older at the time of crufixation, then he's even older when Gospel of Luke was written. Maybe, even 90 years old or older.

While its possible that Luke was still alive when he was 90 years old and wrote Gospel of Luke, I just find it difficult to believe in an age where most people's lifespan was much shorter than ours today. And, you run into that same problem with the other Gospels, given the dates they were supposedly written, even if they were all written in the 1rst century. Plus, its been believed that some of them were martyred so its not like they died of old age.
post #94 of 117
Your math is a little bit off esquire. Crucifixion would've been circa 30 AD, so if Luke was 20+ then, and his Gospel was written in early to mid 60s AD, he would have been in his 50s.
post #95 of 117
Years AD are measured from the approx. year of Jesus's birth, not crucifixion. That would put Luke somewhere between 50 and 70 years old in 60 AD.
post #96 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by dah328
Years AD are measured from the approx. year of Jesus's birth, not crucifixion. That would put Luke somewhere between 50 and 70 years old in 60 AD.

Listen all I know is that he died for our sins...at least that's what my Rabbi says.



Jon.
post #97 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlanC
.... If someone is desperate to find a reason not to believe he can always find one.
likewise for someone who wants to believe. anyway the onus of proof is on the claimant. here are some paraphrasings from Ehrman's book, that i swiped from a review article:
Quote:
There are some 5,700 ancient Greek manuscripts that are the basis of the modern versions of the New Testament, and scholars have uncovered more than 200,000 differences in those texts. "Put it this way: There are more variances among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament," Ehrman summarizes. Most of these are inconsequential errors in grammar or metaphor. But others are profound. The last 12 verses of the Gospel of Mark appear to have been added to the text years later -- and these are the only verses in that book that show Christ reappearing after his death. Another critical passage is in 1 John, which explicitly sets out the Holy Trinity (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit). It is a cornerstone of Christian theology, and this is the only place where it is spelled out in the entire Bible -- but it appears to have been added to the text centuries later, by an unknown scribe.
article is here.
post #98 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by faustian bargain
likewise for someone who wants to believe. anyway the onus of proof is on the claimant. here are some paraphrasings from Ehrman's book, that i swiped from a review article: article is here.
So basically he didn’t rise from the dead and there isn’t a holy trinity? Hell, I’ll raise you one and bet you that there isn’t a god, Ever; in any religion. It's just like the article stated. Jon.
post #99 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by imageWIS
Hell, I'll raise you one and bet you that there isn't a god.

Jon.
I always wanted to be in the room when some dude said this...I've never seen a lightning strike up close!
post #100 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dakota rube
I always wanted to be in the room when some dude said this...I've never seen a lightning strike up close!

Nope, sorry, no lighting.

Jon.
post #101 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire.
...For example, let's use your date that Luke was written in the early to mid 60s AD. So, 60 years would have passed when Luke was there when Jesus was crucified. However, Luke would have also been at least 20+ years old when that happened so by 60 AD, Luke coud have been been at least 80 years old when the Gospel of Luke was written. And, that's the best case scenario. If Luke was older at the time of crufixation, then he's even older when Gospel of Luke was written. Maybe, even 90 years old or older....

Luke was not an eyewitness to the resurrection; he was a traveling associate of Paul the apostle.

I suggest if anyone genuinely is interested that you should read something by someone who is not a skeptic in addition to reading Ehrman's works. Ehrman's comments on Mark 16 and 1 John 5:8 (referenced above) are not new to him. There really is no dispute that the traditional addition to 1 John 5:8 should not be there. It was an emendation made to certain Vulgate texts. Erasmus was aware of it and challenged it. You will not find any modern translations that contain it. The translations I use do not have it.

There is debate over the ending to Mark 16, but even if one removes it there is also Matthew, Luke and John, not to mention even earlier accounts such as 1 Corinthians 15, that affirm the resurrection.

No offense, but Ehrman's writings are intentionally provocative, and meant to appeal to people who are not knowledgeable about the textual history of the Bible. He attempts to turn one of the most impressive features of that history, the shockingly large number of Biblical manuscripts, on its head by treating it as a problem rather than a benefit.
post #102 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlanC
.... No offense, but Ehrman's writings are intentionally provocative, and meant to appeal to people who are not knowledgeable about the textual history of the Bible. He attempts to turn one of the most impressive features of that history, the shockingly large number of Biblical manuscripts, on its head by treating it as a problem rather than a benefit.
but isn't it a problem? it certainly is a problem to those who say the bible is the infallible, inerrant word of god. sure there are plenty of christians who take the biblical stories as nice metaphors, which is as it should be. but there are plenty more who believe it is history, that its words are the literal truth. these are the ones who need to be disabused by Ehrman's provocative writings. the literalists are wrong, plain and simple. the bible's veracity as a history is in doubt and is far from certain. the bible does not get its meaning from being a history; it gets its meaning from being a collection of good stories. it is the word of man. it is a creation of humans. it describes a human notion of a particular (jewish and christian) god. it describes doctrine which evolved over time. it contains inconsistencies and contradictions. why is the quest for truth so threatening?
post #103 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by faustian bargain
but isn't it a problem? it certainly is a problem to those who say the bible is the infallible, inerrant word of god. sure there are plenty of christians who take the biblical stories as nice metaphors, which is as it should be. but there are plenty more who believe it is history, that its words are the literal truth. these are the ones who need to be disabused by Ehrman's provocative writings.

the literalists are wrong, plain and simple. the bible's veracity as a history is in doubt and is far from certain. the bible does not get its meaning from being a history; it gets its meaning from being a collection of good stories. it is the word of man. it is a creation of humans. it describes a human notion of a particular (jewish and christian) god. it describes doctrine which evolved over time. it contains inconsistencies and contradictions.

why is the quest for truth so threatening?
The quest for truth isn't threatening to me. I believe it leads to the Bible. You're the one who seems to have a problem with that. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and life. No one comes to Father but through Me." Either that's true or not.

If you actually believe in such a thing as truth qua truth then there is a right answer. I believe the Bible is it. You have not come to that conclusion. Enjoy your quest. If you do not arrive at the Bible then we disagree, and one or both of us is wrong. Such is the nature of truth.

As for inerrant word of God, the autographs, ie, the original writings, were inspired. There is no such thing as an inspired translation. However, I have confidence in the transmission and translation process. The overall evidence leads me to that conclusion, as does my confidence that the God who created the universe can handle protecting His word.

What appears to be threatening to several here is that there are people who have confidence in God and Scripture.
post #104 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlanC
....

What appears to be threatening to several here is that there are people who have confidence in God and Scripture.

as a member of the 4% minority of americans who don't believe in a god, i think i have every right to feel that my way of thinking is threatened by the majority. be that as it may, i realize that we secularists are allowed to exist culturally by the good grace of those (moderate) believers who constitute the vast majority of our culture.

...

and i do enjoy my 'quest'. i'm happy you've found the truth and no longer feel the need to question. wonder what it would be like if everyone were like that. probably a world full of people who think they're right and everyone else is wrong. oh wait...

i also wonder why i never heard this stuff about the questions of authorship of the bible in sunday school growing up. scholarship never seemed to be very important at church.

like i said, it's true because you believe it, not the other way around.
post #105 of 117
the best program i have ever watched on this stuff: http://www.channel4.com/culture/micr...ootofevil.html

a needlessly provocative title, but incredibly important none the less, did anyone else catch it? (on uk telly)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment, Culture, and Sports › The Davinci Code