posted
if I remember my Catholicism correctly, the earliest gospel was supposed to have been written 30 or 50 years after Jesus's death.
Luke was written by 75, not likely to be later. Could have been as early as about 60. Christ was crucified in about 25-30. And Luke mentions multiple earlier attempts to chronicle the life of Christ, which would include Mark at the least.
Protestants (but probably not all of them) believe that Genesis was literally written by Moses.
I fail to see how that qualifies as a fundamental difference. I mean, some of Exodus and such had to be recorded originally by Moses, but does it really matter who wrote the rest?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
"Second, the romans standing closest to Jesus (at the cross), the ones most reluctant to make him suffer, decided to give Jesus some water, from a sponge stuck on a spear. Wasn't this supposed to be vinegar, if I recall my gospels correctly?"
Depends upon whom you believe. Matthew says it was wine mixed with gall. The others say it was vinegar.
"According to some bloke who was around within a generation of the events (as opposed to the gospel writers who weren't)..."
"Um... two or three of them were apostles."
There are still people who think the gospels of Matthew and John were actually written by the Matthew and John mentioned therein?
And what do you mean "two or three"? You don't even know that there were no apostles called "Mark" or "Luke"?
"Just to clarify (again), Catholics are one of the denominations that don't take the Bible literally."
True, but I think Gibson belongs to some sort of weird Catholic offshoot. So, he might be a fundie; I'm not sure.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I think for the difference can be fundamental because the question of who wrote it affects whether or not people believe it literally. I suppose if you believe Divine Inspiration (tm) over all human differences, then it wouldn't matter who wrote it at all. The belief that Moses was the actual author is more romantic than saying, "well, actually, it was probably written by four different people." At least that's the impression I got when they told me that at church way back when.
"True, but I think Gibson belongs to some sort of weird Catholic offshoot. So, he might be a fundie; I'm not sure."
From what I know, official Catholic doctrine is definitely not fundamentalist, but Catholics include such a wide range of people that you'd probably find believers at either end of the spectrum. Many don't seem to have a real problem deviating from what is "official". I've heard a number of Catholics criticize the pope when he came out and said Catholicism was the one true religion/denom.
posted
What, you think he's going to pull a Spock and just come back from the dead? Please, I hope the writers of this so-called "Bible" have better taste than to copy Star Trek.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Nim: I see your point. But to be fair, there are people who have taken an interest in spiritual things neither by having it force-fed to them by their parents or as the result of some violent / tragic event in their lives.
Just as much as I may be being "glass-half empty", you're excluding everyday people who have worked hard to cultivate a spirtual interest in simple, everyday circumstances.
posted
Well I'm not, that's exactly the core of the poodle. It's exactly those people, that take interest in spiritual development in their everyday lives, that might benefit from watching this movie.
I am one of them, I've begun actively developing my spiritual and ethical self. I'm studying religion, philosophy, psychology and ethics at post-secondary education levels right now, to make some sense out of it all and be of better service to myself and everyone else in my life.
That's why I took the movie seriously when I saw it, not as entertainment but as a relevant entry in the science of interpersonal relations. If anything, Jesus seemed to have strong character.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
You don't even know that there were no apostles called "Mark" or "Luke"?
Mark is believed by some to be Peter's scribe.
There are still people who think the gospels of Matthew and John were actually written by the Matthew and John mentioned therein?
Yes, quite a few. Is there some reason to think otherwise?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
No disrespect intended, Nim, but I submit that people who have developed an active interest in things spiritual on their own can also decide for themselves which entries they might or might not benefit from and which they should or should not take seriously.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Absolutely. Our privilege, as free peoples.
Though you can only go so far in any book- or movie-discussion before actually having to experience it for yourself. Like all art.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
Well, my understanding is that bible scholars think otherwise, and I'm sure they've got more information on it than I have.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Tora Ziyal: Many don't seem to have a real problem deviating from what is "official". I've heard a number of Catholics criticize the pope when he came out and said Catholicism was the one true religion/denom.
I've also heard Catholics (including teachers at the school I went to) disgree with him on other subjects. The biggest three are:
1/ Women priests 2/ Sex before marriage 3/ Artifical contraceptives
Interestingly, those are the only 3 areas where the Catholic church is even remotely "fundamental". With everything else it's as laid back as can be.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
What does fundamental mean with regards to religion? Does it have a specific definition, or is it just something people get called when they hold to beliefs that seem out of date?
I'm not being sarcastic, I really don't know. I've heard the term before, but I don't really understand what it means. For instance, I don't believe sex before marriage is scriptural. But the Bible says nothing about contraception and I have no problem with that. Does that make me a fundamentalist?
1: A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism[/].
2: An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and *secularism, insisting on the [i]inerrancy of Scripture.
*Secularism: The view that religious considerations should be excluded from civil affairs or public education.
As all academic words, this isn't inherently bad, it depends on the context. And in the context of a changing world, fundamentalism can be seen as trying to stop time, covering your ears and dreaming of the good old world, one that often had never existed anywhere but in the minds of populists.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
