How To Get To Heaven When You Die

Without reading the rest of the thread (yet) I'm going to guess that the work MYSTERY will come up...

 

If I am not mistaken, don't most historians believe Acts and Matthew were composed between 80 -- 90 CE? So two sources from roughly the same time frame have different versions of this event. Also, Matthew and Luke both make use of Mark, thought to have been composed about 60 - 65 CE. Mark & Luke do not mention the death of Judas of Iscariot. Papias of Heirapolis (who lived sometime between 75 & 163) wrote of the story that "Judas walked about in this world a sad example of impiety; for his body having swollen to such an extent that he could not pass where a chariot could pass easily, he was crushed by the chariot, so that his bowels gushed out."

Recently, scholars have suggested that the writer of Matthew was using Jeremiah. Specifically chapters 18:1–4 and 19:1–13 which refers to a potter's jar and a burial place, and chapter 32:6–15 which refers to a burial place and an earthenware jar.

Raymond Brown thinks Matthew is combining Zechariah & Jeremiah: "Matthew is presenting a mixed citation with words taken both from Zechariah and Jeremiah. Jeremiah 18–9 concerns a potter (18:2–; 19:1), a purchase (19:1), the Valley of Hinnom (where the Field of Blood is traditionally located, 19:2), ‘innocent blood’(19:4), and the renaming of a place for burial (19:6, 11); and Jeremiah 32:6–5 tells of the purchase of a field with silver."

Randel Helms gives this as an example of the 'fictional and imaginative' use by early Christians of the Old Testament: "Matthew's source has blended Jeremiah's buying of a field and placing the deed in a pot with Zechariah's casting of thirty pieces of silver down in the temple and the purchase of the Potter's Field. The story of Judas's actions after the betrayal is one of the most revealing examples of the early Christians' fictional and imaginative use of the Old Testament as a book about Jesus."

In short, relying on these texts for historicity is probably fruitless. They weren't meant as historical in the first place. They were tales told by the faithful of their mythology.

 

It wont get me to heaven, but I'm going to see The Book of Mormon at the Kennedy Center tomorrow night.

 

THIS VIDEO WILL EXPLAIN HOW THE NEW TESTIMENT OF THE BIBLE WAS CANONIZED (CAME TO BE):

WHOLE VIDEO:

http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=D76LD7NX

 

Yeah, this is not academic, objective critical scholarship. This is doctrinal narrative.

Read a book instead of watching video clips off Christian websites. If you want to read Christian scholars, at least read ones who work off of quality critical scholarship, who are academic powerhouses themselves, like Karl Barth, EP Sanders, John Dominic Crossan, NT Wright, Marcus Borg, or if you can forgo the Christian authorship, then Daniel Boyarin, who writes on early Christianity from the Jewish side.

Also, something like Alistair McGrath's Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Thought or William Placher's History of Christian Theology might be useful, since it seems like you have no experience with critical/historical scholarship on Christianity.

 

I also like CS Lewis; Augustine; & Thomas Aquinas.

 

They are doctrinal theologians, who lived before or were uninfluenced by academic critical scholarship. Aquinas and Augustine both wrote beautifully, it just wasn't touched by anything objective. (Sorry, I can't abide Lewis.)

 

Awesome. Although I confess, I suspect he would have severely outclassed her-- I have never been impressed with her work, whereas his I find quite impressive.

 

I think that every time I see his name!!

 

True enough, but they give a reasoned self-consistent view of christianity. Augustine was fundamentally the first apologist. Levite & I will agree to disagree about Lewis, although my curiosity has been piqued.... what's the deal with CS, Mr. L?

 

Sure, but that's not really at issue here. What they wrote is consistent with an ahistorical narrative that accepts the accounts of the Christian scriptures (and for that matter, Jewish scriptures as well) completely literally and at face value.

I don't blame them, because in their times, there was no critical Biblical scholarship, no decent histories and no archaeology and paleoanthropology to offer any suggestion that the classic NT narrative (and, for that matter, much of the OT narrative as well) was ahistorical and not to be taken completely uncritically.

However, now we do have those academic disciplines, and we cannot credibly ignore what they have to say merely because it conflicts with classic religious narrative. One must either adapt one's religious history and theology to deal with what has been found, or one must construct careful, reasoned, objectively supported arguments to disagree with what has been found. As do good religious scholars and theologians of every religion-- Christianity included.

Aside from the fact that I think his fiction was poorly written, I think his Christian writing lacks depth, nuance, and flexibility.

 

I disagree with you on that one. Augustine provides a perspective on christian philosophy that was written fairly closely to the founding of the religion in the form we know it today, and I think understanding that philosophy informs a perspective that shows how modern christian fundamentalism is in many ways at odds with the viewpoint that philosophy propounds.

I wonder if the OP is taking note of the fact that you and I can debate and disagree, remain friends, and have a thoughtful discussion of our (slightly) differing viewpoints.... without resorting to copy/paste of texts taken from other sources or idiotic vitriol....

 

Augustine wasn't even born until a couple of decades after the first Council of Nicaea. By the time he is writing, Christianity is, if not the state religion of Rome, one of the primary state religions. It is already heavily Pauline, and already very much a distinct religion from Judaism. Everything in the canon of Christian scripture by that point has its final redacted form, and (apparently) the proto-narratives upon which those texts were based are already lost. And we still have the issue of Augustine and his fellows accepting the gospel accounts and the accounts in Acts as pure historical fact.

Of course it's important to understand the theology and philosophy of different eras-- how else can we understand the theology and philosophy of our own time? And that is, as you say, a significant problem in fundamentalism. But that's still not the same thing as having historical-critical awareness of the realities of constructed texts versus historical fact or at least what seems an objectively supportable theory of historical progression.

Indeed. Respectful and thoughtful debate is a good thing, and should never be either rote or personal.

 

I'll give you that last. Augustine was a theologian and the bishop of Hippo. My point is the perspective he gives. Christianity has evolved since the days of Jesus, but the fundamentalists can't or don't want to see it and want everything in some frozen in time absolute, as if it's always been this way and always will be. The catholic church I grew up in is a prime example of that stubbornness, in spite of Vatican II.

I think if you want an understanding of christian philosophy, you should read more than just the NSV bible and an your particular preacher's interpretation thereof. Read Paul's letters, read Augustine, read Aquinas, and even [gasp] CS Lewis.

To tread on your ground, it's like telling someone their entire understanding of Judaism should come from reading leviticus. It's a silly position. Faith is a living, evolving thing.

 

Oh, I absolutely don't disagree that one needs more than a Bible and one clergyperson's interpretation. Absolutely one does need to read the commentators, theologians, philosophers of one's textual tradition. And sometimes of other textual traditions as well.

But I also think that to understand how one's sacred texts came to be as they are, how one's tradition came to be as it is, one must study and learn from source-critical analysis and critical historical sources. Theology, religious philosophy, textual commentary, may be influenced by the events and ideas of the time in which the commentator or philosopher lived, but (at least in the pre-modern era) is still dependent upon interpretations of the uncritical scriptural and quasi-scriptural narrative foundational to the religious tradition in question. It lacks objectivity.

To give a large and general example, it is not from reading a certain commentator, philosopher, and theologian that we know that the world was not literally created 5775 years ago, but in fact this planet is a smidge over 4.5 billion years old, the whole universe a smidge under 14 billion years old. We learn this from scientific texts and historical texts based in science. And this knowledge cannot merely be ignored or dismissed, it must be reconciled in some way with the teachings of one's tradition.

In the same fashion, we cannot merely accept uncritically that there was a historical Moses who was raised a prince of Egypt and led two-odd million Jews and others out of Egypt in precisely the manner described in Exodus; nor can we merely accept uncritically that the historical Jesus was literally fathered by God on a virgin, or that he was condemned by shouting crowds before Pilate's residence, or that he had a trial before a legitimate Sanhedrin, etc. And so on, and so on. One must study source-critical analysis, and critical history of that time and place, and, in the case of Christian scripture and tradition, the objective history of how doctrinal advancement was related to power struggles and identity politics in the early formation of Christianity.

 

You're too smart for my own good....

As far as I know, the world began in 1960 (when I was born....). Some days, it feels like 4.5 billion years....

BTW, I completely agree with your comment about source-critical analysis & textual analysis.

The sad fact to me is that I find reading both the theological sources and the scientific analysis of the sacred texts enriching. I always have. I am not Christian (although at one time I was) and I have always found the learning to be fulfilling. I think the fundamentalists who deny that any source other than the king james bible has any validity whatsoever deny themselves a richer experience as Christians.

And the fact that the OP basically fell off the thread when people began raising critical points based in actual scholarship just proves my point.