1
   

Why Da Vinci Code Scares Fundamentalists

 
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jun, 2006 04:48 am
I'm presenting this to show the contradictions in the Bible concerning women and also the possibility that some of these documents may be forgeries. Let you all judge for yourselves.

Quote:
The four Gospels in the Christian Scriptures (New Testament) -- and the 45 or so other Gospels that never became part of the official canon -- dealt primarily with the life of Jesus. The remaining hundreds of letters which were in circulation within the early Christian movement deal primarily with the development of Christianity after the execution of Christ circa 30 CE. Some of these, particularly some of Paul's letters, made it into the New Testament.

The latter epistles contain two mutually exclusive practices:
The promotion of Christ's revolutionary message, in which women and men (and prostitutes, and the hated tax collectors etc) were treated equally.

The rejection of Christ's message, in which women's roles are once more restricted as women were restored to their former inferior status as seen in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament).

Biblical references promoting gender equality:
John 1:12: All people, men and women, have the opportunity to become children of God - presumably without regard to gender, race, sexual orientation, nationality, etc.

Acts 2:1-21: At the time of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit was described as entering both men and women. In Verse 17, Peter recites a saying of the prophet Joel that talks about sons and daughters; Verse 18 talks about men and women.

Acts 9:36: Paul refers to a woman (Tabitha in Aramaic, Dorcas in Greek, Gazelle in English) as a Christian disciple.

Acts 18:24-26 describes how a married couple, Priscilla and Aquila, both acted in the role of pastor to a man from Alexandria, called Apollos. Various translations of the Bible imply that they taught him in the synagogue (Amplified Bible, King James Version, Rheims, New American Standard, New American, New Revised Standard) However, the New International Version have an unusual translation of this passage. The NIV states that the teaching occurred in Priscilla's and Aquila's home.

Acts 21:9: Four young women are referred to as prophetesses.

Romans 16:1: Paul refers to Phoebe as a minister (diakonos) of the church at Cenchrea. Some translations say deaconess; others try to downgrade her position by mistranslating it as "servant" or "helper".

Romans 16:3: Paul refers to Priscilla as another of his "fellow workers in Christ Jesus" (NIV) Other translations refer to her as a "co-worker". But other translations attempt to downgrade her status by calling her a "helper". The original Greek word is "synergoi", which literally means "fellow worker" or "colleague." 4

Romans 16:7: Paul refers to a male apostle, Andronicus and a female apostle, Lunia, as "outstanding among the apostles" (NIV) The Amplified Bible translates this passage as "They are men held in high esteem among the apostles." The Revised Standard Version shows it as "they are men of note among the apostles." The reference to them both being men does not appear in the original Greek text. The word "men" was simply inserted by the translators, apparently because the translators' minds recoiled from the concept of a female apostle. Many translations, including the Amplified Bible, Rheims New Testament, New American Standard Bible, and the New International Version simply picked the letter "s" out of thin air. They converted the original "Junia" (a woman's name) into "Junias" (a man's name) in order to warp St. Paul's original writing by erasing all mention of a female apostle. Junia was first converted into a man only in the "13th century, when Aegidius of Rome (1245-1316 CE) referred to both Andronicus and Junia as "honorable men." 5

1 Corinthians 1:11: Chloe is mentioned as the owner of a house where Christian meetings were held. There is some ambiguity as to whether the women actually led the house churches. Similar passages mention, with the same ambiguity:
The mother of Mark in Acts 12:12, and
Lydia in Acts 16:14-5, and 40, and
Nympha in (Col 4:15).

1 Corinthians 12:4-7: This discusses gifts that the Holy Spirit gives to all believers, both men and women. The New International Version obscures this message; in Verse 6 is translated "all men", whereas other translations use the terms "all", "all persons", "in everyone", and "in all."

1 Corinthians 16:3: Paul refers to a married couple: Priscilla and Aquila as his fellow workers in Christ Jesus.

2 Corinthians 5:17: "Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation..." (NIV). Again "anyone" appears to mean both men and women.

Galatians 3:28: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (NIV) This is perhaps the most famous passage in the New Testament that assigns equal status to individuals of both genders (and all races, nationalities and slave status).

Philippians 4:2: Paul refers to two women, Euodia and Syntyche, as his coworkers who were active evangelists, spreading the gospel.

Philemon 2: Paul writes his letter to "Apphia, our sister" and two men as the three leaders of a house church.

1 Peter 4:10-11: This passages discusses all believers serving others with whatever gifts the Holy Spirit has given them, "faithfully administering God's grace in its various forms." (NIV) Presumably this would mean that some women are given the gift of being an effective pastor, and should be permitted to exercise that gift.

Biblical references promoting female inferiority:
1 Corinthians 11:3: "...Christ is the head of every man, and a husband the head of his wife, and the head of Christ is God. (NIV)". There is some debate among theologians about the translation of the Greek word "kephale" as "head." However that word is universally used in New Testament translations.

1 Corinthians 11:7-9:"For a man...is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head." (NIV) This refers to the practice of women wearing hair covering as a sign of inferiority. This is not longer widely observed today.

1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "...women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says, If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." (NIV)

This is a curious passage. It appears to prohibit all talking by women during services. But it contradicts verse 11:5, in which St. Paul states that women can actively pray and prophesy during services.

It is obvious that verses 14:33b to 36 are a later addition, added by an unknown counterfeiter with little talent at forgery. Bible scholar, Hans Conzelmann, comments on these three and a half verses: "Moreover, there are peculiarities of linguistic usage, and of thought. [within them]." 6 If they are removed, then Verse 33a merges well with Verse 37 in a seamless transition. Since they were a later forgery, they do not fulfill the basic requirement to be considered inerrant: they were not in the original manuscript written by Paul.

Ephesians 5:22-24: "Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife...wives should submit to their husbands in everything." (NIV)

1 Timothy; various passages: Conservative theologians date this "pastoral epistle" as having being written prior to 65 CE, and assign its authorship to Paul. Liberal theologians generally believe that it was written by an unknown author during the first half of the second century, a half-century or longer after St. Paul's execution. If the latter is true then the epistle's many passages reflecting female inferiority can be attributed to a gradual reinstatement of patriarchal authority by the early Church. Some of these passages are:

1 Timothy 2:11-15:"A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent..." (NIV) Some Biblical scholars believe that woman and man should be replaced by wife and husband in the above passage. This would mean that the passage would not refer to women teaching men in the church, but rather wives teaching their husbands within the home. 5

1 Timothy 3:2: "Now the overseer must be above reproach, the husband of but one wife..." (NIV) This would seem to imply that all overseers (bishops) must be male.

1 Timothy 3:8: "Deacons likewise, are to be men worthy of respect, sincere..." (NIV)

Titus 1:6: "An elder must be blameless, a husband of but one wife" (NIV). Women are apparently excluded from the position of elder or bishop.

Titus 2:4: "...train the younger women...to be subject to their husbands." There is no indication of equal power sharing in marriage.

1 Peter 3:7: Women are referred to as "the weaker vessel" in comparison to their husbands

Who wrote Ephesians, Colossians, etc?
The New Testament passages which downgrade the status of women are in books which appear to be have been written by Paul and Peter. Until modern times, Christian theologians universally accepted the two apostles as the true authors. That belief is still followed by almost all Fundamentalist and other Evangelical theologians. Since the authors identified themselves as Paul or Peter in their writings, and since all books in the Bible are considered free of error as originally written, then conservative Christians conclude that Paul and Peter must have authored the books.

However, most liberal theologians have concluded that many of the writings attributed to Paul and Peter were in fact written by anonymous authors, often long after Paul and Peter died. They base these conclusions on internal evidence, and references to the books by other Christian leaders. They believe that some of the anonymous books are:
Ephesians: This was perhaps written circa 95 CE, about 30 years after Paul's death.

Colossians: This was written, in part, to combat Gnostic thought which did not become a concern to the church until the early second century, many decades after Paul's execution.

2 Thessalonians: This was probably written circa 75 to 90 CE, at least one decade after St. Paul's death

1 Timothy, 2 Timothy and Titus were written sometime during the first half of the second century - perhaps circa 130 CE.

Hebrews is impossible to date with any certainty. It is believed to have been written sometime between 60 and 96 CE.

1 Peter is obviously an early document, because the author refers to "elders" as the only level of church leadership. Deacons, deaconesses and bishops are not mentioned. Liberal theologians disagree about the authorship of this book.

2 Peter was written circa 125 to 150 CE.
SOURCE
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jun, 2006 07:11 am
xingu, you got a lot here that I would like to respond to but I am babysitting my grandchild today and she is sick...

Anyway, actually diakonos has several meanings and one of them really is servant or helper.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/1/1149685449-6890.html

Also, from what I understand, most of the ordinances concerning women in the NT pertaining to the position of women is in the church or family, not spiritually or in the world.

Like I said you have a lot there but maybe later if I have time and if the subject hasn't moved on too much, I would like to get into it.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jun, 2006 05:39 pm
What interest me the most is the implication of forgery. This isn't the first time I came across this. Remember when Josephus speaks of Christ? Forgery.

The early Christians were no more honest or ethical in the past then they are today when it comes to defending their dogma.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jun, 2006 06:04 pm
xingu--

How could you know the Josephus account is forgery, with any more certainty than I could know it's legitimate?

(I have read the opinions and what they're based on.)
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jun, 2006 06:42 pm
The forgery I'm speaking of is this; "Testimonium Flavianum" ("TF")

Quote:
"Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works,--a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day."

This was inserted into Josephus text Antiquities of the Jews. This forgery was inserted, most probably, by Eusebius.

Two things to note. Origin, who read the text, stated in Contra Celsus, Book I, Chapter XLVII that Josephus blamed the destruction of the Temple on the execution of James the Just, the brother of Jesus. No where in Josephus's book does he recognize any of the Jesus's he speaks of as Christ. To Josephus James the Just was more important than Jesus.

But you notice in the insertion Josephus calls him Christ. Why didn't Origin see this? Because it wasn't there.

There were many other early Christian writers who read Josephus' book but not one of them mentioned TF.

Another point is text flow. Read the text without the insertion and it makes sense. The flow is natural. Now read it with the insertion and the flow is no longer natural. It's interrupted. You see TF for what it is, an insertion.

Some sources.

http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

http://skeptically.org/newtestament/id22.html
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jun, 2006 06:46 pm
And to be honest,it wasnt a very good movie.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jun, 2006 06:52 pm
Lash wrote:
xingu--

How could you know the Josephus account is forgery, with any more certainty than I could know it's legitimate?

(I have read the opinions and what they're based on.)

Try this, Lash - Flashback: timber on Tacitus, Josephus, Christian Historiography, and more.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jun, 2006 06:56 pm
Quote:
And to be honest,it wasnt a very good movie.


I think I'll rent it.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jun, 2006 06:58 pm
xingu wrote:
Quote:
And to be honest,it wasnt a very good movie.


I think I'll rent it.


If you really have to see it,wait till it goes into the "bargain bin" at your local video rental place.

IMHO,it was a waste of film and it cost me part of my life that I wont ever get back.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jun, 2006 07:05 pm
I figure it shouldn't be long before it and Algore's move both are in the "2 for $4.99" bin. I can wait.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Wed 7 Jun, 2006 07:09 pm
timberlandko wrote:
Lash wrote:
xingu--

How could you know the Josephus account is forgery, with any more certainty than I could know it's legitimate?

(I have read the opinions and what they're based on.)

Try this, Lash - Flashback: timber on Tacitus, Josephus, Christian Historiography, and more.

I did recall that, Timber, hence the comment I underlined. You successfully used your information to throw the assertions about the veracity of Josephus et al into doubt, but it didn't disprove the allegations.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 06:12 am
Lash wrote:
but it didn't disprove the allegations


What would, in your opinion, disprove them?
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 06:14 am
It is always hilarious to see religionists talk about "disproof." When someone makes extraordinary claims, they need to provide proof--no one needs to disprove them. What the Big Bird did, and what i have often done, is to show that the passages in Tacitus and Josephus cannot reasonably be construed as proof of anything--they were fiddle by the god squad.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 06:21 am
xingu wrote:
What interest me the most is the implication of forgery. This isn't the first time I came across this. Remember when Josephus speaks of Christ? Forgery.

The early Christians were no more honest or ethical in the past then they are today when it comes to defending their dogma.

Setanta wrote:
It is always hilarious to see religionists talk about "disproof." When someone makes extraordinary claims, they need to provide proof--no one needs to disprove them. What the Big Bird did, and what i have often done, is to show that the passages in Tacitus and Josephus cannot reasonably be construed as proof of anything--they were fiddle by the god squad.

I agree with that.

Religionists are silly to claim they know the historical fact re Josephus,....as was xingu to claim he knew it was a forgery.
0 Replies
 
EpiNirvana
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 08:58 am
its just fiction, just an intresting story. If they want to get mad at something read Holy Blood Holy Grail....now you have something that makes a little more sense. But still the author says it just a theory. But he also created the gymotry in the landscape and art work, but not done by Da Vinci.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 09:48 am
Lash, the preponderance of internal evidence, correlation with extant independent contemporary documents, and consensus legitimate, mainstream scholarly opinion weigh heavily against the probity of the asserted, assumptive, counter-evidentiary validations of suppositions that Tacitus, Josephus or other non-Christian historians and chroniclers of the times confirm the existence of the central figure to the Christ Myth. The same considerations offer strong evidence precisely to the contrary; particularly the Josephus passages bear all but incontravertable sign of post-hoc redaction and revision. That which some Christian apologists tout as external corroboration of their proposition is nothing of the sort, but rather serves well to further cast doubt on the proposition and to call to question the objectivity and honesty of the early formational, foundational writers of Christian dogma, doctrine, and tradition.

Extraordinary claims, as the saying goes, demand extraordinary proofs. In the matter of the historicity of Jesus, there simply is no proof, extraordinary or otherwise, for the claims of Christian apologists, while there exists strong, broadly sourced, mutually corroborational counter indication. Logic requires the matter be regarded with severe skepticism, at the very least; it is improbable, supported by no independent evidence, and is at odds with other independent, externally derived evidence. Given the facts, the actual evidence, what you've got there in the claim, the charge, if you will, that there was an historic Jeseus consistent with scripture, if presented to a Grand Jury, is a Ham Sandwich with little cause to fear being indicted.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 10:11 am
Lash wrote:
I agree with that.

Religionists are silly to claim they know the historical fact re Josephus,....as was xingu to claim he knew it was a forgery.


Hey Lash, I gave evidence to support my position. Don't see much from you except cheap talk.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 11:26 am
xingu wrote:
Lash wrote:
I agree with that.

Religionists are silly to claim they know the historical fact re Josephus,....as was xingu to claim he knew it was a forgery.


Hey Lash, I gave evidence to support my position. Don't see much from you except cheap talk.

Do you refute the statement? I had previously read the lines per Josephus, and Tacitus, and probably because I wanted to--I believed it was an independent indication of the life of Jesus. When I read the passages Timber brought, I realized there was a good possiblity the writings had been altered.

However, those passages aren't proof of anything, except reasonable doubt. You should be no more comfortable than they are to make such a definitive statement.

I don't see the difference in you and the religionists on this issue.
0 Replies
 
xingu
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 11:54 am
The burden of proof lies with alteration. Until something comes along that says otherwise that is what I will accept.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Jun, 2006 11:59 am
I would think the burden of proof lies with the one making the declarative statement, but certainly, believe as you will.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/22/2019 at 05:37:17