Ian McKellen says Bible should have Fiction Disclaimer

[Whaleboy]

It's difficult to say with any certainty that they were matriarchal and pluralist, given the fact that their written language has not yet been translated. All we have are their pictures, which some have taken to show a matriarchal society.

Linear B has been translated, Linear A hasn't. You're right that we can't make any certain statements about their society, at least not in the same manner that we can do so with the Greeks, Egyptians, Romans et al, but we can infer certain things from their art, where women greatly outnumber men and are depicted in authorative roles, the number of female idols found and the depiction of males as emasculated youths in defference to a dominant female.

All we have are their pictures, which some have taken to show a matriarchal society.

You seem to be implying that there is some other way that is equally convincing in which you can interpret Minoan art. I can't think of a single example of their art which depicts women in anything other than an authoritative pose.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by MMC
A quote from my study bible (this is not scripture, this is the supporting notes which make it a study bible):



And you must remember that 'some' does not mean 'all'.

EDIT: I know I'm talking about John and you're talking about Matthew, but surely John would have known who wrote it and that would have been passed down to Ireneaus.

not if it wasn't big, I thought (Been a while since I read it) that Iraneus came out against Mathew being written by the disciple)

also, Iraneus was very young when he was a disciple of Polycap

and I did say some, so I don't understand your post

and there is some argument (from the wording of John) which suggests that it was written by people from the 'group' of John (the disciple)

JM
(protestant)

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Whaleboy

Linear B has been translated, Linear A hasn't. You're right that we can't make any certain statements about their society, at least not in the same manner that we can do so with the Greeks, Egyptians, Romans et al, but we can infer certain things from their art, where women greatly outnumber men and are depicted in authorative roles, the number of female idols found and the depiction of males as emasculated youths in defference to a dominant female.

You seem to be implying that there is some other way that is equally convincing in which you can interpret Minoan art. I can't think of a single example of their art which depicts women in anything other than an authoritative pose.

If you go to any British newsagent, you'll see mountains of magazines with women on the cover and relatively few men. Clearly, our society must be matriarchal.

[Whaleboy]

If you go to any British newsagent, you'll see mountains of magazines with women on the cover and relatively few men. Clearly, our society must be matriarchal.

You're denying the consequent there, it should be obvious that art in today's society cannot be used as a one dimensional tool to describe that society. That is because of the sheer complexity and means of modern communication, unlike ancient times when art was very much a tool of the state and the establishment. It makes sense that what you see in ancient art is more descriptive of the society that produced it.

I think you also need to look at it in context. A comparable example would be a social study comparing income and influence to the genders of today's society. It wouldnt make sense to compare that to some trashy magazine.

Similarly, it is a fallacy to take one facet of Western culture and use it in direct comparison to a completely different ancient society when discussing the question of matriarchy/patriarchy, or similar matters.

[MMC]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Wrong. The rules in Mosaic law are considered to be mitzvot, or blessings. The concept of sin -> redemption is somewhat alien to Judaism; it was an idea introduced to Christianity by none other than Gnostic influences!

Ok, I'll concede that this is a Christian view and not a Jewish one, but then again, history is full of points where the Jews were so insistant that they were God's chosen people, they actually ignored what God told them to do. Which is why they kept being invaded, enslaved, and generally attacked.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
As far as Christianity is concerned yes, but that assumes that NT law supercedes OT law to the extent that one can pick and choose the rules you follow… in other words, if one is to accept your argument, the Christian is free to disregard Mosaic law, which would invalidate rules such as the ten commandments and many of the archaic rules in Leviticus. In other words, if you feel free to reject circumcision, then why not abandon the prejudice against homosexuals?

In the New Testament there is basically a seperation between traditions and laws. The Jewish traditions are effectively out of the window (mainly so that the Gentiles wouldn't be put off). NT law only supercedes those laws that are in contridiction. But, that is also alongside the fact that we are not expected to be able keep the laws by ourselves and our own actions. Whilst we may not go around killing people, a lot of people covet things, or steal things (even a cookie from the cookie jar when you weren't supposed to have one as a kid ). We al do it, and it's sinning, which in God's view is punishable by death. Only one sentence is grave enough to cover everything. Yet he gives us a chance to redeem ourselves by commiting ourselves to him. And the best way of showing this would be to try and keep his laws as much as possible.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
No. “Reward” as a Christian doctrine, is alien to Hinduism whereby the nature of ones rebirth is proportional to their actions, and not prescriptive. In Judaism, the consequences of ones negative actions are considered to be a state of being distant from God but ones goes to heaven regardless, the “reward” is the same for all humans.

Hindus get a better rebirth if they do better actions... I'd call that a reward. As far as Judaism is concerned... Jews like to believe that they are safe and going to heaven because they are the chosen people, thus ignoring part of their own traditions. For example, Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, not the Christian one, because Christianity wasn't around until he appeared. The Jews had plenty of prophecies telling them he would be coming, and that he would save them from the consequences of their sins. And even before he came, those that were truly sorry for their sins would indeed be saved.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
A pretty good deal for a raping murdering paedophile

Yup. Pretty much, as long as they're truly sorry for what they did. It's a pretty good deal for you and I too, since we're just as deserving of death as your paedophile friend.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
What I find interesting is that a self-proclaimed work of fiction seems to incite so much fear among Christians, as though people will believe it is true and not consider the bible to be true. They miss the real point of the book, which is to incite discussion about Jesus, and explain that Christianity has no monopoly on facts and interpretations of Christ. It is this climate of discussion and rational discourse that is the true enemy of literal Christians.

I consider attempts to debunk the factual basis of a self-proclaimed work of fiction as pedantry at best and a red herring at worst. Quite amusing however.

It is not whether the book is claiming to be fiction, it's the fact that Dan Brown claims it was based on 'facts' which hundreds of historians, both Christian and Secular, have all debunked as fiction.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Indeed, the church arbitrarily chose which books were to be included or not, based on the degree of their political convenience.

No, actually... What they did, was write a list (hence 'Canon' which simply means 'rule' or 'list') of which books were already accepted as being the truth. The books which were not in the list, had not been accepted for a century, and contained wild inaccuracies (such as contradicting themselves). They also laid down some rules for what books could be added to the list (since they knew the list was incomplete). Plus there is a mention of them having thousands of works to choose from, which was true. There were indeed thousands of copies of the accepted books circulating almost the moment they were written. And the Bible as we know it today has been translated from many instances of these early copies. In contrast we have exactly one copy of each of the known Gnostic books, and we are to accept them as fact?

Originally posted by Whaleboy
That is a story; it’s not an element of early Christian thought, rather an example of it.

Ignoring the fact that there are hundreds of references, from Christian historians, Roman historians, and Secular historians (all from that period), that recount the apostles' journeys, and effectively prove they happened, you're right. It is an example, of the concept that the Jewish messiah was there to save the entire world, not just the Jews. Thus the Jews resented him even more, because he was willing to save non-Jews (Gentiles).

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Didn’t that start out as a Zoroastrian idea?

I admit I have know idea who you're talking about, but you're right that the idea of the Ultimate Sacrifice was not a new idea... Wht was new in Christianity, was the fact that Jesus was pure enough to actually atone for our sins in the process.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Roman troops were hot; it’s not surprising to find some man love in the New Testament.

So... reduced to debunking a basic Christian philosophy using homosexuality as a source. To be honest, would you be willing to love (as a brother, or a lover) someone who was willing to beat you so much (from the word go) that you could be described as no longer human?

Originally posted by Whaleboy
They maintained an extensive trade network and thus contact with other civilizations. There are some comments from an Egyptian source that I can’t remember by heart at the moment, which refers to them selling luxury goods. It is their collapse that fascinates me though, and how their religion and society (which was matriarchal and pluralist) died and fell in line with Hellenistic customs. What you have then is the transition between a type of religion that we are generally unfamiliar with in the Western world, to the traditional Greek pantheon, and it is in this that I think we can see some examples of what is common to all religions, and what is merely idiosyncrasy.

Your biggest argument seems to be that is a religion or sect dies out, then it must have been an influence to Christianity and other religions. And who cares if religion x was matricarchal and religion y was patricarchal? Christianity is inherently neither, every patriarchal reference was for the Jew's benefit as Jewish society at the time was patriarchal. God is neither male, nor female. God just is. Jesus was only male for the benefit of the Jews. The Apostles were male because the society (both Jewish and Gentile) at the time would be more likely to listen to them. Yet there are many appearances of women at important stages.

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Similarly, it is a fallacy to take one facet of Western culture and use it in direct comparison to a completely different ancient society when discussing the question of matriarchy/patriarchy, or similar matters.

Exactly, so stop doing it, Whaleboy.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Similarly, it is a fallacy to take one facet of Western culture and use it in direct comparison to a completely different ancient society when discussing the question of matriarchy/patriarchy, or similar matters.

I would suggest that it's a fallacy to use terms like matriarchy and pluralism in a non-tentative fashion for a civilization whose language has never been deciphered. Linear B is of course the language of the later Mycenaens.

[MRT144]

Originally posted by Agathon


Except that Platonism is actually a reasonably coherent world view. Christianity is full of holes, and is vulgar and silly to boot.

which to people who like entertainment makes it awesome!!!

[duke o' york]

Originally posted by MMC
It has been well established that the first 3 Gospels were written by Matthew the tax collecter (also know as Levi); Mark, Peter's scribe and travelling companian; and Luke the physician. They were all written around roughly the same time, about AD 40 - 60.
The Gospel of John (the fisherman) was written around AD 80 - 90 and the fact he was writing at this time was witnessed by his own disciples [...]

Surely it has been well established that these works were written by persons claiming to be the aforementioned, whether they were or not?
I mean, George Eliot wrote some great novels, didn't he?

[MRT144]

synoptic problem!!!!

[Elok]

I take more issue with the fact that he called TDVC "entertaining" or something. They're pretty much obligated to cause a fuss to attract interest for their movie. I am disappointed in Tom Hanks though. He's supposedly Orthodox, he should know enough to laugh at this absurd anti-Catholic propaganda.

[Ben Kenobi]

Whilst I would be classed as Protestant, I would freely acknowledge the fact that Protestantism wasn't really around much before the middle ages. But then those quotes (whilst using Roman Catholic wording) are about a period of time from before even the RC church was around. Even Protestants acknowledge the Nicean Creed, much of which makes up the different Statements of Faith of different denominations.

Very true. But the protestants have a bit of a beef with the church fathers, and their authority. If you want to find out what they said, you pretty much have to go through Catholic sources.

[Ben Kenobi]

Indeed, the church arbitrarily chose which books were to be included or not, based on the degree of their political convenience.

If you read my source, you would see that this was not so. The books of the New Testament were already rather well established before Jerome set the canon.

That is a story; it’s not an element of early Christian thought, rather an example of it.

No, it is a rather important element of Christian thought. Before this, Christians understood their mission to the Jews, whereas Paul expanded the mission of the church to include everyone, Jews and Gentiles.

Didn’t that start out as a Zoroastrian idea?

If it is, it's your task to prove that.

[Ben Kenobi]

Except that Platonism is actually a reasonably coherent world view. Christianity is full of holes, and is vulgar and silly to boot.

Christians believe that the body is a good thing. Obviously a vulgar concept.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Christians believe that the body is a good thing. Obviously a vulgar concept.

At least Plato has a reasonably coherent system. Sure, there are a few things that cause logical difficulties – like the doctrine of the soul – but the rest of it is fairly coherent.

[Terra Nullius]

Plato has a reasonably coherent system.

Plato is soo 19th century.