banjalukaforum.com

Ovaj savjet ću prihvatiti, jer odavno imam u planu mnogo toga da pročitam, ali mi nedostaje vremena i mnogo je drugih stvari koje me više interesuju.

Johne, sta je to sto te najvise odusevilo u tom citatu?

I reci mi, kada recimo citas knjige, sta ti trazis u knjigama, sa kojim ciljem ides da citas knjige?

The fact that something is written down is persuasive to people
not used to asking questions like: 'Who wrote it, and when?' 'How
did they know what to write?' 'Did they, in their time, really mean
what we, in our time, understand them to be saying?' 'Were they
unbiased observers, or did they have an agenda that coloured their
writing?' Ever since the nineteenth century, scholarly theologians
have made an overwhelming case that the gospels are not reliable
accounts of what happened in the history of the real world. All
were written long after the death of Jesus, and also after the epistles
of Paul, which mention almost none of the alleged facts of
Jesus' life. All were then copied and recopied, through many
different 'Chinese Whispers generations' (see Chapter 5) by fallible
scribes who, in any case, had their own religious agendas.

A good example of the colouring by religious agendas is the
whole heart-warming legend of Jesus' birth in Bethlehem, followed
by Herod's massacre of the innocents. When the gospels were
written, many years after Jesus' death, nobody knew where he was
born. But an Old Testament prophecy (Micah 5:2) had led Jews to
expect that the long-awaited Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.
In the light of this prophecy, John's gospel specifically remarks that
his followers were surprised that he was not born in Bethlehem:
'Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come
out of Galilee? Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of
the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David
was?'

Matthew and Luke handle the problem differently, by deciding
that Jesus must have been born in Bethlehem after all. But they get
him there by different routes. Matthew has Mary and Joseph in
Bethlehem all along, moving to Nazareth only long after the birth
of Jesus, on their return from Egypt where they fled from King
Herod and the massacre of the innocents. Luke, by contrast,
acknowledges that Mary and Joseph lived in Nazareth before Jesus
was born. So how to get them to Bethlehem at the crucial moment,
in order to fulfil the prophecy? Luke says that, in the time when
Cyrenius (Quirinius) was governor of Syria, Caesar Augustus
decreed a census for taxation purposes, and everybody had to go 'to
his own city'. Joseph was 'of the house and lineage of David' and
therefore he had to go to 'the city of David, which is called
Bethlehem'. That must have seemed like a good solution. Except
that historically it is complete nonsense, as A. N. Wilson in Jesus
and Robin Lane Fox in The Unauthorized Version (among others)
have pointed out. David, if he existed, lived nearly a thousand years
before Mary and Joseph. Why on earth would the Romans have
required Joseph to go to the city where a remote ancestor had lived
a millennium earlier? It is as though I were required to specify, say,
Ashby-de-la-Zouch as my home town on a census form, if it
happened that I could trace my ancestry back to the Seigneur de
Dakeyne, who came over with William the Conqueror and settled
there.

Moreover, Luke screws up his dating by tactlessly mentioning
events that historians are capable of independently checking. There
was indeed a census under Governor Quirinius - a local census, not
one decreed by Caesar Augustus for the Empire as a whole - but it
happened too late: in AD 6, long after Herod's death. Lane Fox
concludes that 'Luke's story is historically impossible and internally
incoherent', but he sympathizes with Luke's plight and his desire to
fulfil the prophecy of Micah.

In the December 2004 issue of Free Inquiry, Tom Flynn, the
Editor of that excellent magazine, assembled a collection of articles
documenting the contradictions and gaping holes in the well-loved
Christmas story. Flynn himself lists the many contradictions
between Matthew and Luke, the only two evangelists who treat the
birth of Jesus at all. Robert Gillooly shows how all the essential
features of the Jesus legend, including the star in the east, the virgin
birth, the veneration of the baby by kings, the miracles, the
execution, the resurrection and the ascension are borrowed - every
last one of them - from other religions already in existence in the
Mediterranean and Near East region. Flynn suggests that
Matthew's desire to fulfil messianic prophecies (descent from
David, birth in Bethlehem) for the benefit of Jewish readers came
into headlong collision with Luke's desire to adapt Christianity for
the Gentiles, and hence to press the familiar hot buttons of pagan
Hellenistic religions (virgin birth, worship by kings, etc.). The
resulting contradictions are glaring, but consistently overlooked by
the faithful.

Sophisticated Christians do not need George Gershwin to
convince them that 'The things that you're li'ble / To read in the
Bible / It ain't necessarily so'. But there are many unsophisticated
Christians out there who think it absolutely is necessarily so - who
take the Bible very seriously indeed as a literal and accurate record
of history and hence as evidence supporting their religious beliefs.
Do these people never open the book that they believe is the literal
truth? Why don't they notice those glaring contradictions?
Shouldn't a literalist worry about the fact that Matthew traces
Joseph's descent from King David via twenty-eight intermediate
generations, while Luke has forty-one generations? Worse, there is
almost no overlap in the names on the two lists! In any case, if Jesus
really was born of a virgin, Joseph's ancestry is irrelevant and cannot
be used to fulfil, on Jesus' behalf, the Old Testament prophecy
that the Messiah should be descended from David.

The American biblical scholar Bart Ehrman, in a book whose
subtitle is The Story Behind Who Changed the New Testament and
Why, unfolds the huge uncertainty befogging the New Testament
texts. In the introduction to the book, Professor Ehrman movingly
charts his personal educational journey from Bible-believing fundamentalist
to thoughtful sceptic, a journey driven by his dawning
realization of the massive fallibility of the scriptures. Significantly,
as he moved up the hierarchy of American universities, from rock
bottom at the 'Moody Bible Institute', through Wheaton College (a
little bit higher on the scale, but still the alma mater of Billy
Graham) to Princeton in the world-beating class at the top, he was
at every step warned that he would have trouble maintaining his
fundamentalist Christianity in the face of dangerous progressivism.
So it proved; and we, his readers, are the beneficiaries. Other
refreshingly iconoclastic books of biblical criticism are Robin Lane
Fox's The Unauthorized Version, already mentioned, and Jacques
Berlinerblau's The Secular Bible: Why Nonbelievers Must Take
Religion Seriously.

The four gospels that made it into the official canon were chosen,
more or less arbitrarily, out of a larger sample of at least a
dozen including the Gospels of Thomas, Peter, Nicodemus, Philip,
Bartholomew and Mary Magdalen. It is these additional gospels
that Thomas Jefferson was referring to in his letter to his nephew:
I forgot to observe, when speaking of the New Testament,
that you should read all the histories of Christ, as well of
those whom a council of ecclesiastics have decided for us,
to be Pseudo-evangelists, as those they named Evangelists.
Because these Pseudo-evangelists pretended to inspiration,
as much as the others, and you are to judge their
pretensions by your own reason, and not by the reason of
those ecclesiastics.
The gospels that didn't make it were omitted by those
ecclesiastics perhaps because they included stories that were even
more embarrassingly implausible than those in the four canonical
ones. The Gospel of Thomas, for example, has numerous anecdotes
about the child Jesus abusing his magical powers in the manner of
a mischievous fairy, impishly transforming his playmates into goats,
or turning mud into sparrows, or giving his father a hand with the
carpentry by miraculously lengthening a piece of wood. It will be
said that nobody believes crude miracle stories such as those in the
Gospel of Thomas anyway. But there is no more and no less reason
to believe the four canonical gospels. All have the status of legends,
as factually dubious as the stories of King Arthur and his Knights
of the Round Table.

Most of what the four canonical gospels share is derived from a
common source, either Mark's gospel or a lost work of which Mark
is the earliest extant descendant. Nobody knows who the four
evangelists were, but they almost certainly never met Jesus personally.
Much of what they wrote was in no sense an honest attempt
at history but was simply rehashed from the Old Testament,
because the gospel-makers were devoutly convinced that the life of
Jesus must fulfil Old Testament prophecies. It is even possible to
mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that
Jesus never lived at all, as has been done by, among others,
Professor G. A. Wells of the University of London in a number of
books, including Did Jesus Exist?.

Although Jesus probably existed, reputable biblical scholars do
not in general regard the New Testament (and obviously not the
Old Testament) as a reliable record of what actually happened in
history, and I shall not consider the Bible further as evidence for any
kind of deity. In the farsighted words of Thomas Jefferson, writing
to his predecessor, John Adams, 'The day will come when the
mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in
the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation
of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.'

Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code, and the film made from
it, are arousing huge controversy in church circles. Christians are
encouraged to boycott the film and picket cinemas that show it. It
is indeed fabricated from start to finish: invented, made-up fiction.
In that respect, it is exactly like the gospels. The only difference
between The Da Vinci Code and the gospels is that the gospels are
ancient fiction while The Da Vinci Code is modern fiction.

Da Vinčijev kod Dena Brauna, i film na osnovu njega, izazivaju velike kontroverze u crkvenim krugovima

Ali jedna druga stvar mi je bila interesantna kod tebe, a to je da se bavis pitanjem odnosa nauke i religije, i to kao cisti ateista, a to se i primjetilo u tvom pisanju, pa sam se zapitao sta je to sto ti smeta u religijama, da li trazis razumijevanje ljudskog vjerovanja ili formulu za opovrgavanje tog vjerovanja.

In January 2006 I presented a two-part television documentary on
British television (Channel Four) called Root of All Evil? From the
start, I didn't like the title. Religion is not the root of all evil, for
no one thing is the root of all anything. But I was delighted with the
advertisement that Channel Four put in the national newspapers.
It was a picture of the Manhattan skyline with the caption 'Imagine
a world without religion.' What was the connection? The twin
towers of the World Trade Center were conspicuously present.

Imagine, with John Lennon, a world with no religion. Imagine
no suicide bombers, no 9/11, no 7/7, no Crusades, no witch-hunts,
no Gunpowder Plot, no Indian partition, no Israeli/Palestinian
wars, no Serb/Croat/Muslim massacres, no persecution of Jews
as 'Christ-killers', no Northern Ireland 'troubles', no 'honour
killings', no shiny-suited bouffant-haired televangelists fleecing
gullible people of their money ('God wants you to give till it
hurts'). Imagine no Taliban to blow up ancient statues, no public
beheadings of blasphemers, no flogging of female skin for the crime
of showing an inch of it. Incidentally, my colleague Desmond
Morris informs me that John Lennon's magnificent song is some-
times performed in America with the phrase 'and no religion too'
expurgated. One version even has the effrontery to change it to 'and
one religion too'.

I need to say something to American readers in particular at this
point, for the religiosity of today's America is something truly
remarkable. The lawyer Wendy Kaminer was exaggerating only
slightly when she remarked that making fun of religion is as risky
as burning a flag in an American Legion Hall. The status of
atheists in America today is on a par with that of homosexuals fifty
years ago. Now, after the Gay Pride movement, it is possible,
though still not very easy, for a homosexual to be elected to public
office. A Gallup poll taken in 1999 asked Americans whether they
would vote for an otherwise well-qualified person who was a woman
(95 per cent would), Roman Catholic (94 per cent would), Jew (92 per
cent), black (92 per cent), Mormon (79 per cent), homosexual (79
per cent) or atheist (49 per cent). Clearly we have a long way to go.
But atheists are a lot more numerous, especially among the educated
elite, than many realize. This was so even in the nineteenth century,
when John Stuart Mill was already able to say: 'The world would be
astonished if it knew how great a proportion of its brightest
ornaments, of those most distinguished even in popular estimation for
wisdom and virtue, are complete sceptics in religion.'

'Homosexuality is a sin, Islam is a lie, abortion is murder. Some issues are just black and white!'

Pitam se recimo da li bi ti izlozio onu mapu razvoja religija da na toj mapi u natpisu nije pisalo nesto kao: "Istorija ratova".

Pa se pitam recimo da li ti imas ikakve koristi od rijesavanja pitanja vjerodostojnosti Biblije, i kakva je uopste svrha tvog citanja knjiga koje raspravljaju o religiji. Da li cesto raspravljas sa ljudima o religiji licem u lice, i kako tece otprilike vas razgovor? Sta je tvoj glavni adut u takvim razgovorima?

Гнусна лаж. Црква је тог лика одмах окарактерисала као пајаца. Да би "контроверза" постојала унутар Цркве, требало би да неко од црквењака подржава тог пајаца.

Ako pogledaš koji dokumentarni film o "Da Vinčijevom kodu", možda i promijeniš mišljenje.

Pored toga što je ogroman broj vjernika pridavao veliki značaj knjizi, bilo je i priličan broj sveštenika i teologa koji su pričali nešto kao: "Pa, šta i da je Isus imao djecu sa Marijom Magdalenom? Zar bi to umanjilo njegove osobine božanstva?".

Da smo nekoliko vijekova u prošlosti, Dan Braun bi sigurno bio zapaljen na lomači zajedno sa svojom knjigom.

Zar nije kontroverza u crkvi to što su savjetovali vjernicima da bojkotuju kina i film?

Гледао не један него неколико. У некима га приказују као "доносиоца истине" а у другима као најобичнијег пајаца који се обогатио на гомилама лажи и претпоставки.

Којих верника и којих свештеника? Православних? ахахахаха...

Ти немаш благе везе шта је уопште "контроверза"... Црква иначе већ 2000 година саветује верницима да не читају јеретичку литературу, јер од тога има само штете а никакве користи. Тако да та "контроверза" о којој ти причаш траје већ 2000 година. Једног дана кад престанеш сисати палац, можда и схватиш.

kontroverza (l. controversia)
naučna raspra, spor; sporno pitanje, sporna stvar; nesuglasica.

kontroverzan (l. controversus)
sporan, osporljiv; osporen, koji je u pitanju.

Могу ли и ја да се укључим у дискусију, или би само да дискутујеш са Мараном?

sto se tice problema oko 4 jevandjelja, zasto je matej poceo uvod na svoj nacin, luka na svoj, marko na svoj, ne vidim nikakvu poentu osporavanja jevandjelja i dawkinsove teorije da je Novi zavjet ancient fiction u poredjenju sa de vinci kodom.

vec je neko rekao mislim da je damaskin to napisao, po pitanju Biblije da to nije jednostavno neka pricica, novela ili dok holiday roman. procitas i kazes, super fiction.

bilo bi dobro da se tema nastavi u jednom pravcu a ne 20 pitanja i nigdje kraja.

Poenta je da se Biblija ne može uzeti za istorijski pouzdan dokument i dokaz postojanja boga.

Isti je slučaj sa "odbačenim" jevanđeljima.

Naučnici su ozbiljno provjeravali Braunove teze i našli su da su neke moguće, mada ne postoji ni jedan čvrst dokaz da su te teze istinite.

Kao što ne postoji ni jedan čvrst dokaz da je Biblijska verzija priče o Isusu istinita.

Predlažem da se zadržimo na kontradikcijama u Bibliji.

Она је само свједочанство односа човјека и Бога, Слово објављеног Бога, које ономе ко чиста срца тражи, даје одговоре на нека егзистенцијална питања.

Јеванђеље је као филм сниман из четири перспективе, са четири различите камере. И опет, те камере сликају исте сцене, исте догађаје, исту Личност.

Каснија, тзв, гностичка јеванђеља се сваком, па чак и оном ко се није озбиљније бавио ерминевтиком, археологијом, те филолошко-лингвистичком анализом, је савршено јасно, да она нису стварана у истом духу као и јеванђеља од Матеја, Марка, Луке и Јована.

Апостолски ученици су их одбацили као лажна, а то је касније потврдила и језичко-структурална анализа ових апокрифа.

"it is not possible that there can be either more or fewer than four" he stated, presenting as logic the analogy of the four corners of the earth and the four winds.

Значи није довољно свједочанство оних који су лично познавали Исуса? Па ни свједочење стотина и хиљада њихових ученика?

Није ти чудна чињеница да ти исти неписмени радници, рибари и занатлије који су се разбјежали у страху од прогона ноћи када је ухапшен, се одједном појављују педесет дана касније и неустрашиво и пред војном и духовном влашћу свједоче Христа као Месију?

Преко ноћи постају бесједници дубљи, проницљивији и умнији од најобразованијих свештеника и филозофа свог времена?

Ти исти уплашени рибари драгог срца иду под мач и радо се препуштају да их баце лавовима или распну на крст?

А Ден Браун је тачан, зато што постоји "могућност" да је било тако???