Penn & Teller barbecue the Bible

davefoc said:
Catholics can not even begin to imagine how boring a church service can be. A catholic ceremony has people in nifty costumes, swinging smoke thingies, candles, food and really short sermons.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Many Catholics *don't* go to church because they find Mass boring. A few Catholics fall asleep during church. And I reckon a good hunk daydream or think about other things while in church.

-Elliot
 
davefoc said:
I don't think Jesus was considered to be God in any way in the earliest forms of Jesus based religions. That is not provable because exactly what the early Jewish Christians believed has been lost as that sect died out. Still Mark might be an early Jewish Christian writing and without the added last passages, I don't think there is anything in there that suggests that Jesus is God. My sense of it is that there was lots of theorizing early on about exactly what Jesus was and it was only after about three hundred years that the most implausible and logically inconsistent idea of the trinity came to almost completely dominate Christian theology. Without these notions the idea that Jesus was just a divinely inspired and created messiah put on earth to help mankind seems to be at least an idea without the paradoxes created by the current Christian concept of Jesus, God, the trinity and the holy ghost.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, the Trinitarian formula appears in the NT; the earliest known Christian creeds and doxologies reflect the broad basic outlines of modern Christology and Trinitarianism; and ante-Nicene commentators from the 2nd century (when the term "Trinity" already appears, incidentally) onward refer to the Trinity in remarkably modern terms and as though it were not a novelty but an established orthodoxy.

We may never know exactly what the first Jewish Christians believed, but the weight of evidence seems to suggest that the doctrines of the divinity of Jesus and the triune God developed very early and spread with astonishing speed.
 
When asked "who do you say that I am", Simon said that Jesus was the Messiah, the son of the living God. *Whatever that means*.

But, whatever that means, I think that's the extent to which the earliest Christians believed that Jesus was God. I am content to accept that it would be unreasonable for devout Jews who believed that to look on the presence of God would leave you dead, could possibly believe that a guy walking around with them was God. God is life...Jesus died...how could God die...as unkosher an idea as can be idea-ed.

There are a variety of opinions about what Simon meant when he said "son of the living God". Some think that's a clear invocation of Jesus being...at least part of a binary, if not trinity. Others think it just means he's the most special human...ever!

-Elliot
 
ceo_esq said:
On the other hand, the Trinitarian formula appears in the NT; the earliest known Christian creeds and doxologies reflect the broad basic outlines of modern Christology and Trinitarianism; and ante-Nicene commentators from the 2nd century (when the term "Trinity" already appears, incidentally) onward refer to the Trinity in remarkably modern terms and as though it were not a novelty but an established orthodoxy.
Click to expand...

I happen to be reading Misquoting Jesus right now and I think the author believes that the reference to the trinity is a later inclusion to the NT. I am going to go back and reread that to recall the details. I am off to do meaningful work and won't look into this until this evening. But could you post where in the NT the trinitarian formula shows up?

We may never know exactly what the first Jewish Christians believed, but the weight of evidence seems to suggest that the doctrines of the divinity of Jesus and the triune God developed very early and spread with astonishing speed.
Click to expand...

I agree with that and that is one of the main issues that has led to my curiosity about the history of early Christianity. How did this little tiny Jewish sect end up a major world religion of non Jews in three hundred years or so. It is astonishing enough that is easy to see how it can be taken as evidence of a supernatural entity.
 
worshipping...

elliotfc said:
I disagree. Many Catholics *don't* go to church because they find Mass boring. A few Catholics fall asleep during church. And I reckon a good hunk daydream or think about other things while in church.

-Elliot
Click to expand...
Even when I was a Catholic -if I ever could actually been labelled as one- I found masses not only boring, but also depressing. All those statues of people bleeding and suffering made feel closer to death than to what was supposed to be celebrated there- life.

Most people I saw at masses do indeed seemed to be thinking on something else. I certainly was.

I've been to masses or cults from other religions. Some (the evangelic ones) frightened me by their displays of fanatism and intolerance. Others had a more relaxed atmosphere. With Kardecists (some would surely disagree about being classified as religion) I attended some -almost pleasant- meetings without the burden I feel lingering over Christian churches.

Candomble and Umbanda (a blend between animistic African religions and Catholicism) were more ritualized, and quite often there were appeals to "small causes" (bring a lover back, etc.) that I found always a bit egoistical. Not to mention I never figured out why a deity or spiritual entity would want sacrifices or offers of food, cigars, etc.

All those -and many others- rites are ways of worshipping. More than once I heard that attending to a mass is just a way to show god you are thankfull for your existence, and individual prayer has the same function. I also remember reading somewhere that just being happy when watching a sunset or a child is a way to do so.

The way I see it nowdays, religious rituals are part of a given cultural identity. Their function is to create and increase the bonds among the members of a society.
 
Huntster said:
triadboy said:
These are the footnotes regarding those passages from the New American Bible:
Click to expand...

The New American Bible may be bias.

Here is Bruce Metzgers take:

http://www.bible-researcher.com/endmark.html

Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 122-126.

16:9-20 The Ending(s) of Mark. Four endings of the Gospel according to Mark are current in the manuscripts. (1) The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (א and B), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (it k), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written A.D. 897 and A.D. 913). Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts which contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document.

(2) Several witnesses, including four uncial Greek manuscripts of the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries (L Y 099 0112), as well as Old Latin k, the margin of the Harelean Syriac, several Sahidic and Bohairic manuscripts, and not a few Ethiopic manuscripts, continue after verse 8 as follows (with trifling variations): "But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after this Jesus himself sent out by means of them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation." All of these witnesses except it k also continue with verses 9-20.

(3) The traditional ending of Mark, so familiar through the AV and other translations of the Textus Receptus, is present in the vast number of witnesses, including A C D K W X D Q P Y 099 0112 f 13 28 33 al. The earliest patristic witnesses to part or all of the long ending are Irenaeus and the Diatessaron. It is not certain whether Justin Martyr was acquainted with the passage; in his Apology (i.45) he includes five words that occur, in a different sequence, in ver. 20. (tou logou tou iscurou on apo ierousalhm oi apostoloi autou exelqonteV pantacou ekhruxan).

(4) In the fourth century the traditional ending also circulated, according to testimony preserved by Jerome, in an expanded form, preserved today in one Greek manuscript. Codex Washingtonianus includes the following after ver. 14: "And they excused themselves, saying, 'This age of lawlessness and unbelief is under Satan, who does not allow the truth and power of God to prevail over the unclean things of the spirits [or, does not allow what lies under the unclean spirits to understand the truth and power of God]. Therefore reveal thy righteousness now -- thus they spoke to Christ. And Christ replied to them, 'The term of years of Satan's power has been fulfilled, but other terrible things draw near. And for those who have sinned I was delivered over to death, that they may return to the truth and sin no more, in order that they may inherit the spiritual and incorruptible glory of righteousness which is in heaven.' "

How should the evidence of each of these endings be evaluated? It is obvious that the expanded form of the long ending (4) has no claim to be original. Not only is the external evidence extremely limited, but the expansion contains several non-Markan words and expressions (including o aiwn outoV, amartanw, apologew, alhqinoV, upostrefw) as well as several that occur nowhere else in the New Testament (deinoV, oroV, proslegw). The whole expansion has about it an unmistakable apocryphal flavor. It probably is the work of a second or third century scribe who wished to soften the severe condemnation of the Eleven in 16.14.

The longer ending (3), though current in a variety of witnesses, some of them ancient, must also be judged by internal evidence to be secondary. (a) The vocabulary and style of verses 9-20 are non-Markan. (e.g. apistew, blaptw, bebaiow, epakolouqew, qeaomai, meta tauta, poreuomai, sunergew, usteron are found nowhere else in Mark; and qanasimon and toiV met autou genomenoiV, as designations of the disciples, occur only here in the New Testament). (b) The connection between ver. 8 and verses 9-20 is so awkward that it is difficult to believe that the evangelist intended the section to be a continuation of the Gospel. Thus, the subject of ver. 8 is the women, whereas Jesus is the presumed subject in ver. 9; in ver. 9 Mary Magdalene is identified even though she has been mentioned only a few lines before (15.47 and 16.1); the other women of verses 1-8 are now forgotten; the use of anastaV de and the position of prwton are appropriate at the beginning of a comprehensive narrative, but they are ill-suited in a continuation of verses 1-8. In short, all these features indicate that the section was added by someone who knew a form of Mark that ended abruptly with ver. 8 and who wished to supply a more appropriate conclusion. In view of the inconcinnities between verses 1-8 and 9-20, it is unlikely that the long ending was composed ad hoc to fill up an obvious gap; it is more likely that the section was excerpted from another document, dating perhaps from the first half of the second century.

The internal evidence for the shorter ending (2) is decidedly against its being genuine. Besides containing a high percentage of non-Markan words, its rhetorical tone differs totally from the simple style of Mark's Gospel.

Finally it should be observed that the external evidence for the shorter ending (2) resolves itself into additional testimony supporting the omission of verses 9-20. No one who had available as the conclusion of the Second Gospel the twelve verses 9-20, so rich in interesting material, would have deliberately replaced them with four lines of a colorless and generalized summary. Therefore, the documentary evidence supporting (2) should be added to that supporting (1). Thus, on the basis of good external evidence and strong internal considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with 16.8. At the same time, however out of deference to the evident antiquity of the longer ending and its importance in the textual tradition of the Gospel, the Committee decided to include verses 9-20 as part of the text, but to enclose them within double square brackets to indicate that they are the work of an author other than the evangelist.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Penn & Teller Barbecued the Bible? What a sacrilege! I only BBQ stuff I intend to eat.

/mmm... pork chops
 
I suspect that what P&T really wanted to do was burn the bible, not BBQ it... but a couple of tolerant minded folks wouldnt want to be seen doing that, would they? It smacks of... oh right... book burning!

I think i might be the first person to point that out too?

First post ever on JREF forum... forgive me if i am doing something incorrectly...
 
stillthinkin said:
I suspect that what P&T really wanted to do was burn the bible, not BBQ it... but a couple of tolerant minded folks wouldnt want to be seen doing that, would they? It smacks of... oh right... book burning!

I think i might be the first person to point that out too?

First post ever on JREF forum... forgive me if i am doing something incorrectly...
Click to expand...

Welcome. As always, when you hit post #666 you will turn to Satan.
 
LOL By "turn to Satan" do you mean i will become Satan? Or turn to her and be saved?

I wanted to quote that, gotta re-read how to do that...
 
stillthinkin said:
Figured it out! Thanks for your welcome.

I do find it odd that no one pointed out that this was a book burning? Are we ok with that practice now?
Click to expand...

I don't think Penn and Teller are actually burning the Bible. They are just heating it slowly while brushing on a rich hickory sauce.
 
Huntster said:
One must choose right and wrong in virtually every activity under the sun.

I fail to understand why you think moral guidance would be different, especially with a book which is a series of books by different authors, and especially when many of those books were clearly written with the intent of being historical accounts of a particular race of people.
Click to expand...
It's called circular reasoning. If you have to figure out which morals in the guide are moral before you use it then it is a worthless guide.
 
Tony said:
When did they (literally) burn a bible?
Click to expand...
I dont know. Do you mean to imply that a prerequisite for posting was to have actually viewed the video? I take it that they dont BBQ anything then, except metaphorically speaking.
Shucks, my fourth post and i am already humiliated! I will see how long I can last until the next time...
 
stillthinkin said:
I dont know. Do you mean to imply that a prerequisite for posting was to have actually viewed the video? I take it that they dont BBQ anything then, except metaphorically speaking.
Shucks, my fourth post and i am already humiliated! I will see how long I can last until the next time...
Click to expand...
They did kick quite a few of them. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom