Christian bands/christian accountable bands

[bluepony]

Keith, since you are quite an expert on the Bible and Christianity, I'd like to have your comments on the question: Why is the historicity of Christ so sparse? He didn't exactly make it easy for us to believe in Him, in fact His pure materiality is even questioned by many historians.

If anyone else wants to chip in, then you're welcome.

Nicky.

Well, Nicky, the trick is, you shall believe, not know...

[Nicky007]

Thing is that I'm a person of faith - have been pretty much all of my life - and I'm also a trained scientist, and it's my main pursuit to make these two domains meet.

Thus I'm seeking people who have trod this path before me. Hegel and Thomas Aquinas are two of the most interesting thinkers here.

Nicky.

[PH]

I don't really get what you're saying. Can you please be more specific?

[Nicky007]

OK, Paco, I'll try in a different way: On the one hand, I'm a believer (person of faith). On the other hand, I want facts and logical procedures (scientist). These are two very different stances toward the world.

After Newton, scientists increasingly turned away from religion, regarding it as superstition. However, the modern thinking wo/man is very much alive in both domains (faith and science) and wants to bring them together. One of the best figures in literature to represent this is Faust.

Hope that helped - and added.

Nicky.

[PH]

OK, Paco, I'll try in a different way: On the one hand, I'm a believer (person of faith). On the other hand, I want facts and logical procedures (scientist). These are two very different stances toward the world.

That's got nothing to do with being a scientist or not. Everybody wants facts, it's natural. That's why believing requires trust. Trust in something (Someone) you can't see. "Seeing is believing" is such a paradoxal sentence...

After Newton, scientists increasingly turned away from religion, regarding it as superstition. However, the modern thinking wo/man is very much alive in both domains (faith and science) and wants to bring them together. One of the best figures in literature to represent this is Faust.

The problem is that scientists keep interfering with religion. The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins is a good example.

I think science is cool! But not the kind of science that's interfering with religion.
Science is the art of describing what one can see, which is wonderful! (When I throw something in the air it comes back down! Yippee!)
Faith is something different. You can't describe it, but you know it's there.

Be careful not to make faith some sort of science.


-Paco

[maddox]

Keith, since you are quite an expert on the Bible and Christianity, I'd like to have your comments on the question: Why is the historicity of Christ so sparse? He didn't exactly make it easy for us to believe in Him, in fact His pure materiality is even questioned by many historians.

If anyone else wants to chip in, then you're welcome.

Nicky.

Well since you ask.

What i would like to know and that's one of the reasons why i'm still in doubt is why it took +400 years to write the bible. 
After Jesus died, during the Roman reign as you all know, there wasn't any room for any religion but the Roman kind, whatever that was. To my knowledge nothing was allowed.
No offence of course but if they wrote the Bible a few years after the crucifixion instead of +400 it would make sense. People who witnessed the event or heard about it are reliable sources. Having that said, I fail to see the reliability.

There too many years in between.

Or am i totally wrong here? 

[PH]

I REALLY want to get back on topic...


So on the very first page of this thread Nicky asked me with what kind of lyrics (from Dream Theater) I have problems with.

For example this bit (from In The Presence Of Enemies Pt. 2):

Lord,
You are my god and my shepherd
Nothing more shall I want
Walk,
Through the abyss
Into the shadow of death

Fear,
There is no evil to fear now
For I know you are with me
My,
Cup overflows
With my enemy's blood

I,
Decay in the house of the lord
Forever, amen
Death,
Will follow me
All the days of my life

Why did they alter it?
The original Psalm said:

The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.
He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.

They cut out some parts of it.
And they add some things to it, like "with my enemy's blood", which makes the Psalm much more like a war song, while it is a song about rest and peace (He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters. He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name's sake.)
And "Death will follow me all the days of my life" is quite a difference with "Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life".

In my eyes this is surely NOT good. What Dream Theater is doing here is altering the original Psalm so that the message is now the contrary of what it was meant to be.
This strikes me and I'm really sad about it. Especially when knowing that 3/5 of DT is christian.

Dream Theater is a very complicated band, I cannot see what their overall message exactly is, with all these contradicted lyrics.


-Paco

[PH]

Or am i totally wrong here? 

In fact... yes you are.

The New Testament (I think you meant that by saying "The Bible" ) was mostly written by eye witnesses 30 years after Jesus died (and was resurrected! )


-Paco

[maddox]

In fact... yes you are.

The New Testament (I think you meant that by saying "The Bible" ) was mostly written by eye witnesses 30 years after Jesus died (and was resurrected! )


-Paco

Ok, that clears things up. 

You see? I'm definitely no expert on this matter. 

*I'll keep quite now.

[PH]

You see? I'm definitely no expert on this matter. 

That doesn't matter!
I'm absolutely no expert either, I just read it in a (very interesting) article a few minutes before you just asked! (wow!)
If you have some spare time you can read it here.
It's in Dutch, so it wouldn't be to hard.

*I'll keep quite now.

No please! Don't!
I really appreciate it when others give their opinions on it! That's what a discussion board is for, right?
Besides, thinking and talking about topics like this keeps things fresh!

[maddox]

That doesn't matter!
I'm absolutely no expert either, I just read it in a (very interesting) article a few minutes before you just asked! (wow!)
If you have some spare time you can read it here.
It's in Dutch, so it wouldn't be to hard.

That could work even for me. 
Thanks. Will read it tomorrow. I'm off now. 

No please! Don't!
I really appreciate it when others give their opinions on it! That's what a discussion board is for, right?
Besides, thinking and talking about topics like this keeps things fresh!

Agree with you on that. 

[PH]

That could work even for me. 
Thanks. Will read it tomorrow. I'm off now. 

Oh by the way, don't let the title of the article put you off...
The whole article is trying to be evidence based, but sometimes I think it's not really all-covering...


For now I say to you: Sleep well Maddox!
Thanks for dropping by!

-Paco

[maddox]

[Nicky007]

Or am i totally wrong here? 

Yes, you are Maddox. As Keith already mentioned in this thread, the four canonised Gospels were in the state as recorded in the New Testament before the end of the first century A.D. (before year 100).

What puzzles me is that if Christ made such a deep impression on so many people as we read in the Gospels, then why isn't there much more written about him in the historical records?

Nicky.

[kmorse]

Nicky,

On the historicity of Christ, how about I put together a little reading list for you?

Now, I'm not sure if you're talking about contemporary historians? Josephus is the one who comes to mind. A couple of other Roman historians mention Jesus Christ, too.

There's some pretty solid archaeological evidence (i.e. engravings, whatnot that reference Christ that can be dated to 1st or 2nd century).

Generally, I'd say this: You might debate His nature -- man, maniac or Messiah -- but His historical credentials are pretty solid. There is a new wave of Christ-denial cropping up (as in "He never existed") but these fads come and go.

Most *conservative* scholars put the authorship of all the canonized books of the Bible within the first century. Gnostic books continued to be written well into the third century -- maybe beyond. The big reason for the Council at Nicea was to decide which ones went in and which ones didn't. I don't recall there being a lot of close votes. Books either were solidly supported or roundly rejected.

Keith

[PH]

Now, I'm not sure if you're talking about contemporary historians? Josephus is the one who comes to mind. A couple of other Roman historians mention Jesus Christ, too.

Josephus was a Jew though.
A Roman Jew, since he surrendered to Roman emperor Titus in the Jewish War.

Anyway, here you can read his works:
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/author?name=Josephus,%20Flavius


-Paco

[Nicky007]

Be careful not to make faith some sort of science.

No, but we can substantiate faith with science, that is, the proper kind of science: a humanistic science.

We have to be careful to distinguish between the different purposes of science. Consumerism is a madness that's gone haywire in our society, because people don't experience much depth in their lives, and they're constantly fleeing from facing the emptiness in their lives by buying gadgets and sensational experiences. There is a science that supports this mad consumerism, and that's what can be called the Whore in the Apocalypse. I have to give the Muslims the credit of seeing this problem clearer than most Christians do today.

On the other hand, humanistic science is the science that i.a. substantiates the Life and Message of Christ, that brings His Charity and Salvation into light, and inspires us to deliver ourselves in the practice of charity towards all fellows beings on earth.

Nicky.

[Nicky007]

On the historicity of Christ, how about I put together a little reading list for you?

Keith & Paco, thanks for the reference and link to Josephus. I'm now browsing through the internet texts.

Keith, I'd be happy to get some more references to the historicity of Christ.

Nicky.

[kmorse]

Josephus is an appealing historical source authority on Christ in that he could almost be labeled a "hostile source." He had no interest in promoting Christ, as one could say, for instance, about the writers of the Gospels. His interest was merely in recording events and other notes of historical interest.

Some people consider Josephus' works to be authoritative *except* when he's writing about Christ. That section of his work they dismiss. I find that comical, but not surprising.

Nicky, I'll try to work up a reading list. The problem might be that most of my list will be American titles. Will that be a problem?

[Nicky007]

Nicky, I'll try to work up a reading list. The problem might be that most of my list will be American titles. Will that be a problem?

Not at all. I have about 600 books by American authors.

I'm actually very American myself, in that my Dad grew up in Brookings, South Dakota (can you find any place more American than that?), and I lived 2½ years in various places in the States, East & West.

So, Yankee Doodle Dandy!

Thanks, Keith.

Nicky.

[kmorse]

Well, Nicky, you could start with with wikipedia page. There's an extensive bibliography at the end plus the article itself contains a lot of links. Wikipedia articles always come with the warning that they're subject to editing but I glanced over this one and it seems fair.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

South Dakota, eh? Rather than "Yankee Doodle Dandy" more like "Yippee-kay-eyeyay."

Were you a cowboy?

[Nicky007]

Well, Nicky, you could start with with wikipedia page. There's an extensive bibliography at the end plus the article itself contains a lot of links. Wikipedia articles always come with the warning that they're subject to editing but I glanced over this one and it seems fair.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Thanks, Keith, will check up on it.

I read that Josephus' references to Jesus are highly debated.


> South Dakota, eh? Rather than "Yankee Doodle Dandy" more like "Yippee-kay-eyeyay."

You're right, I mixed up North and South there 

> Were you a cowboy?

More an Indian. My bro and I (great having a bro almost the same age) made bows and arrows. We started shooting at ducks and smaller boys, but sometimes we got so much into it that we also shot at each other, and one of his arrows once got stuck in one of my eyes, but fortunately beside the pupil, so I was in shape again in a few days. But after that shocking experience we became more careful.

Else I'd say I grew up being very much of a city guy. I'v always been physically in good shape, and done a lot of physical exercise, but I tend more toward books (and now internet, hm, hm) than nature swooning.

Guess that's also why I'v become veg. Nature people tend to live so undifferentiated that animals become a bit like a fruit you can just pick, disregarding their integrity.

Long answer, but I hope entertaining.

Nicky.

[kmorse]

I've come across writers who consider everything by Josephus to be authoritative *except* his references to Jesus. That makes me suspicious about their motives.

[PH]

Back to my original question (no one answered it yet).

I think I've made clear why I am (as a christian) very disappointed in the lyrics on Systematic Chaos (except for Ministry Of Lost Souls).
Especially when keeping in mind that James LaBrie, John Petrucci and John Myung are christians (and Mike and Jordan being Jewish).

Today I found the inspiration for the song In The Presence Of Enemies and it doesn't change my opinion.
More the opposite actually...

Can anyone shed any light on this matter? What is Dream Theater doing here?


Thanks in advance,
Paco

[kmorse]

Paco,

Nothing specific comes to mind, other than they're drawing on some bad influences, even if they think they're making a statement.

Also keep in mind that there are wolves in sheep's clothing out there. However, I don't know that I'd even characterize DT as that. They do not make their faith very public, at least in my view, so I'm not sure they're really masquerading. Nominally, they may be Christians but not "in the heart," so to speak. Or they may be very immature in their faith and beliefs and therefore subject to all kinds of bad influence. I can't judge their hearts, only offer possibilities.

Did you read the comments on that page? And the accusations of plagiarism? It's all very interesting. I've grown weary of DT myself, so this whole matter is neither here nor there with me.

And Nicky, I haven't forgotten the reading list, although that Wikipedia page should be a good start.