Another debate, this one entitled Jesus: Messiah, Myth, or Legend?, was held at Macquarie University on March 16, 2010. The event was co-sponsored by the Christian group I’m part of, Macquarie University Christian Union, and the Macquarie University Atheist League.

The speakers were Dan Barker and Chris Forbes.
Dan Barker is co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (USA), was a former teenage evangelical preacher and an ordained minister, but is now one of America’s leading atheists. Dr Chris Forbes is a Senior Lecturer in Ancient History, and Deputy Chairman of the Society for the Study of Early Christianity. His areas of interest include New Testament history, and the intersection of early Christianity and Graeco-Roman culture.

It was a really good debate, and very well attended by all sorts of people. Further, it didn’t suffer from the format in the same way as the previous debate. It was, however, incredibly one-sided. In my opinion, Barker was thrashed. This is one of the best defences of Jesus as a historical figure I’ve heard.

Have a listen, and see how what you think.

(Note: the debate goes for well over an hour, so the file is relatively large: ~70 MB.)

A debate on whether the Bible is an Acceptable Guide for Morality was held at Macquarie University on March 16, 2010. The event was co-sponsored by the Christian group I’m part of, Macquarie University Christian Union, and the Macquarie University Atheist League.

The speakers were Dan Barker and Greg Clarke.
Dan Barker is co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (USA), was a former teenage evangelical preacher and an ordained minister, but is now one of America’s leading atheists. Dr Greg Clarke is co-founder and director of the Centre for Public Christianity. His PhD in literature was focussed on how theology is discussed in the arts and humanities. He is primarily interested in talking about the importance of Christianity for understanding the meaning of life.

It was a fascinating exchange, but left me feeling deeply sorry for Dan. It also suffered a little from the debate format. The speakers were at cross purposes most of the time, so I think it needed to be a little more conversational than it was. Have a listen, and see how you react.

(Note: the debate goes for well over an hour, so the file is relatively large: ~70 MB.)

[h/t bathgate]

Thirdly (see the first and second points), this interpretation of eschatology is (again) not out of line with Scripture. The believing community are in continuity with and are part of the one Israel. Reminders of Israel’s past (e.g. Acts 7:5, 40), warnings (e.g. 1 Cor 10, although not dealt with here), and exhortations (e.g. 1 Cor 5:13) all imply positive correspondence rather than antithesis between Israel and the church.^[1] The past experience and present reality are co-ordinated in the writings of the New Testament.

Interestingly, this correspondence does not necessarily imply that the source text was concerned with the referent of the target text. The exegetical tradition of employing texts to refer to whole passages and themes was a common part of Jesus’ teaching, and was carried on by his disciples.^[2] The circumstances of Judas’ death for example, related in Acts 1:20, are not taken to be the subject matter of the Psalm itself. Peter’s application of the Psalm to him is, however, in continuity with the original context, as Judas was the one who betrayed the eschatological Son of David and received a form of divine retribution. Such careful reading of OT texts in their original contexts before attempting a Christian application can, says Peterson, be a valid form of biblical reading today.^[3] The example of the inspired preachers and authors of the NT show us that the church stands in the history of God’s faithful dealings with his people.

[1] Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 417; Hays, Echoes, 96–97.↩

[2] David G. Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles (Pillar New Testament Commentary Series; Nottingham: Apollos, 2009), 125. ↩

[3] Peterson, The Acts of the Apostles, 125–26 ↩

Does anyone claim Halloween for their own? Like Christians do with Christmas, against the commercialisation surrounding it?

Are their Wiccan groups around who have billboards outside their meetings reading ‘the reason for the season‘?

For your daily dose of false dichotomies, religious stereotyping, and historical dalliance, get yourself over to the Sydney Morning Herald.

Today: why the Justinian doctrine of monogamy is a failed social experiment, and why polygyny is a form of praise to one’s first wife.

Putting skin-deep cultural analysis to one side, if this is accurately reflective of how marriage relationships are carried out more broadly within Muslim families (even without entering into polygamy), then I’m even more dismayed about how women are treated under Islam than I was before.

Which is saying something.