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.)

My (recently completed) major final-year Moore College project looked at instances where the New Testament quotes the Old Testament but changes it in some way. In particular, I looked at places where the verb form is changed – like changing a past tense to a future tense, for example.[1]

These sections are often puzzling parts of the NT. (You know, those parts where you read a bit, look up the OT reference, but they’re not the same. On a number of occasions I’ve wondered what on earth was going on.)

My conclusions, in the end, were along a couple of major lines:

• The NT writers were creative and clever (and inspired). They changed OT texts slightly to make what they were saying in the surrounding context just that little bit clearer.
• For us: chill out a bit. Relax about the exact word(s). Just talk about Jesus.

For those who want to read further, or check that I’m not going heretical/liberal/nutty, here’s my plan for a bit of a series showing you what I discovered:

1. Introduction
2. Background — Why look at quotations?
3. Method — Which OT text(s)?
4. Jesus the promised Servant-Messiah
   • Luke 23:46; John 2:17
5. The arrival of the eschatological age
   • Matt 13:14 || Mark 4:12 || Luke 8:10 || Acts 28:26; Romans 9:33/10:11
6. Continuity of God’s people
   • Acts 1:20; 7:5, 40; 1 Cor 5:13
7. The church is the fulfilment of promises
   • Heb 10:16–17
8. Appendix — Verbal Aspect notes
9. Conclusion

My 4th-year MTC project is looking at where the New Testament quotes the Old Testament but changes it. In particular, where the verb form is changed – like changing a past tense to a future tense, for example.^[1]

I’m just about finished. The 15,000 words are written, and just need a bit of editing. I might post up a few of the interesting cases over the next few weeks, since they’re often puzzling parts of the NT (the parts where you read a bit, look up the OT reference, but they’re not the same. What the?)

So, the appropriate thing to do, I thought, would be to run my project through wordle.^[2] Here’s a representation of my work this year in 150 words:

Looks interesting, right?

Right?

[2] Previous adventures with Fish-Piper-Wordle. ↩

Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
“Forward, the Light Brigade!
“Charge for the guns!” he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

Alfred Tennyson’s Charge of the Light Brigade is chilling reading. Depicting a charge of men on horseback bearing sabres into a valley filled with their enemy armed to the teeth with firepower, it shows an act of great foolishness during the Crimean War.

“Forward, the Light Brigade!”
Was there a man dismay’d?
Not tho’ the soldier knew
Someone had blunder’d:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon in front of them
Volley’d and thunder’d;
Storm’d at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
Rode the six hundred.

Reading it in an Australian context, it sounds a lot like Gallipoli. During World War I, about one tenth of the total population enlisted in the armed forces. 15% of those men died, another 35% were gassed, injured, or captured. The charge of the ANZACS at Gallipoli is an event still imprinted on the Australian consciousness almost a century later.

Flash’d all their sabres bare,
Flash’d as they turn’d in air,
Sabring the gunners there,
Charging an army, while
All the world wonder’d:
Plunged in the battery-smoke
Right thro’ the line they broke;
Cossack and Russian
Reel’d from the sabre stroke
Shatter’d and sunder’d.
Then they rode back, but not
Not the six hundred.

Cannon to right of them,
Cannon to left of them,
Cannon behind them
Volley’d and thunder’d;
Storm’d at with shot and shell,
While horse and hero fell,
They that had fought so well
Came thro’ the jaws of Death
Back from the mouth of Hell,
All that was left of them,
Left of six hundred.

These soldiers, and many other men and women are remembered for their service. Anzac Day each year is an occasion of particular remembrance.

When can their glory fade?
O the wild charge they made!
All the world wondered.
Honor the charge they made,
Honor the Light Brigade,
Noble six hundred.

The ANZACS died for others. (And, indeed, countless others in theatres of war throughout history.) They died for those they did not know. For a great number who they could never have met. Their deaths were in place of those they left behind.

So what makes the single death of the one man Jesus so special?

You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

[Romans 5:6–8]

Unlike the ANZACS, Christ died for his enemies. Not for his friends, family, countrymen, but his enemies. But I must confess that I still, at times, struggle to see this as unique. As so completely particular to Jesus as to render every other death pale in comparison.

I think it’s because I don’t adequately feel the horror of sin.

I don’t properly see my former sinful self as so wholly separate from the holy, right, pure, good God. I was an enemy. An enemy so opposed to God that the bitterness between two men at war is no comparison.

Sin is ugly, twisted, horrific. But it comes so easily, so naturally, that I don’t feel its power. I don’t see the horror.

Even still, at just the right time, Christ died for me.

Perhaps.

I tried out a tool called Prezi for my Issues in Theology seminar yesterday. It’s an interesting concept-shift from linear slide-based tools such as powerpoint. One canvas to indicate overall structure, zoom & rotate, following a path through material… it was fun to make, at least.

My only concern is that for a relatively serious presentation the transitions could well be distracting. Click on the image below and let me know what you think.