Saturday, January 23, 2010

140: Good Riddance & 2 Chronicles: In Review

2 Chronicles 35-36
[God] brought up against them the king of the Babylonians, who killed their young men with the sword in the sanctuary, and spared neither young man nor young woman, old man or aged. God handed all of them over to Nebuchadnezzar. - 2 Chronicles 36:17

Jerusalem falls (again) today. The kings listed before the fall: Josiah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah. Nothing terribly exciting happens today, and I'm really ready to be done with 2 Chronicles.

2 Chronicles: In Review
Woo!!! Party time! 1/2 Chronicles are over! Worst. Books. Ever.

I really don't know why these books were included by the Council of Nicea. I see no reason that everything that the bible had just talked about needed to be reiterated. These books would have been bearable if it weren't repeating everything in Samuel/Kings. Not that those books were particularly enjoyable, but at least I didn't feel like dying the entire time I was reading them.

*News*

It's hard to start a conversation about Jesus,
this video (I give up on trying to embed it, their embedding code fails) may help.

Now, what the hell did that have to do with Jesus? Nothing that I can see, but Calvin Edwards & Company is running a study to see the affects these videos (and others like it) have on proselytizing efforts. Here's how I see this conversation going:
*watches video*
Proselytizer: Wasn't that video awesome?
Proselytizee: Yeah, it was pretty cool.
*Awkward pause*
Proselytizer: You know, Jesus really wants to get in your box.
Proselytizee: What?! Get away from me.
I just don't see how that video easily segues into a Jesus conversation.

2 comments:

  1. I really don't know why these books were included by the Council of Nicea.

    Because it was a committee. Committees do all kinds of stupid pointless things.

    But in actuality they probably kept them because they were 1) old and 2) "independent" witnesses of the same events. With more emphasis on 1) than on 2). After all the Jewish folks kept them both for a long time before the Council ever got ahold of them, so it was more than the Council that decided they had some kind of import. And since they were "traditional" by the time the Council got ahold of them they would have been loathe to leave either one out - the Romans as a people were fairly conservative and they prized "ancient" wisdom over new ideas (unless the new ideas proved useful - they may have been conservative but they were also very pragmatic). So if there was no good reason to remove them they probably would have kept them. And by "good reason" I mean "thing that was likely to cause a political division in the Church". If one of the books had contradicted the other in such a way as to generate a "heresy", one would have been purged (or edited into compliance if they thought they could get away with it).

    ReplyDelete
  2. > After all the Jewish folks kept them both for a long time before the Council ever got ahold of them

    Isn't there a jewish canonization, too? If I'm not mistaken, the early christians (e.g. the gospel writers) used the septuagint (i.e. the translation into greek) which would imply that, at least in that area, there was a canonical version of the OT way before the council of Nicea.
    But then I'm in no way an expert :\
    gaga

    ReplyDelete

 

Copyright © 2009, Page Info, Contact Me