Interesting--and civil!--discussion going on here.
It seems reasonable to me that spiritual matters or beings/dieties cannot be objectively confirmed in our physical existence, five senses world. When we glimpse the spiritual, and make a connection to our physical life here on earth it is in the realm of unverified personal gnossis, an inner knowing that is real to the individual.
Given the wide range of experiences and beliefs humans perceiveas truth it seems to me that there is no one definitive truth that we as humans can ferrit out. I think the one truth is beyond our human comprehension, though it can be glimpsed and understood in parts by different people at different times.
Someone can tell me what the truth is,and be very sincere, but if it does not ring true in my inner self, if their 'proof' doesn't ring true within me, then I am just trying to please someone by accepting those beliefs, maybe out of a desire to be thought well of, or for some other reason, such as fear of consequences. Often it comes down to 'obeying' but there is never a definitive rule to obey. In my experience that changes depending to what group/person you are with.
Interesting that many humans have told me how and what I must believe or do to be right or saved or blessed--but no spiritual experience has done so...and since choosing to ignore such human directives in favor of listening to what makes sense in my inner self--while I might consider those directives-- life has certainly been better for me.
I know this civil discourse can't last...it's not natural
A point was made about the bible being a reliable historical document, referring to the number of copies. As far as I know, that's true, that there are more copies and fragments of copies made of the bible than anything else from that time period. Attests to the importanace that people placed on it.
The biggest logical step, or more likely, leap, that I cannot make is from verifiability of historical persons and events to the truth of the doctrine. Muhammed was an historical figure, the Koran contains references to verifiable historical events; L. Ron Hubbard was an historical figure, there are many still alive that have met the late Mr. Hubbard; Sun Myung Moon is still alive, yet from a Christian point of view these men promulgated lies. Many religions have at their root an historical figure. Many of these religions have "sacred" writing that refer to verifiable persons and events.
What cannot be verified is whether any of these people, including Jesus, Moses, Paul, Peter and Isaiah are telling the truth. And even if they are telling the truth as the see it, what they experienced was internal; there are precious few incidents recorded in anybody's "holy" book where God spoke out loud for everybody to hear. That's what some of us mean by subjective vs. objective.
The Invisible Dan can address this more intelligently than I can, but even stipulating that Jesus did exist, where the gospels faithful recordings of what Jesus actually did and said? There's evidence that I consider convincing that the canon of scripture we have today is the result of one faction within early Christianity emerging victorious after a decades-long battle of words. The winning faction could now point to the "scriptures" as backing up their position, since the competing "scriptures" were supressed and the competing factions marginilized or exiled. The bible in the NT becomes, not an accurate historical document, but a series of pamphlets pushing one faction's agenda.
I do believe that if we treated each others hearts as honorably and with respect, as the bible or any other perceived scripture, we will hear the words of God coming from each other. And the scriptures could then have life and be seen. As well as our hearts.
But, for the most part, the dead are treated better then the living.
Interesting--and civil!--discussion going on here.
It seems reasonable to me that spiritual matters or beings/dieties cannot be objectively confirmed in our physical existence, five senses world. When we glimpse the spiritual, and make a connection to our physical life here on earth it is in the realm of unverified personal gnossis, an inner knowing that is real to the individual.
I love the last part of the last line you said! ". . . An inner knowing that is real to the individual." Or as I would say--the Holy Spirit confirming to me. However, I would like to share with you why Christianity is so unique. God was made manifest in the person of Jesus. He came to show us God. Which is amazing. God Himself took on flesh in our five senses realm to make Himself known to us. You seem to believe in the supernatural?
Given the wide range of experiences and beliefs humans perceiveas truth it seems to me that there is no one definitive truth that we as humans can ferrit out. I think the one truth is beyond our human comprehension, though it can be glimpsed and understood in parts by different people at different times.
Truth is not conjecture it is truth. It has an opposite--false. Truth has an object to which it is related. In our discussion it is God. And by its very definition--it is exclusive to that one object. I really do agree with you that we on our own cannot ferret out truth. In Christianity we believe that God is truth and can be known. Jesus came to make Him known. He said He was the Truth. Which is part of the reason my faith is in Him.
Someone can tell me what the truth is,and be very sincere, but if it does not ring true in my inner self, if their 'proof' doesn't ring true within me, then I am just trying to please someone by accepting those beliefs, maybe out of a desire to be thought well of, or for some other reason, such as fear of consequences. Often it comes down to 'obeying' but there is never a definitive rule to obey. In my experience that changes depending to what group/person you are with.
You are right. With the exception of Christianity and very definitive rules we are to obey. To love God and others.
Interesting that many humans have told me how and what I must believe or do to be right or saved or blessed--but no spiritual experience has done so...and since choosing to ignore such human directives in favor of listening to what makes sense in my inner self--while I might consider those directives-- life has certainly been better for me.
Better or easier?--I am sincerely asking with NO malice. Just curious. It is hard to tell a persons tone when reading, but mine is simply curious. I don't really have a horse in this race, like you might think. My truth, life, and love of the Lord is not dependent on your accepting the gospel. I just like to share my faith in a way that others might understand. If they are interested. After all, we all came out of a quasi-christian cult.
Definitely better. Easier? I'm not even sure what that means, you'd have to explainIs life ever easy?
Since I spent my entire life until my forties in one form of Christianity or another I do not feel uneducated in Christian matters or Christian lifestyle, though apparently I totally missed the 'personal relationship with Jesus' experience so many talk about.
During my Christian years I was sincere. After leaving TWI I was still Christian, I searched exway groups and churches etc. Then I stumbled upon goddess/Wiccan beliefs and for me it was like someone turned the light on.
*Shrug* Why that is, why the other wasn't, I have no clue, nor am I going to persue Christianity into my old age, chasing something that just didn't work for me. If that is what you mean by easier, then there it is. It would be very hard for me to conform to beliefs I don't feel, just to please others or 'hedge my afterlife bets'. I'd be faking. Of what value is that?
I know this civil discourse can't last...it's not natural
A point was made about the bible being a reliable historical document, referring to the number of copies. As far as I know, that's true, that there are more copies and fragments of copies made of the bible than anything else from that time period. Attests to the importanace that people placed on it.
The biggest logical step, or more likely, leap, that I cannot make is from verifiability of historical persons and events to the truth of the doctrine. Muhammed was an historical figure, the Koran contains references to verifiable historical events; L. Ron Hubbard was an historical figure, there are many still alive that have met the late Mr. Hubbard; Sun Myung Moon is still alive, yet from a Christian point of view these men promulgated lies. Many religions have at their root an historical figure. Many of these religions have "sacred" writing that refer to verifiable persons and events.
What cannot be verified is whether any of these people, including Jesus, Moses, Paul, Peter and Isaiah are telling the truth. And even if they are telling the truth as the see it, what they experienced was internal; there are precious few incidents recorded in anybody's "holy" book where God spoke out loud for everybody to hear. That's what some of us mean by subjective vs. objective.
If we can agree about the reliability of what we have today as accurate to within 400 words as the NT we can sure look at the leap to it being reliable testimony. I would really like to talk about some evidence for Jesus being who He claimed He is.
I got my lovely little jury duty notice in the mail the other day. I go every couple of years and sit and wait to be called. I have never had to sit for duty, but I, as do you, know a tiny bit about how a trial works. What is considered as reliable for testimony.
An eyewitness to a crime is a powerful thing for a defense attorney to overcome. He /she must discredit a witness who has firsthand knowledge of a crime. Nasty tactic, but that is what it takes. Eyewitnesses give us our history that is relied on as true. We believe John Wilkes Booth killed our 16th President because of eyewitness/recorded testimony. We take the word of eyewitnesses at the scene of an accident. "That guy ran a stop sign and hit the car." If there is more than one eyewitness that agrees--the testimony is far more credible. As the witnesses mount the testimony is harder and harder to refute.
The new testament is written as eyewitnesses with firsthand knowledge to the events recorded OR they record firsthand accounts of the events. We have already discussed that 11 of them were lead to their deaths for the testimony they refused to recant. They did not strap on bombs and murder innocents, they themselves were innocent. That is a very powerful affirmation of their story.
2Peter 1:16 tells us they knew the difference between a myth -- a lie--and the reality of what they witnessed firsthand. Remember, these events are attached to a real historical figure. They knew Him personally. I am loathe to quote scripture at ex-way, but can we agree that over and over again, they talk of the things they witnessed firsthand?
1John1:1-3/Acts1 1-3/1Cor 15:6-8 1/Peter 5:1/Acts 1:9 / Luke 1: 1-3 I could go on. Paul said that he "uttered words of sober truth." Paul, a former persecutor of Christians. A very serious scholarly man who loved Israel.
What were they testifying to? That Jesus lived here, His sermons--yes, but also the miracles that He did.
Now, before we jump to discrediting the eyewitnesses, we have to remember where they lived, their culture--what scripture meant. They were mostly Jews who revered the OT.
Josephus tells us what the words meant to them. ". . . how firmly we give credit to those books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as we have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them or take anything from them, or to make any change in them; but it becomes natural to all Jews , immediatley and from their birth to esteem those books. . . "
To use your words--call them superstitious. They were serious about what they wrote as truth. In fact, they knew and believed from the OT that God hates false
witness. In our society today you can go to jail for perjury. JAIL!!!!!You lie about what you see and are believed --people go to prison.
These men revered and feared God. Yes, feared Him. God tells us NOT to bear false witness. They knew this better than you or I. Context is really important in trying to discredit these guys. An understanding of their culture, their faith, their national identity. Their community was wrapped up in their faith. They lived it.
Okay--so all of them had a mass delusion of internalized their beliefs. HUH? They all lied? Only a few problems with that idea. One, there were too many of them. They could not coordinate such a huge lie. Even if they could some way pull it off--- they relied on the firsthand knowledge of those they converted. ---They used this knowledge. You know about these things---you saw--Acts 2:22 Men of Israel, listen to these words:Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him IN YOUR MIDST.
They didn't convert THOUSANDS of people with a lie. They reminded them what they too had seen.
So, Jesus lived and died and people believed He was . . . Doesn't make Him the Son of God or any different than L Ron Hubbard. The only problem with that is. . . there are not over 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrection of L Ron Hubbard.
Context is really important here. Your eyewitness testimony is credible in a court of law. 2000 years later it can put someone away for a long time. Why is their eyewitness testimony less credible than yours? If anything, theirs is more credible in testifying to the events they witnessed. These men have more than one eye on their account. History is written on much less. Lying was a serious offense in their culture unlike ours where the meaning of the word "is" can be split and debated.
Okay, so maybe Jesus did live and people did believe that they saw what they said they did, and wrote it down. It is too hard to believe that all that metaphysical stuff happened.You didn't think so once.
Instead of saying it can't be true because they say he was raised from the dead--investigate this historical account without any supposition. It is compelling.
It was written within 100 years of the events---too long to be believable---they had time to coordiante a lie. Is that what it says they were doing. Or were they being persecuted, beaten, stoned and killed while coordinating their lie. Thrown out of their community--excommunicated, cut off. Some were starving. What a lie to be protecting. It doesn't even make sense. To what end--a quicker death? These were Jews, they could have been in their homes and communities -- living the good life. Making a living. If they thought it a lie--why wouldn't they make one up that got them something other than persecution in this life?
Why didn't Jesus just write it Himself? Much of our history is written about others, not by them, Alexander the Great, Charlemange, Cleopatra, Ceaser. . . . . . . . It is how we know our history---portrayals of historic figures. Jesus was portrayed as a meek and humble carpenter---He died a humiliating death---He didn't ride in on a great white stallion, but a donkey. What kind of flattering portrayal is that?
Pliny the Younger--A History--found 750 yrs after it was written--all 7 copies. Not disputed
This is just a skeletal outline of this argument. There are too many variables. I barely scratched the surface. Sorry for my spelling!! Too tired to check it!!
I've a similar path from Christianity to my current faith.
When I was in the process of extricating myself from TWI, one of the things that I questioned was the truism "The Word of God is the Will of God", that the bible was self-evidently given by inspiration of God. The more that I looked at it the less that I held to my long held belief that the bible was "THE" holy book.
I had decided to throw out, first what I had accepted in the martindale years, then what I had learned in PFAL and finally Christianity itself, and to the best of my ability start from scratch and see where my search led me.
While still in a Christian mindset I read a book by my uncle called "Celtic Christianity" which outlined the Celtic contributions to modern Christianity. This got me curious about the ancestral Celtic religions and their modern reconstructions and interpretations. 20th/21st century paganism resonated with me and I have found it to be very satisfying and helpful in my life.
One of the things that got me off of the "Christianity is the only TRUE way" track was the realization that quite a number (dare I say "most"?) of the people who I knew of that did serious, hard-core, scholarly-type, textual research, usually became agnostic or outright atheist as a direct result of thsir study. The diametric opposite of what WayWorld claimed would happen. (for example, just google the "Dead Sea Scrolls" and read about the guy who used to head the Israeli research team on that project)
Eventually, the utter and complete lack of relevance to anything I experienced in my life and what is in The Bible pretty much squelched any remaining interest I had in any sort of "spiritual" search. I concluded that if Almighty God really wants a relationship with me, He knows where I live.
Later on I happened upon a copy of Carl Sagan's "A Demon-Haunted World". What a great read! If anyone is really looking for answers, and not just corroboration of what you already believe, I suggest taking a glance at it, anyway...
Trust me, kimberly, the five or six or so nonChristians that openly post on GSC have heard plenty of variations on the 'you didn't read-work-believe-trust-try hard enough' theme.
Oakspear--I actually heard about the goddess or mothergod first in a church. Until then the biggest exposure I'd had was those way mag articles on Her story, with a smattering of new age stuff from way back in the seventies.
I don't have a lot of time to get into the details at the moment, but Geisha, your outline for a defense of the Bible is not so strong when you apply it to other non-canonical gospels, apocalypses, and letters of the first to third centuries. Many claimed eye witness accounts are considered not accurate and fanciful. Once we don't just take their word for it, things get a little murkier. If your claim for the reverence of holy books was as you say it is, what of these other writings? Perhaps it wasn't as you say or perhaps these weren't considered holy writings when written or perhaps as Oak said different groups had competing doctrines but in the end one group had their say. The others were squelched.
I don't have a lot of time to get into the details at the moment, but Geisha, your outline for a defense of the Bible is not so strong when you apply it to other non-canonical gospels, apocalypses, and letters of the first to third centuries. Many claimed eye witness accounts are considered not accurate and fanciful. Once we don't just take their word for it, things get a little murkier. If your claim for the reverence of holy books was as you say it is, what of these other writings? Perhaps it wasn't as you say or perhaps these weren't considered holy writings when written or perhaps as Oak said different groups had competing doctrines but in the end one group had their say. The others were squelched.
Hi Lindyhopper,
I agree that it is a skeletal argument. I also understand why the noncanonical books were disputed. The criterea needed to meet, so as to find them reliable. You might be interested to know, or perhaps you do, that part of the reason was historical accuracy. OH MY!!!
The men who chose the cannon were men who considered the facts. Much like today, there were standards by which biblical books were picked. These men disagreed. Which is why we have books considered apocrypha or false in other bibles. Do you honestly think that those books, declared to be innacurate, have just been left unstudied for all this time?
I said it was a bare bones argument. I said that it was a piece of evidence---not the entire thing. Probabilities! Do you build a case with one piece of evidence? I didn't get into the argument of the canon. Not yet--but all may not be as it appears from a cursory reading of the differing councils.
Probabilities and context with a stab at objectivity can often give one a logical conclusion. If you are not willing to consider an argument, but set out to refute on your presupposed ideas--no honest evaluation is likely.
Read Gant. I'll be back.:)
Take Care,
Geisha
Bramble,
I am interested in what it was about wicca that drew you. I am not preaching at you, just wondering what kind of Christianity you were exposed to other than TWI?
It might surprize you to hear that I can see, after the Way, what might have pulled you toward Wicca/neopaganism. It had to seem like a more gentle and less judgemental faith.
I would not tell you that you are wrong either. I also understand the shrug. I would just like people to consider the God of the bible on a more accurate portrayal of His qualities of kindness and love. Of His love for His creation. After all, we claim He made the earth and all that is within it.
Worth a look, don't you think? A gentle, calm, nonjudgemental look? Perhaps hearing what He is really like, might ring somewhat true to your inner-self. You did say you missed the whole personal relationship thing. What you have been exposed to here on this very thread is enough to get you to RUN not walk to the nearest exit.
There are some great things about God, that I bet we might of missed in TWI. Just a thought.
For me, the straw that broke the back of my belief of an “infallible word” was the dubious authenticity of the “Pastoral Epistles” (1 & 2 Tim., Titus), given the irony that these were written for one reason (among others) to underscore the authority of the sacred literature of proto-orthodoxy against the literature and ideas of their main Christian rivals and competitors.
The date of writing for the Pastorals was traditionally assumed between 60 and 70 AD.
But issues relating to its quite, un-Pauline grammar and writing style ( addressed in an old study by P.J. Harrison, “The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles”) as well as consideration of details betraying the identity of the rivals under attack points to a later date –somewhere in the middle of the second century.
Of course at that time, Paul was long dead. But through the long standing, magical ancient practice of writing under pseudonyms, “Paul” could be conveniently raised back to life (as after all had been done with other legends, Christian and non-Christian), to address some critical issues of the day for the current community. Our writer ( we’ll call him “Clement” ) might trek out to a cave, light a lantern and pop some of (Geo's Dead Sea Scroll scholar) John Allegro’s spotted red-capped mushrooms in preparation for channeling the spirit of Paul to write some new revelations, and upon completion of his journey, could bury this fresh corpus in a floor at his friend Demetrius’ house, from whence these startling new “lost” letters of Paul would emerge to startle once again the then flat world.
Unfortunately, that batch of shrooms was bad. These letters sound nothing like Paul. But no matter. His name was on there so it must be.
And all the more this particular church rejoiced with great jubilation that this fresh material attacked the beliefs and positions of their opponents! Hurray!
One of the main opponent(s) under question apparently “forbid to marry”, “abstain from certain foods”, do not believe “everything created by God is good”, use water instead of wine at their feasts and communions, cause “shipwreck” to the faith of many and whose “Antithesis” (“Contradictions”) ought be avoided. A dead ringer for the founder of the Marcionite church (also a ship captain) and his teachings, even alluding to the title of one of his major works “Antithesis”, which posited the contradictions between the “Just” demiurge of Judaism and the new God introduced by Christ, through contrast of Jesus’ sayings with “the law” of the “Old Testament” material.
It’s funny thinking back to the time many years ago when I began to read up on the beliefs of the so-called ancient Christian Gnostics, my introduction being Hans Jonas’ “The Gnostic Religion”, in which there was a chapter devoted to Marcion. Still clinging onto the notion at the time of the Bible being “the God-breathed Word”, my initial reaction to reading 1 Tim. Ch. 4 was, “Wow, Paul sure foresaw the coming of that heretic Marcion.”
But there was much I didn't know then.. I would learn more about the diversity of early Christian movements and their ideas, the controversies which occurred among all these movements, and the effect these controversies would actually have had on the form and content of NT material as its come down to us.
I won’t even touch on “Acts” here, except to mention that there were apparently even different “versions” of Paul’s life outside the figure depicted in the orthodox presentation.
It was held among the Marcionites that Paul was actually a witness at the crucifixion of Christ (Dialogue of Adamantius), possibly regarded as having been among the second wave of disciples - “the 70” in Luke 10. A life of Paul which unfortunately did not survive for us.
If we can agree about the reliability of what we have today as accurate to within 400 words as the NT we can sure look at the leap to it being reliable testimony.
We can agree that the copies mostly agree with each other, that is a far cry from agreeing that they are "accurate".
Now, before we jump to discrediting the eyewitnesses,
This is another point of disagreement between us; I'm not convinced that the gospel accounts were written by eyewitnesses. They start to appear, what? 50-70 years after his death? There is no internal evidence in the gospels of Matthew, Mark or Luke that they were written by anyone named Matthew, Mark or Luke, in fact, no author is named. There is disagreement about the Gospel of John, but there is at the very least a suggestion that it was John the Apostle who wrote it.
Okay--so all of them had a mass delusion of internalized their beliefs. HUH? They all lied?
This is a stawman. I have not put forth the theory that they all had a mass delusion or that any of the eyewitnesses lied.
They didn't convert THOUSANDS of people with a lie. They reminded them what they too had seen.
It is my position that we don't know anymore what it was that converted thousands, or how ever many there were. That many were eventually converted is a given IMHO, since the movement survived into the reign of Constantine and beyond. What I believe is in dispute is whether or not the gospels and Acts are what really happened, given that they were written so long after the fact, probably not written by people who were there, and also probably by people who had an interest in promulgating their faction's beliefs.
So, Jesus lived and died and people believed He was . . . Doesn't make Him the Son of God or any different than L Ron Hubbard. The only problem with that is. . . there are not over 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrection of L Ron Hubbard.
I don't think anyone is claiming that Hubbard was resuurected, but I may be mistaken not knowing a lot about Scientology. Consistant with what I've already written, we don't have 500 eyewitnesses, we have one guy (Paul) who says that there were over 500 eyewitnesses.
And speaking of converting thousands with a lie; how many did Muhammed convert with his (according to Christianity) lie?
Instead of saying it can't be true because they say he was raised from the dead--
I didn't say that. It can be true. I just don't believe that it is just because the bible says so.
Or were they being persecuted, beaten, stoned and killed while coordinating their lie. Thrown out of their community--excommunicated, cut off. Some were starving. What a lie to be protecting. It doesn't even make sense. To what end--a quicker death?
People believe lies and die for them every day. Not something I'm real fond of, but it happens.
Why didn't Jesus just write it Himself?
I don't know, but that's not one of my arguments
Jesus was portrayed as a meek and humble carpenter---He died a humiliating death---He didn't ride in on a great white stallion, but a donkey. What kind of flattering portrayal is that?
This is a false dilemma: that a false portrayal must be flattering. But from one point of view, it is very flattering, that someone from such humble beginnings, who died such a horrible death would be exalted as he was. Quite the rags-to-riches story!
I'm not saying that the biblical account is definitely false, that anyone was definitely lying, that none of it could have happened, just that the biblical record by itself is not (for me at least) sufficient proof.
Oakspear--I actually heard about the goddess or mothergod first in a church. Until then the biggest exposure I'd had was those way mag articles on Her story, with a smattering of new age stuff from way back in the seventies.
Before those articles in the Way Mag came out I had done some teachings in our area about goddess worship, as well as the non-Christian origins of Halloween, Christmas & Easter traditions. I taught a Limb meeting and a regional Advanced Class grad meeting on the subject of goddess worship. My Limb Coordinator typed up my notes and sent them to HQ, shortly thereafter we get a series of goddess articles in the Way Magazine. <_<
Before those articles in the Way Mag came out I had done some teachings in our area about goddess worship, as well as the non-Christian origins of Halloween, Christmas & Easter traditions. I taught a Limb meeting and a regional Advanced Class grad meeting on the subject of goddess worship. My Limb Coordinator typed up my notes and sent them to HQ, shortly thereafter we get a series of goddess articles in the Way Magazine. <_<
They should have told us how the library card was full of devil spirits, but they were too busy with Y2K. I found one of the books in those articles ( the Run with Wolves one) read it. It was alien to my thinking but stuck in my mind.
geisha--I am not going to analyze the churches I did and did not go to. We were members of a church where people were kind etc for several years, and before TWI I was raised in a church. I'm done with chasing Christianity for whatever it was that eluded me that others tell me certainly exists.
My beliefs now are fluid, personal, empowering and yes, gentle, comforting and accepting while based on personal responsibility. My interest is self generated, not someone else' plan for my life(not that I assume that is where you are coming from.) I'm done with following others down their path.
Anyone who was actually an eyewitness to these events was dead and gone long before any of this was written.
Imagine, if you will, someone in 2055 describing what happened at Rock of Ages '72.
And, we have technological means of preserving history that obviously were not available during Paul's lifetime.
One of the big problems I have with PLAF (The Wonder Class) is that VP gave the impression these events were written as they occurred. Either he didn't understand the importance of chronology or he just plain didn't give a rat's patootie despite his assurance that "The integrity of The Word is always at stake!" Either way, it doesn't shine a very flattering light on his presentation.
Anyone who was actually an eyewitness to these events was dead and gone long before any of this was written.
Yeah, and that's assuming (a rather BIG assumption) that the events ever actually DID occur. Sorta an amazing coincidence that so much of what's recorded in The Bible was already written up in mythology predating the Christian era by centuries. All the Jesus-like uber-humans, the virgin births, the human sacrifice, the miraculous healings, the divine seed, etc. They were all well-worn literary devices even then...
If one accepts the premise that the bible was written by inspiration of God, then when it was written and who wrote it isn't a problem, and the reliability of the witnesses is a moot point.
One of things that we know about from the biblical record, the apocrypha, as well as secular sources was that there were disagreements about exactly what it meant to be a Christian, who Jesus was and what he accomplished. Most of them wrote about their version of Jesus and Christianity, some of the writings survived as the canonical books, the apocrypha, the pseudopigrapha and Marvel Comics . Naturally the winners would paint the losers as heretics and point to their deviation from the "orthodox" scriptures. If the Gnostics or the Marcionites or Ebionites or whoever had prevailed, then a different set of teachings would have been labelled heretical.
We're so acultured to the idea that the canonical gospels present a more or less accurate view of what took place in that time that we reflexively reject what contradicts them.
We can agree that the copies mostly agree with each other, that is a far cry from agreeing that they are "accurate".
Let me rephrase. Can we agree that we have an accurate representation of said documents?
This is another point of disagreement between us; I'm not convinced that the gospel accounts were written by eyewitnesses. They start to appear, what? 50-70 years after his death? There is no internal evidence in the gospels of Matthew, Mark or Luke that they were written by anyone named Matthew, Mark or Luke, in fact, no author is named. There is disagreement about the Gospel of John, but there is at the very least a suggestion that it was John the Apostle who wrote it.
What is the test we use for ancient documents? Internal evidence or throw it out. If that is the case then it is time to start book burning. You cannot apply one standard to the bible and another to all other ancient works we have. Bibliography, internal, external. When little or no internal evidence is available-Names--what is given the benefit of the doubt. What speaks for itself? The document!!The ability of the witness to tell the truth is helpful--discredit the witness to prove your POV?? No, you look at the document objectivley.
Luke--In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar when Pontius Pilate was govenor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Phillip was tetrach of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and. . . . . . did he make this up?
Luke--Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us,(What were they doing?) just as those who from the beginning were EYEWITNESSES and servants of the Word have handed them down to us, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything CAREFULLY from the beginning to write to you IN CONSECUTIVE ORDER,. . .
JOHN What we have seen and heard we proclaim to you.
Church tradition tells us the young man in Mark 14: 50-52 I suspect that is true--it fits. There are many internal INDICATIONS of who some of the authors are. You know this as well as I do.
So, we have bibliography(even if you don't agree), Internal evidence is slim as to direct identification--neon signs. However, there are enough indications that an objective investagator could reasonably conclude the authorship of these documents. Do we need to run over all this evidence? Style, terminology, geography, who hung out with who?
But, that is not the only test. What external evidence do we have? Here is one--Bishop of Lyons 180AD--heard it before? Who was he? Polycarps student--Polycarp a disciple of JOHNS. That is a strong strong historical connection Oakspear.
"Matthew published his gospel among the Hebrews in their own tounge(tax collector telling how Jesus paid His taxes)when Peter and Paul were preaching and teaching in Rome and founding the church there. After their departure(death)Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, himself handed down to us IN WRITING the substance of Peter's preaching. Luke, the follower of Paul, set down a book the gospel preached by his teacher. Then John, the disciple of the Lord, who also leaned on His breast himself produced his gospel, while living at ephesus in Asia."
What about Eusebius? 130AD Talks about Mark?
Oakspear, I have to tell you that without blaring internal evidence the test still holds. I am sorry, but an objective historical analysis tells us beyond a reasonable doubt who wrote those gospels. There is more as you know. I am lazy.
Not to mention archaeology. A whole other subject. It has confimed many biblical accounts that have been discounted as historically inaccurate.
I love this quote--"There exists NO document from the ancient world witnessed by so excellent a set of textual and historical testimonies and offering so suberb an array of historical data on which an intellegent decision may be made. An HONEST person cannot dismiss a source of this kind. Skepticism regarding the historical credentials of Christianity is based upon an irrational bias."
Sorry, I really am, it was in my notes and I didn't cite it. I would love to just paraphrase it, but alas! It was an historian of some note.
Oakspear, if we used your standard for verification of ancient documents---we would have to chuck pretty much the whole lot. Now, I am having trouble phrasing this in a nonoffensive way, so my apology in advance if you take offense. NONE truly NONE is meant. But, these objections are coming from someone, who by his own admission, has taken a leap of faith into neopaganism. I am not being disrespectful, but a little continuity seems in order.
This is a stawman. I have not put forth the theory that they all had a mass delusion or that any of the eyewitnesses lied.
I must have misread
It is my position that we don't know anymore what it was that converted thousands, or how ever many there were. That many were eventually converted is a given IMHO, since the movement survived into the reign of Constantine and beyond. What I believe is in dispute is whether or not the gospels and Acts are what really happened, given that they were written so long after the fact, probably not written by people who were there, and also probably by people who had an interest in promulgating their faction's beliefs.
Beyond Constantine and to this very hour. Gosh Oakspear, you want to talk about a GIANT leap. They were written within the lifetime of MANY MANY of the eyewitnesses. AND those who also witnessed and OPPOSED them. Historically speaking that was a very SHORT period of time. That they were written in the lifetime of these men and witnesses gives them great CREDIBILITY! How on earth to you jump to the conclusion that they were written by those that were not there? I don't even follow that logic? Do you mean who wrote them down? Context. What is the culture. Do you realize how reliable and how much we depend on oral history?? Or history taken down by scribes? Again, context of the culture. The importance placed on these words. You yourself said that the volume of copies we have testifies to the importance placed on them. Again I have to ask you---why was their "Factions" beliefs so important. Did they gain riches or fame? They suffered greatly--lends them real credibility. I have a hard time following your reasoning.
I don't think anyone is claiming that Hubbard was resuurected, but I may be mistaken not knowing a lot about Scientology. Consistant with what I've already written, we don't have 500 eyewitnesses, we have one guy (Paul) who says that there were over 500 eyewitnesses.
500 witnesses! The majority of whom were still alive when this was circulated. There were hostile witnesses still alive at the time. Don't you think that some of them may have refuted this as a lie? They were alive and could still be questioned. This actually gives this account some teeth.
I
didn't say that. It can be true. I just don't believe that it is just because the bible says so.
People believe lies and die for them every day. Not something I'm real fond of, but it happens.
That is an honest answer and I repect you for that.
I'm not saying that the biblical account is definitely false, that anyone was definitely lying, that none of it could have happened, just that the biblical record by itself is not (for me at least) sufficient proof.
I respect your honesty here as well. Do you read classic ancient lit and believe it. Ancient history backed by archaeology and believe it. Do you take it on its merit? Is it just the bible and what you believe its dubious origins to be. I do wonder because you seem to gravitate to the spiritual. I will bet you ANYTHING that you and Bramble are both gentle and kind people. I make this assumption on the direction your spiritual path has taken you. Surprising? Not really. Most neopagans and wiccans are very gentle, kind, and nonjudgmental people. I would say to you that real Christians are as well. I don't believe your path leads to eternity--but I sure believe that God is able. Somewhat misunderstood and often maligned by the attitudes and actions of many Christians today. Its been fun!
Dan if you are interested I would like to answer you soon as well. Geisha
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
24
30
42
21
Popular Days
Jun 28
23
Jun 27
18
Jun 30
17
Jul 1
17
Top Posters In This Topic
Oakspear 24 posts
Caveman 30 posts
geisha779 42 posts
cman 21 posts
Popular Days
Jun 28 2008
23 posts
Jun 27 2008
18 posts
Jun 30 2008
17 posts
Jul 1 2008
17 posts
Popular Posts
geisha779
Hi Invisible Dan You said "When you gather all the citations from the gospels of such cases, it presents us a rather unsettling depiction. Unsettling in the fact that it's all too familiar." I have
geisha779
Hi Oakspear, Badgering me? I hardly see your discussion as such!! I had better be able to tell you WHY I believe the bible is true, and correct in its declarations of God. That it is His declaration
geisha779
Again--missing my point. I truly understand why. I could once show you scholarship for The Myth of the 6 Million. I bet you, that at one time, if not believed it-----you seriously considered it.
cman
What sticks out here, geisha779?
Along with most of the rest of your post.
Sure we are to think reasonably.
Is it reasonable that we might be able to let go of our reason?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
It seems reasonable to me that spiritual matters or beings/dieties cannot be objectively confirmed in our physical existence, five senses world. When we glimpse the spiritual, and make a connection to our physical life here on earth it is in the realm of unverified personal gnossis, an inner knowing that is real to the individual.
Given the wide range of experiences and beliefs humans perceiveas truth it seems to me that there is no one definitive truth that we as humans can ferrit out. I think the one truth is beyond our human comprehension, though it can be glimpsed and understood in parts by different people at different times.
Someone can tell me what the truth is,and be very sincere, but if it does not ring true in my inner self, if their 'proof' doesn't ring true within me, then I am just trying to please someone by accepting those beliefs, maybe out of a desire to be thought well of, or for some other reason, such as fear of consequences. Often it comes down to 'obeying' but there is never a definitive rule to obey. In my experience that changes depending to what group/person you are with.
Interesting that many humans have told me how and what I must believe or do to be right or saved or blessed--but no spiritual experience has done so...and since choosing to ignore such human directives in favor of listening to what makes sense in my inner self--while I might consider those directives-- life has certainly been better for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I know this civil discourse can't last...it's not natural
A point was made about the bible being a reliable historical document, referring to the number of copies. As far as I know, that's true, that there are more copies and fragments of copies made of the bible than anything else from that time period. Attests to the importanace that people placed on it.
The biggest logical step, or more likely, leap, that I cannot make is from verifiability of historical persons and events to the truth of the doctrine. Muhammed was an historical figure, the Koran contains references to verifiable historical events; L. Ron Hubbard was an historical figure, there are many still alive that have met the late Mr. Hubbard; Sun Myung Moon is still alive, yet from a Christian point of view these men promulgated lies. Many religions have at their root an historical figure. Many of these religions have "sacred" writing that refer to verifiable persons and events.
What cannot be verified is whether any of these people, including Jesus, Moses, Paul, Peter and Isaiah are telling the truth. And even if they are telling the truth as the see it, what they experienced was internal; there are precious few incidents recorded in anybody's "holy" book where God spoke out loud for everybody to hear. That's what some of us mean by subjective vs. objective.
The Invisible Dan can address this more intelligently than I can, but even stipulating that Jesus did exist, where the gospels faithful recordings of what Jesus actually did and said? There's evidence that I consider convincing that the canon of scripture we have today is the result of one faction within early Christianity emerging victorious after a decades-long battle of words. The winning faction could now point to the "scriptures" as backing up their position, since the competing "scriptures" were supressed and the competing factions marginilized or exiled. The bible in the NT becomes, not an accurate historical document, but a series of pamphlets pushing one faction's agenda.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
I do believe that if we treated each others hearts as honorably and with respect, as the bible or any other perceived scripture, we will hear the words of God coming from each other. And the scriptures could then have life and be seen. As well as our hearts.
But, for the most part, the dead are treated better then the living.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Definitely better. Easier? I'm not even sure what that means, you'd have to explainIs life ever easy?
Since I spent my entire life until my forties in one form of Christianity or another I do not feel uneducated in Christian matters or Christian lifestyle, though apparently I totally missed the 'personal relationship with Jesus' experience so many talk about.
During my Christian years I was sincere. After leaving TWI I was still Christian, I searched exway groups and churches etc. Then I stumbled upon goddess/Wiccan beliefs and for me it was like someone turned the light on.
*Shrug* Why that is, why the other wasn't, I have no clue, nor am I going to persue Christianity into my old age, chasing something that just didn't work for me. If that is what you mean by easier, then there it is. It would be very hard for me to conform to beliefs I don't feel, just to please others or 'hedge my afterlife bets'. I'd be faking. Of what value is that?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
If we can agree about the reliability of what we have today as accurate to within 400 words as the NT we can sure look at the leap to it being reliable testimony. I would really like to talk about some evidence for Jesus being who He claimed He is.
I got my lovely little jury duty notice in the mail the other day. I go every couple of years and sit and wait to be called. I have never had to sit for duty, but I, as do you, know a tiny bit about how a trial works. What is considered as reliable for testimony.
An eyewitness to a crime is a powerful thing for a defense attorney to overcome. He /she must discredit a witness who has firsthand knowledge of a crime. Nasty tactic, but that is what it takes. Eyewitnesses give us our history that is relied on as true. We believe John Wilkes Booth killed our 16th President because of eyewitness/recorded testimony. We take the word of eyewitnesses at the scene of an accident. "That guy ran a stop sign and hit the car." If there is more than one eyewitness that agrees--the testimony is far more credible. As the witnesses mount the testimony is harder and harder to refute.
The new testament is written as eyewitnesses with firsthand knowledge to the events recorded OR they record firsthand accounts of the events. We have already discussed that 11 of them were lead to their deaths for the testimony they refused to recant. They did not strap on bombs and murder innocents, they themselves were innocent. That is a very powerful affirmation of their story.
2Peter 1:16 tells us they knew the difference between a myth -- a lie--and the reality of what they witnessed firsthand. Remember, these events are attached to a real historical figure. They knew Him personally. I am loathe to quote scripture at ex-way, but can we agree that over and over again, they talk of the things they witnessed firsthand?
1John1:1-3/Acts1 1-3/1Cor 15:6-8 1/Peter 5:1/Acts 1:9 / Luke 1: 1-3 I could go on. Paul said that he "uttered words of sober truth." Paul, a former persecutor of Christians. A very serious scholarly man who loved Israel.
What were they testifying to? That Jesus lived here, His sermons--yes, but also the miracles that He did.
Now, before we jump to discrediting the eyewitnesses, we have to remember where they lived, their culture--what scripture meant. They were mostly Jews who revered the OT.
Josephus tells us what the words meant to them. ". . . how firmly we give credit to those books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as we have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add anything to them or take anything from them, or to make any change in them; but it becomes natural to all Jews , immediatley and from their birth to esteem those books. . . "
To use your words--call them superstitious. They were serious about what they wrote as truth. In fact, they knew and believed from the OT that God hates false
witness. In our society today you can go to jail for perjury. JAIL!!!!!You lie about what you see and are believed --people go to prison.
These men revered and feared God. Yes, feared Him. God tells us NOT to bear false witness. They knew this better than you or I. Context is really important in trying to discredit these guys. An understanding of their culture, their faith, their national identity. Their community was wrapped up in their faith. They lived it.
Okay--so all of them had a mass delusion of internalized their beliefs. HUH? They all lied? Only a few problems with that idea. One, there were too many of them. They could not coordinate such a huge lie. Even if they could some way pull it off--- they relied on the firsthand knowledge of those they converted. ---They used this knowledge. You know about these things---you saw--Acts 2:22 Men of Israel, listen to these words:Jesus the Nazarene, a man attested to you by God with miracles and wonders and signs which God performed through Him IN YOUR MIDST.
They didn't convert THOUSANDS of people with a lie. They reminded them what they too had seen.
So, Jesus lived and died and people believed He was . . . Doesn't make Him the Son of God or any different than L Ron Hubbard. The only problem with that is. . . there are not over 500 eyewitnesses to the resurrection of L Ron Hubbard.
Luke 24:48 Acts 1: 8 Acts 2:32 Acts 3:15 Acts 4:33 Acts 5:32 Acts 10:39,41 Acts 13:31 Acts 22:15 Acts 23: 11 Acts 26: 16 1Corinthians 15: 4-9 15 1John 1:2
Context is really important here. Your eyewitness testimony is credible in a court of law. 2000 years later it can put someone away for a long time. Why is their eyewitness testimony less credible than yours? If anything, theirs is more credible in testifying to the events they witnessed. These men have more than one eye on their account. History is written on much less. Lying was a serious offense in their culture unlike ours where the meaning of the word "is" can be split and debated.
Okay, so maybe Jesus did live and people did believe that they saw what they said they did, and wrote it down. It is too hard to believe that all that metaphysical stuff happened.You didn't think so once.
Instead of saying it can't be true because they say he was raised from the dead--investigate this historical account without any supposition. It is compelling.
It was written within 100 years of the events---too long to be believable---they had time to coordiante a lie. Is that what it says they were doing. Or were they being persecuted, beaten, stoned and killed while coordinating their lie. Thrown out of their community--excommunicated, cut off. Some were starving. What a lie to be protecting. It doesn't even make sense. To what end--a quicker death? These were Jews, they could have been in their homes and communities -- living the good life. Making a living. If they thought it a lie--why wouldn't they make one up that got them something other than persecution in this life?
Why didn't Jesus just write it Himself? Much of our history is written about others, not by them, Alexander the Great, Charlemange, Cleopatra, Ceaser. . . . . . . . It is how we know our history---portrayals of historic figures. Jesus was portrayed as a meek and humble carpenter---He died a humiliating death---He didn't ride in on a great white stallion, but a donkey. What kind of flattering portrayal is that?
Pliny the Younger--A History--found 750 yrs after it was written--all 7 copies. Not disputed
Herodotus--A History--1,300yrs --8 copies
Thucydides--History--1,300yrs 8 copies
Sophocles 1,400 yrs Aristotle 1,400 yrsPlato 1,400 yrs
This is just a skeletal outline of this argument. There are too many variables. I barely scratched the surface. Sorry for my spelling!! Too tired to check it!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Bramble:
I've a similar path from Christianity to my current faith.
When I was in the process of extricating myself from TWI, one of the things that I questioned was the truism "The Word of God is the Will of God", that the bible was self-evidently given by inspiration of God. The more that I looked at it the less that I held to my long held belief that the bible was "THE" holy book.
I had decided to throw out, first what I had accepted in the martindale years, then what I had learned in PFAL and finally Christianity itself, and to the best of my ability start from scratch and see where my search led me.
While still in a Christian mindset I read a book by my uncle called "Celtic Christianity" which outlined the Celtic contributions to modern Christianity. This got me curious about the ancestral Celtic religions and their modern reconstructions and interpretations. 20th/21st century paganism resonated with me and I have found it to be very satisfying and helpful in my life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
One of the things that got me off of the "Christianity is the only TRUE way" track was the realization that quite a number (dare I say "most"?) of the people who I knew of that did serious, hard-core, scholarly-type, textual research, usually became agnostic or outright atheist as a direct result of thsir study. The diametric opposite of what WayWorld claimed would happen. (for example, just google the "Dead Sea Scrolls" and read about the guy who used to head the Israeli research team on that project)
Eventually, the utter and complete lack of relevance to anything I experienced in my life and what is in The Bible pretty much squelched any remaining interest I had in any sort of "spiritual" search. I concluded that if Almighty God really wants a relationship with me, He knows where I live.
Later on I happened upon a copy of Carl Sagan's "A Demon-Haunted World". What a great read! If anyone is really looking for answers, and not just corroboration of what you already believe, I suggest taking a glance at it, anyway...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
kimberly
God Almighty feeds the birds but He does not throw the food in the nest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Trust me, kimberly, the five or six or so nonChristians that openly post on GSC have heard plenty of variations on the 'you didn't read-work-believe-trust-try hard enough' theme.
Oakspear--I actually heard about the goddess or mothergod first in a church. Until then the biggest exposure I'd had was those way mag articles on Her story, with a smattering of new age stuff from way back in the seventies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
I just had this bizarre picture of ex-amway followers debating.
"We had the best soap ever made"
Did not!
"Did So!"
(Third part enters)
Either of you guys ever actually use the soap?
SILENCE---stage goes dark
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
I don't have a lot of time to get into the details at the moment, but Geisha, your outline for a defense of the Bible is not so strong when you apply it to other non-canonical gospels, apocalypses, and letters of the first to third centuries. Many claimed eye witness accounts are considered not accurate and fanciful. Once we don't just take their word for it, things get a little murkier. If your claim for the reverence of holy books was as you say it is, what of these other writings? Perhaps it wasn't as you say or perhaps these weren't considered holy writings when written or perhaps as Oak said different groups had competing doctrines but in the end one group had their say. The others were squelched.
I could go on but I've got to go. I'll be back
Edited by lindyhopperLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Hi Lindyhopper,
I agree that it is a skeletal argument. I also understand why the noncanonical books were disputed. The criterea needed to meet, so as to find them reliable. You might be interested to know, or perhaps you do, that part of the reason was historical accuracy. OH MY!!!
The men who chose the cannon were men who considered the facts. Much like today, there were standards by which biblical books were picked. These men disagreed. Which is why we have books considered apocrypha or false in other bibles. Do you honestly think that those books, declared to be innacurate, have just been left unstudied for all this time?
I said it was a bare bones argument. I said that it was a piece of evidence---not the entire thing. Probabilities! Do you build a case with one piece of evidence? I didn't get into the argument of the canon. Not yet--but all may not be as it appears from a cursory reading of the differing councils.
Probabilities and context with a stab at objectivity can often give one a logical conclusion. If you are not willing to consider an argument, but set out to refute on your presupposed ideas--no honest evaluation is likely.
Read Gant. I'll be back.:)
Take Care,
Geisha
Bramble,
I am interested in what it was about wicca that drew you. I am not preaching at you, just wondering what kind of Christianity you were exposed to other than TWI?
It might surprize you to hear that I can see, after the Way, what might have pulled you toward Wicca/neopaganism. It had to seem like a more gentle and less judgemental faith.
I would not tell you that you are wrong either. I also understand the shrug. I would just like people to consider the God of the bible on a more accurate portrayal of His qualities of kindness and love. Of His love for His creation. After all, we claim He made the earth and all that is within it.
Worth a look, don't you think? A gentle, calm, nonjudgemental look? Perhaps hearing what He is really like, might ring somewhat true to your inner-self. You did say you missed the whole personal relationship thing. What you have been exposed to here on this very thread is enough to get you to RUN not walk to the nearest exit.
There are some great things about God, that I bet we might of missed in TWI. Just a thought.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
For me, the straw that broke the back of my belief of an “infallible word” was the dubious authenticity of the “Pastoral Epistles” (1 & 2 Tim., Titus), given the irony that these were written for one reason (among others) to underscore the authority of the sacred literature of proto-orthodoxy against the literature and ideas of their main Christian rivals and competitors.
The date of writing for the Pastorals was traditionally assumed between 60 and 70 AD.
But issues relating to its quite, un-Pauline grammar and writing style ( addressed in an old study by P.J. Harrison, “The Problem of the Pastoral Epistles”) as well as consideration of details betraying the identity of the rivals under attack points to a later date –somewhere in the middle of the second century.
Of course at that time, Paul was long dead. But through the long standing, magical ancient practice of writing under pseudonyms, “Paul” could be conveniently raised back to life (as after all had been done with other legends, Christian and non-Christian), to address some critical issues of the day for the current community. Our writer ( we’ll call him “Clement” ) might trek out to a cave, light a lantern and pop some of (Geo's Dead Sea Scroll scholar) John Allegro’s spotted red-capped mushrooms in preparation for channeling the spirit of Paul to write some new revelations, and upon completion of his journey, could bury this fresh corpus in a floor at his friend Demetrius’ house, from whence these startling new “lost” letters of Paul would emerge to startle once again the then flat world.
Unfortunately, that batch of shrooms was bad. These letters sound nothing like Paul. But no matter. His name was on there so it must be.
And all the more this particular church rejoiced with great jubilation that this fresh material attacked the beliefs and positions of their opponents! Hurray!
One of the main opponent(s) under question apparently “forbid to marry”, “abstain from certain foods”, do not believe “everything created by God is good”, use water instead of wine at their feasts and communions, cause “shipwreck” to the faith of many and whose “Antithesis” (“Contradictions”) ought be avoided. A dead ringer for the founder of the Marcionite church (also a ship captain) and his teachings, even alluding to the title of one of his major works “Antithesis”, which posited the contradictions between the “Just” demiurge of Judaism and the new God introduced by Christ, through contrast of Jesus’ sayings with “the law” of the “Old Testament” material.
It’s funny thinking back to the time many years ago when I began to read up on the beliefs of the so-called ancient Christian Gnostics, my introduction being Hans Jonas’ “The Gnostic Religion”, in which there was a chapter devoted to Marcion. Still clinging onto the notion at the time of the Bible being “the God-breathed Word”, my initial reaction to reading 1 Tim. Ch. 4 was, “Wow, Paul sure foresaw the coming of that heretic Marcion.”
But there was much I didn't know then.. I would learn more about the diversity of early Christian movements and their ideas, the controversies which occurred among all these movements, and the effect these controversies would actually have had on the form and content of NT material as its come down to us.
I won’t even touch on “Acts” here, except to mention that there were apparently even different “versions” of Paul’s life outside the figure depicted in the orthodox presentation.
It was held among the Marcionites that Paul was actually a witness at the crucifixion of Christ (Dialogue of Adamantius), possibly regarded as having been among the second wave of disciples - “the 70” in Luke 10. A life of Paul which unfortunately did not survive for us.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
And speaking of converting thousands with a lie; how many did Muhammed convert with his (according to Christianity) lie?
I didn't say that. It can be true. I just don't believe that it is just because the bible says so. People believe lies and die for them every day. Not something I'm real fond of, but it happens. I don't know, but that's not one of my argumentsThis is a false dilemma: that a false portrayal must be flattering. But from one point of view, it is very flattering, that someone from such humble beginnings, who died such a horrible death would be exalted as he was. Quite the rags-to-riches story!I'm not saying that the biblical account is definitely false, that anyone was definitely lying, that none of it could have happened, just that the biblical record by itself is not (for me at least) sufficient proof.
Your mileage may vary.
And don't sweat spelling.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
What was the average life expectancy at the time the Gospels were written?
OK--I know there was no actually life expectancy, per se, but how long did the average person live?
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
They should have told us how the library card was full of devil spirits, but they were too busy with Y2K. I found one of the books in those articles ( the Run with Wolves one) read it. It was alien to my thinking but stuck in my mind.
geisha--I am not going to analyze the churches I did and did not go to. We were members of a church where people were kind etc for several years, and before TWI I was raised in a church. I'm done with chasing Christianity for whatever it was that eluded me that others tell me certainly exists.
My beliefs now are fluid, personal, empowering and yes, gentle, comforting and accepting while based on personal responsibility. My interest is self generated, not someone else' plan for my life(not that I assume that is where you are coming from.) I'm done with following others down their path.
edited for typos
Edited by BrambleLink to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Waysider,
IIRC, life expectancy around the time of Christ was 28 years, give or take.
Of course the horrific rate of infant mortality would bring the average way down,
but, still, life was a short, brutal, difficult affair for most...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Well, my point here is probably pretty obvious.
Anyone who was actually an eyewitness to these events was dead and gone long before any of this was written.
Imagine, if you will, someone in 2055 describing what happened at Rock of Ages '72.
And, we have technological means of preserving history that obviously were not available during Paul's lifetime.
One of the big problems I have with PLAF (The Wonder Class) is that VP gave the impression these events were written as they occurred. Either he didn't understand the importance of chronology or he just plain didn't give a rat's patootie despite his assurance that "The integrity of The Word is always at stake!" Either way, it doesn't shine a very flattering light on his presentation.
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Yeah, and that's assuming (a rather BIG assumption) that the events ever actually DID occur. Sorta an amazing coincidence that so much of what's recorded in The Bible was already written up in mythology predating the Christian era by centuries. All the Jesus-like uber-humans, the virgin births, the human sacrifice, the miraculous healings, the divine seed, etc. They were all well-worn literary devices even then...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
If one accepts the premise that the bible was written by inspiration of God, then when it was written and who wrote it isn't a problem, and the reliability of the witnesses is a moot point.
One of things that we know about from the biblical record, the apocrypha, as well as secular sources was that there were disagreements about exactly what it meant to be a Christian, who Jesus was and what he accomplished. Most of them wrote about their version of Jesus and Christianity, some of the writings survived as the canonical books, the apocrypha, the pseudopigrapha and Marvel Comics
. Naturally the winners would paint the losers as heretics and point to their deviation from the "orthodox" scriptures. If the Gnostics or the Marcionites or Ebionites or whoever had prevailed, then a different set of teachings would have been labelled heretical.
We're so acultured to the idea that the canonical gospels present a more or less accurate view of what took place in that time that we reflexively reject what contradicts them.
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
geisha779
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.