Discussion in 'Abrahamic Religions' started by Thomas, Jan 11, 2016.
Ha ha. Good one!
Did the Torah set the foundation but got some of the facts wrong? Does the New Testament stand as a whole thru time essentially unchanged? Does the Quran fact check the other two and correct them as needed? And then was also written down without any deviation?
Speaking from the outside, all of it comes down to desired speculation. The Old Testament God can be rather brutal. God's law was right for the times, but wrong for future times? God is supposed to be infallible. Why would he lay down laws that he knew where inappropriate. Brutal is brutal, no matter the time period.
No matter which way one cuts the decisions about the Christ's divinity, it was decided by men. One can argue that they had Holy guidance to make sure mere mortals got it right. Isn't that God interfering with the will of men though? This concept seems to conflict with the entire man has the ability to choose portion of the Bible.
Did the Quran really get passed down through rote recital until it was written down without a single deviation from what Mohammed actually said. Same problem as the latter. Unless one assumes divine intervention to make sure men got it right, it is difficult to accept that Islamic scripture didn't get altered along the way. Even with the best intentions of the learned to see that did not happen.
LOL, I know, it's so obvious, most people overlook it.
Yeah ... that's the popular post-modern anti-authoritarian assumption, but really it speaks more about contemporary notions than historical sitz-im-leben considerations.
And maybe an answer would help?
I have a problem with explicit revelation in general. Does this mean that God tweaked neurons, dendrites, neurotransmitters, etc. to get the text just right? Doesn't sound reasonable to me.
I meant there was a community before people started writing to and for the community.
OK, but that community
..was not the church... (As evudenced by Paul's various letters to the churches he started......as I see it when Rome tried to gather the churches together under her umbrella it wasn't their decisions and they didn't get them then... Some proud ethiopians out there...
There.may have been a time when the church had moat under its thumb...but not all
You miss the point. The community was the church of its day, that's the point, the community of believers – a Liturgical community – was there before Scripture.
The rest is just politics.
Alright....the confusion...you've moved from the Church to the church...
I thought convention was when you capitalized it you were referring to the created Universal Church, that tried to combine all the churches into one thought... I thought convention was the Church always referred to Catholicism... Where as church would apply to what you are saying now....but in either case...there has never been completee agreement, there have always been differences among the churches...
There was liturgy before Jesus...
Just as there was prayers over wine and breaking of bread before Jesus
I think you could use a small lesson in how the Quran was revealed and all the ways it was preserved. It wasn't only Oral, but oral to print, rechecked with oral, several overlapping oral checks amongst memorizers, and finally once the text was brought together it was verified by not 1 nor 2 but many memorizers.
Truth be told, at this point I read the Bible through an Islamic lens, and I see where the authors say something and where they kindof agree with the Quran, but are much less detailed with what all is actually being said. This is probably a lot of issue with translation, but I personally feel there is some "corruption" or changes to the Bible, but that doesn't stop me from reading and gaining insight from it.
Why would an all-powerful, all-knowing, omniscient, creator of this existence have any problem doing any of this? Even if he didn't, Why is it impossible for people to collaborate what was heard and said without fault. If you would like I could teach an entire room of people the words to a song, and have someone write them down and have the people who did not write it verify what is written. If I can do it, Why wouldn't a messenger of the creator be able to do it?
LOL, stay on topic, you keep jumping around!
Your initial comment was you seemed to find the idea of a church before Scripture laughable. Now I've explained it for you ...
Well the Jews are a liturgical people!
Yes ... But if you read on through the link you provided, you'll see the Liturgy of the Eucharist, which is the central and highpoint of the Christian liturgy, had its unique form and again, it was the practice of the c/Church before Scripture was written, as Paul refers to the Eucharistic Rite in his letters.
In fact there were two bread-and-wine events – the agape meal was open to the whole community, and then the catechumen would depart, and the baptised would remain for the Rite of the Eucharist, so we can see that the Eucharistic Rrite is something utterly ‘other’ than the practice of prayers over bread and wine which was probably not uncommon in the ancient world.
Sure, God could, in principal, diddle with neurons, dendrites and neurotransmitters for explicit revelation of the text. The question is, does that sound reasonable? It leads to all the problems that supernaturalism poses for many people today. It comes down to a sensibility or intuition about the way reality works. For many people, it seems more likely that all this supernatural talk came from the pre-scientific, uninformed milieu of the time and doesn't make sense now.
That's because people focus their whole minds on the limits they themselves have. God (regardless of which faith, even polytheistic ones) above those laws. For most monotheistic religions God is the creator of this existence. His power and ability is above all we can imagine.
As for the issues people have with Supernatural intervention. If it were born of speculation, why hasn't it all died out. many misconceptions have been proven wrong and are largely gone now, Flat Earth (Don't get me started on the idiots trying to bring it back), young earth, Earth centric, 4 element, and many more theories have almost completely been destroyed. Most Paganistic religions are nearly extinct (Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Nordic, Turkic, Arabic, etc) due largely to their religions being proven false by simple analysis. Why is it so hard then to have destroyed Abrahamics? How about Buddhists, Hindus, etc. If they could prove the Jewish faith completely false as they have (at least largely) Greek and Roman faiths, it may topple all the Abrahamics. But it cannot be done. You can find error in practice, maybe a corruption of text, but you cannot prove an all powerful being does not exist.
I may have went off center there but I'll leave it in case it made sense... ... In essence, Science will not prove a God, and those waiting for that will largely never see how it is possible that one is. Most religions have their Proofs, In Islam we have many. None of which have been disproven, and many of these signs have been confirmed using that science which cannot prove God Exists. In the end there is an aspect of faith in every believer's background. And I realize without it, connecting ideas with non-believers can be difficult.
Do you seriously believe that? Phony religions that had their time until wiser minds came along? By what standard do you judge today's religions as opposed to ancient ones. Are they truly superior, closer to the truth? Or are they what is in fashion in today's world. Will the Abrahamics still exist 100 years from now? 200? Or will newer, more clarified ones come along and the Abrahamics will join the rest of the failed religions of antiquity.
People of antiquity believed in their religions with equal fervor that you believe in yours. They too knew their gods were the real deal. Just as you know that yours is the real deal. What separates you from them? I'm not being sarcastic here; it is a question of curiosity to me.
yes, Greek tradition was largely proven false when multitudes of people summited a mountain which was supposed to be occupied by awe inspiring warrior Gods. In all reality their time wasn't that long on the earth. Many of them changed almost completely while they were being practiced.
No they were mistaken at the time. The truth was already available, but largely disregarded.
Not all of todays religions are superior IMO (not trying to pick any out, as I'm not meaning this to be offensive). There are many that simply have no real belief, but rather only offer insight into meditative techniques. From an Honest standpoint, I do see my religion as superior (hence why I follow it, I'd expect a Christian to find his religion superior to mine as well, same with a Buddhist, Hindu, etc). How do I judge mine, Simply put, the text. The text contains information (signs) that people wouldn't even have known to ask at that time. It also hasn't been proven false in even a slightest manner, Literally or figuratively.
I don't think most religions are "fashionable", or "hip" today. I'd actually say that Atheism is probably the new "fashion" view.
Yes... well assuming the World continues that long...
I guess it's a matter of faith, but I still don't see anyone finding an error in the belief in that time.
True. Mostly because it was both a religious and social thing.
The proof. They based most of their knowing on what people told them... If you build a big statue, your God will be stronger and give you more, If you are in Athena's favor she will destroy your enemies. None of these stood a chance over time because they largely missed proofs of positive fact, and often fell to undeniable falsehoods being exposed.
I have no doubt you are being sincere. I try to help you understand, but without you asking me for the proofs, and you actually looking into them, I don't think you and I are going to understand much about each others theological views. Just wondering have you ever tried reading the Quran (or translation of it?) I think if one does that, and then when they have questions about what things mean, their search will be much more fruitful than me saying there are proofs, and you saying, they aren't proof.
I support the view that the gospels and some of the letters have unknown authors, Paul's letters added and not Paul as the author, gospels were edited and added to in order to support A Hellenist/Roman theology in line with Paul's Hellenist Jewish beliefs. The first gospel Mark in its simplist form is the oldest gospel, but also not dateable to before 70 AD. An awkward addition to the end of the gospel to support the witnesses to a Resurrection. Also the fact that there are also various other early different added endings of Mark in different There is no mention of the Virgin birth of Jesus in Mark as found in later gospels
The evidence is clear in the progressive editing, and additions to later gospels that the changes were to support the end result. The corrupted Hellenist/Roman theology of the Roman Church including the Virgin Birth, reinforcement of a physical Resurrection, and the Trinity, which is in direct contradiction to the Jewish monotheism.
Yes, but they were also edited and added to in the early years before the final selection was made. The evidence of editing and additions is overwhelming leading to the conclusion that the final result, the texts and the documents Roman New Testament cannot be considered reliable, nor traced back to before 70 AD when the original witnesses lived the knew Jesus.
This original ending of Mark was viewed by later Christians as so deficient that not only was Mark placed second in order in the New Testament, but various endings were added by editors and copyists in some manuscripts to try to remedy things. The longest concocted ending, which became Mark 16:9-19, became so treasured that it was included in the King James Version of the Bible, favored for the past 500 years by Protestants, as well as translations of the Latin Vulgate, used by Catholics. This meant that for countless millions of Christians it became sacred scripture–but it is patently bogus. You might check whatever Bible you use and see if the following verses are included–the chances are good they they will be, since the Church, by and large, found Mark’s original ending so lacking. Here is that forged ending of Mark:
Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept. But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it. After these things he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country. And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them. Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover. So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs.
Even though this ending is patently false, people loved it, and to this day conservative Christians regularly denounce “liberal” scholars who point out this forgery, claiming that they are trying to destroy “God’s word.”
The evidence is clear. This ending is not found in our earliest and most reliable Greek copies of Mark. In A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Bruce Metzger writes: “Clement of Alexandria and Origen [early third century] show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them.”1 The language and style of the Greek is clearly not Markan, and it is pretty evident that what the forger did was take sections of the endings of Matthew, Luke and John (marked respectively in red, blue, and purple above) and simply create a “proper” ending. [/cite]
The documented additions and editing even in Late additions of the Bible like Codex Sinaiticus, pretty much document that the Bible was altered to support Roman Christian doctrine and dogma.
What’s Missing from Codex Sinaiticus, the Oldest New Testament?
Compare differences between the King James Version and Codex Sinaiticus
A salvaged page of the Codex Sinaiticus from St. Catherine’s Monastery recovered in 1975. Photo: Courtesy of St. Catherine’s Monastery.
Two hundred years after Constantine Tischendorf’s birth, questions remain as to the conditions of his removal of Codex Sinaiticus from St. Catherine’s Monastery. Dating to the mid-fourth century C.E., Codex Sinaiticus is the oldest complete manuscript of the New Testament. In his article “Hero or Thief? Constantine Tischendorf Turns Two Hundred” in the September/October 2015 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Stanley E. Porter contends that Tischendorf should be considered a hero, not a thief.
The text of Codex Sinaiticus differs in numerous instances from that of the authorized version of the Bible in use during Tischendorf’s time. For example, the resurrection narrative at the end of Mark (16:9–20) is absent from the Codex Sinaiticus. So is the conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer: “For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen” (Matthew 6:13). The woman caught in adultery from John 8 is omitted in Codex Sinaiticus. According to James Bentley, Tischendorf was not troubled by the omission of the resurrection in Mark because he believed that Matthew was written first and that Mark’s gospel was an abridged version of Matthew’s gospel. If this were true, the absence of resurrection in Mark would not be a problem because it appears in the older Matthean gospel. Modern scholarship generally holds that Mark is in fact the oldest of the Synoptic Gospels, which could cause theological concerns over the omitted resurrection.
One other omission in Codex Sinaiticus with theological implications is the reference to Jesus’ ascension in Luke 24:51. Additionally, Mark 1:1 in the original hand omits reference to Jesus as the Son of God.
Below, see a visual comparison of these and other differences between the King James Version and Codex Sinaiticus. [/cite]
I don’t. I can only say the theology of Scripture is neither Hellenist nor ‘Roman’, nor is Paul’s theology Hellenist – it departs from Hellenism on too many fundamental principles,
But that does not mean it was not composed before 70, just that we don’t have material evidence to say that it was. I place it around the mid 60s, the time of Peter’s confinement in Rome, and founded on Peter’s catechetical teachings.
LOL. In matters of Scripture, evidence is never clear, that’s why there’s so many contending theories. As a general rule I would say any argument that ‘asserts beyond doubt’ is dubious and probably polemical.
[QUOTE="shunyadragon, post: 305493, member: 19149”]The corrupted Hellenist/Roman theology of the Roman Church including the Virgin Birth, reinforcement of a physical Resurrection, and the Trinity, which is in direct contradiction to the Jewish monotheism.[/quote]
I would say the idea that Christian theology is a corruption of Hellenism fails to grasp the nuances of Christian theology. And are you sure you sure you understand Church history? There was no such thing as ‘the Roman Church’ when these doctrines came into being. The theologians were primarily Greek, the primary schools of thought in Alexandria and Antioch. Tertullian coined the term ‘Trinity’, but the doctrine was in place well before Tertullian. It’s clear in his writings he’s not introducing anything new …
The Fathers were, almost to a man, Platonists – Iraneaus being a notable exception – but they saw beyond Platonism and its problems. Origen, for example, was a Platonist, but the accusation of ‘Origenism’ (Platonising Christianity) scholarship now places not at his feet but at followers who misunderstood his teachings. Aries, for example, was another who viewed Christianity through a Platonic lens and tried to Hellenise Christianity, and was resisted.
Origen against Celsus shows how much Origen saw the difference between Christianity and Hellenism. Augustine, another Platonist who’s writings are the most subjective and biographical, makes it quite clear that Platonism was inadequate, but a stepping stone. Maximus the Confessor reworked the very fundamental tenets of Platonism to bring it into line with Biblical Revelation and in a stroke ‘solved’ all the ‘issues’ with the Platonic theory of forms and the origins of being – and from then on we have a clear distinction between Christian theology and Middle and Later Platonism.
Whilst there are virgin births, resurrections, etc, all of them are in line with an agrarian naturalist symbolism, whereas the Virgin Birth, Passion and Resurrection is directed at a different order of understanding altogether, a Scriptural understanding, which was understood from the beginning, with Mary as the New Eve. So whilst the outward forms might appear there same, the inward essence and understanding is not.
Christ, for example, utilises natural symbology throughout. Breaking bread is as old as the hills, but breaking bread is not the same as the Eucharist …
The criticism of Scripture is well known and well documented. They’re gone over at some length if you study Catholic theology in any detail. It’s an old argument, and really made too much of – there’s simple too many unknowns and uncertainties.
Separate names with a comma.