Page 8 of 21 FirstFirst ... 67891018 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 203

Thread: The root of Christianity

  1. Top | #71
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,806
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    15,552
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Tharmas View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Learner View Post

    The variations of Christianity, for example the churches, that were already established in the 1st century, long before Constantine and the scriptural canonization, in which bewteen them, only had trivial differences. ALL Churches (the few that existed at that particular time period), believed in Christ as the saviour etc..
    I’m not sure how much harmony there really was in the early church. You say they all “believed in Christ as the savior, etc.” Sure, but there’s a lot covered by that “etc.”

    For one thing, Paul mentions several times in his genuine epistles that members of the churches he addresses should not listen to other, false preachers preaching false doctrine. So Paul was under the impression that there were different messages and important differences that needed to be addressed. Acts describes a meeting between Paul and James in Jerusalem, and their disagreements, presumably over whether non Jews could be members of the church.

    That last question erupted in only the second century with Marcion, the first to codify the New Testament (he included the letters of Paul and a modified Luke). Marcionism rejects all of Jewish teaching in what we now call the Old Testament, including worship of Yahweh. For a good period of time Marcionism was the most popular version of Christianity.

    As for violence, while you may be correct that many early Christians were pacifists, nevertheless they could still display violence, by overturning pagan statues and defiling pagan temples, which was one of the chief complaints pagans had about Christians. My source for that information is Robin L Fox, Pagans and Christians.

    The myth of a unified Christianity is exactly that – a myth. Schisms go back to the earliest days of the church.
    Paul was a maverick who was quite willing to compromise the Jewish law in order to convert gentiles. Something the other early Christians (who identified as Jews) was not happy about. But Paul was an excellent networker and evangelist. The sheer mass of new converts, who converted to Paul's version of Judaism/Christianity, won out simply based on numbers, rather than any consensus about doctrine.

    The problem with Paul's version of Judaism is that it's not at all clear that the gentile converts need to follow any Jewish law. Which begs the question of what Christianity then is? He basically opened up Judaism to be a mess of individuals using their own judgement. He planted the seeds of the later doctrinal conflicts.

  2. Top | #72
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,806
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    15,552
    Rep Power
    62
    Now I've listened to all the free stuff. So now I'm on the paid bonus content.

    https://literatureandhistory.com/ind.../bonus-content

    It's about Hitite, Sumerian and Egyptian pre-Jewish religion. Ie religion far predating Judaism ever being mentioned. One part is about Baal. He reads from its holy texts and summarizes it. Basically, Baal is like any other pagan religion. It's just standard fare. Baal is a storm God, much like Zeus. Is about as mentally stable. Asherah is the Jewish version of Athena. Etc.

    He explains the likely source of monotheism. A theory is that king Hezekiah wanted to have a monopoly on temple worship. A big part of Judaism was sacrifices (as stated in the Torah) Hezekiah centralized this and demanded that all Jews had to use his priests. It was basically a tax.

    At this time Judaism was pretty much a standard paganism. From this time most Jewish homes seemed to have idols of Yahweh and Asherah and it was just normal. This was true long after sacrificing outside the temple of David became banned.

    And as such, everything written about Baal in the Hebrew Bible is nothing but a smear campaign in order for Hezekiah to make money. Everything said about Baal in the Bible is all just lies.

    He also mentions the comedic aspect of the descriptions. Baal is mentioned as nothing but prime evil and the depth of depravity. Yet Jews keep defecting to Baal worship all the time (worshipping in parallel with Jehovah). Just as if they didn't notice how evil Baal was. There would then be a miracle conclusively proving Yahweh's preeminence. Yet, the Jews kept continuing to worship Baal. And this went on for hundreds of years.

    Also worth noting is that Yahweh, El, Elohim and Baal were all pretty much interchangeable deities.

    The Bible also uses Baal as a stand in for all the other gods of Canaan. Calling them Baal's.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancien...anite_religion

    I did once wonder if all the names of the devil in the Bible are just the names of gods that the Jews were in conflict with. And yes, it is. That's exactly what it is.

  3. Top | #73
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,806
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    15,552
    Rep Power
    62
    Here's something else I learned that I didn't know before. I thought the Apocrypha was the heretical books. That's wrong. The Apocrypha are a part of all Christian denominations canon. They're just not considered the important books. They're for people with a specialized interest.

    The heretical books are called the Pseudepigrapha.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudepigrapha

    Generally, the Apocryphical books are the more whacky Old Testament books. The Pseudepigrapha is the more whacky New Testament books.

    Why Christians, during the canon formation, were cool about papering over exegetical absurdities in the Old Testament, but not in the New Testament, is in itself fascinating. I don't have an answer. I doubt anybody now living does.

  4. Top | #74
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    6,670
    Rep Power
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Here's something else I learned that I didn't know before. I thought the Apocrypha was the heretical books. That's wrong. The Apocrypha are a part of all Christian denominations canon. They're just not considered the important books. They're for people with a specialized interest.

    The heretical books are called the Pseudepigrapha.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudepigrapha

    Generally, the Apocryphical books are the more whacky Old Testament books. The Pseudepigrapha is the more whacky New Testament books.

    Why Christians, during the canon formation, were cool about papering over exegetical absurdities in the Old Testament, but not in the New Testament, is in itself fascinating. I don't have an answer. I doubt anybody now living does.
    The Apocrypha are a part of the canon for most Christians, only Protestants reject them, and not all of those. They are not "special interest" for Catholics, they're just part of the Bible. They're included in the liturgy, the weekly readings, etc, just like the rest. They aren't particularly "wacky", just later of composition than the others and thus not included in the Masoretic Text that Luther considered definitive.
    "Banish me from Eden when you will, but first let me eat of the tree of knowledge."

  5. Top | #75
    Elder Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    11,931
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    29,837
    Rep Power
    81
    If one is willing to believe in one fantastic thing, what's one two more...

  6. Top | #76
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    7,401
    Rep Power
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by DBT View Post
    If one is willing to believe in one fantastic thing, what's one two more...
    Like salted pop corn.

  7. Top | #77
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,806
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    15,552
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Here's something else I learned that I didn't know before. I thought the Apocrypha was the heretical books. That's wrong. The Apocrypha are a part of all Christian denominations canon. They're just not considered the important books. They're for people with a specialized interest.

    The heretical books are called the Pseudepigrapha.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudepigrapha

    Generally, the Apocryphical books are the more whacky Old Testament books. The Pseudepigrapha is the more whacky New Testament books.

    Why Christians, during the canon formation, were cool about papering over exegetical absurdities in the Old Testament, but not in the New Testament, is in itself fascinating. I don't have an answer. I doubt anybody now living does.
    The Apocrypha are a part of the canon for most Christians, only Protestants reject them, and not all of those. They are not "special interest" for Catholics, they're just part of the Bible. They're included in the liturgy, the weekly readings, etc, just like the rest. They aren't particularly "wacky", just later of composition than the others and thus not included in the Masoretic Text that Luther considered definitive.
    You're wrong. Protestants do not reject the apocrypha. Luther wrote a bunch on apocryphal texts that he hated. But at no point did he question their validity or that they aren't genuine and part of Christianity and should be taught.

  8. Top | #78
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    6,670
    Rep Power
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Here's something else I learned that I didn't know before. I thought the Apocrypha was the heretical books. That's wrong. The Apocrypha are a part of all Christian denominations canon. They're just not considered the important books. They're for people with a specialized interest.

    The heretical books are called the Pseudepigrapha.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudepigrapha

    Generally, the Apocryphical books are the more whacky Old Testament books. The Pseudepigrapha is the more whacky New Testament books.

    Why Christians, during the canon formation, were cool about papering over exegetical absurdities in the Old Testament, but not in the New Testament, is in itself fascinating. I don't have an answer. I doubt anybody now living does.
    The Apocrypha are a part of the canon for most Christians, only Protestants reject them, and not all of those. They are not "special interest" for Catholics, they're just part of the Bible. They're included in the liturgy, the weekly readings, etc, just like the rest. They aren't particularly "wacky", just later of composition than the others and thus not included in the Masoretic Text that Luther considered definitive.
    You're wrong. Protestants do not reject the apocrypha. Luther wrote a bunch on apocryphal texts that he hated. But at no point did he question their validity or that they aren't genuine and part of Christianity and should be taught.
    I said "only Protestants reject them", not "all Protestants reject them".
    "Banish me from Eden when you will, but first let me eat of the tree of knowledge."

  9. Top | #79
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    9,806
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    15,552
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post

    You're wrong. Protestants do not reject the apocrypha. Luther wrote a bunch on apocryphal texts that he hated. But at no point did he question their validity or that they aren't genuine and part of Christianity and should be taught.
    I said "only Protestants reject them", not "all Protestants reject them".
    That's not saying much since there's a billion and one various protestant denominations.

  10. Top | #80
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    6,670
    Rep Power
    25
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Politesse View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post

    You're wrong. Protestants do not reject the apocrypha. Luther wrote a bunch on apocryphal texts that he hated. But at no point did he question their validity or that they aren't genuine and part of Christianity and should be taught.
    I said "only Protestants reject them", not "all Protestants reject them".
    That's not saying much since there's a billion and one various protestant denominations.
    Collectively, however, they are less than half of Christian world, which for the most part does not call the Apocrypha "the Apocrypha" and simply regards them as part of the canon.
    "Banish me from Eden when you will, but first let me eat of the tree of knowledge."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •