If there were undeniable proof that there was a god or that there was not a god, do you not think it would have been demonstrated already? It is just not that simple.
My take on it is that a lack of proof suggests there is no god. The same reasoning that I think most people apply to Santa Claus. Can I offer undeniable proof there is no god? No, I can not. So I remain open to the possibility there could be a god. Even more so to a god who is vastly different than the Judeo-Christian god.
Can anyone offer undeniable proof there is no Santa Claus? If not, why is he so easily dismissed?
Technically you can't offer undeniable proof that there isn't anything. You test the positive and disprove it rather than proving the negative. This is one reason why you can never disprove God. He might just be hiding from you. But a complete absence of evidence in his favour is certainly indicative of his absence.
The onus is on those who assert the positive to provide evidence to support their assertion. In other words, atheists don't have to prove there is no God because it's impossible to prove there isn't a God, Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Flying Spaghetti Monster or aliens from the planet Krypton. Theists need to provide evidence to show that there is.
There is so a Flying Spaghetti Monster.
...you have a moral obligation to push me out of the way. if there was a bus then you saved my life. If there was nto one, no harm done.
Keep that in mind after the 50th or so time I've pushed you...
There is so a Flying Spaghetti Monster.
There certainly does seem to be evidence supporting his existence.
Hasn't the bible gone from Greek to Latin to English, further compounding the problem? Add to that the fact that many of the English translations were performed with a secular political agenda (New King James, anyone?)
Depends on what part of the Bible you're referring to. The Hebrew Bible was written mostly in Hebrew (I know, who could have guessed? :) ) with some sections in Aramaic. The Christian Bible, at least the canonical stuff, was written in koine Greek. But certain sections of the Christian Bible imply a degree of familiarity with the Greek language translation of the Hebrew Bible in common currency at the time (the Septuagint) over that of the Hebrew version (they have some notable differences), so far as we can determine. Command of Hebrew was vanishingly rare in the early Christian church, and after a few centuries command of koine Greek had faded significantly in the Western Mediterranean.
Augustine of Hippo, probably the most influential single theologian in the history of Latin Christendom, worked from Latin translations. He had no, or little, Greek. The Bible we think of medieval Western and Central Europeans using was the Latin Vulgate translation, done by Jerome. Earlier Latin translations existed, but they were found wanting and Jerome's version became the official text of the Catholic Church. Jerome's Vulgate was a translation from the Greek and from the Hebrew, depending on what section of the work we're talking about.
The degree to which modern translations are derived from the Greek, the Hebrew, the Aramaic, the Latin, recovered fragments of earlier versions, and the like is complicated. This is even on top of the agendas that shape every translation. Some will bowlderize (slaves turn into servants, etc) and thus an older translation might have a more accurate reading. Protestant translations will shy away from using Catholic terminology (bishop turns into overseer), and certain translations are made with exceptionally narrow theological nits to pick (the version used by the Jehovah's Witnesses is particular about using their divine name in all cases and is pretty hard on passages suggesting trinitarianism, but especially on that second point it's hard for a non-expert to know who is being more faithful). The NIV, for example, was translated by and for conservative evangelical Protestants. The NAB was translated specifically for Catholics. Every denomination of sufficient age has particular traditions and readings which will be presumed correct and the original translated with those readings in mind because they are "obviously" correct. Some denominations are more open about putting church tradition ahead of linguistic faithfulness than others are.
And that's on top of the things that virtually every Bible translation shies away from, like calling the Sea of Reeds, a swamp, the Red Sea. Sometimes they'll footnote that.
It's a rather tangled mess, and nobody is going in unbiased. (Take a guess, who is most likely to be inclined and able to devote a life to mastering the relevant dead languages? That's right, adherents to various religious groups who already have a pre-established opinion as to what the original texts "really" said.) The King James Version, for all its wonderful language, includes verses that don't actually appear in the originals so far as we can determine. They were inserted at some later point. Modern printings usually acknowledge this in footnotes. The ending of Mark is even more complicated, as there are three or four different versions. The long one is usually what gets printed, but the authenticity of the lot can be debated. The RSV put the long one as a footnote and jump-started the KJV-only movment in the process.
And all of this is mostly without getting into the sometimes major differences we have in the texts we've discovered.
|
I don't think its that tangled of a mess. :D
The medieval Catholic church used Latin Translations of Greek Manuscripts as their Bible.
Modern Translations are done from Greek Manuscripts.
The best translations are done by committees, not individuals and most of them try to incorporate a variety of doctrinal viewpoints to provide a balance in the translation that pleases everyone. That being said, it is possible to see biases in some translations and it helps if you know the theories that went into making a translation.
The first job of any translating body is to determine their base text.
As I said, English translations are done from Greek Manuscripts, not Latin. There are however minor differences between the handwritten manuscripts (very minor - there are only a handful of truly debated passages) and trying to determine which are the authentic readings is the job of the textual critic. If there is a question, sometimes the Latin manuscripts can be used to determine what text was used in their making.
If you buy a good Greek New Testament, it will contain the accepted text and then in footnotes provide the alternate readings. A good translation will do the same, letting you know where a question does arise so that the reader can judge for themselves.
It is worth noting that when we speak of differences in the text, we are talking often about minor word changes that do not change the meaning of any passage. There is no christian doctrine that hinges upon a questionable text.
Mark 16 is the big passage that raises questions. Notably, every single modern translation includes the end of the chapter. Textually, the book makes more sense with the passage included and I think it is a part of the original myself. Critics point out that the older manuscripts do not have it but the older manuscripts are not necessarily the best manuscripts - the real question is how many times between the original and the copy were the words scribed. Nevertheless, it is hard to imagine anyone trying to add a whole chapter to Mark and it is easy to imagine a manuscript being damaged in such a way as for the end of the book to fall off and then being copied that way.
Anyway, my main point is - the New Testament in particular is a pretty well established document. Of all the works of antiquity, the New Testament was the most widely copied and circulated. There are over 5300 Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament and over 10,000 copies of the Latin Vulgate. Portions and quotes from the New Testament can be found in over 24,000 manuscripts. By comparison, the Illiad comes in second place with a total of 643 manuscripts. Ceasar's 'Gallic Wars,' written at about the same time as the New Testament has about nine or ten good manuscripts and the oldest is only about 900 years old. The variations between all of these New Testament manuscripts is very minor, and only what you would expect from handwritten work. We are able to say with certainty that the bible we have today is a faithful representation of the words originally penned and read by the first century church. This point is not really even debatable (not to say it isn't debated). Note that this doesn't speak to the reliability of any one translation. However the major translations are pretty much in agreement with each other and anyone who does not read Greek can be pretty well served by comparing two or three of the major translations with each other.
For those who care about translations, anyone who can dig up a copy of the original American Standard will find a translation that is pretty faithful to the exact wording of the Greek. The NIV does a pretty good job of giving the sense of the passages (though I personally think they play a little too loose with their wording.) The New King James is my translation of choice and I have only ever found one verse where I really thought they made a bad translation and that was actually a fairly minor quibble.
I don't think its that tangled of a mess. :D
Of course not. How solid would your faith be if its very foundation, the Bible, were questionable?
There is no christian doctrine that hinges upon a questionable text.
So all of the different Christian doctrines hinge on clear and unquestionable text? Does it really seem reasonable that an all powerful god is incapable of communicating his desires in such a way that his children would not misconstrue it?
the real question is how many times between the original and the copy were the words scribed.
Careful. That is starting to sound like textual criticism which we all know is little more than pseudo-science.
Nevertheless, it is hard to imagine anyone trying to add a whole chapter to Mark and it is easy to imagine a manuscript being damaged in such a way as for the end of the book to fall off and then being copied that way.
You can not be serious. Assuming you are not a Mormon, how do you account for someone adding an entire book to the Bible? I say it is at least equally reasonable that it was added or lost.
Of all the works of antiquity, the New Testament was the most widely copied and circulated.
And we all know that whoever sells the most books is right. That is why we all know 4e is a better system because it is outselling 3.5.
Not to mention that one time everyone thought the Earth was flat.
We are able to say with certainty that the bible we have today is a faithful representation of the words originally penned and read by the first century church.
Yeah...I am not sure I really trust their motives. They were a cult afterall.
This point is not really even debatable (not to say it isn't debated).
Just because I do not believe something does not mean it is not true. However, just because you say it is not debatable means it is true? I say pretty much anything is debatable. And just saying 'Yeah huh!' does not support your point.
The New King James is my translation of choice and I have only ever found one verse where I really thought they made a bad translation and that was actually a fairly minor quibble.
Crimson Jester already suggested the King James version was politically motivated.
Be careful about reading health books. You may die of a misprint. --Mark Twain
I believe that goes double for books regarding your immortal soul.
It is worth noting that when we speak of differences in the text, we are talking often about minor word changes that do not change the meaning of any passage. There is no christian doctrine that hinges upon a questionable text.
Except for the virgin birth prophecy, which comes to mind immediately. The Septuagint's translation of the word as "virgin" is exceptionally unusual. The same term is rendered as "young woman" more or less everywhere else. The most likely explanation here is that the Septuagint is in error, but of course the authors of the Christian Bible knew the Septuagint and not the Hebrew.
Mark 16 is the big passage that raises questions. Notably, every single modern translation includes the end of the chapter. Textually, the book makes more sense with the passage included and I think it is a part of the original myself. Critics point out that the older manuscripts do not have it but the older manuscripts are not necessarily the best manuscripts - the real question is how many times between the original and the copy were the words scribed. Nevertheless, it is hard to imagine anyone...
Actually it's my position that the older texts should be preferred unless an extremely compelling case exists for their being extremely wrong. What other texts are likely to have passed through the fewest copies? That's certainly the priority we assign in historical studies and I would think that from the perspective of a believer, this is a historical study. For that matter, we know that extra passages and verses crept into the KJV that were not present in most any of the manuscripts we've uncovered from Antiquity, so we can say with some confidence that people were adding passages to the text after they were originally written.
Anyway, my main point is - the New Testament in particular is a pretty well established document. Of all the works of antiquity, the New Testament was the most widely copied and circulated. There are over 5300 Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament and over 10,000 copies of the Latin Vulgate. Portions and quotes from the New Testament can be found in over 24,000 manuscripts. By comparison, the Illiad comes in second place with a total of 643 manuscripts. Ceasar's 'Gallic Wars,' written at about the same time as the New Testament has about nine or ten good manuscripts and the oldest is only about 900 years old.
This tells us only that it was more popular than those works. Which doesn't say much about its veracity. It's no surprise to me, or I think anybody who gives it a half-second's thought, that a text (or rather, texts) highly favored by the dominant religion of late Antiquity has the most copies preserved. It's a point no more remarkable than the fact that Paizo, a game company, has a store stocked heavily with game books.
The variations between all of these New Testament manuscripts is very minor, and only what you would expect from handwritten work. We are able to say with certainty that the bible we have today is a faithful representation of the words originally penned and read by the first century church.
A subset of them, maybe. But there are something on the order of fifty known gospels alone, several different apocalypses, infancy gospels, etc. Some of these were just as or nearly as popular as the four gospels and one apocalypse that made it into the canon. To give you an idea of the diversity of early Christian writing, here's a website with a summary and some scholarly comment: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/.
Anyway, that's true to the degree that the surviving writings of the early Christians suggest familiarity with the texts. If a writer references something in a text we have, then we can assume that the writer had access to a text that said something to that effect. But we can't assume that said writer had access to the entire, identical text that we have now unless we actually have a manuscript that dates to the proper time. That might be the case, but we cannot say that we know it to be the case since we do not have their libraries at our disposal.
The NIV does a pretty good job of giving the sense of the passages (though I personally think they play a little too loose with their wording.)
It's odd that you would recommend the NIV at all considering your earlier comments about the desirability of having a diverse panel of translators. The NIV's translation was done entirely by conservative Christians and with an eye towards their apologetics, which has earned it some criticism. In fact, it was a specific reaction against the more intellectually diverse RSV translation.
|
Ah. A civil religious discussion seems imposable, it always devolves into a debate. Atheist bash cristians.Christians bash muslams.Muslams bash jews.Jews bash... you get the point. Each and everyone of us is free to decide in their own heart what is true.I am a Christian man I belive in the spirit of the bible. I respect the beliefs of others because I wish for them to respect mine, I do not belive everything in the bible is as it was.I know people that use the bible to back their "womens place" mentality but they neglect the parts that tell them to "raise their wife up" and "place her above all others". That is a misuse of The Word. I'm sure that Judaism and Islam are just as guilty of this as well. As for Athiest... well I disagree with them but I can't change them by beating them with my religious club, only make them more convinced of my hypocrasy. But if your not gonna belive like me please belive in somthing, it really does help sometimes.
Kirk M. Moore
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ah. A civil religious discussion seems imposable, it always devolves into a debate.
I don't see how a discussion of the veracity of a set of opinions is inherently a degeneration, or uncivil by necessity.
I am a Christian man I belive in the spirit of the bible. I respect the beliefs of others because I wish for them to respect mine, I do not belive everything in the bible is as it was.
To me, showing respect for a person involves necessarily an honest discussion as to our differences. That's a respect paid to both parties, a presumption that they are reasonable people and that what differences they have might be amicably resolved. There's both an element of self respect (I have this opinion for these reasons, based upon this evidence, etc.) and respect for the other (you have a different opinion based on these reasons and evidence, etc.).
Maybe we differ, but I think this presumption far more respectful than the idea that people of any viewpoint just have opinions out of obstinacy and would refuse to see any kind of reason or ever be persuaded otherwise. I mean, that seems to begin with assuming the personal failings of the other are both the source of his or her opinions and the reason that they shall be maintained at all hazards.
As for Athiest... well I disagree with them but I can't change them by beating them with my religious club, only make them more convinced of my hypocrasy. But if your not gonna belive like me please belive in somthing, it really does help sometimes.
Not believing in the tenets of a religion is not the same as believing in nothing. I believe in the ability of humans to improve themselves, to be kind to one another, to use their brains to make the world a better place and to develop an increasingly accurate understanding of the universe, the democratic process, individual rights, honesty, scholarship, reason, creativity, intellectual integrity, and so forth. I believe mysteries are compelling and the search for their answers is good, that those answers can be beautiful. I believe that ignorance is ugly. I believe in humor. I believe that Elijah Wood is really hot. :) I believe that good stories are good stories, as long as we don't lose sight of the distinction between fiction and reality. I believe disputes are best resolved by words, reason, and evidence and worst resolved by violence. I believe that just because we can't live in Pangloss's world doesn't mean that we can't live in a better one.
I believe in one fewer god than you do, but I believe that we should both be let live our lives as we wish, so long as we don't interfere with anybody else doing the same. I believe there will always be necessary compromises on this front, but that we have made much progress and some regress in the past few centuries towards that goal.
And I'm going to guess that the other non-theists here could make similar lists of beliefs.
Different people have different expectations of what is 'reasonable'... :)
Fair enough. Do you have an explanation why god has allowed so many interpretations of his word?
But if your not gonna belive like me please belive in somthing, it really does help sometimes.
What should I believe in and how does it help?
|
Moorluck,
If you are seeing this thread as an attempt at conversion, from any party, then you are reading it wrong. This is an attempt to understand a worldview that makes no sense to the other side. To a believer, the atheists non-belief makes no sense at all. To an atheist, the believer's view is likewise nonsensical. If we just go "Oh, to Hell with it, they're obviously stupid for believing/non-believing", we do each other an injustice.
The questions we ask are not an attempt to undermine your faith, but an attempt to see what solutions believers have come to to resolve what to us are fundamental problems with religion.
That said, Courtfool, no offence, but you are coming across a bit aggressive in the questioning. Picking words apart is not the most productive way to achieve understanding.
|
|
Moorluck,
If you are seeing this thread as an attempt at conversion, from any party, then you are reading it wrong. This is an attempt to understand a worldview that makes no sense to the other side. To a believer, the atheists non-belief makes no sense at all. To an atheist, the believer's view is likewise nonsensical. If we just go "Oh, to Hell with it, they're obviously stupid for believing/non-believing", we do each other an injustice.
Forgive me if I took this thread in the wrong way I wasn't saying, per say, that you guys were attempting to bash eachother, just expressing a strong dislike of when people do. So far this has mostly been respectful of different veiws( which just goes to enforce my theory that gamers are some of the most tolerant people in society today).
I've never said that atheists don't believe in anything, many "non-believers" hold in their hearts the same,or near same, values that I hold dear, love,understanding,respect for their fellow man. I know my comments seem to have been taken as an attack on this conversation but I have a hard time thinking/writing clearly as I have some minor brain damage stemming from a head injury so please bear with me. I agree ( and have said as much) that people only show the true signs of intellegence when they can look at other peoples points of veiw and keep an open mind.So thank you guys for giving the chance to hopfully clarify myself.|
|
Now with out of the way...
Courtfool my statement wasn't an attempt to convert anyone. I was just making a poorly worded reference to Sheperd from the Firefly/Serenity series. But in answear to your return, Believe in anything your heart tells you is true it may help in giving peice of mind,it has me.
As far as why God allows so many different interpretations(?) of His word, I've always seen it like this, I love my wife and so do her parents, we love her but in different ways, neither one being wrong.
Same goes for relationships with God, many different people, many different relationships... none of them wrong.
That said, Courtfool, no offence, but you are coming across a bit aggressive in the questioning.
I apologize.
A question that I'd like the christians here to think about, and hopefully answer.
At Nicea, the books that would be included in the bible were decided. Those that did not make the cut were actively stamped out where they could be found. This lead to the destruction of the "other side" of christianity, the individualistic gnostic christian theology.
Emperor Constantin of Rome summoned every christian leader he could find to Nicea, upon pain of death. He then basically forced them to agree on the shape of chistianity, and the result was the state-hugging anti-individual dogma that still remains today.
My question is about the selection of books. This was done on the order of the roman emperor. Can this be seen as valid? Was that selection also divinely inspired, or is the current bible roster a result of man cutting out what he didn't want from God's word?
|
|
Man, I'm out for a few days and have three pages to catch up on. (Paul, thank you for your additional comments, by the way.)
A question that I'd like the christians here to think about, and hopefully answer.
At Nicea, the books that would be included in the bible were decided. Those that did not make the cut were actively stamped out where they could be found. This lead to the destruction of the "other side" of christianity, the individualistic gnostic christian theology.
Emperor Constantin of Rome summoned every christian leader he could find to Nicea, upon pain of death. He then basically forced them to agree on the shape of chistianity, and the result was the state-hugging anti-individual dogma that still remains today.
My question is about the selection of books. This was done on the order of the roman emperor. Can this be seen as valid? Was that selection also divinely inspired, or is the current bible roster a result of man cutting out what he didn't want from God's word?
"Valid"? I don't know what "valid" would be. But here are a few thoughts.
I don't know that much about the Council of Nicaea (Nicea? Seems to be a couple of different spellings). Doing a quick google search to get an idea yielded a few points. First, pretty much everything that I read said nothing about actually choosing which books to include in the Bible. In addition, there seemed to be some history as to why Constantine summoned the church leaders there in the first place. Basically, it looked like what amounted to a huge civil unrest that was happening in his kingdom to the point where he had had enough. So he ordered them together and forced them to come to some conclusion so that they would get along. It looks like some significant doctrinal issues were decided at that time (the concept of the trinity, among others), but as near as I could tell, the majority of the accepted books of the Bible had largely been decided by that time.
Did this question come from The DaVinci Code? I have neither read the book nor watched the movie. But one of the (biased) articles I read made mention of it as being very innaccurate with regard to the origin of the Bible.
We have a book on many of the gnostic writings and what was in them and why they weren't included in the "canon", etc. I'll try and take a look at it if/when I get a chance.
|
|
If there was nto one, no harm done.If there were no bus, do you think I might get a little irritated if you kept pushing me around?
If I believe there is no god and that you are wasting your life trying to convince everyone there is, do I have a moral obligation to save you from yourself not to mention all the other people you are going to lead astray?
Ah, but you are assuming I am trying to convince you. I am not. I was just trying to answer a question or to. I know I can't convince you. You have already convinced yourself. So be it. Assuming that every believer will or wants to convince you. Or that I will be militant in my approach is very poor. That sort of thinking is why A$$h@ts like Maher get away with crap movies like Religilous.
|
|
Over the past few days, there have been a lot of posts. I'm not going to address most of them -- mostly due to time -- however, this was interesting to me. It isn't something that I normally hear, but thought that it was a good point.
Every time I go to church I am bombarded with praise for and prayers to Jesus Christ. It seems to me his message was more about loving others and less about him.
That gets us back to the faith and works discussion though. I think we are all on common ground on that.
What I'm going to say, I don't expect you to necessarily agree with me, but just wanted to give you perhaps a little more insight into our minds.
Keep in mind that with Christians, we believe that Jesus is God. So worshipping God is the same as worshipping Jesus and so on.
Another thought is that if Jesus demanded worship he probably wouldn't have gotten it. Look at it from another religion's point of view -- like Buddhism. Here is a dude (paraphrase from Moff) who seemed to figure out a whole lot and gained the respect of (eventually) millions of people. Yet I don't think that he ever said to make images of him, put his image on special alters/tables, to make prayers to him, etc. -- that this would get people closer to enlightenment. Yet people do.
Aside from the religious reason that we pray to Jesus (his divinity) I believe that there is a psychological reason as well. At the very least, by simply praying to him, we are reminded of what he did and what he stands for.
The Council of Nicea, in one of its proclamations, laid out a canon. It wasn't the first. Irenaeus knows a four-Gospel canon circa 160 (and argued, if I recall correctly, that there could be four and only four gospels because there were only four winds). Origen a few decades later knows a larger canon. But the canonicity of several works remained debated. As late as the 1500s, Martin Luther expressed some doubts about Revelation.
Wikipedia has an introduction. If you want something more formal, this is a very extensive summary. (Don't be put off by the host, Carrier is largely relying on Bruce Metzger, an ordained minister and PhD in Biblical Studies.)
Ah, but you are assuming I am trying to convince you. I am not. I was just trying to answer a question or to.
I obviously misunderstood you then. Please elaborate on what you meant by the following.
I believe that [to quote an athiest] if a bus was going to run me down and I didnt believe it and you did. you have a moral obligation to push me out of the way. if there was a bus then you saved my life. If there was nto one, no harm done.
Freedom of choice.... Chaos theory..... call it what you will.
It seems a very dangerous risk to take with our immortal souls for god to allow his word to be misinterpreted by Freedom of Choice. Why should I be punished for someone else’s mistake?
John 10:29
My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Father's hand.
John 14:28
You heard that I said to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you ' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
John 17:20-26
"I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word;
that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.
"The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one;
I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.
"Father, I desire that they also, whom You have given Me, be with Me where I am, so that they may see My glory which You have given Me, for You loved Me before the foundation of the world.
"O righteous Father, although the world has not known You, yet I have known You; and these have known that You sent Me;
and I have made Your name known to them, and will make it known, so that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them."
These passages make good arguments for Arianism.
|
|
Ah, but you are assuming I am trying to convince you. I am not. I was just trying to answer a question or to.I obviously misunderstood you then. Please elaborate on what you meant by the following.
I believe that [to quote an athiest] if a bus was going to run me down and I didnt believe it and you did. you have a moral obligation to push me out of the way. if there was a bus then you saved my life. If there was nto one, no harm done.
Perhaps I should let the man explain it himself. I actually agree with his accessment. Or rather some of it. He seems to have an unspoken belief that any believer is a crack pot.
|
|
Freedom of choice.... Chaos theory..... call it what you will.It seems a very dangerous risk to take with our immortal souls for god to allow his word to be misinterpreted by Freedom of Choice. Why should I be punished for someone else’s mistake?
Who mentioned anything about a mistake. The Lord gave you a brain and obviously you use yours.
You push me out of the way, and if there is no bus, no harm done, of course.
However, if you instead demand to regulate every aspect of my life because you think the bus is coming, and you're prepared to do it by force of legislation, you can't say there's been no harm done.
And THAT is the reason we atheists dislike religious people who want to destroy the free and open society FOR OUR OWN SAKE.
Ok, but are you asking or telling?
I guess I would call it an observation.
Jesus mentions, and I do not remember the book, that whoever has seen him has seen the father. If we are to take him literally, it seems contradictory when he also says that the father is greater than him.
As far as I know, and please correct me if I am mistaken here, the new testament never specifically lays out the holy trinity. This concept was developed during the first council of Nicea. I do think it worth mentioning it was overwhelmingly accepted.
I am skeptical of allowing the fourth century roman bishops to insert their interpretation of the bible for me. Especially given the politics. This is a time when the divinity of monarchs is unquestionable.
|
|
I guess I would call it an observation.
Jesus mentions, and I do not remember the book, that whoever has seen him has seen the father. If we are to take him literally, it seems contradictory when he also says that the father is greater than him.
As far as I know, and please correct me if I am mistaken here, the new testament never specifically lays out the holy trinity. This concept was developed during the first council of Nicea. I do think it worth mentioning it was overwhelmingly accepted.
I am skeptical of allowing the fourth century roman bishops to insert their interpretation of the bible for me. Especially given the politics. This is a time when the divinity of monarchs is unquestionable.
There are quite a number of passages that support the idea that Jesus is God. There are also a few verses that seem to show that Jesus has limitations that God doesn't have. I don't know all the answers about that. One thing that was told to me recently is that when the Bible seems to contradict itself with regard to Jesus and/or God, that the "contradiction" is more like the endpoints of a range of what God is or isn't.
You are correct that there isn't a magic verse or two that says that God is a trinity and that this is how it all works. It is mostly implied. And it starts in Genesis (Genesis 1:26 -- ..."Let us make man in our image...", then verse 27 -- So God created man in his image...) and is implied in many other places throughout the Bible. Somehow God is both singular and plural.
I understand your skepticism, however at the same time, I'm not sure how important to salvation understanding of the trinity truly is.
And it starts in Genesis (Genesis 1:26 -- ..."Let us make man in our image...", then verse 27 -- So God created man in his image...) and is implied in many other places throughout the Bible. Somehow God is both singular and plural.
Yes, "elohim" translates as gods, not God. Nonbelievers typically point out that very early Judaism evolved out of a polytheistic cult, and that these references in Genesis reflect that. Monotheists have other explanations, of course.
I understand your skepticism, however at the same time, I'm not sure how important to salvation understanding of the trinity truly is.
For me, the bible is easier to accept if it is metaphor. If it is though, how do you know which interpretation is correct?
I agree that understanding Trinitarianism is probably not important to salvation. Acceptance of Jesus as savior is. I bring it up as an example of the problem I face whenever I read the bible. At nearly every turn I am faced with something that does not make sense to me or that seems to contradict another part of the bible.
Whenever I ask a believer about these issues I am given elaborate and fantastical explanations. It appears to me like when someone tells a lie and then is confronted with evidence to the contrary, builds an ever more elaborate lie to cover the first one up.
Why is Trinitarianism more believable than the possibility that the early Christian church was just pushing its own agenda?
And it starts in Genesis (Genesis 1:26 -- ..."Let us make man in our image...", then verse 27 -- So God created man in his image...) and is implied in many other places throughout the Bible. Somehow God is both singular and plural.Yes, "elohim" translates as gods, not God. Nonbelievers typically point out that very early Judaism evolved out of a polytheistic cult, and that these references in Genesis reflect that. Monotheists have other explanations, of course.
It's not quite that clear-cut. Apparently (recalling this from a few years ago, so some details may be off) Judaism has a fair number of words that are always plural even if they refer to singular things, rather like we have some words which are the same in either form (sheep and deer, for example). So it's not exactly clear if E was referring to one god or several.
However, it's quite clear even from reading dodgy translations that deliberately gloss over the fact that the ancient Jews believed in many gods. The complaint was not that the gods of other groups were false, but that they weren't the right ones for the Jews to be sacrificing to. Exodus 10 (Pharoah lets the Jews leave, but then God hardens his heart so they have to stay. Then God pounds the Egyptians some more. Pharoah cries uncle. God hardens his heart again, does more pounding.) certainly looks like a very messy redaction of what was likely originally a god-on-god fight. The version that comes down to us has the guy looking like a schizophrenic, or a sadist more interested in showing off how he can afflict Egypt than helping his chosen people. One of the psalms has God unashamedly having a divine conference where he wants the other gods to sing his praises. That one is usually translated away.
What one might call hard monotheism seems to be something that was probably first instituted in or about the reign of Josiah. (The first figure named in the Bible who has external historical evidence in his favor is David, and that evidence is a bit ambiguous and hard to date, if anybody is trying to get an idea of the lay of the land here.) This is a pretty good introduction to what the stones and bones suggest, though they stretch a bit farther in trying to establish their own version of the founding of the ancient Jewish state than they do in discussing the conventional issues with taking the traditional account as straight history. Most working in the field are agreed that the Exodus is about as historical as the Odyssey, but the way the Jewish state coalesced in an area much more contentious.
All of this talk is reminding me how interesting the topic is. I haven't had much occasion to give it any thought in about five years now.
What agenda? In theory, the church would still have had power either way it went. I'm not sure what there is to gain in choosing one idea over the other.
Imperial sponsorship was a big factor. It's easy to forget that legalizing Christianity did not involve outlawing paganism, Judaism, or any of the like. (That came later.) But it did open up the imperial coffers to at least some churches. Which ones? Well of course it could only be the one true church of the one true faith. The Emperor was disinclined to fund all of them. So suddenly establishing the one true, universal doctrine becomes quite a bit more important. No authority existed prior to this development with the stature or the means to enforce any kind of doctrinal conformity beyond the ambit of the local bishop, though some were certainly more influential than others.
Charles Freeman talks a fair bit about this in regards to the Arianism controversy. At different times, the Empire supported the Arians, a compromise position, and the one that eventually became orthodoxy.
(Incidentally, a similar development happened during the Reformation, when ideas that would have been permitted, at least tacitly, in the medieval church became impermissible in a faith now concerned much more with differentiating itself from competitors. With somewhat different causes, it happened in the rise of the evangelical and fundamentalist movement. Religions battling in the marketplace of ideas tend to be more picky than those in secure positions. This is probably true of ideologies in general.)
|
|
And it starts in Genesis (Genesis 1:26 -- ..."Let us make man in our image...", then verse 27 -- So God created man in his image...) and is implied in many other places throughout the Bible. Somehow God is both singular and plural.Yes, "elohim" translates as gods, not God. Nonbelievers typically point out that very early Judaism evolved out of a polytheistic cult, and that these references in Genesis reflect that. Monotheists have other explanations, of course.
I just quoted this because of the Zecharia Sitchin books. They were a fun read.
A few things:
Jeshua came to save the Jews, not start a religion. John of Patmos started the Christ cult.
Most "Christians" I've met wouldn't know what Jesus said about a lot of things if their lives depended on it. They seem to universally forget all about planks and motes, who should and shouldn't be casting stones, and the (un)importance of going to Church (you know, don't be an obnoxious "look at how righteous I am" ass about it, the deal is between you and G-d, and is no one else's business).
The New and Old Testaments are mislabeled. They should be called the Old and New Covenant. Jesus changed the rules up a bit. Quite a bit of Leviticus is right out, frankly, pretty much the Ten Commandments are all of the Old Covenant Christians really need to be concerned with. If you're Christian and disagree with that, I suggest you forget having Easter ham ever again.
I'm about 99% certain that if the J-dude was cool with hookers, he wouldn't go around condemning gay people either.
Come to think of it, Jesus kept Kosher, so maybe Christians SHOULD stop eating ham. Galatians was written to a tribe of Celts living in Asia Minor who converted. A lot of the "you don't have to keep kosher" stuff comes from there. Apparently, expedience for the sake of numbers is a Biblical canon (insert whatever Pagan holidays were retrofitted to Christianity in here as well).
Jeshua bar Joseph was an awesome philosopher. Some believe he was the son of G-d. Some believe he WAS G-d. Whatever people believe, I can say with certainty he'd be disappointed with most of the shenanigans that have gone on in his name. I'm particularly certain he doesn't need anyone's money and is reserving a special place in Hell for televangelists and the like. I seem to recall the dude getting bent out of shape over commerce and whatnot going on in his Dad's house.
And Revelations wasn't prophecy, it was a coded current events message. Shouldn't even be in the Bible.
The bit about letting go of kosher was about a revelation Paul had, I always thought, you know, God showing him a net full of all sorts of animals, and telling him to eat whatever he wished.
As for Revelations, I find it pretty much quaint and bizarre. Worst is all those things, like the seven breasted whore that is clearly equated with Rome, that refer to things that were probably very relevant then.
As with old political pamphlets, not that interesting after the fact.
It may of course be that I have entirely misunderstood all of the above.
|
|
The bit about letting go of kosher was about a revelation Paul had, I always thought, you know, God showing him a net full of all sorts of animals, and telling him to eat whatever he wished.
As for Revelations, I find it pretty much quaint and bizarre. Worst is all those things, like the seven breasted whore that is clearly equated with Rome, that refer to things that were probably very relevant then.
As with old political pamphlets, not that interesting after the fact.
It may of course be that I have entirely misunderstood all of the above.
I think Paul was just having a hard time convincing bacon eating Gentiles to follow the shiny new religion and adapted on the fly. One thing that always struck me about Christians was the weight they put on the writings of dudes Jesus constantly pointed out weren't the sharpest tools in the shed. Seriously, how can you believe anything a bunch of dudes that were stumped by EVERY SINGLE PARABLE Jesus told wrote? Just sayin'
;)
What agenda? In theory, the church would still have had power either way it went. I'm not sure what there is to gain in choosing one idea over the other.
First, let me say I am getting most of my information from Wikipedia except for direct quotes from the bible which I am getting from the Bible Gateway website. So feel free to dismiss my sources as unreliable.
I am sure that St. Alexander of Alexandria had quite a bit to gain by dismissing Arius’ ideas of Jesus. Did the church lose power because of this? Quite possibly not. Was the church being lead in a particular direction that was politically motivated and more interested in personal gain than the truth? I can not say that for certain, but in my own opinion, it seems highly likely.
Dogma was being standardized and whatever did not fit was being tossed aside. Are we sure that god was behind the scenes insuring the right dogma was being used? It certainly seems reasonable that he would. But why would he let so many different branches splinter off later? How can we know if Martin Luther was divinely inspired or just a false prophet?
I'm about 99% certain that if the J-dude was cool with hookers, he wouldn't go around condemning gay people either.
I apologize for posting such a lengthy quote, but I wanted to ensure I included the context.
Romans 1:18-32
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
24Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents,
31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;
32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
JC may have been cool with homosexuals, but the author¹ of Romans obviously was not.
¹ Believed to be Paul the Apostle
|
|
I'm about 99% certain that if the J-dude was cool with hookers, he wouldn't go around condemning gay people either.I apologize for posting such a lengthy quote, but I wanted to ensure I included the context.
Romans 1:18-32
[i]18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
24Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural,
27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper,
29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips,
30...
Remember, Romans was written long after the J-dude was gone. I do not hold the Apostles and the later Christians to the same standard, as they never got what Jesus was talking about anyway. Why do you think every parable ends with Jesus basically calling his Apostles a bunch of idiots?
The only parts of the New Testament I pay any attention to are the parts in red in my Sunday school reader. Those were the direct Jesus quotes. Everything else is garbage, imo.
;)
too much to quote
How can you trust that their oral tradition and eventual written gospels were any better?
|
|
too much to quoteHow can you trust that their oral tradition and eventual written gospels were any better?
I can't, but there was a consistent tolerant, forgiving attitude (except towards hypocrites and the like) in the quotes attributed directly to the J-dude. The latter writings (Corinthians, Romans, Galatians, et al) did not maintain the same tolerant tone. Basically, the Disciples proved they were poor students in the latter books.
Saint Augustine seemed to be on to something.
Love is not earned through human merit, but received and given freely by God's free gift of grace, totally undeserved yet generously given.
|
|
How can you trust that their oral tradition and eventual written gospels were any better?
I can't, but there was a consistent tolerant, forgiving attitude (except towards hypocrites and the like) in the quotes attributed directly to the J-dude. The latter writings (Corinthians, Romans, Galatians, et al) did not maintain the same tolerant tone. Basically, the Disciples proved they were poor students in the latter books.
A few points here...
First of all, as I understand it, the gospels were actually written after most (all?) of Paul's letters. So I'm not sure if "latter writings" is correct.
Also, Paul was not a disciple of Jesus. He came around later, after Jesus had left and was known to have killed a number of Christians.
As for the specific nature of Romans, I really feel that you need to look at the Book of Romans as an entire unit when looking at that passage. The first chapter really sets the stage. He's basically saying "isn't the world a crappy place? Just look at all the evil in the world today." In Romans 3:9, he says -- "What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all!" Romans is a very long book. There is a LOT of information in it. And in it, it really talks about the grace of God. But it's also very easy to get hung up on a few verses when you don't look at the book as a whole.