Fair enough. I understand your position now (it was as I presumed), and will cease posting in this thread accordingly.
Why is religion so esoteric? (my perspective is that, as it has developed as an answer for ethics, science, maintaining social order and the angst of mortality, the conflicts with logic are obfuscated from the common man)
I understand what you are saying but I am not talking about copying errors and embellishments in a linear transmission, although those are a factor in regard to where differing interpretations arise, but about differing accounts based on points of view about any historical person or incident. This is a common problem that historians and trial lawyers face and while textual criticism could help weed that out I think given the time frame and the number of accounts it would be almost impossible to get a complete and accurate picture of what really occurred. While you can corroborate things for multiple text there are very likely things that cannot be completely corroborated and also using textual criticism there will inevitably critic's bias regarding which accounts are given more weight versus which are not. As I said not being remotely a Biblical scholar I will have to defer regarding these councils but if there was general agreement about Jesus' life among the early Christian community and the problems were just considered copy errors it seems to me that such councils to determine canon would not be needed. Even 30 or 60 years ago in the ancient world where average lifespan is about 30 and a minute portion of the population is literate could still lead to much distortion regarding recounting of an event. As I said earlier consider how much information we have now and that only 10 years have passed since 9/11 yet there is still a lot of debate about what exactly happened. Just to add. I think there is enough evidence that a figure named Jesus existed at the time who was a religious leader but I am skeptical whether the New Testament can be taken as a true historical account of his life.
That is probably part of it but I think that any field where there are a lot of people studying it will become esoteric. Just look at sports. I find a lot of the stats, salary and contract discussion just in GARM very esoteric.
Like a tenured professor, if you want someone to support you to think about stuff, you better think up something that sounds impressive. :grin: Jesus walking around barefoot and talking to anyone, evolved in the The Pope in a funny hat getting his ring kissed. (Everything is always about the money)
Odd. There weren't really "books" as much as there were a huge number of disparate writings that often contradicted and had no real order or cohesion of thought, theology, timeline, etc. Those had to be culled and it had to be decided which were right, how they owuld be ordered, etc. Of course Constantine was the center of everything. He and he alone legitimized Christianity for the Roman world and, further, imperialized it. It went from people hiding in caves and apartments to practice their mystery cult to being out in the open, government sanctioned, and having basilicas. God the father and Christ become enthroned in the heavens in terminology and art in just the same way that imperial Rome depicted emperors for hundreds of years. There are almost exact copies where Roman gods or Emperor scenes were simply changed for Christ. Because of Constantine, Christianity became part of the government and a formalized hierarchy was established. that is not a conspiracy theory, that is simple the way things happened. Then for hundreds of years after the Church expanded and was baiscally its own government that indirectly (and sometimes directly) led nations all over Europe and the Near East (until they split a little). They also completey controlled the education, transcription, and continued formulation of the Bible and Christian theology. That is neither good nor bad, it simply is. Although I guess it is bad for the huge amount of ancient knowledge that was intentionally destroyed for being heathen. So much knowledge and culture...
I agree with everything you just said... but the fact is these letters and Christians were around for a couple of hundred years before Constantine legitimized Christianity as you say. I actually think the Church deviated from what is written about in the New Testament, as Paul and the other writers seem to imply that the church was the entire Body of Christ, ie believers, and there appeared to be no organizational hierarchy. But that is a different topic altogether. You say there were a bunch of different writings that didn't make sense, but I say that the church (believers) had the writings that they believed to be the true writings of the apostles. Yes there were other writings around, but they were not widely accepted as canonical. Constantine had no part in what we now consider to be the New Testament letters. And as for how the letters were ordered... I believe Paul's epistles are ordered by length for the most part, which was customary for the time period. I don't know what the order of the New Testament has to do with anything. In fact, I believe if you follow the book of Acts, which has been shown to be incredibly reliable historically, you can reconstruct the order that most of the New Testament was actually written in. But once again that doesn't really matter in relation to the argument.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to rhadamanthus again Thank you for taking the time typing your long winded post. It was a very interesting read.
1. There was no Church or church before Constantine and Nicea. There were churches. 2. It is not that the writings and churches didn't make sense, what I was saying is that they were not cohesive and often disagreed with each other, whether it be big issues (was there a human Christ) or small (was Christ born in a cave or manger?) 3. Of course you disagree with the Church's direction...you are obviously Protestant. Paul wasn't the only early Christian theologian to talk more about one on one relationships and such. He, apparently, was the most acceptable, though, so that is why he made it. If some of those others were to be legitimized...well, then there would be no reason for the Church much less a Christian government. 4. Constantine had nothing to do with the original writings, but the imperialization of Christianity had everything to do with legitimizing the ones they chose to make the cut. You are wrong that there was an already agreed upon canon. by natiure of survival there wasn't a unified anything with regards to Christinaity. There was no church, there was no established theology beyond general loose overviews. In the first century there wasn't even one Christ. 5. How can you agree with everything I wrote but accuse rhad of conspiracy theories? Same thing. 6. I am not trying to convince you of anything in a religious sense as I don't really care, but I am trying to promote an historical look at a really amazing period of human existance. Also I think your views (or at least how you are presenting them) are inconsistent or at the least a bit muddied. So it is good to make you think and write about them. I am just such a giver.
1. I am aware that there was not an organized church per-say. These churches that you are talking about were the same ones planted by many of the apostles and their followers. And yes they did have some of these letters, and yes some of them were seen as legitimately written by apostles. Although after the death of the apostles, a church leadership started to form, starting with Ignatius of Antioch, who lived during the first century. And by the third century most churches had a bishop. This eventually led to the formation of "the church" culminating with Constantine legitimizing Christianity as you say. 2. Once again, I am assuming you are talking about "other gospels," such as the Gospel of Thomas. These were seen as forgeries, were written well after the Gospels we now recognize as New Testament Gospels, and were not seen by the majority as canonical. 3. Am I obviously protestant? Well I guess in the since that I'm not Catholic, sure. But I don't necessarily agree with the institutional church that protestants have either. But thanks for the assumption. And I do not agree with the direction that the Catholic Church took Christianity. They turned a grass roots movement of home churches that were literally expressing Christ, into an institutionalized machine. But once again, that is not the point. 4. You make a lot of bold assumptions in this point, especially about there not being one Christ. There was a church, and in the first century especially, it consisted of different smaller bodies of people interacting with each other. I don't know what to tell you about the already agreed upon canon. Yes there were some people who didn't agree, but for the most part what we have as the New Testament was agreed upon before Constantine's time. The Muratorian Canon was written sometime around 200 AD and contains our four Gosples, as well as all the Pauline Epistles, as well as a few other documents from our New Testament. 5. Because what you wrote appears to be based in history, but what he wrote appears to be based on conjecture IMO. 6. Well I appreciate your concern for my mental well-being.
While this is technically true, it's really misleading. The bishops at Nicea represented virtually the entire Christian world, minus communities that were far away in places like Southern India and Britain. Only 5 bishops voted against it as written. A similar statement holds about the New Testament canon. When it was decided in Carthage or Hippo in the late 4th century, several versions of the New Testament very similar to the current New Testament had been used for 200 years or more. They varied a little on the margins, but the same core group of books had been used for 200-300 years. And the canon that was agreed to was more inclusive than a lot churches used. James and Jude were included, and they weren't all that widely used before. (Jude was often rejected because it refers to prophesies of Enoch that are lost to history. I don't remember why James was controversial.)
the formation of the New Testament canon was a long and drawn-out process that began centuries before Constantine and did not conclude until long after he was dead. also, it is a foregone conclusion in theological seminaries and biblical universities that Paul wrote very few of the letters that bear his name and that 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation have a very tenuous place in the canon.
1. No point. 2. I am talking about everything. Letters, gospels, everything. There was not a unified agreement prior to a much more organized Church being formed. 3. You respond as if you perceived an insult. It was not meant to be. It was just obvious your are not Catholic. There were elements of the eraly churches that were extremely liberating and democratic. Women, for example, often had great standing. Not just that they weren't inferior, but that they could hold positions. I think it was probably better for Christianity to unify and become a hierarchgical power, though, with respect to its survivability. Like you say, completely different discussion but I love that history. 4. I am talking 1st century only and it is not a bold assumption. There were people all over the place (place obviously being geographically limited but you get the point) and there were multiple versions of Jesus or the Christ that had followers accusing each other of being false and wrong. If I remember correctly some of Paul's letters talk about fake Jesuses/Christs/Christians. That is all I meant...the early days were understandable chaotic. Wes, Not trying to be misleading and consensus was eventually formed. I was just talking about the hundreds of years prior to that solidification being scattered and contradictory. Constantine getting the imperial sanction behind it was the first step in unification of the canon and practice. Actually I see the history of Christianity being a kind of extreme elongated hourglass. Explosion in the beginning, wide variety, concentration for the majority of the history, then another explosion with the Reformation to the vastness that we have now with all of the sects. We have sects within sects within sects of Christianity now. We need another Council!
Which is what I said. However, the early church recognized the letters that are in our New Testament as genuine, even though they were not officially canonized until much later. And I very highly doubt that it is a foregone conclusion about Paul's letters. I'm guessing that some people have put forth the hypothesis that they aren't all his writings. I'm also guessing that you are talking about the stylistic differences in the letters. This can be accounted for by scribes writing the letters as Paul is dictating them. They would have written what he said but in their own style. As for the other books you mention, yes it is tenuous, and they were some of the last books to be officially recognized as canon. But the majority of the New Testament we have is the same as the church before Constantine used (by the church I mean the groups of believers, as well as their bishops)
There may not have been a unified agreement as far as a council meeting and a formal decision, but the letters of our New Testament are the same ones that were used then. Obviously different sects may have had different books, but the ones that were eventually canonized are the ones that were widely seen as genuine back then. Yes, in the first century there were many false gospels. Paul points this out in his letters to the churches that he and other apostles planted. You had people claiming that Jesus never came in the flesh (which is what 1 John is combating), you had people claiming that following the mosaic law and being circumcised were requirements of salvation (Why Paul wrote Galatians), you had people claiming that the Gospel was a license to sin and that people could do whatever they wanted (One reason why James was written), as well as many others. But what was seen as the true Gospel was what the Apostles were preaching. Which is why the only letters that were held in high regard were the letters by the apostles. Which is why that was a requirement for canonization (although the writer of Hebrews still remains a mystery).
Wait a minute animal instincts absolutely (I love that word) do not have it within themselves to choose a more civilized life. No animal does this, so if you believe we have animal instincts the second part of your premise is false. There can be no battle between instinct and choice because instinct by definition drives choices, at least animal instinct does. Threaten an animal and discover instinct. Also a civilized life is not definable, it is a moving target based upon environmental variables. What you should be saying is we should choose to live unselfishly and morally clear in our conscience. And the uncertainty of mortality is hardwired, I don't think human problem solving has much impact on death.
His miraculous birth- is no story it did not have much impact in the world at the time His ministry/teachings- Gandhi said they were awesome, but actually they were mostly disputed by his own people and no accepted authority or expertise of that day validated or supported them. Every intelligent leader of his time dismissed this. Only unlearned fishermen, filthy sinners, and his mom were there paying attention in the end. His betrayal- like that doesn't happen every day to good people, how many in Texas on death row have died in their innocence? Crucifixion- there were thousand of them in the Roman world Resurrection- Now that is worth considering. I think his story is ordinary, unless you believe the resurrection. I was a drug addict, drunkard, committing adultery, student of wicca, thief with a criminal record, liar, womanizer, with a heart as hard as stone, I was going to rock n roll the biggest party the world has ever seen after I died and then my grandmother's prayers (which at the time pissed me off) came true... I was driving in my car and listened to a man say on the radio say that Jesus loved me in spite of my sin and I shed a tear for the first time in 12 yrs. To this day I don't know what was happening at that time, I thought for the first time about Jesus and I can't explain the rest. I was a screwed up man and Jesus came alive in my heart. He lives in me and I can't explain that, talk about frustrating. That's all I can say. Sorry, I wish I could tell you something else but that is it. I know this proves nothing, but I'm so convinced I would die for Jesus. If you want to know if Jesus is real ask my wife and my friends that knew me before. I don't try to explain Jesus logically to people because you cannot see him or touch him, but I am so convinced he can see you and touch you that I would try my best to explain it if you wanted to email me. Thanks for asking.
I was raised in a Christian household. I have never not believed in Jesus and have always known I was going to Heaven however I always did my own thing. I never took the time to witness to anyone or pray before making decisions. I almost always went to church but that was my extent of my Christian life. A few years ago, I heard a sermon about prophecy. This really interested me so I starting studying prophecy. What I learned truly amazed me. So many Bible prophecies have come true. I realized that there are very few prophecies that need to be fulfilled before the end times. This increased my faith so much and filled me with the Holy Spirit. Since that time I pray before making any decisions. I witness anytime I see an opportunity. In other words I am putting the Lord first and the blessings in my life have been enormous since that time. It is truly amazing how praying before making a decision can bless a person. I live by faith now. I truly feel Jesus in my heart through the Holy Spirit.
