Seems I'm a bit late, some people DO have to work you know!
heretic888 said:
Ok, let's get a few things straight here...
1) At no point did I ever refer to the Bible in itself was bovine feces. If you look at what I actually said in context, I was specifically addressing traditional Christian apologism and fundamentalist doctrine. The Bible, in my mind, is a multi-layered work that can be subject to a myriad of diverse interpretations. This is especially true in the Jewish tradition of midrash, the Christian tradition of docetism, or the Muslim tradition of tawil.
I wasn't trying to misquote you, in fact I wasn't actually refering to you specifically, just using your words in my point. A bit of plagerism if you will. Your correct, it is subject to many interpretations...does that fact alone make all interpretations correct, or only one correct?
I wouldn't personally refer to docetism as a Christian tradition, many would even claim it as heritical. I'm actually kind of confused why you would refer to it as Christian tradition. Christological tendencies don't make it a Christian tradition. In fact, I think in order for a good discussion we need to define Christian or Christianity. While some refer to themselves as christians, others would denounce them as christians. How do we use the term in this debate without defining what it means?
heretic888 said:
2) Contrary to popular belief, the Bible most commonly used by Christians was never written in Hebrew or Aramaic. The Christian 'Old Testament' is a an intertestamental work known as the Septugaint, a Greek rendering of the Torah which has many overt transliteration changes intended to make Judaism more agreeable to the Hellenistic philosophy popular at the time. To give but one example: the Septugaint references a Messianic prophecy of a virgin birth, the Torah does not. As for the 'New Testament' itself, every one of its books are originally in Greek.
Thats actually not true. Well partly. The bible was never written in aramaic, not canonised portions at least. There is really no proof to support the belief that the bible (OT) was originally written completely in hebrew or any other language. Most of the earliest descovered portions are however. Until I see an argument not lacking evidentiary proof, I dont think there is any point in arguing that further. It really changes nothing about this discussion.
heretic888 said:
3) There are a few minority Christian groups speckled throughout the Middle East that are living exceptions to Point 2, such as the Peshitta --- but the overwhelming bulk of Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox Christians use Greek works as their source material for Biblical translations.
Thats a half statement. Greek works as their source material for New Testament biblical translation, I would agree.
heretic888 said:
4) I would not agree with any definition of 'Christian' as 'one who professes belief in Jesus Christ', popular as it may be. Not all groups that are historically or currently recognized as 'Christian' believe that Jesus Christ even existed as a historical person. Even among those that do, not all subscribe to the belief that he was some sort of divine Redeemer (much in the tradition of the Hellenistic Mystery Schools). In fact, my guess is that most 'Christians' of the first two centuries CE would be excluded by popular definitions of 'Christianity' (which was far more diverse and variegated in the first few centuries of its history than it is now).
Thats the problem, we need a deffinition. There are way too many floating around. Personally according to the bible, a christian would be "one who professes belief in Jesus Christ". I dont see the problem with using that deffinition. I dont know where your getting your historical and current data, but saying a group of people have christological tendencies or beliefs is not the same as calling them christians. Since the bible is what is being debated here, shouldn't we seek to find its definition of Christian? We can't make posts, one using a historical definition from the first few centuries, and one using a deffinition of current times. I think you need to look at the root of the word Christian, and its inception and creation (no pun intended). Its original usage had much more of a precise deffinition then it does now, in my opinion.
OK, all that to say, lets settle on a def.
heretic888 said:
5) I don't think I should have to reiterate that the belief that God has personal opinions about life and that only a select group of special people knows what they are is both exceedingly dangerous, unabashedly irrational, and morally arrogant to the extreme. It also further reflects my previous thesis: that, for most people, any personal 'god' is simply a deified projection of their own superego (which itself is informed by authoritative sources of the culture and community one is raised up in).
Very good point! Only your now defining christians as a whole as people who believe that "God" has personal opinions about life
and that only they know them. I wouldn't call that belief Christian in the biblical deffinition of the word. In fact, any person who claims to know God's opinions would be called out as a false prophet in any group I grew up in.
heretic888 said:
6) One should be cautious when proclaiming what 'Paul' did or did not write. Of the 13 letters of the New Testament attributed to him, roughly 7 are believed to be mostly 'authentic' --- and, even among those 7, it is pretty much well-acknowledged that they were edited and manipulated by early Church authorities like Tertullian. Supposedly, the letter to the Galatians is supposed to be the least doctored of all the Pauline works. The Pastorals, by contrast, are almost univerally accepted as forgeries of later centuries.
I agree with you there. I do think however that most "christians" hold faith in that God has control over current (past) events, including the manipulations of the gospel. Its pretty widely accepted that God did not physically write the scriptures himself, correct? In the eyes of most "christians" it wouldn't matter who manipulated or rewrote, or changed the text, its still under Gods protection and control. I'm just telling you that is what your going to come up against with that argument.
heretic888 said:
7) While the Marcionite schools of Gnosticism is regarded as 'heresy' today, during the first two centuries CE, it was without doubt the most popular and widespread of any single sect of Christianity. The 7 'authentic' Pauline letters were written to churches that are all known to be centers of Marcionism by the middle of the 2nd century CE. This is very telling.
Man, I'm getting typing cramp
Your now subscribin to your own faulty logic arguments. Again, your using the label Christian in a way I wouldn't agree with, but even so its not impossible or improbably that christian(my deffinition) groups existed within major centers of Marcionism. In fact, that could very well explain Paul's urgency in his letters.
heretic888 said:
8) As for 'hell', it is never really clarified or explained in the New Testament. It is generally assumed that the audience had some idea on what 'hell' is (which is hades in the original Greek) in the first place, most likely with a Platonic context in mind. There is no doubt, however, that 'hell' (like much else in the New Testament) is a Hellenistic philosophical concept.
Your asking us to accept your idea or feeling of having no doubt? Not being clearly explained is cause for discrediting the New Testament, the Bible, or Hell itself? You can’t use words like “Most Likely” as we may disagree on what is likely or not.
heretic888 said:
9) I stand by my earlier statement: Christianity as it is today has a living history and tradition, despite what is or is not stated in the Bible. To give but one example, early Christian theology was more prominently influenced by pseudo-Dionysius and Boethius than it was by any single Biblical book. Augustine probably has had more influence on Christian doctrine than any single sources in history (Biblical or otherwise). It is a fallacy to assume that Christianity simply equals the Bible, without qualification.
Again, your appealing to our intelligence to accept your own beliefs. You are saying early Christianity was more influenced by X than by Y. Can you prove that X influenced Christianity more than Y ? Personally I havenÂ’t seen proof of Dionysius (pseudo or not) or Boethius influencing Christianity more than the Bible. How exactly could one prove or disprove that exactly? Again, we are taking a literal hard label of Christians instead of realizing that Christians as a whole disagree with each other probably more than with those not claiming Christianity.
7sm
