Towards simpler religions

[Cognos]

All systems of religious beliefs (and all of systems of belief) are complex. No religion is based solely of a single statement of belief. Christianity is no exception. If Christianity is actually simple, then TWeb (as a site about Christian theology) is a waste of effort.

Many religions have many “layers”, but since TWeb is a Christian site, I'll restrict my comments to Christianity (even though I think that there are similarities with Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism).

So, as an example, Roman Catholics believe in God, they believe that Jesus is God, and they believe that Jesus died for humanity’s sins. (And other core beliefs.)
They also believe that the Eucharist (at the time of the Sacrament of the Holy Communion) is transformed into the body and blood of Christ.
They also believe that Mary was the mother of God and is worthy of veneration.
They also believe in the existence of Purgatory.
And they practice many rituals that Protestants don't follow.

Likewise, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, and Anglican churches have many additional layers.

Some Christians might say: “Well, that’s why I am not Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, or Anglican. I don’t need all that other ‘stuff’. My religious beliefs and practices are pure and simple.” But look at the discussions about Christology and Eschatology. Look at all the fragmentation in Christian thought. Even Protestant churches have a lot of “stuff”. Why? Mainly because the various books of the Bible have many disparate teachings, and each group of Christians has to reconcile all of the books. Such a reconciliation takes a huge amount of effort and results in complex theologies based on a wide variety of interpretations and a wide variety of authorities.

One way of simplifying is by eliminating. But most Christians will not throw away any part of the Bible, even though, throughout history, various Christians have decided that some writings were inspired by God and while others were not.

It seems to me that one way of simplifying Christianity would be to acknowledge that the various books of the Bible provide clues about God's nature but they do not represent absolute truth. Some liberal Christian groups have taken that approach. But many other Christians would not consider them to be "true" Christians.

So, for now, most of the disputes among Christians, and between Christians and non-Christians, will continue be about the authority of a collection of ancient writings.

Too bad. :sad: There are simpler, more effective approaches.

[NeilUnreal]

As a Liberal Christian, I largely agree. :thumb:

-Neil

[JonAdams]

All systems of religious beliefs (and all of systems of belief) are complex. No religion is based solely of a single statement of belief. Christianity is no exception. If Christianity is actually simple, then TWeb (as a site about Christian theology) is a waste of effort.

snip

Too bad. :sad: There are simpler, more effective approaches.The arrogance of this post beggars belief, but I suspect it is not intentional and will allow that you honestly mean what you say without being aware of why it is so arrogant...

Your base assumption is that Christians are all wrong and therefore, it doesn't matter what they believe so why not just drop all those things that cause arguments and divisions (like the bible) so that we can all just "get along".

Now that I have explicitly stated your implicit assumption do you see why I call your post arrogant?

Let us take a hypothetical situation (to your mind anyway). Imagine, if you can, that we Christians who claim the bible is the word of God are right, that the bible contains truth, and is, in fact, our sole source for "the Truth". You have just suggested that we chuck such a thing out because it causes "disputes".

Do you see the problem with what you are saying? Christianity (and ultimately all religions and faith systems - including atheism) is about finding the Truth about reality. And reality is complex. To suggest that we should just throw away anything that makes our beliefs complex is ridiculous (one could say of science; "All that evolution, cosmology and its ilk are far too complex and cause too many disputes, let's just throw it all away and say the universe appeared by magic"!!! - I would guess you would have a problem with that...)

Christianity isn't simple because it describes a complex reality and any attempt to make it simple will make it fail to describe that reality and so render it worthless.

Jonathan.

[James Peter]

No. The reason christianity isn't simple is because it is 2,000 years old, originated in a culture very different to ours, has texts written in a language that most christians can't understand at all and the whole thing suffered so much corruption and perversion throughout history that getting back to 'the basics' is a pretty challenging task.

Do I believe that scripture testifies to God's action and revelation? Absolutely. Do I also believe that it is the product of man at least as much as of God? Yes. And almost all scholars will agree. Why? Because when you get into the details it is an unavoidable conclusion unless you go in with a closed mind which isn't prepared to question anything. Now, I believe that God is light and truth. I don't think that I have anything to be afraid of if I choose to seek the truth.

What is that truth? 'Christianity' was fractured as early as during the time of the Apostles (and that is based on internal evidence, not external evidence). So much has happened since then that I couldn't even begin to scratch the surface in a single post.

Christianity, or at least a couple of the earliest traditions of christianity, was incredibly simple. Guess what? The earliest christians largely survived without access to 'the bible'. And that was probably the church's most successful period. Ironic don't you think, if scripture is the most important thing. It isn't. Christ himself is.

We need to return to the true Word of God (i.e. Logos Theou). To the gospel and to the Logos that became flesh. That is the heart and power of christianity. And it is simple. And it is powerful.

[apostoli]

So, for now, most of the disputes among Christians, and between Christians and non-Christians, will continue be about the authority of a collection of ancient writings.

Many religions have many “layers”, but since TWeb is a Christian site, I'll restrict my comments to Christianity (even though I think that there are similarities with Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism).In the case of Judaism, Islam and Christiandom, I partially agree with you: they all start from the same premise (the first five books of the OT). Its the "unique" books that cause conflicts.

As for Buddhists, Taoist, Confucianists and other philosophic religions I don't think they care. As Hindus recently burnt a family of Christian missionaries to death, I guess they have political issues (abolitian of the caste system) but given the number of gods they have, not religious ones.

All systems of religious beliefs (and all of systems of belief) are complex. No religion is based solely of a single statement of belief. Christianity is no exception. If Christianity is actually simple, then TWeb (as a site about Christian theology) is a waste of effort.Again I partially agree with you. The way I see it is that entrepreneurs, politicians and philosophers have made religion complicated by introducing ideas not directly found in the writings of the church. For instance: the simple message that "God sent his only Son to save us, and by belief in him we have eternal life" has through the syncretisation of local (previous) beliefs made it a very complicated proposition.

as an example, Roman Catholics [have added many layers of belief to those commonly held by other denominations] and they practice many rituals that Protestants don't follow.

Likewise, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, and Anglican churches have added their own layers.I hope you don't mind that I reword what you said. The bits in blue are my words. It is my view that the Eastern churches are closer to the teachings of the early church, the RCC complicated it and introduced a heap of non scriptural philosophy, the Protestant (Anglican) churches coming out of the RCC basically copied the RCC but changed the politics and the Reformed Churches (often termed Protestant) also originating in the RCC tried to get back to basics but retained or modified some of the philosophy.

Some Christians might say: “Well, that’s why I am not Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, or Anglican. I don’t need all that other ‘stuff’. My religious beliefs and practices are pure and simple.” But look at the discussions about Christology and Eschatology. Look at all the fragmentation in Christian thought. Even Protestant churches have a lot of “stuff”. Why? Mainly because the various books of the Bible have many disparate teachings, and each group of Christians has to reconcile all of the books. Such a reconciliation takes a huge amount of effort and results in complex theologies based on a wide variety of interpretations and a wide variety of authorities.I think it would be more precise to say that "the books of the Bible are made to have many disparate interpretations"

One way of simplifying is by eliminating. But most Christians will not throw away any part of the Bible, even though, throughout history, various Christians have decided that some writings were inspired by God and while others were not.That isn't exactly true. All of the accepted cannon is considered inspired. There are a great wack of pre-christian books that both Jew and Christian reject, a few that the RCC accept as uninspired but beneficial for teaching but Prots & Refs reject out of hand. Then there are gnostic works post NT that are rejected by all, and some Christian writings (eg: Clements epistles) that are used for study but not considered inspired. The problem isn't with the book, but with the complications religious philosophers want to impose on it.
It seems to me that one way of simplifying Christianity would be to acknowledge that the various books of the Bible provide clues about God's nature but they do not represent absolute truth. Some liberal Christian groups have taken that approach. But many other Christians would not consider them to be "true" Christians.Another way to simplify Christianity is to eliminate the religious philosophers.

So, for now, most of the disputes among Christians, and between Christians and non-Christians, will continue be about the authority of a collection of ancient writings.No offense I think that is niave thought. The various Christians denominations use the same collection of books and still find things to argue about. Jews, Christians, Muslims all accept the first five books of the bible but still argue over them between and amonst themselves.

Too bad. :sad: There are simpler, more effective approaches.Hmm! You have baited my curiousity. What is your solution?

[Provoker]

Hello Cognos:
I think that the reason that Christianity is so complicated, is because the belief that the bible is completely inspired by God, requires that every verse in the bible be tied to a doctrine.

[Bernie]

Provoker, you've hit the nail on the head, as far as I'm concerned. This is an accurate assesment of my own beliefs. This being said, I don't think it's possible for a single human being, or, in our present fragmented state of corruption, even a single denomination, to adequately tie all the pieces of the puzzle together.

Prescriptive truth is of a different nature than the descriptive, and humanity stands in natural antagonism to it, Christian, atheist, Jew and Hindu alike. Makes it virtually impossible to discern the absolute truth it rests upon.

[Cognos]

Hi apostoli! :hi:
I hope you don't mind that I reword what you said. The bits in blue are my words. It is my view that the Eastern churches are closer to the teachings of the early church, the RCC complicated it and introduced a heap of non scriptural philosophy, the Protestant (Anglican) churches coming out of the RCC basically copied the RCC but changed the politics and the Reformed Churches (often termed Protestant) also originating in the RCC tried to get back to basics but retained or modified some of the philosophy.Actually, I do mind, a bit. :smile:

When you say that Roman Catholics "have added many layers of belief to those commonly held by other denominations", what other denominations are you referring to besides the Orthodox church?

And to what did the Orthodox add layers? To the Torah, or to the additions to the Torah by the Prophets? Or to the additions to the OT by Jesus, or to the additions to Jesus' teachings by Paul, or to the additions by the author of Revelation?I think it would be more precise to say that "the books of the Bible are made to have many disparate interpretations"I think it would be far less precise to make a claim about the intentions of the various authors of the Bible.That isn't exactly true. All of the accepted cannon is considered inspired.And all rectangles have four sides. :huh:
I was referring to the fact that the inspiration of various writings was disputed before and after the establishment of the current canon. No offense I think that is niave thought. The various Christians denominations use the same collection of books and still find things to argue about. Jews, Christians, Muslims all accept the first five books of the bible but still argue over them between and amonst themselves.None taken. I think that I wasn't clear. My point was that there are disputes about the Bible. It seems that you agree.Hmm! You have baited my curiousity. What is your solution?Actually, I didn't offer a solution. I'm merely suggesting that there could be an approach with an explicit recognition that the pursuit of religious truth and knowledge goes beyond the analysis of a collection of writings.

[Shadow Phoenix]

It's complex because we're not making it up. If we were making it up, it'd be much simpler. Consider the Trinity for instance. Why would the Christians "make up" a doctrine that they could not comprehend? This gives me reason to believe it was discovered rather than made up.

Christianity is about the truth as Jon said. We can't lessen it because of disputes. Truth is truth and the more we seek it and follow it, the more we will live the way God intended.

[Cognos]

It's complex because we're not making it up. If we were making it up, it'd be much simpler.It's not clear who you mean by "us", but I guess you are are referring to those people who agree with your particular interpretation of the various books of the Bible.

Also, I get the feeling that if the title of this thread was "Religions are simplistic", you would be arguing that your religion is simple because God's purpose is fundamentally simple.

Instead, it seems that you are arguing that complexity is an indicator of truthfulness. What, then, do you think about:
1) Vedas: Rig, Sama, Yajur and Atharva
2) Book of the Dead
3) Zend Avesta
4) I Ching
5) Iliad and Odyssey
6) The Divine Comedy

All of these works present a complex picture of the world. Which one do you think is true?Christianity is about the truth as Jon said. We can't lessen it because of disputes. Truth is truth and the more we seek it and follow it, the more we will live the way God intended. "Truth is truth". I guess you are referring to some form of objective truth. Where is it? Is it simple or is it complex? Is your evaluation of its complexity objectively true?

[apostoli]

When you say that Roman Catholics "have added many layers of belief to those commonly held by other denominations", what other denominations are you referring to besides the Orthodox church?I was raised in the RCC and educated by historians and theologians of the church. RCC has a history of demoninationalism, Dominiacans, Fransicans, Jesusits, Marists etc etc etc each adding or subtracting layers of opinion and dedication but all maintaining a common doctrine.
And to what did the Orthodox add layers? To the Torah, or to the additions to the Torah by the Prophets? Or to the additions to the OT by Jesus, or to the additions to Jesus' teachings by Paul, or to the additions by the author of Revelation?I think it would be far less precise to make a claim about the intentions of the various authors of the Bible.And all rectangles have four sides.One thing is evident in the scriptures. A.Paul and A.John taught in the area of the Eastern chuirch. The Western church has little claim to apostlc tradition other than the speculation that Peter died there. History shows that Rome had no dominance in the church until after the fall of Rome in the 5/600s. Since about the 10th century the partriarch of Rome, who was once considered just one amongst equals, is called the Frankish pope. Not a man of God but a politician forced upon the western church by the French emporer Charlemagne.

I was referring to the fact that the inspiration of various writings was disputed before and after the establishment of the current canon.I accept your point in terms of the NT. However, reject the under current of your accusation. Q may or may not have existed, and may or may not have acted as the foundation for Mark or Matthew. I fail to see the relevence. I've read most of the post cannon books and few give me a different impression to the NT. Those few that do, are known to be gnostic.

My point was that there are disputes about the Bible. It seems that you agree.To me, the question is why the disputes occur. Hippolytus relates the history of Simon Magnus (as does Acts) and the picture becomes clear. All I have to do is turn on early morning TV and find the money grubbers parading religion for personal profit to see the children of Simon doing his magic to this day.

Actually, I didn't offer a solution. I'm merely suggesting that there could be an approach with an explicit recognition that the pursuit of religious truth and knowledge goes beyond the analysis of a collection of writings.Buddhists etc have a very introspective religion. The people of Natal have no hope and see no point in changing their their condition because they believe it has been predestined by their Gods. In contrast, Christianity asks us to achieve, to glorify God to love one another. It is an extroverted religion, expansive for all. I don't find that idea in Judaism, Islam etc where the whole experienvce is introspective.

[Cognos]

Thanks apostoli. You make some good points. I'll address the points I interpret differently from you:I accept your point in terms of the NT. However, reject the under current of your accusation. Q may or may not have existed, and may or may not have acted as the foundation for Mark or Matthew. I fail to see the relevence. I've read most of the post cannon books and few give me a different impression to the NT. Those few that do, are known to be gnosticMy point was not about Q or about the Gnostic writings. (Although is it surprising that you, and the early Christians, would find some writings to be inconsistent with some ideas, and that, as a result, you, and some early Christians, would reject those writings, while others disagreed?)

Martin Luther questioned the inspiration of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation. Early American "Christians" like Jefferson questioned the authority of the Bible. The point was that some Christians (historically and currently) question the Bible. And, of course, billions of non-Christians don't accept the Bible as being inspired by God. In contrast, Christianity asks us to achieve, to glorify God to love one another. It is an extroverted religion, expansive for all. I don't find that idea in Judaism, Islam etc where the whole experienvce is introspective.You've introduced a distinction between introspective and extroverted, and you claim that Judaism and Islam are introspective. Assuming that there is indeed a distinction, why do think that is, and why do you think that Christianity is better?

[Shadow Phoenix]

It's not clear who you mean by "us", but I guess you are are referring to those people who agree with your particular interpretation of the various books of the Bible.

No. I am referring to the Christians in history. If the ANF had made up the Trinity, they would have made up what they could understand. Instead, they delivered a doctrine no one can comprehend. Why? It is what they discovered. Not what they created. If you're making something up, you can play with the facts. If you're not, you can't.

Also, I get the feeling that if the title of this thread was "Religions are simplistic", you would be arguing that your religion is simple because God's purpose is fundamentally simple.

A good reason to not trust feelings.

If you mean simple in that the basic message can be figured out, yeah. A child can understand the way of salvation. However, there are so many aspects that we cannot comprehend. We do not have cut and dry answers because we are dealing with an infinite God.

Instead, it seems that you are arguing that complexity is an indicator of truthfulness. What, then, do you think about:
1) Vedas: Rig, Sama, Yajur and Atharva
2) Book of the Dead
3) Zend Avesta
4) I Ching
5) Iliad and Odyssey
6) The Divine Comedy



I am not arguing that at all. Your point was that religions should be simpler. My point was we do not have that liberty. If we had been making it up, we would have made it as simple as we could. As for those books, I've read the Odyssey and the Hell section of the Dvine Comedy. As far as I know, only the Vedas would be presenting a worldivew entirely.

All of these works present a complex picture of the world. Which one do you think is true?"Truth is truth". I guess you are referring to some form of objective truth. Where is it? Is it simple or is it complex? Is your evaluation of its complexity objectively true?

I think we all know objective truth exists. Where is it though I would say is in the mind of God who is truth. I would say then that in its essence, truth is as God is, simple. Of course, the simplicity of God does not mean that God is easy to understand but that he is not comprised of parts and whatever he is, he is entirely.

[Cognos]

I think we all know objective truth exists. Where is it though I would say is in the mind of God who is truth. I would say then that in its essence, truth is as God is, simple. Of course, the simplicity of God does not mean that God is easy to understand but that he is not comprised of parts and whatever he is, he is entirely.I think we all know objective truth exists. Where is it though I would say is not in the mind of any person. I would say then that, in its essence, truth is simple. Of course, simplicity of truth does not mean that truth is easy to understand but that it is not comprised of parts and whatever it is, it is entirely.

Maybe. :wink:

[apostoli]

Hi Cognos,

My point was not about Q or about the Gnostic writings. (Although is it surprising that you, and the early Christians, would find some writings to be inconsistent with some ideas, and that, as a result, you, and some early Christians, would reject those writings, while others disagreed?)I think most of us here know the history and the why/how of the OT & NT canon. So I won't go over that ground. However, I think a brief mention of dogmatics might be in order.

If we read Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle and their ideas about God they are much of a muchness but as philosophy developed, so did the philosophical ideas (Augustine, Aquinas et al). As time progressed deficiencies in the philosophies have been found. For instance: the Pythagoreans had an idealistic view of harmonics and approached their mathematics blinkered by their dogmatics. Hence the failure of their harmonic theory concerning the octave (ie: the so called pythagorean comma (more properly called the error)). Back in ancient days Aristoxenus, a student of Aristotle proposed a another system of tuning, that was dogmatically rejected, and had to await the invention of the piano before it was adopted.

Neccessity breeds understanding. To some extent I think this is what happened in testing the early writings. As conflicting philosophies syncretised Christianity and philosophic writings proliferated within the church some test/s had to be put in place to edit the wheat from the chaff. The major tests have been 1. Is the text apostolic in origin? 2. Does the text contradict the majority witness of the scriptures?

It is the second test that might be seen as subjective.

Martin Luther questioned the inspiration of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation.I think appeal to Luther is what he might refer to as a straw. The following thesis gives some background to Luther. Worth a quick read. I quote a little bit below.
Lessons from Luther on the Inerrancy of Holy Writ. by John Warwick Montgomery
http://www.mtio.com/articles/bissar37.htm

"[Luther used his] doctrine of salvation-by-grace-alone-through-faith as a personal criterion of canonicity, he judged certain New Testament books as canonically inferior, hardly worthy of canonical status at all"

Maybe Luther's overall attitude is summed up in his 1522 Preface to the Revelation of St. John: "Let everyone think of it as his own spirit leads him. My spirit cannot accommodate itself to this book. For me this is reason enough not to think highly of it: Christ is not taught or known in it. But to teach Christ is the thing which an Apostle is bound above all else to do, as Christ says in .Acts 1:8, 'Ye shall be my witnesses,' Therefore I stick to the books which give me Christ, clearly and purely."

Early American "Christians" like Jefferson questioned the authority of the Bible.Presume you mean Thomas Jefferson. The guy that wrote the declaration of rights. Using him as a witness, is like appealing to Stalin for a defense of Christianity (Stalin had at one time studied to be a priest).

Tom wrote "all men are born equal" but he was a slave owner and the only slaves he ever freed (when dying) were his bastard sons.

The point was that some Christians (historically and currently) question the Bible.Which I think is a good thing. Blind faith is OK but only if you know what you believe in. Since the Industrial Revolution there has been an increase in literacy and consequently inquisitive minds, check things out for themselves.

And, of course, billions of non-Christians don't accept the Bible as being inspired by God.At a peasant level you might have a point but in some avenues (eg: Budhists) it is often seen as holy as any of their other books. I've even heard it said that Jesus was a reincarnation of the Buddha.

You've introduced a distinction between introspective and extroverted, and you claim that Judaism and Islam are introspective. Assuming that there is indeed a distinction, why do think that is, and why do you think that Christianity is better?I should put a qualification on my comment. More precisely Christianity is meant to be an extroverted religion.

Most religionists (including many "christianits") are what I call "give me" believers. That is: God is only worth believing in if I personally get something out of it that specifically benefits me. In principal christianity is suppose to be about the group. Think of the Lord's Prayer: Yep we ask for things like our daily bread. But notice we aren't suppose to pray for "my" but "our". Also, we are suppose to pray that God's kingdom come, that his name be exhalted above all others, that our enemies are forgiven. There is meant to be a lot less selfishness in Christianity. I think it was an RCC bishop in Brazil who said (after suppression of the Church) "Take politics out of the church and you'll quickly find Christ".

[Cognos]

Hi CognosHi. :hi:
I think that we are talking past each other. I'm making what I think are some specific claims and it seems to me that you are introducing other factors that are not relevant to my claims. For example, I say: "Martin Luther questioned the inspiration of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation"; you say: "I think appeal to Luther is what he might refer to as a straw."

I was not appealing to Luther as an authority on canonicity. I clear stated: "The point was that some Christians (historically and currently) question the Bible." IOW, there has been some doubt, even among Christians (Luther was a Christian, right?) about the inspiration of some books of the current canon. That's all: There has been, and there still is, doubt about the various books of the Bible. Your link is irrelevant to that claim.

Then you say: "Presume you mean Thomas Jefferson. The guy that wrote the declaration of rights. Using him as a witness, is like appealing to Stalin for a defense of Christianity (Stalin had at one time studied to be a priest)."

First, Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. Did you confuse it with the Bill of the Rights? :doh:

Then you go on to point out that Jefferson owned slaves. What is the relevance of that? Are you saying that, therefore, his opinion of the Bible doesn't matter? Neccessity breeds understanding. To some extent I think this is what happened in testing the early writings. As conflicting philosophies syncretised Christianity and philosophic writings proliferated within the church some test/s had to be put in place to edit the wheat from the chaff.And this was a human exercise, with many different opinions. It's clear (almost axiomatically) that one side won, and the others lost. The end result was Orthodox Christianity, the others were heretics.At a peasant level you might have a point but in some avenues (eg: Budhists) it is often seen as holy as any of their other books. I've even heard it said that Jesus was a reincarnation of the Buddha.This is not about Jesus, it's about the various books of the Bible. How many Buddhists think that the Bible (including the Old Testament) was inspired by God? Actually, how many Buddhists believe in a personal God?I should put a qualification on my comment. More precisely Christianity is meant to be an extroverted religion.You are making a strong claim about what Christianity is meant to be. What's your authority for making such a claim?

[apostoli]

Hi Cognos :hi:

I think that we are talking past each other.Maybe. I wasn't focused on your point "some Christians (historically and currently) question the Bible".

You raised this issue earlier (#8) and I responded (#11) "To me, the question is why the disputes occur."

The "why" was the context of my previous response (#15).

Again, I apologise: explicitly stating my context would have been useful.

I'm making what I think are some specific claims and it seems to me that you are introducing other factors that are not relevant to my claims.What you see as "not relevent", I see as putting things into perspective. For instance: Was Jefferson a Christian? What did Luther reject?
A little later in your response you say "This is not about Jesus, it's about the various books of the Bible." For me it is difficult to seperate the two. Apart from faith, the bible is the only basis for believing in a historical Jesus.
Within "christianity" there are a lot of trivial disputes. The fundamentalist want the bible to be seen as absolutely inerrant. The accademics point out perceived discrepancies. The sciences seem to contradict bits and pieces. The bible has been under attack for a long time. To me the questions are why and by whom?
you are introducing other factors that are not relevant to my claims. For example, I say: "Martin Luther questioned the inspiration of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation"; you say: "I think appeal to Luther is what he might refer to as a straw." I was not appealing to Luther as an authority on canonicity. I clear stated: "The point was that some Christians (historically and currently) question the Bible." IOW, there has been some doubt, even among Christians (Luther was a Christian, right?) about the inspiration of some books of the current canon. That's all: There has been, and there still is, doubt about the various books of the Bible. Your link is irrelevant to that claim.I understood your reference to Luther in regard to his rejection of certain books of the bible. I don't deny that he did but then again I am more interested in his why and the link provided gives his answer pretty clearly "I stick to the books which give me Christ, clearly and purely."
Then you say: "Presume you mean Thomas Jefferson. The guy that wrote the declaration of rights. Using him as a witness, is like appealing to Stalin for a defense of Christianity (Stalin had at one time studied to be a priest). First, Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. Did you confuse it with the Bill of the Rights?" Then you go on to point out that Jefferson owned slaves. What is the relevance of that? Are you saying that, therefore, his opinion of the Bible doesn't matter?You assumed TJ was a regular christian - aka "Early American "Christians" like Jefferson questioned the authority of the Bible." Generally he is considered either as a humanist and/or deist. And this is the relevancy of the slavery thing: he seems to have been a man in conflict. On one hand there was his idealism and on the other right wing protestantism making slavery an economic essential. And even worse, right wing protestantism justifying slavery using the bible. It would be enough to shake any idealists view of the bible.
I'm not an American. What do you call the opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence where it says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."
I should put a qualification on my comment. More precisely Christianity is meant to be an extroverted religion. You are making a strong claim about what Christianity is meant to be. What's your authority for making such a claim? Ah the catch! My only authority is the bible. The Gospel of John has Jesus praying to his Father that all those that believe in him be one as he and his Father are one. A.Paul in his letters is seen as saying Christians are many members but one body etc etc etc

[Cognos]

For instance: Was Jefferson a Christian?I said:Early American "Christians" like Jefferson questioned the authority of the Bible.When I put "Christians" in quotation marks, it was my way of qualifying his "Christian-ness" and of other early Americans. He is usually considered to be a Deist but he greatly admired the teachings of Jesus. But he didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus or in miracles. In any case, the point was that some people, including a U.S. president, questioned the authority of the Bible. Does that mean they were right? No, but it introduces doubt.What did Luther reject? I did not say "reject"; I said that "Martin Luther questioned the inspiration of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation." As I've mentioned, my point is that there is doubt about the various books of the Bible.For me it is difficult to seperate the two. Apart from faith, the bible is the only basis for believing in a historical Jesus. And I continue to wonder why the historical Jesus is of any relevance to Christians today. Don't you (and other Christians) believe that Jesus exists today. How does history provide evidence that he exists today?I'm not an American. What do you call the opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence where it says "We hold these truths to be self-evident ...Well, I call it the opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence ... :wink:, but it is usually referred to as the Preamble.Ah the catch! My only authority is the bible.All absolutes are wrong, aren't they? :smile:

You said: "More precisely Christianity is meant to be an extroverted religion." And, since you specified "precisely", I was pointing out that your precise claim is not in the Bible. It is a claim that you made and that is why I asked about the authority.

I suggest that you have many authorities besides the Bible. Here is a post from a thread that I started:In discussing Christianity, often there are disagreements about details in the various books of the Bible, for example, details of translation, authorship, and historiography. And, often, these disagreements involve conficting explanations by various experts, scholars, and researchers.

These types of disagreements exist in all areas of intellectual activity, but there's one distinct difference between Christianity and those other areas: Christians claim that there is an ultimate, transcendant authority and that authority is the god of the Bible, as manifested in the three persons of the Trinity: Father, Son, Holy Spirit, and as depicted and described in the various books of the Bible, which were inspired (mysteriously) by the Triune god.

So Christians who are addressing the authority of a scholar or expert (eg. on issues of translation, authorship or historiagraphy) are interpreting those issues in the context of their interpretation of God's authority, specifically as outlined in the various books the Bible, as well as relying on their own understanding.

How are conflicting claims from authoritative sources reconciled within the context of Christianity? It seems that the simple answer is: They aren't reconciled. The disagreements lead to more and more fragmentation of Christianity to the point that new, distinctly different churches are formed by individuals who disagree with the intepretation and relative importance of specific teachings.

But ultimately, they are all relying on the same authority.

A bit confusing, wouldn't you say? What is the role of human authority in Christianity? (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=63647)

Hope that helps.

[John from Ebla]

I said:When I put "Christians" in quotation marks, it was my way of qualifying his "Christian-ness" and of other early Americans. He is usually considered to be a Deist but he greatly admired the teachings of Jesus. But he didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus or in miracles. In any case, the point was that some people, including a U.S. president, questioned the authority of the Bible. Does that mean they were right? No, but it introduces doubt.

1)You are correct in what you said about doubt. When doubt appears faith is dying. Christian faith is not doubting the scripture or denying the divinity/deity of Jesus.
2)You are correct when you say, "I suggest that you have many authorities besides the Bible" One that denies Jesus is God does this on the authority of others, not the bible.


I did not say "reject"; I said that "Martin Luther questioned the inspiration of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation." As I've mentioned, my point is that there is doubt about the various books of the Bible.And I continue to wonder why the historical Jesus is of any relevance to Christians today. Don't you (and other Christians) believe that Jesus exists today. How does history provide evidence that he exists today?]

Chritian Faith is that Jesus is God the son- sitting at the right hand of the eternal Father. What proof do you want about the eternal God? Christian faith is simple, they believe in the written scriptures, but God is complex- can God speak to man?

Why would a omniscient, omnipotent God need a mediator to talk to us? Why not communicate with us directly? This would put and end to any debate—doubt—as to the existence of God- agree?. Would not another mediator, and not God in the form of a son, prove that there is something he cannot do?

If an omnipotent, omniscient God can communicate directly, how would he do it?

A) Shoot an arrow from the sky that has a message at the end of it.

B) Strike people with lighting if they are bad.

C) Use a loud speaker to get to the ears of an individual, but in this case others will hear so why not just speak to all. (Wow! will this be a loud noise)

D) Interact with mankind via a visible form as in (Old Testament)

I say it is "D" God spoke to us in the person of a son. If he was mere human then you would be right about what you said in the following quote- I suggest that you have many authorities besides the Bible?] it would be trusting the authority of "another" and not God.


I was pointing out that your precise claim is not in the Bible. It is a claim that you made and that is why I asked about the authority..

You are right again. His precise claim is not in the Bible- but what is? Does it show Christianity as a life that differs from others around them? Does it show Christian faith as a realm of experience? Ok, what about Hinduism, Judaism and Buddhism ext- are they not a realm of experience? Yes they are, but they are not the faith in Jesus as God that manifested himself to mankind.


I suggest that you have many authorities besides the Bible.

Good point. That is why they don't believe Jesus is God and doubt what is written.

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[VFarris01]

If an omnipotent, omniscient God can communicate directly, how would he do it?

A) Shoot an arrow from the sky that has a message at the end of it.

B) Strike people with lighting if they are bad.

C) Use a loud speaker to get to the ears of an individual, but in this case others will hear so why not just speak to all. (Wow! will this be a loud noise)

D) Interact with mankind via a visible form as in (Old Testament)

I say it is "D" God spoke to us in the person of a son.I am sure God appreciates you putting limitations on Him. Why not all four choices... and then some?

[Cognos]

When doubt appears faith is dying.Is it possible that the search for knowledge starts with doubt? One that denies Jesus is God does this on the authority of others, not the bible.Did you read my comments on the role of human authority in Christianity?Christian faith is simple, they believe in the written scriptures.I thought that Christians believe in God: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.His precise claim is not in the Bible- but what is? There are many claims in the Bible.Ok, what about Hinduism, Judaism and Buddhism ext- are they not a realm of experience? Yes they are, but they are not the faith in Jesus as God that manifested himself to mankind.And ... :huh:

[John from Ebla]

Is it possible that the search for knowledge starts with doubt? Did you read my comments on the role of human authority in Christianity?I thought that Christians believe in God: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.There are many claims in the Bible.And ... :huh:

I agreed with your point "I suggest that you have many authorities besides the Bible":
Are you changing your mind about it?

Kind regards
JoHn From Ebla

[Cognos]

Are you changing your mind about it?What do you mean by "it"?

[John from Ebla]

What do you mean by "it"?

You said the following in your post to apostoli (Take note of the bold print)


When I put "Christians" in quotation marks, it was my way of qualifying his "Christian-ness" and of other early Americans. He is usually considered to be a Deist but he greatly admired the teachings of Jesus. But he didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus or in miracles. In any case, the point was that some people, including a U.S. president, questioned the authority of the Bible. Does that mean they were right? No, but it introduces doubt."

l agreed
1)You are correct in what you said about doubt. When doubt appears faith is dying. Christian faith is not doubting the scripture or denying the divinity/deity of Jesus.

2)You are correct when you say, "I suggest that you have many authorities besides the Bible" One that denies Jesus is God does this on the authority of others as you say, not the bible.



[B]I was pointing out that your precise claim is not in the Bible. It is a claim that you made and that is why I asked about the authority..?


You are right again. His precise claim is not in the Bible- but what is? Does it show Christianity as a life that differs from others around them? Does it show Christian faith as a realm of experience? Ok, what about Hinduism, Judaism and Buddhism ext- are they not a realm of experience? Yes they are, but they are not the faith in Jesus as God that manifested himself to mankind.




I suggest that you have many authorities besides the Bible. "


l agree with what you said. That is why they don't believe Jesus is God and doubt what is written- they have many authorities that teach Jesus is not God- including Judism

Kind regards
John From Ebla

[Cognos]

Oh, that's "it" ...

Thanks.