Deus Ex

Which part do you consider to be conjecture, that there were many Christianities in the second century, or that the group that won the heresy wars is the one that sided with Constantine?

It goes without saying that you believe that there were multiple Christianities in the second century, as you yourself are familiar with Marcion and quite a few others whom you consider to be heretics.

What is considered to be orthodox belief is defined by the majority group. It does not make those beliefs correct. When Christianity gained the power of the state in the fourth century, a certain set of beliefs were declared to be orthodox, and these dogmas were enforced with an iron fist. The rest, as they say, is history.

schriverja

FIFY.

As far as the unity of the texts... The current canon you subscribe to wasn't selected when the apostles were living. Or when anyone who ever knew the apostles were living. Or when anyone who knew anyone who knew the apostles were living. It wasn't decided upon until the middle-late fourth century. By people who were struggling to make sure their "correct" view was the only one represented. There were a lot of competing views: Marcionites, Gnostics, Docetics, Ebionites, adoptionists, etc that more or less all used subsets of what came to be the canon, and each of those groups came to wildly different conclusions as to the nature of God, the meaning of Jesus life and death, and a host of other important issues (whether or not the Jewish law was still in effect, the Sabbath, honoring Jewish holidays, circumcision, etc).

Of course the canon that was decided in the fourth century more-or-less demonstrates a unity, because that was the intent of forming the canon (to bring the divergent views together). However, if you allow for the possibility that Paul maybe really did have ideas different than James and Peter (as I have pointed out regarding things like the Jewish Law), then within the text you can see disagreement. If you allow for the fact that maybe Job has a different explanation for suffering than the gospels, then you can see clear differences in the text. As you presume they must be unified, you gloss over the subtleties... The ideas of the Ebionites (that Jesus was a great Jewish prophet and the Jewish Law is still in effect) are still supported within the current canon by focusing on the Gospel of Matthew and the Hebrew scriptures, as the Ebionites did. The adoptionist view (that Jesus wasn't the eternal son of God but was adopted) still is supported by the Gospel of Mark and by interpretations of Paul's writings. The fourth century council, by aggregating all of the books into one collection, managed to dilute enough of those competing views to have a watered down "Orthodox" view.

But it don't mean the texts all say the same thing...

Failte

No, unity of the texts has been asserted in your post, but entirely unsupported otherwise.

The texts are internally inconsistent, and you simply ignore those contradictions, and refuse to discuss the inconsistencies of the biblical texts with reality. Your amazement that they are so unified and have a consistent message only reveals your incredulousness, it is not an argument. Only by ignoring the books content can you claim they are unified and consistent.

Hand-waving away contradictions (specific textual contradiction that have been listed here) with "just-so" explanations is not convincing unless everyone accepts your conclusions as true, despite the evidence to the contrary. No one here does, and you have backed away from defending your assertions at every turn. This does not help your credibility.

I can write a book that correlates nicely with previously written documents, if I have access to those document or information about them, nothing special about that. People write sequels to books all the time, that have clear links to the prior books, whether they wrote them or not. And, when you have a group that has as one of its goals a consistent message and set of scripture, they are going to create one, period. This is not surprising, it is simply predictable. Of course, the various committees and people-in-power over the centuries have created very different collections with very different outcomes - also predictable. None of this is any reason to assume credibility of the texts, or to assume that any one interpretation is correct and others are "misinformed'

simon kole

That it was due to political power rather than to apostolic teaching.
It was defined by apostolic teaching, whose apparent truth the "majority" defended.Nor does it make those beliefs incorrect.

Trafficking in conjecture can lead to any spurious conclusion.

dockeen

Or simply the group that makes the most astute political moves. They don't even
*have* to be the majority in that case.

The invokation of notions of majority and political manuvering dictating belief of
course bothers some xtians. It really doesn't have to, as one can always indicate
that god was working through what appears to be a human process to get his
godly work done.

simon kole

Where does my demonstration fail?

simon kole

I guess that depends on how you look at it.

So would you give a major (as opposed to minor immaterial) internal textual inconsistency that you have in mind.

schriverja

Sorry, we cross-posted. I expanded my post to allude to what I mean. Some of the points of contention (regarding unity) are still awaiting for responses.

For instance, here is a post that I feel demonstrates disunity (the notion of Hell versus annihilation).

Here is another post I haven't seen a response on.

And another...

And the first half of this post, which I think shows a contradiction between Paul's view (the Jewish Law is fulfilled and obsolete) versus the other apostolic view that the Jewish Laws and Traditions should still be followed. The Pauline view seems to be tilted toward the Marcionite views, whereas the other side seems to be Ebionite...

( I think the rest were actually in another thread so I won't post them here ).

Failte

Animals before or after Adam? Plants before or after? Reconcile Gen 1 and Gen 2. Your previous attempts at hand-waving away aren't supported by the actual text and translations. Judas' death...care to try that one again?

I see your approach now, though -- the contradictions are 'minor' and 'immaterial' to understanding the text. Of course. So you don't have to address those, having simply hand-waved them away and claiming to only 'report' on what it 'says'. Assertion, plain, blunt assertion and nothing else.

Any inconsistency in the text points to a non-god-breathed document with multiple, competing interpretations. Why should any of us accept your assertions about what the bible 'says'?

simon kole

You saved me the job of having to go there, to the divine revelatory will.

Because the OT reports that it is a revelation of God, and because the NT reports that it is a revelation of the Son of God, the Bible shows that God wills mankind to have propositional revelation of his truth (in addition to observable revelation in nature--Ro 1:19-20; Ps 19:1-4). Therefore, he will act to preserve that truth for the sake of mankind.

That's why all the jostling about the canons is irrelevant. God has preserved, and will preserve, the propositional truth he wills mankind to have, because it is that truth by which he will judge mankind.