Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sashang · 05-11-2004, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kilgore Trout

Let me repeat one part of what you said in case anyone missed it. I use a Jewish translation of the bible, both Hebrew and New Testaments for my studies. Was that supposed to be a joke? What exactly is a Jewish translation of the NT? Some Jewishized version put out by Jews for jesus?

Every time I read those comments I crack up. +1 Funny.

Celsus · 05-11-2004, 08:08 AM

I wonder if Christians 2000 years ago would recognise Christians today.

Joel

Legion · 05-11-2004, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Celsus

I wonder if Christians 2000 years ago would recognise Christians today.

Joel

My guess would be, no; but I sure know some zealous Catholics who think they've got a direct line to the truth who would be up in arms if they heard me say that.

shunyadragon · 05-12-2004, 04:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrmoderate

Almost accurate. The word "catholic" with a small "c" is from a Greek word meaning "general" or "relating to all". In this way it is true that there was a "catholic" church that related to all Christians prior to the development of the Roman Catholic (capitol "C") Church started by Constantine.

It is the Roman Catholic Church that bastardized the Christian faith and created the anti-Jewish sentiments. Christianity as Christ taught was a fulfillment of Jewish faith and not against Jews. The first Christians were all Jews.

What evidence do you have to document that the first Christians were all Jews?

What evidence do you have for consistent body of followers that would be distinctly seperate from what evolved as the Roman Church after about 200 to 250 AD?

I agree with the Anti-Jewish sentiment being developed as a part of scripture from Roman influence, and Jesus was primarilly Jewish in theology and not anti-Jewish, but there is not any surviving movement from this period that believes this.

RRK · 05-12-2004, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sashang

How is the Bible made? Where are the original documents? Who decides what is put in the Bible and what is ommitted?

You'd want to see Richard Carrier's essay on The Formation of the New Testament Canon for that. It's was a very intricate process, but the Christian canon began to be closed around the late second century (and a lot of restorationist sects still have an open canon, e.g. Mormonism).

Concerning the Tanakh, the Hagiographia (plus Daniel) were regarded as scripture at the Council of Jamnia, which rejected the LXX and its apocrypha. This seems to be partly because the LXX was in use by Christians -- Asimov's Guide to the Bible also suggests that the apocrpha contained books like Macabees that no one could pretend were written much earlier, as they did for other books, but I'm not sure how reliable that is.

The Prophets were canonized a lot earlier, and the Torah far older than that.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-11-2004, 08:08 AM	#42
Celsus Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Singapore Posts: 2,875	I wonder if Christians 2000 years ago would recognise Christians today. Joel

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.