Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Doug Shaver · 01-04-2012, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

which was of course set up to supplant and destroy the real church.

Yes, of course . . . if you say so.

sotto voce · 01-05-2012, 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

which was of course set up to supplant and destroy the real church.

Yes, of course . . . if you say so.

Millions of people said so, just as soon as they opened readable Bibles, despite risk of death.

Blood is not as cheap as sarcasm.

Duvduv · 01-05-2012, 08:23 AM

Not being a Christian it is hard for me to understand what particular features characterized the "orthodox" that allowed their leaders to merge with the Roman political regime more than those leaders of other groups simply by virtue of what appear to be obscure religious doctrines.

Unless it had nothing directly to do with the particular doctrines of the "orthodox" and that the theological ideas were merely incidental to their attainment of political power as compared with the theological ideas of other groups who did not succeed in acquiring power, and who may not have even been competing for it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

In all the controversies with the other sects, how was it that these sects never had the ability to hold their ground, even if one can assume they were disagreeing with one another? It sounds as though you are saying that somehow the "orthodox" managed to do something that all the other competing groups felt was inimical to Christianity, the merging of a civil regime (the Roman Empire machine) with "Christianity."

Who and where were the Arian, Nestorian or Apollonian leaders, bishops, etc. which enabled them to survive for centuries? Did they have known communities, churches, etc.? Was it so easy to persecute these "heretics" (although certain ones managed to survive to the present in the East)? Did they accept all of the canonical NT texts?

If that is so, how did they manage to pull it off, and how is it that none of the other groups found a way to defeat them? And isn't in fact Islam similar to the Orthodox insofar as it managed to merge civil power with religion despite the very contradictory teachings between Orthodoxy and Islam?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

In terms of understanding the ascendancy of conventional Christianity at the expense of other sects, was it at all possible for other sects to overtake the orthodox among the Roman elite, especially while the masses were not yet firmly in the camp of the Orthodox?

I should note that much of the Quran has a direct influence from two Jewish midrashic sources: Midrash Rabba and Pirqei de Rabbi Eliezer. Where does that fit in to what seems like an ONGOING struggle of the Orthodox against other groups even as late as the 7th century??

No Robots · 01-05-2012, 08:38 AM

Throughout history the Christian Left has been successfully gamed by the Christian Right. The Christian Left must learn to get its game on.

Duvduv · 01-05-2012, 09:11 AM

Here's an interesting statement of the Quran that says that Jews considered Ezra the Scribe to be equivalent to the way Christians viewed Jesus, though there is no information as to what this meant or what Jews thought like this. Ezra lived many centuries before the Jesus of the 1st century.
(9:30)
The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

Duvduv · 01-05-2012, 09:20 AM

And here is an explicit condemnation of the post-Nicene trinity though it doesn't indicate which description of the trinity was being condemned. It sounds as if Islam accepts three elements: God, his Word (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit, but that these do not constitute a trinity. There is an interesting form of tolerance here because despite all the errors of the Jews and Christians, they are still called People of the Book and have a special position.

(4:171)
"Oh People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion, nor say of God anything but the truth. Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, was (no more than) a messenger of God, and His Word which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him. So believe in God and His messengers. Say not, 'Trinity.' Desist! It will be better for you, for God is One God, Glory be to Him! (Far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs"

Duvduv · 01-05-2012, 09:43 AM

This verse (5:66) refers to the People of the Book. Notice that the author describes the gospel in the singular and does not consider its acceptance to contradict Jews following the Law. This would suggest that the author of the Quran did not know of Paulism or any other philosophy that considered the gospels to be the annulment of the Law (i.e. the writings of Justin). But didn't the Syrian/Arabian Nestorians, with whom the early Muslms were familiar accept the idea of annuling the Law?

"If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course, but many of them follow a course that is evil".

No Robots · 01-05-2012, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

TThis would suggest that the author of the Quran did not know of Paulism or any other philosophy that considered the gospels to be the annulment of the Law (i.e. the writings of Justin).

Perhaps the author knew of doctrines regarding the annulment of the law, but rejected them. Perhaps the author's conception of the law is more nuanced than you suppose. The Hebrew word that is translated as law is better translated as teaching.

Duvduv · 01-05-2012, 10:00 AM

Yes, that's a good point, though when it comes to condemnation, I suppose the Quran could have thrown in something about Paul or his ideas of the risen Christ salvation, i.e. "Woe to him who thinks that any salvation comes from anywhere other than Allah himself." "Woe to the Christians who were misled by Baulus...."

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

TThis would suggest that the author of the Quran did not know of Paulism or any other philosophy that considered the gospels to be the annulment of the Law (i.e. the writings of Justin).

Perhaps the author knew of doctrines regarding the annulment of the law, but rejected them. Perhaps the author's conception of the law is more nuanced than you suppose. The Hebrew word that is translated as law is better translated as teaching.

No Robots · 01-05-2012, 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Duvduv

Yes, that's a good point, though when it comes to condemnation, I suppose the Quran could have thrown in something about Paul or his ideas of the risen Christ salvation, i.e. "Woe to him who thinks that any salvation comes from anywhere other than Allah himself." "Woe to the Christians who were misled by Baulus...."

Muslim attitudes toward Paul would be a worthwhile field of inquiry. I'm sure that they would tend to see him as a great apostle, but would regret that he got too close to the pagans with his theomorphizing.

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

01-05-2012, 08:38 AM	#14
No Robots Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Edmonton Posts: 5,679	Throughout history the Christian Left has been successfully gamed by the Christian Right. The Christian Left must learn to get its game on.

01-05-2012, 09:11 AM	#15
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	Here's an interesting statement of the Quran that says that Jews considered Ezra the Scribe to be equivalent to the way Christians viewed Jesus, though there is no information as to what this meant or what Jews thought like this. Ezra lived many centuries before the Jesus of the 1st century. (9:30) The Jews call 'Uzair a son of Allah, and the Christians call Christ the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. Allah's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

01-05-2012, 09:20 AM	#16
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	And here is an explicit condemnation of the post-Nicene trinity though it doesn't indicate which description of the trinity was being condemned. It sounds as if Islam accepts three elements: God, his Word (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit, but that these do not constitute a trinity. There is an interesting form of tolerance here because despite all the errors of the Jews and Christians, they are still called People of the Book and have a special position. (4:171) "Oh People of the Book! Commit no excesses in your religion, nor say of God anything but the truth. Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, was (no more than) a messenger of God, and His Word which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him. So believe in God and His messengers. Say not, 'Trinity.' Desist! It will be better for you, for God is One God, Glory be to Him! (Far exalted is He) above having a son. To Him belong all things in the heavens and on earth. And enough is God as a Disposer of affairs"

01-05-2012, 09:43 AM	#17
Duvduv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: USA Posts: 4,095	This verse (5:66) refers to the People of the Book. Notice that the author describes the gospel in the singular and does not consider its acceptance to contradict Jews following the Law. This would suggest that the author of the Quran did not know of Paulism or any other philosophy that considered the gospels to be the annulment of the Law (i.e. the writings of Justin). But didn't the Syrian/Arabian Nestorians, with whom the early Muslms were familiar accept the idea of annuling the Law? "If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course, but many of them follow a course that is evil".

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.