Vinnie

A valid question but I demonstrated that there are theological reasons for it. The food laws and Gentile-Jewish issues are the key to unraveling this mystery in Mark. He is undermining a traditionally Jewish Jesus and the apostolic interpretation of him.

Vinnie

Nom

Good idea. Maybe you should, too. And yes, oh sarcastic one, I know what the no true Scotsman fallacy is, and I haven't committed it. Let's rewind to what I did say:
Now, let's examine the doctrine in question. Here's the Big Bad RC Church's take:
That's from the official catechism here: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c2a2.htm

Then there's the Big Bad RC Church's Big Critic, Luther. On the same subject, his creed & analysis runs:
That comes from http://iclnet.org/pub/resources/text...ism/cat-10.txt

I didn't do a search for Greek Orthodox but my bet is that they come down on the same side. The bottom line is that if someone want to disbelieve in the divinity of Christ and still call themselves a Christian -- well, it's a free country. I can disbelieve in my humanity and call myself bluebird...but I suspect I'm still not going to be able to fly.

Vinnie

Oh yeah, and that would not crumble my argument at any rate. Mark thrasghing the twelve just makes his witness stronger. But the Thomas//Mark indepdnent attestation of source and forms is still very strong.

Vinnie

Gawen

Mageth, Capnkirk,

That's the whole point. Capnkirk: And then Mageth: Ok, one problem here is religion verses personal belief system. By Mageth's reply's, I seem to understand that a personal belief system, as long as it's found from 'within' is not religion, where religion is found from 'without'. What difference is it that people are deluded into believing a particular veiwpoint by others and coming to a believing conclusion on their own without outside interference-no communal reinforcement? Are not both persons deluded?

In my example below, I went full circle. From just me to trying to make others see their futility in their beliefs and the truthfullness in mine. I may have come to my own conclusions on my own. I've taken bits and pieces and made them into a personal beleif system. By Mageth's reasoning, I am not deluded. But if I share my beliefs, because I consider them 'true', I am now deluded.

I guess I don't understand your reasoning, Mageth...yet...

capnkirk

EVERYONE has a 'personal belief system'. You do. I do. Mageth does. Does that mean the we're deluded? Does it mean that we're religious?

Quote:

In my example below, I went full circle. From just me to trying to make others see their futility in their beliefs and the truthfullness in mine. I may have come to my own conclusions on my own. I've taken bits and pieces and made them into a personal belief system. By Mageth's reasoning, I am not deluded. But if I share my beliefs, because I consider them 'true', I am now deluded.

I won't try to speak for Mageth, but I didn't get that understanding from his post. The 'particular' delusion that I thought Mageth was addressing is the delusion of elevating one's "beliefs" to the stature of "revealed truths". This is the delusion that permits one religious sect to label everyone else as "wrong". Simple beliefs don't carry such authority.

Quote:

I guess I don't understand your reasoning, Mageth...yet...

Ultimately, all any of us have are beliefs; if our beliefs are organized, then we have belief systems (even if those 'beliefs' are negative ones (i.e. disbeliefs)); if our belief system requires worship or claims external 'authority' over reality, most people would call that belief system 'religion'. A bit crude, but probably sufficient for our purposes here. Earlier, you said:That is equivalent to saying that you can't be a Democrat (or a Republican) without adhering to the whole thing. Surely you have seen enough on these forums to realize that no one can even define 'the whole thing' (RE: Xtianity, religion, or just reality itself). I agree that it is delusional to even think that one can, much less that 'you have', but everyone's belief system represents their best effort.

Gawen

If you have hit upon Mageth's reasoning, then I understand it.
In the quote above, where does being deluded fit or not fit? Surely you know that even the most innocuous beliefs, supernatural or otherwise can be delusions.
Of course I have and I agree with you. But I think it is still delusional to pick and choose bits and pieces because they can, regardless of their effort. This is the delusion that makes them think "Even if I really don't understand everything or believe it all, these parts I can do...I can believe in".
Take for example the Golden Rule. Here we have a bit of advice that has sound reasoning in it. Why, for example, should I steal from my neighbour if I don't want him stealing from me? The delusion in this comes from the belief that this 'rule' comes from a God and that without this God given rule there really is no rule. A further delusion stems from the belief that all people must adhere to this rule because of its supernaturality. However, if one were to adopt the Golden Rule as decent advice but doesn't believe the supernaturality of it, where is the delusion? I think this is what Mageth was trying to say. If so, I can agree with him.

Amaleq13

Or he is undermining the original Jewish depiction of the Risen Christ Paul subsequently "freed" from that faith.

Tristan Scott

You should look at modern Liberal Theology, by modern I mean 19th c ,20th c, and contemporary. The best example of a Christian that questioned Jesus' divinity would be Dr. Martin Luther KIng, a Southern Baptist minister who is on record in his belief that Jesus was not God, that he was just a man.

I'll edit to include an excerpt from one of Kings papers while at Crozer, a very liberal seminary.

The first doctrine of our discussion which deals with the divine sonship of Jesus went through a great process of developement. It seems quite evident that the early followers of Jesus in Palestine were well aware of his genuine humanity. Even the synoptic gospels picture Jesus as a victim of human experiences. Such human experiences as growth, learning, prayer, and defeat are not at all uncommon in the life of Jesus. How then did this doctrine of divine sonship come into being?

We may find a partial clue to the actual rise of this doctrine in the spreading of Christianity into the Greco-Roman world. I need not elaborate on the fact that the Greeks were very philosophical minded people. Through philosophical thinking the Greeks came to the point of subordinating, distrusting, and even minimizing anything physical. Anything that possessed flesh was always underminded in Greek thought. And so in order to receive inspiration from Jesus the Greeks had to apotheosize him. We must remember that the Logos concept had its origin in Greek thought. It would {was} only natural that the early Christians, after coming in contact with the Greeks would be influenced by their thought.

But by no means can we designate this as the only clue to the rise of this doctrine. Saint Paul and the early church followers could have never come to the conclusion that Jesus was divine if there had not been some uniqueness in the personality of the historical Jesus. What Jesus brought into life was a new personality and those who came under {its} spell were more and more convinced that he with whom they had walked and talked in Galilee could be nothing less than a divine person. To the earliest Christians this breath-taking conviction was not the conclusion of an argument, but the inescapable solution of a problem. Who was this Jesus? They saw that Jesus could not merely be explained in terms of the psychological mood of the age in which he lived, for such explaination failed to answer another inescapable question: Why did Jesus differ from many others in the same setting? And so the early Christians answered this question by saying that he was the divine son of God. As Hedley laconically states, "the church had found God in Jesus, and so it called Jesus the Christ; and later under the influence of Greek thought-forms, the only begotten Son of God."\[Footnote:] Hedley, op. cit., p. 37.\ The Church called Jesus divine because they had found God in him. They could only identify him with the highest and best in the universe. It was this great experience with the historical Jesus that led the early Christians to see him as the divine son of God.

capnkirk

I know my responses (and I feel confident that Mageth's also) are based on some heretofore unstated foundational presumptions.

1. It is folly (or dare I say delusional) to presume that the world can be cleansed of delusion.
2. This does not relieve one from doing everything possible to clense one's self of delusion, realising that this is a lifetime task and that success is not assured.
3. With respect to the perceived delusions of others, one must make a value judgment as to the potential harm of the delusion, both to the holder and to others.
4. Innocuous delusions in others are to be tolerated. One may offer constructive criticism, but polemic condemnation is both unnecessary and inappropriate.
5. Malicious delusions should be confronted squarely and convincingly.

I am willing to overlook innocuous delusions because they may well be necessary for that person at that stage of their growth. I think that based on the final paragraph of the quoted post, your understanding is clear and correct. I'm sure that if Mageth wants to add to what either of us have said, he won't hesitate to.

Nom

I'm not saying there aren't modern liberal theologians who believe as King did -- I'm simply saying that if they believe that and still call themselves Christian, they're contradicting themselves. And note that they aren't doing so by some definition I made up, but rather by the very definitions they themselves use. For example, I looked earlier at what the RC church and Martin Luther had to say on the subject; what do the Baptists affirm? According to the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, it's that:
That seems pretty clear to me re: the divinity of Jesus. So a Baptist who says "I am a Baptist" and "I don't believe Jesus is divine" is practicing classic Orwellian doublethink: holding two contradictory positions, and affirming both, simultaneously. And that seems like a fair definition of a delusion to me.