Freethought & Rationalism Archive

-Jay- · 05-14-2007, 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

One of the first acts of Christian worship, as told by the Synoptics, involved a woman breaking out an expensive liquid and bathing Jesus with it. (And Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, wherever the gospel is preached in the whole world, what this woman has done will also be spoken of in memory of her.") One of the first acts of Christian ministering, as told by the Gospel of John, involved men having their feet washed by Jesus. (John 13:1-15, "you ought also to wash one another's feet." Cf. 1 Timothy 5:10.)

Why are these scenes left entirely by the wayside in any liturgy with which I am familiar? (But note this.)

I've seen it done once in the context of the Easter vigil in my parish (Catholic), but it was part of a preface to the actual Mass and not part of the Mass itself. IIRC, it was just one person washing one other person's feet, and connected with some folks that were joining the Church rather than with the Easter celebration itself, and the verses it was connected to were the ones Peter quoted above. It was very perfunctory and lasted all of maybe 45 seconds, and apart from the oddness of someone getting their feet washed in public, it wasn't much to write home about.

regards,

NinJay

Riverwind · 05-14-2007, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

The revelation at Sinai in Arabia was accompanied by thunders and lightnings, and the Hebrews received, after some difficulties, the Decalogue, the 10 commandments, written by the finger of God.

Yet would you say that they were therefore worshipping a "stone God" or a "tablet God". Or made the Decalogue their God ?

Thanks. Interesting perspective.

However, as God had directly given them these commandments, I feel the situation was rather different (not to mention that, as far as we know, there were no other versions). The KJV, IMHO, is merely one version among several, and it was certainly not directly given to us by God. There were versions before the KJV, they just didn't carry the backing of a King.

This is not to say that EVERY translation is good, but most of the commonly used translations are worthwhile, again in my opinion.

Riverwind · 05-14-2007, 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

I wonder how people were Christians before there was a "Bible".

Peter mentioned this. Check out my response.

Steven Avery · 05-14-2007, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverwind

Thanks. Interesting perspective. However, as God had directly given them these commandments, I feel the situation was rather different (not to mention that, as far as we know, there were no other versions). The KJV, IMHO, is merely one version among several, and it was certainly not directly given to us by God. There were versions before the KJV, they just didn't carry the backing of a King.This is not to say that EVERY translation is good, but most of the commonly used translations are worthwhile, again in my opinion.

Hi Riverwind,

Your welcome.
I think it is important at times to offer a different perspective.

And I gladly acknowledge that the analogy was only meant as a starting point as well as a spur to thinking. And especially a caution against facile accusations of idolatry simply because folks take the position that God has preserved His word in a tangible, readable, hold-in-your-hand manner, in ploughman-fulfillment of His promises.

Please remember (or understand) that the common view today, even among supposed evangelicals, is that there is no text at all in any language that can actually be idenditified as the inspired and preserved word of God. And even whole significant sections are simply questions marks to many who would like to think of themselves as evangelicals. And of course the skeptics are happy to piggy-back their own theories upon such conceptual flimsiness, as they do here daily.

As for the reasons and understanding as to the why one can accept the Received Texts as the scriptures, including and especially the English King James Bible, that is a fascinating and interesting discussion. Perhaps a bit off-topic on this thread. And difficult in this milieu since for most the starting point is not the authority of the Bible, in any sense.

My main concern was, as indicated above, a facile and false defacto accusation of idolatry. Such an accusation can be spiritually perilous, cutting off from deep and real dialog as to the identity of the word of God.

Oh, many versions before the King James Bible, such as the Geneva, were vastly superior to what is used today in the Bible-of-the-Month-Club (snipped) modern version mentality. They were not based on deficient theories of forcing errors into the texts from minority readings from aberration manuscripts. So if folks used those versions like the Geneva they would be far better off than what is used by most today (ie. the skeptic duckshoot texts). Including in terms of defending the inerrancy and perfection of the Bible. And the King James Bible built on the excellent labors of such Bible versions, with acknowledgement.

Shalom,
Steven

Casper · 05-14-2007, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3DJay

Step 1: Understanding that the first Christians were actually Jewish.

Is this really an absolute truth? Could Christianity have arison outside of judaism, only later to become subjugated as a means to an end?

EthnAlln · 05-14-2007, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverwind

True, although there were some fairly radical differences. Jesus, of course, taught his disciples what the underlying reasons for the laws were as the reason for following the laws (rather than just following them for tradition's sake). This meant that it appeared to some Jews as if he and his disciples were "breaking the rules" when Jesus would heal on the Sabbath, but to Jesus it was obvious that practicing good works on the Sabbath was not wrong.

That is the way I have always interpreted "I am come not to destroy but to fulfill [the law]." But even so, it doesn't quite fit the reality. He definitely DID set aside the laws codified in Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. I can't by any stretch of my imagination picture these laws as being aimed at the creation of a humane and just society. They are tribal taboos, nothing more.

Quote:

Jesus also strongly opposed much of the "oral traditions" that were prevalent in his times. I suppose you could say that he and the disciples were the first to follow the idea of sola scriptura.

My interpretation would be just the opposite. It was the written law of Leviticus that he set aside, in favor of principles suggested by reason and human sympathy.

Quote:

Although it is somewhat true that human understanding of the Trinity evolved to some extent, it is untrue that there is "no real evidence that the first Christians believed Jesus was God". You may not believe the evidence, but you should read both conservative literature as well as liberal literature if you want to get the fuller picture.

Not sure who you are responding to there. I didn't make any such claim. I claim to know almost nothing about what Christianity was before the year 200.

Gamera · 05-14-2007, 02:28 PM

Is this really a question of Christian worship? Or Christianity?

Why should modern Christians care how 1st century Christians worhipped? There premise here seems to be that forms of worship per se are central to Christianity and I would say it wasn't central then and it shouldn't be central now.

EthnAlln · 05-14-2007, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

Is this really a question of Christian worship? Or Christianity?

Why should modern Christians care how 1st century Christians worhipped? There premise here seems to be that forms of worship per se are central to Christianity and I would say it wasn't central then and it shouldn't be central now.

Great point, Gamera. The whole enterprise, as my friend outlined it (he called it the Restoration) struck me as pointless.

EthnAlln · 05-14-2007, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverwind

First, I am very sorry for the loss of your friend. I also lost a friend in a tragic accident when I was in college. It was very tough.

Sorry to hear that. Friendships that go back to childhood and adolescence are the deepest ones.

Quote:

With regard to "accurate history and archaeology", it is certainly not even close to being "fatal to religious faith". In fact, many feel that their faith is strengthened by it.

Not if they are trying to confirm the Battle of Jericho or the Exodus. Both history and archaeology make the Biblical accounts of them very unlikely.

Quote:

There are certain interpretations of history and archaeology that would certainly destroy one's belief in God and the Bible, but that is only if one takes them and their interpretations on faith in place of their faith in the Bible and God. There are plenty of good and honest conservative scholars that one can read to get the "flip side of the coin". Whose interpretation of history you choose to believe is up to you.

"Choose to believe" is not a phrase I ever use. I don't have any choice about what I believe. Either I'm convinced by the evidence (to different degrees) or I'm not. But I can't just go out and decide to believe that oranges are blue. I can affirm that oranges are blue, and I can act as if I believed that oranges are blue. But I can't actually believe it. (Example taken from Charles Simmons' novel Powdered Eggs.)

Quote:

Finally, with respect to the CoC, I assure you that they do not have a corner on the market of research into the early Christian church. It is studied heavily by all denominations. It seems to be more important to protestants because they are attempting to justify their split from the Catholic church by getting back to "their roots". The Catholic church, of course, also studies the history (especially of early saints and theologians), but it does not seem (at least to me) quite as important because church tradition and new interpretations handed down by the Pope (God's instrument here on earth according to them) cause the church to be something of a "living church".

I agree. The story of the human past is fascinating for everyone, regardles of belief (or disbelief). And Protestants have always claimed they were recovering an earlier, purer Christianity that was corrupted by Rome. (No doubt about the corruption, I agree. How pure the earlier version was, and what it consisted of is the topic of this thread. I hope to learn something about it.)

Gamera · 05-14-2007, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EthnAlln

Great point, Gamera. The whole enterprise, as my friend outlined it (he called it the Restoration) struck me as pointless.

I think you got it right. But then there are a lot of pointless enterprises in historical Christianity.

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

05-14-2007, 02:28 PM	#37
Gamera Banned Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Palm Springs, California Posts: 10,955	Is this really a question of Christian worship? Or Christianity? Why should modern Christians care how 1st century Christians worhipped? There premise here seems to be that forms of worship per se are central to Christianity and I would say it wasn't central then and it shouldn't be central now.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.