Lord Umbra

Agreed.

However, the majority of Xians fervently deny this assertion, and thus they deny the very reason that explains WHY they all disagree.

They must insist that the bible is the "inspired, inerrant word of God" to justify their assertion of divine right of holiness. If it becomes just "an eclectic hodgepodge of writings" then they have no more claim to superiority than does the Muslim.

Hoist on their own petard. The ONE reason that TRULY explains their confusion cannot be used because it undermines their authority! Ha!

Thanks for the input, Doc.

Jedi Mind Trick

I participated in that thread , gee. What I think you should not overlook is that we were contending mainly with one Theist who claims to be Agnostic. AT could not understand some concepts that atheists bat about regarding definitions (not that agnostic theist is an altogether coherent label itself). Also of significant note was a lack of reference to some "Holy and infallible" book that supposedly gave us atheists the one and only true doctrine.

Further, you must not skip one other notable difference... No atheist that disagreed with some other atheist consigned his opponent to an eternal firepit for holding a differing view.

Jedi Mind Trick

And every disparate point of view within Christianity makes this same apologetic. :huh:

gee

Little John;

Do differences of opinion mean original text is not meaningful?

Americans; intelligent Americans; constitutional 'scholars' differ in the interpretation of the U.S. constitution and it is in English, written in a culture we clearly understand, and only 200ish years old.

(Come to think of it, while it resembles other documents and writings of the West - it is very unique. Unique in its effect and unique in its place in Western thought. Sorry, this is something I didn't think of in another totally different thread - had to see it in writing.)

gee

Avatar

True. The Constitution was written more or less by comittee and had to be written vaguely in some areas to keep the signers united. Unfortunately, this has led to some confusion in history and modern day about just what parts of it mean.

The Bible was supposedly THE WORD OF GOD. One source. One message. You'd think that it would be less subject to interpetation.

Jedi Mind Trick

Along with what Avatar said...

The US constitution is not a document that claims to offer me the only sure way to escape eternal hell. Different interpretations of such a documents as the constitution and the bible are to be expected under a naturalistic worldview.

But if I say that what I hold in my hand is God's absolute truth for the salvation of my soul, then I better be clear about what it says and every disparate group says that they have it correct. If the bible and its representatives aren’t clear, then it appears to me to be totally consistent with a naturalistic explanation for its origins, perpetuation and dissemination, just like the Constitution of the United States.

You mentioned the 200ish-ness of the constitution and how it is liable to varying interpretation. Do you think that the bible fared better in its early years? Christianity was at odds with itself from the foundations of its dimmest past. The books that eventually made into the bible were fought over for centuries. The volumes that were left out demonstrate the wide variety of Christian thought from early on. All within the first 100 years after the alleged events.

You see, when you want to draw such an analogy you do not advance an exalted view of the bible… Rather, you have lowered it to the level of other documents created by man. That’s no problem for me because I believe that’s where it belongs in the first place.

Welcome to the club.

gee

Little John;

Good points all; do differences in opinion of the interpretation of the text negate the orginal text's meaning?

"The volumes that were left out"

Remember, "canon" only means "standard." Getting back to our original thread, Christians debate/argue/and fuss and fume about what is generally considered scripture.

I know we're not going to agree with the inspiration of the Bible.

"Christianity was at odds with itself"
You bet. Paul said so to the Corinthians as his writings to their inconsistent practices over time became accepted into the canon. Again; getting back to our original thread, thinking folks have differing opinions. My goal is to sort out the truth from the chaff - not just dismiss them because folks have different opinions.

"have lowered it to the level of other documents created by man"
That's what they are. Documents written by man. Of course; as I've said before, our ideas of its inspiration are obviously not going to coincide.

gee

hughmcjr

Actually the books that were "left out" or were taken out were done by protestants during the reformation. The protestants researched back to 100 AD to a Jewish council who were persecuting christians. Kind of a contradiction isnt it, relying on the very people who were trying to snuff out the origins of your religon. Martin Luther did not want to break away from the Catholic church. He wanted the injustices stopped and he wanted reform. It was those around him that wanted to break away and they had to make changes (beliefs in the eucharist and Mary) in order to be different, otherwise it would still be the same church.

Jedi Mind Trick

I'm not talking just about the apocrypha... Have you heard of the any of these?

Link

30-60 Passion Narrative
40-80 Lost Sayings Gospel Q
50-90 Signs Gospel
50-120 Didache
50-140 Gospel of Thomas
50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
70-120 Egerton Gospel
70-160 Gospel of Peter
70-160 Secret Mark
70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
80-120 Epistle of Barnabas
80-140 1 Clement
80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians
80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews
80-250 Christian Sibyllines
100-150 Apocalypse of Peter
100-150 Secret Book of James
100-150 Preaching of Peter
100-160 Gospel of the Ebionites
100-160 Gospel of the Nazoreans
100-160 Shepherd of Hermas

There are more...

Jedi Mind Trick

Hughmcjr,

For the first 400 years there were a plethora of Christian sects, Arian’s, Gnostics, Montanists, Nazarians, Ebionites, Nestorians, Marcionites, Manicheanists plus many others. By the time of Constantine early to mid 300s the orthodox (Catholic) church had won the doctrinal soul of Christianity and all others were branded heretical. The other sects would be banned or otherwise overwhelmed by the political clout of the Orthodox (Catholic). It is interesting to note that Eusibius, the Church historian, was an Arian before the time of the council of Nicea. Job security?
Also, Turtullian, the early lawyer and apologist, defected from the Orthodox (Catholic) Church and became a Montanist.

All this shows that the early church was far from a unified whole... and this only scratches the surface.