steve_bnk

I am pulling this from another thread. As there is little direct theology in the New Testament, what are tne intelectual roots that led to modern protestant Christitanity?

http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....58#post6489858
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....88#post6489888



Tell the truth, on what do you base your concept of the origins of the bible you use? If you haven't thought it through before, just say so. I don't think god will think any less of you. If you are afraid of finding sometghing so revealing as to negate your faith fear not. There is no good academic proof either way.

'yea though i walk through the valley of the shadow of death i will fear no evil'...how can words possibly harm your faith?

I use the Oxford NSRV Bible and its rather lengthy commentary as my reference. i've also read several histories of Christianity, both written by Christians.


In your opinon, what are the origins of The Church Of England and the scripture/beliefs it takes as cannon?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...ng_James_Bible

KJV
'..Shortly, after coming to the throne James I attempted to bring unity to the Church of England by instituting a commission consisting of scholars from all views within the Church to produce a unified and new translation of the bible free of Calvinist and Popish influence. The project was begun in 1604 and completed in 1611 becoming de facto the Authorised Version in the Church of England and Anglican churches throughout the communion until the mid-20th century. The New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) edition of the Greek texts, so called because most extant texts of the time were in agreement with it...'

'...The Authorised Version is often referred to as the King James Version, particularly in the United States. This despite the fact that King James was not personally involved in the translation, though his authorization was legally necessary for the translation to begin, and he set out guidelines for the translation process, such as prohibiting footnotes and ensuring that Anglican positions were recognised on various points...'

Politcs influencing translations.

Christianity today has its roots in Catholic theology. There is little if any connection to what the original Jewish heretics, not Christians, were about.

Littlejohn

In reality there was NO real connection between the "original Jewish heretics" and the catholic-christianity. The so-called 'jewish-christians', presented as 'jewish heretics' by the forger fathers who founded the 'catholic-christianity', in reality never had anything to do with catholic-christianity cult, having been the worship of the jewish-christians absolutely philo-judaic, since his 'message' was directed to solely the jews of the time (especially those of the rebel movement, namely the zealots messianists) and NOT to the gentiles, as was for catholic-christianity.

Even the notorious 'Jerusalem Church', led by James the Just, brother of Jesus 'second to the flesh' (see Eusebius), had nothing to do with catholic-christianity, nor with the jewish-christianity, since it was a genuinely gnostic sect, formed by the survivors of the John the Baptist's sect, of which James became the 'spiritual heir' and head of the new sect (that of the 'ebionites'), built on the ruins of the sect of the 'nasurei' led by the Baptist.

The Ebionites, as is known, were fiercely opposed by the orthodox catholics, and this is a clear evidence that the attempt of the forger fathers to assimilate the 'church of Jerusalem' (ie the one of the ebionites) at the catholic-christianity, other was not that a simple and hallucinating historical mystification, intended to deceive the faithful catholic-christians of the time about the actual roles played by James the Just (or 'the minor'), Simon Peter (also completely alien to the catholic-christian world) and by other alleged disciples of Jesus (actually disciples of John the Baptist: at least most of them)

Greetings


Littlejohn
.

DrZoidberg

Religion is more than anything a mass movement thing. It's doesn't really matter what a few hotshots think. I think the catalyst behind modern Christianity and protestantism was quite simply the printing press. Suddenly it became possible for affluent but otherwise normal people to compare various Bibles and do private Biblical research, in a way that was impossible before. It placed greater focus on the text itself rather than the person saying it, ie the priest. Emphasis on the correctness of the text itself transformed Christianity into something that it had never been before.

Ad fontes is also an absurd concept because the Catholic church picked the books and versions that best supported Catholic doctrine. If the Bible doesn't bring you to Catholicism... you're simply reading it wrong. It doesn't really matter what it actually says (in today's context).

Littlejohn

I understand your point of view, however, it is not possible to arrive to discover the historical truth on the basis of mere philosophical speculations ... To arrive to the historical truth, you must dig deeply into the 'garden' of the Vatican, to unearth the buried 'skeletons'!..


Greetings

Littlejohn

.

DrZoidberg

I don't think this is philosophical speculation at all. There's been quite a lot of research done on this. I recommend Bart Ehrman's books. But by your use of the term "philosophical speculation" I get the impression that you label anything you don't agree with as it. Drawing conclusions from available evidence is what historians do. Sometimes we have very little evidence to work with, so there's more speculation required. As far as I'm aware of, there is no better method?

I also think it's a huge mistake to think that these "skeletons" exist and are traceable. The few fragments of pre-Versio Vulgata Bibles that exist point to a huge number of variations and variety of faiths within the Christian umbrella. Some radically different from one another.

I think it's equally a huge mistake to see the formation of the Versio Vulgata as nothing but a Roman Imperial conspiracy. We know the early Christian movement was very much a bottom up movement. Constantine got on the band wagon because it was in his interest to. This was purely Realpolitik. He had to do it if he wanted to keep his empire together. It was a balance between asserting Imperial will in shaping Christianity and the Bible into something he could use as a political tool... and between not alienating a majority of the Christians. Because most Christians only shared the name. Their various teachings in the empire had little if anything to do with one another.

When the Bible (Versio Vulgata) was finally formed this led to the Christian world being split almost down the middle between Catholics (the state) and the Donatists (centred in North Africa). It took years of campaigning and book burning until the Donatists were finally crushed and Christianity was unified under the Roman banner.

There wasn't one pure Christianity that Constantine corrupted. Christianity has always been as corrupt or uncorrupt (depending on your viewpoint). So it isn't clear what kind of skeletons you're referring to?

mountainman

By what evidence do we really know this assertion is factual?

DrZoidberg

Well, I've only read books about Christianity. From what I've read we have evidence to support that it was suppressed all over the Roman empire from its inception but gained a foothold everywhere anyway. Where ever it spread the first converts were the poor and slaves, and then slowly upwards in the social ladder. The political elites were the last to convert. You can argue that Constantine might have converted because of some genuine Christian faith. But you also have to accept that at the time of his conversion, he had every political reason to convert as well. It was a smart political move, regardless of how genuine it was.

I have never heard anybody, regardless of camp contest the order of these events.

If you accept this, it does not paint a picture of a faith imposed upon the people from above.

But I personally have not examined the evidence and can't name any specifics.

mountainman

I do not accept this. All these assertions were published by Constantine and require corroboration by the archaeologists. So far, we have nothing at all substantial before the 4th century other than our reliance in the truth of Eusebius.

Well I have personally examined the evidence. After doing so meticulously my opinion is that Christianity was first implemented as a top-down imperial cult at Nicaea, with a little bit of help from the army.

DrZoidberg

I'm aware of that evidence is light. But are you sure this is our one single reference. I recall it being mentioned in more places than this.

I have never heard or read about this before. Do you have any credible references or just your word?

Toto

mountainman has made this his default hypothesis. He challenges anyone to find any evidence that Christianity existed before the third century, and then finds some reason to reject the evidence that there is. It has gotten quite tiresome.