brighid

Reasonable –

I really wish I could find those disks that I saved my work on, but we recently moved into a new house and I have found neither hide nor hair of them and it has been about two, possibly three years since I did that research and the mistranslation issues are a bit fuzzy. Perhaps I need to narrow the scope here.

I don’t think we need to debate the areas that are simply not likely or even possible according the laws of nature – such as a woman coming from the rib of Adam, Noah’s ark, the parting of the Red Sea and so much more.

What I want to discuss is the likelihood that what a Christian believes to be true or the “core” message is unverifiable specifically due to the fact that A) there are no originals to verify the accuracy or authenticity of the texts we have today (not that they don’t all jive with one another in their allegedly copied form) B) how the editors of the Cannon as we know it today chose the books they did and why C) the consequences and implications of missing texts, deliberately withheld or omitted passages and how that affects the TRUE message of a man called Jesus.

It has been admitted that there are weak points that are ignored because they aren’t worth discussing. What authority does a Christian have to ignore some parts but place precedent on others? And if a Christian can choose to ignore some parts why should there be a Christian condemnation of theists of a different flavor, non-theists or atheists for ignoring the entire thing? How can an inspired book have weak points from a perfect god? How does a Christian determine what parts are correct and aren’t?

My point is this: if we are unable to verify what the original documents were, if they ever existed, examine all relevant books, or materials even if they have very divergent or “heretical” views of Christ, and take into account the inevitability of copying errors, translations problems from language to language, from ancient to modern meaning and definition, coupled with our inability to verify the authors of the Bible – how can one put any veracity in the claim that they KNOW the “core” message or what really took place back in the day of Jesus? Finally, what is the likelihood that some parts or even the entire “core” message is wrong based upon those previously mentioned criteria.

Now, for the Christians here please give a detailed definition of the “core” message of Christianity that is agreeable to either all or a majority of Christian and Catholic denominations. Until this is defined we cannot really move forward.

Brighid

CX

officially the core message is embodied in the Nicene creed both catholics and protestants make that statement of faith though the "one holy catholic and apostolic church" is up for debate, that is not predicate on the NT so we can leave that out, but what you have left is

1)Monotheism - JHVH is the only god
2)Trinitarianism - Jesus is part of a triune godhead
3)Salvific nature of the Jesus' death - Jesus' death on the cross paid the debt of sin established by adam such that accepting Jesus as lord and savior is the necessary and sufficient condition for salvation.

IMO those are the bare requirements for one to call one's self Xian according to the contemporary understanding of the term.

Haran

I have avoided this thread for time reasons. This topic has the potential to bog down in detail that I don't want to take much time in. However, I felt compelled to at least post something...

Coybox X had it pretty much on the dot with the Nicene Creed. These would be some of the main points to the "core message" of Christianity.

Another is from the earliest Gospel and is a close second to the above:

I see Jesus in this passage telling us that love for God and your fellow man is the embodiment of the Jewish Law. It's not whether you perform to the letter of the law but what's in your heart, spilling over into your actions, that matters.

Haran

[ January 27, 2002: Message edited by: Haran ]</p>

brighid

Haran,

"It's not whether you perform to the letter of the law but what's in your heart, spilling over into your actions, that matters."

Then why should any of us worry about what faith the other belongs to, or whether or not god exists? If my heart is good, and that goodness spills over into my actions than IF there is a god then this is what I will be judged by - not whether or NOT I follow the right creed or belong to the "right" religion. I agree with that and I think most atheists would as well.

However, as we all know THIS is not the case with Christianity. The 38,000 plus denominations care more about if you belong to their denom (so close to demon it just makes me laugh sometimes) and not whether or not a persons deeds are good or bad, but if they are the right brand of Christian.

I generally don't tell people what I am (except close friends, family and in here) and ask that rather they judge me by my actions and not by potentially divisive labels.

IF Christianity were all about love and not about labels I know that I would personally not care about all the other bull shit that it embodies - ie: inerrant text, demons, ressurections, unicorns, seven headed dragons, wine turning into blood, etc., etc.

So why then is the "core" message of love=equals action = true message ignored by the vast majority of Christian people and Christian clergy right up to the Pope?

Brighid

Vorkosigan

The Nicene Creed is this, which I found in several places:

• We believe in one God,
  the Father, the Almighty,
  maker of heaven and earth,
  of all that is, seen and unseen.
  
  We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
  the only Son of God,
  eternally begotten of the Father,
  God from God, Light from Light,
  true God from true God,
  begotten, not made,
  of one Being with the Father.
  Through him all things were made.
  For us and for our salvation
  he came down from heaven:
  by the power of the Holy Spirit
  he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
  and was made man.
  For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
  he suffered death and was buried.
  On the third day he rose again
  in accordance with the Scriptures;
  he ascended into heaven
  and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
  He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
  and his kingdom will have no end.
  
  We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
  who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
  With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
  He has spoken through the Prophets.
  We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
  We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
  We look for the resurrection of the dead,
  and the life of the world to come. Amen.

It is interesting that there is nothing in here about the "love thy neighbor" stuff. This is an entirely self-centered affirmation of one's plan for salvation through obediance to the proper forms. It seems that the Nicene Creed (indeed, the mere existence of a creed) and the Great Commandment are not complementary, but actually at odds with one another, since Jesus stressed in that passage the unimportance of form. If the Great Commandment is really a "core" message, then no affirmation is necessary.

Michael

brighid

I would say that it is also interesting that this “form” was not created until 3 or 4 centuries after the death of Jesus. And also that it includes the belief in only ONE Church – the holy Catholic and Apostolic one. Hmmmm … what about those 38,000 other churches?

Perhaps there was a wise man named Jesus, with whom Christianity attributes to being their man-god. Perhaps this man said some very wise things that attracted a lot of people, but through the passage of time, the corruption of power beginning with the intervention of the Roman Emperor Constantine and so on and so forth through out history, the secrecy, the missing (and recently found) texts as well as those destroyed ones, the lack of original copies for verification … well, there is too much doubt to place any concrete belief in the accuracy of even a “core” message and for me, it is not enough to place a firm and unbending notion of a god or human salvation upon. Although I have found things in the Bible that I like or even provide inspiration I can only take it as man made inspiration and I must discard 90% of the Bible because it counters everything I find to be moral. If there is indeed a god I personally find it incredulous that he/she/it would choose such a questionable method and persons to share his/her/its message with the world with.

Perhaps Jesus was the one to reveal the message when he said one need only look under a rock to find him – nature and this world is the only kingdom there is. As an atheist, I would agree with this Jesus.

Brighid

Asha'man

Somewhere, I read a definition of fundamentalism that is relevant here: It is when people get more concerned with the letter of the law than the spirit.

This has always been my biggest complaint about Christianity: people are more concerned with what you believe than in how you live your life. I think the whole psychology of Christianity is broken. Due to Original Sin, everybody is a worthless sinner. Since they can’t possibly make up for that sin by living a good life, they must find an alternate escape from hell, which is belief. The net result? You don’t really have to be good as long as you believe. (Everything can be forgiven!) This escape clause does not encourage good behavior, it lets people feel good despite bad behavior.

However, back to brighid’s original question: By definition, man cannot observe the supernatural, and therefore cannot know anything about it from observation. Our only knowledge of the supernatural must come from the supernatural. If a perfect supernatural entity composed the Bible, he did a supremely poor job, given the amount of misunderstanding and confusion over even the core messages. (Good Works vs Faith?) (On the other hand, what if an imperfect supernatural entity, such as a demon, was really the author? )

But brighid started with the working assumption that the originals were perfect and inerrant. How can we tell the originals from other books? Clearly, there are other books with similar messages that were left out of the Bible. I would expect that the quality of authorship would make it plain which ones were divine and which ones were of mortal origin. (However, that difference in quality doesn’t seem very apparent, or a bunch of bishops wouldn’t have had so many close votes.)

How about copying errors and editing changes? Well, again, how could you edit perfection and come out with anything but imperfection? Shouldn’t the difference be blindingly obvious? But scholars spend whole careers doing textual analysis to figure out which changes were introduced when.

I think my conclusion is clear: the working assumption of perfect originals cannot be accepted.

thedoc

To brighid:
I agree whole heartedly about how the different "faith's" act in the world today. I think your right, they do seem to care just about what "church" or "faith" you belong to. I personally don't "belong" to any specific "church" but I do attend different church's pretty regularly. Paul in the book of Acts warned the churches in his day about this very thing. Even in the first hundred years after the death and Ressurection of Jesus they were already having divisions among themselves. So, it doesn't surprise me at all that it still happens today. People seem to miss the message of Love sometimes.

About original copies of text from the various books now in the bible:
While there may not be any "original" copies left today, there are some very interesting facts about what we do have. Up until the caves at Qumran were discovered the oldest texts I believe were from the Massoretes about the 9th and 10th centuries AD. Most of the scrolls at Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls) are about a 1000 years older than that of the Massoretes. They have found at least some excerpts from every book of the bible except for the book of Esther. Another interesting fact about the 2 sets of texts written about one thousand years apart from each other is that they are almost identical. While these may not be the "original" manuscripts they are some of the oldest known writings in the world. Some of the manuscripts are dated 125 years before the birth of Jesus.

About omitted books and texts:
While noone really knows what went on the minds of the people making those decisions, we do still have access to just about every text that was left out of the Canon. Most of the books can be found in the Apocrypha for anyone to read and take from it whatever they will.

As a Born Again believer in Jesus Christ I pesonally believe that it is possible that there could be a copying error somewhere in the mix of things. But, I also believe that the message of the Bible as a whole has not been changed over the course of the years. That Ulitmate message is always "Love!"

thedoc

In my last post I messed one thing up. Paul warned about divisions in the Church in I Corinthians. Sorry for the inaccuracy.

Vorkosigan

While these may not be the "original" manuscripts they are some of the oldest known writings in the world. Some of the manuscripts are dated 125 years before the birth of Jesus.

Hi Doc! Welcome aboard!

These are hardly the oldest known writings in the world. Egyptian, Babylonian and Chinese writings, in various formats, long predate the DSS.

Further, while some portions of the OT in the DSS seem to be close, others seem to differ, sometimes markedly (Jeremiah is shorter, for example) from the MT.

The oldest widely-agreed upon writing sample seems to be from Harrapa at 5500 years ago:
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_334000/334517.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_334000/334517.stm</a>

Michael

[ January 30, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]</p>