Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Psycho Economist · 03-09-2003, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Old Man
Isa 66:24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

How is this connected to Zoroastrianism. I am sure that the Psalms contain many indirect references too. The doctrine of hell was certainly widespread amongst the Jews by BC160, and rose to prominence after the depradations of Antiochus Epiphanes.

Modern, critical scholars believe that part of Isaiah was written after the exile... during Persian times. So it's not surprising that such a passage would contain Zoroastrian imagery.

Whatever indirect references to Hell datable before the advent of Zoroastrianism probably translate out of sheol, meaning grave or death... which post-exillic zealots took to mean the Hell they borrowed from their Persian redeemers. Also remember that several older books were re-written during and after the exile, so they may not even be that trustworthy.

Before the fall of Judea to Babylon, (and, more importantly subsequent inheritance by Persia) Jewish theology focused on divine reward and punishment in this life, and did not put much stock, if any, in a life after death.

Old Man · 03-09-2003, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Psycho Economist
Modern, critical scholars believe .....

Its inherently unlikely they believe their arguments. That would put them out of work. So even if they did believe, they would have to critique them and come up with new arguments, just to keep themselves occupied.

Psycho Economist · 03-09-2003, 06:56 PM

Heh, you made a funny.

I didn't notice before, but you gave yourself enough rope swing without any help from me in your previous post. 160 B.C.E., Antiochus and the Mcabees are about as post-exillic as you can get. They'd already been contaminated by Persian theology. To talk about Jewish beliefs in 160 B.C.E. as any indicator of what was going on in Israel and Judea pre-Babylon is like insisting Julius Caesar was a Christian because Constantine established Christianity as the Roman state religion in 312.

Abel Stable · 03-09-2003, 07:03 PM

Here's an interesting angle:

Atheists For Jesus

Tercel · 03-09-2003, 07:11 PM

Hi christ-on-a-stick,
I fall squarely in your Christian but not "True-Christian" category.

Quote:

My question is, in consideration of the fact that for however-many-years past, the term "Christian" has traditionally encompassed belief in these things, and that even today the sizeable majority of the Christian church holds to these tenets - what is the point of identifying oneself as "Christian" when you are basically picking and choosing the few things that you like and tossing the rest out?

Over the years various churches and denominations and writers have taught many different things. Some I agree with, some I do not. Your "problem" is that you have learned about Christianity in a particular society that defines "Christian" in a very narrow way and puts the most emphasis on things that other Christians throughout history have not believed at all. You see people like me who, though Christians, believe quite different things from other "Christians" you have met and so you quite reasonably wonder why this is.

Firstly, your statement that
"for however-many-years past, the term "Christian" has traditionally encompassed belief in these things, and that even today the sizeable majority of the Christian church holds to these tenets"
is simply incorrect. I would find it extraordinarily unlikely that anything remotely near a majority of those who call themselves Christians would hold to the beliefs you listed. The 3 largest Christian groups today (Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans) all ignore at least one of those points.
I suggest you don't let the fundamentalist-baptists that I would guess you have been influenced by brain-wash you into thinking they have a patent on defining Christianity.

The statement that has served to define "Christian" for the past 16 centuries is the Nicene Creed. Since its writing in the 4th century, this creed has been used and accepted throughout all churches everywhere:

Quote:

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 worshipped 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.

I am a Christian because I agree with that. My position on inerrancy, evolution, exclusivism etc is irrelevant.

Christian · 03-09-2003, 07:31 PM

The Nicean Creed is a pretty good standard for whether you fall within the general religion or not.

C.S. Spurgeon claimed that anyone who believed in the substitutionary atonement of Christ was a "Christian" no matter how many other things they were wrong on. That standard seems a little bit low to me, but I can see his point too.

In general, though, what label you claim doesn't matter a whit. Not worth getting worked up over. What you actually think and believe and do is what matters.

Respectfully,

Christian

Psycho Economist · 03-09-2003, 07:50 PM

Wow, I'm surprised that this board lasted as long as it did, and only last month did someone snag "Christian" for a username. Will wonders never cease?

christ-on-a-stick · 03-09-2003, 09:16 PM

Hi Tercel & Christian....

Thanks for your responses. After reading and mulling over the Nicean creed, I would still have the following questions:

For Tercel in particular - you wrote:

Quote:

I am a Christian because I agree with that. My position on inerrancy, evolution, exclusivism etc is irrelevant.

A question re: exclusivism not being an issue. Given your belief in the Nicean creed, which includes Jesus' divinity, how do you interpret his statement "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life - no man comes to the father but by me" ? My question is sincere; I don't see how someone can both claim the divinity of Jesus but then disregard his very explicit statement here.

Secondly (for both of you) - if you don't believe in creationism (including the story of Adam & Eve) - then whence cometh the "original sin" that Jesus had to die to atone for????

Radorth · 03-09-2003, 10:41 PM

I don't deny creationism, but rather a narrowly defined "special" literal 7 day creation. Augustine did not believe in such himself apparently:

It is easily within the power of God to have caused the mountains and the oceans to take shape in a few hours . . . to have spread out the universe in an equally short time, and to have created streams of light from the most distant galaxies just on the point of reaching the earth. But it is by no means necessary to believe that God did this, and no one should insist that the text of Genesis demands such a reading. St. Augustine (6) and St. Thomas (7) both point out that it would not have been contrary to divine wisdom for God to have performed the work of creation according to a pattern that natural processes would afterwards imitate, and it is known today that natural processes tend to follow a developmental pattern. St. Augustine and St. Thomas also warn against unnecessarily defending readings of the Scripture which go against what natural science and experience seem to indicate, as is taken to be the case with the 24-hour interpretation of the six days of creation. The text of Genesis 1 is open to the interpretation of the six days of creation as six undefined periods of time which are called days because they are sub-divided into a time of darkness followed by a time of light . . .

You can read some of their writings here:

http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ355.HTM#XI...20Aquinas%20on

So simply saying that unless one believes in a special, literal seven day creation, he cannot be a Christian, is a definition which apparently excludes Augustine and Aquinas. I'm not a Hebrew scholar, but I'm told the Hebrew lends itself more to an allegorical reading than a literal one.

Rad

Tercel · 03-10-2003, 12:30 AM

St Augustine's view was, ironically, that since the science of his day (4th century) did not agree with what the Bible said, the Bible's account must be metaphorical.

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

03-09-2003, 06:56 PM	#13
Psycho Economist Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Peoria, IL Posts: 854	Heh, you made a funny. I didn't notice before, but you gave yourself enough rope swing without any help from me in your previous post. 160 B.C.E., Antiochus and the Mcabees are about as post-exillic as you can get. They'd already been contaminated by Persian theology. To talk about Jewish beliefs in 160 B.C.E. as any indicator of what was going on in Israel and Judea pre-Babylon is like insisting Julius Caesar was a Christian because Constantine established Christianity as the Roman state religion in 312.

03-09-2003, 07:03 PM	#14
Abel Stable Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Baltimore, MD Posts: 356	Here's an interesting angle: Atheists For Jesus

03-09-2003, 07:31 PM	#16
Christian Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Iraq Posts: 313	The Nicean Creed is a pretty good standard for whether you fall within the general religion or not. C.S. Spurgeon claimed that anyone who believed in the substitutionary atonement of Christ was a "Christian" no matter how many other things they were wrong on. That standard seems a little bit low to me, but I can see his point too. In general, though, what label you claim doesn't matter a whit. Not worth getting worked up over. What you actually think and believe and do is what matters. Respectfully, Christian

03-09-2003, 07:50 PM	#17
Psycho Economist Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Peoria, IL Posts: 854	Wow, I'm surprised that this board lasted as long as it did, and only last month did someone snag "Christian" for a username. Will wonders never cease?

03-09-2003, 10:41 PM	#19
Radorth Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 1,872	I don't deny creationism, but rather a narrowly defined "special" literal 7 day creation. Augustine did not believe in such himself apparently: It is easily within the power of God to have caused the mountains and the oceans to take shape in a few hours . . . to have spread out the universe in an equally short time, and to have created streams of light from the most distant galaxies just on the point of reaching the earth. But it is by no means necessary to believe that God did this, and no one should insist that the text of Genesis demands such a reading. St. Augustine (6) and St. Thomas (7) both point out that it would not have been contrary to divine wisdom for God to have performed the work of creation according to a pattern that natural processes would afterwards imitate, and it is known today that natural processes tend to follow a developmental pattern. St. Augustine and St. Thomas also warn against unnecessarily defending readings of the Scripture which go against what natural science and experience seem to indicate, as is taken to be the case with the 24-hour interpretation of the six days of creation. The text of Genesis 1 is open to the interpretation of the six days of creation as six undefined periods of time which are called days because they are sub-divided into a time of darkness followed by a time of light . . . You can read some of their writings here: http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ355.HTM#XI...20Aquinas%20on So simply saying that unless one believes in a special, literal seven day creation, he cannot be a Christian, is a definition which apparently excludes Augustine and Aquinas. I'm not a Hebrew scholar, but I'm told the Hebrew lends itself more to an allegorical reading than a literal one. Rad

03-10-2003, 12:30 AM	#20
Tercel Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: New Zealand Posts: 1,315	St Augustine's view was, ironically, that since the science of his day (4th century) did not agree with what the Bible said, the Bible's account must be metaphorical.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.