|
Post by gymnopodie on Aug 12, 2010 12:01:57 GMT
Are you saying that the average Christian down through the centuries was aware of those discrepancies? Were there times when the clergy discouraged personal Bible reading or study? Were there times when certain books and certain versions of the Bible were banned by the orthodox church? Are there still Christian churches existing today where the clergy is essentially the only ones reading or using the Bible?
Would it be accurate to say that there are Christian churches that believe their church's doctrines are more correct than the Bible, that the Bible is only an addition or supplement to their church's more correct and accurate beliefs?
I would find it most difficult to believe that most Christians are aware of the Bible's discrepancies. Most of what Christians know about the history of Jesus is what they are taught - not what they have personally read and examined for themselves.
The Jehovah's Witnesses (I am an ex-JW) believe that there are no discrepancies in the Bible. They have an explanation for most of them, and the ones for which they have no explanation, they simply say that there can't be a contradiction because the Bible contains no contradictions. My guess is that if you read the JW's explanations of the contradictions, you would think they were ludicrous, whereas your church's explanations are correct. The reality though is that what is correct for you is in what version of Christianity you believe.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Aug 12, 2010 13:27:37 GMT
That is a bit of a long list to even think of dealing with. I noticed that there are many, many that seem to me to be just furphies - the sort of thing you put in a list to make it seem more impressive, but which don't actually amount to anything. I think the paper would be more impressive, and more accurate, if it used only about a quarter of that lot. I think many of the others depend on a literalistic approach that would object to an expression like "it's raining cats and dogs", and still others on an assumption that the gospels are chronological and attempt to tell everything. Finally, there are the matters that are pretty well known, like the divergences in the birth stories. They could both be true, but it looks unlikely. But like I said before, none of that stops historians concluding that the gospels are useful historical documents and drawing many conclusions from them. And as Jamie has said, I would guess all of them have explanations from apologists (I don't know because I don't read that stuff much). Like I also said before, some old "contradictions" have been resolved, and I would be surprised if pretty much any of those can and will be resolved. I just doubt they all can and will. Pretty much all of the above could be true of my daily newspaper, but I still learn the news from it. And I still learn the good news from the NT. Perhaps it would be more helpful to pick one or two particular 'errors" out and we could discuss them, there is just too a few that I suggested were "furphies".
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Aug 12, 2010 13:32:45 GMT
I can introduce you to quite few thousand former Catholics who are now all atheists of various stripes and who would be sufficient to trash that theory. Not really Tim, because my "theory" was about most of the former believers I have come across. I'm sure you are right about ex Catholics, but I don't come across many of them. I chose my words deliberately - my point was that the ones I come across are the most vocal, especially on the internet, as James said, and which I think you said too. Yeah, I agree.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Aug 12, 2010 13:35:05 GMT
I would find it most difficult to believe that most Christians are aware of the Bible's discrepancies. Most of what Christians know about the history of Jesus is what they are taught - not what they have personally read and examined for themselves. I think you are probably right on both these matters, but I'm unsure what relevance it has to what we have been discussing - or to your beliefs or mine.
|
|
|
Post by merkavah12 on Aug 12, 2010 14:14:39 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gymnopodie on Aug 12, 2010 19:02:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by timoneill on Aug 13, 2010 3:14:15 GMT
How about the possible influence of Mythraism on Christianity. That would be about the worst example to choose. Modern Mithraic scholars (note the spelling) reject the old idea that Mithraism had very much influence on Christianity at all. The idea that Tarsus was some major centre of the Mithraic cult is often cited as fact. It's nonsense. The sole evidence of any Mithraic activity in Tarsus consists of one medallion. That's it. Compare that to the dozens of Mithraeums, inscriptions, statues and other artefacts in other parts of the Empire where Mithraism was highly active. There is actually very little evidence of Mithraism in any part of the Empire before the later First Century and even that is from much further west - mainly from Italy. The idea that Tarsus was a Mithraic centre in Paul's time or any time is total nonsense. And there is zero sign of any Mithraic influence in Paul's writings anyway - hardly surprising, considering he was a devout Jew. See above. Or, for an even shorter answer: no.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Aug 13, 2010 11:52:07 GMT
How about the possible influence of Mythraism on Christianity. More specifically, was the Mythra sect active in Tarsus where Paul had lived? During Paul's visions, was he 'seeing' Jesus through his memory of Mythaism exacerbated by guilt from persecuting Jews? Like Tim, I was also a little surprised at this choice. I don't have a clear understanding of the historical facts, but I thought that while Mithra was an ancient Persian God, the cult of Mithras which has some similarities to christianity, was not established in the Roman Empire until after christianity commenced, and indeed, probably after the New Testament was written. If that's the case, it would make its influence on Jesus, Paul or any of the apostles impossible.
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Aug 13, 2010 13:00:09 GMT
How about the possible influence of Mythraism on Christianity. More specifically, was the Mythra sect active in Tarsus where Paul had lived? During Paul's visions, was he 'seeing' Jesus through his memory of Mythaism exacerbated by guilt from persecuting Jews? Like Tim, I was also a little surprised at this choice. I don't have a clear understanding of the historical facts, but I thought that while Mithra was an ancient Persian God, the cult of Mithras which has some similarities to christianity, was not established in the Roman Empire until after christianity commenced, and indeed, probably after the New Testament was written. If that's the case, it would make its influence on Jesus, Paul or any of the apostles impossible. From what I have read of Gymnopodie I tend to think he is so certain of his atheistic angle, that he has swallowed popular antichristian polemics rather uncritically. I doubt he will be swayed, though. New atheists rarely change attitude, however much the arguments they prefer or bring to the discussion first, are shown wrong. If we don't like his principles arguments, he has others
|
|
|
Post by Al Moritz on Aug 13, 2010 15:28:44 GMT
From what I have read of Gymnopodie I tend to think he is so certain of his atheistic angle, that he has swallowed popular antichristian polemics rather uncritically. I doubt he will be swayed, though. New atheists rarely change attitude, however much the arguments they prefer or bring to the discussion first, are shown wrong. Aren't atheists supposed to be rational, and thus not fall into those traps?
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Aug 13, 2010 15:40:30 GMT
Gentlemen,
With respect, I'm not sure the last couple of posts add much to the discussion. If we could concentrate on arguments rather than people, that would be much appreciated.
Thank you.
Best wishes
James
|
|
|
Post by ignorantianescia on Aug 13, 2010 17:37:35 GMT
If Mithraism developed from Semitic polytheism, like the Akkadian pantheon for instance, it would not be surprising if that there are parallels. I do not know whether that is the case, though. It seems the origins of the Mithras cult are unclear.
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on Aug 13, 2010 18:10:03 GMT
If Mithraism developed from Semitic polytheism, like the Akkadian pantheon for instance, it would not be surprising if that there are parallels. I do not know whether that is the case, though. It seems the origins of the Mithras cult are unclear. I think the whole parallel angle has gone to pieces the last generation or so of researchers. Not the least as sources to the Roman form of Mithraism are from after the New Testament. One could just as well argue that any parallel some sees is due to an influence the other way.
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Aug 14, 2010 0:21:00 GMT
Are you saying that the average Christian down through the centuries was aware of those discrepancies? Even today, many christians aren't aware of discrepancies, or their solutions - something I've been saying for ages that the church should be ashamed of. But that has no bearing on how reasonable Christian answers to apparent "contradictions" actually are. Quite possibly. What's that got to do with resolving a contradiction in the genealogies of Jesus? Sadly true, but see paragraph 1 above. And,of course, as an atheist, you would never find any explanation satisfactory. Ha!!! See how easy that was? Please don't try to second-guess or psycho-analyse the folks on this forum. Christian or not, most of the regular posters here try to be far more intellectually honest than many places on the net. Just because a JW explains a contradiction in a certain way doesn't automatically make it nonsense - I would evaluate each claim on its own merits. And anyway, you've dodged my point. Just bringing up a list of apparent mistakes in the Bible, without recognition of educated Christian understandings of said "mistakes", won't achieve anything. You have to show you've actually engaged with them and explain why existing solutions to these problems don't cut it.
|
|
|
Post by gymnopodie on Aug 14, 2010 3:38:31 GMT
I see how prejudiced that comment was.
So, you believe as Himself does that the trinity doctrine was always a Christian belief? And was never borrowed from any other religion or philosophy?
I had mentioned to someone that there were discrepancies in the Bible. He asked me for some examples. I posted a URL that I had found on the internet. I hadn't even read it when I posted it, much less engaged anyone with any part of it.
Then he suggested to take just one example to discuss. I read through it and suggested that we discuss the possible Mythra influence on Paul. Tim shot down that idea with one word, 'no,' which was in reply to one of my questions. Where would you suggest that I go from there?
I took my dog for a walk last night and came across a catfish walking in the opposite direction. My dog barked at it some but the catfish seemed undeterred.
|
|