• Don't want to see ads? Install an adblocker like uBlock Origin or use a Europe-based privacy-friendly browser like Vivaldi or Mullvad.

Religion Christianity: Conceptions and misconceptions

Mars Man- about the beating that Jesus took- I guess I'm going off what I have read in the Gospel accounts as well as what I have heard some historians say about Roman practice. It's all second and third hand information, but enough to satisfy me that the gospel accounts are plausible.
 
The gospels are plausible, but as you said it is second and third hand information. The main problem we have with the gospels is that people take it as reliable information, not plausible. Because it is second and third hand information we cannot rely on the accounts of what the gospels say and standard Roman and Jewish practice was for the treatment of criminals. there are more objective accounts of how the Empire was run. Remember the gospels were written at the time of the Jewish revolt and for a Roman audience, which makes them subjective to the events.
 
Hi sabro san !!

Yes, plausible, on that point. That is one of the things about those narratives, as we will begin to see when looking at them really up close and personal. Mycernius put it well.

The forum catalog for the 2005 Society of Biblical Literature and Association of American Religions convention came in the mail the other day along with a number of e-mails to my address at the uni. There was on well put work on the 'history' thing. It touched on the degrees to which ancient and or mythological/religious history is under pressure from 'present' history, and how that most likely came into play in the telling of the 'Jesus history' that became the Gospel accounts. It also dealt with how those are and have been interpreted down through the ages as 'present' history bent the concepts. I may talk more of that a bit later. Gotta run now.
 
I think I said before that the NT authors probably don't meet modern journalistic standards. I don't really expect the kind of on point reliability we expect from modern historical reporting. From a faith perspective, ir doesn't much matter...

Retort from the non-scientist: But what kind of God would we have that could create an entire reality out of nothing, but couldn't protect the written communication he wanted us to have?
 
This might seem like some odd questions; if several nutholes since 312, in their eagerness to sell their version of faith, added hugely inaccurate claims to what was actually historical in the form of enlightened interpretations, is God or the original authors, and present day Christians all responsible for mistakes made by the nutholes ? I would assume that even present day Christians, insofaras they continue in the errors that crept in since after the beginning of the Christian church, they too are responsible. But what if their faith is not in any way based on those errors of the intermediate theologians or church leaders ?
 
Yes sabro san, you've said that before, just as you had also mentioned, in passing, as though under your breath, that (believing--as I took it to the unmentioned subject to be) is a matter of faith. Just what does the first line of thought intail, however? That if we attempt to hold the writers of the NT to historical fact, we are wrong for doing so? Is it that it was o.k. for those who wrote, and the hands that latter touched some places, to say things that were not true? And in what way is it o.k. to ignore the most obvious intent that the narrative writers wrote to tell the facts--based on the oral tradition that was mixed up and shifting. We have to keep in mind that each narrative was an individual work, separate from the others.

On the second line of thought, it must be contemplated: on what grounds do we have the authority to claim that it is known that there is some 'communication' (beyond what can be learned through the study of nature and the universe) that that creator wanted us humans to have?

Interesting questions lexico, but I'll admit, I can't quite fully grasp the second portion. the first one, I would tend to say that those leaders who propogate such 'errors' would be responsibe, but not the simple, unable to know lay people who hears have been captivated by what they have basically been 'fed' since childhood.
 
Last edited:
Even science in its purest Cartesian form must have a starting point- cogito ergo sum. It is perfectly okay with me that the authors wrote whatever they wrote. It is also perfectly okay that what was eventually cannonized was cannonized, and what was translated was translated. I also accept that the authors followed the conventions of their day, and recorded things with the accuracy common in their day. My pursuit of God, I have to admit has a starting point which is purely dogmatic- that the Word of God is inspired and inerrant- that it is exactly what it is supposed to be. Religion is certainly not science. Although it may share some common ground- the function and parameters are different.

And again, although it is a product of separate authors living in very differnt places and times, orthodox Christianity holds that it is unified as a product of the Holy Spirit. (Which is entirely unproveable.) Again, it comes with the territory.

My claim of communication has absolutely no authority. (Like the inerrancy of the scriptures, it is purely self referential.) But if I believe in an omnipotent, omnipresent, creative being- than the whole scripture thing is a snap. It's religion, not science.

There was a guy named Josh McDowell that wrote a series of books starting with //Evidence that Demands a Verdict// that "proves" the bible scientifically. It's not something that I am interested in, and it was not the starting point of my faith, but it is there if you want to mess with it. There are also those people that try to "prove" creation.
 
I think supporting the inerrancy of the Bible comes with a lot of difficult, if not impossible questions to answer. Since all things are to fit within the law of love, 'love the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself', and this sums up the law and the prophets, then one must be able to reason out (for examples) why homosexuals had to be stoned in the name of love, or why it followed the law of love to only wear clothes woven of one fiber.

One would first have to start off with a working definition of love. At least when I carefully looked at it, the Buddhist defintion was concise and easy to understand, 'to hope for and actively promote another's happiness'. But how would others define that?

If that one works, and there are no flaws in it, then how is the stoning of gays in accordance with that, either as a God, or as a human? It confused the heck out of me in the time I considered myself a Christian.

One must also reason out how God foreknows who His people were, if we also have freewill. How does one foreknow something that is random? If He foreknows, then what is random about it? If we are predestined for heaven or hell, then I guess a Christian should be eternally grateful, and the rest of us should just enjoy this life as best we can, for that is all we have.

Difficult theologies if you ask me.

Of course one could simply say that God doesn't follow the laws of logic, and that he can make two-dimensional square-circles, but then applying definitions to Him like 'God is Love' would be logical, and that wouldn't fit Him as He doesn't follow logic.

I'm just sort of thinking as I type, don't know if any of this makes sense though.
 
Point #1 just because we don't agree with something doesn't make it an error or illogical.

You must have missed the whole story recounting the woman caught in adultery who was brought to Jesus...

There is a whole thing about the law- and sin, forgiveness, and redemption-- the whole compassion thing... the fact that due to the new covenant we are no longer under the law. So go ahead and wear that multi fiber cloth.

For the whole predestination thing- look up Calvanism on Wikipedia. According to Calvin, freewill is just an illusion. Since God is entirely sovereign and fore-knows everything, predestination is entirely logical. (But don't rely on my explaination-- because it is a bit beyond me.)
 
sabro said:
My pursuit of God, I have to admit has a starting point which is purely dogmatic- that the Word of God is inspired and inerrant- that it is exactly what it is supposed to be.
Click to expand...


I would say that that very predicte is the major misconception Christianity propogates today. And once the paradigm is set, there is the tendency to see only it, unless reason remains intact. My dance with Christianity didn't exactly start there, it was more emotionally based, but of course, the 'data' all comes from whatever interpretation of something written in the Bible. From there the natural step is to study the Bible to build faith in the things firstly accepted, to add fuel to the fire of belief. Somehow, when by mere reason things popped up which were out of line with my belief, I suppressed them, until finally I suddenly realized that there were too many of them, and my paradigm switched--I was able to take off those color-tinted glasses and see the NT the direct and immediate audience would most likely have seen. Through this I realized that the understanding at that time--real time--would have to be the only real understanding because of the lack of timeless & universal appeal; just like the Mosaic Law.

If a person wants to read the NT literally it must be done, as much as possible in the eyes of the immediate audience, but of course to do this, you'd have to know just what it is they had had in front of them, and that's why you get the recensions. The story about the prostitute who had been brought before Jesus was most likely not an original text of John. Of course one can use it just as one can use the Gospel according to Thomas, but it is simply not considered real history.

Sometimes it's so hard not to break cadance. Well, sabro, if you wouldn't mind, why not take your copy of the Bible and very carefully follow with me through the 'biblical texts' thread and let me know where what I have learned or discovered is fallicy. I think that if you'd think about it carefully, we are not really talking about science here, we are talking about plain ole everyday common sense--if we were to take it to be true that one writer's saying that a person had actually said:
"no longer into the ages from you nobody [your] fruit may eat."

Then it is just common sense that another's claim that that person, at that time had said:
"No longer from you may fruit become into the ages." (post 14 on the Biblical text thread) is false--that is not true history.

Of course this is logic, but it's reality !! As far as the Biblical text thread goes, so far it's just up to this level, but please see it out, there is a lot that is simply missed by the spin that the 'church' put on it.

Those looked like some things to think about there Revenant. I can appreciate the lines of thought, and will check out the counter points there sabro.
 
Mars Man- I don't think that the predicate is necessarily a misconception- as faith in my case was not a product of either inductive or deductive reasoning. (I did not reason God into existance). And I guess I could go back to your Biblical text threads and try to figure out where what you learned or discovered is what I might consider fallicy. But I'm not sure what the point would be. That there are minor inconsistencies in the re-telling of certain biblical events some thirty or more years after surprises me little. And it certainly does not shake the foundation of the faith. I read the threads with great interests. But in a way it is like judging a restaurant by the graphic qualities and typography of its menus. What you are looking for in the Bible is interesting, but not something that I find all that important.

As for reading the texts with the eyes of the contemporary- I guess that is one good excercise that a biblical scholar should attempt- but not a practical option for most of us with limited knowledge of both the languages of the original text and of the people and cultures of that time. An excellent example of where this practice would be valuable is in the interpretation of the Revelation of John. We evangelical Americans always assume that John was writing about us, for today, but ignore what his contemporary readers would have understood.
 
It seems to me that Calvinism much better fits what is written in Romans 9. It does basically say that those of us to whom God hardened the hearts of do not have the right to speak back to the Creator asking why He made us like this, and that perhaps we are born with great patience to demonstrate His fury upon. Perhaps you can interpret that a different way.
 
Revenant, the ball is squarely in the Big Man's court. That would be the nature of sovereignty. I am not a theologian however- and probably not the best person to ask. I go back to that whole "God is the author and finisher of my faith" presupposition. Reconciliation is His job.

Although I can see the logic and find the biblical basis for predestination, I find it far more functional to live as if I have free will. I may believe like a Calvanist, but I act like an Armenianist.
 
Revenant said:
One must also reason out how God foreknows who His people were, if we also have freewill. How does one foreknow something that is random? If He foreknows, then what is random about it? If we are predestined for heaven or hell, then I guess a Christian should be eternally grateful, and the rest of us should just enjoy this life as best we can, for that is all we have.
Click to expand...

You made me think of the parable of the landowner who hired laborers and at the end of the day paid them different amounts. Know the one I'm talking about? (Matt 20:1-16) Man's ideas of merit and earned rewards are irrelevant from God's perspective because He is Creator and Sovereign in His dispensing of grace.

I've mentioned this in other threads, but I can kind of wrap my mind around the free will/God's knowledge thing by separating mankind in our dimension of time from where God is in eternity. We are told that positionally we (as believers) are already with God from before the foundations of the earth were laid (Ephesians 1:4).
 
Matt 7: "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened."


Keep looking. Keep working out your salvation. Keep digging for the truth. The only ones that will find themselves lost are those who have given up trying to find the answers.
 
Good morning folks. . .it's getting cool here.

I think that I can not only understand, but can also feel your feelings and thoughts on that matter of 'accepting "God"', if you will, but firmly consider that at the end of the day, it can very well be called a misconception. I wonder, really, what was the concept of "God" that you neither induced or deduced, if it was not that which firstly had been implanted into your conscious and subconscious brain having come from descriptions contained in the Bible conveyed via others understandings of those same descriptions? It is a fact that no one can deny, if Judaism had died out after the exile, there would be no Bible as we have it today, and there would be no concept of the 'Christian' "God" as we know it today, and thus no data for inducing and decucing. (I contend that although there is room for differences of understanding due to the definition of the verb 'reason', the brain is a totally reasoning organ. All processess and associations of the brain are reasoning flows, even those seemingly unrecognizible emotional feelings are based on associations [reasoning] on stored input in the memory banks.)

To have been able to have made a conscious decision (whether you were fully aware (conscious) of all the processing going into that decision or not) about the 'Christian "God"' your brain would have had to have had knowledge and some perception of that 'Christian "God"' and that would have had to have been based on an understanding of the model that the Bible gives. That, in turn, would have been structured by the degree of understanding of what the Bible was by those who had exposed your brain to that information in the first place. Can you see what I'm getting at? One who is brain dead from birth could never have done such. One who lacks what could be termed a rather fully operative neural system, could very likely have not reached the point of reasoning that the brain does to formulate an understanding on a system of associated stored input, and thus realize an understanding.

The misconception is so intangled with the information flow of a religious nature, that it is almost invisible.

As we will see, those points which I am looking over will amount to an eventual 'major' rather than a 'minor'. Each fact, detail, is just that, of course, one point, and to that extent is, of course, minor. I don't think it could be disputed, however, that the aggregate of the detail, the sum of facts, is what makes the whole, the entireness of reality.

One question, though, please sabro and Pararousia (and you still owe me that concrete and proper answer Pararousia) is what I pointed out in my post above about one claim having to be untrue, not true? Please do think about it in a common sense fashion, and answer honestly, please.
 
sabro said:
Although I can see the logic and find the biblical basis for predestination, I find it far more functional to live as if I have free will. I may believe like a Calvanist, but I act like an Armenianist.
Click to expand...
That seems to me the best perception to take on, as a human, we cannot know which one is predestined for, nor can one know which another is headed for either.
Pararousia said:
You made me think of the parable of the landowner who hired laborers and at the end of the day paid them different amounts. Know the one I'm talking about? (Matt 20:1-16) Man's ideas of merit and earned rewards are irrelevant from God's perspective because He is Creator and Sovereign in His dispensing of grace.
Click to expand...
I can understand, although we still must reason, as a fanatical fundamentalists reasoning and a Liberal Christians reasoning are quite different, and I would argue that one is a lot closer to the truth. In short, after thinking through a lot of stuff (I'm still thinking), I cannot actually know that Christianity is the correct faith, and that Buddhism isn't. I would say Buddhism is closer to the truth, and it is much easier to see how it follows the law of compassion.

Christians believe people are headed for heaven or hell, so those headed for hell just have it tough. Atheists believe that people simply die, but in the context of an 'evil' man who lives a long comfortable life, while snuffing the life of the young and innocent, it can be hard to take for some, I can understand a wish for ultimate justice. Buddhism says that people will live many lives, until they learn the lessons, and free themselves from the cycle of suffering.

It seems to me that people who grew up in Christianity are much more likely to follow Christianity, and those who grw up in a Hindu households, will much more likely follow Hinduism. Either those who grew up in a Christian home just have an unfair advantage, or all major faiths have enough of the truth that one searching can find it.

In the end, there are people in all faiths and belief systems that can feel awe, wonder, empathy, compassion, gratitude, humility, and optimism. In the end, I think that is spiritualism, and that people with good 'theology' are very likely to feel all of those. There are a few cases wherein a person cannot feel positive emotions, and science is helping them to an extent. In a fairly recent Times magazine, there was a woman who had been suffering from severe depression, and it was a new method of using magnets to activate the neuropathways to the left side of the brain (locus for positive emotions), and she was starting to experience times in her life that she could actually feel happy.

All in all, I would rather keep my beliefs simple, and not attempt to reason out what I cannot reason out. Christianity I cannot reason out, and will simply keep my philosophy to that of simple happiness.
Pararousia said:
I've mentioned this in other threads, but I can kind of wrap my mind around the free will/God's knowledge thing by separating mankind in our dimension of time from where God is in eternity. We are told that positionally we (as believers) are already with God from before the foundations of the earth were laid (Ephesians 1:4).
Click to expand...
Sounds difficult to conceptualize, but I sort of see what you are getting at.
 
Last edited:
Mars said "if Judaism had died out after the exile, there would be no Bible as we have it today, and there would be no concept of the 'Christian' "God" as we know it today" But it didn't, did it? Because GOD IS IN CONTROL.

God has allowed has allowed His word and His people to survive in spite of holocausts of every sort. I personally believe the Jewish people themselves are proof of God, but I digest....

Mars Man, please, please hear me...I have given you the ONLY answer I will ever give you. Please stop asking for some other. All scripture is given by God through His servants preserved for all time for His purpose. Amen and Amen!
 
Mars Man asks: Then, in thinking outloud on 03cobra's #142 post, pg.6, perhaps you have had no problem in seeing some historical error in the writings of those early Christian and Jewish religious leaders, but I would like to know just what specific errors, exhaustively, you have come to see--and maybe that should be on the 'biblical texts' thread. At the same time, here, not there, I would wonder what schematic you may use for determining what is representative of actual reality, and what isn't. Luke's investigation may not be so reliable, afterall, you see. (and neither that of Paul)

Answer: I have not tried to compile an exhaustive list of errors, generally because I don't think an exhaustive list is helpful. A single error is enough to invalidate the "inerrancy" doctrine. But that doctrine is not in the Bible; it is something man made up later. So an error does not discredit the entire book. It only discredits this man-made doctrine.

What is important is that the major things are clear, unaffected by a minor error in writing here or there. The major things, including the self-sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the sins of the world and His offer of salvation to us, are clear despite any minor
 
Mars man- I'm kinda stuck. Even though I get your point entirely I have to admit that I believe God exists. I tried to run from it, to deny it...to reason it away. No matter what I do, I still believe God exists. So rather from Descartes scientific starting point-- I'm left with the core "fact" in my brain that God exists. I didn't grow up in a family with any religious foundation- most are dialectic materialists.) I explored what His nature most likely was, and this religious text that I came in contact with. I knew there was a God, and I just had to decide how to respond. (I mean, did I even like Him?) Everthing fits and flows logically from that first illogical dogmatic point. All that other stuff- trying to see if reasoning back or if your list of errors makes any difference-- seems like an academic excercise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top