Religion Christianity: Conceptions and misconceptions

[Tsuyoiko]

I can't believe you guys can actually have an intelligent conversation where you mutually respect eachother about a subject like religion.

I hope that intelligent, rational people can have respectful conversations about any subject, as Mars Man has pointed out so eloquently.

Sorry, I realise this is breaking up a good thing for you guys, but jesus christ... I just wanna roll up one of those pamphlets the JW keeps preassuring me to take and beat you with it like a naughty puppy.

That's hardly the action of a rational, intelligent person!

Now I'll take my Darwinian facts and proof and be in that corner over there.. you guys keep doing that bible stuff, which clearly must be true, because ...well.. it's the bible, right?

If you take the time to look further back on this thread you'll find that a fair amount of time has been spent with you in that corner, and that more than half of us are actually arguing from that point of view. IMO it's interesting to try to understand people who think differently from you, and that's only possible through respectful debate, and not through head-bashing. If you don't want to understand those who think differently you're no different from the people you want to hit with a pamphlet.

 

[Mikawa Ossan]

I can't believe you guys can actually have an intelligent conversation where you mutually respect eachother about a subject like religion.

To me it's like having a rational and sensible discussion on where abouts santa lives and at what speed his sled travels.

Sorry, I realise this is breaking up a good thing for you guys, but jesus christ... I just wanna roll up one of those pamphlets the JW keeps preassuring me to take and beat you with it like a naughty puppy.

Now I'll take my Darwinian facts and proof and be in that corner over there.. you guys keep doing that bible stuff, which clearly must be true, because ...well.. it's the bible, right?

All I can say is, look at the title of the thread. They are talking about what this thread was meant for. It's not about whether Christianity is "true" in a scientific sense, but rather trying to come to an understanding about what Christianity really is.

If there was a thread entitled, "Where does Santa live?" I would expect people to discuss that topic, no matter how irrelevant or insignificant it may be. Why? That's the point of the thread. If you don't think it's a discussion worth having, then the best thing to do is simply just ignore it. It won't go away just because you don't approve.

 

[Mycernius]

I wonder what would happen if every college freshman studying a biological science or anthropology was forced to get out a clean white shirt, black tie and name tag, hop on a bike and spread the saving truth of Darwin door to door, throughout the immediate world.

"Hello, I'm Samuel and I want to talk about Darwin. Have you found the path to Darwin yet? Here take our book, "Origin of the Species". It's free"
I probably tell them to go away as well. Mind you giving away free books is how I've managed to aquire several books on JWs and Hare Krishnas. I had to buy my Origin of the Species kashii:

 

[Revenant]

I can't believe you guys can actually have an intelligent conversation where you mutually respect eachother about a subject like religion.

A reason I keep coming back here. Not many forums host so many levelheaded members.

 

[Kaminari]

Mormons and JWs, for example, deny doctrine 1, presumably because they interpret John 1:14 differently. IMO, it is open to interpretation, and their interpretation is equally valid.

Indeed, what IS the correct interpretation of John 1:14? Perhaps Philippians 2:5-11 should be taken into account when making a determination ...

The trinity dogma was not to be found in the early church nor in the early church fathers, and slowly crept out until it got 'hankoed' (borrowing a Japanese term and idea here--HANKO means chop or stamp for those who don't know) at the council of Niciea (sp?)

I recall reading some time ago, a passage written by a pagan and dating back to about AD 120 (a LONG time short of the First Council of Nicea.) in criticism of Christian teachings - Key point of the passage, "Do these people really expect us to believe that a god would so demean himself as to be born from a woman, together with all the pain and the blood...."

 

[Mars Man]

Indeed, what IS the correct interpretation of John 1:14? Perhaps Philippians 2:5-11 should be taken into account when making a determination ...
I recall reading some time ago, a passage written by a pagan and dating back to about AD 120 (a LONG time short of the First Council of Nicea.) in criticism of Christian teachings - Key point of the passage, "Do these people really expect us to believe that a god would so demean himself as to be born from a woman, together with all the pain and the blood...."

Howdy there Kaminari san !! This sounds a bit suspicious. If possible, could you please try to run this down? I will do the same from here, to see if we can find out just where this has come from. I would appreciate it.

It's only obvious that you are well read and studied in this field, and therefore surely know that there are a good number of psuedoegraphical specimens from that era. The letter of Aristeas, as handed down via Philo, even, is one example, among a number of other possibles like: the Gospel of Peter; the Oxyrhynchus fragment 840; and some things from the Nag Hammadi corpus (NHC): Apocryphon of John, and so on.

Of course my own study is quite limited, and I could have missed it, yet have never run across any such document mentioned in regards how early (late first to late second century) Christian writers dealt with the 'divine' aspect of the 'Christ' image. From what I have seen, there of course was quite a bit of in-fighting amongst the several groups of those within 'Christianity' of that day, more than what most would realize, and that has given rise to a number of more recent theories on texts that show evidence of that. The matter of our recorded Matthew as against the Didache is one, and that of the matter of the text of that O 840 (mentioned above), is another along with thoughts on the understanding of, say, The Parapharse of Shem (NHC VII,1--Para, Shem 38.3-9), The Testimony of Truth (NHC IX,3--55.4-18; 69.22,23)

So, based on what seems to more readily show itself, I see that from some understanding of some type of duality between human and god--perhaps not without some sort of borrowing from the Gnostics--in early to mid second century, the concept of a 'trinity' (not a new idea at the time) didn't really become full fledged until sometime in the third century--and I simply don't consider that as being 'early' Christianity.

I have come to reason, at the same time, that it is not really so tight an argument to attempt to support or deny any statement in one author's work of our NT, to or against some different author's work within that same book. Pauline theology does not really stand as a measure of what those who likely took part in the assembly of the work entitled 'According to John' held to heart. I really reason that that is one great faulty side-effect inherent in the concept that our 'Bible of today' is the work of one author--and that one being held, as those who propogate that concept do, as being infinite in mental state.

There may be something on the John 1:14 thing, but I've gotta run now, and this is looooong enough...too... So look forward to next time see you 'round !!

 

[Kaminari]

I hate to make comments like that without having the references ready to hand. However, I located that piece incidentally on the net, and am yet to determine whether I saved it on the now retired computer I was using at the time. Unfortunately, I have not yet been able to resurrect all the files in the 3 gig that needs to be searched. ???߂?Ȃ???, Mars Man.

 

[Kaminari]

While I am yet to locate the article I mentioned earlier, I did find one that I came across at roughly the same time. Attributed to Tatian (110-180AD), listed among the ante-Nicene fathers through the Catholic Encyclopaedia site.

Chapter XXI.—Doctrines of the Christians and Greeks Respecting God Compared.
We do not act as fools, O Greeks, nor utter idle tales, when we announce that God was born in the form of a man. I call on you who reproach us to compare your mythical accounts with our narrations. Athené, as they say, took the form of Deïphobus for the sake of Hector,483 and the unshorn Phoœbus for the sake of Admetus fed the trailing-footed oxen, and the spouse us came as an old woman to Semele. But, while you treat seriously such things, how can you deride us? Your Asclepios died, and he who ravished fifty virgins in one night at Thespiæ lost his life by delivering himself to the devouring flame. Prometheus, fastened to Caucasus, suffered punishment for his good deeds to men. According to you, Zeus is envious, and hides the dream from men, wishing their destruction. Wherefore, looking at your own memorials, vouchsafe us your approval, though it were only as dealing in legends similar to your own. We, however, do not deal in folly, but your legends are only idle tales. If you speak of the origin of the gods, you also declare them to be mortal. For what reason is Hera now never pregnant? Has she grown old? or is there no one to give you information? Believe me now, O Greeks, and do not resolve your myths and gods into allegory. If you attempt to do this, the divine nature as held by you is overthrown by your own selves; for, if the demons with you are such as they are said to be, they are worthless as to character; or, if regarded as symbols of the powers of nature, they are not what they are called. But I cannot be persuaded to pay religious homage to the natural elements, nor can I undertake to persuade my neighbour. And Metrodorus of Lampsacus, in his treatise concerning Homer, has argued very foolishly, turning everything into allegory. For he says that neither Hera, nor Athené, nor Zeus are what those persons suppose who consecrate to them sacred enclosures and groves, but parts of nature and certain arrangements of the elements. Hector also, and Achilles, and Agamemnon, and all the Greeks in general, and the Barbarians with Helen and Paris, being of the same nature, you will of course say are introduced merely for the sake of the machinery of the poem, not one of these personages having really existed. But these things we have put forth only for argument?fs sake; for it is not allowable even to compare our notion of God with those who are wallowing in matter and mud.

(it would seem that someone upset him a tad.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Indeed, what IS the correct interpretation of John 1:14? Perhaps Philippians 2:5-11 should be taken into account when making a determination ...

Philippians doesn't seem any clearer to me.

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God

Being in the form of something, and equal to something doesn't make you the same thing. My friend Robert, who is an identical twin, is in the form of his brother Andrew, and they are both equal, but they still two separate (and very different) entities.

 

[Kaminari]

Tsuyoiko: Yes, the matter is not exactly clear in the English texts, but that is because English has no precise equivalent for the Koine Greek "morphe" (the word translated as form.) However, your analogy provides a very good avenue to explain the difference:

Being in the form of something, and equal to something doesn't make you the same thing. My friend Robert, who is an identical twin, is in the form of his brother Andrew, and they are both equal, but they still two separate (and very different) entities.

In your analogy, you have stated quite clearly that the morphe of Robert and the morphe of Andrew is the same - ASSUMING that there is absolutely NO difference in their genetic makeup, that the substance from which they are made is identical right down to the last atom.

Just as the now hypothetical Andrew and Robert are "made of" the same substance, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are made of the same substance, that substance being called God.

The process being described in Philippians 2:5-11, that of Christ Jesus becoming a man, has a name that will be familiar to you: metamorphosis. His form, process and substance became altered. In metamorphosis though, there remains a tenuous continuing link between the caterpillar and the butterfly, but in the metamorphosis outlined in this passage, no such link remains.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Tsuyoiko: Yes, the matter is not exactly clear in the English texts, but that is because English has no precise equivalent for the Koine Greek "morphe"

'Morphe' means "the outward expression of an inner essence", right? That still doesn't clear up the ambiguity for me. I can take that to mean outward appearance in the same way that our outward appearance (phenotype) is (largely) determined by our 'inner essence' (genotype). Having said that, it seems that 'morphe' was often used to mean just what we mean in English by 'form' or 'shape' or 'outward appearance' - for example in Luke 24:13-33 and in the Septuagint, Job 4:15.

Just as the hypothetical Andrew and Robert are "made of" the same substance, God and the pre-incarnate Christ are made of the same substance.

Everything in the universe is made from the same stuff.

The process being described in Philippians 2:5-11, that of Christ Jesus becoming a man, has a name that will be familiar to you: metamorphosis. His form, process and substance became altered. In metamorphosis though, there remains a tenuous continuing link between the caterpillar and the butterfly. In this metamorphosis though, no such link remained.

I thought the opposite was supposed to be true - while in human form Jesus did not cease to be God.

 

[Kaminari]

I thought the opposite was supposed to be true - while in human form Jesus did not cease to be God.

Hmmm.... there are a variety of interpretations on that particular detail. Others would give you their opinions of what they believe to be correct, beyond doubt. However, and memory could be playing me false here, the morphe of Christ Jesus was man. If that is so, the very substance of Christ was altered, and could therefore no longer be that of God.

It seems you posted while I was busy editing my prior post, so what may have been left unclear by the original may now be clearer. Your post about identical twins caught me on the hop - I have been searching for ways to make a viable analogy for quite some years.

 

[Kaminari]

Having said that, it seems that 'morphe' was often used to mean just what we mean in English by 'form' or 'shape' or 'outward appearance' - for example in Luke 24:13-33 and in the Septuagint, Job 4:15.

It may be that morphe can have that use to be sure, but "being in morphe" and "becoming in morphe" can't. I will have to leave off here, as it is 4:00 am, and the bed calleth. I'll check the precise wording soon. (my to-do-soon list is growing exponentially.)

 

[Mukyokai]

?????i????

?u???̕??i?C?G?X?L???X?g?j?ȊO?ɂ́A????ɂ???Ă??~???͂???܂???B
???E???ł??̌䖼?̂ق??ɂ́A
?????????~????ׂ????Ƃ??ẮA
?ǂ̂悤?Ȗ????A
?l?Ԃɗ^?????Ă??Ȃ?????ł??B
http://kingdoman777.hp.infoseek.co.jp

 

[Tsuyoiko]

Having said that, it seems that 'morphe' was often used to mean just what we mean in English by 'form' or 'shape' or 'outward appearance' - for example in Luke 24:13-33

Sorry, I have to correct myself there. It is in fact Mark (16:12 - "After that he appeared in another form unto two of them, as they walked, and went into the country.") who uses the word 'morphe' when retelling the story from Luke 24. :sorry:

 

[Kaminari]

Ah - now we're getting somewhere... meta de tauta dusin ex autwn peripatousin efanerwqh en etera morfh poreuomenoiV eis agron

Did you notice that nothing was stated to have changed with regard to Jesus in the reference at Luke 24:13-33 ... the eyes of the two were opened and they recognised him. In this passage however, it states that Jesus appeared to them in another form. However....fanerow here is in the passive form - Jesus appeared to them (to be) in another form, or (it appeared to them that he was in another form.)

Tense / Stem Information Results for · 5786 · 5786 Voice - Passive

The passive voice represents the subject as being the
recipient of the action. E.g., in the sentence, "The boy was
hit by the ball," the boy receives the action.


Mar 16:12

Source: http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/1130859857-9329.html

If Jesus had actually been in another form morfh, or had in some way disguised himself morfwsiV, (among other possibilities) the passage would have used the active form for appeared optanomai (as one possibility) allowed himself to be seen.

 

[Kaminari]

Mukyokai: I can read just enough of that to get the gist of your comment (I think).
?p??͂??Ȃ????b???ł??傤?B???{??͎??@?????킩??Ȃ?

 

[Tsuyoiko]

If Jesus had actually been in another form morfh, or had in some way disguised himself morfwsiV, (among other possibilities) the passage would have used the active form for appeared optanomai (as one possibility) allowed himself to be seen.

OK Kaminari, I'll admit you're getting a bit beyond me now, so I hope you don't mind if I drag it back down to my level! I'm arguing that there is no 'correct' way to interpret such passages in the Bible, and that it's impossible to know what the writers' intentions were. What do you think?

 

[Mycernius]

I think that is one of the biggest problems with the Bible and with other religious text. When all said and done it is down to someones interpretation that influences the religion. The Pauline letters are someones interpretation of the teachings of Jesus. If you have someone with a powerful personality at the head, then people will follow. Unfortunatly this has caused tragic circumstances such as Jim Jones, the Branch Dravidians and Heavens Gate. In other cases it caused the split from the Catholic Church. Whether you regard that as good or bad depends on your perspective, but it allow the religion to adapt and evolve. Never know in a thousand years time what we regard as Christianity and Islam could have changed to something we wouldn't recognise today.

 

[Kaminari]

It is a nice theory, Tsuyoiki, and certainly at the level of the individual writer, there is some truth to it. But.... the individual writer's intention is not at issue. What matters is, what does the Bible have to say about a given issue, or, what is God's message on a given issue. (We don't have any apostles or prophets currently available who can present the requisite bonafides, so we are stuck with an examination of the Bible to determine what God's opinions are.)

Take a look at a very simple case study and see if you can determine the Bible's intent regarding the following passage ... (pop quiz, no points awarded for correct answers, nor deducted for wrong answers).

Examine the following passage:

Eph 5:5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.

exposition 1: an idolater who engages in any of these activities does not have the covering of Christ, has no forgiveness of sins, and therefore no inheritence in the kingdom of God. If a person has accepted Christ, however, such activities are forgiven and he will not necessarily be without an inheritence in heaven.
exposition 2: Any person who indulges in those activities is classed as one with an idolater and has no inheritence in the kingdom of God.
Which of these two explanations is correct, and how do you go about proving it. (For this exercise, there is no need to delve beyond the English text.)

I have just been trying to explain properly the difference between active and passive voice ... and something that has been vaguely bothering me about the standard explanations for some time has just become clear. It may take a LONG time before I find a way to explain it properly.

The standard explanation of active passive voice runs thus:
he hit/active the ball = he hit the ball
he hit/passive the ball = he was hit by the ball.
That construct and explanation is only an approximation and only works most of the time - when a preposition (in/with/by/for etc.) present, it doesn't work the same way.