Christianity - license to make stuff up.

[Gawen]

Thanks for participating in this thread, we do need a theist so that we can keep it real.
It would be interesting to know what the orthodoxy is. Is it so small it can fit on one page, one paragraph?

Appreciate the sentiment... this forum really has changed for the better!

Awhile back I wrote a creed that attempts to capture it, of which the below is a part.  Get out the steak knives! 

The only one that needs use a knife is you.

There is one and only one living and true God. 

Unsubstantiated assertion.

He created all things.

Unsubstantiated assertion.

He has revealed Himself through His Creation, through history, through the written testimony of a few, and through the incarnation of Himself, Jesus Christ.

Unsubstantiated assertion.

Man, a free creature made in God's own image, is the pinnacle of His creation.

'Mam' is not free and the Bible says as much. The rest is Unsubstantiated assertion.

By his free choice Man sinned against God, misaligning his nature from that of God and bringing evil into the world.

Unsubstantiated assertions. Also, as the Bible explains, God is the author of sin and the means of having A&E sin. Frankly, God makes the disease and then comes up with the cure.

Any person can rejoin alignment with God through repentance of sin and faith in the atoning death and ressurection of Jesus Christ.

Unsubstantiated assertion.

Those who have done so constitute The Church who will enjoy God forever in Heaven.

Unsubstantiated assertion.

[Attila]

Restated, the core belief is "Any person can rejoin alignment with God through repentance of sin and faith in the atoning death and ressurection of Jesus Christ."

Could Adolf Hitler rejoin alignment with god through repentence. Would he get a ticket through the pearly gates if he just repented?

What would happen to an atheist that rejects the idea of god and jesus, yet lives an honest and fulfilling life helping others and being an all round good guy? Would he go to hell?

Could you answer those two questions to the best of your "knowledge" and then sum up the answers and conclude what sort of being (other than being made up) god is? Thanks.

Actually he probably could have without even repenting. Consider the cases of Francisco Franco and Augusto Pinochet. Do you seriously think the church considered they had anything to confess? Tony Blair is a more recent example welcomed into the church with open arms. I doubt that he repented anything relating to Iraq. None of the above measured up to Hitler in numbers but their "achievements"  were certainly non-trivial. The main difference between the big H and these monsters is that Hitler lost.

Is this an example of Godwin's law?
Ciao,
Attila

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Is Christianity seen by its followers as a license to make stuff up?

It's not seen by Christians as such a license, but that could be the result.  Especially with the Reformation's concept of the "priesthood of the believer," each person ultimately makes up their own mind about how to understand God. We are each our own little universe, so we all see things from a different perspective.  That's reflected in our choice of clothes, food and religious doctrines.  The only way to avoid it is with a large, powerful organization like the Roman Catholic Church that enforces "the party line," but as we have seen, even that can't last forever.  Eventually, every star starts spinning off planets and you end up with each person doing what is right in his/her own eyes.  Democracy and individual freedoms and free market economies enforce this trend, so pretty soon you have a multiplicity of groups.  It's a mirror of society.

[Too Few Lions]

Let me be clear on what I was trying to do, at Stevil's request: identify what core belief(s) orthodox Christianity has always held to have saving/redemptive qualities and, by omission, bring clarity to what belief(s) do not have those qualities.  Restated, the core belief is "Any person can rejoin alignment with God through repentance of sin and faith in the atoning death and ressurection of Jesus Christ."

Any sect that claims to be orthodox Christian and does not hold this core belief does so falsely.

The trouble and blatant innacuracy with that statement is that 'orthodoxy' in Christianity only dates to the fourth century, before that there was no set orthodoxy, creed or even New Testament (first edition 393 CE). The creed you aspire to is based on that first formulated in the fouth century, almost 300 years after the first Christians, and may be very different to what they originally believed. The reason you believe what you believe is that the orthodoxy created by Constantine and the emperors that followed him in the fourth and fifth centuries ruthlessly persecuted anyone with an alternate view of Christianity and did their best to destroy alternative scriptures and alternative Christianities. All those other forms of Christianities believed they represented the true orthodoxy and true teachings of Jesus, every bit as much as you believe that you represent the 'true' orthodoxy.

From your statements on creed and orthodoxy, you may as well call yourself a Constantinian or a Theodosian rather than a Christian, because the creed, holy book, and orthodoxy you believe in were created by the Imperial Church in the fourth century. If Constantine had backed one of the other forms of Christianity, what you would now believe and hold as a creed and believe to be 'orthodox' would have been very different indeed. Of course if Constantine had picked a different religion other than Christianity, you wouldn't even be Christian, and you'd  believe in a totally different god and saviour than you do!

[bandit4god]

Could Adolf Hitler rejoin alignment with god through repentence. Would he get a ticket through the pearly gates if he just repented?

Repentance means changing one's life direction/orientation as a result of contrition for his/her sins.  Orthodox Christianity applies this to all humans.

What would happen to an atheist that rejects the idea of god and jesus, yet lives an honest and fulfilling life helping others and being an all round good guy? Would he go to hell?

Only one person who ever lived was in full alignment with God, and he isn't the fine chap you describe above.  My belief (not orthodoxy) is that I should not judge others, but rather to let you all know that I love you, so I'll abstain from speculating on whether he would go to hell.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

The trouble and blatant innacuracy with that statement is that 'orthodoxy' in Christianity only dates to the fourth century, before that there was no set orthodoxy, creed or even New Testament (first edition 393 CE). The creed you aspire to is based on that first formulated in the fouth century, almost 300 years after the first Christians, and may be very different to what they originally believed. The reason you believe what you believe is that the orthodoxy created by Constantine and the emperors that followed him in the fourth and fifth centuries ruthlessly persecuted anyone with an alternate view of Christianity and did their best to destroy alternative scriptures and alternative Christianities. All those other forms of Christianities believed they represented the true orthodoxy and true teachings of Jesus, every bit as much as you believe that you represent the 'true' orthodoxy.

From your statements on creed and orthodoxy, you may as well call yourself a Constantinian or a Theodosian rather than a Christian, because the creed, holy book, and orthodoxy you believe in were created by the Imperial Church in the fourth century. If Constantine had backed one of the other forms of Christianity, what you would now believe and hold as a creed and believe to be 'orthodox' would have been very different indeed. Of course if Constantine had picked a different religion other than Christianity, you wouldn't even be Christian, and you'd  believe in a totally different god and saviour than you do!

However, most New Testament scholars believe that Paul's epistles are the earliest Christian writings that we have, that the authentic ones were written in the 50's, and that the manuscripts we have now give us a pretty accurate account of what he wrote, whether the scholar believes it or not.  And it is pretty clear that Paul considered the core of the Gospel to be the death and resurrection of Jesus, especially when passages like I Corinthians 15:1-12 and Romans 10:9-10 are considered.

[Too Few Lions]

However, most New Testament scholars believe that Paul's epistles are the earliest Christian writings that we have, that the authentic ones were written in the 50's, and that the manuscripts we have now give us a pretty accurate account of what he wrote, whether the scholar believes it or not.  And it is pretty clear that Paul considered the core of the Gospel to be the death and resurrection of Jesus, especially when passages like I Corinthians 15:1-12 and Romans 10:9-10 are considered.

But lots of Christians who believed very different things to what b4g's creed states also held Paul in high regard and considered themselves to be following his teachings (eg Marcion). My point was that 'orthodoxy' only existed in Christianity from the fourth century, and one can't talk about 'orthodox' Christianity before that date. Plus I find it a little arrogant for an English speaking Christian in the 21st century such as b4g to be deeming which Christian beliefs are correct and which false, and claiming Christians who lived within a century or two of the creation of Christianity and spoke the same language as Paul and the earliest Christians held false views.

Personally I would question that dating of Paul's epistles, but that's just my opinion. What evidence could you provide to me to prove that date of authorship? The earliest known copies date from 175-225 CE. While I'm sure they existed before that date, I'm not convinced about 50 CE. I would question the dating of all the books of the NT given the large discrepencies between when the books were supposedly written and the oldest copies we know about (generally 2nd-3rd century).

I'm open minded on the subject though, could you provide me with the evidence as to why I should believe the epistles of Paul or the gospels were written in the first century, it's something I've wanted to find out for some time. I've struggled to find any good information on the subject on the internet.

Plus if you're taking Paul as your ultimate source of scripture, do you believe in Adam and Eve like Paul did? (eg 1 Cor 15.21-23) or in seven heavenly globes  that surround an Earth at the centre of the universe? (2 Cor 12.2-4)

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Personally I would question that dating of Paul's epistles, but that's just my opinion. What evidence could you provide to me to prove that date of authorship? The earliest known copies date from 175-225 CE. While I'm sure they existed before that date, I'm not convinced about 50 CE. I would question the dating of all the books of the NT given the large discrepencies between when the books were supposedly written and the oldest copies we know about (generally 2nd-3rd century).

I'm open minded on the subject though, could you provide me with the evidence as to why I should believe the epistles of Paul or the gospels were written in the first century, it's something I've wanted to find out for some time. I've struggled to find any good information on the subject on the internet.

Plus if you're taking Paul as your ultimate source of scripture, do you believe in Adam and Eve like Paul did? (eg 1 Cor 15.21-23) or in seven heavenly globes  that surround an Earth at the centre of the universe? (2 Cor 12.2-4)

The most convincing evidence for me is the occasional, circumstantial nature of Paul's epistles. He's not writing a "once upon a time" type story, but is dealing with situations that arose in the congregations he either founded or ministered to.  It's pretty clear from the things he mentions that he is talking about a time around the 50's.  This is not the type of writing that people generally engage in when they are making things up, so the idea of a forgery or substantially edited works just doesn't fit.  The fact that the manuscripts containing his writings were found all over the Mediterranean world is another factor - they  substantially agree, which gives us a higher comfort level that we know the content of the originals.

Paul's mention of the Nabataean king Aretas (9BC to 40AD) as being the one in power when Paul escaped Damascus is helpful in dating. Then his chronology in Galatians takes us another 14-17 years down the road before he writes that book.  So a date in the 50's is quite plausible. His mention of Erastus as an official of Corinth, which has been confirmed by an inscription found there, is also helpful.  These are not the types of details that someone forging a document in those days would include, generally.  Generally, you are left with the choice of either someone forging something in the name of Paul who did research to find out names and events of that time, or Paul just writing it himself.  The simplest explanation is that it was Paul.  

I suggest that you go back, read the 7 authentic epistles carefully, and take notes of mentions of events, places, people that help date the books.  Then let me know the results of your research.  The internal evidence of the books is the best source.

In addition, you might look for quotations of Paul in some of the early church fathers.  Or read a good agnostic NT scholar such as Bart Ehrman and see what his conclusions are.  

As far as Paul's beliefs about the OT, that was the only information he had about the world.  That does not detract from his accounts of the history that was going on around him as he wrote.  His "seventh heaven" passage was a description about a spiritual experience we have - he used common language.  We still use "seventh heaven" today when describing an ecstatic experience.  Besides, his cosmology doesn't detract from the fact that he experienced this transporting event.

[Tank]

Is Christianity seen by its followers as a license to make stuff up?

It's not seen by Christians as such a license, but that could be the result.  Especially with the Reformation's concept of the "priesthood of the believer," each person ultimately makes up their own mind about how to understand God. We are each our own little universe, so we all see things from a different perspective.  That's reflected in our choice of clothes, food and religious doctrines.  The only way to avoid it is with a large, powerful organization like the Roman Catholic Church that enforces "the party line," but as we have seen, even that can't last forever.  Eventually, every star starts spinning off planets and you end up with each person doing what is right in his/her own eyes.  Democracy and individual freedoms and free market economies enforce this trend, so pretty soon you have a multiplicity of groups.  It's a mirror of society.

I think this states the situation very well. There is so much variation in the bible, its achademic interpretations and personal interpretations that there is an astronomical number of individual views one could take, and this could appear that people are just making things up. Particularly when some equally valid views appear to be diametrically opposed.

[bandit4god]

Nice job, Ecurb, I learned some things myself!

Stevil asked for my articulation of core doctrinal beliefs and never commented--assume he probably got busy with the stuff of life, but welcome him to comment on whether this addresses the purpose of the thread by helping ascertain why so much variability in the details of Christian denominations.

[Too Few Lions]

The most convincing evidence for me is the occasional, circumstantial nature of Paul's epistles. He's not writing a "once upon a time" type story, but is dealing with situations that arose in the congregations he either founded or ministered to.  It's pretty clear from the things he mentions that he is talking about a time around the 50's.

Like I said, I'm open minded as to when the epistles of Paul, and the gospels, were written. But I don't feel you've actually provided me with any evidence.

This is not the type of writing that people generally engage in when they are making things up, so the idea of a forgery or substantially edited works just doesn't fit.  

Clearly that's not the case, as you yourself believe that 50% of the epistles in the NT are forgeries!
On top of that there are other faked letters of Paul that didn't make it into the NT.

The fact that the manuscripts containing his writings were found all over the Mediterranean world is another factor - they  substantially agree, which gives us a higher comfort level that we know the content of the originals.

But the earliest of those dates to 175CE, 125 years after you think they were written.

Paul's mention of the Nabataean king Aretas (9BC to 40AD) as being the one in power when Paul escaped Damascus is helpful in dating. Then his chronology in Galatians takes us another 14-17 years down the road before he writes that book.  So a date in the 50's is quite plausible. His mention of Erastus as an official of Corinth, which has been confirmed by an inscription found there, is also helpful.  These are not the types of details that someone forging a document in those days would include, generally.  Generally, you are left with the choice of either someone forging something in the name of Paul who did research to find out names and events of that time, or Paul just writing it himself.  The simplest explanation is that it was Paul.

But you'd also have to admit that it wouldn't have been hard for someone living in a large city with a big library to  have found out such basic facts and then inserted them into a story to try and make a writing look older and therefore appear to have more authority due to it claiming to date from a time nearer to Jesus' supposed lifetime. This was pretty standard practice with early Christian writings.

I suggest that you go back, read the 7 authentic epistles carefully, and take notes of mentions of events, places, people that help date the books.  Then let me know the results of your research.  The internal evidence of the books is the best source.

Good idea, I'll do just that sometime in the next few weeks

In addition, you might look for quotations of Paul in some of the early church fathers.

Could you give me some examples to chase up?

Or read a good agnostic NT scholar such as Bart Ehrman and see what his conclusions are.

I've read several of his books and I found them neither very objective nor very critical.  He may as well be a Christian towing the party line for all the assumptions he makes about Jesus and early Christianity, which he never  bothers to back up with any evidence.

As far as Paul's beliefs about the OT, that was the only information he had about the world.  That does not detract from his accounts of the history that was going on around him as he wrote.  His "seventh heaven" passage was a description about a spiritual experience we have - he used common language.  We still use "seventh heaven" today when describing an ecstatic experience.  Besides, his cosmology doesn't detract from the fact that he experienced this transporting event.

Obviously I would question how much historical fact there is in Paul's letters, particularly regarding his claims of supposed past interaction with the apostles / Jerusalem Church. My point was that clearly Paul believed in some things that you don't (Adam and Eve, seven heavenly spheres surrounding the Earth), so aren't you just cherry picking again? For Paul these were just as real as Jesus. Indeed without Adam, Paul's theology seems to fall apart a bit, as he believed that Jesus' suffering redeemed Adam's sin, and specifically links the two figures numerous times (eg 1 Cor 15.21-2, 1 Cor 15.44-9, Romans 5.18-19).

And Paul's 'third heaven' comment clearly relates to a mystical ascent through the heavens to meet Jesus or god. There are several such ascents in surviving ancient scripture from Christian, Jewish and pagan sources (eg The Apocalypse of Paul, the Ascension of Isaiah, the Mithras Liturgy). Celsus noted that Christians believed in an ascent through these spheres,

'Now the Christians pray that after their toil and strife here below they shall enter the kingdom of heaven, and they agree with the ancient systems that there are seven heavens and that the way of the soul is through the planets.'

oh, and btw what do you think of the gospels? I'm assuming as you base your own beliefs mainly on the writings of Paul and your own personal religious experiences, you're less sure about them.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

And Paul's 'third heaven' comment clearly relates to a mystical ascent through the heavens to meet Jesus or god. There are several such ascents in surviving ancient scripture from Christian, Jewish and pagan sources (eg The Apocalypse of Paul, the Ascension of Isaiah, the Mithras Liturgy). Celsus noted that Christians believed in an ascent through these spheres,

'Now the Christians pray that after their toil and strife here below they shall enter the kingdom of heaven, and they agree with the ancient systems that there are seven heavens and that the way of the soul is through the planets.'

oh, and btw what do you think of the gospels? I'm assuming as you base your own beliefs mainly on the writings of Paul and your own personal religious experiences, you're less sure about them.

I meant "third heaven" (you are right, that's what he said), but what I said still applies.  Again, what the early Christians believed about the cosmos is of little concern to me. The main issue is the existence of Jesus and his death, burial and resurrection.  For me, the preponderance of the available evidence is in favor of this. 

The gospels have less historical value than the authentic letters of Paul.  Of them, Mark has the most value, being the first and being written, probably, before 70.  The Q passages in Luke and Matthew are likely very ancient, as well, and are probably authentic statements of Jesus, for the most part.  Matthew's historical recitations can be suspect in many areas.  The birth stories of Matthew and Luke are problematic, as are the genealogies.  The resurrection accounts differ in the gospels, and are very difficult to reconcile.  I think Paul's account in I Cor. 15 is the best source and most historically reliable.

[Stevil]

While I agree with Stevil's sentiments the highlighted bit just blew my irony meter to smithereens 

I meant keeping it real with regards to trying to understand if Christianity is a license to make stuff up. It is not a well balanced discussion if all participants are Atheists.

[Stevil]

Appreciate the sentiment... this forum really has changed for the better!

Awhile back I wrote a creed that attempts to capture it, of which the below is a part.  Get out the steak knives! 

There is one and only one living and true God.  He created all things.  He has revealed Himself through His Creation, through history, through the written testimony of a few, and through the incarnation of Himself, Jesus Christ.  Man, a free creature made in God's own image, is the pinnacle of His creation.  By his free choice Man sinned against God, misaligning his nature from that of God and bringing evil into the world.  Any person can rejoin alignment with God through repentance of sin and faith in the atoning death and ressurection of Jesus Christ.  Those who have done so constitute The Church who will enjoy God forever in Heaven.

The intent of this thread is to try and understand what Christianity is with regards to the difference between real and make believe and the conviction of theists with regards to what it is that they maintain is real when push comes to shove.

So with this regards I am not going to attempt to discredit any of what you have stated as the core must believes of Christianity.

I am interested in seeing what these are though, so that I can see for myself which bits Christians are overindulging in, and so that I can better understand why they feel that they can overindulge by making stuff up.

The difficulty with what you have stated as the must believes is "He has revealed Himself through ... the written testimony of a few". This difficulty with this is that if you believe this to be true then you would also deem the written testimonies of those few to be true. So which few is that? Is this all books that made it into the Bible? And none of the books that didn't?

[Too Few Lions]

I meant "third heaven" (you are right, that's what he said), but what I said still applies.  Again, what the early Christians believed about the cosmos is of little concern to me. The main issue is the existence of Jesus and his death, burial and resurrection.  For me, the preponderance of the available evidence is in favor of this. 

personally, I think ancient Christian cosmology is immensely important. It was a central part of the religion 1900 years ago, and personally I think it's at the heart of Christian theology. As for the 'preponderance of evidence' for Jesus' death and resurrection, there is none whatsoever! All we have is Christian writings, the earliest extant copies of which date to the second century.There's no evidence of Jesus ever having lived outside of these Christian writings, that aren't eyewitness accounts and certainly aren't objective historical texts.

The gospels have less historical value than the authentic letters of Paul.  Of them, Mark has the most value, being the first and being written, probably, before 70.  The Q passages in Luke and Matthew are likely very ancient, as well, and are probably authentic statements of Jesus, for the most part.  Matthew's historical recitations can be suspect in many areas.  The birth stories of Matthew and Luke are problematic, as are the genealogies.  The resurrection accounts differ in the gospels, and are very difficult to reconcile.  I think Paul's account in I Cor. 15 is the best source and most historically reliable.

Again, we'll just have to differ on the dating of these books. Until someone finds a gospel or the mention of a gospel dating to the first century, I'll remain skeptical as to when they were written. And until someone finds a first century Christian writing in Aramaic and not Greek (as they all are) I'll remain highly skeptical over the historical reality of Jesus and the twelve apostles, unless you'll accept that Jesus spoke Greek and not Aramaic!