...or so sayeth His Holiness the Pope :pope:
QuotePope: Basilica bones belong to apostle St. Paul
ROME, Italy (CNN) -- Scientific tests prove bones housed in the Basilica of St. Paul in Rome are those of the apostle St. Paul himself, according to Pope Benedict XVI.
"Tiny fragments of bone" in the sarcophagus were subjected to carbon dating, showing they "belong to someone who lived in the first or second century," the pope said in a homily carried on Italian television.
"This seems to confirm the unanimous and undisputed tradition that these are the mortal remains of the Apostle St. Paul," Benedict said in Sunday's announcement.
The tomb also holds "traces of a precious linen cloth, purple in color and laminated with pure gold, and a blue colored textile with linen filaments," the pope said.
The tests were carried out by inserting a probe into a small opening in the sarcophagus, "which had not been opened for many centuries," the pontiff said. The probe "also revealed the presence of grains of red incense and traces of protein and limestone."
Separately, archaeologists have uncovered an image of St. Paul which "could be considered the oldest icon of the apostle known to date," the Vatican's official newspaper reported Sunday.
The painting, in the St. Tecla Catacomb, is "among the oldest and best-defined figures from ancient Christianity," according to the Pontifical Commission for Sacred Archaeology, L'Osservatore Romano reported.
St. Paul is one of the most significant figures in Christianity. Originally a persecutor of early Christians, he became a follower of Jesus after seeing a vision on the road to Damascus, according to Christian tradition.
"Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?" the vision of Jesus asks Paul, using the apostle's birth name, in the Acts of the Apostles.
Saul then took the name Paul and became a missionary. His letters, or epistles, to early Christian communities around the Mediterranean form a significant portion of the New Testament.
Paul was beheaded by Roman authorities sometime between 65 and 67 A.D., according to the Catholic Church.
He was buried a few miles away, and when the Roman Empire stopped persecuting Christians some 250 years later, the Emperor Constantine had a basilica built over his grave.
It currently lies under a marble tombstone bearing the Latin inscription PAULO APOSTOLO MART (Apostle Paul, martyr), according to the Web site of the basilica. A papal altar stands over the tombstone, which is visible through a window-like opening, the Web site says.
Monday marks the end of a year of celebration in honor of the 2,000th anniversary of St. Paul's birth. It also happens to be the feast day of Saints Peter and Paul.
:cool:
That isn't what he said at all.
The bone fragments were carbon dated to that time period and (I presume) shown to be human, so it seems to me like the Pope says that means the bones must belong to St. Paul. What am I missing? :huh:
I think the Pope should study a bit more science. You never know, maybe he might convert to Scientology?
Quote from: Caliga on June 29, 2009, 06:16:28 PM
The bone fragments were carbon dated to that time period and (I presume) shown to be human, so it seems to me like the Pope says that means the bones must belong to St. Paul. What am I missing? :huh:
Science hasn't been good to the church the last few centuries. It started with Galileo, then someone counted ribs and discovered that men don't have one less than women, then there was Darwin, and then there was the shroud of turin fiasco.
Let's let the pope have his moment--he is probably just giddy that science didn't disprove him for once.
Quote from: Caliga on June 29, 2009, 06:16:28 PM
The bone fragments were carbon dated to that time period and (I presume) shown to be human, so it seems to me like the Pope says that means the bones must belong to St. Paul. What am I missing? :huh:
You forgot the part about the church tradition. They already thought that the bones were Paul's, the testing merely confirmed that they were of the right age and strengthened their case.
It's like carbon-dating my grandmother's bones, finding out that she died in the twentieth century, and then you saying 'You think your grandmother was the only person who lived in the twentieth century'.
But do they have any proof in the first place that the bones belonged to St. Paul? I mean, if your grandmother's bones were found in her house and you could produce a deed with her name on it, plus a bunch of eyewitness testimony, etc. that's one thing.
I just think it's funny that the Pope thinks he needs scientific proof of anything he asks people to believe. If I were Pope I'd avoid discussing scientific evidence, and scientific method for that matter, altogether.
Quote from: Caliga on June 29, 2009, 06:40:35 PM
But do they have any proof in the first place that the bones belonged to St. Paul? I mean, if your grandmother's bones were found in her house and you could produce a deed with her name on it, plus a bunch of eyewitness testimony, etc. that's one thing.
Their claims are as good as any information we have about that time period.
QuoteI just think it's funny that the Pope thinks he needs scientific proof of anything he asks people to believe. If I were Pope I'd avoid discussing scientific evidence, and scientific method for that matter, altogether.
Why not? Science is always used selectively by virtually everyone.
Poor show, Caliga. :thumbsdown:
So much for Guru Caliga.
So would Paul have been buried with all that finery? Isn't that like Indy drinking from the wrong cup?
Quote from: Neil on June 29, 2009, 06:32:48 PM
You forgot the part about the church tradition. They already thought that the bones were Paul's, the testing merely confirmed that they were of the right age and strengthened their case.
It's like carbon-dating my grandmother's bones, finding out that she died in the twentieth century, and then you saying 'You think your grandmother was the only person who lived in the twentieth century'.
I thought the margin for error on Carbon-14 tests was about 200 years anyway. <_<
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 29, 2009, 08:03:03 PM
So would Paul have been buried with all that finery? Isn't that like Indy drinking from the wrong cup?
The actual Holy Grail is pretty ornate, in fact.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catedraldevalencia.es%2Fimagenes%2Fsantocaliz%2Fhistoria%2Fgrandes%2Fsantocaliz.jpg&hash=9ad2265d95103c4521bcd63b48a6e3bb5a8d6f49)
Interestingly enough, the Church's declaration that this is the grail is based on identical thinking to the bones of St. Paul.
a) it's a grail
b) it's been dated to the 1st century AD
c) IT'S THE HOLY GRAIL!
It's stored at the Saint Mary of Valencia (Spain) Cathedral if you really want to see it.
yeah, but unlike 99% of the relics, these bones have sort of provenance.
still, we should encourage the pope for a full DNA test, "for more scientific support" and trap him.
How will that help? Is Paul's DNA on file somewhere?
Quote from: Caliga on June 29, 2009, 08:23:41 PM
How will that help? Is Paul's DNA on file somewhere?
Boy that federal sex offender registry has *everything*. :blink:
Quote from: Caliga on June 29, 2009, 08:23:41 PM
How will that help? Is Paul's DNA on file somewhere?
I think Sask is talking about whether the genetics point to an ethnic Greek, Roman, Turk, or Jewish corpse.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 29, 2009, 08:30:15 PMI think Sask is talking about whether the genetics point to an ethnic Greek, Roman, Turk, or Jewish corpse.
Can DNA point to a specific county of origin now? Even if it could, how do we know ancient dudes that lived there have similar DNA to modern ones?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 29, 2009, 08:13:47 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 29, 2009, 06:32:48 PM
You forgot the part about the church tradition. They already thought that the bones were Paul's, the testing merely confirmed that they were of the right age and strengthened their case.
It's like carbon-dating my grandmother's bones, finding out that she died in the twentieth century, and then you saying 'You think your grandmother was the only person who lived in the twentieth century'.
I thought the margin for error on Carbon-14 tests was about 200 years anyway. <_<
It varies.
Quote from: Caliga on June 29, 2009, 08:33:38 PM
Can DNA point to a specific county of origin now? Even if it could, how do we know ancient dudes that lived there have similar DNA to modern ones?
Recorded regional abnormalities, like the genetic "defect" that makes the Amish resistant to cardiac problems.
Quote from: Caliga on June 29, 2009, 08:33:38 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 29, 2009, 08:30:15 PMI think Sask is talking about whether the genetics point to an ethnic Greek, Roman, Turk, or Jewish corpse.
Can DNA point to a specific county of origin now? Even if it could, how do we know ancient dudes that lived there have similar DNA to modern ones?
There are other techniques which
can do that.
From an analysis of the enamel on teeth, one can trace approximate
place of origin.
http://www.wessexarch.co.uk/projects/amesbury/tests/oxygen_isotope.html
I thought Paul was in Venice.
Quote from: Caliga on June 29, 2009, 08:33:38 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 29, 2009, 08:30:15 PMI think Sask is talking about whether the genetics point to an ethnic Greek, Roman, Turk, or Jewish corpse.
Can DNA point to a specific county of origin now? Even if it could, how do we know ancient dudes that lived there have similar DNA to modern ones?
I thought you were all up on science.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 29, 2009, 06:31:36 PM
Quote from: Caliga on June 29, 2009, 06:16:28 PM
The bone fragments were carbon dated to that time period and (I presume) shown to be human, so it seems to me like the Pope says that means the bones must belong to St. Paul. What am I missing? :huh:
Science hasn't been good to the church the last few centuries. It started with Galileo, then someone counted ribs and discovered that men don't have one less than women, then there was Darwin, and then there was the shroud of turin fiasco.
Let's let the pope have his moment--he is probably just giddy that science didn't disprove him for once.
't would have been funny if the bones were from a woman. :p
:D
Quote from: Caliga on June 29, 2009, 08:33:38 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 29, 2009, 08:30:15 PMI think Sask is talking about whether the genetics point to an ethnic Greek, Roman, Turk, or Jewish corpse.
Can DNA point to a specific county of origin now? Even if it could, how do we know ancient dudes that lived there have similar DNA to modern ones?
They could always clone him and find out.
Quote from: Martinus on June 30, 2009, 01:14:45 AM
Quote from: Caliga on June 29, 2009, 08:33:38 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 29, 2009, 08:30:15 PMI think Sask is talking about whether the genetics point to an ethnic Greek, Roman, Turk, or Jewish corpse.
Can DNA point to a specific county of origin now? Even if it could, how do we know ancient dudes that lived there have similar DNA to modern ones?
They could always clone him and find out.
He'd have no saul, as it proper for clones.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 29, 2009, 08:30:15 PM
Quote from: Caliga on June 29, 2009, 08:23:41 PM
How will that help? Is Paul's DNA on file somewhere?
I think Sask is talking about whether the genetics point to an ethnic Greek, Roman, Turk, or Jewish corpse.
Yeah, but that wouldn't satisfy most of you anyways...since undoubtedly there were many men of Greek, Roman, Turk or Jewish ethnicity in the first and second century.
Unlike most of the other relics, I believe this one has possibility. Unlike many others, it wasn't brought in from the Holy Land 6 or 700 years later by zealous knights. I don't know the history of these bones, but tradition holds Paul was killed in Rome, so it is likely that his followers buried him somewhere nice.
Quote from: Martinus on June 30, 2009, 01:14:45 AM
They could always clone him and find out.
Supposedly Paul struggled with gayness so you could help us see if the clone is gay.
Quote from: Josephus on June 30, 2009, 09:06:57 AM
Unlike most of the other relics, I believe this one has possibility. Unlike many others, it wasn't brought in from the Holy Land 6 or 700 years later by zealous knights. I don't know the history of these bones, but tradition holds Paul was killed in Rome, so it is likely that his followers buried him somewhere nice.
Oh, I agree that these *might* be the bones of St. Paul. The Pope's apparent assertion that they *are* the bones is what I found amusing.
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 09:25:04 AM
Quote from: Josephus on June 30, 2009, 09:06:57 AM
Unlike most of the other relics, I believe this one has possibility. Unlike many others, it wasn't brought in from the Holy Land 6 or 700 years later by zealous knights. I don't know the history of these bones, but tradition holds Paul was killed in Rome, so it is likely that his followers buried him somewhere nice.
Oh, I agree that these *might* be the bones of St. Paul. The Pope's apparent assertion that they *are* the bones is what I found amusing.
Actually, that was the guy writing the headline. The Pope himself was more measured:
QuoteThis seems to confirm the unanimous and undisputed tradition that these are the mortal remains of the Apostle St. Paul...
Which is exactly right - dating the bones to a period that Paul lived in "seems to confirm" the tradition.
Whether that tradition has any basis in fact is of course not proven - it can only be
dis proven. If teeth are tested and it is found that the bones belong to a guy born in Germany, that would tend to disprove the tradition.
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 09:25:04 AM
Oh, I agree that these *might* be the bones of St. Paul. The Pope's apparent assertion that they *are* the bones is what I found amusing.
Selective use of science is always amusing. Especially when it is used to validate "unanimous and undisputed tradition" (i.e. the most popular guess).
they are more likely to be the bones of St Paul than the bones of Frodo baggins, but we knew that already.
@Malthus: I took the Pope's wording to mean that there was a tradition that these are Paul's remains, and this scientific evidence shows us that the tradition is correct. Your interpretation is a bit more conservative, but is probably closer to what the Pope truly did mean to say.
I still think it brings up the wider issue I earlier mentioned, which is: why does the Pope care about scientific evidence anyway? The Church has never required scientific evidence of anything it requests that its adherents believe in before. There are similar questions raised by the Shroud of Turin, for example. If tou're going to believe it is the miraculous burial shroud of Jesus because of your Catholic faith, you don't require scientific evidence to support that belief. You might find supporting evidence to be nice, but it won't change your original conclusion.
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 09:38:16 AM
@Malthus: I took the Pope's wording to mean that there was a tradition that these are Paul's remains, and this scientific evidence shows us that the tradition is correct. Your interpretation is a bit more conservative, but is probably closer to what the Pope truly did mean to say.
I still think it brings up the wider issue I earlier mentioned, which is: why does the Pope care about scientific evidence anyway? The Church has never required scientific evidence of anything it requests that its adherents believe in before. There are similar questions raised by the Shroud of Turin, for example. If tou're going to believe it is the miraculous burial shroud of Jesus because of your Catholic faith, you don't require scientific evidence to support that belief. You might find supporting evidence to be nice, but it won't change your original conclusion.
Can't answer for Catholics, but there is nothing particularly "miraculous" about Paul. It would be unusual for his remains to be preserved and located, but certainly not impossible, as he was a big bug in the nacient Christian church during his life, so some effort may have been taken to keep his remains segrigated and identified. Of course, medieval habits of multiplying faked relics for profit make it initially more likely this is just another fake - dating it to the first century merely makes that possibility less likely (though it could still be the Roman municipal rat-catcher, of course).
Quote from: Malthus on June 30, 2009, 09:44:32 AM
Can't answer for Catholics, but there is nothing particularly "miraculous" about Paul.
The whole road to demascus episode, among many others, was fairly miraculous. If you believe the bible, Paul wasn't a stranger to miracles, so I'd say any christian would answer that in the affirmative.
Quote from: grumbler on June 30, 2009, 09:37:12 AM
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 09:25:04 AM
Oh, I agree that these *might* be the bones of St. Paul. The Pope's apparent assertion that they *are* the bones is what I found amusing.
Selective use of science is always amusing. Especially when it is used to validate "unanimous and undisputed tradition" (i.e. the most popular guess).
they are more likely to be the bones of St Paul than the bones of Frodo baggins, but we knew that already.
Virtually every interest group out there uses science selectively, in order to advance their agenda. Things that support their agenda get publicized, things that detract from it are ignored. It's not really that surprising that in our hands, science is just another PR tool.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2009, 09:53:19 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 30, 2009, 09:44:32 AM
Can't answer for Catholics, but there is nothing particularly "miraculous" about Paul.
The whole road to demascus episode, among many others, was fairly miraculous. If you believe the bible, Paul wasn't a stranger to miracles, so I'd say any christian would answer that in the affirmative.
Paul had a vision (or claimed he did), but that doesn't make his *existence* as a human "miraculous", so that it would require a leap of faith to believe in the literal existence of his bones.
Quote from: Malthus on June 30, 2009, 10:07:59 AM
Paul had a vision (or claimed he did), but that doesn't make his *existence* as a human "miraculous", so that it would require a leap of faith to believe in the literal existence of his bones.
Why would it require a leap of faith to believe in anyone's bones? I think a christian would tell you that even Jesus was fully human (in addition to being fully divine), and would thus have bones (although since he was supposedly raised into heaven they wouldn't be left here--but that is a unique situation).
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2009, 10:56:20 AM
Quote from: Malthus on June 30, 2009, 10:07:59 AM
Paul had a vision (or claimed he did), but that doesn't make his *existence* as a human "miraculous", so that it would require a leap of faith to believe in the literal existence of his bones.
Why would it require a leap of faith to believe in anyone's bones? I think a christian would tell you that even Jesus was fully human (in addition to being fully divine), and would thus have bones (although since he was supposedly raised into heaven they wouldn't be left here--but that is a unique situation).
Some "humans" may be legendary, rather than real, or have lived so long ago (or been so obscure when they died) that actually identifying their remains is improbable; so even finding their remains takes a bit of a leap of faith. For example, I'd be pretty skeptical if someone claims to have found Noah's skull.
Jesus (assuming he existed at all) had only a handful of followers when he died, most of whom renounced him and the rest living on very shakey ground legally, so it is pretty unlikely his remains were saved - and in any event, even according to the legend they disappeared.
Paul is a bit of a borderline case, as he was executed as a criminal *but* there existed at least some sort of organization that revered the man so it isn't totally beyond the pale of possibility that his tomb was actually preserved and marked as special by them.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 30, 2009, 01:10:54 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 29, 2009, 06:31:36 PM
Quote from: Caliga on June 29, 2009, 06:16:28 PM
The bone fragments were carbon dated to that time period and (I presume) shown to be human, so it seems to me like the Pope says that means the bones must belong to St. Paul. What am I missing? :huh:
Science hasn't been good to the church the last few centuries. It started with Galileo, then someone counted ribs and discovered that men don't have one less than women, then there was Darwin, and then there was the shroud of turin fiasco.
Let's let the pope have his moment--he is probably just giddy that science didn't disprove him for once.
't would have been funny if the bones were from a woman. :p
or a walrus.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2009, 10:56:20 AM
I think a christian would tell you that even Jesus was fully human (in addition to being fully divine)
If Christ was fully divine why would he babble on about how if you have faith in him you will do greater things than he did? Unless he means we are all divine as much as he was which sort of flies in the face of him being something other than what you and I are.
Christianity: contradicting itself for 2000 years.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2009, 10:56:20 AMI think a christian would tell you that even Jesus was fully human (in addition to being fully divine)
Welcome to the debate that vexed Christianity for the better part of 1500 years - maybe longer.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 30, 2009, 12:10:04 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2009, 10:56:20 AMI think a christian would tell you that even Jesus was fully human (in addition to being fully divine)
Welcome to the debate that vexed Christianity for the better part of 1500 years - maybe longer.
The Catholic position is that he is fully both at the same time, correct?
The other positions that I can think of were the Arian, Donatist, Carpocratian, Monophysite, and Monotheletist positions.
I can't remember which is which, but one stated he was fully human and not divine, though still the son of God (Arianism?), one stated he was completely divine and lacked any mortal component... I guess basically making him a ghost (Donatist?), one said he was mostly human but had a unique spark of the divine, one stating he was human, but had a divine soul (Carpocratian?), and I forget what the last one was.
The funny thing is that, for the most part, these differences are superficial, but people were tortured, killed, and even fought wars over them.
Oh, and I forgot Nestorianism, though I forget what it means too. :blush:
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 12:25:57 PM
Oh, and I forgot Nestorianism, though I forget what it means too. :blush:
not sure but I think the Cathars had their own view too.
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 12:19:33 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 30, 2009, 12:10:04 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2009, 10:56:20 AMI think a christian would tell you that even Jesus was fully human (in addition to being fully divine)
Welcome to the debate that vexed Christianity for the better part of 1500 years - maybe longer.
The Catholic position is that he is fully both at the same time, correct?
The other positions that I can think of were the Arian, Donatist, Carpocratian, Monophysite, and Monotheletist positions.
I can't remember which is which, but one stated he was fully human and not divine, though still the son of God (Arianism?), one stated he was completely divine and lacked any mortal component... I guess basically making him a ghost (Donatist?), one said he was mostly human but had a unique spark of the divine, one stating he was human, but had a divine soul (Carpocratian?), and I forget what the last one was.
The funny thing is that, for the most part, these differences are superficial, but people were tortured, killed, and even fought wars over them.
I don't know. I knew there were disputes over the divinity and humanity of Jesus in the early days of the church, but I thought they were "resolved" and both catholics and protestant groups are now satisfied with the fully human and fully divine aspect of Jesus. I could be wrong on that though--someone correct me if I am.
Oh lordy, a Christology hijack. :D
Reminds me of my mandatory "Catholic training" before I got married. Now, *that* was wierd, but very enjoyable! :lol:
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 30, 2009, 12:31:23 PMnot sure but I think the Cathars had their own view too.
Hmmm... my memory on all of this is dim, but didn't Cathar theology come from the Bogomils, who picked theirs up from an eastern group? If so, it might be a form of Nestorianism or Monophysitism.
Quote from: Malthus on June 30, 2009, 12:34:17 PM
Oh lordy, a Christology hijack. :D
Reminds me of my mandatory "Catholic training" before I got married. Now, *that* was wierd, but very enjoyable! :lol:
:D Did they teach you about the prayer for the conversion of the Jews?
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2009, 12:34:04 PMI don't know. I knew there were disputes over the divinity and humanity of Jesus in the early days of the church, but I thought they were "resolved" and both catholics and protestant groups are now satisfied with the fully human and fully divine aspect of Jesus. I could be wrong on that though--someone correct me if I am.
You are not wrong... we're talking about very, very early splits within the Christian universe. The last debates that I'm aware of, not including the Cathars which Ivan already mentioned, involved various groups within the Byzantine Empire. While I don't remember the nature of Monotheletism, I do remember that it was artifically contrived (by an Emperor?) to reconcile the Monophysites with the Catholics, and it failed in that regard.
Now that I think about it, I think Martin Luther might have held "un-Catholic" views with regard to Christology, but I don't know that his teachings actually carried over into any branch of Protestantism, though I suppose few, if any, Protestants believe in transsubstantiation, which I suppose would be a Christological position (and one on which they differ with traditional Catholics).
Quote from: Malthus on June 30, 2009, 12:34:17 PM
Oh lordy, a Christology hijack. :D
Reminds me of my mandatory "Catholic training" before I got married. Now, *that* was wierd, but very enjoyable! :lol:
a) I find Christology endlessly fascinating;
b) I can hijack my own thread if I want to.
:)
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 12:34:46 PM
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on June 30, 2009, 12:31:23 PMnot sure but I think the Cathars had their own view too.
Hmmm... my memory on all of this is dim, but didn't Cathar theology come from the Bogomils, who picked theirs up from an eastern group? If so, it might be a form of Nestorianism or Monophysitism.
The Cathars were a variant on the Gnostic strain of Christianity, which held that the world of the flesh (i.e. this world) was basically bad, and the world of the spirit was good. Thus, the "ruler of this world" was the devil, which they associated with the judeo-christian God. The medieval Church was thus, in Cathar view, "worldy" and evil.
Not unnaturally, this put them in some conflict with the established church.
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 12:40:20 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 30, 2009, 12:34:17 PM
Oh lordy, a Christology hijack. :D
Reminds me of my mandatory "Catholic training" before I got married. Now, *that* was wierd, but very enjoyable! :lol:
a) I find Christology endlessly fascinating;
b) I can hijack my own thread if I want to.
:)
Hey, no disputes from me - it is just a funny hijack. ;)
Quote from: Malthus on June 30, 2009, 12:41:12 PM
The Cathars were a variant on the Gnostic strain of Christianity, which held that the world of the flesh (i.e. this world) was basically bad, and the world of the spirit was good. Thus, the "ruler of this world" was the devil, which they associated with the judeo-christian God. The medieval Church was thus, in Cathar view, "worldy" and evil.
Not unnaturally, this put them in some conflict with the established church.
That makes both of our assertions possibly correct then, as the Nestorians were a descendant branch of Gnosticism. :)
I think the Christian sect native to Iraq is Nestorian, actually.
A-ha!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Christology_Flowchart.PNG (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Christology_Flowchart.PNG)
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 12:45:20 PM
A-ha!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Christology_Flowchart.PNG (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Christology_Flowchart.PNG)
Awesome chart. Now which answer is it that would have kept me alive back when they burned heretics?
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2009, 12:35:55 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 30, 2009, 12:34:17 PM
Oh lordy, a Christology hijack. :D
Reminds me of my mandatory "Catholic training" before I got married. Now, *that* was wierd, but very enjoyable! :lol:
:D Did they teach you about the prayer for the conversion of the Jews?
No, it was wierder than that.
In order to marry in the Ukranian Catholic church, I had to attend one-on-one sessions with the priest. Naturally, I was a bit nervous about that.
However, as it turns out the priest was a perfect gentleman with zero interest in conversion. He found out somehow that I was interested in history, and so we spent the whole time talking about wierd early medieval heresies, which he knew an amazing amount about. For example, it was him that first told me that the term "buggery" was traced to the erotic habits of the Bogomils, allegedly because they reviled "normal" heterosex as leading to procreation (which was evil as it made more subjects for the lord of the world, i.e. the devil).
Not your standard Catholic wedding instructions, methinks.
Quote from: Caliga on June 29, 2009, 08:33:38 PM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on June 29, 2009, 08:30:15 PMI think Sask is talking about whether the genetics point to an ethnic Greek, Roman, Turk, or Jewish corpse.
Can DNA point to a specific county of origin now?
:lol: This question is coming from a Kentuckian?
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 12:42:49 PM
I think the Christian sect native to Iraq is Nestorian, actually.
is that also known as the Assyrian Church now?
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2009, 12:48:15 PM
Awesome chart. Now which answer is it that would have kept me alive back when they burned heretics?
INQUISITOR: Human or divine?
ALFRED: Both.
INQUISITOR: Essence?
ALFRED: Same as God the Father.
INQUISITOR: Association between human and divine?
ALFRED: Same individual.
INQUISITOR: Physicial aspects?
ALFRED: Distinct.
INQUISITOR: Human and divine intent?
ALFRED: Distinct.
INQUISITOR: Wow, you actually got it. Ok, you get to be Pope.
Quote from: saskganesh on June 30, 2009, 12:51:23 PM
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 12:42:49 PM
I think the Christian sect native to Iraq is Nestorian, actually.
is that also known as the Assyrian Church now?
There's an Assyrian Church, which I know has adherents in Syria (not surprisingly), and might be the same thing. Saddam's Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz was actually one of these sorts of Christians.
Quote from: Malthus on June 30, 2009, 12:49:23 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2009, 12:35:55 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 30, 2009, 12:34:17 PM
Oh lordy, a Christology hijack. :D
Reminds me of my mandatory "Catholic training" before I got married. Now, *that* was wierd, but very enjoyable! :lol:
:D Did they teach you about the prayer for the conversion of the Jews?
No, it was wierder than that.
In order to marry in the Ukranian Catholic church, I had to attend one-on-one sessions with the priest. Naturally, I was a bit nervous about that.
However, as it turns out the priest was a perfect gentleman with zero interest in conversion. He found out somehow that I was interested in history, and so we spent the whole time talking about wierd early medieval heresies, which he knew an amazing amount about. For example, it was him that first told me that the term "buggery" was traced to the erotic habits of the Bogomils, allegedly because they reviled "normal" heterosex as leading to procreation (which was evil as it made more subjects for the lord of the world, i.e. the devil).
Not your standard Catholic wedding instructions, methinks.
Interesting--I guess it makes sense because they spend years training on this stuff. But my first instinct was to assume that you may know more than the priest.
I had a similar experience (that I know I've related before on Languish) with the Episcopal Priest who married us. He ended up giving me a bunch of shit from the church, including a communion tray. :huh:
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 12:52:13 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2009, 12:48:15 PM
Awesome chart. Now which answer is it that would have kept me alive back when they burned heretics?
INQUISITOR: Human or divine?
ALFRED: Both.
INQUISITOR: Essence?
ALFRED: Same as God the Father.
INQUISITOR: Association between human and divine?
ALFRED: Same individual.
INQUISITOR: Physicial aspects?
ALFRED: Distinct.
INQUISITOR: Human and divine intent?
ALFRED: Distinct.
INQUISITOR: Wow, you actually got it. Ok, you get to be Pope.
So the correct answer is Chalcedonianism. The more you know...
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 12:19:33 PM
The funny thing is that, for the most part, these differences are superficial, but people were tortured, killed, and even fought wars over them.
I know it seems bizarre to us, and it still offends materialists, but these distinctions were vital for the people at the time. People kept up with the "heresies", devoted incredible energy to debating them, and treated them with utmost sincerity.
They also had a political function though; most heresies were rooted in areas/ethnicities looking for expression under a government system that did not allow for stuff like political parties or popular representation. example: Monophysites were Isaurians, Arians were largely Goths, lots of Gnostics in Egypt and so on. So one critical aspect of these silly heresies is that they allowed more people entry into politics, which otherwise could not happen under autocratic or later feudal regimes. :)
Quote from: Malthus on June 30, 2009, 12:49:23 PM
In order to marry in the Ukranian Catholic church, I had to attend one-on-one sessions with the priest. Naturally, I was a bit nervous about that.
I got around that by living in Edmonton while getting married in Peace River. Plus, my wife's grandfather (who was performing the ceremony) was high priest and prince of the Church, so the regular pastor was overruled.
Quote from: saskganesh on June 30, 2009, 01:04:45 PM
I know it seems bizarre to us, and it still offends materialists, but these distinctions were vital for the people at the time. People kept up with the "heresies", devoted incredible energy to debating them, and treated them with utmost sincerity.
They also had a political function though; most heresies were rooted in areas/ethnicities looking for expression under a government system that did not allow for stuff like political parties or popular representation. example: Monophysites were Isaurians, Arians were largely Goths, lots of Gnostics in Egypt and so on. So one critical aspect of these silly heresies is that they allowed more people entry into politics, which otherwise could not happen under autocratic or later feudal regimes. :)
Quite correct sir. In the case of the Arians, it just so happened that Arius was a missionary to the Germanic peoples, which is why they adopted that particular theology. I always imagined him as some early hippy. The ideas of the Popes in Rome were such a drag, man. :(
edit: Wait... I think the missionary was another guy, Arius was just like a guru who lived in Antioch or someplace.
Quote from: saskganesh on June 30, 2009, 01:04:45 PM
So one critical aspect of these silly heresies is that they allowed more people entry into politics, which otherwise could not happen under autocratic or later feudal regimes. :)
You guys know more about this than I do, but I thought the opposite was the case? Taking the case of the Visigoths as an example, they were Arians with significant economic power and political power, that until their invasion of North Africa and Italy were somewhat marginalized politically due to their religion. The "proper christians" in power, including the pope, were effectively using the difference in belief to keep them marginalized.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2009, 01:11:46 PM
You guys know more about this than I do, but I thought the opposite was the case? Taking the case of the Visigoths as an example, they were Arians with significant economic power and political power, that until their invasion of North Africa and Italy were somewhat marginalized politically due to their religion. The "proper christians" in power, including the pope, were effectively using the difference in belief to keep them marginalized.
I singled out the Arians in my reply to sask because they don't fit his mold, actually... but AFAIK the other heresies pretty much do.
In fact, IIRC the Goths were still Arians when they sacked Rome, so at this one time the Pope would have actually been at the mercy of non-Catholic heretics.
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 01:13:16 PM
I singled out the Arians in my reply to sask because they don't fit his mold, actually... but AFAIK the other heresies pretty much do.
In fact, IIRC the Goths were still Arians when they sacked Rome, so at this one time the Pope would have actually been at the mercy of non-Catholic heretics.
The arians are really the only ones I know about--they were still arians, but I believe they viewed the pope with respect despite the religious nature of the war.
Well, they must have, or else I suppose he might have found himself beheaded when Rome fell. :)
OTOH, there was something I recall about Arianism not being universal within the Germanic tribes, so maybe deposing the Pope would have caused internal division (assuming the non-Arianisms were actually Catholic and not something else).
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 01:20:56 PM
Well, they must have, or else I suppose he might have found himself beheaded when Rome fell. :)
OTOH, there was something I recall about Arianism not being universal within the Germanic tribes, so maybe deposing the Pope would have caused internal division (assuming the non-Arianisms were actually Catholic and not something else).
Christianity wasn't universal among the tribes--both the Franks and Anglo-Saxons had to be converted after Rome fell--but I thought the Visigoths at least were relatively unified Arians.
Sorry, I meant that within the tribes that were Arian, there was no universal adherence to Arianism. Actually, the Franks went right from paganism to Catholicism with no intermediate Arian phase.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2009, 01:04:26 PM
So the correct answer is Chalcedonianism. The more you know...
Yes the Orthodox view was defined at the Council of Chalcedon.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2009, 12:48:15 PM
Awesome chart. Now which answer is it that would have kept me alive back when they burned heretics?
Describing all the views of whether Christ of human or not or some mixture together with a holy spirit is hard enough. The answer to this latest question depends on where you are and when. The position of the Church before the schism varied, sometimes from decade to decade, and certainly from place to place depending on where you were in the empire. But the serious problem of getting persecuted for your view didnt start happening until the Emperors tried their hands at settling the question. Defying other clergy was one thing but defying the ruling of an Emperor could get you killed. Problem was the view also changed from Emperor to Emperor.
The whole thing makes for fascinating reading. :nerd:
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 01:07:27 PM
I always imagined him as some early hippy. The ideas of the Popes in Rome were such a drag, man. :(
edit: Wait... I think the missionary was another guy, Arius was just like a guru who lived in Antioch or someplace.
You were right the first time Arius was the missionary who went to convert the Goths. But he was no hippy antiestablishment type. There was no Roman Pope then either. In fact the Roman Biship was relatively weak compared to the other Bishops around the med at the time. When Arius set out on his mission he was in fact preaching the prevailing view. It is just one of those quirks of history that by the time the Goths started to be converted in numbers that view had become heresy.
I guess the political function of Arianism with regards to the Goths was it allowed them to be alike but not like the Romans they conquered. At first they were feudatori, so the heresy helped them keep their own identity in a Roman world; later, when they ruled, The "not alikeness" helped support stuff like seperate legal codes for Goth elites and Roman subjects.
This was Good for the Goths, but not to necessarily Good for the Gothic successor states. One of the genius moves of Clovis was to convert to the Roman church in the beginning, setting up a special respect for the Franks from the Pope, eventually leading up to the coronation of Frankish Charlemagne as "Roman" Emperor a few centuries later.
Quote from: saskganesh on June 30, 2009, 01:43:41 PM
I guess the political function of Arianism with regards to the Goths was it allowed them to be alike but not like the Romans they conquered. At first they were feudatori, so the heresy helped them keep their own identity in a Roman world; later, when they ruled, The "not alikeness" helped support stuff like seperate legal codes for Goth elites and Roman subjects.
This was Good for the Goths, but not to necessarily Good for the Gothic successor states. One of the genius moves of Clovis was to convert to the Roman church in the beginning, setting up a special respect for the Franks from the Pope, eventually leading up to the coronation of Frankish Charlemagne as "Roman" Emperor a few centuries later.
You are correct but as noted above the Gothic adoption of a heresy was by accident. Not by design.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 30, 2009, 01:45:16 PM
You are correct but as noted above the Gothic adoption of a heresy was by accident. Not by design.
are you sure of the randomness? were the Arians the first preachers the Goths ever encountered, or were they the first ones who made sense to them?
I think that Arianism was politically useful to them, otherwise they would have converted to Romanism pretty quickly, especially after Arianism was branded a heresy.
Quote from: saskganesh on June 30, 2009, 01:51:16 PM
are you sure of the randomness? were the Arians the first preachers the Goths ever encountered, or were they the first ones who made sense to them?
I think that Arianism was politically useful to them, otherwise they would have converted to Romanism pretty quickly, especially after Arianism was branded a heresy.
Arius was the first, by tradition, to convert them. As I said when he set out on his mission he was in fact preaching orthodoxy so there was no distinction between when what Arius was teaching and what the Church was teaching.
Also there was no such thing as Romanism at that time. The Roman Church was actually quite weak. All the religious authority was centred in the Eastern diocese. Rome was considered an intellectual backwater populated by priests who could barely understand Greek (the language of Christianity in the early years).
The other mistake being made is viewing the rest of the empire as holding a view different from the Goths when in fact the rest of the Empire was embroiled with this very debate. If anything it is a bit surprising the Arian view did not eventually win out - as it almost did - because of the Gothic support.
Quote from: saskganesh on June 30, 2009, 01:51:16 PM
are you sure of the randomness? were the Arians the first preachers the Goths ever encountered, or were they the first ones who made sense to them?
I think that Arianism was politically useful to them, otherwise they would have converted to Romanism pretty quickly, especially after Arianism was branded a heresy.
Well we don't know exactly but there is no evidence to suggest that they adopted Arianism out of some political calculation. I don't see how they could have possibly known at the time of adoption.
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 12:52:13 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2009, 12:48:15 PM
Awesome chart. Now which answer is it that would have kept me alive back when they burned heretics?
INQUISITOR: Physicial aspects?
ALFRED: Distinct.
INQUISITOR: Human and divine intent?
ALFRED: Distinct.
What exactly do you mean by distinct there?
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 30, 2009, 01:57:06 PM
The other mistake being made is viewing the rest of the empire as holding a view different from the Goths when in fact the rest of the Empire was embroiled with this very debate. If anything it is a bit surprising the Arian view did not eventually win out - as it almost did - because of the Gothic support.
I used to think this too, until I learned that the Goths were not universally Arian. I just checked Wikipedia (yes I know, not a reliable source) and it states that Arianism vs. Catholicism among the Goths was actually a class discinction. The Gothic elites were Arians, but the underclasses were orthodox Catholic. Thus it makes sense why the Arians would not have eliminated the Pope, and ultimately why Arianism might have gone away, since the Arian-believing peoples ended up settling in areas where Catholics were the majority, and the majority of their own people were already Catholics.
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 02:01:54 PM
I used to think this too, until I learned that the Goths were not universally Arian. I just checked Wikipedia (yes I know, not a reliable source) and it states that Arianism vs. Catholicism among the Goths was actually a class discinction. The Gothic elites were Arians, but the underclasses were orthodox Catholic. Thus it makes sense why the Arians would not have eliminated the Pope, and ultimately why Arianism might have gone away, since the Arian-believing peoples ended up settling in areas where Catholics were the majority, and the majority of their own people were already Catholics.
I know things were different back then but I still have a hard time wrapping my head around the concept that common every day people, who were likely illiterate and without any formal schooling, could really have classified themselves based on such tiny and trivial differences in Christian doctrine. Did the average everyday Goth really reject Arianism in favor of Orthodoxy? Could he even explain what exactly the difference was?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 30, 2009, 01:58:58 PM
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 12:52:13 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2009, 12:48:15 PM
Awesome chart. Now which answer is it that would have kept me alive back when they burned heretics?
INQUISITOR: Physicial aspects?
ALFRED: Distinct.
INQUISITOR: Human and divine intent?
ALFRED: Distinct.
What exactly do you mean by distinct there?
If memory serves, the first question is: were the divine and physical aspects of Jesus merged into some unique form while he existed on Earth, or do they remain distinct from one another while both inhabiting the same space?
The second question is: Does Jesus the mortal have a distinct will from Jesus the aspect of God inhabiting the vessel that was Jesus, or is Jesus the mortal's personality/will/whatever fused with the personality/will of God? It's a question of whether Jesus was merely an avatar of God or not.
The most distinct group in this debate was the Donatists, who felt that Jesus's mortal form was merely an illusion (i.e. a ghost, basically) and that he never died because he was never alive in the first place. So the crucifixion, resurrection, etc. was merely a laser light show of sorts and never had any basis in reality. The mainstream Church was not pleased with this view and greatly enjoyed torturing and killing these people.
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2009, 02:05:33 PMI know things were different back then but I still have a hard time wrapping my head around the concept that common every day people, who were likely illiterate and without any formal schooling, could really have classified themselves based on such tiny and trivial differences in Christian doctrine. Did the average everyday Goth really reject Arianism in favor of Orthodoxy? Could he even explain what exactly the difference was?
While I am skeptical about the veracity of this stuff like you are, all we have to go on are the writings left to us, most of which were preserved (selectively?) by the Catholic Church.
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 02:07:15 PM
The most distinct group in this debate was the Donatists, who felt that Jesus's mortal form was merely an illusion (i.e. a ghost, basically) and that he never died because he was never alive in the first place. So the crucifixion, resurrection, etc. was merely a laser light show of sorts and never had any basis in reality. The mainstream Church was not pleased with this view and greatly enjoyed torturing and killing these people.
Well Jesus did say: kill thine enemies after torturing them.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2009, 12:48:15 PM
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 12:45:20 PM
A-ha!
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Christology_Flowchart.PNG (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d8/Christology_Flowchart.PNG)
Awesome chart. Now which answer is it that would have kept me alive back when they burned heretics?
People very rarely got burned for being a heretic as that was not the punishment for the crime. You would get executed for "relapsed heresy".
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 02:07:15 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 30, 2009, 01:58:58 PM
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 12:52:13 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2009, 12:48:15 PM
Awesome chart. Now which answer is it that would have kept me alive back when they burned heretics?
INQUISITOR: Physicial aspects?
ALFRED: Distinct.
INQUISITOR: Human and divine intent?
ALFRED: Distinct.
What exactly do you mean by distinct there?
The second question is: Does Jesus the mortal have a distinct will from Jesus the aspect of God inhabiting the vessel that was Jesus, or is Jesus the mortal's personality/will/whatever fused with the personality/will of God? It's a question of whether Jesus was merely an avatar of God or not.
Hmm...I'm not sure I agree with that answer then.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 30, 2009, 02:18:22 PM
Hmm...I'm not sure I agree with that answer then.
As I recall the impetus for this question was:
"Eloi Eloi lema sabachthani?" ("My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?") - Mark 15:34
interesting thread. I know very little about this stuff. But, it's interesting.
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 02:20:33 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 30, 2009, 02:18:22 PM
Hmm...I'm not sure I agree with that answer then.
As I recall the impetus for this question was:
"Eloi Eloi lema sabachthani?" ("My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?") - Mark 15:34
I love how very intelligent people will spend incredible amounts of time trying to fit words written in passing with (relatively) little thought into some profound and complete system.
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 02:01:54 PM
I used to think this too, until I learned that the Goths were not universally Arian. I just checked Wikipedia (yes I know, not a reliable source) and it states that Arianism vs. Catholicism among the Goths was actually a class discinction. The Gothic elites were Arians, but the underclasses were orthodox Catholic. Thus it makes sense why the Arians would not have eliminated the Pope, and ultimately why Arianism might have gone away, since the Arian-believing peoples ended up settling in areas where Catholics were the majority, and the majority of their own people were already Catholics.
You are correct that the Goths were not universally Arian but not for the reasons Wiki says. The Goths were like the rest of the Empire in the sense that the true nature of Christ was a debate that raged through their community as well. Its just that the majority of Goths did continue to follow the teachings of Arius even when they became a Heresy. Some didnt of course.
Again, I need to point out that there was no Pope during this period of time (in the way we think of it) nor was there such a thing as the Roman Catholic Church. That was a later creation. During the period of time that the Goths were converted there was just one fractious Church largely centered in the doicese in the Eastern Med. I am repeating myself here but the importance of Rome slowly evolved over time.
I looked at Wiki for the chapter/verse for that quote, and the article states that the Docetic (I have been calling them 'Donatists' for the whole thread :blush: ) translation of that line was "My power, my power, thou hast forsaken me!" .... which, given the Docetic Christological position, makes perfect sense. :D
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 02:20:33 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 30, 2009, 02:18:22 PM
Hmm...I'm not sure I agree with that answer then.
As I recall the impetus for this question was:
"Eloi Eloi lema sabachthani?" ("My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?") - Mark 15:34
So essentially in the church's view he was schizophrenic between human and divine characters? (that is a serious question, even if it may not seem that way)
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 30, 2009, 02:24:36 PM
You are correct that the Goths were not universally Arian but not for the reasons Wiki says. The Goths were like the rest of the Empire in the sense that the true nature of Christ was a debate that raged through their community as well. Its just that the majority of Goths did continue to follow the teachings of Arius even when they became a Heresy. Some didnt of course.
Again, I need to point out that there was no Pope during this period of time (in the way we think of it) nor was there such a thing as the Roman Catholic Church. That was a later creation. During the period of time that the Goths were converted there was just one fractious Church largely centered in the doicese in the Eastern Med. I am repeating myself here but the importance of Rome slowly evolved over time.
I know that, but there was someone in Rome with the title of 'Pope' from which Benedict XVI's power descends, even if at that time he was a tertiary contemporary to the Patriarchs in Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. I think that if the Goths, say, had been universally Arian and had forced their religion on the Romans successfully, the history of the Catholic Church would still have been drastically different, regardless of the position of the Roman pontiff in relation to the other patriarchs.
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2009, 02:23:34 PM
I love how very intelligent people will spend incredible amounts of time trying to fit words written in passing with (relatively) little thought into some profound and complete system.
Not sure why you think it was with little thought.
As Cal points out that particular line, and others from the same gospel provided the ground work for the Christ as human argument. Erhman points out in his Book "Misquoting Jesus" that that particular line and the lines around it also went through various iterations and translations depending on the theological bent of the translator.
But I do agree with you about all the intellectual time and energy that was spent on the issue but as Sask pointed out, at the time, these questions were loaded with political and economic importance. If you were on the winning side of the debate there was a big pile of gold at the end of that rainbow.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2009, 02:25:12 PMSo essentially in the church's view he was schizophrenic between human and divine characters? (that is a serious question, even if it may not seem that way)
That's always been my interpretation of it, yeah. God the Father is God the Son, but in creating the Son aspect God apparently gave his Son some degree of autonomy while still remaining inextricably fused to him, and the differing aspects reuinted once God the Son was Resurrected.
Of course, some of the Christological differences are so vanishingly minor I may well be stating another position entirely. One of the other stances (Nestorianism?) essentially states God possessed a mortal vessel through which he worked, and discarded it when his mission was done. To me that's practically saying the same thing, but again people would have gotten killed over it back then.
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 02:27:55 PM
I know that, but there was someone in Rome with the title of 'Pope' from which Benedict XVI's power descends, even if at that time he was a tertiary contemporary to the Patriarchs in Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. I think that if the Goths, say, had been universally Arian and had forced their religion on the Romans successfully, the history of the Catholic Church would still have been drastically different, regardless of the position of the Roman pontiff in relation to the other patriarchs.
There was no one in Rome with the title of Pope during that time. The whole notion that the Pope can trace his line from Peter in Rome is all revisionist propoganda.
I agree with the rest of what you said. I was disagreeing with the reasons you stated for why the Goths were not universally Arian.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 30, 2009, 02:30:49 PM
Not sure why you think it was with little thought.
Well, more simply since we don't actually know who wrote the Gospel of Mark (or any of the Gospels) we don't know how little thought they put into them. My guess is that they indeed put far less thought into them than the early Church fathers did, but there may have been quite a bit of debate about what exactly to write down. Indeed it seems unlikely to me that the Gospels were EVER one unified body of documents from which later interpretations descended. I think the prevailing theory is that the Gnostic gospels were probably compiled contemporaneously, but by a different group of followers.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 30, 2009, 02:30:49 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2009, 02:23:34 PM
I love how very intelligent people will spend incredible amounts of time trying to fit words written in passing with (relatively) little thought into some profound and complete system.
Not sure why you think it was with little thought.
Anyone creating a consistent and rational religion would probably rather the line never exist to begin with - after all, it doesn't square well with the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient deity, does it?
Granted, once it did exist, it was necessary to make it "fit" and certainly different translators would be happy to tweak it to make it fit more or less in their particular flavor. But none of them could, really, just make it go away.
Well, actually some of them did in fact make lots written about "Jesus" just "go away", but you know what I mean.
It is like watching some apologist explain how the two Genesis stories really can work together...
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 02:33:38 PM
Well, more simply since we don't actually know who wrote the Gospel of Mark (or any of the Gospels) we don't know how little thought they put into them. My guess is that they indeed put far less thought into them than the early Church fathers did, but there may have been quite a bit of debate about what exactly to write down. Indeed it seems unlikely to me that the Gospels were EVER one unified body of documents from which later interpretations descended. I think the prevailing theory is that the Gnostic gospels were probably compiled contemporaneously, but by a different group of followers.
It is true we do not know who wrote Mark. But we do know that whoever wrote it had a particular agenda. I dont think you can separate the gospel writers from the early church leaders. I think it more logical to think they are one and the same. The Gospels didnt create the church. The Gospels were written to teach the members of an already existing Church. I dont think it is logical to think that, in those circumstances, little thought went into the writing of the Gospels. Rather, they were very profound documents meant to teach a particular view of Christianity.
Remember, at that time there were many "gospels". Only four became accepted.
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2009, 02:34:13 PM
Anyone creating a consistent and rational religion would probably rather the line never exist to begin with - after all, it doesn't square well with the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient deity, does it?
I see what you mean. I agree. The biggest problem for Christianity is that it isnt coherent for the very reason that so many people contributed to the formation of what became the Bible and it took centuries to come to any agreement on what would be accepted as orthodox and even then there were significant disagreements amongst those works.
I think it's instructive to mention Secret Mark here.... this is the gnostic gospel that described Jesus as a homosexual, or at least heavily implied it by adding the story of the 'youth in white linen' who Jesus laid with.
The early (Catholic) Church Fathers acknowledged the existence of this gospel but attributed it to the Carpocratians, who were accused of blatant homosexuality as well as tons of other stuff, as supposedly their peculiar gnostic philosophy required them to commit every sin known to man in order to avoid reincarnation. The thing is, since no writings from the Carpocratians themselves (other than possibly Secret Mark) survive, it's impossible to know if these were really their beliefs, or if it was mere slander designed to discredit them.
When Secret Mark was apparently rediscovered in the 20th century, people accused its discoverer of actually forging the text of it entirely because HE was a closet homosexual and thus wanted to portray Jesus as the same (in order to validate himself?)
So I think that's a good illustration of the kinds of things that went into shaping the contents of the Bible on two counts.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 30, 2009, 02:30:49 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2009, 02:23:34 PM
I love how very intelligent people will spend incredible amounts of time trying to fit words written in passing with (relatively) little thought into some profound and complete system.
Not sure why you think it was with little thought.
As Cal points out that particular line, and others from the same gospel provided the ground work for the Christ as human argument. Erhman points out in his Book "Misquoting Jesus" that that particular line and the lines around it also went through various iterations and translations depending on the theological bent of the translator.
When Luther made his first translation of the bible, some noticed that he translated a letter, maybe from Paul actually, that discussed salvation through faith as salvation through faith alone. When justified himself by saying it was his translation.
But I guess Martin Luther and his political situation is perhaps more accessible and relatable to us: through his theological arguments, he became a leader of a very successful secular movement that remade europe.
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2009, 02:34:13 PM
It is like watching some apologist explain how the two Genesis stories really can work together...
To be fair, from very early on those stories were treated symbolically (though not universally of course). Augustine viewed them as highly symbolic truths that didn't describe how the world literally came into being. He hypothosized god created the world instantaneously.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 30, 2009, 02:39:50 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2009, 02:34:13 PM
Anyone creating a consistent and rational religion would probably rather the line never exist to begin with - after all, it doesn't square well with the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient deity, does it?
I see what you mean. I agree. The biggest problem for Christianity is that it isnt coherent for the very reason that so many people contributed to the formation of what became the Bible and it took centuries to come to any agreement on what would be accepted as orthodox and even then there were significant disagreements amongst those works.
Exactly.
This forces those who want it all to "fit" to come up with these elaborate explanations for how all this grossly contradictory crap can all be the verbatim Word of God.
It really is quite amusing.
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 02:40:18 PM
I agree. But we dont even have to look for something that dramatic. Take the gospel of Thomas or even the gospel of Judas. Same themes as the Gospels in the Bible but delivered to communities that didnt win the theological war.
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 02:20:33 PM
As I recall the impetus for this question was:
"Eloi Eloi lema sabachthani?" ("My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?") - Mark 15:34
God is omnipotent so of course he can forsake himself. He can do anything.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2009, 02:43:09 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2009, 02:34:13 PM
It is like watching some apologist explain how the two Genesis stories really can work together...
To be fair, from very early on those stories were treated symbolically (though not universally of course). Augustine viewed them as highly symbolic truths that didn't describe how the world literally came into being. He hypothosized god created the world instantaneously.
Sure, why not? That is a standard response to those things in the Bible that simply do not make any damn sense at all. It is just another example of the need to square the circle that is biblical apologism.
Although you still see plenty of people insist that no such symbolism cop out is needed, and in fact Genesis is not only literal truth, but both contradictory versions are in fact literal truth.
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 02:30:58 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2009, 02:25:12 PMSo essentially in the church's view he was schizophrenic between human and divine characters? (that is a serious question, even if it may not seem that way)
That's always been my interpretation of it, yeah. God the Father is God the Son, but in creating the Son aspect God apparently gave his Son some degree of autonomy while still remaining inextricably fused to him, and the differing aspects reuinted once God the Son was Resurrected.
That makes no sense. Why would the human Jesus then speak to the divine God, if they were present in the same body? Why not have an inner dialogue, if they were really two beings?
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2009, 02:43:35 PM
This forces those who want it all to "fit" to come up with these elaborate explanations for how all this grossly contradictory crap can all be the verbatim Word of God.
You mean how all four gospels give conflicting stories and have entirely different events occuring in each one yet are all somehow authoritative and literally true?
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2009, 02:43:35 PMThis forces those who want it all to "fit" to come up with these elaborate explanations for how all this grossly contradictory crap can all be the verbatim Word of God.
It really is quite amusing.
To me, that's the first sign a particular Christian is not worth engaging in debate with: if they insist the Bible is the literal word of God, they have either a) not bothered to read most of it, or b) are incapable of analyzing what they've read to any meaningful degree.
To fahdiz's great credit, while he was in his Catholic phase he never claimed that the Bible was the literal word of God.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2009, 02:46:50 PM
That makes no sense. Why would the human Jesus then speak to the divine God, if they were present in the same body? Why not have an inner dialogue, if they were really two beings?
I suppose you could argue that that quote represents an inner dialogue, or maybe that Jesus just liked to mumble his thoughts aloud.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 30, 2009, 02:33:36 PM
There was no one in Rome with the title of Pope during that time. The whole notion that the Pope can trace his line from Peter in Rome is all revisionist propoganda.
isn't the line generally traced through the title 'bisshop of rome' rather than 'pope'?
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2009, 02:46:55 PMYou mean how all four gospels give conflicting stories and have entirely different events occuring in each one yet are all somehow authoritative and literally true?
I don't think they are generally contradictory or include different events (though some provide more detail with respect to specific events), but I always thought it odd that all four are included in the orthodox Bible.
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2009, 02:43:35 PM
Exactly.
This forces those who want it all to "fit" to come up with these elaborate explanations for how all this grossly contradictory crap can all be the verbatim Word of God.
It really is quite amusing.
Reading Ehrman's books is interesting to see his thinking evolve because of this very problem.
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 02:47:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2009, 02:43:35 PMThis forces those who want it all to "fit" to come up with these elaborate explanations for how all this grossly contradictory crap can all be the verbatim Word of God.
It really is quite amusing.
To me, that's the first sign a particular Christian is not worth engaging in debate with: if they insist the Bible is the literal word of God, they have either a) not bothered to read most of it, or b) are incapable of analyzing what they've read to any meaningful degree.
To fahdiz's great credit, while he was in his Catholic phase he never claimed that the Bible was the literal word of God.
Yeah, but even if you accept that it isn't all
literally true, it still has to make coherent sense, as a message.
Sure, teh genesis stories (for example) can be figurative, but then you ahve to figure out what that means, what message it is trying to send *instead* of being a literal account of creation - and half the time
those messages are contradictory!
"My god, my god, why hast thou forsaken me?"
That is pretty damn hard to square with the central theme of Christianity. It is fun to see the hoops people will jump through to make it work, somehow.
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 02:50:12 PM
I don't think they are generally contradictory or include different events (though some provide more detail with respect to specific events), but I always thought it odd that all four are included in the orthodox Bible.
This is my day for disagreeing with you. :D
Just compare the resurrection stories. Look at who sees Jesus first, who was with them etc. a small example but all the stories conflict.
I once wrote a long post on a number of areas in which the Gospels conflict but that was on the old site and I dont think I could reproduce it now.
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 02:47:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2009, 02:43:35 PMThis forces those who want it all to "fit" to come up with these elaborate explanations for how all this grossly contradictory crap can all be the verbatim Word of God.
It really is quite amusing.
To me, that's the first sign a particular Christian is not worth engaging in debate with: if they insist the Bible is the literal word of God, they have either a) not bothered to read most of it, or b) are incapable of analyzing what they've read to any meaningful degree.
You know Cal, on one level, I actually have more respect for the "nutty" Christian who just jams their head in the sand and refuses to even think about the contradictions, and insists they do not exist. At least they are simply refusing to be critical, and relying purely on obstinance and faith.
On the other hand, you see extremely intellgent people doing what is, IMO, basically the same thing, but doing so under the guise of "scholarship". So you see the creation of this incredible complex theology, this creation of an entire realm of study that people spend their lives tweaking, studying, understanding, revising, all based on this fundamentally irrational premise.
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 02:47:25 PM
To me, that's the first sign a particular Christian is not worth engaging in debate with: if they insist the Bible is the literal word of God, they have either a) not bothered to read most of it, or b) are incapable of analyzing what they've read to any meaningful degree.
Anybody who claims this should next be asked if they have, in fact, read the bible.
Even in basic things...like when Jesus was born or what town he was from...they differ for inexplicable reasons and not all of them can be true.
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2009, 02:55:37 PM
On the other hand, you see extremely intellgent people doing what is, IMO, basically the same thing, but doing so under the guise of "scholarship". So you see the creation of this incredible complex theology, this creation of an entire realm of study that people spend their lives tweaking, studying, understanding, revising, all based on this fundamentally irrational premise.
Speaking as someone who has spent years trying to find some meaning in it all, even though in the end I came to the same conclusion as you, I found the intellectual exercise to be worth while. I dont think I would have been satisfied if I had not spent a great deal of time studying the issue. In part I suppose that is because we still live in a culture heavily dominated by Christianity and I was essentially proving a negative to myself. Never an easy thing to do.
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2009, 02:46:14 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2009, 02:43:09 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2009, 02:34:13 PM
It is like watching some apologist explain how the two Genesis stories really can work together...
To be fair, from very early on those stories were treated symbolically (though not universally of course). Augustine viewed them as highly symbolic truths that didn't describe how the world literally came into being. He hypothosized god created the world instantaneously.
Sure, why not? That is a standard response to those things in the Bible that simply do not make any damn sense at all. It is just another example of the need to square the circle that is biblical apologism.
Although you still see plenty of people insist that no such symbolism cop out is needed, and in fact Genesis is not only literal truth, but both contradictory versions are in fact literal truth.
I agree that there are large tracts of the bible that are simply literally incorrect and don't have symbolic meanings to get them out of the jam. But the creation stories aren't those type of stories: at least one leading theologian of the church taught that in the early years, and pointed to their probably non-symbolic falseness, so that isn't a post darwin rationalization.
Just because some groups developed a fetish for the literal truth of the bible doesn't make those stories the best targets for a general discrediting of the consistency of the bible. I'd say the listing of incredibly longed lived individuals with no apparent message behind them does a much better job of that.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 30, 2009, 02:55:02 PM
This is my day for disagreeing with you. :D
Just compare the resurrection stories. Look at who sees Jesus first, who was with them etc. a small example but all the stories conflict.
I once wrote a long post on a number of areas in which the Gospels conflict but that was on the old site and I dont think I could reproduce it now.
Bingo.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 30, 2009, 02:55:02 PM
This is my day for disagreeing with you. :D
Just compare the resurrection stories. Look at who sees Jesus first, who was with them etc. a small example but all the stories conflict.
I once wrote a long post on a number of areas in which the Gospels conflict but that was on the old site and I dont think I could reproduce it now.
I meant on a higher level, as in Matthew claims Jesus was beheaded, while Mark claims Jesus was burned at the stake, etc. I mean that I don't understand why the early Church fathers only included one Gospel and edited it to their liking. I guess there must have been some disagreement over which Gospel was the "most correct" and thus as a compromise all four were included.
How many groups actually believe in the literal truth of everything in the Bible?
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2009, 02:59:43 PM
Anybody who claims this should next be asked if they have, in fact, read the bible.
Even in basic things...like when Jesus was born or what town he was from...they differ for inexplicable reasons and not all of them can be true.
I don't know if your first line is a dig at me :D
But if it is, in my defense I've never claimed to anyone that I have memorized large tracts of the Bible, and in fact there are portions of the OT I've probably never read and/or have long since forgotten. The difference is that, since I have no emotional investment in the Bible whatsoever, I don't feel a need to read it repeatedly so I have it fresh in my head. My view is that the Bible is not a great piece of literature, but simultaneously and ironically the single most important book ever written in human history. So to me it's more like a reference book than some great work of art worth memorizing.
That said, Christians or ex-devout Christians obviously have a leg up on me in any sort of debate where I lack handy references. Personally, ever since I can remember I've never believed in God (even when I was going to Church). I used to not pay attention during sermons and instead intently study the maps of the Middle East included in the back of the RSV :contract:
Quote from: Malthus on June 30, 2009, 03:06:38 PM
How many groups actually believe in the literal truth of everything in the Bible?
I don't know how many do. Ironically, I think the official SBC position on the Bible is that the inerrancy of scripture is up to an individual to decide, but people in Princesca's family who are Southern Baptists do believe it to be the literal Word of God.
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 03:10:16 PMI don't know if your first line is a dig at me :D
No it is a dig at the people who believe the Bible is literally true.
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 03:04:34 PM
I meant on a higher level, as in Matthew claims Jesus was beheaded, while Mark claims Jesus was burned at the stake, etc. I mean that I don't understand why the early Church fathers only included one Gospel and edited it to their liking. I guess there must have been some disagreement over which Gospel was the "most correct" and thus as a compromise all four were included.
This takes us into how the Bible actually came to be. By the time a centralized Church had enough authority to start compiling a list of what would be accepted and what rejected (a process which itself took a long time) there was a multitude of writings to choose from. These four Gospels had the strongest backers and it is doubtful that any one of them would have had enough support to have the other three removed.
Remeber there was no one authority to guide the development of the early Christian Theology. The person who comes closest to that is Paul but there were a number of "churches" scattered throughout the Mediterranean and each of them had various views and writings as we can see from the letter of Paul himself. I bring us back to the point I made before that there were not just four gospels but many. The four we have in the Bible are just the ones the won out over the others.
Quote from: Malthus on June 30, 2009, 03:06:38 PM
How many groups actually believe in the literal truth of everything in the Bible?
Orthodox Jews (at least the first 2/3rds or so)
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2009, 03:13:42 PM
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 03:10:16 PMI don't know if your first line is a dig at me :D
No it is a dig at the people who believe the Bible is literally true.
Oh. :blush:
Quote from: Malthus on June 30, 2009, 03:06:38 PM
How many groups actually believe in the literal truth of everything in the Bible?
Good question. Certainly the Born again Christian movement in North America does.
I wonder about outside North America though.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 30, 2009, 03:14:09 PMRemeber there was no one authority to guide the development of the early Christian Theology. The person who comes closest to that is Paul but there were a number of "churches" scattered throughout the Mediterranean and each of them had various views and writings as we can see from the letter of Paul himself. I bring us back to the point I made before that there were not just four gospels but many. The four we have in the Bible are just the ones the won out over the others.
Yeah, I know... I've read nearly all of the apocryphal gospels that are available to us today.
I have little personal interest in most of the OT, but I find the life of Jesus to be extremely interesting.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 30, 2009, 03:15:40 PM
Good question. Certainly the Born again Christian movement in North America does.
I wonder about outside North America though.
You think South American Catholics don't believe in the Bible?
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 30, 2009, 03:15:40 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 30, 2009, 03:06:38 PM
How many groups actually believe in the literal truth of everything in the Bible?
Good question. Certainly the Born again Christian movement in North America does.
I wonder about outside North America though.
I would be willing to bet that this is a common position at modern-day American megachurches. I have several co-workers who go to Southeast Christian (the biggest one here in Louisville)... I'd ask them if I knew I wouldn't get into trouble or end up being proselytized at. :)
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2009, 03:17:47 PM
You think South American Catholics don't believe in the Bible?
A person can believe in the Bible without believing it is literally true. Isnt that the position of the Catholic Church?
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 03:16:40 PM
Yeah, I know... I've read nearly all of the apocryphal gospels that are available to us today.
I have little personal interest in most of the OT, but I find the life of Jesus to be extremely interesting.
It is pretty hard to understand what the gospel writers were getting at without understanding the OT. They were trying to portray him as similar to Moses, Elijah and so forth. You can see that all over the early gospels.
Also the shift of the understanding of God from the tribal God who held the sun the sky so the Israelites could slaughter more Amorites to the more universal God of Isaiah is pretty fascinating. You can see an expansion of conciousness going on, especially as the Jews become more helenized and start seeing their religion with the influence of Greek philosophy. Good stuff.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 30, 2009, 03:19:36 PMA person can believe in the Bible without believing it is literally true. Isnt that the position of the Catholic Church?
Yes, the Catholic Church is most definitely not literalist. You do have to accept all the basic tenets of the Church, but not the literal meaning of every single line.
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2009, 03:20:48 PM
Also the shift of the understanding of God from the tribal God who held the sun the sky so the Israelites could slaughter more Amorites to the more universal God of Isaiah is pretty fascinating. You can see an expansion of conciousness going on, especially as the Jews become more helenized and start seeing their religion with the influence of Greek philosophy. Good stuff.
Actually are you familiar with the Gnostic opinion on the nature of God in the OT vs. the NT? :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 30, 2009, 03:19:36 PM
A person can believe in the Bible without believing it is literally true. Isnt that the position of the Catholic Church?
I think the Catholic Church, like most churches, is alot more militant and conservative in the third world than it is up here.
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 03:22:46 PM
Actually are you familiar with the Gnostic opinion on the nature of God in the OT vs. the NT? :)
Maybe...what is it again?
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2009, 03:24:31 PM
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 03:22:46 PM
Actually are you familiar with the Gnostic opinion on the nature of God in the OT vs. the NT? :)
Maybe...what is it again?
That there were actually two Gods... the God of the OT was vengeful, selfish, jealous, and evil, but the God of the NT was loving, forgiving, and good. I forget how, but somehow Jesus represents the battle between these Gods and his death allowed the NT God to take over. IIRC one of the Gods was named Ialdaboth and one Samael (I think).
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 03:28:19 PM
That there were actually two Gods... the God of the OT was vengeful, selfish, jealous, and evil, but the God of the NT was loving, forgiving, and good. I forget how, but somehow Jesus represents the battle between these Gods and his death allowed the NT God to take over. IIRC one of the Gods was named Ialdaboth and one Samael (I think).
Woah that is bizarre. It almost sounds like the whole 'Rex Mundi' concept.
In any case as the OT goes on God becomes more and more like the NT God.
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 03:28:19 PM
I forget how, but somehow Jesus represents the battle between these Gods and his death allowed the NT God to take over.
Partly right. God never does take over this earth. It is always the domain of the Devil (the God of the OT who created the world). Jesus came to show us the truth and imparted the secret wisdom (Gnosis) of our true selfs so that we can escape this world and join once again with God.
edit: however the importance of the OT to the NT cannot be understated. It is the whole justification for Jesus being the messiah in the orthodox Gospels.
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2009, 03:14:30 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 30, 2009, 03:06:38 PM
How many groups actually believe in the literal truth of everything in the Bible?
Orthodox Jews (at least the first 2/3rds or so)
I don't think this is true at all. Orthodox Jews certainly regard the OT through the lens of the Talmud, which is anything but "literalist" in its approach.
Quote from: Malthus on June 30, 2009, 03:32:48 PM
I don't think this is true at all. Orthodox Jews certainly regard the OT through the lens of the Talmud, which is anything but "literalist" in its approach.
Good point. They have that 'Oral Torah' going on. It was the Sadducees who wanted a more literal textual approach and they lost.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 30, 2009, 03:32:43 PM
edit: however the importance of the OT to the NT cannot be understated. It is the whole justification for Jesus being the messiah in the orthodox Gospels.
Yeah...too bad none of the things that Isaiah promised would happen when the Messiah came actually happened.
But um...you see...he will come again and do all that stuff.
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2009, 02:51:30 PM
Quote from: Caliga on June 30, 2009, 02:47:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2009, 02:43:35 PMThis forces those who want it all to "fit" to come up with these elaborate explanations for how all this grossly contradictory crap can all be the verbatim Word of God.
It really is quite amusing.
To me, that's the first sign a particular Christian is not worth engaging in debate with: if they insist the Bible is the literal word of God, they have either a) not bothered to read most of it, or b) are incapable of analyzing what they've read to any meaningful degree.
To fahdiz's great credit, while he was in his Catholic phase he never claimed that the Bible was the literal word of God.
Yeah, but even if you accept that it isn't all literally true, it still has to make coherent sense, as a message.
Sure, teh genesis stories (for example) can be figurative, but then you ahve to figure out what that means, what message it is trying to send *instead* of being a literal account of creation - and half the time those messages are contradictory!
"My god, my god, why hast thou forsaken me?"
That is pretty damn hard to square with the central theme of Christianity. It is fun to see the hoops people will jump through to make it work, somehow.
I agree in general, especially in the line that you quote, but I disagree in terms of the creation stories. It isn't a leap at all to view those as figurative, and books have been written on all of the meaning in them. From the allegories of Jesus to prophesies in the Old Testament, the bible is consistent in that when god/jesus delivers a message, it may not be literal or immediately understandable.
Quote from: Valmy on June 30, 2009, 03:42:28 PM
But um...you see...he will come again and do all that stuff.
Yet another one of the inconsistencies in Christain theology. That and the fact that if a person actually reads the OT it is pretty clear the Prophets are not talking about a Jesus figure.
The real problem, this stuff gets preached to an uncritical audience and then policy is created in the public political sphere. Which is the thing that probably get Berk most exercised and I dont blame him.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2009, 03:51:11 PM
From the allegories of Jesus to prophesies in the Old Testament, the bible is consistent in that when god/jesus delivers a message, it may not be literal or immediately understandable.
Are you trying to say the Bible is consistently inconsistent or just badly written?
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 30, 2009, 03:53:16 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2009, 03:51:11 PM
From the allegories of Jesus to prophesies in the Old Testament, the bible is consistent in that when god/jesus delivers a message, it may not be literal or immediately understandable.
Are you trying to say the Bible is consistently inconsistent or just badly written?
Neither--the opposite in fact (at least for the creation stories, which is what I'm discussing). Berkut is complaining that it is a cop out to say the creation stories are figurative, I'm presuming because that means it isn't literally true and obscures the meaning of the passage. I'm addressing the first of his hypothetical points by saying that the allegories of jesus aren't literally true either, and the second by by saying many prophesies in the bible were not understandable at the time they were transmitted.
As such, I don't think saying the creation stories are figurative is a cop out from their literal falseness.
However, to your question, I would answer that yes, I think the bible is poorly written, and no, I do not think it is internally consistent.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2009, 04:00:02 PM
the second by by saying many prophesies in the bible were not understandable at the time they were transmitted.
I will take you up on this point and leave the first for Berkut.
Not sure why you think the prophesies in the New and Old Testament dont make sense. There is a lot of textual scholarship out there that explains them very well. For example Revelation is a diatribe against Roman Rule, Many of the prophesies in the Old Testament are actually written to legitimize the rule of certain Kings etc. Indeed the only time they stop making sense is when you pluck them out of their historical setting and try to make them mean something they dont - the second coming of a Christian man/god.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 30, 2009, 04:07:31 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2009, 04:00:02 PM
the second by by saying many prophesies in the bible were not understandable at the time they were transmitted.
I will take you up on this point and leave the first for Berkut.
Not sure why you think the prophesies in the New and Old Testament dont make sense. There is a lot of textual scholarship out there that explains them very well. For example Revelation is a diatribe against Roman Rule, Many of the prophesies in the Old Testament are actually written to legitimize the rule of certain Kings etc. Indeed the only time they stop making sense is when you pluck them out of their historical setting and try to make them mean something they dont - the second coming of a Christian man/god.
For example, when jesus says in the temple, "tear down this temple and I will rebuild it in three days." I think that is a clear prophesy that jesus will rise 3 days after being put to death. But it was not--and could not--be understood by those hearing the message.
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2009, 02:43:35 PM
This forces those who want it all to "fit" to come up with these elaborate explanations for how all this grossly contradictory crap can all be the verbatim Word of God.
It really is quite amusing.
Still, better than people spending their time explaining why it makes sense that Han Solo did the Kessel run in 12 parsecs...
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 30, 2009, 04:07:31 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2009, 04:00:02 PM
the second by by saying many prophesies in the bible were not understandable at the time they were transmitted.
I will take you up on this point and leave the first for Berkut.
Not sure why you think the prophesies in the New and Old Testament dont make sense. There is a lot of textual scholarship out there that explains them very well. For example Revelation is a diatribe against Roman Rule, Many of the prophesies in the Old Testament are actually written to legitimize the rule of certain Kings etc. Indeed the only time they stop making sense is when you pluck them out of their historical setting and try to make them mean something they dont - the second coming of a Christian man/god.
't might just be overal better if the whole bible gets published with an accompanying book explaining the context of the times, places, cultures, etc it was written in/influenced by. Mere footnotes doing that are no longer enough
Princesca has a book like what you describe. She got it in college as part of some religion course.
I use the Cliffs Notes.
Quote from: PDH on July 01, 2009, 07:27:12 AM
I use the Cliffs Notes.
That Cliff guy really gets around.
Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on July 01, 2009, 01:30:49 AM
't might just be overal better if the whole bible gets published with an accompanying book explaining the context of the times, places, cultures, etc it was written in/influenced by. Mere footnotes doing that are no longer enough
Already written:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.fantasticfiction.co.uk%2Fimages%2Fx0%2Fx221.jpg&hash=c8691fe2efe328d4c6799ae47a9046ce42143e8e)
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2009, 04:11:43 PM
For example, when jesus says in the temple, "tear down this temple and I will rebuild it in three days." I think that is a clear prophesy that jesus will rise 3 days after being put to death. But it was not--and could not--be understood by those hearing the message.
Each of the Gospels (the ones in the Bible and all the Gospels that didnt make the cut) were written to instruct the growing community of Christians about the relatively new religion. Most scholars agree that the early Christians did not take the Bible literally but indeed did understand it metaphorically. If you carefully study the inconsistencies in each of the Gospels you will see that the writers were crafting a story to address their own particular theology and their own particular audience. They were not creating a kind of transcript of what was said or an historically correct document.
So, I disagree with your point that the prophesies of Jesus recorded in the Gospels did not make sense to their audience. They were written in the Gospels for the very reason that they DID make sense to their audience. The Gospels were after all teaching tools.
It is when one takes the view that the Bible is literally true and that the Bible is the Word of God that people run into trouble trying to explain away all the inconsistences that appear throughout. Taking your discussion with Berkut as a case in point. There are at least two creation stories and two flood stories that are conflated in the OT. The reason for that has nothing to do with prophesies that are not understandable. They are just two separate stories that have some commonalities but also many differences.
It is the same is true with the four Gospels of the Bible - some commonalities but a lot of differences as well, some of which are simply irreconcilable.
Quote from: ulmont on June 30, 2009, 07:04:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 30, 2009, 02:43:35 PM
This forces those who want it all to "fit" to come up with these elaborate explanations for how all this grossly contradictory crap can all be the verbatim Word of God.
It really is quite amusing.
Still, better than people spending their time explaining why it makes sense that Han Solo did the Kessel run in 12 parsecs...
No. It is EXACTLY the same thing.
Quote from: Tamas on July 01, 2009, 08:50:01 AM
No. It is EXACTLY the same thing.
Laws are not created based on the sayings in Yoda, so no, its not exactly the same.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 01, 2009, 08:46:57 AM
[Each of the Gospels (the ones in the Bible and all the Gospels that didnt make the cut) were written to instruct the growing community of Christians about the relatively new religion. Most scholars agree that the early Christians did not take the Bible literally but indeed did understand it metaphorically.
True. I challenge anybody to explain alot of the passages, like Mark 11:11-14 for example, literally:
Quote11And Jesus entered into Jerusalem, and into the temple: and when he had looked round about upon all things, and now the eventide was come, he went out unto Bethany with the twelve.
12And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry:
13And seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find any thing thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet.
14And Jesus answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit of thee hereafter for ever. And his disciples heard it.
Why the fuck would Jesus curse a fig tree for not having fruit at a time it was not supposed to have fruit?
Quote from: Tamas on July 01, 2009, 08:50:01 AM
No. It is EXACTLY the same thing.
As soon as a billion people convert to Jedi-ism it will.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 01, 2009, 08:55:49 AM
Quote from: Tamas on July 01, 2009, 08:50:01 AM
No. It is EXACTLY the same thing.
Laws are not created based on the sayings in Yoda, so no, its not exactly the same.
The practical effect on the world may be different but both are equally crazy imho
Quote from: Tamas on July 01, 2009, 08:59:03 AM
The practical effect on the world may be different but both are equally crazy imho
Studying something that will have a practical effect on the world doesn't strike me as very crazy.
Quote from: Valmy on July 01, 2009, 09:00:26 AM
Quote from: Tamas on July 01, 2009, 08:59:03 AM
The practical effect on the world may be different but both are equally crazy imho
Studying something that will have a practical effect on the world doesn't strike me as very crazy.
Unless the whole phenomenom of it having a practical effect is crazy.
Quote from: Tamas on July 01, 2009, 09:01:25 AM
Unless the whole phenomenom of it having a practical effect is crazy.
Which strikes me as irrelevent.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 01, 2009, 08:46:57 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on June 30, 2009, 04:11:43 PM
For example, when jesus says in the temple, "tear down this temple and I will rebuild it in three days." I think that is a clear prophesy that jesus will rise 3 days after being put to death. But it was not--and could not--be understood by those hearing the message.
Each of the Gospels (the ones in the Bible and all the Gospels that didnt make the cut) were written to instruct the growing community of Christians about the relatively new religion. Most scholars agree that the early Christians did not take the Bible literally but indeed did understand it metaphorically. If you carefully study the inconsistencies in each of the Gospels you will see that the writers were crafting a story to address their own particular theology and their own particular audience. They were not creating a kind of transcript of what was said or an historically correct document.
So, I disagree with your point that the prophesies of Jesus recorded in the Gospels did not make sense to their audience. They were written in the Gospels for the very reason that they DID make sense to their audience. The Gospels were after all teaching tools.
It is when one takes the view that the Bible is literally true and that the Bible is the Word of God that people run into trouble trying to explain away all the inconsistences that appear throughout. Taking your discussion with Berkut as a case in point. There are at least two creation stories and two flood stories that are conflated in the OT. The reason for that has nothing to do with prophesies that are not understandable. They are just two separate stories that have some commonalities but also many differences.
It is the same is true with the four Gospels of the Bible - some commonalities but a lot of differences as well, some of which are simply irreconcilable.
CC--I am in no way disagreeing with you. All I was trying to do (and obviously doing a very poor job) was refute Berkut's point of view that a believer looking at the creation stories metaphorically is a cop out. Maybe Berkut didn't even say this, but I was assigning him the point of view that god, who inspired the bible, wouldn't obscure his teachings with ambiguous metaphors. I was just trying to point out that in fact that happened elsewhere in the bible (at least from the perspective of a believer. Did Jesus really make the temple comment or was it added by the author after jesus died? You take the latter view, and I would as well, so in that sense the statement would always be understandable. But from the perspective of a believer, who would likely believe in the literal occurrance of the incident, the initial audiance--being the crowd that heard Jesus speak the words--could not have understood the meaning.)
My point of view on the creation stories is that they almost certainly have an origin in other religions of the region, and the first one especially was initially polytheistic.
AR, I understand your point now.
Obviously I will let Berkut speak for himself but I understood him to be saying that the inconsistencies in both the new and old Testaments cannot be explained away by saying that that they were just metaphorical or allegorical so as to perserve the appearance that these texts were the word of God who wouldnt make the those kinds of mistakes.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 01, 2009, 09:15:14 AM
AF, I understand your point now.
Obviously I will let Berkut speak for himself but I understood him to be saying that the inconsistencies in both the new and old Testaments cannot be explained away by saying that that they were just metaphorical or allegorical so as to perserve the appearance that these texts were the word of God who wouldnt make the those kinds of mistakes.
Maybe we should keep discussing Berkut's views without his input, hold a council to finally determine them in 400 years, and burn anyone who disagrees with the council. :p
Actually, I do think Berkut was making the point you said above, and in general I agree with it, I just take exception to his using the creation stories as the example of a contradiction. I do feel kind of silly dragging this out. Sorry about that. :blush:
Quote from: alfred russel on July 01, 2009, 09:29:42 AM
Maybe we should keep discussing Berkut's views without his input, hold a council to finally determine them in 400 years, and burn anyone who disagrees with the council. :p
:lol:
Quote from: Valmy on July 01, 2009, 08:56:16 AM\
Why the fuck would Jesus curse a fig tree for not having fruit at a time it was not supposed to have fruit?
Haven't you never done anything stupid and without thought when you were angry? Let him who has never honked his horn in anger cast the first stone.
Quote from: Josephus on July 01, 2009, 09:45:58 AM
Haven't you never done anything stupid and without thought when you were angry? Let him who has never honked his horn in anger cast the first stone.
Hey at least I have never killed a perfectly innocent fig tree! Am I: morally superior to Jesus? :goodboy:
Quote from: alfred russel on July 01, 2009, 09:29:42 AM
Maybe we should keep discussing Berkut's views without his input, hold a council to finally determine them in 400 years, and burn anyone who disagrees with the council. :P
I will happily submit to the righteous Orthodoxy of the one true Berkutian Church.
Quote from: Valmy on July 01, 2009, 09:00:26 AM
Studying something that will have a practical effect on the world doesn't strike me as very crazy.
Except that the Bible itself doesn't have any practical effect on the world. Only people's selective interpretations of selected portions of it as commandments to themselves have a practical effect on the world.
I don't think anyone who has read it cover-to-cover would argue that it is a clear and complete guide to the "Word of God." Everyone who uses it for "practical purposes" must (and does) add a lot of codicals that essentially replace the Bible's literal words with their own. The latter are the things rewarding when studied, IMO. The Bible itself is almost incidental.
Quote from: grumbler on July 01, 2009, 10:02:14 AM
Except that the Bible itself doesn't have any practical effect on the world. Only people's selective interpretations of selected portions of it as commandments to themselves have a practical effect on the world.
That is true. Studying the Bible itself in isolation from Christian thought on it is not very useful.
Grumbler, you are saying the same thing as Valmy,
If I can convincing people that they ought not create public policy based on Leviticus has a lot more practical effect then convincing someone that Hans Solo shot first.
Quote from: grumbler on July 01, 2009, 10:02:14 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 01, 2009, 09:00:26 AM
Studying something that will have a practical effect on the world doesn't strike me as very crazy.
Except that the Bible itself doesn't have any practical effect on the world. Only people's selective interpretations of selected portions of it as commandments to themselves have a practical effect on the world.
I don't think anyone who has read it cover-to-cover would argue that it is a clear and complete guide to the "Word of God." Everyone who uses it for "practical purposes" must (and does) add a lot of codicals that essentially replace the Bible's literal words with their own. The latter are the things rewarding when studied, IMO. The Bible itself is almost incidental.
You'd make a fine Catholic :cry:
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 01, 2009, 10:04:47 AM
If I can convincing people that they ought not create public policy based on Leviticus has a lot more practical effect then convincing someone that Hans Solo shot first.
Depends upon the person, I suppose, but I am certainly not getting bogged down in a discussion of who shot first! :P
My point is that one should start with the effect, and then trace it back to the cause, rather than trying to "study the Bible" to figure out its effects. While there may have been cases in which a political leader changed his/her mind on a "Bible-based" policy by re-reading the Bible and, say, realizing that the caommandment to "judge not" meant that they shouldn't bash gays, I have never heard of such.
So, I would argue that Bible (or even general theological) studies are not an effective way to approach the "practical effect of the Bible."
Quote from: Tamas on July 01, 2009, 08:59:03 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 01, 2009, 08:55:49 AM
Quote from: Tamas on July 01, 2009, 08:50:01 AM
No. It is EXACTLY the same thing.
Laws are not created based on the sayings in Yoda, so no, its not exactly the same.
The practical effect on the world may be different but both are equally crazy imho
If one madman is holding a gun to my head and another is safely locked up in the loony bin, I will focus my attention more on the former than the latter even though they are both equally insane.
Other than that I don't know what the discussion was about, so I may be totally off.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 01, 2009, 10:05:48 AM
Quote from: grumbler on July 01, 2009, 10:02:14 AM
Quote from: Valmy on July 01, 2009, 09:00:26 AM
Studying something that will have a practical effect on the world doesn't strike me as very crazy.
Except that the Bible itself doesn't have any practical effect on the world. Only people's selective interpretations of selected portions of it as commandments to themselves have a practical effect on the world.
I don't think anyone who has read it cover-to-cover would argue that it is a clear and complete guide to the "Word of God." Everyone who uses it for "practical purposes" must (and does) add a lot of codicals that essentially replace the Bible's literal words with their own. The latter are the things rewarding when studied, IMO. The Bible itself is almost incidental.
You'd make a fine Catholic :cry:
What a terrible thing to say to someone.
Quote from: grumbler on July 01, 2009, 10:13:36 AM
My point is that one should start with the effect, and then trace it back to the cause, rather than trying to "study the Bible" to figure out its effects. While there may have been cases in which a political leader changed his/her mind on a "Bible-based" policy by re-reading the Bible and, say, realizing that the caommandment to "judge not" meant that they shouldn't bash gays, I have never heard of such.
It doesn't go to what you are saying, because I don't know that he changed his mind, but Bush referred to that concerning his decision to not to go after gays politically.
Probably that was just justification for a political decision in a way that would appease his base.
Quote from: grumbler on July 01, 2009, 10:13:36 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 01, 2009, 10:04:47 AM
If I can convincing people that they ought not create public policy based on Leviticus has a lot more practical effect then convincing someone that Hans Solo shot first.
Depends upon the person, I suppose, but I am certainly not getting bogged down in a discussion of who shot first! :P
My point is that one should start with the effect, and then trace it back to the cause, rather than trying to "study the Bible" to figure out its effects. While there may have been cases in which a political leader changed his/her mind on a "Bible-based" policy by re-reading the Bible and, say, realizing that the caommandment to "judge not" meant that they shouldn't bash gays, I have never heard of such.
So, I would argue that Bible (or even general theological) studies are not an effective way to approach the "practical effect of the Bible."
I see your point and I agree. I was assuming that if one studied the Bible in a rational manner then one would conclude that it was no basis upon which to create political policy.
My ideal world is one in which one day people will look upon debates about whether God exists in the same way we view the debates over the true nature of Jesus which occured in the First Millenium BCE - a debate which has no relevance to us now but is interesting when placed in its historical and cultural context.
But until that day comes Bible study is still important if for no other reason then as a way for those who consider themselves to be Christian to evaluate the validity of their beliefs.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 01, 2009, 11:17:15 AM
But until that day comes Bible study is still important if for no other reason then as a way for those who consider themselves to be Christian to evaluate the validity of their beliefs.
I would agree with this. As in all things, one can usefully study for the insight it brings to one's own thinking. That kind of result isn't what i was referring to when discussion "practical effects," though (but maybe it was for others).