View Single Post

Default 

October 23rd, 2012, 10:51
Originally Posted by blatantninja View Post
Again, we were talking about the 1st through late 3rd centuries, so what are you asking about the 6th century? Just because one viewpoint became the dominant faith, doesn't negate the existence of other points of view before that. And even in the 6th century, you had several distinct flavors of Christianity (though not as diverse as the earlier Christians differences). The Eastern Church based in Constantinople , though it would not officially break with Rome for a few more centuries, had several important theological differences. The Coptic Church in Egypt had many as well.
You're not even engaging in the second, because you ignore that there never has been and never will be one universal interpretation.
You are arguing in absolutes. Institutions/authorities tend to be streamliners of public opinions and influence of highly influental institutions is still highly influental even if they aren't universal.

My stance is that a modern "let's go back to Christ" can't avoid at least a thousand year baggage of influence from a political institution. What I said should make sense in this frame. I give you the eastern church, which I said 2-3.

Originally Posted by blatantninja View Post
No it isn't, it is fact. What we now call the Gnostic Christians were significantly different than the 'Orthodox' faith. Even within the 'Orthodox' faith, there are several different flavors, as I referenced in my previous post, that have distinct differences. Though they share many of the same basic theologies, we would not have had things like the Great Schism in the 11th century. In the various councils of the 4th century, you have 'Orthodox' Christians arguing whether Christ was man, god, or both. They argued whether there was a Holy Trinity. They argued over just about everything!
I have never argued against diversity in that era. I argued that the mainstream public were clueless about this diversity up to very recently and even today most people are blissfully unaware how diversified Christianity was back then since most people do not care enough to take a class in a secular class in Christian History and most of Christianity are invested in the notion that Christianity is a monolith in which Christians generally agree.

Originally Posted by blatantninja View Post
Again, not really. In the 13th century, you still have distinct Eastern and Western Churches with theological differences. In the west, there were several groups (all of whom ultimately got wiped out unfortunately) like the Cathars that had significant differences with Orthodox Christianity.
Neither contributed to the "stem" I talk about and both institutions were frequently engaged in cleaning up "heresy". As soon as alternate groups obtained greater influence they were soon gone.

Originally Posted by blatantninja View Post
There is no doubt that the Catholic Church was a huge force in the west for most of the last 1600 years or so, and that it was intertwined with the governments. I fail to see how that means that anti-Judaism is straight out of the New Testament. The powers that be certainly used their interpretation of the NT as a justification for anti-Judaism activities, but even within that, you have people arguing against those interpretations. Read on the Crusades, there were quite a few arguments going on about whether the Jews, both in and out of the Holy Land, should be protected or persecuted.
It's not nearly as simple or cut and dry as you like to make it out to be. You are sadly letting your anti-religion bias show.
If dominant/mainstream groups (a) spoke anti-judaic sentiments and made anti-judaic activities and (b) quoted specific biblepassages in support for political actions, thats good enough for me. Such notions were widespread up to the 2nd WW and you still hear the same passages quoted and still with the same interpretion. For someone as invested in Christian history as you are it surprises me you deny that these interpretions do exist and they were mainstream. The anti-judaic passages aren't few either, I have a list with about a hundred passages that go in that direction. These aren't reinterpreted because they are "wrong" according to the bible, but because of guilt from WW2 that made them unacceptable.

"Anti-religious bias" is an ad-hominem and red herring btw. I study culture and I take the concept of memetics very seriously meaning I put weight on both influental institutions and human psychology as a natural selector of which ideas are spread or abolished.

Originally Posted by blatantninja View Post
The official list of canonical text were largely set by the 2nd century, officially set by the 4th century, and only rarely altered since. The Catholics use a slightly extended list than the Protestants today. The bulk of the texts used today have been used since the 2nd century (translations withstanding). I have no idea where you get any other idea.Now, some non-canonical texts were more prevalent at various times. In the middle ages, for instance, The Shepard of Hermes (perhaps my favorite non-canonical work) and the Infancy Gospel of James were well known, though still not considered canonical.
The winning group had no power in the 2nd century. The strong rift between supporters of Paul and supporters of hebrew religion still raged in the 3rd. Even assembled the Bible is a blend of two distinct cultures with a different world-view. The tome we know as the "Old Testament" is an even later construct.

Originally Posted by blatantninja View Post
So what you are saying is that people copied and translated the texts, they interpreted them? So now you are agreeing that interpretation has been a constant theme of religion.
No. What I have referred to is a cultural change in which interpreting the one printed bible is promoted. Copyists changes were inofficial and made because the copyist believed a previous copyist made error or changes.

Originally Posted by blatantninja View Post
Timothy 2 isn't a fake, it just wasn't likely attributed properly. Rather than Paul writing it, its is more commonly believed that it was written by one of Paul's followers.
T2 is politically one of the most important texts in the bible so it's also vital whether or not it's written by Paul. It for example holds the strongest anti-woman passages and the key passage for fundamentalists which makes the Bible the ultimate authority like the Quran.

Originally Posted by blatantninja View Post
No one said anti-Judaism sentiments in Europe have been few. The discussion is what is the cause of those sentiments. You assert that Christianity is the cause. The rest of us assert that Christianity has been used as an excuse.
Then that is your fault for misunderstanding the Bible (or even being taught wrong).
The last bit is part of the "inflential interpretors = God" phenomenon I spoke about.

This comment makes no sense from a theistic view. As a Christian my interpretion was guided by the holy spirit. When you question the teachings of God allmighty and claim your human perspective is better you attempt to block God.

It's also a peculiar statement to someone who studied religion, power structures and psychology. It's like you attempt a human social pressure to cause another human to adapt to your personal opinions. I am perfectly fine, and trained, in making my own textual analysis.

As far as I concern there is stronger and more coherent Biblical support for gay-rights and gay-marriage than being pro-jew or pro-judaism.

I claim attempts to be this is more of a sign of an socially adaptive behavior which is a very human thing to do.

I am not a Christian so I do have such problems.

Originally Posted by blatantninja View Post
So because you and others have interpreted the texts in this way, the texts are bad? That makes absolutely zero sense what so ever.
Would you support an incoherent lawbook that allow for multiple interpretions? I have fought badly written laws many times in my life.

Originally Posted by blatantninja View Post
I know plenty of 'unschooled layman' that have never been raging anti-Judaism people, so does their interpretation not count?
Most people follow socially accepted norms and there are no centralised Christianity that enforce one interpretion. Instead you got pop-Jesus who stand for whatever each person like.

Originally Posted by blatantninja View Post
Your narrow focus is sad and disgraceful. This is the type of thinking from where hate develops. I sincerely hope you are not teaching this to anyone else.
To quoque. I study the development of hategroups for a living and one major issue is when a person do not want to acknowledge that their group have inherent problems that they need to correct for but instead take the stance that it's essentially good and all signs of the opposite is caused by individuals or mistakes. Classic fundamental attribution error.

Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine
JemyM is offline

JemyM

JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.

#56

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,028
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM