[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 251 KB, 1707x2560, 1553122747311.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12833885 No.12833885 [Reply] [Original]

How do Christians reconcile with the fact that there are different editions of the Bible, and that theoretically works against the book being words from God?

>> No.12833954

What do you mean by "words from God"?

>> No.12833956

>>12833885
By having many interpretations of what it means to be Word of God. Some get close to syncretism, some get close to masturbation.

>> No.12833967

>>12833956
>some get close to masturbation

My first foray into theology and it's started with the 19th and 20th century German search for historical Jesus (source theory and all that). Maybe I'm just stupid but it all seems like intellectual masturbation so far with a few insights here and there.

>> No.12833968

>>12833885
When they found out, they didn't react very well. They went on a killing spree for around a hundred years

>> No.12834012

>>12833885
Many don't have any issue with it, as it's just a church acknowledging that a certain set of books in their original were each divinely inspired. (Not even just a catholic/orthodox thing, many protestant groups could make a similar claim) Gets rather tricky to reconcile sola scriptura with different versions or selections, but sola scriptura is a contradictory mess anyways.

>> No.12834018

>>12833968
I can't ever tell if you're just bad at composing your thoughts or if you're doing it for attention but either way it's a waste of your life.

>> No.12834035
File: 13 KB, 192x293, 9781842126097_p0_v5_s192x300.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12834035

Unlike Islam, Christianity does not consider their holy book literally dictated by God (except the Law), more ghost-written.

>> No.12834036

>>12833885
This is a dumb post, but: even the most out-there Christians only hold that verbal plenary inspiration only applies to the original autographs.

>> No.12834045

>>12834018
>Timeline of Reformation History (1517-1685)
OVER a hundred years. Happy now?

>> No.12834059

>>12833885
the average christian doesn't read the bible and the ones that do just pick the parts they like and ignore the rest; hope this helps

>> No.12834069

>>12834059
>the average christian doesn't read the bible
Correct.
>and the ones that do just pick the parts they like
No.
>and ignore the rest
No.

>> No.12834098

>>12834035
Why would God allow to ghost write his principles and make them prone to impurity injection?

>> No.12834118
File: 2.24 MB, 330x166, 1550301191257.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12834118

>>12834045
>doubling down
cringe and bluepilled

>> No.12834132

>>12834045
Wait, you weren't joking in >>12833968? That's a shockingly poor account of the Reformation.

>> No.12834186

>>12833885
Septuagint
>>12834098
Because his principles are so easily understood that they come in parables, and not in the form of juristic acts like in the Quran.

>> No.12834195

>>12833885
Anything not part of the Catholic Church is heretical and schismatic, including the wacky KJV

>> No.12834273

I have a minor in biblical studies, know koine greek, and studied textual criticism (e.g. how we know the manuscripts are reliable etc.). AMA

>> No.12834278

>>12834045
Mr. "I know everything" please fck off to reddit already

>> No.12834289
File: 60 KB, 1024x1004, 1553625519989.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12834289

>>12834273
Listen kiddo, textual criticism is a Jewish/jesuit plot to undermine the doctrine of sola scriptura. Metzger is shit and James White is a Wolf in sheep clothing hmmmm kay ?

>> No.12834292

>>12834069
cope

>> No.12834297

>>12834289
good textual criticism actually recognizes how reliable scripture is, pleb

>> No.12834328

>>12834273
Your comment on OP's question?

>> No.12834406

>>12833885
It's true that the handing down of the New Testament was a very human and flawed procedure, indicating that "god" didn't actually participate in the preservation of the texts at all, but to say that there are different editions is an overstatement. Yes, there are more textual variants in the New Testament than there are words, but most of these variants come down to spelling mistakes or inconsequential word changing. What's interesting however is that some of the most popular Christian biblical quotes are now known to have been added in later by scribes. It has been discovered, for example, that the number of the beast might not be '666' but '616'. Similarly the quote in Luke, 'Father forgive them, for they know not what they do' is now universally accepted as a scribal fabrication.
I can't remember many more examples off the top of my head but I know that there are some whole paragraphs, even, that were not in the original texts. Studying textual criticism was probably one of the main influences on my conversion to agnosticism.

Here's a very interesting debate between two leading scholars in the field:
https://youtu.be/TVlapUsHxhg

And a lecture:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IPAKsGbqcg

>> No.12834413
File: 19 KB, 300x250, hmM6meEh3f-6.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12834413

>>12833885
>How do Christians reconcile with the fact that there are different editions of the Bible, and that theoretically works against the book being words from God?
As with other glaring issues with religious beliefs, they either ignore it or bullshit their way through the unsolvable problems.

>> No.12834550

>>12834328
Words in every language have semantic range. When you translate from one language to another there will inevitably be a difference in words.

Also, there are tons of "editions" of the Bible because new manuscript evidence surfaces and good editions adapt. It's also worth noting that when they "adapt" it's not over anything important for doctrine, just simple wording.

>> No.12835411

>>12834273
Your thoughts on the Westar Institute seminars?
Most notably their proposition that Acts was written early 2nd century.

>> No.12836025

>>12834132
>poor account
It is rather brief. I’m sure there was some year or two of rest between the bloodshed, with many side issues unfolding, but largely it was war of religious interpretation

>> No.12836693

>>12834406
Great post, anon. Interesting to hear of a former Christian who became an agnostic, most today seem to turn straight to atheism, at least those online.

>> No.12837405
File: 705 KB, 2940x1974, 1550793181505.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12837405

Most Christian sects acknowledge that the Bible was written by multiple different authors and compiled over the better part of 2000 years. It's different from the Islamic belief that the Qur'an is literally the word of God. Theologians across the Christian world have been debating about the contradictions and textual criticism of the Bible since before the Bible was actually canonized.

>>12834406
This post is also correct.

The trip in this thread is a waste of bandwidth.

>> No.12837608

>>12833968
and you were calling people anti-intellectual in that thread yesterday. LOL

>> No.12838847

>>12833885
"Words from god" is some neoprot American shit.

Honest Orthodox thinkers treat the Bible as a book, and while still divinely inspired, nothing than a book with it's own limitations.

Everything spanning from Catholics and then continuously going westwards in terms of spiritual thought, need to be purged from the face of the earth.

>> No.12838850

Orthodoxy.

>> No.12838851

>>12834059
>the average christian doesn't read the bible

and that's a good thing.

Plebs need to fuck off. Only in primitive western societies does this idea of equal understanding of spirituality make sense. In actual developed spiritual peoples, the pleb shuts up and obeys what his sacerdot says, and engulfs it into his daily spiritual rituals.

The west is just a collective wankfest over who's right and who wants to be louder. They're too primitive to practice daily spirituality and more primitive to understand it beyond their primitive means.

>> No.12838852

>>12834273
Is koine greek easy once you learn the alphabet? plox

>> No.12838859
File: 103 KB, 543x573, 1549878522080.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12838859

>>12834406
>Religions evolve and have their sacred texts added up over the course of centuries

>Therefor that religion is wrong

I'm surprised you haven't just converted to islam, or killed yourself yet for being so retarded.

Also
>Erhman

Yeah, definitely a fedora tipper.

>> No.12838876

>>12833885

"Monoscripturalism" would actually fall prey to your argument. That which is required of a single text for the pretense of Divine authorship is as cryptic as it is untenable.

>> No.12838913

>>12836025
I hate tripfags so godamn much.

>> No.12838921

>>12838852
Not the anon you were asking, but I also have been studying koine greek for a year. The alphabet is the simplest thing, the biggest pain in the ass are verbs, becouse it's a shitshow. Also, hard to translate (I'm Spanish, so maybe it's harder for us than for an Englishman).

>> No.12838957

>>12838921
It's probably more difficult for English speakers, since they're frequently monolingual, while their native language has no declension and gendered nouns, so they don't have a conceptual basis for learning how they work in Greek.

>> No.12838995

>>12834406
I think the "whole paragraph" you're thinking of is the one about Jesus and the adulteress where Jesus says the famous quote, "let those without sin cast the first stone". The whole story is now known to be a later addition by a scribe yet it is a very foundational passage for Christian doctrine of forgiveness.

>> No.12839000

>>12838859
The conventional Christian doctrine has been that the authors of the original texts were divinely inspired, not the scribes. You can make that case but you are nevertheless left with the problem of contradiction, e.g. 666 or 616?

>> No.12839014

>>12839000

>MUH CONTRADICTIONS

You don't know what that means. You've read too much into Erhman and his aberrations.

>> No.12839076

>>12838957
>>12838921
is it easier for a germanic than a romance guy? I'm swedish, so inflections and shit is easier for me than anglo.

>> No.12839133 [DELETED] 

If god is perfect, and morality is as part of the universe as math is, then why are there things in the new testament that aren't immoral in the old?

>> No.12839139

>>12839133

The Tanakh has nothing to do with Christianity nor the Good News.

>> No.12839144

If god is perfect, and morality is as much as a part of the universe as math is, then why are there things that are immoral in the old testament that aren't immoral in the new?

Worded my question wrong so I deleted and rewrote.

>> No.12839150

>>12839144
Because >>12839139

>> No.12839154

>>12839139
But it's supposed to be inspired by God as well.

>> No.12839160

>>12839154
No, see >>12838847

>> No.12839165

>>12839160
So honest human mistakes in writing account for God supporting genocide and slavery?

>> No.12839182

>>12839165
>genocide and slavery
That's the Jewish understanding of God and as such their works have no relation to the Christian understanding of God as a merciful being that loves his creations, even though imperfect.

>> No.12839651

>>12839076
Same spanish anon here. Your language has little to no Greek influence (unlike romance languages), so that's a clear downside. On the other hand, you do have a much more similar morphology and syntax, I think. Accusative and dative cases, etc.

>> No.12840926

>>12834035
Are you serious? Then why are you following it if it's a man-made law, basically?

>> No.12840933
File: 46 KB, 446x553, 1442374243430.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12840933

>>12833885
If Christians could come to terms with hard truths they wouldn't be Christians.

>> No.12840940

>>12839014
The number of the beast is 616 in the earlier manuscripts, yet in the later versions it appears as 666. This is a contradiction. If you're making the case that the scribes, as well as the authors, were divinely inspired (apparently inspiring them to not make any mistakes at all was too big an ask for god) then you should be prepared to address the contradictory textual variants.

>> No.12840947

>>12839014
>"Muh"
Epic dude! That'll show him that you know better

>> No.12840986

>>12833968
wtf i love tripfags

>> No.12841768

>>12840940
These small textual details are literally irrelevant unless you're some US neo prot bible fundamentalist. Which Erhman grew up as and which he makes such a big deal out of. Protip, it's not.

>> No.12841967

Well basically it comes down to "it's just INSPIRED by god and we'll arbitrarily pick and choose what is literal truth or history and what is just a myth or allegory"

>> No.12841990

>>12839182
Are they not the same God? Are you denying the Old Testament as being a valid account of God, and this God being the one that Christ spoke for, was "son" to, and one with? Every Christian I speak to seemingly has a different doctrine, I genuinely don't even know what "Christianity" means at this point.

>> No.12841996
File: 311 KB, 960x740, 150903777493.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12841996

>>12833885
They just keep believing whatever nonsense a group of Jews wrote two thousand years ago, why would they think about or even question that?

>> No.12842016

>>12841990
The anon you're responding to clearly has no idea what he's talking about. The Old Testament is very important for Christians, and should be treated as such. The entirety of the Old Testament shows the genealogy of Jesus, and God's promise to redeem mankind. Thinking that the Old Testament God is not as loving and compassionate as the New Testament, and that they are different in the first place, is to be wholly ignorant and missing the point entirely. Watching anons talk about the bible on this board is more infuriating than their attempts to understand even the most basic of literary classics.

>> No.12842123

>>12842016
Well you might be right, but it really becomes difficult to even discuss theology with Christians when seemingly every other person I speak with spouts a different narrative. What he said regarding the "Jewish vs Christian" conception of God is not a new sentiment for me to hear, but at this point it feels like I don't even have a stable doctrine to respond to at all, since what I hear in one instance conflicts with something heard in another.

>> No.12842132

>>12841967
Literally this, they know exactly what to say to weasel their way out of any situation they're placed in.

>> No.12842218

>>12842123
Well, the main problem is that not only do most Christians not even bother to actually read the Bible, but that everyone is so caught up in separate sects and arguing over who got it right or wrong. Surely the schism and ideological differences between Catholics and Protestants are insignificant in comparison to the sublimity of Isaiah's prophecy being fulfilled with the ministry of Jesus Christ.

The answer to every question you could possibly have is in the Bible. God is not so mysterious or uncaring as to not give you anything to go on. Varying interpretations and disagreements is a product of mans arrogance and confusion, brought about via the separation from God. This concept is shown, rather lengthily, in both the book of Judges and Samuel. With the lesson being to remember the word of God, and to take him at his word without any deviation; as his word is absolute and without imperfections.

>> No.12842221

>>12833885
how do you reconcile with the fact that your mom carnally knew dozens of different men from all races?

>> No.12842228

>>12841990
You can't read can you. I said those are two different understandings of god, not that they're different gods.

>>12842016
You're either a catholic or a filthy protestant. They're the biggest jew enablers among christians and should be ashamed of it.

>> No.12842235

>>12842218
>Reading the bible

Unless you plan to become a priest you have absolutely no reason to read the Bible. This is not about you or anyone else. Nobody gives a shit what peasants think. Stop reading the Bible and stay away from it. If you want to be a good Christian do as your Bishop tells you.

>> No.12842301

>>12842228
The anon you replied to specifically mentioned the "slavery and genocide" found in the Old Testament, which you seemed to relegate to being the "Jewish understanding of God", which I then questioned you as not being the same God which Christians worship and which Christ is part of (in the Trinity), since those are undeniably connected to said God. Yet there isn't anything to "understand" or interpret, the condonement of genocide and slavery are undeniable textual facts of the Old Testament, but you seemed to make these out to be "doctrinal differences" between the Jewish and Christian "beliefs" of God. Doesn't really square.

You're also berating the other anon without a single argument, so I'll just assume you really do have no clue of what you're speaking of, and won't expect a coherent response from you.

>> No.12842307

>>12842235
If you said this seriously, I think it's time to re-evaluate your entire faith, anon.

>> No.12842372

>>12842301
>Doesn't really square

It's because you have a lousy a priori understanding of what spirituality is in it's institutionalised form let alone know basic things from the Judaic or Christian religions, where in the later the old covenant was no longer valid the moment Christ was resurrected.

>>12842307
You're a prot, aren't you? Shove your equality and peasant tier understanding of Christianity up your ass. Because ultimately that where all protestant authority derives from, peasant who's only intellectual capability has historically been digging up dung and feeding livestock. Go back to your farm, peasant. Don't touch holy texts which are beyond your feeble comprehension.

>> No.12842417

>>12842372
But God did support them at some point, right? And there is no human error in our saying so? That's what the anon you replied to was asking. And you responded saying "that's the Jewish understanding of God, not the Christian one". But they're the same God, so your comment didn't make any sense. Why are you acting like there were two differing "understandings" of God, when it was only one continuous narrative, spanning pre-Christ to post-Christ?

You also seem quite the angry fellow. Perhaps therapy would do better for you first, and you can worry about "spirituality" after that.

>> No.12842434
File: 152 KB, 720x412, infographic-types-of-bible-translations_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12842434

>>12833885
While God and His Word are unchanging, He did not create His people to be unchanging - this applies to our cultures and languages and as such we have a constantly evolving understanding of His unchanging Word.

>> No.12842452

>>12833885
What are the different editions of the bible that you speak of?

>> No.12842457

>>12842417
>God acts like a polytheist deity and gives personal favour to men

This shit right here is exactly why i advocate plebs don't touch the bible and ruin it with their pleb eyes. You do know what you advocated right now is borderline blasphemy? 2000 years of Christianity passed so that a retard on the internet can claim God's ultimate will in the universe is giving props to some desert nomadic sheep herders in the middle of the desert. Moreso when this particular understanding of God permeates in the entire Tanakh and not even once in the Good News, which by then was considered obsolete as Jesus became the Christ, but still included into the Christian corpus the purpose of institutionalised legitimacy.

Stop talking about things you don't know about and do something useful with your life.

>> No.12842499

>>12838995
>Christian's LITERALLY have fan fiction in their holy book

Lol as if there weren't enough reasons to see christianity as a joke

>> No.12842506

>>12841768
Okay what about the big textual details? Such as Jesus calling himself "I AM" in john and all the other gospels somehow forgetting he said that? Are there not huge implications behind that?

>> No.12842512

>>12842499
You haven't heard of the Upanishads either, i reckon.

>> No.12842519

>>12833885
The Bible was basically just a means by which the West was reintroduced to Aristotle. That's literally all it is valued for culturally

>> No.12842528

>>12842519
Aristotle was unironically introduced to the west by muslims kek

>> No.12842532

>>12842512
Yes yes, all religions are man made fabrications more news at 11

>> No.12842534

>>12842457
Are you claiming the Old Testament to be entirely invalid, or something? Is YHWH not the Christian God, alongside Jesus? Did genocide and slavery not represent YHWH at one point, or not? That's all I'm asking, to which you respond by obfuscation and insult. Stop your sophistry and give me a proper answer.

God's law changed after Christ came, but the articles above were once parts of that law, right? You and the Jews worship the same God, right?

>> No.12842536
File: 36 KB, 249x320, RAMBAM.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12842536

>>12842519
>t. Maimonides

>> No.12842552

>>12842512
Deflecting to other completely unrelated scriptures when those from yours come under fire? What do you think this achieves?

>> No.12842554

>>12842506
You seem to read Erhman but like most of his followers seem to lack the grasp of his own ideas.

None of the gospels were written with the intent of creating scripture. John's gospel could may as well be considered a particular community's own understanding of Jesus and his nature, as well as his role in the entire story behind his ministry. As such they produced their own commentary which has differences from the other gospels.

I've yet to understand why the people suffering from religious anxiety, who point to these things make such a big deal out of it, as if there can't be any means by which differences could be explained and put into context.

Generally i found these to be biblical literalists and fundamentalists, to which it'd be better if they simply converted to islam if being told what to do in a literal sense is all they seek in life.

>> No.12842559

>>12842532
Religions might be man-made but human connection to the divine is real bucko

>> No.12842567

>>12842228
Your religion is literally Jewish lmao, who are you trying to fool?

>> No.12842568

>>12842559
How do you know?

>> No.12842569

just the same way it's easy for you to understand that there are many ways to interpret any historical document. there are always going to be disagreements. misinterpretations. lies. but also parts truth.

t. not Christian, but do believe Jesus was an ascended master

>> No.12842584

>>12834012
>but sola scriptura is a contradictory mess anyways
How so? If I recall correctly sola scriptura was used by luther to defend his theses, i.e. any argument against the theses had to be based on scripture or else he wouldn’t renounce them.

>> No.12842593

>>12842534
The Tanakh no longer applies, although it's moral prescriptions are optional. I personally am of the belief that it's pure intellectual dishonesty as the relevant and good parts of it were already absorbed into the Good News while the useless ones were abandoned by Christ, and as such disregarded in Christianity (Like circumcision or dietary laws).

>Is YHWH not the Christian God

The Christian name for God is Theos. His son is the Logos.

>You and the Jews worship the same God, right?

Same god =/= Same understanding of God

As it was previously said, it's the same god understood differently by different religions. Judaics understand him as their personal protector who will give them material benefits, Christians understand him as the only point of existing so that after death we can live in his bliss. Muslims have their own understanding, and each name and write different understandings of Him.

>> No.12842613

>>12842552
>under fire

Maybe for some poor and insecure catholic of protestant. There's nothing to be insecure about religious texts, which are exactly that, man made texts which are available to limited human understanding. Which is severely lacking on behalf of your part.

>> No.12842620

>>12842554
The problem is when people are trying to create a formal doctrine out of these same disparate texts, and not merely disparate in the first place, but having numerous scribal alterations afterwards? How do you even know what's real at this point, and what's a mere error of memory and judgement? If you don't, your entire worldview now revolves around a falsehood that you mistook for a reality.

The other anon points out that the whole story of the adulteress is a fabrication - do you not see the significance of this? That such a foundational story and precept (which people use to showcase the stoning condoned in the OT as being invalid now, for example) was nothing more than some human's fanfiction? And everyone quoting this or another false passage to assert something is actually appealing to a lie?

>> No.12842627

>>12842567
>Your religion is literally Jewish lmao

Nah

>> No.12842636

>>12842627
>orthocucks in denial

>> No.12842646

>>12842554
>As such they produced their own commentary which has differences from the other gospels
Everyone who reads Ehrman is well aware of the very human construction of these texts. The point that you're failing to grasp and grapple with, is that discrepancies have huge implications for more than just fundies.

So lets go back to the example. Do almost all Christians believe Jesus to be divine? If so why do they think this? If they think it because the gospel of john says so, then the question becomes is what the gospel of john says true?

So unless you wanna argue that people DONT think the gospel of johns sayings about the divinity of jesus influence people to think jesus was god, then this is an important difference.

>> No.12842664

>>12842636
If you're so sure of your convictions and if you hold to them in truth why do you feel the need to push them on others?

Enjoy eternal damnation.

>> No.12842667

>>12842593
>The Christian name for God is Theos. His son is the Logos.
t. pagan

>> No.12842672

>>12842664
Oh, I'm not fearing eternal damnation.
You on the other hand should.

>> No.12842691

>>12842620

We do know that Jesus is real, that he started his ministry, that he preached, and that he died for his message. Furthermore we are sure that he also rose from the dead and appeared to his followers.

That's literally the entire foundation of Christianity. The rest is simply text from which theology can be discussed and put into context.

Make no mistake Christianity is still an infant religion and it's structure still relatively volatile and not solidly defined yet compared to other religions.

>How do you even know what's real at this point

Practice your knowledge, and you will come to see.

>entire worldview now revolves around a falsehood that you mistook for a reality.

If you define your reality into such binary concepts then your spirituality is still in it's infancy and are rather looking for a bigger purpose handed to you in a convenient platter, rather than truth.

Convert to Islam. There you will find everything what you seek. Leave Christianity to exist and evolve in peace.

>> No.12842702

>>12834186
Hey retard. The old testament is still a part of the Bible and that is indubitably the word of God. So you're saying only half the word of God was precise but then the other half was magically inspired without having to be divinely spread? More contradictions

>> No.12842707

>>12842691
Literally nothing you said has any meaning

>Bruh practice your like knowledge and shit

>you are looking for a bigger purpose rather than truth
What is the truth than to you? You've been so vague that it could mean literally anything.

>> No.12842713

>>12834045
>Happy now?

Not since I was a child...

>> No.12842718

>>12842646
>discrepancies have huge implications for more than just fundies.

Like what?

>Do almost all Christians believe Jesus to be divine?

These are semantics. Small details that early Christians already thought of, as specially the first church figures who compiled the canon as to provide a textual basis for what was believed in their time. It's already been addressed. And for such a measly detail you don't need to look further than what is stated in scripture.

Pointing out beliefs stated differently in different time period in the good news doesn't make a contradiction.

>> No.12842742

>>12842707
Objective truth cannot be any other truth than spiritual truth. How that spiritual truth is revealed depends on each person's understanding.

Trust what Jesus as the Christ means to you on an intimate level. Meditate on what his message means to you personally and you will come to see the answer.

If not, then you are completely lost. Do not seek rewards or bliss in Christianity, for it will disappoint you and lead to your downfall.

>> No.12842747

>>12842593
The point is that the Tanakh and whatever's in it did apply to your God at one time, and therefore can always be said to have been historically true for your God at some point, regardless of what Christ later changed.

You seem to be conceiving your own mythology, no offense. The Old Testament provides a firm historical account of your God, does it not? Everything with Abraham, Moses inbetween and after remains true of him, does it not? And Genesis as well? You can't simply discard all of this because you decide to. You desire to separate Christianity from Judaism into two distinct religions - yet Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism, and can never be separated from it without losing much of its own self in the process. Christ referred back to the Jewish prophets often, for example, so it's clear that everything surrounding them must still be valid for Christians to know and follow.

You seem to have an identity crisis, involving disliking Jewish culture while also partaking in it, but aligning yourself with purely Greek conceptions of things. Christ was a Jew, and if you worship Christ you worship a Jew. Christ most likely spoke Aramaic, and would have referred to God in such terms. Your religion began entirely Jewish, and only later on received a Greek varnish over it, which it now continued as a syncretism of the two.

Why are you also now claiming Muslims to worship the same God, when so much of their scriptures don't agree with yours? They can't all be right, but you seem to be attempting some kind of pan-Abrahamism that unites them all. There's no point calling it the "same God" if the doctrines are so different, because they couldn't all properly represent the same one, and some must speak falsely for God by that token.

>>12842613
But why does someone suddenly bring up a random Sanskrit scripture when their own are being criticized? What relation does it have to this discussion?

>>12842664
That wasn't me by the way.

>>12842691
I'm not interested in becoming Christian or Muslim. We're having a religious discussion here. And the problem brought up is quite serious for a scripturally-dependent religion like Christianity. The other anon here >>12842646 continues to elaborate why. But I'm just saying that you can't create much of a formal doctrine if you don't even know what's true from the text in the first place. Yes, I know about those general details of Jesus's person, but that's not really enough to create a formal culture around, and follow. Christianity has also had 2000 years of existence now, how much longer does it need to "evolve", or "solidly define" itself?

>> No.12842781
File: 203 KB, 1251x770, canaletto-return_of_the_bucentoro_to_the_molo_on_ascension_day1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12842781

>>12833885
Christ left us with a church, not a book. Through His mystical body (the church/magesterium/traditions) we can fully understand Him and the bible.

>> No.12842783

>>12841996
cringe

>> No.12842802

>>12842747
I've never seen so many idiot preconceptions regarding Judaism and Christianity in a single post. It figures you're not a Christian or Muslim, what religion are you? In either case you're lost my friend, go and study before you post.

>> No.12842808

>>12842783
Isn't it though!?

>> No.12842944

>>12842802
Sure friend, and you keep pretending your religion isn't Jewish, that it's actually Greek, that Jesus wasn't ethnically Semitic, spoke a Semitic tongue, had a Jewish name, referred to God by a Jewish name, observed Jewish customs, revered Jewish prophets, that the Old Testament is entirely void in every regard at this point, and whatever else you've clearly alluded to believing. You've created your own religion, which you now follow. Actual Christians, like some of your responders here, wouldn't even acknowledge you as one of them.

>> No.12842961

>>12842944
Whatever it is that tickles your pickle friend. If you're so sure about your (lack) of ideas then there's nothing much left i can tell you other than to pick up a book and leave your prejudice and preconceptions aside.

Cheers

>> No.12842992

>>12842808
yeah

>> No.12842995

>>12842961
I have no prejudices, nor preconceptions. I'm stating what I consider elementary facts. If they're not facts, and are errors, it's your duty to correct them for our discussion. That's what discussion is. Instead I receive insults, empty of arguments. Your religion is an offshoot of Judaism, and is therefore steeped quite heavily in Jewish culture by nature. This is not prejudice, except maybe to you, who seeks to separate yourself from Semitism as much as you can. The Old Testament is still extremely essential to your religion, and one that true Christians still follow much of, and derive their understanding of Jesus by. Your comments of earlier are actually heretical by the standards of your own religion. I could go on, stating more basic points, but you'll instead simply return insults towards me and leave my remarks unaddressed.

>> No.12843000

>>12842808
Hey are you seriously 47? :3

>> No.12843019

>>12842995
Do and feel as you wish. Acknowledging a lack of knowledge is not an insult. You have a firm set of beliefs entrenched deeply in your personal understanding of Orthodox Christianity but overall a simplistic and formal one at that.

It's not my duty to give lectures on anonymous websites as you have plenty of material available elsewhere if you would be willing to set aside what you believe are 'elementary facts'.

What i will tell you however, is that treating Christianity as a single monolith simply distorts how you should be viewing it instead.

>> No.12843033
File: 171 KB, 840x990, 1434829745236.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12843033

>>12843000
>>/lit/thread/S12837728#p12837925

>> No.12843833

I would say the different source materials are different statements made by God.
Not sure about the different geneologies of Christ.
Translations are a different matter, and have more to do with language and politics changing over time.

>> No.12843836

>>12834035
Bingo

>> No.12843840

>>12840926

Because man-made laws are superior to laws given by a lawgiver. Hence the superiority of societies with a Christian history versus those with an Islamic history.

>> No.12843849

>>12834413
>my only experience with Christian's are with my dumbfuck uncle at thanksgiving
Looks like his low IQ runs in the family

>> No.12843860

>>12843033
it's really weird to see you post like you do, knowing you're 47

>> No.12843964

>>12843833
Why would god have different statements that conflict?

>> No.12843978

>>12843964
I have struggled with that question for many years. Maybe God doesn't see truth as a constant, literal object. Maybe analogous things are still true, or truth can be more allegorical.
I honestly don't know.
What do you think?

>> No.12843989

>>12843964
Humans wrote the Bible. Humans canonized, copied and translated its books.

It bears the mark of their handiwork.

If a man wrote a great poem, spelled a few words wrong and accidentally called Adonis Adonai, would you conclude the whole thing to be uninspired nonsense?

>> No.12844120

>>12843989
If god can make the miracle of inspiring these divine words, can't he make the miracle of making sure they don't fuck up really stupid shit?

But what you're totally missing is that its not just misspelling something here or there. I dont care about that at all. But there are serious theological issues with certain sacred scriptures that really matter to the people who believe in them. Is jesus god? It really depends on whether or not John is right. And if you want to claim that these books in any meaningful way claim to be the inspired word of god then these issues are important.

>>12843978
At that point if god doesn't see truth as constant then god is extremely unintelligible and no point in trying to figure out what he thinks.

>> No.12844129

>>12833885
just have faith bro

>> No.12844162

>>12844120
The Bible has remarkable consistency. For example there are two geneologies of Jesus, but all agree Jesus is a descendent in the flesh of David.

John is fairly clear on the divinity of Jesus. Mark barely hints it. All say Jesus is lord, all say he died and was resurrected, all say he healed, expelled demons and taught in parables.

There is a clear picture that emerges from the consistencies. I think it is good to read the Bible while thinking "What is their[the authors] point? What did they mean to say?" And not "This is inconsistent. That seems implausible. This is all nonsense."

>> No.12844258

>>12833967
>My first foray into theology
>started with the 19th and 20th century
>Maybe I'm just stupid
At least you have the self awareness down

>> No.12844269

>>12844258
Thats a pretty critical area of study if one wishes to understand the historical developement of modern readings of the Bible.

It also makes perfect sense as a starting point for anyone trying to fit the circle of Christianity with the square of history.

>> No.12844502

>>12844162
>the bible has remarkable consistency
>For example there are two genealogies

I can't believe this isn't a troll.

>> No.12844799

>>12834413
This. The priest-class is lucky that human beings have flawed minds (cognitive dissonance, emotional behavior, rationalizations, etc.) but they are truly evil for exploiting these people, using fear and manipulation to have them fund their continued existence.