Question for theologically liberal Abrahamic theists

[Nihilist Virus]

What if you see no progression, but a sudden change? Would you still have the same problem?
Let me clarify: it was a change from the regional polytheism to Jewish monotheism. Is that right?

There is a sudden change in that the OT has no mention of demons whatsoever, and then in the NT they seem to be commonplace. Why is this?

 

[juvenissun]

There is a sudden change in that the OT has no mention of demons whatsoever, and then in the NT they seem to be commonplace. Why is this?

If you made a post which clearly says that I have never trolled, then I can easily answer your question.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

If you made a post which clearly says that I have never trolled, then I can easily answer your question.

Thou shalt not bear false witness.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

CS Lewis's concession that many of the stories in the Bible are myths does not imply that the Bible has polytheistic roots, so his views are tangential to the presuppositions in this thread.

It does imply polytheistic roots as Hebrew stories of the Old Testament depict an obvious Monolatric people (Solomon's wives, Micah's Idol, Asherah in the high places, Jezebel and Baal, tophet sacrifice etc.) even though there is always a Monotheistic strand of opposition. So it implies a Monotheistic mythology and people clawed out of a polytheistic people originally depending on what is seen as myth and what not.

 

[cloudyday2]

I failed to see that. Where in the Torah shows a "evolving theology"? Do you mean the evolution from polytheism to monotheism among Israelite?

I don't really want to debate the preface of my question in the OP, because I want to hear from Jews/Christians/Muslims who accept my preface and nevertheless maintain their faith.

There are lots of books on the origins of Judaism for people who are interested. This is an interesting topic, but there is no smoking gun that I could post in this thread. There are scholars in different camps, because there is a lot of educated guesswork. I don't have the energy or the expertise to make a persuasive case. Besides, that isn't why I created this thread. I want to know how the liberal believers make it work.

 

[cloudyday2]

"It seems?" Why do you think that the Jews got their views over centuries from those around them when the Jews had an oral tradition first. What I mean is, if the creation story came first, then it only makes sense that the other religions got their views from the Jews instead of the other way around and they just wrote them down first. It doesn't matter who wrote them first, it's whio had them first.

That is a good point that a story has a date of composition that might be different from the date of being written in some language. Also the stories have dates when they are revised by various religious factions for different reasons. The Torah is interesting, because some scholars see evidence of these edits, and it gives clues to the evolution of the religion. For a revealed religion, I would expect the most important scripture to be preserved unchanged from the date of its composition. I see something very different in the Torah.

EDIT: Here is a book on this topic, that I thought was interesting (for anybody who is curious). Some of the ideas of the authors are probably speculative though.
http://www.jewishbookcouncil.org/book/from-gods-to-god-shinan-zakovitch

 

[Nihilist Virus]

It does imply polytheistic roots as Hebrew stories of the Old Testament depict an obvious Monolatric people (Solomon's wives, Micah's Idol, Asherah in the high places, Jezebel and Baal, tophet sacrifice etc.) even though there is always a Monotheistic strand of opposition. So it implies a Monotheistic mythology and people clawed out of a polytheistic people originally depending on what is seen as myth and what not.

No. Lewis said that fables like the flood point toward the truth of YHWH. Other gods are not necessary or related.

 

[juvenissun]

My question is this: how do you maintain your faith while believing the historical claim I made above? Isn't God supposed to reveal Himself to Moses, as Jesus, to Muhammad, etc.? Why would the historical evolution of these beliefs look so messy?

I've been asking myself why I do not believe in an Abrahamic God, and mostly it is this historical issue.

It was not messy enough. Today, it is messier than ever before.
And the prophecy is: It will become MORE messier in the future.

Why? Because there are more and more interpretations come from "scholars". Take a look of the recently significant two: The Mormons and the Jehovah Witnesses. What have they added to the theology? Do they make some senses with their new ideas?

The Bible has an analogy: If one drove out one spirit in his mind and clean the space up, then there will be 10 spirits come to fill the void. The person will be totally confused.

 

[Hoghead1]

That is a good point that a story has a date of composition that might be different from the date of being written in some language. Also the stories have dates when they are revised by various religious factions for different reasons. The Torah is interesting, because some scholars see evidence of these edits, and it gives clues to the evolution of the religion. For a revealed religion, I would expect the most important scripture to be preserved unchanged from the date of its composition. I see something very different in the Torah.

EDIT: Here is a book on this topic, that I thought was interesting (for anybody who is curious). Some of the ideas of the authors are probably speculative though.
http://www.jewishbookcouncil.org/book/from-gods-to-god-shinan-zakovitch

There is tons of information available through modern biblical studies and scholarship on the dates, authorship, literary composition, etc., of teh Bible. I know there is much solid scholarly information available online.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Thanks, @Nihilist Virus
Jesus is an interesting case for me, because Jesus referred to Moses. Jesus said He was the Son of Man, and that suggests to me an Essene or Enochian Jewish background. There is also the epistle of Jude that refers to characters from the book of Enoch. Many of the sayings of Jesus speak of light and darkness. The Didache mentions the path of light and darkness. All of that is Essene or Enochian IMO.

Jesus referred to Moses, Elijah, and other items from the Bible that many would consider to be myths. However, according to some things I have read, the Essenes did not believe anything in the scriptures should be read literally - very similar to Gnosticism interestingly. If Jesus was an Essene, then He could have mentioned Moses without actually believing that Moses or the Exodus were historical. Furthermore, the followers of Jesus could have created fictional tales about Jesus without feeling that they were deceiving anybody - their audience was expected to look for the deeper meanings of the stories. Then, as Christianity lost its connection to Essene culture, the fictions became literal history.

Coming from a Christian background, the key questions for me are:
Was Jesus a deluded doomsday prophet or somehow divine?
Is there anything of value in Christian theology?
Is it worthwhile to seek God in some way or is that just a waste of my time?
If I seek God, should I seek a Christian-like God, or should I seek a more pantheistic God?
What about my personal experiences where it seemed that God answered prayers or showed me things? Was that the Christian God, a more generic God, or my imagination?
... and on and on

I hear many Christians say that they do not take the Bible literally, but how do they keep Christianity from falling apart?

Christian theology is love others as you would love yourself. There are millions of people that are alive today because of the giving spirit of Christian theology.

Truth is never a waste of time.

God said He is the God of the Bible. That was good enough for me. Yet, we can look at things going on today that confirm the Bible.

God will give answers to prayer and show you things if you are really sincere, if you were sincere I would say they were answers.

 

[Oncedeceived]

^ I'm asking this question, because I realized that I did not leave Christianity as a result of researching all the arguments pro and con. For me it was more like I drifted away from Christianity gradually for non-intellectual reasons. I read a few books about the origins of Judaism and Christianity after I had already drifted away - to reconfirm my loss of faith. This makes me wonder if I overlooked some way to harmonize Christianity with consensus reality. At times it seems that God has answered my prayers or showed me things, so I wonder who this God might be if He exists and the Abrahamic God does not exist. Investigating non-Christian religions has always made me feel a little queasy due to my upbringing. On the other hand, these anecdotes can be explained as ordinary coincidences and hallucinations.

I researched other religions and actually got into all paths lead to God thing. It was God who lead me to His identity. He will you too if you really want to know I am sure.

 

[cloudyday2]

I researched other religions and actually got into all paths lead to God thing. It was God who lead me to His identity. He will you too if you really want to know I am sure.

Thanks

 

[ViaCrucis]

(First off, if you don't agree with what I say next regarding the history of Abrahamic beliefs, then please don't post in this thread. I am looking for answers and ideas as opposed to a debate about history.) ... O.k., with my admittedly limited knowledge of history, it seems that the Jewish beliefs evolved gradually over centuries from earlier polytheistic religions in that region. If you don't agree with me, then that's fine, but don't derail this thread please; I have a question that I want answered.

My question is this: how do you maintain your faith while believing the historical claim I made above? Isn't God supposed to reveal Himself to Moses, as Jesus, to Muhammad, etc.? Why would the historical evolution of these beliefs look so messy?

I've been asking myself why I do not believe in an Abrahamic God, and mostly it is this historical issue.

One could argue for Progressive Revelation here. For me the idea that ideas about God developed over time among the Hebrews doesn't really bother me, and seems even consistent with the Christian teaching of the unfolding revelation of God through history which culminates in Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[cloudyday2]

One could argue for Progressive Revelation here. For me the idea that ideas about God developed over time among the Hebrews doesn't really bother me, and seems even consistent with the Christian teaching of the unfolding revelation of God through history which culminates in Jesus.

-CryptoLutheran

The problem for me is that the theology didn't seem to culminate in Jesus. It seems to have taken several centuries for Christians to decide what Jesus was all about. Many historian think the understanding of Jesus that eventually coalesced was different from the historical Jesus.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The problem for me is that the theology didn't seem to culminate in Jesus. It seems to have taken several centuries for Christians to decide what Jesus was all about. Many historian think the understanding of Jesus that eventually coalesced was different from the historical Jesus.

What makes them think that? The written material was well established very quickly.

 

[cloudyday2]

What makes them think that? The written material was well established very quickly.

Take the Gospel of Thomas as an example. That gospel was extremely popular and apparently just as old as the canonical gospels. The people who canonized various NT books had a particular understanding of Jesus. One of their main criteria for inclusion of books into the canon was conformance with their own theology. That is why the NT books seem somewhat consistent theologically. At the time these NT books were composed, their theology was one of many Christian theologies. When Emperor Constantine became a patron of Orthodox/Catholic Christian theology, the other theologies could no longer compete. That is when the Nicene Creed was created along with the NT canon.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Take the Gospel of Thomas as an example. That gospel was extremely popular and apparently just as old as the canonical gospels. The people who canonized various NT books had a particular understanding of Jesus. One of their main criteria for inclusion of books into the canon was conformance with their own theology. That is why the NT books seem somewhat consistent theologically. At the time these NT books were composed, their theology was one of many Christian theologies. When Emperor Constantine became a patron of Orthodox/Catholic Christian theology, the other theologies could no longer compete. That is when the Nicene Creed was created along with the NT canon.

They were not as old. There is nothing that dates them before 150 AD.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Take the Gospel of Thomas as an example. That gospel was extremely popular and apparently just as old as the canonical gospels. The people who canonized various NT books had a particular understanding of Jesus. One of their main criteria for inclusion of books into the canon was conformance with their own theology. That is why the NT books seem somewhat consistent theologically. At the time these NT books were composed, their theology was one of many Christian theologies. When Emperor Constantine became a patron of Orthodox/Catholic Christian theology, the other theologies could no longer compete. That is when the Nicene Creed was created along with the NT canon.

The consensus in the scholarly community tends to date Thomas no earlier than the 2nd century (some argue for a 1st century date for an original composition with material added later). Its popularity as rivaling the four canonical gospels seems like a bold claim, though I am not aware of much evidence of it. According to late patristic sources the Manicheans were in posession of a Gospel of Thomas, though they argue that the text in question was the product of the follers of Mani.

The NT Canon was created at the time of the Council of Nicea. Both before and after the council the shape of the New Testament Canon was still in flux, though it was limited to a core group of books (homolegoumena) and debate over a selection of disputed books (antilegomena). The idea that Constantine or the council of Nicea had anything to do with the New Testament Canon is popular modern fiction, not history.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[cloudyday2]

They were not as old. There is nothing that dates them before 150 AD.

Some parts of Thomas appear to be older than the canonical gospels and some parts appear to follow. As a result there are some that argue for dating to 40 AD and some for 140 AD (depending on what is meant by the date).

The key would be to demonstrate that the theology of the parts of Thomas that appear to date from 40 AD is consistent or not consistent with the canonical gospels. Maybe some Gnostic heretics used some orthodox scriptures from 40 AD to create a Gnostic gospel in 140 AD. Or maybe the older parts of Thomas are heretical too.

Here is the wikipedia on it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas#Date_of_composition

 

[cloudyday2]

The consensus in the scholarly community tends to date Thomas no earlier than the 2nd century (some argue for a 1st century date for an original composition with material added later). Its popularity as rivaling the four canonical gospels seems like a bold claim, though I am not aware of much evidence of it. According to late patristic sources the Manicheans were in posession of a Gospel of Thomas, though they argue that the text in question was the product of the follers of Mani.

See the previous post #59

The NT Canon was created at the time of the Council of Nicea. Both before and after the council the shape of the New Testament Canon was still in flux, though it was limited to a core group of books (homolegoumena) and debate over a selection of disputed books (antilegomena). The idea that Constantine or the council of Nicea had anything to do with the New Testament Canon is popular modern fiction, not history.

I am aware that the NT canon wasn't finished until after the council of Nicaea. Without Constantine, do you think any of the ecumenical councils would have happened? That is the point I was trying to convey. My understanding is that the proto-orthodox were dominant in Rome and used their money to encourage other churches to follow their theology. That was happening before Constantine, but Constantine pushed for uniform standards for Christianity. He wanted to build churches, and he wanted a Bible in every church, so he pushed for a standard Bible. Constantine was very important. (My old Church was dedicated to St. Constantine, so I read a biography on him )