DharmaChrsitian

Christian Mystic
Jun 17, 2018
18
5
31
San Francisco
✟16,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Hello, I’m a student at a very liberal seminary and would like to see how my perspective holds up here. What I wanna do is lay out some of what I’ve been taught, why i find it convincing, and see if any fundamentalist or evangelical can change my mind, or at least enrich my understanding. Let me emphasize that I believe in the Historical Christ (Yeshua HaMesiak, the messiah), that he was a perfect being, and that genuine prayer to him is entirely effective. Thus do I worship him and therefore claim to be a faithful Christian.

However:

I do not believe in biblical inerrancy.
1. First because of the problem of manuscripts
a) we don’t have the original copies (which suggests the people who wrote them didnt think they were that important)
b) the oldest versions we have were written in Greek when Yeshua and his followers likely spoke Aramaic, which means information has been lost in translation.
c) the earliest copies we do have do not feature chapter and verse breaks, or much punctuation at all. This seems to imply they were not intended for analytical study, and likely were used as support for oral traditions (the dominate form of information dissemination at the time). This suggests the stories of Christ were flexible and extra-biblical.

2) There are many irreconcilable contradictions of plot.
a) In John, Yeshua storms the temple at the beginning of his ministry (John 2:13-16). Yet in the Synoptics this happens at the end of His ministry and is the cause of his arrest (Matthew 21:12–17, Mark 11:15–19, and Luke 19:45–48). This is clearly a description of the same event, yet it happens at different points in different narratives. Meaning somebody must be wrong.
b) He hides his messianism in Mark, and once Peter figures it out He tells the disciples to keep it a secret (Mark 8:29-30). Yet in Luke The Savior openly reveals His messianic nature at the beginning of His ministry (Luke 4:17-21). One of them must be wrong, or at least have gotten the wrong idea.
c) There are more. John claims He is crucified the day before Passover, he Synoptics claim it happens on the holiday itself. They differ on the question of to whom He first appeared (Mark and John says Mary, the others imply Peter or the 12). The list goes on but I think these are these most major ones.

3. Paul almost definitely did not write the pastoral epistles.
a) Titus, 1 & 2 Timothy contain a different writing style (they feature long and convoluted sentences, unlike the letters all scholars believe to be written by Paul) [Note: this is only observable in the Greek. Translators have smoothed it out in the English translation]
b) They contain a different argument style. Paul always does a very good job explaining how Christians should respond to unbelievers (I actually love Paul’s real writing very much if you can’t tell), but these texts simply resort to name calling.
c) They contradict other writings of Paul. Specifically the line about women not speaking in church (I’ll not do it the honor of citing the specific verse), whereas elsewhere he recognizes the authority of female prophets (Philippians 4:2).

This is not even to mention that the cannon was constructed by the same authoritarian structure which became corrupted and which the Protestants rightly broke away from. There are apocryphal texts, some of which are dated in the same range as the canonical gospels (see the gospel of a Thomas in particular), which describe a form of Christianity a lot more like Indian religion and Greek philosophy (that the One is within us, and to know ourselves is to know the One. Thus ‘salvation’ is synonymous with enlightenment). Couldn’t it be possible that the canonical texts are the heresies? If we take a naturalistic approach to mystical experience, we can hypothesize that it’s the same in all world cultures, which is what recent work in neuro-theology suggests.

Fundamentalists have given me the idea that even asking these questions makes me demonic or anti-Christian. Yet I find that liberating my faith to extrabiblical sources has brought me closer to the word of God, which I see as a function of my relationship with God. I feel that when I’m really tuned into God’s omnipresence, I can find the word of God in everything that’s said, in any book, I can really tell that he’s always trying to reach me. It seems to me this is a perfectly valid interpretation of th faith. Why am I wrong? What am I missing? I realize I don’t know everything, and that i might be wrong, but the fact that I can face this and move forward lovingly gives me even more faith.

These are genuine questions that I want to understand:

I.
a)What convinces you that your copy of the Bible is so accurate?
b) What convinces you that the straightforward way you read it is the way it’s supposed to be read?

II.
How do you resolve the fact that the gospels have so blatant factual contradictions?

III.
a) Why is it impossible for a forgery to have made its way into the cannon? (Especially if the Catholic Church became so corrupt).
b) What convinces you that those who set the Cannon were inspired by God but the Pope isn’t?
c) Isn’t that the same organization?

IV. (This is the one I’m most interested in)
a)If it turns out that the truth of Christ is extra-biblical, wouldn’t you want to know?
b)Is it possible that we’ve been wrong about some of the fundamental questions, but that the signs we’ve seen have been Christ loving us anyway?
c) Wouldn’t it be better if all of the world religions (or at least, most of them) were right all along?

(Also, this just cause I'm curious and I’ve never heard a good defense, but why does scripture have to have a limit? Can’t God just keep inspiring us to write new gospels? The argument I always hear is that Revelations ends with the quote about not adding or subtracting from ‘this work’, but of course the writer of Rev would have been talking about his own pamphlet, not the whole Bible -which didn’t exist yet-)

Anyway thanks to anyone whose looked through this much of what I’m saying. I’m Genuinely trying to work towards for a mutual understanding here. God Bless
 

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
It is not an easy task to navigate through the scripture, while noticing mistakes here and there. Yet the promised savior did arrive and fulfilled the scripture.

The whole reason for the scripture is the revelation of Jesus Christ.

In fact, the entire Old Testament is merely a shadow of the reality found in Jesus Christ. If you notice errors here and there, so what?

I only need one gospel and one or two of Paul's letters, then I have everything that I need to access eternal life. Just like many churches in the first century, they only had a letter or two.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JIMINZ
Upvote 0

JIMINZ

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2017
6,600
2,358
79
Southern Ga.
✟157,715.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Hello, I’m a student at a very liberal seminary and would like to see how my perspective holds up here. What I wanna do is lay out some of what I’ve been taught, why i find it convincing, and see if any fundamentalist or evangelical can change my mind, or at least enrich my understanding. Let me emphasize that I believe in the Historical Christ (Yeshua HaMesiak, the messiah), that he was a perfect being, and that genuine prayer to him is entirely effective. Thus do I worship him and therefore claim to be a faithful Christian.

However:

I do not believe in biblical inerrancy.
1. First because of the problem of manuscripts
a) we don’t have the original copies (which suggests the people who wrote them didnt think they were that important)
b) the oldest versions we have were written in Greek when Yeshua and his followers likely spoke Aramaic, which means information has been lost in translation.
c) the earliest copies we do have do not feature chapter and verse breaks, or much punctuation at all. This seems to imply they were not intended for analytical study, and likely were used as support for oral traditions (the dominate form of information dissemination at the time). This suggests the stories of Christ were flexible and extra-biblical.

2) There are many irreconcilable contradictions of plot.
a) In John, Yeshua storms the temple at the beginning of his ministry (John 2:13-16). Yet in the Synoptics this happens at the end of His ministry and is the cause of his arrest (Matthew 21:12–17, Mark 11:15–19, and Luke 19:45–48). This is clearly a description of the same event, yet it happens at different points in different narratives. Meaning somebody must be wrong.
b) He hides his messianism in Mark, and once Peter figures it out He tells the disciples to keep it a secret (Mark 8:29-30). Yet in Luke The Savior openly reveals His messianic nature at the beginning of His ministry (Luke 4:17-21). One of them must be wrong, or at least have gotten the wrong idea.
c) There are more. John claims He is crucified the day before Passover, he Synoptics claim it happens on the holiday itself. They differ on the question of to whom He first appeared (Mark and John says Mary, the others imply Peter or the 12). The list goes on but I think these are these most major ones.

3. Paul almost definitely did not write the pastoral epistles.
a) Titus, 1 & 2 Timothy contain a different writing style (they feature long and convoluted sentences, unlike the letters all scholars believe to be written by Paul) [Note: this is only observable in the Greek. Translators have smoothed it out in the English translation]
b) They contain a different argument style. Paul always does a very good job explaining how Christians should respond to unbelievers (I actually love Paul’s real writing very much if you can’t tell), but these texts simply resort to name calling.
c) They contradict other writings of Paul. Specifically the line about women not speaking in church (I’ll not do it the honor of citing the specific verse), whereas elsewhere he recognizes the authority of female prophets (Philippians 4:2).

This is not even to mention that the cannon was constructed by the same authoritarian structure which became corrupted and which the Protestants rightly broke away from. There are apocryphal texts, some of which are dated in the same range as the canonical gospels (see the gospel of a Thomas in particular), which describe a form of Christianity a lot more like Indian religion and Greek philosophy (that the One is within us, and to know ourselves is to know the One. Thus ‘salvation’ is synonymous with enlightenment). Couldn’t it be possible that the canonical texts are the heresies? If we take a naturalistic approach to mystical experience, we can hypothesize that it’s the same in all world cultures, which is what recent work in neuro-theology suggests.

Fundamentalists have given me the idea that even asking these questions makes me demonic or anti-Christian. Yet I find that liberating my faith to extrabiblical sources has brought me closer to the word of God, which I see as a function of my relationship with God. I feel that when I’m really tuned into God’s omnipresence, I can find the word of God in everything that’s said, in any book, I can really tell that he’s always trying to reach me. It seems to me this is a perfectly valid interpretation of th faith. Why am I wrong? What am I missing? I realize I don’t know everything, and that i might be wrong, but the fact that I can face this and move forward lovingly gives me even more faith.

These are genuine questions that I want to understand:

I.
a)What convinces you that your copy of the Bible is so accurate?
b) What convinces you that the straightforward way you read it is the way it’s supposed to be read?

II.
How do you resolve the fact that the gospels have so blatant factual contradictions?

III.
a) Why is it impossible for a forgery to have made its way into the cannon? (Especially if the Catholic Church became so corrupt).
b) What convinces you that those who set the Cannon were inspired by God but the Pope isn’t?
c) Isn’t that the same organization?

IV. (This is the one I’m most interested in)
a)If it turns out that the truth of Christ is extra-biblical, wouldn’t you want to know?
b)Is it possible that we’ve been wrong about some of the fundamental questions, but that the signs we’ve seen have been Christ loving us anyway?
c) Wouldn’t it be better if all of the world religions (or at least, most of them) were right all along?

(Also, this just cause I'm curious and I’ve never heard a good defense, but why does scripture have to have a limit? Can’t God just keep inspiring us to write new gospels? The argument I always hear is that Revelations ends with the quote about not adding or subtracting from ‘this work’, but of course the writer of Rev would have been talking about his own pamphlet, not the whole Bible -which didn’t exist yet-)

Anyway thanks to anyone whose looked through this much of what I’m saying. I’m Genuinely trying to work towards for a mutual understanding here. God Bless

.
I was able to tell right off the bat, you were a student at a very liberal seminary.
You have managed to express very succinctly what it is you have been taught.

It is for this reason I feel safe in saying, I do not believe anyone will be able to either change your mind, or enrich your understanding.

I believe you have been given more than enough information to last you for the rest of your life.

May God Bless you in your journey.
 
Upvote 0

sea5763

Well-Known Member
May 9, 2018
761
621
33
California
✟59,429.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
I'm not sure exactly what I am, although I do lean more towards Lutheran I think. I personally think the Bible is the word of God. However, I look at the passage you cited at the end of Revelation as a way of saying, yes, the Bible can be altered by people potentially, but whoever alters the Bible will suffer immensely in the next life. I don't see how it could be interpreted differently. That being said, I thought the Dead Sea Scrolls basically showed that the vast majority of the New Testament has been the same for a long time. The differences are minor and the content for all of them is the same. The differences are over 90% just phrasing differences, and if my memory serves correctly it is more like 95% to 99% percent the same between the different Dead Sea Scrolls.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JIMINZ
Upvote 0

HereIStand

Regular Member
Supporter
Jul 6, 2006
4,080
3,083
✟317,987.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Those are good questions. One place to turn in starting to address them is the book God and Philosophy by Étienne Gilson. There were Christians influenced by Greek philosophy, but there are important differences between the two. Gilson pinpoints the key difference between the two: "He who is" (Christianity) versus "that which is" (Greek philosophy).

The notion that 'the One is within us, and to know ourselves is to know the One' is similar to the Greek philosophy of Plotinus. As Philip Cary notes in his lectures on that Augustine looks inward but then upward to seek God. Relating to God for a Christian is more than a journey within ourselves.

The other key related difference between Christianity and classical paganism is noted by Kierkegaard in Fear and Trembling. "In paganism, the tragic hero does not enter into any private relation to the deity." Abraham entered into a private relationship with God, just as we do as Christians.

Beyond this, accepting the authority of Scripture, as Peter Kreeft has pointed out, hinges on accepting the authority of Jesus. If Christ is indeed God, then all of Scripture is to be believed and accepted as trustworthy.

There is nothing wrong with finding insights beyond Scripture. God allows us to enjoy "all things" (1 Timothy 6:17). We should look to these things to illustrate or enrich our faith, not to add to the underlying truth of Christianity itself.
 
  • Like
Reactions: S.O.J.I.A.
Upvote 0

DharmaChrsitian

Christian Mystic
Jun 17, 2018
18
5
31
San Francisco
✟16,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I look at the passage you cited at the end of Revelation as a way of saying, yes, the Bible can be altered by people potentially, but whoever alters the Bible will suffer immensely in the next life. I don't see how it could be interpreted differently.

Like I tried to point out, you can consider that John did not write those words about ‘the Bible’. But only wrote them in reference to ‘Revelation’ itself. Meaning that if a person altered the text of Revelation they’d be messed with, but not the entire Bible. The theologians who set the canon of the Bible did so after hundreds of years after Revelation was written (this is an uncontroversial fact, no one doubts it). If ‘John’ the author of the text didn’t have a Bible and almost definitely died before the Bible ever existed he probably wasn’t talking about the Bible when he wrote that, he was probably just talking about his own book. You may hypothesize that his prophetic ability made him aware that the Bible would be written, and he intentionally wrote this line so that it would apply to the whole Bible, but then why doesn’t he say so? In fact, why don’t any of the books of the Bible ever reference the Bible?

That being said, I thought the Dead Sea Scrolls basically showed that the vast majority of the New Testament has been the same for a long time. The differences are minor and the content for all of them is the same. The differences are over 90% just phrasing differences, and if my memory serves correctly it is more like 95% to 99% percent the same between the different Dead Sea Scrolls.

The Dead Sea Scrolls do not contain any New Testament documents. And therefore do not tell us anything about the historical reliability of New Testament manuscripts. See this list:
List of the Dead Sea Scrolls

There’s are no surviving manuscripts until the second century, over 100 years after christ’s death. A fragment from the Gospel of John called P52 is considered by many to be the oldest New Testament manuscript we have, it’s ealiest dating is around 100AD although most think it’s not that old.
Rylands Library Papyrus P52 - Wikipedia
While your point holds, that it seems to be basically the same in terms of content, it is formatted very different (as I mentioned, there are no verses or chapters. Those were added later.) which suggestes it was read differently, and that its social and spiritual function was different. This is true for the other early fragments as well.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
c) the earliest copies we do have do not feature chapter and verse breaks, or much punctuation at all. This seems to imply they were not intended for analytical study

Sorry, but that's the dumbest argument I've ever heard.

This suggests the stories of Christ were flexible and extra-biblical.

Huh? :scratch:

a) Titus, 1 & 2 Timothy contain a different writing style (they feature long and convoluted sentences, unlike the letters all scholars believe to be written by Paul)

This is quite simply false. All the Pauline epistles, including the Pastorals, feature long and convoluted sentences in the Greek.

Consider this single sentence from Ephesians 5, for example, where the two imperative verbs are marked in bold (all the other verbs are participles and subordinate clauses):

18 καὶ μὴ μεθύσκεσθε οἴνῳ, ἐν ᾧ ἐστιν ἀσωτία, ἀλλὰ πληροῦσθε ἐν πνεύματι, 19 λαλοῦντες ἑαυτοῖς ψαλμοῖς καὶ ὕμνοις καὶ ᾠδαῖς πνευματικαῖς, ᾄδοντες καὶ ψάλλοντες τῇ καρδίᾳ ὑμῶν τῷ κυρίῳ, 20 εὐχαριστοῦντες πάντοτε ὑπὲρ πάντων ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρί, 21 ὑποτασσόμενοι ἀλλήλοις ἐν φόβῳ Χριστοῦ, 22 αἱ γυναῖκες τοῖς ἰδίοις ἀνδράσιν ὡς τῷ κυρίῳ, 23 ὅτι ἀνήρ ἐστιν κεφαλὴ τῆς γυναικὸς ὡς καὶ ὁ Χριστὸς κεφαλὴ τῆς ἐκκλησίας, αὐτὸς σωτὴρ τοῦ σώματος.

There are apocryphal texts, some of which are dated in the same range as the canonical gospels

Actually, they're all at least a century later.

c) Wouldn’t it be better if all of the world religions (or at least, most of them) were right all along?

Since the various world religions contradict each other, that's not actually possible.
 
Upvote 0

DharmaChrsitian

Christian Mystic
Jun 17, 2018
18
5
31
San Francisco
✟16,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Those are good questions.

Thank you for affirming the search

There were Christians influenced by Greek philosophy, but there are important differences between the two. Gilson pinpoints the key difference between the two: "He who is" (Christianity) versus "that which is" (Greek philosophy).

Ah yes, but just because two things are different does not mean they aren’t also the same. Oh course the Lutheranism and Presbyterianism are different, yet of course they are both christians. Billy Graham and Franklin Graham have subtle differences in their theologies, as do all people, because we all have our own personal relationships with God - yet still they believe in the same God. I’m not making the case that we should collapse Chhristianity and Greek Philosophy into the same belief system, they are different and that different creates a richness of diversity whichever i value. I am simply claiming that, if it turns out the Gospel of Thomas is a legitimate part of Christ’s ministry, then He taught a form of salvation which is essentially the same as the Platonic goal. (Albeit in his own unique way, making it more personal, what you noted with the “He who is” opposed to the “That which is”. And then further, I’m also claiming that we should at least take seriously the possibility that the Gospel of Thomas is legitimate, because of all the problems with assuming that the protestant canon represents the limit of scripture.(problems which I noted above, and which you apprently do not think are worth taking seriously.)

The notion that 'the One is within us, and to know ourselves is to know the One' is similar to the Greek philosophy of Plotinus. As Philip Cary notes in his lectures on that Augustine looks inward but then upward to seek God. Relating to God for a Christian is more than a journey within ourselves.

It’s very similar to what all Christian mystics say (and all mystics of all religions for that matter). A personal favorite of mine is Marguerite Porrette, who writes in Mirror of Souls that ‘I have said that I will love Him. I lie, for I am not. It is He who loves me.’ This illustrates what you and what Cary is missing. The realization of the self is not an understanding of our true identity as independent beings, it the realization that there is no independent being called ‘I’, there is only the God within us. This is taught in the mystical streams of Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Zen, Greek Philosophy, Judaism, and Christianity as well. I can provide further examples if you’re curious or not convinced.

The other key related difference between Christianity and classical paganism is noted by Kierkegaard in Fear and Trembling. "In paganism, the tragic hero does not enter into any private relation to the deity." Abraham entered into a private relationship with God, just as we do as Christians.

This is simply untrue. It pains me to say it for Kierkegaard is one of my favorite writers, but here he is mistaken. Do you know anything about the Bahagavd Gita? Th message Is clearly that Arjun enters into a personal relationship with Krishna, and that readers must as well if they are to attain Moksa - “Knowing me as the enjoyer of sacrifices and penances…he finds peace”.

Examples of the same can be found for cults of Isis, Mithra, Demeter, etc. etc. etc.

Beyond this, accepting the authority of Scripture, as Peter Kreeft has pointed out, hinges on accepting the authority of Jesus. If Christ is indeed God, then all of Scripture is to be believed and accepted as trustworthy.

This is an exceptionally passive aggressive way to tell someone that they don’t really accept the authority of God. The Roman Catholics include Enoch in their definition of scripture, do they accept that Christ is God?

Justin Mayrtr claimed on page 35 of Apology, ‘And that these things happened you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.' His definition of scripture included the Acts of Pontius Pilate before there was any power structure to enforced ‘orthodoxy’. Did he have faith in the authority of scriptures and therefore in Christ as God? He was marytered ya know. What about Clement and Origen and Heracleon who believed in the gospel of Peter? The Muratorin canon (earliest canon we have) included the Apocalypse of Peter to be scripture. It goes on and on there really was a lot of disagreement about this before the empire forced everyone to use the same books.

But what I urge you to see is that I do accept the authority of Scripture! I see it everywhere. As it said in John 1, Christ is God’s word. As it is said in Matthew, when we gather in the name of Christ he is with us. Thus the word of God is here and now, this dialogue itself is scripture according to that tired old book you love so much! The word of God is not limited to one book, The Bible itself does not even say so.
 
Upvote 0

HereIStand

Regular Member
Supporter
Jul 6, 2006
4,080
3,083
✟317,987.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Thank you for affirming the search



Ah yes, but just because two things are different does not mean they aren’t also the same. Oh course the Lutheranism and Presbyterianism are different, yet of course they are both christians. Billy Graham and Franklin Graham have subtle differences in their theologies, as do all people, because we all have our own personal relationships with God - yet still they believe in the same God. I’m not making the case that we should collapse Chhristianity and Greek Philosophy into the same belief system, they are different and that different creates a richness of diversity whichever i value. I am simply claiming that, if it turns out the Gospel of Thomas is a legitimate part of Christ’s ministry, then He taught a form of salvation which is essentially the same as the Platonic goal. (Albeit in his own unique way, making it more personal, what you noted with the “He who is” opposed to the “That which is”. And then further, I’m also claiming that we should at least take seriously the possibility that the Gospel of Thomas is legitimate, because of all the problems with assuming that the protestant canon represents the limit of scripture.(problems which I noted above, and which you apprently do not think are worth taking seriously.)



It’s very similar to what all Christian mystics say (and all mystics of all religions for that matter). A personal favorite of mine is Marguerite Porrette, who writes in Mirror of Souls that ‘I have said that I will love Him. I lie, for I am not. It is He who loves me.’ This illustrates what you and what Cary is missing. The realization of the self is not an understanding of our true identity as independent beings, it the realization that there is no independent being called ‘I’, there is only the God within us. This is taught in the mystical streams of Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Zen, Greek Philosophy, Judaism, and Christianity as well. I can provide further examples if you’re curious or not convinced.



This is simply untrue. It pains me to say it for Kierkegaard is one of my favorite writers, but here he is mistaken. Do you know anything about the Bahagavd Gita? Th message Is clearly that Arjun enters into a personal relationship with Krishna, and that readers must as well if they are to attain Moksa - “Knowing me as the enjoyer of sacrifices and penances…he finds peace”.

Examples of the same can be found for cults of Isis, Mithra, Demeter, etc. etc. etc.



This is an exceptionally passive aggressive way to tell someone that they don’t really accept the authority of God. The Roman Catholics include Enoch in their definition of scripture, do they accept that Christ is God?

Justin Mayrtr claimed on page 35 of Apology, ‘And that these things happened you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.' His definition of scripture included the Acts of Pontius Pilate before there was any power structure to enforced ‘orthodoxy’. Did he have faith in the authority of scriptures and therefore in Christ as God? He was marytered ya know. What about Clement and Origen and Heracleon who believed in the gospel of Peter? The Muratorin canon (earliest canon we have) included the Apocalypse of Peter to be scripture. It goes on and on there really was a lot of disagreement about this before the empire forced everyone to use the same books.

But what I urge you to see is that I do accept the authority of Scripture! I see it everywhere. As it said in John 1, Christ is God’s word. As it is said in Matthew, when we gather in the name of Christ he is with us. Thus the word of God is here and now, this dialogue itself is scripture according to that tired old book you love so much! The word of God is not limited to one book, The Bible itself does not even say so.
I affirm the legitimacy of any honest search, however, Christianity isn't an endless search for ultimate truth. Certain answers must be believed and accepted at some point in order for faith to have any foundation or meaning.

The canon of Scripture (Catholic or Protestant) isn't endless. Certain books are excluded for good reasons. Unlike the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospels of the New Testament are narrative eye witness testimonies.

That we are individuals created in God's image is part of Judaism and Christianity. We are not God. Finding Him isn't an endless search within but about faith in how He has revealed Himself to us through Christ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Tolworth John

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 10, 2017
8,278
4,680
68
Tolworth
✟369,559.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
There is othing wrong with asking question, are you prepared for the answers that go against what you believe?
Research Sir William Mitchell Ramsay and what he has to say about the accuracy of Luke.
then try
Robert Dick Wilson and the consquences of his studies into the language and use of in the OT.
he maintained that the OT was what it claims to be.
At a much lower level look at coldcasechristianity for the view of a detective assessing evidence.


 
Upvote 0

bcbsr

Newbie
Mar 17, 2003
4,085
2,318
Visit site
✟193,956.00
Faith
Christian
Hello, I’m a student at a very liberal seminary and would like to see how my perspective holds up here. What I wanna do is lay out some of what I’ve been taught, why i find it convincing, and see if any fundamentalist or evangelical can change my mind, or at least enrich my understanding. Let me emphasize that I believe in the Historical Christ (Yeshua HaMesiak, the messiah), that he was a perfect being, and that genuine prayer to him is entirely effective. Thus do I worship him and therefore claim to be a faithful Christian.

However:

I do not believe in biblical inerrancy.
1. First because of the problem of manuscripts
a) we don’t have the original copies (which suggests the people who wrote them didnt think they were that important)
b) the oldest versions we have were written in Greek when Yeshua and his followers likely spoke Aramaic, which means information has been lost in translation.
c) the earliest copies we do have do not feature chapter and verse breaks, or much punctuation at all. This seems to imply they were not intended for analytical study, and likely were used as support for oral traditions (the dominate form of information dissemination at the time). This suggests the stories of Christ were flexible and extra-biblical.

2) There are many irreconcilable contradictions of plot.
a) In John, Yeshua storms the temple at the beginning of his ministry (John 2:13-16). Yet in the Synoptics this happens at the end of His ministry and is the cause of his arrest (Matthew 21:12–17, Mark 11:15–19, and Luke 19:45–48). This is clearly a description of the same event, yet it happens at different points in different narratives. Meaning somebody must be wrong.
b) He hides his messianism in Mark, and once Peter figures it out He tells the disciples to keep it a secret (Mark 8:29-30). Yet in Luke The Savior openly reveals His messianic nature at the beginning of His ministry (Luke 4:17-21). One of them must be wrong, or at least have gotten the wrong idea.
c) There are more. John claims He is crucified the day before Passover, he Synoptics claim it happens on the holiday itself. They differ on the question of to whom He first appeared (Mark and John says Mary, the others imply Peter or the 12). The list goes on but I think these are these most major ones.

3. Paul almost definitely did not write the pastoral epistles.
a) Titus, 1 & 2 Timothy contain a different writing style (they feature long and convoluted sentences, unlike the letters all scholars believe to be written by Paul) [Note: this is only observable in the Greek. Translators have smoothed it out in the English translation]
b) They contain a different argument style. Paul always does a very good job explaining how Christians should respond to unbelievers (I actually love Paul’s real writing very much if you can’t tell), but these texts simply resort to name calling.
c) They contradict other writings of Paul. Specifically the line about women not speaking in church (I’ll not do it the honor of citing the specific verse), whereas elsewhere he recognizes the authority of female prophets (Philippians 4:2).

This is not even to mention that the cannon was constructed by the same authoritarian structure which became corrupted and which the Protestants rightly broke away from. There are apocryphal texts, some of which are dated in the same range as the canonical gospels (see the gospel of a Thomas in particular), which describe a form of Christianity a lot more like Indian religion and Greek philosophy (that the One is within us, and to know ourselves is to know the One. Thus ‘salvation’ is synonymous with enlightenment). Couldn’t it be possible that the canonical texts are the heresies? If we take a naturalistic approach to mystical experience, we can hypothesize that it’s the same in all world cultures, which is what recent work in neuro-theology suggests.

Fundamentalists have given me the idea that even asking these questions makes me demonic or anti-Christian. Yet I find that liberating my faith to extrabiblical sources has brought me closer to the word of God, which I see as a function of my relationship with God. I feel that when I’m really tuned into God’s omnipresence, I can find the word of God in everything that’s said, in any book, I can really tell that he’s always trying to reach me. It seems to me this is a perfectly valid interpretation of th faith. Why am I wrong? What am I missing? I realize I don’t know everything, and that i might be wrong, but the fact that I can face this and move forward lovingly gives me even more faith.

These are genuine questions that I want to understand:

I.
a)What convinces you that your copy of the Bible is so accurate?
b) What convinces you that the straightforward way you read it is the way it’s supposed to be read?

II.
How do you resolve the fact that the gospels have so blatant factual contradictions?

III.
a) Why is it impossible for a forgery to have made its way into the cannon? (Especially if the Catholic Church became so corrupt).
b) What convinces you that those who set the Cannon were inspired by God but the Pope isn’t?
c) Isn’t that the same organization?

IV. (This is the one I’m most interested in)
a)If it turns out that the truth of Christ is extra-biblical, wouldn’t you want to know?
b)Is it possible that we’ve been wrong about some of the fundamental questions, but that the signs we’ve seen have been Christ loving us anyway?
c) Wouldn’t it be better if all of the world religions (or at least, most of them) were right all along?

(Also, this just cause I'm curious and I’ve never heard a good defense, but why does scripture have to have a limit? Can’t God just keep inspiring us to write new gospels? The argument I always hear is that Revelations ends with the quote about not adding or subtracting from ‘this work’, but of course the writer of Rev would have been talking about his own pamphlet, not the whole Bible -which didn’t exist yet-)

Anyway thanks to anyone whose looked through this much of what I’m saying. I’m Genuinely trying to work towards for a mutual understanding here. God Bless
Too much to respond to. So I'll just limit my comments to a few things.

Concerning alleged contradictions:
2a: I take it that John was written anachronistically unlike the synoptics which were chronologically. Apparent "Contradiction" resolved!

2b: I take it that during his earthly ministry only he and John the Baptist were to make a public stand of who he was. The apostles were not authorized to do so till after he left and handed the ministry over to them. Apparent "Contradiction" resolved!

2c: "Passover" is used in two senses. Eze 45:21 "’In the first month on the fourteenth day you are to observe the Passover, a feast lasting seven days, during which you shall eat bread made without yeast." Passover can refer either to a day or a whole week.

Resurrection discrepancies see the end of The Synoptics on the Resurrection

3a,b: Writing style? He may have a different style writing to individuals on his ministry team versus to a whole church. And no surprise that he talks to Christians differently about evangelism than about the practice of the Christian life. Afterall doesn't he say, "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?" 1Cor 5:12

3c: Paul restricts women with regards to authoritative roles in the church, as he also said to Timothy, "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent." 1Tim 2:11,12 The Php 4:2 you reference only says, "I plead with Euodia and I plead with Syntyche to agree with each other in the Lord." No mention of prophecy. But in fact Paul elsewhere acknowledges women have the gift of prophecy. But this issue is authority.

I would just discard these as grasping at straws and lack of understanding on your part the sense of what has been written. And the rest of your comments are largely fantasy.

I suggest you get the book "Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible" by Haley.

As for issue of proof see my article at Proof
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I am simply claiming that, if it turns out the Gospel of Thomas is a legitimate part of Christ’s ministry

It's not.

The Roman Catholics include Enoch in their definition of scripture

They don't: Catholic Bible - Wikipedia

Justin Mayrtr claimed on page 35 of Apology, ‘And that these things happened you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.' His definition of scripture included the Acts of Pontius Pilate

I strongly suspect you haven't actually read the work. It's the First Apology, Chapter 35 (not page 35!). And his definition of scripture does not include the "Acts of Pontius Pilate." Rather, those "Acts" are records from Pilate he is citing as evidence. They have been lost, although a forgery from several centuries after Justin does exist.

What about Clement and Origen and Heracleon who believed in the gospel of Peter?

They didn't.

The Muratorin canon (earliest canon we have) included the Apocalypse of Peter to be scripture.

It actually says "We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church." That's an indication that the latter wasn't generally accepted as Scripture.

It goes on and on

The falsehoods certainly do go on and on.

before the empire forced everyone to use the same books

Dan Brown conspiracy theory, I'm afraid (see, for example, the Muratorian Canon already mentioned).

Thus the word of God is here and now, this dialogue itself is scripture

No.

according to that tired old book you love so much!

Please refrain from mocking our Bible.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

JIMINZ

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2017
6,600
2,358
79
Southern Ga.
✟157,715.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Through your liberalism, you are attempting to combine Hinduism, Buddhism, and what ever other Ism's there are in you bag with Christianity, thereby developing some sort of Hybrid Religion, which tends to satisfy the senses rather than the Spirit.

It seems to have as it's foundation, Learning, Knowledge, Philosophy, while Christianity has the foundation which
no other can lay than that is laid, which is Christ.

I have never heard the term before, could you define a Dharma Christian? :scratch:
 
Upvote 0

DharmaChrsitian

Christian Mystic
Jun 17, 2018
18
5
31
San Francisco
✟16,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Through your liberalism, you are attempting to combine Hinduism, Buddhism, and what ever other Ism's there are in you bag with Christianity, thereby developing some sort of Hybrid Religion, which tends to satisfy the senses rather than the Spirit.

It seems to have as it's foundation, Learning, Knowledge, Philosophy, while Christianity has the foundation which
no other can lay than that is laid, which is Christ.

I have never heard the term before, could you define a Dharma Christian? :scratch:


Yes I can elaborate on my own Christianity, and also respond to the comments above as I find time throughout the work week. Let me say first that I appreciate the interest. My genuine desire here is to pursue relationship. I am frequently pained by the lack of acceptance I receive from orthodox Christians. Yet I realize also that my education is one-sided and that I might be wrong. If I am then I’d like to know.

Let me also thank those who pointed out errors in my scholarship. I’m still a first year student and much of what I’m doing is simply reiterating what’s Ive learned from liberal scholars (sometimes poorly) who are my professors, and also the rabbit hole of literature they’ve led me down. Not a single theologian I’ve ever met considers the opinions of fundamentalist scholars as theologically legitimate. The prevailing wisdom in my network of influences is that the inaccuracy of the Bible is so obvious in light of modern scholarship that anyone who still believes in fundamentalism is literally brain washed, delusional, and culturally dangerous. While I find their arguments against biblical inerrancy convincing, I am not sure that I am committed to being so anti-literalist. However, I do believe that what the message of Christ demands universal love and relationship. So this is my way of reaching out to those of you who I know must exist on the other side. If you really believe in the unconquerable love of God then I promise I care about you. I want for there to be no emnity between us.

I name myself dharma Christian for personal reasons mostly, it’s not a technical term but of course it does carry certain implications. Dharma means truth. Not simply worldly truth, truth that depends on circumstance, but metaphysical truth, truth that is eternal. It is truth which demonstrates itself not by relying on something else, but by demonstrating its undoubtable nature. It’s a term from Indian religion. I favor it because I’m very inspired by the Hindu model. Many westerners mistakenly believe that Hindus believe in thousands of gods, when in fact they usually only worship one in particular, or sometimes a certain handful. What has happened actually is that thousands of independent religions on the Indian subcontinent have come together in harmony and accepted each other, mostly believing that ultimately they’re all praying to the same thing in their own way. The theology is almost entirely grounded in the idea that behind all the gods is the same ultimate One, Brahman. Therefore many Hindu theologians consider themselves to be monotheistic and polytheistic simultaneously, and reject an absolute distinction between the two concepts (The uupanishads in particular discuss this). Many Hindus point out that the classic Islamic criticism of Christianity is that we’re actually polytheistic, because we pray to God in 3 forms. Of course we respond with something to the effect of, that while the trinity may be three in form, it’s ultimately one God. To which the Hindu tends say, yes the One can be multiple and still be singular. The difference is that the Hindu does not stop at 3, but claims there are infinitely many forms. For this reason many Hindus have no problem considering Christ to be the divine One, and the only divine one. They just believe that the divine one is beyond a single form. They sometimes point to many of our scriptures which claim that God is within everything as an argument that this was the original meaning of our tradition as well. [admittedly this is a dumbed down version of the argument, which becomes infinitely more complex when you dig into it. I certainly don’t expect anyone to change their mind about Hinduism based simply on this, but it does explain what I believe. There is a much more complex hashing out of the argument which I believe can stand up to any criticism. It’s based usually on the fact that you can find the same thought process taking place within both Indian and European mystics. Im not vain enough to presume that any one in this thread really wants me to explore these connections, but for my own sake I’d just like to point out that this is something I and many others have studied intently. And further, this perrenialism is a common belief in many Hindu, New Thought, and secular circles. For example I took a class this semester comparing the work of Marguerite Porete to Shantideva. It was very well received by the administration and the student body. The amount of similarities between the two writers are staggering.

I would also cite the growing body of research in Neurotheoogy. Wherein Brain states between Monks and Nuns of various traditions are compared. Though there is variation between tradition there is also much similarity when comparing the permanent changes in brain structure between Christians and other traditions. Unfortunately the research focuses almost exclisively on Catholic an Eastern Orthodox Christians, (specifically in reference to lectio divina, centering prayer, praying the rosary, and other practices designed to elicit a trance state) because Protestantism has intentionally separated itself from the mystical tradition almost entirely. Therefore these physiological benefits seen among all world mystics really don’t seem to apply to your average Protestant.]

I call myself a dharma Christian because I worship Christ. I get down on my hands and knees and pray to Him. I believe that when I pray to him He answers. And He always does. Yet I, like practitioners of the dharma religions, consider everything to be an icon of God one way or another. Therefore dharma Christian. It’s not a hard and fast term but I just needed a user name.

Anyway I’m sorry to say that I don’t fully understand your analysis of my view. You say I’m trying to satisfy the senses rather then the spirit, but from my perspective that does not seem true at all. I believe that Plato, Buddha, and the Gnostics are all preaching exactly the opposite. Buddha says life is suffering, and we must find peace by overcoming the limitations of our perspective (or senses). Plato says the day-to-day world we live in is imperfect, and that we must pursue a realm beyond being where the true forms lie. The Gnostics claim that the world is a corpse, and that only by truly understanding the ministry of Christ and transcending the world can we ever enter into The Kingdom. All three of these views denounce the senses, and claim instead that the true meaning in life is something beyond them; something spiritual. Hence I think that all three of these views which I hold, like the canonical gospels, privilege the spirit above the senses. This is certainly what my secular friends think about my philosophy, that it only cares about the spiritual and isn’t worried enough about the material world we can know through our senses (empirically). Can you explain to me what it is about my philosophy which seems to favor the senses?

What convinces you that Christ is not my foundation? I pray to Christ every day. I go to church almost every day. I am dedicating my occupation to the study and promotion of His teachings. He is my hero and I am working as hard as I can to be as much like Him as possible. I read the Bible every night. I believe He was a real historical person, yet I simply believe there’s more to know about Him then the Bible can tell us. My scholarship has convinced me this. Therefore I open myself to an extra biblical understanding of Him. Why is looking beyond the Bible so wrong? How can we be sure that the Bible is he limit of what we can know about Him and His ministry?
-
And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. Matthew 13:10-11

For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open. (Luke 8:17)

Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and it will be opened unto you. (Matthew 7:7)
-

Do these scriptures not together imply that
1) there are hidden layers to the teachings that were hidden from the masses
2) The hidden teachings will eventually be revealed,
and
3) those who seek these hidden teachings will find them.

Nothing in the cannon claims to reveal these hidden teachings (to the best of my knowledge). But the gospel of Thomas (which some scholars date as early as 30AD) does. Knowing that the Roman Church became corrupted how can we be sure that the leaders who formed the canon weren’t already corrupted? Shouldn’t we at least take seriously the possibility?

That is my interpretation as a passionate reader of the Bible and seeker of Christ. Am I off base? If so then why? And how do you know?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

JIMINZ

Well-Known Member
Apr 13, 2017
6,600
2,358
79
Southern Ga.
✟157,715.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables? He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. Matthew 13:10-11

Both when the question was asked by the Disciples, and when the answer was given by Jesus, the subject of both were the Jews as a People, as a Nation, not in the gathering of knowledge in and of itself.

Jesus spoke to the Jews in Parables because, "To them it is not given" because they would reject Him as Messiah, their Generation was called to that position.

Luke 11:50,51
50) That the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation;
51) From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

Therefore.
Mat. 13:13,14
13) Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14) And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

So you see, that particular generation of Jews were prophesied about.

Do these scriptures not together imply that
1) there are hidden layers to the teachings that only the disciples were shown.

It isn't just the fact there are hidden layers of teaching, for anyone outside of the Children of God will not understand these Kingdom teachings, because they are for the Disciples of Christ,(Christians) not for those in the world.


Do these scriptures not together imply that
2) The teachings will be revealed,

Again, you cannot fully understand the passage from Luke, if Luke is all you look at, the same thing was said by Mat, and Mark, what they said has to be taken into account as well, it sheds more light on the overall passage.
They were all speaking about the Kingdom, it appears as thought Mat. was more concerned with the individual Believer than the other two, and if all you ever read was Mat. then your whole viewpoint and understanding would be skewed.


Luke 8:16-18
16) No man, when he hath lighted a candle, covereth it with a vessel, or putteth it under a bed; but setteth it on a candlestick, that they which enter in may see the light.
17) For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad.

18) Take heed therefore how ye hear: for whosoever hath, to him shall be given; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he seemeth to have.

Mat. 5:13-16
13) Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
14) Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
15) Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
16) Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.


MarK 4:21-25
21) And he said unto them, Is a candle brought to be put under a bushel, or under a bed? and not to be set on a candlestick?
22) For there is nothing hid, which shall not be manifested; neither was any thing kept secret, but that it should come abroad.
23) If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.

24) And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given.
25) For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath.




Do these scriptures not together imply that
3) Those who seek them will find them.

In order to fully understand Mat. 7:7 you must also take into account what Luke also wrote in almost the exact same words, it's a little bit more precise.

Mat. 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

Mat. 7:11
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

Luke 11:9
And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.

Luke 11:13
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children:
how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?

So then, with these verses from Luke, we see, it isn't just knowledge being spoken of, although the Holy Spirit is the one who opens all knowledge of the Kingdom of God unto us.

It really isn't about the hidden layers of teaching, because all of the teaching of the Kingdom of God is always fully opened to the Believer, i
t's only hidden to those outside of the Kingdom.

My whole point is, it's not all about getting knowledge, it's about getting knowledge of the Kingdom of God, and to understand it fully, you are not going to get any teaching about the Kingdom from extra-biblical sources, or other Religions, because it does not exist outside of Christianity, and the extra-biblical books teach other things but not the Kingdom.

I know this is long winded and it seems I am rambling, because there is soooo much to be said, and I guess that is why we have a Bible.

I will end for tonight.


 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Not a single theologian I’ve ever met considers the opinions of fundamentalist scholars as theologically legitimate.

Yes, that's what ultra-liberal scholars would say. No surprise there.

More conservative Christian scholars would, however, point out serious errors in what the ultra-liberal scholars say.

Therefore many Hindu theologians consider themselves to be monotheistic and polytheistic simultaneously

Monotheism is very much a minority view in Hindu theology; monism is more common (the idea that both the physical universe and our individuality are illusory, and therefore Brahman is all that exists).

But even the monotheistic strand of Hinduism (द्वैत वेदान्त) is incompatible with Christianity on several key points.

Buddha says life is suffering, and we must find peace by overcoming the limitations of our perspective (or senses).

To some extent Buddhism agrees with Christianity on the problem. But it disagrees greatly on the solution.

What convinces you that Christ is not my foundation?

Presumably the facts that your beliefs are outside of historic Christianity.

But the gospel of Thomas (which some scholars date as early as 30AD) does.

I'm not aware of any serious scholar that dates it before 100.

Why is it impossible for anything else to form the foundation of our faith?

Because with a different foundation, it would be a totally different religion.
 
Upvote 0

Silmarien

Existentialist
Feb 24, 2017
4,337
5,254
38
New York
✟215,724.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Not to go all Porphyry on you, but coming from the opposite direction, I find your position a bit strange. I'm a Christianized Neoplatonist, and while I feel that my somewhat confused relationship with Christianity is authentic enough to partake in the Eucharist, I have a very high opinion of orthodox Christianity and neither insist upon nor feel comfortable with the label "Christian." I don't know my own mind well enough to figure out what I am.

You strike me as a Hindu on the path of devotion who has decided to primarily conceptualize God through the person of Christ. I think this is perfectly acceptable, but it is quite clearly Hinduism, not Christianity. Why do you need to identify as a Christian if your theology comes from a different tradition instead? If you are going to be a nondualist, then why not just be a nondualist? You can keep Christ as the centerpiece of your spirituality if you so desire--Vedanta certainly allows for it--but I don't see why you persist in identifying with the trappings of a religion you seem to reject.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DharmaChrsitian

Christian Mystic
Jun 17, 2018
18
5
31
San Francisco
✟16,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Not to go all Proclus on you, but coming from the opposite direction, I find your position a bit strange. I'm a Christianized Neoplatonist, and while I feel that my somewhat confused relationship with Christianity is authentic enough to partake in the Eucharist, I have a very high opinion of orthodox Christianity and neither insist upon nor feel comfortable with the label "Christian." I don't know my own mind well enough to figure out what I am.

You strike me as a Hindu on the path of devotion who has decided to primarily conceptualize God through the person of Christ. I think this is perfectly acceptable, but it is quite clearly Hinduism, not Christianity. Why do you need to identify as a Christian if your theology comes from a different tradition instead? If you are going to be a nondualist, then why not just be a nondualist? You can keep Christ as the centerpiece of your spirituality if you so desire--Vedanta certainly allows for it--but I don't see why you persist in identifying with the trappings of a religion you seem to reject.


Yeah this is good argument. The main reason is that I practice Christianity, I perform Christianity. I am not a Hindu. While I may agree with Vedanta philosophy I do not practice Hinduism. It’s simply not my culture. I have plenty of secular friends who think Buddhism is more or less true, but they aren’t Buddhists. They don’t practice Buddhism. I think a lot of this confusion can be drawn back to the Protestant pathology, that belief can transcend action. When I tell my Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox friends about my beliefs they don’t really care. They may think it’s weird, they may find it fascinating, but either way they invite me to worship with them, they encourage me to pray the rosary, etc. Usually the topic of belief never comes up, as it isn’t really relevant. To Worship doesn’t necessitate a privately held belief. While I’m at mass I’m not thinking about Hinduism, I’m thinking about Christ, I’m thinking about Mary. My non-denominational friends tend not to mind too much either. They do mostly praise worship songs, and as long as I can see Christ in what the pastor is saying
(Which I almost always can, even when she or he is presenting a theology Id never articulate myself) I get along great. Same thing with Pentecostals. I have a really far out friend who speaks in tongues, and I told him that Neem Karoli Baba claimed Hanuman, Krishna, and Christ were one, and that I believe that. He acted like that was weird, but we had such a connection and he was prophesizing positively about my future ministry, and really he could tell that I really believe in Chriat enough that he just said ‘I Believe God has a plan for you’. Or something like that, I’m paraphrasing. I think that’s because they’ve (nondenominationals and petnacostals) separated themselves from the trappings of Protestantism. Sola Fide creates this weird idea that somehow I can have faith without performing any kind of action. Even the act of faith doesn’t qualify as an act for Luther. It creates this weird disembodiment where the act of accepting God doesn’t count as an act. It breeds this very dualistic culture wherein my beliefs don’t really count as my actions and vice versa. Pretty much the opposite of existentialism. I heard a Protestant say once ‘if you believe a religion is true, then you’re that religion’. But of course you’re not. I can belief buddhism is true, but unless I actually practice Buddhism and try to achieve an auspicious birth in the next life then I’m not really a Buddhist, I’m just somebody who believes Buddhism is true. I’m not a Hindu because I don’t practice Hinduism. I do practice Christianity.

And at the end of the day I really do believe in it. I believe that there was a real historical Jewish minister who lived on the eastern shore of the Midteranean during the height of the Roman Empire. I believe that he was the Messiah, and that his coming was foretold. I believe that he was the ancient one, that was the original logos- the original thing that ever was. I think that his ministry is recorded in the Bible. That he preached a message of radical social justice and radical humility. I believe that he caused an enormous unrest in an already fractured Jewish community. I believe he was put to death by the powers that were, that he could have prevented it, and that he chose not to because his purpose was to die in this way. I believe that he resurrected from the dead after 3 days, and that his death was necessary for the redemption of humanity. I believe that he is with all of us always, that he hears anyone who calls on him, that he is infinitely powerful, and that he answers all prayers. I believe that he will come again at the end of the age. I believe that he is God.

I know many people, mainline Christian mostly, who believe much less of the Orthodox line than I do. I am going through the process of ordination. I am invited to preach every now and then in front of congregations. My sermons have largely been well received.

When I first got into the church I alluded to my interest in other faiths and suggested that I didn’t belong. I was told exactly the opposite. I am treated as though I do belong, because I do. I simply take seriously experts in the field who suggest that the construction of the canon was politically motivated. I look at all the early Christian doctrines critically, as pieces of historical evidence which might tell us more about Yeshua’s teachings. I am not convinced that the folks who constructed the canon made all the right calls. Critical schaorlahip suggests they almost certainly did not, and the only scholars who disagree are the ones who already have their conclusions before they look at the evidence. My undergrad degree is in science and I have a hard time thinking that type of bias gets you anywhere real. But that’s why I’m here, to see if someone can change my mind. I’ll go into more detail on why I find the critical scholarship on gospel dating convincing in my next post, wherein I’ll reply to all the challeneges above.

But the final answer is really that it’s personal to me. I was raised in the church. I loved Sunday school as a little kid. I went to church camps. When I was a teenager I learned a bunch about comparative religions, epistemology, and modern science that convinced me biblical literalism was painfully wrong and dangerous. But I never lost sight of my love for religion and as I got older I found it as a place that welcomed me completely despite my hideous mistakes. It’s given me hope and the ability to redeem myself through relationship with this cosmic-historical figure. I love the church, and I’m called by God to be a part of it. The principle for me is that it’s a family where everyone is invited. The door is never closed, and there is a seat saved for everyone -no matter how outcast, no matter how horrid. I believe this is the best possible thing I can do in Munich life, is to go around and offer anyone whose being left out of society a place to belong. Work done in evolutionary anthropology and moral psychology suggests to me that religion is a universal adapatstion and that it is necessary for social cohesion. I think it’s the only solution for such a fragmented culture. Christianity is my cultural inheretence, and I dont see why I should have to submit myself to a literalist interpretation of the Bible in order to receive it.

My hypothesis is finally that Christ’s followers all had different perspectives of who He was and what His ministry meant. All the records we have of them suggests that they fought amongst themselves, I think they would have done so theologically as well. Therefore I reject the notion that Chriatianity was ever monolithic. Apart from Chrsit himself I don’t believe there ever was a single ‘Christianity’. And I think the evidence bears that out. I think it’s very possible that some of non-canonical texts represent valid apostolic traditions, but even further I think It’s possible that some of the disciples were theologically opposed to writing anything down about Jesus. I think it’s irrational to assume that ancient documents serve as our best source of knowledge about a person we claim to know personally. Therefore I don’t think that Protestants or Catholics or Orthodoxes or anybody else owns Christianity. My personal relationship toChrist leads me to believe that I’m onto something, and so Id be crazy not to pursue it. What’s that verse, don’t be conformed by this world but conform it to you or whatever? You can interpret ‘the world’ as all the non-Christian culture. But my experience of life and study of history have led me to believe that Christianity and the Bible are just as much a part of ‘the world’ as any other form of popular culture. Anyway, my reading of the New Testament leads me to believe that the pharisees are literalists, and that the whole concept of taking the law too literally is precisely what Jesus’ ministry is opposed to.

What made you interested in Christianity from Platonism? I’ve read about historical examples, but I’ve never actually dialogued with someone whose made that jump before. Did your Platonism lead you to Christianity? Or does it represent a departure from which you’re now thinking about returning?
(by the way, what exactly do you mean by Platonism? what platonic texts have influenced you? Have you ever read Parmenides?)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0