Is there any contradictory views in Christian History as compared to theology?

[JohnB445]

People have different theological views, sure.

But what about different realities about history? The web of dozens of contradicting theological views and doctrines is already a problem enough. Is Christian History at least safe from this where we won't be seeing arguments about what happened in history? Or is this problem of contradictory views only present/relevant in theological differences.

 

[SkyWriting]

The web of dozens of contradicting theological views and doctrines is already a problem enough.

There are 100's of roads to Jesus. He created the Cosmos. No problemo.

16 For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him.

 

[tampasteve]

People have different theological views, sure.

But what about different realities about history? The web of dozens of contradicting theological views and doctrines is already a problem enough. Is Christian History at least safe from this where we won't be seeing arguments about what happened in history? Or is this problem of contradictory views only present/relevant in theological differences.

There are some thing that are written that just do not square with the historical record that we have right now. For example, the Israelite takeover of Palestine just does not bear out like the text says if we read it as a historical reading. The same would seem true for the extent of the influence of Israel/Judah in the region. Also would be the reality that we find that the temple cult may not have been as strong until later in the story.

But these things are really not issues, they are not salvific and we can interpret them in different ways. It does not really matter. The overall story arc bears truth in archaeology and general history

 

[HTacianas]

People have different theological views, sure.

But what about different realities about history? The web of dozens of contradicting theological views and doctrines is already a problem enough. Is Christian History at least safe from this where we won't be seeing arguments about what happened in history? Or is this problem of contradictory views only present/relevant in theological differences.

If I understand you right, there are no real arguments as to what happened, only muddled ideas of what it means. Unless we take into account things like the fates of the apostles and such.

 

[Resha Caner]

History is not as clear cut as it tends to be presented in K-12. But, for that matter, neither is math, science, literature, etc.

I did some study in education for my MA. An interesting tidbit I ran across was a study showing concern among mathematicians that people leave high school thinking they've learned all they need to learn about subjects like algebra, when in reality high school only scratches the surface.

The same is true of history. A few random courses here and there just don't do it.

 

[Bob Crowley]

All of us interpret history in our own way. The bare facts are one thing - the interpretation we put on them is another.

To give an Australian example, we celebrate "Australia Day" on the 26th January each year. It's supposed to remember the arrival of "The First Fleet" which was a fleet of eleven ships containing convicts, soldiers and crew bound for Australia. I'm not sure why the 26th was chosen, as the first fleet landed on the 24th January 1788, although to quote the next link -

On 26 January two French frigates of the Lapérouse expedition sailed into Botany Bay as the British were relocating to Sydney Cove in Port Jackson. The isolation of the Aboriginal people in Australia had finished. European Australia was established in a simple ceremony at Sydney Cove on 26 January 1788.

1788 | Australia's migration history timeline | NSW Migration Heritage Centre

The simple fact is that eleven British ships arrived on the 24th January 1788 at Botany Bay. They soon relocated to the magnificent Sydney Harbour a little further north, and two French ships arrived on that day 26th January.

For British descendants this could be regarded as a celebration, even if the first settlers were convicts. But for the aboriginals their interpretation is quite different - they're more likely to call it "Invasion Day" or "National Day of Mourning".

Same facts - two quite different interpretations. It's the same with Church history. Constantine confirmed Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. Simple fact. But the interpretations can be very different, depending on whether we're Catholic with Rome as our HO, Orthodox who originated from the Byzantine Church centered on then Constantinople (now Istanbul) or Protestants who broke away from the Catholic Church over a thousand years later.

Every single one of us interprets history through different lenses. The simple facts are one thing - interpretation is quite another.

 

[Tom 1]

People have different theological views, sure.

But what about different realities about history? The web of dozens of contradicting theological views and doctrines is already a problem enough. Is Christian History at least safe from this where we won't be seeing arguments about what happened in history? Or is this problem of contradictory views only present/relevant in theological differences.

There are loads. You can compare Bart Ehrman and N T Wright for example. Lots of interesting reading out there. David Rosenberg has some interesting ideas on the early books of the bible, as another example.

 

[ewq1938]

People have different theological views, sure.

But what about different realities about history?

Not all Christians believe the flood was global. There are differing views of the days of creation in Gen 1 and 2 and how old the Earth and the universe are.

 

[summerville]

People have different theological views, sure.

But what about different realities about history? The web of dozens of contradicting theological views and doctrines is already a problem enough. Is Christian History at least safe from this where we won't be seeing arguments about what happened in history? Or is this problem of contradictory views only present/relevant in theological differences.

There's a lot of poor scholarship and people competing for the dollar.

 

[hedrick]

I'm going to ignore historical Jesus work, about which there are enormous differences.

Yes, there are differences. The problem is that information about the first Century is thin. We don't know to what extent infants were baptized. We don't know how churches were organized until fairly late in the 1st Cent, and it's sketchy even then. There's some reason to think that Jewish Christianity survived into the 2nd Cent. How long did it last and how common was it?

Even things that are better recorded have some questions. E.g. it's debated whether Nestorius actually held the heresy of Nestorianism. (I think he didn't.)

There are also events whose occurrence is obvious but about which people feel differently. Was Constantine serious about Christianity? How much of later theology was imposed by the Empire?

 

[DNB]

People have different theological views, sure.

But what about different realities about history? The web of dozens of contradicting theological views and doctrines is already a problem enough. Is Christian History at least safe from this where we won't be seeing arguments about what happened in history? Or is this problem of contradictory views only present/relevant in theological differences.

As far as Christians are concerned, and what pertains to the Bible, as opposed to Church History post 100 AD, I imagine that for most, the Bible holds an accurate historical account of all the events documented. Skeptics, of course, question the veracity of many events, and Muslims, the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, for example.
But, again, I believe that the majority of Christians consider the Bible to factual in its historical accounting. For, so much of it has theological implications. That is, if you change any of the geographical, genealogical, miraculous, or chronological events in the narratives of Jesus, you put into question his Messiaship (invalidating the prophetical attestation).
But, there is the question of either the 7 days, or 7 eons of creation, within Christian circles.

Outside of Christians, you have historians who don't believe in Creationism, the flood, the miraculous, or that Jesus even existed, ...