Nihilist Virus
Infectious idea
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?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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?
If you made a post which clearly says that I have never trolled, then I can easily answer your question.
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.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.
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.I failed to see that. Where in the Torah shows a "evolving theology"? Do you mean the evolution from polytheism to monotheism among Israelite?
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."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.
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.
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.
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
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.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?
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.^ 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.
ThanksI 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.
(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.
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.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
What makes them think that? The written material was well established very quickly.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.
They were not as old. There is nothing that dates them before 150 AD.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.
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.
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).They were not as old. There is nothing that dates them before 150 AD.
See the previous post #59The 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.
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 himThe 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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?