Could lead codices prove ‘the major discovery of Christian history’?

[Nova]

The inconsistencies are usually pretty minor or are a result of comparing the laws of the old covenant against the laws of Christ's new covenant. (Many of the laws of Moses did not apply to Christ's followers, outside of the Decalogue, i.e. the 10 Commandments.)

God certainly does not exist apart from us, in fact, we CAN see God in His creation, but He is not limited like we are, so as a result, anything directed by Him would also not follow natural laws. A miracle, for example, is supernatural because it's something that happened that isn't supposed to happen.

I am also not keen on comparing God's supernatural abilities to magic. I think that demeans His ultimate power and authority. After all, He created the natural laws that the world exists by, so it isn't hard to imagine God having abilities far beyond anything we could even comprehend.

I am sure God has ways beyond our comprehension. (I don't agree that relieves us of the responsibility to TRY to comprehend, something you never said but has been said to me by others. Too often the ultimate incomprehensibility of God is used as an excuse not to examine one's own prejudices, IMO. Again, I am NOT referring to you here, DK.)

For purposes of this discussion, I'll be glad to use your distinction between the "supernatural" and the merely "magical." But it doesn't hurt us now and then to remember that ultimately the two words mean the same thing. If we keep that in mind, perhaps we will be less likely to demand that everyone else subscribe to something that ultimately can't be proven objectively.

***

I do understand the difference between Mosaic law and the "Good News" of Christ, but there are discrepancies even between the Gospels. I don't think those discrepancies detract from Jesus' ultimate message, but they should give us pause about insisting that scripture is literal dictation from God. If it were, surely THAT would be error-free!

And then there are all those lovely Gospels the Church decided to exclude from the canon. Plenty of wisdom in those as well (especially if one is a woman or otherwise marginalized by a powerful hierarchy). I realize you have faith that the Church chose the correct works and excluded the heresies, but I'm not so sure. Once again, those fallible human beings had a hand in the selection process.

***

I'm open to the possibility that God simply overrules his own natural laws whenever he pleases, but I'm not convinced. Human artists follow certain principles (consciously or unconsciously) whenever they create something. God stepping in to make a miracle is a bit like Picasso returning to one of his Cubist canvases and painting a realistic woman in one corner. Picasso had the power to do so, but it's not likely he ever did.

 

[Nova]

I hear you. I was an evangelical Christian at that point - summer missionary, youth minister, etc. I took a few religion classes and... whoa! I really got into it. I applied to grad school and received an assistantship to get my MA in Religion - I wanted to major in World Religions and minor in Anthropology. But that summer before starting grad school, I got scared. I decided that I didn't want to know any more scholarly info - that my faith had been changed enough by what I already had learned. So I took a year off and went to grad school in Psychology instead.

Sad to say, I've never fully regained the faith I had 20 something years ago and sometimes I wish for it back. A lot of times, actually...

ETA: I was just reading an article about the surface of Mars and came across a quote that I found very fitting for here:

I think what I miss from my evangelical days is being a part of a community of people with faith in the same thing. Questioning can be lonely work, at times.

But on the whole, I think the knowledge I've gained over the years has made me a better, kinder person. It's certainly made me more tolerant. (That is I. I know any number of people who have changed in the same ways BECAUSE of their faith in Christ and Christian teachings.)

 

[belimom]

I think what I miss from my evangelical days is being a part of a community of people with faith in the same thing. Questioning can be lonely work, at times.

But on the whole, I think the knowledge I've gained over the years has made me a better, kinder person. It's certainly made me more tolerant. (That is I. I know any number of people who have changed in the same ways BECAUSE of their faith in Christ and Christian teachings.)

bbm

Ahhh.... but is it faith IN Christ or faith OF Christ? See, that's one of the big ones for me. I've decided it's faith OF Christ. The Greek word(s) used to describe it in the original text could be interpreted either way (or something like that - it's been over 20 years - LOL!)

 

[Truthful Lies]

I hear you. I was an evangelical Christian at that point - summer missionary, youth minister, etc. I took a few religion classes and... whoa! I really got into it. I applied to grad school and received an assistantship to get my MA in Religion - I wanted to major in World Religions and minor in Anthropology. But that summer before starting grad school, I got scared. I decided that I didn't want to know any more scholarly info - that my faith had been changed enough by what I already had learned. So I took a year off and went to grad school in Psychology instead.

Sad to say, I've never fully regained the faith I had 20 something years ago and sometimes I wish for it back. A lot of times, actually...

ETA: I was just reading an article about the surface of Mars and came across a quote that I found very fitting for here:

Belimom, thanks for writing that. Sometimes I feel very alone in that - I was so young and didn't really understand where I was headed. I'm so grateful for the education on it all, but it hurt me in a lot of ways, too. I was no longer the same person. Some good, some bad.

Thanks for letting me know I'm not alone and that quotation. :blowkiss:

 

[Dark Knight]

bbm

Ahhh.... but is it faith IN Christ or faith OF Christ? See, that's one of the big ones for me. I've decided it's faith OF Christ. The Greek word(s) used to describe it in the original text could be interpreted either way (or something like that - it's been over 20 years - LOL!)

Belimom, thanks for writing that. Sometimes I feel very alone in that - I was so young and didn't really understand where I was headed. I'm so grateful for the education on it all, but it hurt me in a lot of ways, too. I was no longer the same person. Some good, some bad.

Thanks for letting me know I'm not alone and that quotation. :blowkiss:

I personally do not subscribe to the Evangelical practice of the faith. I was baptized in the United Church of Christ an converted a few years later to Roman Catholicism. Because I am a Catholic, many Evangelicals think I am going to Hell, lol. So even those of us who are Christians can be faced with prejudice from others who practice the faith. My point being, if you wish to renew your faith from years ago, all it takes it one step, but it does not have to be the same step you took then. There are many of us you may find more palatable but with the same fervor in our faith.

Back to Nova's points, the Gospels can be written by people who were led by the Holy Spirit, but not necessarily dictated by 'force' so to speak. It's obvious God allowed each writer to express themselves in their own way. What the writers chose to write about or out emphasis on may have been different from each other, but it does not make them contradictory as far as I have ever seen. Some chose to write about the passion of Christ more than others, some chose to not cover His infancy, etc.

Yes, I believe the Holy Spirit did help the Church choose which books and letters made it into the bible, but there were also practical reasons. Some of those others books were far more questionable as to who the author was. Some of them were VERY obscure. Some where know at the time to b frauds. But, keep this in mind. The Church used, and continues to use, many books from those very first centuries of the faith for teaching that did not get included in the Bible. The New Testament was not meant to be a history lesson, as much as way of communicating the teachings of God and Jesus Christ. The other books that are used, but not included, are more historical in nature. They speak of early Church practices and doctrines from the very first days of the faith, for example.

 

[Nova]

bbm

Ahhh.... but is it faith IN Christ or faith OF Christ? See, that's one of the big ones for me. I've decided it's faith OF Christ. The Greek word(s) used to describe it in the original text could be interpreted either way (or something like that - it's been over 20 years - LOL!)

I'm sorry, belimom. I don't understand the distinction you are making.

 

[Nova]

I agree with much of what you write, DK. (Not surprisingly, perhaps, if your background is Church of Christ: I was raised Disciples of Christ.)

But Mark omits the virgin birth of Jesus. Why? I don't think he leaves out a miracle of that magnitude in the name of thematic clarity. It's far more likely Mark had never heard of it; but that's odd, too, unless that event simply hadn't been added to the Christ story when Mark, the earliest of the extant Gospels was written.

(BTW, as for excluding gospels from the canon because their authorship was questioned, nobody knows who authored the gospels that WERE included. I assume you know textual scholars have proven the existence of an earlier, but now lost, gospel they call "Q." It was apparently a source for Mark and several, if not all, the synoptic gospels.)

In any event, that's hardly a "slight" omission, particularly given the emphasis placed on Mary's virginity by Luke and Matthew.

I realize my argument is heresy in your Church--most Churches, even; nonetheless, I think we'd all benefit from a little less focus on Mary's sex life.

As for inconsistencies, here's a link that discusses many, thought certainly not all, of them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_of_the_Bible




I agree they are "not significant" if one is looking for Jesus' message. You can find it throughout the NT. But if one is arguing the infallibility of scripture, then these inconsistances loom very large indeed.

 

[belimom]

I'm sorry, belimom. I don't understand the distinction you are making.

Sorry...

I'll try again...

1) Faith IN Christ: Jesus is the Savior and has the power to save us from eternal death by accepting Him as Savior and asking for forgiveness of sins, etc... Not only is He a great teacher but He overcame death by His resurrection.

OR...

2) Faith OF Christ: Jesus was another great teacher and prophet like Muhammad, Moses, etc. who have some wonderful teachings about life for us to follow. But He is not 'the Savior' in the traditional sense of 'being saved'.

 

[belimom]

Nova, very good point (I haven't looked at the link yet but I will). I remember when I was questioning everything and I attended a Sunday School class that I still remember to this day, over 20 years later. After intense questioning by those of us in the class, the priest said something to the following effect: that he has no idea if Jesus was the result of a virgin birth or if the resurrection is true. But that it does not affect his faith in Jesus or God - that as powerful of God is and as influential as Jesus was, those minute details do not take away from Christianity. And when he gets to Heaven and sees God face to face, he'll ask about all of those questions that sadly divide Christians and take away from the true message.

I do know that many Christians think that the whole premise of Christianity is the virgin birth, etc, and will view this as heresy. But I think there's a lot of truth to what that priest said that morning and it has helped me tremendously to know that even priests don't know all the answers - so it's okay for me to have questions as well - and that those questions don't have to affect my belief in what Christianity teaches.

 

[Dark Knight]

I agree with much of what you write, DK. (Not surprisingly, perhaps, if your background is Church of Christ: I was raised Disciples of Christ.)

But Mark omits the virgin birth of Jesus. Why? I don't think he leaves out a miracle of that magnitude in the name of thematic clarity. It's far more likely Mark had never heard of it; but that's odd, too, unless that event simply hadn't been added to the Christ story when Mark, the earliest of the extant Gospels was written.

(BTW, as for excluding gospels from the canon because their authorship was questioned, nobody knows who authored the gospels that WERE included. I assume you know textual scholars have proven the existence of an earlier, but now lost, gospel they call "Q." It was apparently a source for Mark and several, if not all, the synoptic gospels.)

In any event, that's hardly a "slight" omission, particularly given the emphasis placed on Mary's virginity by Luke and Matthew.

I realize my argument is heresy in your Church--most Churches, even; nonetheless, I think we'd all benefit from a little less focus on Mary's sex life.

As for inconsistencies, here's a link that discusses many, thought certainly not all, of them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_of_the_Bible




I agree they are "not significant" if one is looking for Jesus' message. You can find it throughout the NT. But if one is arguing the infallibility of scripture, then these inconsistances loom very large indeed.

If they believe Q exists, but it is lost and never been seen, then they haven't proven it, they are acting on faith that it exists, hehe. (Much like our faith, it is based on reasoning and educated guessing, to an extent.)

It's my belief that Q is either A. The Holy Spirit (a common source) or B. The Virgin Mary. I was going to talk about Q in my blog one of these days, as I believe it is likely Mary, herself. No one else knew the details of Christ's infancy but her. No one else was there when He was lost for 3 days at age 12. No one else was at Cana. And Scripture says, "she made note of all these things and kept them in her heart." How many parents keep a baby book or diary? If you knew your Son was the Son of God, wouldn't you keep notes of everything that happened in His life???? She is Q, I believe.

 

[Kimster]

Here I come to rain on the parade.

Tricia doesn't want us discussing religion on WS. It's been allowed in times past and doesn't have a good outcome. Her view, and it totally makes sense to me, is that we are a crime website and there are plenty of other places to debate religion on the internet.



Now, let's get back to the OP and leave it at that. No one did anything wrong, I just want to please Tricia's request. That's my job. :kimsterwink:

Carry on! :blowkiss:

 

[Dark Knight]

Here I come to rain on the parade.

Tricia doesn't want us discussing religion on WS. It's been allowed in times past and doesn't have a good outcome. Her view, and it totally makes sense to me, is that we are a crime website and there are plenty of other places to debate religion on the internet.



Now, let's get back to the OP and leave it at that. No one did anything wrong, I just want to please Tricia's request. That's my job. :kimsterwink:

Carry on! :blowkiss:

I understand Tricia's opinion on this, but we were staying on topic about historical Christianity, I do believe, since that's was the reason for the interest in the codices. No real debating or arguing, at all.

 

[Nova]

Sorry, Kimster. Like Dark Knight, I thought we were staying within the limits Tricia has alllowed by focusing on the discovery of historical artifacts.

But you have to draw the line and I will certainly respect that.

 

[Kimster]

You guys are sweet. Like I said, no problems at this point. Keep it with the codices and I'll keep quiet. :hug:

 

[Nova]

Ask and ye shall receive:

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2011/05/hitchens-201105



Christopher Hitchens praises The King James Bible and discusses numerous issues (often political) of translation, many resolved by considerable compromise.