80 000 denominations of christianity

Originally posted by rwingett
I didn't say that the problem of denominations is hopeless. My point was that it shouldn't be interpreted as a problem at all. Given the way in which the bible was written and compiled, I don't believe that you can have any firm idea of what Jesus actually said, and therefore think it is ludicrous to say that any particular interpretation, and only that interpretation, is what Jesus meant.

But unless you do assume that the Bible is mostly very accurate (due to inspiration from God for example) you would immediately doubt some of the extraordinary claims. It is almost impossible to doubt the accuracy of the Bible and still remain Christian.
You seem to think that Christians should base their beliefs on a logical historical analysis of the texts - clearly no Christian does that.

Originally posted by sumydid
karoly, I think rwingett was using sarcasm/dry humor when he/she called you a heretic. I love that kind of humor.

Anyway, yes indeed I think we are better off with all the "homemade" denominations when you consider the alternative which is the Priests having sole access to the meaning of the Scriptures (written in language we can't read) and therefore "t ...[text shortened]... like; but all it takes is one contradictory verse of the Bible to shoot your idea down.

right ,yeah i usually love that kind of humour too...Anyway! there seem to be too many contradictory verses in the bible.
It almost seems like for every positive statement for something there is a statement against it .
please correct me if i'm wrong here

Originally posted by twhitehead
But unless you do assume that the Bible is mostly very accurate (due to inspiration from God for example) you would immediately doubt some of the extraordinary claims. It is almost impossible to doubt the accuracy of the Bible and still remain Christian.
You seem to think that Christians should base their beliefs on a logical historical analysis of the texts - clearly no Christian does that.

You are incorrect. Even though they are a small minority, there are a growing number of people who call themselves "Christian" who reject the fantastical elements of Christian mythology and who approach Jesus from a more historical perspective. Bishop John Shelby Spong is a prime example of this approach. There are more and more people who are waking up to the fact that what Christianity is has very little to do with what Jesus actually said. This has been evident among biblical scholars for a long time, but this information has been very slow in making its way to the general public. With the explosion of books on the market within the last twenty years, by people like Bishop Spong and Bart Ehrman, this is beginning to change.

Originally posted by twhitehead
But unless you do assume that the Bible is mostly very accurate (due to inspiration from God for example) you would immediately doubt some of the extraordinary claims. It is almost impossible to doubt the accuracy of the Bible and still remain Christian.
You seem to think that Christians should base their beliefs on a logical historical analysis of the texts - clearly no Christian does that.

I don't see why that should be the case.

You don't have to swallow the myths around Gautama's birth to be a Buddhist. You don't need miracles to consider yourself a Christian. Obviously, many other Christians would disagree with that, but who cares? It's your own business anyway.

Originally posted by rwingett
I didn't say that the problem of denominations is hopeless. My point was that it shouldn't be interpreted as a problem at all. Given the way in which the bible was written and compiled, I don't believe that you can have any firm idea of what Jesus actually said, and therefore think it is ludicrous to say that any particular interpretation, and only that int ...[text shortened]... e one of universal inclusiveness instead of being the private property of the elect few.

=====================================
I didn't say that the problem of denominations is hopeless. My point was that it shouldn't be interpreted as a problem at all. Given the way in which the bible was written and compiled, I don't believe that you can have any firm idea of what Jesus actually said, and therefore think it is ludicrous to say that any particular interpretation, and only that interpretation, is what Jesus meant.
===================================

I have observed that many of the people who say "We have no way of knowing what Jesus actually said" are eager to tell everyone what He really said.

Ie. your proclamation that Jesus taught Socialism. In one minute you assure us that no one knows what He taught. Then when the commotion calms down you come in to tell everyone what Jesus taught.

Rather than say "We don't know what Jesus said" because you don't like what the New Testament teaches (which I think is the case), we should patiently deal with God concerning all that He said. Then we can observe how it changes our lives.

================================
This orthodox rigidity has been the bane of Christianity ever since people began ascribing quotes to Jesus and committing them to print. Have you ever wondered why Jesus never wrote down his own pithy bon mots as he rattled them off (or had them written down)?
===============================

No I do not wonder too much about that. I trust that God knows what He is doing and how to do it.

I wonder about those who persecuted Jesus to death while He walked upon the earth. And I wonder about others who continue to persecute Him by saying "We don't know what Jesus really said."

This, I think, is a subtle continuation of opposition to the ministry of Christ. I think you should give it up. I think you should patiently, bit by bit, as much as you can handle, accept what the New Testament tells us was the ministry of Jesus. And then believing into Him you can see how it will change your life for the better.

This is what I have done. And difficult sayings, I put on the back burner until such a time God gives me wisdom to understand. I don't necessarily like everything I read in the New Testament anymore than the next guy. I don't react by retreating into "Well, we don't really know what Jesus said."

It is good to be bothered by what Jesus said. It is good to be transformed by the living word of God.

You see rwingett, I have learned that God is really on my side. It is just that He has to win me over to His side first to show me that He is on my side !

Its not bad.

================
Why was nothing written down until Paul took up his pen, almost two decades after Jesus died? It is true that literacy was not common in that time or place, but I wonder if it wasn't because Jesus wanted his movement to be a practice based one and not a text based one, where people did nothing but bicker and argue about which interpretation of which quote is the exclusive truth. I don't think Jesus necessarily wanted a bible at all. If he did, he certainly could have jotted down something himself.
==============================

He told the Phairsees that they seached the Scripture but they would not come to Him for life. When we come to the Bible we should come with a heart to find the living Person of Jesus that we may have life.

Coming to the Bible and missing the life of Christ, missing the Holy Spirit is a problem.

But if someone wants to contradict what Jesus taught about Himself, we will not follow that. Opposers of Jesus Christ want to damage what He taughtand then charge the defenders of "bickering".

If you say "Jesus did not claim to be God's Son" and I counter that He did, I will not be silent because you then say "You Christians are always bickering."

================================
So I don't think it's possible to know exactly what Jesus said, or especially what he meant. Instead of being one, narrow path toward salvation, maybe there are many. Maybe there are many different, viable interpretations of what salvation even means.
=======================================

I see in the Gospel of John that Jesus was not like a doctor who prescribed only one pill.

He appraoched Nicodemus in one way. He spoke to the woman at the well in another way. He spoke to the lame man beside the pool in another way. He taught the blind man in chapter 9 in a different way.

I see Jesus approaching varied cases and kinds of people in different ways. I do not see the need to make Jesus more diverse by claiming that we don't know what Jesus taught.

He was not always narrow. But He was definite about Who He is. I think I could surprise you by showing how much scope and lattitude there is in the New Testament. But I still accept that Jesus is Lord not withstranding this great lattitude in His way of dealing with sinners.

===================
Instead of excluding people and saying that, no, only MY interpretation is the correct one, maybe Christians should be more open toward people working on their own interpretation of salvation in their own way.
===========================

A church, by nature, should receive all whom Christ has receved. The exclusion comes when Christians will not receive other believers into a so called church, such that they have to have another kind of church.

I have to go and continue latter. Hate to stop here.

Originally posted by rwingett
You are incorrect. Even though they are a small minority, there are a growing number of people who call themselves "Christian" who reject the fantastical elements of Christian mythology and who approach Jesus from a more historical perspective. Bishop John Shelby Spong is a prime example of this approach. There are more and more people who are waking up to ...[text shortened]... e last twenty years, by people like Bishop Spong and Bart Ehrman, this is beginning to change.

Even though they may call themselves "Christian" they are hardly members of a religion unless they do believe in something fantastical/supernatural. Besides you can hardly use something that applies only to such a tiny minority to criticize the behavour of the members of the other 79,999 denominations.
And no, it has nothing to do with the availability of information. The information you talk about has been available for as long as the religions has. Christianity (as believed in by the vast majority of Christians) requires belief in certain events in the Bible and it requires belief based on something other than normal historical methods. I am sure that Bishop John Shelby Spong would agree that taken from a historical perspective alone the Bible and other historical records do not provide good evidence that Jesus was raised from the dead -or even for the existence of God. But then according to you he does believe in God does he, yet still claims to be "Christian".

You are arguing that there are various ways to the truth and that various views can all be 'right' yet you are simultaneously declaring all but a tiny minority to be wrong - very very wrong.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=====================================
I didn't say that the problem of denominations is hopeless. My point was that it shouldn't be interpreted as a problem at all. Given the way in which the bible was written and compiled, I don't believe that you can have any firm idea of what Jesus actually said, and therefore think it is ludicrous to say that any ...[text shortened]... church.

I have to go and continue latter. Hate to stop here.

dude!you have so many good points but i tire easily of reading them. If you are refuting or expaneding on some-one else's point,Great! otherwise its hard to know what you are replying to a lot of the time
(please feel free to point out somewhere where you have replied directly to ONE POINT. i will try to summon the patience to understand...)

Originally posted by twhitehead
Even though they may call themselves "Christian" they are hardly members of a religion unless they do believe in something fantastical/supernatural. Besides you can hardly use something that applies only to such a tiny minority to criticize the behavour of the members of the other 79,999 denominations.
And no, it has nothing to do with the availability o ...[text shortened]... et you are simultaneously declaring all but a tiny minority to be wrong - very very wrong.

Once again, I do not say all the various ways to the truth are right. Given that the 'truth' is unknowable, it may be that none of them are, but they are all equally valid. There is a difference between being valid and being true, as I am sure you're well aware. If someone finds their approach toward the truth useful, then more power to them. But they should keep in mind that the 'truthfulness' of that approach is unknowable.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
dude!you have so many good points but i tire easily of reading them. If you are refuting or expaneding on some-one else's point,Great! otherwise its hard to know what you are replying to a lot of the time
(please feel free to point out somewhere where you have replied directly to ONE POINT. i will try to summon the patience to understand...)

To make my reply to rwingett very simple:

I think his main point is that many denominations of Christianity are not a problem (for a number of his reasons).

My reply. No, they are a problem. As a Christian I cannot deny that hundreds of divisions among Christians as different kinds of "churches" is a problem.

This should be a simple distillation for you of the essence of my reply.

Originally posted by jaywill
=====================================
I didn't say that the problem of denominations is hopeless. My point was that it shouldn't be interpreted as a problem at all. Given the way in which the bible was written and compiled, I don't believe that you can have any firm idea of what Jesus actually said, and therefore think it is ludicrous to say that any church.

I have to go and continue latter. Hate to stop here.

While we cannot know with any degree of certainty exactly what Jesus did say, we can rule out certain things that Jesus most likely did not say. The claims of divinity, for example, appear to have been embellishments to the Christian mythology by people who wrote after Jesus' death. If you read the gospels chronologically, from Mark to John, you'll see these type of claims being embellished and expanded with each successive gospel. This is not just a pet theory of atheists and people who "don't like what the bible teaches." It is a position that is gaining in acceptance among serious biblical scholars.

But it makes little difference. Even if you could give an accurate transcript of what Jesus said, it doesn't mean that he was right.

My position that Jesus was a proto-socialist is just a theory that I play around with from time to time. It may be true or it may not. Who can say? But shortly after our debate I bought a book called Communism In The Bible, by José Porfirio Miranda. It's a fascinating book which sheds a lot of light on the subject. I wish I had had access to it during the debate. It's only 78 pages. You should check it out some time. Then you'd really see the light. 😲

Originally posted by rwingett
While we cannot know with any degree of certainty exactly what Jesus did say, we can rule out certain things that Jesus most likely did not say. The claims of divinity, for example, appear to have been embellishments to the Christian mythology by people who wrote after Jesus' death. If you read the gospels chronologically, from Mark to John, you'll see thes s only 78 pages. You should check it out some time. Then you'd really see the light. 😲

=============================
While we cannot know with any degree of certainty exactly what Jesus did say, we can rule out certain things that Jesus most likely did not say. The claims of divinity, for example, appear to have been embellishments to the Christian mythology by people who wrote after Jesus' death.
=====================================

A skeptic's daydream.

==========================================
If you read the gospels chronologically, from Mark to John, you'll see these type of claims being embellished and expanded with each successive gospel.
============================

I have read the Gospels chronologically and in many other ways. Nothing vindicates your revisionism.

It is wishful thinking on your part.

============================
This is not just a pet theory of atheists and people who "don't like what the bible teaches." It is a position that is gaining in acceptance among serious biblical scholars.
===============================

Like the tremendously non-biased and objective scholars from the Jesus Seminar ?

=========================================
But it makes little difference.
==============================

Right. That way if you turn out to be lying or completely misled you have a another trick up your sleeve.

==============================
Even if you could give an accurate transcript of what Jesus said, it doesn't mean that he was right.
===============================

There was a mob from of Jerusalem who would agree with you on that. The ones who cried out "Crucify Him! Crucify Him!"

They knew what He said. But they didn't believe it or like it.

The net effect of (arguably) the earliest Gospel - the Gospel of Mark.

*** The Son of Man has the authority and power of God on the earth *** -

And Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the paralytic, Child, your sins are forgiven.

But some of the scribes were sitting there and reasoning in their hearts,

Why is this [man] speaking this way? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins except One, God?

And immediately Jesus, knowing fully in His spirit that they were reasoning this way within themselves, said to them, Why are you reasoning in your hearts ?

Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, Your sins are forgiven, or to say, Rise and take up your mat and walk?

But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority to forgive sins on earth - He said to the paralytic,

To you I say, Rise, take up your mat and go to your house.

And he rose and immediately took up his mat and went out before them all, so that they were all amazed and glorified God, saying, We have never seen [anything] like this !" (Mark 2:5-12)


The divine being of Christ is not reserved for embellishment in the succeeding Gospels. From Mark the evangelist discribes that the divine attributes of God were manifested in the human virtues of this Son of Man. Namely His authority to forgive sinners and to heal the sick, let alone to percieve what was in the thoughts of people around Him.

Jesus said "Which is easier ...?" He did not say "Which is harder ...?" For for God nothing is impossible. So Jesus said "Which is EASIER ...?"

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]=============================
While we cannot know with any degree of certainty exactly what Jesus did say, we can rule out certain things that Jesus most likely did not say. The claims of divinity, for example, appear to have been embellishments to the Christian mythology by people who wrote after Jesus' death.
================================= ...[text shortened]... ! Crucify Him!"

They knew what He said. But they didn't believe it or like it.[/b]

My, my, your defensiveness speaks volumes here. It's almost as if you're afraid to look at any of the sources I cite for fear that your faith will be tested. So you shut your ears and close your eyes all the tighter to block them out. After all, Bart Ehrman himself started out as a hardcore evangelical Christian. He went to the Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton Bible College and, like you, was certain that he had all the answers. But then he went to the Princeton Theological Seminary and undertook some real bible scholarship. He soon found out that things were not quite what he imagined them to be.

Originally posted by rwingett
Once again, I do not say all the various ways to the truth are right. Given that the 'truth' is unknowable, it may be that none of them are, but they are all equally valid. There is a difference between being valid and being true, as I am sure you're well aware. If someone finds their approach toward the truth useful, then more power to them. But they should keep in mind that the 'truthfulness' of that approach is unknowable.

Why are you so sure that the truth is unknowable? I find that to be an extraordinary claim.
Further, even though I do not know the truth I am fairly sure that some things are not the truth and will treat people who believe them accordingly. For example if I meet someone who believes in Santa, I will treat him with the utmost skepticism and strongly suspect he is either lying in his claims or delusional. Would I be wrong? You appear to be saying that because we do not know the truth and cannot know the truth we should still give him the benefit of doubt. What if he starts a religion? What if his religion teaches things that we believe are not to for the good of society?

Originally posted by rwingett
My, my, your defensiveness speaks volumes here. It's almost as if you're afraid to look at any of the sources I cite for fear that your faith will be tested. So you shut your ears and close your eyes all the tighter to block them out. After all, Bart Ehrman himself started out as a hardcore evangelical Christian. He went to the Moody Bible Institute and Whe ...[text shortened]... l bible scholarship. He soon found out that things were not quite what he imagined them to be.

===========================
My, my, your defensiveness speaks volumes here. It's almost as if you're afraid to look at any of the sources I cite for fear that your faith will be tested.
==================================

My faith has been and will continue to be tested.

The James assures us that tests to our faith are destined to come. And we can recieve them with joy.

" Count it all joy, my brothers, when you fall into various trials, knowing that the proving of your faith works out endurance ..." (James 1:2,3)

And Peter tells us not to be surprised at any fiery trial to our faith which happens to us as some strange thing -

"Beloved, do not think that the fiery ordeal among you, coming to you for a trial, is strange, as if it were a strange thing happening to you." (1 Pet. 4:12)

I do not think it some strange thing that an evangelical Bible student became a scholar of skepticism. Hey, if Lucifer, so close to God, could turn to become Satan, a great cosmic rebel against Reality, should I be shocked that mere men imitate such a turn of heart ?

============================
So you shut your ears and close your eyes all the tighter to block them out. After all, Bart Ehrman himself started out as a hardcore evangelical Christian.
===============================

I am not shaking with fear at Bart Ehrman. I was brought up in a very theologically liberal seminary atmosphere before I got to know Jesus as a living Person.

I'd sit down face to face with Bart Ehrman and talk to him. I don't think I'd have a heart attack or run out of the room plugging my ears.

This is more skeptic wishful thinking.

=============================
He went to the Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton Bible College and, like you, was certain that he had all the answers. But then he went to the Princeton Theological Seminary and undertook some real bible scholarship. He soon found out that things were not quite what he imagined them to be.
========================================

I am happy to hear that someone went to Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College. I would begin by asking him not about where he "went", but if he experienced the living Christ.

Going to Moody Bible Institute or Wheaton College is no garuantee that he was regenerated, born of God, ever received Christ into his heart.

You know some people go to Seminary to find God. And some people go to Seminary to get rid of God.

And some people go to Seminary to hide from God. They are very clever. They think that if they can hide from God in a Theological Seminary then they can hide from God anywhere.

Anyway, I have heard lectures by Bart Erhman. Some things were very engaging. Others I would disagree with.

If you would like I can recall some things he taught that I think he was wrong about.

IE. The person who wrote First Corinthians could not be the same person who wrote First and Second Timothy.

The is no mention of the Rapture in the book of Revelation.

Two points I remember from Erhman, either of which I would welcome the opportunity to refute.

Anyway, big scary skeptics who are "Been There, Done That" evangelicals are around. Bart is not the first one and will by no means be the last.