06 Apr '11 20:36>1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillThis is an extraneous debate that FreakyKBH wants to import into this quite separate discussion presumably because he felt it was not settled to his satisfaction in the earlier thread. But so be it.
What "story" had to be re-written ?
The New Testament has not been re-written to accomodate for the longer than expected return of Christ to the earth physically.
[b] Theologies were adjusted for sure. But no "story" was re-written. If you have proof that the "story" was re-written tell us where we can read the early story and the latter re ...[text shortened]... ry.
The "story" is the same old story as far back as the New Testament has existed.[/b]
Yes, once the texts were established and selected for the Christians they stabilised, quite so.
Christianity does not hang on the Gospels or even the New Testament alone. In some contexts it is convenient (arguably far too convenient) to restrict debate to what Jesus said but that is not the sum of the scriptures, as we both know. Christians soon switch to Acts, Paul, Peter, or indeed the Old Testament when that becomes favourable to their case.
The Old Testament is a compilation of work by many authors accumulated over centuries and in some cases, notably Genesis, it is generally agreed that several texts were put together, without resolving apparent contradictions and arguably without seeing any need to do so precisely because it was not treated as a literal account at the time, but as a mythical one. Jews and Muslims restrict their attention to only a few from the Old Testament and certainly would have little time for example for the Acts. There were other gospels that were not included in the Christian Bible and might have been (I make no commeent on their merits, just observe the fact). At least one book (Revelations) (I know it's not a gospel thanks) is arguably a rather unfortunate inclusion.
None of this is contentious. FreakyKBH got upset when I compared this (as a matter of curiosity) to the fact that there has only ever been one Qu'ran which every Muslim refers to despite immense doctrinal and sectarian differences. It is curious - I am not sure how much it matters.
The period between the death of Jesus and the production of the Gospels was a time of changing thoughts, as set out for example in the Acts. It is absolutely the case that Paul devised an original interpretation of the life of Jesus and its significance which is set out in Romans, for instance, and which he visited Jerusalem to discuss and seek agreement with Peter, James and others, as mentioned in Romans. Peter's letter, which we have referred to in this thread earlier, refers to the opinion (which he challenges) that Paul and he were not in agreement, which can only be taken to imply that someone somewhere had that opinion and reported it to him, surely?
While Christianity was coming into shape, through a period of confusion, other sects and religious groups were also swirling about and forming their own views, with Jesus playing a part for some and not others. The Jewish faith itself was in turmoil long before the destruction of [Herod's] Temple by the Romans. That event did not take place in a historical void.
In respect of this period, when I refer to "changing story" I am not referring to edits and rewrites of scripture but using perfectly normal language to describe what is not only accepted wisdom but also set out clearly in the Acts and in Romans.
In your words, "Theology was adjusted." I agree and accept that my phrase is more loaded with negative connotations than yours. I acknowledge that this is because I am sceptical.
But for the record was I not writing in a hostile tone about this matter, since when you refer back I was offering a fairly conventional response to the OP with reference to the scripture quoted and in terms not at odds with what FreakyKBH wrote. In other words, I consider my response would be accepted by many Christians as a reasonable one.