Scriptural Reductionism

The post that was quoted here has been removed

She makes use of it day after day after day. 😉

Originally posted by vistesd
Some modern-day Christians seem to think that Christianity is about the Bible. There was, however, Christianity before there was a “Bible”—and it took an evolutionary period of a few centuries (up till 419 C.E., when the Apocalypse of John was finally accepted) of debate within the ekklesia before the canon was “semi-finalized”.

And even then: “I ...[text shortened]... ns seem not to be "literalist/'inerrantists" with regard to what they thought of as "the canon".

What intrigues me the most is the book of Enoch which is referenced in Jude.

Essentially you have pre-Christian writings that contain prophecies about Jesus. In fact, the early church was heavily influenced by Enoch. Of course, this would blow to hell the notion that Paul created Christianity all on his own, would it not?

And that brings us to Paul. Essentially Paul wrote the vast majority of the NT, or it was written about him. His meeting with Jesus on the road to Damascus indicates that God had a purpose for Paul. Assuming the story is true, could it be possible that God chose Paul for such a task as writing the NT? He was obviously the perfect choice having more education that the 12 apostles.

Of course, there are also books like Revelation. I think if you study Revelation and compare it with the OT prophesies such as Daniel, what you will find is nothing really that new. It is all based upon previous prophesies with little added twists. An example are the beasts spoken about in Daniel. The last beast in Daniel is the only beast in Revelation that was discussed. The point being, however, that it was just a continuation of the prophesies in Daniel.

Originally posted by whodey
What intrigues me the most is the book of Enoch which is referenced in Jude.

Do you believe the Book of Enoch is "divinely inspired"? And what is the age of the oldest existing manuscript?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

The fact that an atheist or Muslim might be able to do scholarly work on Christianity has nothing to do with her taking advice on what Christianity is and is not. From my experience, the bias of the scholar always plays a part in the so-called scholarly work.

She knows I have a bias in favor of YEC, so she is not comfortable with taking my advice on Christianity in the understanding of Genesis. That is her choice. 😏

Originally posted by FMF
Do you believe the Book of Enoch is "divinely inspired"? And what is the age of the oldest existing manuscript?

If I believe Jude to be inspired, which I do, I also believe the sources Jude references are inspired.

From Wiki.

The Book of Enoch (also 1 Enoch;[1] Ge'ez: መጽሐፈ ሄኖክ mäts'hafä henok) is an ancient Jewish religious work, ascribed by tradition to Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah, although modern scholars estimate the older sections (mainly in the Book of the Watchers) to date from about 300 BC, and the latest part (Book of Parables) probably to the first century BC.[2]

It is not part of the biblical canon as used by Jews, apart from Beta Israel. Most Christian denominations and traditions may accept the Books of Enoch as having some historical or theological interest or significance, but they generally regard the Books of Enoch as non-canonical or non-inspired.[3] It is regarded as canonical by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church, but not by any other Christian group.

It is wholly extant only in the Ge'ez language, with Aramaic fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls and a few Greek and Latin fragments. For this and other reasons, the traditional Ethiopian belief is that the original language of the work was Ge'ez, whereas non-Ethiopian scholars tend to assert that it was first written in either Aramaic or Hebrew; E. Isaac suggests that the Book of Enoch, like the Book of Daniel, was composed partially in Aramaic and partially in Hebrew.[4]:6 No Hebrew version is known to have survived. It is asserted in the book itself that its author was Enoch, before the Biblical Flood.


I think I know why Constantine and company left him out of the Bible. Enoch did not have much nice to say about them.

Enoch 46 "At that place, I saw the One to whom belongs the time before time. And his head was like wool, and there was with him another individual, whose face was like that of a human being. His countanence was full of grace like that of one among the holy angels. And I asked the one -- from among the angels -- who was going with me, and who had revealed to me all the secrets regarding the One who was born of human beings. who is this, and from whence is he who is going as the prototype of the Before Time? And he answered me and said to me, "this is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells. And he will open all the hidden storerooms; for the Lord of Spirits in eternal uprightness. This Son of Man whom you have seen in the One who would remove the kings and the mighty ones from their comfortable seats and the strong ones from their thrones. He will loosen the reins of the strong and crush the teeth of the sinners. He will depose the kings from their thrones and kingdoms. For they do not extol and glorify him, and neither to they obey him, the source of their kingship. The faces of the strong will be slapped and be filled with shame a gloom. Their dwelling places and their beds will be worms. They will have no hope to rise from their beds, for they do not extol the name of the Lord of the Spirits. And they have become the judges of the stars of heaven; they raise their heads to reach the Most High while walking upon the earth and dwelling in her. They manifest all their deeds in oppression; all their deeds are oppression. Their power depends upon wealth. And their devotion is to the gods which they have fashioned with their own hands. But they deny the name of the Lord of Spirits. Yet they like to congregate in his house and with the faithful ones who cling to the Lord of Spirits."


Or this:

Enoch 48 "Furthermore, in that place I saw the fountain of righteousness, which does not become depleted and is surrounded completely by numerous fountains of wisdom. All the thirsty ones drink of the water and become filled with wisdom. Then their dwelling place become with the holy, righteous, the elect ones. At that hour, that Son of Man was given a name, in the presence of the Lord of Spirits, the Before-Time, even before the creation of the sun and the moon, before the creation of the stars, he was given a name in the presence of the Lord of Spirits. He will become a staff for the righteous ones in order that they man lean on him and not fall. He is the light of the gentiles and he will become the hope of those who are sick in their hearts. All those who dwell upon the earth shall fall and worship before him; they shall glorify, bless, and sing the name of the Lord of Spirits. For this purpose he became the Chosen One; he was concealed in the presence of the Lord of Spirits prior to the creation of the world, and for all eternity. And he has revealed the wisdom of the Lord of the Spirits to the righteous and the holy ones, for he has preserved the portion of the righteous because they have hated and despised this world of oppression together with its way of life and its habits in the name of the Lord of the Spirits; and because they will be saved in his name and it is his good pleasure that they have life. In those days, the kings of the earth and the mighty landowners shall be humiliated on account of the deeds of their hands. Therefore, on the day of their misery and weariness, they will not be able to save themselves. I shall deliver them into the hands of my elect ones like grass in the fire and like lead in the water, so they shall burn before the face of the holy ones and sink before their sight and no place will be found for them. On the day of their weariness, there shall be an obstacle on the earth and they shall fall on their faces, and they shall not rise up again, nor anyone be found who will take them with his hands and raise them up. For they have denied the Lord of Spirits and his Messiah. Blessed be the name of the Lord of Spirits".


These passages must have had Constantine shaking in his boots. After all, he continued to worship pagan gods even though he was rumored to have converted to Christianity on his death bed.

Originally posted by whodey
If I believe Jude to be inspired, which I do, I also believe the sources Jude references are inspired.

Have you considered, then, joining the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church or the Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church?

Originally posted by vistesd
I view the urge to certainty—instead of faith—in matters relating to the “divine” (or the ineffable real) to be at best misguided—at worst, idolatrous. ..... So, if being “a True Christian™” requires allegiance to some literalist/inerrantist view of the various books that make up what is called “the Bible”*—then I am clearly not.

Good post - but I think largely misunderstood by most responders.

Fortunately, being a "True Christian" is not dependent on what most Christians on RHP say, nor even what the organised church says, but being simply a "Follower of Christ". And, as we have seen before, the requirement of such a follower is NOT a statement of belief, but in a mode of conduct and actions.

The whole thing of the "Inerrancy of Scripture" has caused the multiplicity of Denominations, because each one stands on his/her own mudhill and says: THIS is the correct interpretation!

If we accept that the books that make up the current Bible where written by devout men, to the best of their abilities and understanding of the Divine, then we can discuss it and take the best and leave the obvious errors. For example, if you accept that much of the OT was written after the Babylonian captivity, in an attempt to put their oral traditions into writing, then we can rejoice and delight in its value and beautiful prose, and discard some of the locally and culturally inspired naratives that have caused so much discussion here. No, I must correct myself, not discard, but view in the correct context - that is what they believed! ( e.g. the vengefulness of god in killing innocent women and children, which the atheists love to highlight!)

No, the Bible is a collection of beautiful and wonderful ancient writings from which we have much to learn. Fundamentalists have a problem with this view, but they have no problem in rejecting the Catholic doctrine of Papal Infallibility, which is essentially made of exactly the same stuff.

It would be great if we could have more discussions on this forum as to the PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION of, say, some of Christs teachings, rather than the useless repetition of examples of doctrine based on literal interpretations.

Originally posted by vistesd
Maybe I used the term badly. I meant reducing Christianity to a kind of "scripturalism". That might go with your first sentence, though.

Your position could be seen as advocating for sources for spiritual guidance that supplement the Bible. But this would merely expand the reductionist base, such that Christianity is reducible not to the Bible alone, but to the Bible + these sources. But this seems unsatisfactory, unless adding these sources eliminates or resolves the disagreements and contradictions that make reducing Christianity to the Bible untenable.

But I have always thought that there is a mistake involved in reducibilty arguments.

Instead of the rather metaphysical claim that say, biology is reducible to chemistry (can be entirely and adequately explained via chemistry, or "is just chemistry" ). I prefer the more pragmatic approach that biology can be studied at the level of molecules (chemistry) and at the level of cells and at the level of tissues and of organs and of living individuals and at the level of communities etc., none having priority or superior "truth" power over another.

I would like to apply this principle to the thread topic. I am not sure it works, but here goes. Christianity can be understood and explained at the level of literal chapter and verse of the scrolls, or at a level that takes into account the historical path from oral tradition to written scrolls, or at a level that takes into account the authoritative additional writings that predate the Reformation, or that include... etc. This could go on right up to include the results of each inquiring individual's personal religious experience/enlightenment, if any. None of these has per se, superior "truth power" over another. Any of them can be useful in the overall inquiry.

Who here can deny that their own personal take on Christianity is informed by all of the above?

Originally posted by JS357
Your position could be seen as advocating for sources for spiritual guidance that supplement the Bible. But this would merely expand the reductionist base, such that Christianity is reducible not to the Bible alone, but to the Bible + these sources. But this seems unsatisfactory, unless adding these sources eliminates or resolves the disagreements and contradi ...[text shortened]...
Who here can deny that their own personal take on Christianity is informed by all of the above?

I think I understand. My objection was to reducing Christianity to a kind of scripturalism--so I think we're in sync.

EDIT: I don't think disagreements and contradictions in the biblical texts can be eliminated or resolved--and I think to view that as some kind of fatal flaw is a kind of category error, rather like trying to resolve "contradictions" between Rembrandt and Picasso and Pollack . . . because their works are collected in the same museum of art.

Originally posted by FMF
Have you considered, then, joining the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church or the Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church?

Sure, it's a little out of my way but on the bright side, I'm sure to rack up frequent flyer miles in no time. 😵

Originally posted by whodey
Sure, it's a little out of my way but on the bright side, I'm sure to rack up frequent flyer miles in no time. 😵

Can any Christian declare ancient literature to be "divinely inspired" or not "divinely inspired" according to their own preference? You have declared The Book of Enoch to be "divinely inspired" right? By the same reckoning, could you declare, say, Book of Revelation to be not "divinely inspired"? As a Christian, is it simply up to you?

Originally posted by vistesd
I think I understand. My objection was to reducing Christianity to a kind of scripturalism--so I think we're in sync.

EDIT: I don't think disagreements and contradictions in the biblical texts can be eliminated or resolved--and I think to view that as some kind of fatal flaw is a kind of category error, rather like trying to resolve "contradictions" betw ...[text shortened]... randt and Picasso and Pollack . . . because their works are collected in the same museum of art.

Some of Escher's work known as impossible constructions might be analogized to Scriptural disagreements and contradictions but in general I think the analogy is a sort of Deus Ex Machina to dispense with the matter.

These constructions are not impossible as 2-D representations but do not correspond to any real instantiation in 3-D.