29 Aug '15 00:36>
This post is unavailable.
Please refer to our posting guidelines.
Originally posted by vistesdWhat intrigues me the most is the book of Enoch which is referenced in Jude.
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".
The post that was quoted here has been removedThe 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.
Originally posted by FMFIf I believe Jude to be inspired, which I do, I also believe the sources Jude references are inspired.
Do you believe the Book of Enoch is "divinely inspired"? And what is the age of the oldest existing manuscript?
Originally posted by vistesdGood post - but I think largely misunderstood by most responders.
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.
Originally posted by vistesdYour 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.
Maybe I used the term badly. I meant reducing Christianity to a kind of "scripturalism". That might go with your first sentence, though.
Originally posted by JS357I think I understand. My objection was to reducing Christianity to a kind of scripturalism--so I think we're in sync.
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?
Originally posted by whodeyCan 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?
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 vistesdSome 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.
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.