11-14-2007, 04:15 PM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,177
|
Quote:
ChinoCoug, Robinson, FARMS, and I all believe there is a knowable fact about God's state whether it be spirit or flesh. If that truth was revealed to Paul and taught to early Christians in 50 AD but then modified between 50 and 150 AD by good people who were influenced by Greek philosophy (nothing personal it's just different than what was revealed by God to man), then that is a bad thing for ChinoCoug, Robinson, FARMS, and me. It may be a great thing for you, and that's fine for you to believe that way. But you needn't bash on the intellectual and professional level of those that say it's a bad thing. |
|
11-14-2007, 04:30 PM | #22 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
Is Seattle taking issue with the choice of words, "bad", using judgmental language for the incursions of Greek philosophy into Christian religious thought. For one, I disagree Jay that what Greek thought did was supplant the "revealed word" but rather Greek thinking individuals tried to translate the literal discussions into a framework which corresponded to their understanding. Perhaps they did so inaccurately, and for Robison or any other to make a value judgment as to the impact of that translation may be what gives Seattle heartburn.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
11-14-2007, 04:38 PM | #23 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,177
|
Quote:
Let's just make a real simple example. Paul and the apostles were taught that God has a body of flesh. They teach that to the early Christian church. During the time period 50 AD - 150 AD, the doctrine is changed to one believing God has no body of flesh but has a body of spirit. So the early Christian church went from teaching a correct doctrine to teaching an incorrect doctrine, based on an influence of Greek culture. Ignoring all the virtues of the classic civilizations and the good it has had on the world in learning and education and progress and ignoring the enormous influence this had on the Jewish world at the time of Christ, you can still make a very simple argument that FURTHER Hellenization of the early Christian church had an impact of the modification of certain doctrines. Why would someone fight against this so aggressively? |
|
11-14-2007, 04:44 PM | #24 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Quote:
Again, it's like saying America was corrupted by some later encounter with Great Britain. Maybe the Pilgrims would say that, but the Pilgrims would not and could not have written the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Fedaralist papers, etc. The irony is that if one were to say that about America, he wouldn't be talking about the same America even the declarant thought he was referencing. He'dr really just be talking about the American wilderness, not America at all. Especially now that the LDS Church has conceded Lamanites are not American Indians, the Great Apostasy may be the LDS doctrine I find most objectionable. Next to murder, religion's greatest crime is distorting and obscuring the eveidence about human and natural history.
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
|
11-14-2007, 04:52 PM | #25 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,177
|
Quote:
You think you're being logical because you don't accept any of the assumptions I put forth in earlier post. You believe Jesus and Paul pulled Christianity out of a hat by Hellenizing Judaism in the first place. We can't even have a dialogue if you don't accept that the people talking with you believe Jesus is the Christ. |
|
11-14-2007, 05:00 PM | #26 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Quote:
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
|
11-14-2007, 05:05 PM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,177
|
Quote:
What you're saying is fine, if you're talking to another atheist about the theory of the evolution of Christianity. It doesn't work in a theological discussion with a group who believes Jesus is the Christ. |
|
11-14-2007, 05:14 PM | #28 | |
Assistant to the Regional Manager
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Orgasmatron
Posts: 24,338
|
Quote:
Let's address the concept of a tangible God and the homoousias and homoiousias discussions. Those arose not out of Greek philosophy but out an attempt to reconcile the One God concept and how to deal with Christ. It was not a Greek problem but a problem of the reconcilers, which existed in the Church from early on, probably starting with the Jews. To pin theological errors upon Greek culture is misleading IMHO.
__________________
Ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα |
|
11-14-2007, 05:15 PM | #29 | |
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 10,665
|
Quote:
__________________
Interrupt all you like. We're involved in a complicated story here, and not everything is quite what it seems to be. —Paul Auster |
|
11-14-2007, 05:19 PM | #30 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: NOVA
Posts: 3,005
|
Quote:
__________________
太初有道 |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|