codeorama Posted February 12, 2014 Author Share Posted February 12, 2014 Techboy, you are spot on... I don't write the course. I teach a core subject that is a requirement in order to graduate. Religion is only a part of it. It's honestly the part that confuses students the most and that's why I have a project on the 5 major religions. I'm also using this thread in class to show the students how people just don't agree on things when it comes to religion. I've only used this for three of my 6 classes, the other 3 will be today. They have really enjoyed it. I have had the opportunity to go to various Christian churches and there is not a singular belief. It is so different from church to church. The kids reflect this as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 As someone who knows only about as much Hebrew as Reggie White, but has read dozens of books Near Eastern history/archaeology/theology, let me interject a few points.You cite several good examples, I'm only quoting your first sentence to save space, but I'm speaking generally about your entire post.I agree with much of what you have said which is why serious scholarship will ALWAYS start in the original languages, always. If you find someone who rejects the original language work and insists on doing theological work from a specific translation, then just smile and nod politely until you can walk away. You're also right on the Satan/Lucifer discussion as well as the tribes issue both of which are things that are addressed in my first year of undergrad work. These aren't secrets, in fact open up most good commentaries and you'll see these same things. By good commentaries I mean scholarly/academic commentaries New Interpreter's Bible Commentary is my go to....NOT James Vernon McGee which is awful. This thread does bring to light an important trend, i.e. the misinformation/ignorance of many Christians, and the reason is simple very few put in the time and effort to study the texts. Oh, lots of people read the Bible and become self professed experts, but few actually learn the skills to study, and those that do try so desperately hard to get others to show up to Bible study classes consistently enough to learn! Is it really that surprising that so much misinformation exists when the VAST majority of church going Christians expose themselves to discuss the Bible and faith but for a mere 15 minutes per week and 20 if the preacher goes long? Add to that the actual statistics that show that less than 18% of people in Kentucky attend church regularly and the respondents define regularly as 2 of 4 Sundays (now we're down to 30 minutes per month). We live in a nation that is saturated with the Bible, and the irony is that the overwhelming majority of people are simply ignorant of it. And don't even get me started on the Fundamentalist/Anti-Intellectualism or the lazy "Well this is what it means to me" trends. I'm also using this thread in class to show the students how people just don't agree on things when it comes to religion.Hi students!!!Listen to your teacher! He may be old and senile, but he's nice...kinda like an old dog. LoL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 12, 2014 Author Share Posted February 12, 2014 Great post Asbury...! Here's something I'll throw out there as well. (A student in class points this out). In the US, some stats show that over 80% of people consider themselves Christians... However, the exact definition of what makes someone an actual varies depending on your church/denomination. I think this thread plays that out as well. The example that the student uses is that in a Methodist church they have attended, there is no focus on being "born again" or accepting Jesus. To them, it's like "duh" of course Jesus is the focal point. Yet when he went to church with his girlfriend it was not like that at all. There was pressure to "publically" accept Jesus and become a member of the church and if you didn't, you were not yet a Christian... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 This is pretty much a red herring. Historically, Christianity was established by Jesus' closest followers and family, like James and Peter, who knew what Jesus taught, and also knew what Paul was teaching and embraced him. People that try to separate Jesus and Paul usually try to do so for theological reasons, often because there's something Paul taught that they don't like. I always liked argument that Catholicism is the triumph of Peter over Jesus and Protestantism is the triumph of Paul over Peter. I don't know if that's accurate or fair, but it's interesting. But - again - this is where cultural bias comes in. We are in the US where the vast majority have a fairly decent understanding of Christianity and can get into the nuts and bolts of these differences that probably look completely irrelevant to someone in, say, Iran. Now if we got into Sunni-Shia differences we would mostly look like complete ignoramuses and wonder, "What's the difference?" while some Muslims are willing to die over those differences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 It's not like the Romans were slackers on documenting history.... And it's not like Death bed conversions are offensive to Christians either.. It is a matter of recorded history that Constantine was baptised shortly before his death. Whether or not that was a conversion is a bit trickier, but I'm content with either characterization. The part I would like to see a source for, and which none of your quotes address, was the "Judaism and half a dozen other religions". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 What's a Methodist? A Baptist with a high school diploma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Why are Baptists so opposed to sin? It might lead to dancing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 I have had the opportunity to go to various Christian churches and there is not a singular belief. It is so different from church to church. The kids reflect this as well. Which is exactly the problem Constantine the Great faced.... Constantine came up in a time when the Roman Empire was beset by enemies. It was fractured and weak. Constantine saw Christians going to their death in the arena and he admired them for their bravery and selflessness. He set about to use Christianity to unite the Empire... He did this by many steps... he legalized Christianity, he patronized it, he established himself as influencial over it. But before Christianity could fully help him unite the empire, Constantine had to unite Christianity... The Pagan Constantine did this by calling and presiding over the first church council in the history of Christianity.. You see Christianity had evolved under Rome's constant pursecution as a fractured secretive religion. Each city had a bishop, each bishop had his own doctrine... Christians of one city didn't agree with what Christians of another city believed. This would not work to Constantine's purposes.. So Constantine called for the bishops from around his empire to come to him, in a suburb of Constantinople, Nicea.. The pre determined results of this gathering was a unifying creed / definition of what it was to be Christian... The Nicean Creed which most Christians still recite every Sunday... Each line of the creed is an article of faith which refutes the early church heretics. To accept the creed was to accept the Emperor’s favor. To reject the creed as the original heretics did, was to incur the Emperor’s wrath. Thus started early Christianities partnership with the state.. It’s why the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church, the successors of the early church are structured in the same way as the Roman Empire.. two bicameral colleges of bishops and cardinals, and a strong executive. ( Pope Patriach).... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Why are Baptists so opposed to sin? It might lead to dancing. The joke is why are calvinists so opposed to sex standing up?... because it might lead to dancing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 We are about to spend 13 pages talking about Constantine, aren't we? Hooboy. Let me get a ****tail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 We are about to spend 13 pages talking about Constantine, aren't we? No. JMS' exaggerations/errors of/about the divisions among early Christians and the influence (and history) of Cosntantine have been done to death, so I at least intend to continue looking at that cartoon when my typing fingers get twitchy. It's all in the thread I linked earlier for people that really want to go there, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 What's a Methodist? A Baptist with a high school diploma. Reminds me of the expression, "let's make like a baptist church and split." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 12, 2014 Author Share Posted February 12, 2014 To JMS, In my life, I attended a Baptist Church for 15 years or so and the Nicene Creed was never recited. I've attended more than once Methodists, Catholic, Church of Christ, Pentecostal and Presbyterian churches and it was never something that was part of the service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s0crates Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 To JMS, In my life, I attended a Baptist Church for 15 years or so and the Nicene Creed was never recited. I've attended more than once Methodists, Catholic, Church of Christ, Pentecostal and Presbyterian churches and it was never something that was part of the service.I'm surprised by that. I think either the nicene or apostle's creed is a standard part of many church services. http://www.christianitytoday.com/biblestudies/articles/churchhomeleadership/080730.html I certainly heard the apostle's creed in Catholic mass back when I attended. In fact I've heard it so many times I can recite it by heart. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 To JMS, In my life, I attended a Baptist Church for 15 years or so and the Nicene Creed was never recited. I've attended more than once Methodists, Catholic, Church of Christ, Pentecostal and Presbyterian churches and it was never something that was part of the service. he was talking about real christians silly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 12, 2014 Author Share Posted February 12, 2014 LOL... great reply...! s0crates, I believe you, I totally believe that it probably is a part of them. I must live in a really weird part of Christianland... my views have been formed based on what I've come to know and I have enjoyed reading the differences from many of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 To JMS, In my life, I attended a Baptist Church for 15 years or so and the Nicene Creed was never recited. I've attended more than once Methodists, Catholic, Church of Christ, Pentecostal and Presbyterian churches and it was never something that was part of the service. The Nicene Creed is the most widely used statement of faith in all the Christian Churches. It is recited or otherwise affirmed by Roman Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and most Protestants at every mass. Hell I've heard even the Mormon's recite it on occassion and they don't even believe in the trinity. It was coined as a unifying statement of faith, a definition of what it is to be a Christian and it's still is used as such today by those who have it ingrained in their religious doctrines.. Today however the different Christian groups who recite it disagree on what it means. It is not accepted or recited by the Baptists.. which is probable why you aren't as familiar with it, or it's history. I believe the Baptists don't recite it because the Nicean Creed is not in the bible, and did not come to us from god but rather via a political process... The first church council. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted February 12, 2014 Author Share Posted February 12, 2014 Thanks JMS. I was aware of it and the history, but just pointing out I've never heard it recited. Your explanation makes sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 I certainly heard the apostle's creed in Catholic mass back when I attended. In fact I've heard it so many times I can recite it by heart. Exactly Correct... Every Sunday. I always got a kick out of attending Protestant masses when they proclaim "We believe in one holy (C/c)atholic and apostolic Church." The creed was supposed to act as a unifier.. it is supposed to synchonize Christian Doctrine, create one church, and theirby allow the Emporor or state to better control his Empire by controling that unified church.... The was the whole motivation for the marrage between church and state which Constantine pioneered and which went so wrong in subsequent years. Here is a good article on it. http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=165 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 No. JMS' exaggerations/errors of/about the divisions among early Christians and the influence (and history) of Cosntantine have been done to death, so I at least intend to continue looking at that cartoon when my typing fingers get twitchy. It's all in the thread I linked earlier for people that really want to go there, anyway. Your understanding of history is centered around panegyrics.. idealized public expressions of praise for historic figures which bare no resemblance to reality and who's central theme is to reaffirm your faith. It's not worth discussing it with you because your knowledge is tied to your faith and your faith brooks no doubt, no nuances, no facts, no articles, no sources which fall outside the realm of Christian apologist. A realm I find simplistic, stale and boring. You constantly attack, object, and retreat. You never contribute. To your mind such a discussion of the pragmatism and motivation and works of a man like Constantine is an attack on your faith, which is not my motivation or my entertainment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 It is not accepted or recited by the Baptists.. which is probable why you aren't as familiar with it, or it's history. I believe the Baptists don't recite it because the Nicean Creed is not in the bible, and did not come to us from god but rather via a political process... The first church council. We ain't too big on the church/state marriage....or it's enablers and their excesses at least the real ones ain't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 We ain't too big on the church/state marriage....or it's enablers and their excesses at least the real ones ain't That makes good sense. Which goes into the history of the Baptist religion... Baptists were a reform religion set up on Rhode Island, and was an alternative to what they saw were the abuses of the Puritans in Massachusetts. Roger Williams, the founder of the Baptists in America was a Puritan who spoke out about separation of church and state and fair treatment for the indians and was banished from Massachusets for his trouble. Williams believed in complete religious freedom, so no single church should be supported by tax dollars. And the state shouldn't be prosecuting folks for religious infractions. Massachusetts Puritans believed they had the one true faith; therefore such talk was intolerable. Williams went down the road a few miles, purchased land from the Indians, and founded Providence and set up the first Baptist Church founded upon the priciples which got him banished from Boston. The American doctrine of a separation of church and state was modaled on this Baptist principle. So it makes sence then why Baptists would reject the Nicean Creed doctrinaly. The whole unification of church and state began with Constantine the Great. He tried to unify the church, so he could dominate it, and use it for political means. He owed his office to Christians who fought for him and kept him in power. Constantine built Christianity into a force within the empire. Subsequent Emporors would expand on this policy, at some times they controled the church, and at other times the Church would control them; but Constantine was the first. Before Constantine Christians were a large group, but they were secretive, geographically and politically isolated, and doctrinally independent. After Constantine they were consolidated, and they were wedded to the state and the subsequent Roman regimes were wedded to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 The Nicene Creed is the most widely used statement of faith in all the Christian Churches. It is recited or otherwise affirmed by Roman Catholics, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Lutherans, Anglicans, Methodists, Presbyterians, and most Protestants at every mass. I was a Protestant until three years ago and I never heard it at any service. I grew up in the Disciples of Christ; we never said it. Disciples of Christ are an off-shoot of Presbyterians. I don't know if they say it or not. Baptists don't say it. I haven't gone to a ton of Methodist services, but I never heard it there (at least I don't remember it). Why would Protestants say they believe in "one holy, catholic, and apostolic church" anyway? I know it's a lower case-c catholic, but Protestants don't necessarily believe in a universal church. (By the way, the Baptist objection would almost certainly fall along these lines. Baptists are very big on the idea of local authority - even those that belong to the SBC). Also, I just googled this and that sentence is a direct cut and paste from wikipedia. Exactly Correct... Every Sunday. I always got a kick out of attending Protestant masses when they proclaim "We believe in one holy (C/c)atholic and apostolic Church." The creed was supposed to act as a unifier.. it is supposed to synchonize Christian Doctrine, create one church, and theirby allow the Emporor or state to better control his Empire by controling that unified church.... The was the whole motivation for the marrage between church and state which Constantine pioneered and which went so wrong in subsequent years. Here is a good article on it. http://www.vision.org/visionmedia/article.aspx?id=165 I guess. Sort of. What it really was about - what most early councils were about - was stamping out heresies (or what the early church fathers saw as heresies). The Arian Heresy was about Jesus' nature and threatened to cause a major schism. The Creed was in response to that - hence the "consubstantial with the Father" line, which I learned in its newest form because I went through RCIA after the language change. I was confirmed at the Easter Vigil and the recitation of the creed was a disaster as half the attendees were twice a year church-goers and had no idea that the language had change. Ah, good times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 For people who are wondering about which parts of JMS' comments are true, and which are not, a general overview. 1. It is true that Constantine called the Council of Nicea because he wanted to ensure the solidarity of the Church, as he wanted to use it as a political tool. It is not true that every Bishop had his own theology. The vote at the council was nearly unanimous (like 400 to 2), and they were all pretty much in agreement from the start. 2. It is true that Constantine was a pragmatist that established the connection of Church and State for his own ends, and basically was the cause of many of the problems that followed over the years. It is almost certainly not true that he converted to 8 religions on his deathbed. I have never seen that claimed even in bad sources. 3. It is true that Baptists reject the Nicene creed, in the sense that they believe in "no creed but the Bible". It is not true that you will find much, if any disagreement with the content of the creed, though. They just don't like creeds. Detailed sourcing in support of these points can be found in the thread I linked earlier. I just don't want to do this all over again. Your understanding of history is centered around panegyrics.. idealized public expressions of praise for historic figures which bare no resemblance to reality and who's central theme is to reaffirm your faith. JMS, I have a bias that I have never even tried to hide, and I certainly have an agenda which is not a secret either. I also, however, have a love for the truth and I attempt to use the most credible and unbiased (or biased against my position) sources. You, on the other hand, tend to post jumbled up ramblings that are about 20% fact, 30% opinion, 30% stuff you heard or read somewhere but got wrong somehow, and 10% unattributed cut and paste from Wikipedia. When I make a claim, I back it up with good sources. I am, on the other hand, still waiting for anything that might support your odd claim that Constantine converted to 8 religions on his death bed. This is typical of you. I frequently examine myself to see if I am letting my biases get the best of me, but in the case of my discussions with you, I am pretty sure this is not the case, as I am not even close to the only person to become frustrated with you and your mixing fact with error. I have sat and read on this board as you argued Constitutional Law with a staff attorney on a state Supreme Court, points of law with attorneys, engineering/physics with a physicist, church history with pastors that have seminary training in the subject (not me), economics with an economist, and evolution with a professor of biochemistry. Pretty much, if you are an expert on a topic on ES, it is a rite of passage to end up in a frustrating and circular argument with you where you make a series of poorly attributed assertions, mixed with plenty of factual errors, but in a very authoritative tone. You also have a very bad habit of copying and pasting the work of others and claiming it as your own. See LKB's comment for the latest (but hardly unique) example of this. And, you have the nasty habit of waiting a while, then making all the same claims all over again as if the previous discussions never even happened. You can attempt to dismiss me as a "faith-based thinker" if you like, but even putting aside this blatant commission of the genetic fallacy, you cannot so dismiss all the other knowledgable people on ES who have expressed similar sentiments over the years. Are they all faith based thinkers? You'll excuse me then, I hope, if I dismiss your attack upon my character as a desperate attempt to avoid the fact that I always make sure I can back up what I claim, and you can't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Also, I just googled this and that sentence is a direct cut and paste from wikipedia. Lombardi, In the same short post you both question the accuracy of my statement, while accusing me of plagerizing it directly from the encyclopedia. An appropiate and condemning attack might have been to say I was making my facts up... But noooooooo Not you... You accuse me of reciting facts from sources.... OF NOT MAKING UP FACTS... how can I respond? Need I ask? Lombardi, which statement are you reffering to as "a direct cut and paste from wikipedia"? please post it. my sentence... "The Nicene Creed is the most widely used statement of faith in all the Christian Churches." google results from my sentence... show 83,200 hits... which one is the "direct cut and past" you are reffering too? One of the most widely used creeds in Christianity is the Nicene Creed, first formulated in AD 325 at the First Council of Nicaea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creed The Nicene Creed is the most widely accepted and used brief statements of the Christian Faith. http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/nicene.htm The Nicene Creed is an ancient Christian text known as the most widely accepted statement of faith among Christian churches. http://christianity.about.com/od/christiandoctrines/qt/thenicenecreed.htm The ancient text known as the Nicene Creed is the most widely recognized statement of faith among Christian churches. http://christianity.about.com/od/christiandoctrines/qt/Christian-Creeds.htm The Nicene Creed is the most common creed used in Christianity. http://christianityinview.com/creeds.html Let's look up 1+1 = 2 and see where I might plagerize that from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.