Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
crookedspiral

A new christianity for a new world

53 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

crookedspiral
2 minutes ago, and then said:

  I just find that most "new" stances on "Christianity" tend to leave out the Divinity of Christ and so, are not truly a relationship with Him. 

Is it new though? Early Christians demonstrated a wide range of beliefs and practices. Many of which we are still unaware. At its most basic, Christianity is the faith tradition that focuses on the figure of Jesus Christ. In this context, faith refers both to the believers' act of trust and to the content of their faith.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
eight bits

It might be tricky to reconcile this:

5 hours ago, Clockwork_Spirit said:

The Bible is foundational to Christian understanding and identity. To be Christian means to be shaped by in a continuing conversation with this collection of texts.

with this

Quote

Early Christians demonstrated a wide range of beliefs and practices. Many of which we are still unaware. At its most basic, Christianity is the faith tradition that focuses on the figure of Jesus Christ.

The earliest Chrisitans didn't have the Bible as we know it (not even a canonized Jewish Bible), and had other texts that didn't make it into the canons (Jewish or Christian, although there are interesting echoes of some of those excluded texts in the Koran). Those other texts were read even in the time when there were canons (which we know because the copies that reach us from, say, Nag Hammadi, were cached well into the orthodox era). Plus, if people like Epiphanius are to be believed, there were Christians who chose only a single favorite book (maybe Matthew, say), or part of a book (Matthew, but maybe without the genealogy, or the Gospel of Marcion which was supposedly like an edited version of Luke) as their only Gospel (complementing letters attributed to Paul in the case of Marcion).

How different is that, really, from Frank Sinatra's modern recommendation of Matthew chapters 5-7 ("The sermon on the mount;" sinatra playboy interview is searchable; the interview in whole or pertinent part is widely available online)? Even a famously secular film director, Pasolini, could create an edited version of Matthew (shades of Marcion editing Luke). Here's the Paolini sermon on the mount montage:

 

 

Finally, what difference does it make who said these words? The Creator and Sustainer of All Things Visible and Invisible made flesh, or the village idiot (assuming that's two distinct individuals)? The advice has meirt, lacks merit, or can be adapted so that it acquires merit. Once spoken and recorded, the words stand on their own or fail on their own. Or so it seems to me.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jodie.Lynne
17 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I guess I don't know how to phrase my disagreements in a way that would be satisfactory to you. 

The only way it would be satisfactory, Is if you caved in and agreed with his position. He is firmly dug into his stance and no amount of reasoning, or discussion will alter his opinion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.