Should the Christian faith be rationally defended?

by Narkissos 61 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Narkissos

  No one has ever answered me that on a rational level.

  I did on another thread, but you probably didn't notice. I said that Gnostic-like Christianity, such as illustrated by Johannine and Pauline literature in the NT, would escape your double syllogism easily as it holds the OT as an "inferior revelation" at the very best. This is especially true of Marcionism, which rejects the OT altogether. Interestingly several scholars consider Galatians as a Marcionite production (note 3:19f: " Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring would come to whom the promise had been made; and it was ordained through angels by a mediator. Now a mediator involves more than one party; but God is one." What is inferred is that the Torah doesn't adequately express God's will.)
• 

  garybuss

  Narkissos, I saw your reply but did / do not see it as rational.
  
  1. Is the Hebrew Bible inerrant and acceptable as written? I don't read Hebrew, so I wouldn't have a clue. I rely on the translations by the Hebrew people and my conversations with the Rabbis.
  
  2. If the Hebrew Bible is inerrant then Jesus could not have been the Messiah. If the Hebrew Bible is errant there is no basis for anything based on it.
  
  I happen to see the Hebrew Bible as errant unto itself and an interesting piece of literature plus a nice collection of stories.
  
  I don't read Greek so I don't speak to the Christian Bible except by translation. I find the stories of the philosopher Jesus entertaining and interesting and I see him as not being followed very closely by those who claim him.
  
  
  
• 

  Elsewhere

  Should the Christian faith be rationally defended?

  No "faith based" idea can be defended rationally... that is why it is "faith based".
• 

  Narkissos

  Gary,

  My remarks are based on history.

  Historically both Judaism and Christianity start from a wide diversity which is later reduced by a process of unification. On the Jewish side, the post-70 pharisaic-rabbinical reform determined the canon and interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, rejecting a lot of Jewish works (the Greek Septuagint Bible, the works of Greek Jewish writers such as Philo and Josephus, the Essene texts as known by the Dead Sea Scrolls and a much larger body of apocalyptic literature). On the Christian side, the NT canon was gradually fixed down to the 4th century AD by the emerging Catholic Church, rejecting a lot of Gnostic (e.g. Nag-Hammadi) and Judeo-Christian (e.g. Ebionite) works.

  Now if you base your research on a comparison of the resulting unified religions your syllogism stands: of course the Catholic "Christ" doesn't meet the standards of the rabbinical "Messiah" as the Catholic dogma would have it. But if you go back into the diversity of pre-rabbinical Judaism and pre-Catholic Christianity you get a much more complex picture. Not all Jewish messianism would suit the rabbinical standard; and a large part of Judaism (e.g. Philo) was not messianic at all. On the other hand, not all early Christians would have considered Jesus as a Jewish Messiah. I think neither the Johannine nor Pauline writings in their original context imply that. That's about all I meant to say.
• 

  frankiespeakin

  Nark,

  Thanks for your reminders about Gnostism. Once I realized that there were many other so callled holy books,,everything started to make more sense. The books that make up the Christian bible of today is the product of church politics and not some test to qualify them as inspired and thus gain entry into the cannon.
• 

  garybuss

  Narkissos, I looked at the Hebrew Bible, compared it to itself, read The Age Of Reason twice, read up on the manners and customs of the early Hebrew people, compared the duties of the messiah to the historical Jesus (what I could find) and read the history of the philosophy of theism and found it all lacking in objective reality.
  
  Thanks for your comments. I looked for answers to my questions in your comments and didn't find them in this thread either.
  
  
  
  
• 

  Euphemism

  .
• 

  bebu

  I don't know if I get your question, either, Gary. But, have you tried asking a Jewish Christian? Maybe they know what you're asking, and hopefully could show you how they understand it...

  http://www.jewsforjesus.org

  Try sending an email. I asked them something once, and they did reply in about a week.

  bebu
• 

  justhuman

  Yes
• 

  Narkissos

  Gary,

  Part of the present topic is whether at least some segments of Christianity were ever interested in "objective reality" at all.

  Whatever, it sounds amazing to me that you refer to "the duties of the messiah" as if such a thing could be objectively found in the "Hebrew Bible".

  In the 1st century AD, what we simplistically call "Jewish messianism" actually covered a lot of conflicting expectations (such as for a kingly Davidic character and/or a priestly Aaronide character). Only in later, unified rabbinical Judaism or Christianity may you find a consistent messianic "profile"; of course the rabbinical one does not suit Jesus, whereas the Christian one suits him perfectly. What they have in common is to be made up of out-of-context Biblical verses, most of which do not originally refer to a future end-time character, i.e. are not "messianic" at all. (DevonMcBride provided the link to such a Jewish list in another thread a couple of months ago.)

  Whoever wants to search seriously into the origins of Christianity has to go back upstream of both rabbinical Judaism and early-Catholic Christianity -- i.e., take the assertions of neither for granted.