Why Did Christians Add To The Torah?

[Piprus]

Hard question for Christians maybe someone will know on here. Why did Christians create the New Testament in the first place and take away from the Torah. Why did they insist on adding their own material.

 

I can't claim to be an expert, but I've had some thoughts.

 

I think Paulist christianity was contrived as a politically unifying force in a 4th century Roman empire that was beginning to degenerate. Constantine, as a political payback to the Roman bishops for their support for his assuming the throne, made christianity not only recognized as a religion, but the official imperial religion. In order to cement their new-found power, they canonized the NT from writings based on a variety of traditional godman myths and gnostic concepts, declared it the "official" word of god, and essentially said to the people, "believe it or else". Once in place, the Roman bishops proceeded to enforce their own theological concepts to the exclusion of all others.

 

The canonized bible according to the council of Nicea therefore became the "constitution" for the new and powerful Roman christian church, just as a new nation writes and ratifies a constitution to form its bedrock for existence. The result in the years to follow was a massacre, not only of pagan Romans, but of "heretics" as well. The 80 or so different sects within Pauist christianity at the time of Constantine was thus reduced essentially to only one, and so it would stand until the Reformation.

 

The christians like to make a big deal of their early martyrdom by the pagan Roman emperors, but actually the christians slaughtered far more pagans and other christians than were supposedly martyred by pagans. All to elevate the position of the Roman church to one of unbridled power and supremacy.

 

Oh, Antlerman...I like the idea of humanism. It is certainly compatible with the "globalization" movement that is intertwining the economies of the nations, and perhaps it would serve to ward off the ugly sectarianism promoted by the monotheistic creeds...like islamic jihad and the christian dominionists. "Let's just be people of good will, and let the damn gods take care of themselves."

[Antlerman]

I think what you see going on with Christianity in the industrialized nations is it trying to find its voice to speak to the world. The rise of fundamentalism in these nations is symptomatic of this implosion that is going on. I posted some more involved thoughts on this in this post here which you can read if you are interested in this: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?s=&a...st&p=202180

 

Antlerman, I agree with you in many regards, as usual... however, I don't think modern Christianity is trying to hold onto the past so much... as it is frozen in fear of the morals and beliefs instilled precariously by the concept of a literal hell.

I wasn’t really saying that modern Christianity is trying to hold onto the past. It is fundamentalism that is a reactionary movement to modernity in Christianity. Modern Christianity is struggling to find a voice of relevance to the modern world, while the fundamentalist reacts to modern Christianity by offering promises of simple, clear answers in some imagined nostalgic past. It was really more in the last half of that post where I dug into this more.

 

I understand the power of the hell belief, but I don’t think it is the hell belief itself that keeps people frozen in fear. I think it is people’s fear of change and their ability to be able to relate to and fit into the world in a rapidly changing society that drives them being frozen in fear, slamming the brakes on change. “Hell” becomes an external symbol of that fear to them, that they can quickly and simply summarize those fears into something “horrible”. Hell is instability and God is clear direction. They are symbols of human emotions.

 

Personally, what I see being the philosophy that will speak to the world is humanism. I suppose if anything I would identify with personally it is humanism. Here's a brief explanation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

 

I think humanism has a big piece of the puzzle, however, I do think that transcendental concepts do have a legitimate place in society. There are many things that are happening that we don't have rational reasoning to explain them, nor justify them. Still, they may exist, as we don't know EVERYTHING. IMHO, we may still be developing other senses. If the first beings getting the sense of sight were able to perceive something before bumping into it, however, it may not have been able to be recognized and neurally connected as efficiently as today, would it be wise to just dismiss it as fantasy? What would have happened if we were cognizant enough then to decide to deny the ability of sight's existence as being valid and decided NOT to trust it at all? :ohmy:

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying secular humanism is the answer, though I understand how humanism in common use can be taken to mean secular humanism. I agree with you about transcendent concepts having a legitimate place in society. I think it is an integral part of the human experience of its own existence also. The exploration of possibilities is what drives the human spirit.

 

All I ever caution against is placing stock in things that are possibilities as though they are realities for the greater community of the world. Now, sometimes this may not be wrong on the individual level, but when it comes to relating to others in a society it can be problematic as there is no common experience that allows for a language to understand these things mutually. They can be agreed upon in esoteric circles and become a legitimate language of a sub-culture, and that itself is valid. But where I see humanism as the greater answer to the problem is that in a global society where there are multiple languages of cultural, mythologies, philosophies, etc.

 

Our common humanity is what binds us all together. It is a single language. We all aspire to hope. We all aspire to dream. We all aspire to live. All philosophies and religions that embrace these inclusive ideals support humanity, support the human experience of ultimate ideals. Science provides a tool for us to define a language we can all agree on that transcends cultural biases, but what tool defines that language for the human spirit? Not science. Religion? Possibly, but it certainly couldn’t be a tribal religion or anything that is exclusivist in its teachings. At this point in time in my thinking I would suggest it is the language of humanity in its common aspirations. Recognizing and honoring the human spirit in all is as inclusive as you can get.

 

Notions like blood sacrifices to tribal gods were valid when the world ended at the borders of the land you lived in, where those outside your borders were not true humans. We however no longer have borders. Modern Christianity is struggling to be relevant to this global society.

[Ramen666]

Antlerman you seem quite intelligent so I will ask you. Do feel that the day will come when Christianity becomes a dead religion? We see it is struggling like you said above but do you think a time will come that there will be a " Great Awakening" and people leave the church and the athesim precentage will rise. Is it possible to even happen?

[Antlerman]

Antlerman you seem quite intelligent so I will ask you. Do feel that the day will come when Christianity becomes a dead religion? We see it is struggling like you said above but do you think a time will come that there will be a " Great Awakening" and people leave the church and the athesim precentage will rise. Is it possible to even happen?

A dead religion for the whole world, or in the industrialized nations? If we assume that governments and living conditions in the 3rd world become part of the greater community of educated societies, and people have access to other ideas: sciences, philosophies, religions, etc and there basic human needs are being met socially by their systems of government, then I think traditional religion will need to change to adapt to societies needs, rather than what you see now.

 

Fundamentalism will always be present, no matter what the belief system is. It's part of the statistical normal distribution curve, i.e., "the bell curve". It's impossible to have a flat line where everyone thinks the same. The bulk of society is in the bulge in the middle, but ironically it's the edges on the far right and far left that creates a dialog in the middle and helps society to define itself and evolve. To get rid of it will stop growth in society. Society is an organism that creates conflict for the sake of its own growth.

 

As far as religion ever going away: I doubt it. Like I've said I see the human experience as being both rational and non-rational. There is that something we have that we call the spirit, where we dream, where we reach, where we find inspiration, we seek unity of society for the benefit of the individual. Mythology, poetry, art, philosophy, music are all languages of this potential of the human heart. Religions become libraries or repositories for these sacred mythologies that serve as a common language for society to talk about these ideals.

 

Religion is an institution, like a department of public safety, which societies hire to do this job of housing their language for them, to teach their descendents how to participate in this common language system, etc. Art, music, etc don't have that sort of organization, even though they are themselves valid languages of the spirit. So at this moment, I don't see how religion will be ever going away. Evolved, yes, but not retired. Man created mythologies and religions for a timeless sort of need, even though some of what it evolved into politically has no more purpose.

 

Will Christianity itself die as a religion? If it fails to evolve with society, then yes. It has evolved however throughout its long history, despite the ignorant claims of the fundamentalist. They don't have the original religion. Hardly. They have some incarnation from the middle of the 19th century that was born out of "the Great Disappointment" of the Methodist movement, as all the modern cults did. Their claims of original truths are a hollow illusion. It's a false and unfulfillable promise they spout to hawk their wares to the masses. Shame on them. They are dishonest.

 

Ok, I'll leave it at that for now.

[Amanda]

Will Christianity itself die as a religion? If it fails to evolve with society, then yes. It has evolved however throughout its long history, despite the ignorant claims of the fundamentalist. They don't have the original religion. Hardly. They have some incarnation from the middle of the 19th century that was born out of "the Great Disappointment" of the Methodist movement, as all the modern cults did. Their claims of original truths are a hollow illusion. It's a false and unfulfillable promise they spout to hawk their wares to the masses. Shame on them. They are dishonest.

 

Oh my, Antlerman... I think decieit and dishonesty started pouring in way before the 19th century! Many emperors, kings, and religious leaders have distorted these teachings... as soon as it even started to have some recognition. Constantine was known to use it profusely for his own benefit, in fact... what western leaders haven't?