Ass And A Colt?

[Grandpa Harley]

The Gnostics, of course, rejected the God of the Old Testment as a demiurge, not worthy of our attention. The Epistle of Barnabas, for example, is a figuarate and spiritualized view of the OT.

 

The Gnostics weren't church fathers, nor did they have any hand in the formation of Xian tradition or theology.

 

The church father Bishop Marcion was excommunicated in the first half of the second century, not for allegorizing the OT, but for rejecting the entire OT and cutting out OT references from his "new and improved" NT.

 

That he was, but he wasn't a church father, and also had no hand in the formation of Xian tradition. Like the Gnostics, he was part of his own thing.

 

The Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria embraced an allegorical interpretation of the OT so as to better reconcile Judaism with Greek philosophy.

 

He did, but wasn't a church father.

 

What I am talking about is the actual Xian church. Not any offshoot or breakaway sect, but the entity that formed and shaped Xian theology and teaching for centuries. The entity from which many sects sprang. The church that split to form the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, the former later giving birth to the Lutheran sect and so on.

 

Nowhere in this is ever to be found anyone who does not tout the Babble as being the literal truth, which is what I was getting at.

 

While you are correct that most have assumed a literal understanding of the OT and in fact I do take much of it as originally written as literal history and in fact some of it as reliable history, there certainly is a precedent to allegorize it. One should do what one's conscience demands.

 

There is precedent, but only amongst those who rebelled against the church and, ultimately, Xianity. That much I know you wouldn't claim to be.

 

I highlighted that last bit because, though I find it laudable, a statement like that puts you in the position of authority, an attitude that has never been supported by any Xian sect to the best of my knowledge. Say that to any serious Xian, no matter the sect, and you'd be accused of playing God.

 

And citing Gnostics and Philo, etc, is all well and good, but historically, people like these were always the interlopers, the rebels - not the originals. They did not first spread or codify the basics of the religion their own sects are spin-offs of - they merely did their own thing with something else as a foundation for that. They were the imitators, not the originators.

 

Just food for thought.

 

I would say that my take is different that many, but not without precedent. I believe that the Kingdom is a gloriously large tree and many birds nest among its many branches. Each of us must find the branch that works for us. Or find another tree altogether in which to enjoy one's life.

 

But is your take different from the original version, that which history can show us was the version first touted amongst believers to the whole world? Yes or no - and why. That's all I ask, not your opinions on the nature of the "Kingdom."

Although not called one Marcion IS a church father since without him we'd not have the version of Luke we do, nor the Primero-Pauline Epistles. In fact, much of canon was set out by Marcion and appropriated by people like Irenaeus for their own purposes. If Marcion had been the 'niche player' you decribe, there'd not have been the round condemnation of him by the Proto-Catholic Church.

 

Luke is an expanded version of Marcion's Luke and the Pauline stuff has been softened by translation and exegetical and apologetic argument to make it seem less 'Gnostic'. I'd refer you to the Robert M. Price collection recently published, 'The Pre-Nicene New Testament' wherein he covers Marcionism in some detail, and it's place in the catholic (small c) church....

[currentchristian]

Your avatar causes me to think that you are a "Father Ted" fan? My partner and I love the show! ("Keeping Up Appearances," too!)

 

-CC

[Grandpa Harley]

Oh yes...

 

 

The three ages of the Roman Priesthood: Young and stupid, middleaged and failed, old and drunk...

[Grandpa Harley]

On topic, does no one find it odd that Jesus was a horse thief?

[Lycorth]

Although not called one Marcion IS a church father since without him we'd not have the version of Luke we do, nor the Primero-Pauline Epistles. In fact, much of canon was set out by Marcion and appropriated by people like Irenaeus for their own purposes. If Marcion had been the 'niche player' you decribe, there'd not have been the round condemnation of him by the Proto-Catholic Church.

 

Marcion is no church father. If he is the one responsible for the version of Luke that we have, please cite some sources. From what I've ever read or recently found, he had no role in any sort of Babblical formation outside of his own sect.

 

He is most certainly a "niche-player" in the sense that he did not contribute to Catholic doctrine, and hence to Xian doctrine. His sect died out around the fifth century, and his writings are lost, though some scholars claim it possible to deduce what he taught by examining the writings of his critics.

 

The Church may have condemned him, but that doesn't mean he was an influential member of the Church. It would have been nice for some of his ideas to have been taken on by the Church at large, for perhaps that would have eroded some of the bloody fanaticism of later centuries and certainly would have derailed some of the overall oppressiveness of Xianity, but it simply was not so.

 

And since CC couldn't be bothered to reply to my post, I'll consider myself the winner by default here. Par for the course, I suppose

[currentchristian]

...

You have no problem with people allegorizing the Babble, but where do you stand on the other side of the coin? Did all the events that took place in the pages of the Babble really do so, and did the individuals really exist, in history?

 

...

Heaven isn't for everyone, it's only for those who accept Jebus and obey him, as per the Babble itself.

 

....

Your view undercuts the traditional view of Xianity, and the plain text of the Babble, in many ways. Your view is nobly liberal, in regards to the oppressiveness of the Babble's teachings, but it boggles me how you seem to think your view (heretofore a modern one without any historical basis or precedent) is the True Way to look at the Babble.

 

...

Why you cannot admit the same about Xianity, an inherently oppressive, anti-gay, exclusivist religion is beyond me

 

Not so fast, there, Varokhar!

 

Excuse my failure to get back to you.

 

I'll respond to the four above.

 

1. I have no problem with a literalist interpretation of the Bible. I, too, take much as literally true. I think everyone is free to view it in the way that seems correct and honest and good to their conscience.

 

2. Regarding whom heaven (the metaphor) is for, I hope for everyone. We'll all need to be straightened out about one thing or one hundred things, but my hope is that the gates swing open wide for all.

 

3. My goodness, I have never said my way is the "true way." Godforbid. My way is true for me; that's why it's my way. Your way is true for you; that's why it's your way. But your way may not be true for me and vice versa. In this life, we can only embrace that which we discern to be true and good and correct. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

4. I cannot admit that Christianity is an "inherently oppressive, anti-gay, exclusivist religion" if I don't see it that way. One can only admit what one sees as true. I agree that various denominations of the Christian religion are all these things you mention. But the religion is not responsible for how it's interpreted.

 

-CC