The Historicity of Jesus - The Spread of Christianity in the 1st Century (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
June 09, 2024, 10:01:42 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Religion & Philosophy (Moderator: Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.)
  The Historicity of Jesus - The Spread of Christianity in the 1st Century (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: The Historicity of Jesus - The Spread of Christianity in the 1st Century  (Read 11924 times)
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,791
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW
« on: February 19, 2012, 01:09:51 AM »

What Christianity's official position was on a number of major doctrinal points wasn't really "settled" until the 6th century, either (it's only Christianity becoming the official faith of the Roman Empire in the 4th century that really begins the process of making those decisions, though certain heresies like Gnosticism were already in decline by that point).  My favorite example is always Origen, the third century theologian who was a strong proponent that even the obvious metaphorical language should be taken literally.  He saw the passage "There are eunuchs who became eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven" and...well...became a eunuch for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven.
That was in Origen's youth. His theological work tended toward the reverse - to look for metaphorical meanings. He believed that the OT especially contained many absurdities, and things that would be immoral if taken literally, and concluded they pointed instead to spiritual truths.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,791
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 19, 2012, 01:24:35 AM »

You're the one who is claiming that portions of the law have been revoked, not I.  All I have shown is that according to the Bible, God has explicitly specified that some parts of it are perpetual and will not be revoked by Him.  Hence, any later statement to the contrary indicates a contradiction. I deal with it by accepting that the Bible is a work of man that has generally been inspired by God, but as with any work of man, it is not infallible.
How do you know it is the later statement that is false, rather than the former?
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.018 seconds with 12 queries.