Biblical Christianity?

[Windwalker]

Is there really any such thing, or is this a mythology? I believe it is a created myth in order to bolster an image of authority to a particular set of beliefs and values, typically conservative/fundamentalist in nature. It is a moniker created as a political slogan in order to create a sense of validity and authority to their specific views."It's not my words, but God's!", which is of course a false position for any human to say. Everything read from the Bible, is subjective to personal or group interpretations. Recognizing that fact, begins to open oneself to self-awareness and our particular biases which divide rather than unite.

In reality, there never was such as thing as "Biblical Christianity", especially in the early church. There was no Bible for the early Christians. There was no "official collection" of books that they all agreed upon, and held up as a source of authority for the first couple hundred years. Yet, they were Christians, who did not have a "Bible", let alone "follow" it.

What were they really following then, if it wasn't the Bible? What is Christianity about then, if it's not about "following the Bible"? What is it supposed to be following then, if they Bible is handled in such ways that people hide their prejudices behind what they are reading? Is Christianity founded in the Bible, or something else? What is the reality of Christianity, since "Biblical Christianity" is a created myth?

 

[Jos]

Is there really any such thing, or is this a mythology? I believe it is a created myth in order to bolster an image of authority to a particular set of beliefs and values, typically conservative/fundamentalist in nature. It is a moniker created as a political slogan in order to create a sense of validity and authority to their specific views."It's not my words, but God's!", which is of course a false position for any human to say. Everything read from the Bible, is subjective to personal or group interpretations. Recognizing that fact, begins to open oneself to self-awareness and our particular biases which divide rather than unite.

In reality, there never was such as thing as "Biblical Christianity", especially in the early church. There was no Bible for the early Christians. There was no "official collection" of books that they all agreed upon, and held up as a source of authority for the first couple hundred years. Yet, they were Christians, who did not have a "Bible", let alone "follow" it.

What were they really following then, if it wasn't the Bible? What is Christianity about then, if it's not about "following the Bible"? What is it supposed to be following then, if they Bible is handled in such ways that people hide their prejudices behind what they are reading? Is Christianity founded in the Bible, or something else? What is the reality of Christianity, since "Biblical Christianity" is a created myth?

Can you blame Christians for adhering to the Bible so dogmatically though? The Bible does claim to be the Word of God and TBH without it, Christians wouldn't be able to know anything about God, wouldn't they?

 

[Audie]

The popularity of the bible is based largely on
how it says whatever anyone wants it to say.

 

[Audie]

Can you blame Christians for adhering to the Bible so dogmatically though? The Bible does claim to be the Word of God and TBH without it, Christians wouldn't be able to know anything about God, wouldn't they?

Where does the bible say it is the word of god?

 

[Jos]

Where does the bible say it is the word of god?

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, for every good work.

 

[Windwalker]

Can you blame Christians for adhering to the Bible so dogmatically though?

Yes. I certainly can. Jesus did, quite vehemently, as in the following,

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when you have succeeded, you make them twice as much a child of hell as you are.

“Woe to you, blind guides! You say, ‘If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gold of the temple is bound by that oath.’You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred? You also say, ‘If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but anyone who swears by the gift on the altar is bound by that oath.’ You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred? Therefore, anyone who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it. And anyone who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it. And anyone who swears by heaven swears by God’s throne and by the one who sits on it.

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous. And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!​

Any questions?

The Bible does claim to be the Word of God and TBH without it, Christians wouldn't be able to know anything about God, wouldn't they?

The Bible does not claim to be the Word of God. The NT was not even in existence when Christianity was formed, for at least the first couple hundred years. If there is any verse in the NT that points to "scripture", it is not referring to the books of the NT. The "Word of God", in the NT, is actually not ink and paper, but Spirit, the Logos of John 1. Modern Christians have replaced the Logos with a book, as if that can actually reveal Truth itself alone.

 

[Windwalker]

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, for every good work.

There's that verse. Firstly, 2 Timothy was not written by Paul, but is considered a pseudo-Pauline text: From Wiki: Pauline epistles - Wikipedia

The letters thought to be pseudepigraphic by about 80% of scholars:[2]

• Ephesians
• First Timothy
• Second Timothy
• Titus

So even so, if one were to say Paul did write that, there still was no NT in existence for at least a couple hundred years. So he would have been referring to the OT books. And while it can be said these are inspired, and profitable, that does not mean it can be interpreted to mean what you hear in nonsense statements like "It's not my words, but God's!" It's all their own words, since they are the one's interpreting it! End of story. It is all basically hiding responsibility for group and individual biases behind a supposed external Authority. Those are only as valid as the one reading it.

 

[A REAL CHRISTIAN]

Is there really any such thing, or is this a mythology? I believe it is a created myth in order to bolster an image of authority to a particular set of beliefs and values, typically conservative/fundamentalist in nature. It is a moniker created as a political slogan in order to create a sense of validity and authority to their specific views."It's not my words, but God's!", which is of course a false position for any human to say. Everything read from the Bible, is subjective to personal or group interpretations. Recognizing that fact, begins to open oneself to self-awareness and our particular biases which divide rather than unite.

In reality, there never was such as thing as "Biblical Christianity", especially in the early church. There was no Bible for the early Christians. There was no "official collection" of books that they all agreed upon, and held up as a source of authority for the first couple hundred years. Yet, they were Christians, who did not have a "Bible", let alone "follow" it.

What were they really following then, if it wasn't the Bible? What is Christianity about then, if it's not about "following the Bible"? What is it supposed to be following then, if they Bible is handled in such ways that people hide their prejudices behind what they are reading? Is Christianity founded in the Bible, or something else? What is the reality of Christianity, since "Biblical Christianity" is a created myth?

Not totally sure what your getting at but at the end of the gospels jesus commissions the disciples to spread christianity. The early church listened to the apostles. They are dead now. What we have now are their writings and we can follow that. Strangely enough these few writings are enough for christians to go by. Any proposed confusion on what belief christians should have is really a result of some guy not understanding a few simple verses. I dont see how the bible is really a political tool because its about salvation, following jesus , loving one another etc. What tends to happen is that people MAKE UP an alternative writing or belief and act like its on the same level. For example the catholic church used to teach you can pay money to have sins forgiven. They never altered the bible to say this but instead included some apocraphyl books ( that were never considered inspired before) that taught this.

 

[metis]

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, for every good work.

To nit-pick, that was a reference to the Torah and possibly some other books in the Tanakh since the NT had not yet been selected as being "scripture".

 

[Audie]

The writings of Islam, LDS, etc, are all just made up
but not those of Christianity.

 

[Jos]

Any questions?

Well given that Jesus adhered to it to faithfully then why shouldn't Christians do the same given that He's the founder of their faith?

There's that verse. Firstly, 2 Timothy was not written by Paul, but is considered a pseudo-Pauline text: From Wiki: Pauline epistles - Wikipedia

The letters thought to be pseudepigraphic by about 80% of scholars:[2]

• Ephesians
• First Timothy
• Second Timothy
• Titus

So even so, if one were to say Paul did write that, there still was no NT in existence for at least a couple hundred years. So he would have been referring to the OT books. And while it can be said these are inspired, and profitable, that does not mean it can be interpreted to mean what you hear in nonsense statements like "It's not my words, but God's!" It's all their own words, since they are the one's interpreting it! End of story. It is all basically hiding responsibility for group and individual biases behind a supposed external Authority. Those are only as valid as the one reading it.

Ok I didn't know that... thanks for enlightening me.

 

[Jos]

To nit-pick, that was a reference to the Torah and possibly some other books in the Tanakh since the NT had not yet been selected as being "scripture".

Yeah the OP told me that.

 

[Jos]

The writings of Islam, LDS, etc, are all just made up
but not those of Christianity.

It sounds like you think there's a possibility that Christian scripture has a divine origin...

 

[JJ50]

Christianity seems to be anything a doctrine, dogma, sect or cult wishes it to be.

 

[Sunstone]

I suspect some Christians -- mainly fundamentalists -- have turned the Bible into an idol they worship in place of Jesus.

 

[Vouthon]

The Bible is a library of books by different authors addressed to various audiences with divergent, and sometimes competing, sectarian agendas.

Somehow, out of this melting pot of ideas and perspectives, common themes and tropes have been discerned by generations of Jews and Christians, but its true to say that the term 'biblical Christianity' is a misnomer.

That said, the New Testament - if taken in isolation from the Tanakh - is easier to interpret inasmuch as such a large section of it is either directly attributable to the Apostle Paul (the seven 'authentic' letters of Paul) or falls within the overall rubric of Pauline Christianity (the Gospel of Luke-Acts, obviously composed by a Gentile Christian deeply indebted to Paul's theology and career, the four pseudopigraphical texts written by Paul's disciples such as Ephesians, Timothy etc.) while the synoptic gospels as a whole follow the pattern set by Mark and bear witness to a common Jesus tradition. Matthew and the Letter of James, along with Hebrews, are more explicitly Judaic in orientation, therefore representing Jewish Christianity.

The Gospel of John and the Johannine epistles form part of another discernible school of thought within early Christianity in their own right, while the Book of Revelation is the only real 'outlier' in an intellectual world of its own (albeit one heavily steeped in Jewish apocalypticism and the Nev'im, such that it can probably be ranked with the other books of 'Jewish Christianity').

So Pauline Christianity is foremost, followed by the Synoptic tradition, Jewish Christianity and the Johannine school.

Second-century (onwards) 'orthodoxy' is a synthesis of these four early schools alongside later developments from the apostolic and church fathers.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Is there really any such thing, or is this a mythology? I believe it is a created myth in order to bolster an image of authority to a particular set of beliefs and values, typically conservative/fundamentalist in nature. It is a moniker created as a political slogan in order to create a sense of validity and authority to their specific views."It's not my words, but God's!", which is of course a false position for any human to say. Everything read from the Bible, is subjective to personal or group interpretations. Recognizing that fact, begins to open oneself to self-awareness and our particular biases which divide rather than unite.

In reality, there never was such as thing as "Biblical Christianity", especially in the early church. There was no Bible for the early Christians. There was no "official collection" of books that they all agreed upon, and held up as a source of authority for the first couple hundred years. Yet, they were Christians, who did not have a "Bible", let alone "follow" it.

What were they really following then, if it wasn't the Bible? What is Christianity about then, if it's not about "following the Bible"? What is it supposed to be following then, if they Bible is handled in such ways that people hide their prejudices behind what they are reading? Is Christianity founded in the Bible, or something else? What is the reality of Christianity, since "Biblical Christianity" is a created myth?

Everyone I think senses it is important though to keep some things which come with Christianity such as forgiveness and agape. There are two hidden objections to answer: 1. If there is no biblical christianity then what is that foundation which will keep us from becoming a cold desert of politics and strife? 2. How can I get my kids to gain wisdom beyond their years, be loving healthy with a shot at happiness?

 

[metis]

The Bible is a library of books by different authors addressed to various audiences with divergent, and sometimes competing, sectarian agendas.

Somehow, out of this melting pot of ideas and perspectives, common themes and tropes have been discerned by generations of Jews and Christians, but its true to say that the tern 'biblical Christianity' is a misnomer.

That said, the New Testament - if taken in isolation from the Tanakh - is easier to interpret inasmuch as such a large section of it is either directly attributable to the Apostle Paul (the seven 'authentic' letters of Paul) or falls within the overall rubric of Pauline Christianity (the Gospel of Luke-Acts, obviously composed by a Gentile Christian deeply indebted to Paul's theology and career, the four pseudopigraphical texts written by Paul's disciples such as Ephesians, Timothy etc.) while the synoptic gospels as a whole follow the pattern set by Mark and bear witness to a common Jesus tradition. Matthew and the Letter of James, along with Hebrews, are more explicitly Judaic in orientation, therefore representing Jewish Christianity.

The Gospel of John and the Johannine epistles form part of another discernible school of thought within early Christianity in their own right, while the Book of Revelation is the only real 'outlier' in an intellectual world of its own.

So Pauline Christianity is foremost, followed by the Synoptic tradition, Jewish Christianity and the Johannine school.

Second-century (onwards) 'orthodoxy' is a synthesis of these early schools alongside later developments from the apostolic and church fathers.

And to go along with your excellent post, let me just add that NT theology also reflects Greek influence, especially since northern Israel and the coastal areas were pretty heavily Hellenized, and it especially comes out strongly in Paul's letters.

 

[Vouthon]

And to go along with your excellent post, let me just add that NT theology also reflects Greek influence, especially since northern Israel and the coastal areas were pretty heavily Hellenized, and it especially comes out strong in Paul's letters.

Indeed, St. Paul was a thoroughly Hellenized Jew from Tarsus and even references ancient Greek poets such as Epimenedes.

He was steeped in Platonism, of the kind typified by his contemporary Philo. This form of Platonic Judaism died out when the Rabbis codified the Hebrew Bible after the 1st century Council of Jamnia and later when the Mishnah was compiled, but has always been fundamental to Christian theology, as one can see from its influence in the prologue to the Gospel of John as well.

It's one of the reasons why Christianity became such a mass movement in the Roman Empire, since it combined some of the best insights from Hellenistic and Hebraic civilization in tandem with some of its own novel concepts.

 

[Audie]

It sounds like you think there's a possibility that Christian scripture has a divine origin...

Same chance that angels really told J. Smith
where the good books were.