First, thanks, Sweetstuff. I hope I do too.
As for the comment of Serotonin Wraith…
Hasn’t the religion been based on the written accounts?
While many epistles like the Pauline letters were distributed among churches, these churches still
existed first before any letter was sent to them. If the churches had to wait for the epistles to
be sent to them first before they developed, there would have been no place to send the epistles
in the first place.
This is not to say that the early Christians did not regularly learn their faith from what was
written. They did. In fact, according to the earliest details available from persons like Pliny
and Justin Martyr, the first church services included not only readings from the Hebrew canon,
but “memoirs of the apostles” as well. The current liturgical practice of a 3-year cycle in
religions like Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Anglican Churches, Lutheran, and others is based on this
ancient practice.
But was the religion based on these texts? No. As the Apostolic Fathers and history testifies,
until the Marcion apostasy, many Christians opposed learning the faith from texts. Why? Because
Christianity originated from an oral tradition, from people who literally walked and talked with
Jesus of Nazareth when he lived on earth. Resistance to making their faith something that
came from a book was very strong. Even the bishop Papias (c 60-130) stated: “It seemed to
me that I could profit more from the living voice than from books.”
Even the Gospel books in the canon today suggest that their information came from an oral
tradition. Matthew, for example, drew from what is known as the “sayings source” or Q. John’s
gospel makes what scholars believe to be direct reference to his source by numbering the
miracles of Jesus, not literally (as if the wedding of Cana was the first miracle performed)
but from an obvious well-known memory aid that many scholars call the “signs source.”
The claim that the faith required “proof texts” developed out of the Gnostic challenge,
especially from the rise of Marcion and his canon of the second century.
How about books like Revelation?
While the book was obviously passed on to the congregations mentioned, again they existed first,
not afterwards. These congregations did not come into existence because of this written document.
Of interest to note is that while Revelation is included in the present canon, it was not well
received nor was it well known at the time of its inclusion. The Apocalypse of Peter was
probably the best known of all apocalyptic Christian writings in circulation at the time.
Doesn’t this show the Bible just as uninspired?
Likely in the minds of many it does. My reasons for including these statements is not to suggest
belief in the inspiration of the texts. I am concerned with the publication of verifiable data.
Just because I have written this information it doesn’t mean that I hold it credence in my personal
belief system, if I have any. I do know that this latest information is the best out there.
As for the religions that do hold that these writings are inspired, they do so not on the basis
that their faiths are to be based on their contents, but on the criteria of how well the contents
matched with their faith. There were many gospel accounts and books in circulation that were not
included, some because they were thought unnecessary but others that conflicted with the truth as
well as the church knew it. Whether we are to believe in them or not is a personal matter that
I will not take up here.
As for your last comment about Muslim radicals, I am not sure if your point is mainly to try to
discredit my writing or to offer practical advice. I believe that most people on this board are
good thinkers and have educated themselves about religious fanaticism from their experience of
the Witnesses to know I wasn't speaking in those terms. My statements regarding treating others
respectfully do not include turning a blind eye to criminal behavior, whether done in the name of
religion or not. I don’t approve of hatred towards others because a religion tells us we should
view others as “infidels.” I don’t approve of anyone who reflects such hatred to others either
through violence or, as you put it, “a healthy dose of disrespect.”
