What came first...

[nobspeople]

christianity, the religion, or the bible?
Is one based on or off of the other, are did they develop together, side-by-side?

The question arose from another poster's response in another thread saying (paraphrased): christianity wouldn't exist without the bible. This seems to indicate christianity was, at least in some part, 'built' from the bible.

If it's true that christianity is built off of the bible, is today's christianity the same as the belief of jesus's time?
If it's not true, what changed to make today's christianity different than the original?

[historia]

What came first... christianity, the religion, or the bible?

Christianity.

Obviously, the Jewish scriptures (Old Testament) existed before Christianity. But the New Testament (and thus the Bible as a whole) was written and then later compiled by Christians, and so is a product of the Christian community, rather than vice-versa.

Is one based on or off of the other, are did they develop together, side-by-side?

They developed side-by-side, although Christianity has continued to develop and evolve to this day.

This seems to indicate christianity was, at least in some part, 'built' from the bible.

Yeah, this is a popular Protestant conception of the relationship between religion and scripture, but I think it's historically inaccurate.

The Bible just isn't the kind of text you can construct an entire religion from. You need tradition as well as scripture to do that.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to historia in post #2]

They developed side-by-side, although Christianity has continued to develop and evolve to this day.

Do you think the continuation of christian development is based more on the bible and tradition or is it a more secular developement?

The Bible just isn't the kind of text you can construct an entire religion from. You need tradition as well as scripture to do that.

Of course tradition is needed. But to what extent is christiant tradition based on the bible and what's not? Traditions pull from all sorts of places in life (geographic time and area, socioeconomic matters, family, status, local religions and on and on). But what percentage, from your experience, is modern christianity pulling from the bible and what's pulling from other stimuli?

No right or wrong answer, simply curious as to other's POVs.

[TRANSPONDER]

christianity, the religion, or the bible?
Is one based on or off of the other, are did they develop together, side-by-side?

The question arose from another poster's response in another thread saying (paraphrased): christianity wouldn't exist without the bible. This seems to indicate christianity was, at least in some part, 'built' from the bible.

If it's true that christianity is built off of the bible, is today's christianity the same as the belief of jesus's time?
If it's not true, what changed to make today's christianity different than the original?

I'd opt for the Bible - the OT at least. Without which we wouldn't have Pharisee resurrection and Messianism. And Christianity (in the sense of Messianic Judaism) was based on that. Marcion (so I read) wanted to be rid of the Jewish stuff but he was declared a heretic because the Vatican decided (in Constantine's time) that the OT was necessary to keep as the basis and I suppose for the prophecies, too. I'd say the Religion followed because (I argue) Paul remained a Jew and saw Jesus as a messiah who had risen to heaven (save the debate about whether in the body or the spirit) and was not God or the spirit of God but the spirit of the Messiah. Or so i think is the case.

The Christian religion as we know it appeared when it was decided by the Gentile Christians that it was the spirit of God that descended on Jesus and Paul would never have accepted that, in my view.

[historia]

They developed side-by-side, although Christianity has continued to develop and evolve to this day.

Do you think the continuation of christian development is based more on the bible and tradition or is it a more secular developement?

I'm not sure what you mean by "secular development."

What I'm thinking of here is that, while the New Testament shows developing beliefs and practices within the primitive Christian community, those texts were completed by the mid-2nd Century, and so only show development up to that point. Christianity continued developing after that.

But to what extent is christiant tradition based on the bible and what's not?

I think of this the other way around: From the apostles onward, the Christian community developed various beliefs and practices, which we can collectively refer to as Tradition. Some of that was written down in the New Testament, but some of it wasn't. So Tradition isn't based on the Bible so much as the Bible is one (very important) part of the overall Tradition.

This is more of an Eastern Orthodox view of the relationship between scripture and tradition, but one that I think also reflects the history of Christianity better than western conceptions (either Roman Catholic or Protestant) of that relationship.

[W]hat percentage, from your experience, is modern christianity pulling from the bible and what's pulling from other stimuli?

That's very difficult to quantify. Complicating the matter is that Christians read the Bible through the lens of tradition, so there really isn't a sense in which they are pulling purely from the Bible. Modern Christianity is also quite diverse.

[historia]

Marcion (so I read) wanted to be rid of the Jewish stuff but he was declared a heretic because the Vatican decided (in Constantine's time) that the OT was necessary to keep as the basis and I suppose for the prophecies, too.

Just a minor clarifying point: Marcion was excommunicated by the bishop of Rome in the 2nd Century, whereas Constantine was emperor in the 4th Century. And the term "Vatican" is a bit anachronistic in this context.

[TRANSPONDER]

You're perfectly correct and I should have checked my dates. However being bone idle I do tend to work from memory when posting my opinions and Revelations and leave details to be questioned later on, like if I'm asked for chapter and verse, I can look it up later rather than interrupt the flow at the time. Bad practice I know, but I learned apologetic theist style - broad assertions rather than meticulous scholarship. I learned that the trick is to get the point in their ears before they can stick their fingers in.

[JoeyKnothead]

I learned that the trick is to get the point in their ears before they can stick their fingers in.

[TRANSPONDER]

I learned that the trick is to get the point in their ears before they can stick their fingers in.

Where can I find icons like that? Topic..what topic? I do or did find Theist thinking and methods fascinating. I initially came up against three questions:-
What, How and Why.

What do they argue, How do they argue, Why do they argue.

'What' is validation of the Bible and their Faith, (plus maintaining the credibility of the Group, but that's a whole sideline).

How do they argue? Three levels - first on the evidence, correct, fiddled or fake - doesn't matter - so long as it wins the argument. Second, fallacies, mind games and trying to make us doubt anything we thought we knew. Thirdly, cheek, needling, starting a fight, and/or the good old Flounce - marching off with a 'No use talking the closed -minded' parting shot. Getting the last word (a proxy win to them) is so often very important to them. (though vanishing for a month and resurfacing with the same arguments is a sideline)

Why? That was the Key The revelation. The answer to all the riddles and puzzles and why denial of what was surely proven seemed to be ok. Faith was the centre of the apologetic. Faith in the Beliefs that they knew were eggshell fragile. Which is why they are surrounded with as much resistant padding as possible. The aim of the game is not to prove their case but to shut ours up. That's the aim - not to prove the Bible but to shut up (or down) those who threaten to disprove it. (And here is another sideline - the maintaining of the credibility of the Group, which is perhaps more basic even than the faith)

[JoeyKnothead]

I learned that the trick is to get the point in their ears before they can stick their fingers in.

Where can I find icons like that?

When ya post a reply, they're yonder on the right, and below em's the option to see more of em.

Topic..what topic? I do or did find Theist thinking and methods fascinating. I initially came up against three questions:-
What, How and Why.

What do they argue, How do they argue, Why do they argue.

I'm in a bit of a different camp... What has em thinking so goofily? How come they think goofy arguments are valid? And how come so many of em repeat em the same goofy arguments?

I'm more into the kinda socio-psychological aspects more'n the claims themselves, though as an amateur I try to avoid drawing too many firm conclusions. I see their claims as a comfort mechanism mostly, but again, as an amateur, try not to put on too many airs.

As to their claims, I often challenge em to help folks see that so many theistic beliefs ain't much better'n a belief in the Great Pumpkin.

'What' is validation of the Bible and their Faith, (plus maintaining the credibility of the Group, but that's a whole sideline).

I think so many find validation for their beliefs in the fact so many share em, and that whole Church trying to impose their beliefs through force of law deal.

How do they argue?

Poorly.

Three levels - first on the evidence, correct, fiddled or fake - doesn't matter - so long as it wins the argument.

Who needs to win an argument when ya can just get state legislatures to impose religious edicts? See Texas, and really, the Bible Belt. The Supreme Court now seems to be doing what they can to help.

We see with a resurgence of Republican / Evangelical power in these various states, that the whims of Christians'll overrule the very Constitution these folks fuss em so much about.

For those interested, see Wedge Strategy.

Second, fallacies, mind games and trying to make us doubt anything we thought we knew.

I think it's fair to say that in these debates, we all seek to sow doubt about what "that other bunch" thinks they know.

It is nice though, to have facts available. Something the theist finds in short supply.

Thirdly, cheek, needling, starting a fight, and/or the good old Flounce - marching off with a 'No use talking the closed -minded' parting shot. Getting the last word (a proxy win to them) is so often very important to them. (though vanishing for a month and resurfacing with the same arguments is a sideline) Why? That was the Key The revelation. The answer to all the riddles and puzzles and why denial of what was surely proven seemed to be ok.

If I had a nickel for every time someone swore they'd never talk to me, all my exes'd be broke.

As I think religious belief is primarily a comfort mechanism, I reckon it's more comforting not to recognize contrary data, contrary conclusions. I accuse none of nefarity - indeed, I accuse the comfort mechanism.

Faith was the centre of the apologetic. Faith in the Beliefs that they knew were eggshell fragile.

Oh no, don't ever mistake beliefs as "eggshell fragile". Some beliefs're so strong they'll persist in the face of any and all contrary data. I'm reminded of the Herman Cain Award.

Which is why they are surrounded with as much resistant padding as possible. The aim of the game is not to prove their case but to shut ours up.

otseng alone puts the error to that claim.

He's set this thing up where we can even fuss at him on all of it. But here, see, we get us one of em who's comfort mechanism also resides in a man who can think logically, rationally, and who's shown to accept contradictory data (while retaining, funnily enough, belief in the most illogical, irrational aspects of Christian claims). Let's remind all again, I'm an amateur in all things cept dooficity, where I hold several PhD's, and two honorary idiocies.

That's the aim - not to prove the Bible but to shut up (or down) those who threaten to disprove it. (And here is another sideline - the maintaining of the credibility of the Group, which is perhaps more basic even than the faith)

When my heart tells me to share my plate with someone who ain't got em one, I don't hafta like it, but I do need to do it.

In kinda the same way, the Christian often, if not always thinks they're asoul-saving, so there we go.

I do notice a certain unquantified disparity in some aspects of our debates, where so often only a single Christian might fuss over a given thing there. But I'm here to tell it, if you dare say Jesus wasn't him the savior, you're gonna get you an earful.

As with most groups, there'll be some that'll believe em a bit of this, and some that'll believe em a bit of that.

So, hopefully, all of us here aim to tell the truth best we know it, and to accept challenges to our own beliefs.

We owe that to otseng for the site, the mods for their efforts, the commenters for their posts, and ourselves for the education, that we all might learn us something today, it is, we didn't know us yesterday.