Bible Interpretation and History

Good point!lfen

I'm not sure actually. Interpretation can cover a lot of ground. The Jews and Early Christians and contemporaneously on this very forum Iano among others all practised Midrash so that has a venerable tradition.lfen

Maybe I am jumping the gun a little. Your op seems to revolve aroundWhat conclusions about doctrinal validity common sense should point us towards.An argument from incredulity "Are we really to believe that..?"Summation "But isn't any interpretation that is not represented in history automatically excluded as a correct interpretation?"Whilst I agree that these all seem like reasonable things to suppose at first flush, I have given reasons why I suppose these later doctrina are not, if they are indeed not, (firmly) established in early church writing. If such musings support there being no particular reason why early church writings, in particular, should talk of doctrines established later, then common sense/incredulity/non-historical representation point us in no particular direction whatsoever.I think the trouble with appealing to common sense is that there is no such thing as standardised common sense. An argument from incredulity is really an appeal to this uncommon common sense. And your assertion that "no historical representation" should result in automatic rejection of later doctrina remains an assertion.

An argument from incredulity is not automatically bad. Sometimes it is a very effective and accurate argument.It gets demeaned on this forum a lot, because Creationists argue from incredulity on things that have a lot of evidence that they happened.If a person said that every day when they go jogging they suddenly feel a surge of power and they do a 15 meter long jump, most of us would dismiss that person as lying on the basis of incredulity. I for one would recommend that unless the person provided some sort of proof for their boast. You have??? You argued that it's possible for the early churches to have error in them. I agreed with that. But to have error in them is not to completely lose, without a trace, two relatively central doctrines that are commented on often by the New Testament and the early churches. Despite the centrality of these doctrines, and despite the numerous references to them in the NT and in the ECW, no one taught--or even argued against--the doctrines as they are taught in Protestant circles today.In fact, history can provide very reliable sources for those doctrines later in history. The co-equal Trinity can be seen to develop in Athanasius' writings, and others', during the bloody (literally) battles over that doctrine in the 4th century. The "no works" doctrine--the Protestant version--has its foundation in Anselm's 11th century musings on the atonement, and then in Luther's writings, who couldn't even find backing from Calvin on that issue. Common sense is not that uncommon. It's uncommon in churches, because there is such a high emotional stake in church doctrine, but where emotions don't run high, people respond perfectly well to arguments from incredulity. Which is why I put it up for discussion.

And I suppose the question I have been asking is why should one suppose that they should know about it? Given that they are prone to mis-understanding and error. I don't mean appealing to common sense and the like. Something more concrete is required.This message has been edited by iano, 15-Apr-2006 10:21 PM

Much as I feel incredulous at things that people say I would seldom employ it as such a central tenet of my OP. Nor would I use an appeal to common sense.Your strongest appeal lies in some presumption about the early church. Some appeal to greater authority or perhaps better expressed - a great likelyhood towards holding a purer truth. IOW what they held to is more likely to be truer than that which came later (if indeed it did come later)One possible area of self-refutation arises for your position. You don't see these doctrina contained in your analysis of the Bible. If not, how would you be expected to see them in the early writings if such writings did indeed contain such elements?As far a triune God goes, it is not dealt with in a doctrinal manner in the Bible so perhaps it is no surprise that one wouldn't find it in early church writings. There is no reason however, to suppose that God ceased work after the period of scripture was closed. Nothing to suppose no further revelation.Whatever, my point stands: if you can't see it in the Bible then you cannot be expected to see it in the lesser writings of the early church whose writings presumably had man-designed goals not God-inspired onesThis message has been edited by iano, 15-Apr-2006 10:36 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 15-Apr-2006 10:57 PM

And I have been answering it.Because they had the apostles--the same ones that wrote the NT letters--preaching in their churches.For a doctrine to be unknown to anyone anywhere, and then pop up in history under circumstances that explain why the doctrine was invented, is the next best thing to proof positive that the doctrine was never in anyone's mind until its invention centuries later.The point of my argument is that there are so many people confused by the various Bible interpretations. Some Bible interpretations, however, can be thrown out, because history clearly shows they were invented long after the Bible was written.

I have one question about the christian religious people on this forum.Do you guys actually believe christ was born on Christmas?Or do you realize that all christian holidays are based on pagan holidays and were incorporated into the church?I figured I would ask this question here before trying to start a new topic about it.

No, Christmas is simply an adopted date. Holidays are arbitrary except for the timing of Easter and Pentacost. Those are tied to the Passover.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

As with the bible, one is left to interpret how it is that early Christian writings deal with the issue; for example salvation by faith alone. It would be untrue to say that there is nothing said about salvation by faith alone - only that one doesn't interpret these early church writings along the lines of faith alone but by the same interpretation that one applies to the NT itself. Which just pushes the argument into the even more difficult area of including non-inspired writing into ones case either wayThe link below snapshots a largish number of early church writings which talk faith-based salvation. Whether one interprets these as referring to "faith + something else" or "faith alone" is open to discussion. But saying... ...is simply your interpretation of those writings and one which, unsurprisingly, happens to align with your interpretation of the NT position on salvation. The appeal to history as a way around the difficulties of interpretation is laid void if the historical view one holds itself depends on interpretation.BIBLE STUDY MANUALS: SALVATION BY FAITH ALONE IN EARLY CHURCH EXTRA BIBLICAL DOCUMENTSEdit to clarify and typosThis message has been edited by iano, 17-Apr-2006 05:03 PM

I was well aware of the Pagan corrolaries, and am also well aware of the origins of the myths. Besides..the day Jesus was born was merely the day that God stepped out of infinity into time, anyway...so it matters little what day we celebrate it. Start your topic!

No. Yes. Alexander Hislop's classic book "The Two Babylons" elaborated on that theme in the 19th century. Many of the Brethren writers informed us of this mixture hundreds of years ago.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

well, theoretically, the timing of the christian celebration of the resurrection should be right after passover, because, supposedly, that's when it happened.(although easter clearly has pagan fertility festival overtones...)

---

arguably, the passover story could have been invented to cover up a previously pagan fertility festival sacrificing to give thanks for the additions to the flocks.

Right, it's not surprising at all. Because, unlike most Christians, who will cling to what they believe no matter what evidence there is against it; when I saw that the writings of the early church disagreed with me and made sense of the seemingly conflicting verses in the Bible, I switched to their view.So, no, I did not find my interpretation of the NT position in their writings. I switched to their interpretation after reading their writings, because it is so obviously more accurate.Now, back on topic:The early church writings have become more popular over the last twenty years, thanks in a large part to David Bercot's book Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up. Therefore, the quote mining has started.Quote mining does not constitute an alternative interpretation of the early church writings. It's too soon for the quote miners to have written history books, and if they did, they would be rejected by any scholarly institution.The "no works" doctrine of Luther cannot be found in the writings of the early church, and that's not one of the things scholars disagree on. No works people have been calling the early church fathers heretics for a hundred years, because they know that. Just because a web site pulled some quotes out of those writings means nothing at all.This message has been edited by AdminJar, 04-18-2006 09:34 AM