Posted: Apr 25, 2017 4:52 pm
by proudfootz
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
proudfootz wrote:

I quite agree the No True Christian fallacy is being employed there, to what end I can't say.

What do you think the point is?

Like I said, that it's incongruous to deny something that is a fundamental part of the origin of your religion.


I don't necessarily buy the notion that Original Sin was part of the origin of christianity.

It's present both in the bible and in texts written by the early Christian communities.


As I pointed out earlier, the OT texts themselves don't explicitly contain a doctrine of Original Sin requiring a Savior and that is not apparently what Jews held.

Some early texts by christians may include the idea. They also contain evidence that there was quite a bit of controversy among christian communities regarding various doctrines.

proudfootz wrote:So it would appear we are viewing things from different perspectives.

What do you base your perspective on?


The myths about the origins of christianity are not trustworthy, and should be treated with some circumspection. This seems to be evident in the competing versions of the narratives purporting to be biographies of an earthly Jesus. The Acts of the Apostles seems to be contradictory to material found in the Epistles, which seems to me to indicate some effort to paper over doctrinal disputes.

If, as it seems, you are accepting christianity's own version of its history we are holding different perspectives on the matter.

proudfootz wrote:
It would be the equivalent of Jews who believe Moses didn't lead the Jews out of Israel because they were enslaved but because they wanted to live in Israel.


:ask:

The Jewish texts speak of the Exodus as the freeing of the Jewish slaves from Egypt.

Despite the complete absence of mass enslavement of Jews in ancient Egypt, this is still a central tenet of Judaism.

There's no significant Jewish denomination that believes this did not happen, with the exception of those who dismiss the entire Jewish texts as being pure allegory.


That's all well and good, but a bit off point as to what early christians may have believed.

proudfootz wrote:
proudfootz wrote:I personally view myths about christian origins to be dubious. That christian cults can exist today without the notion of Original Sin would seem to me an indication that the doctrine was not a necessary condition at an earlier time.

That does not follow.

At best it indicates that later Christians found little or no objection to changing the original dogma.


I disagree. At the very least it demonstrates doctrines and dogmas could have changed.

That's not a disagreement of my position.


My mistake - I thought 'at best' and 'at least' would be terms indicating of disparity of views.

proudfootz wrote:At best it would indicate that Original Sin is not a necessary dogma for one to be a christian.

From a modern day perspective.

That says nothing about the early days of Christianity.

That's like arguing that marriage was always a central Chrisitan tenet, eventhough the Chruch did not officiate it until well into the Medieval period.


I'm not a huge fan of argument by analogy, but it appears to me that you are arguing because Original Sin is a major tenet of doctrine for some christian churches today it must have been a central tenet for all christian cults in the early days.

proudfootz wrote:
proudfootz wrote:
Supposing that Jesus and his first followers were Jewish, and as I pointed out in an earlier post Original Sin requiring a Savior doesn't seem to be a part of that religion, this notion would seem to have evolved at a later date.

Jesus and his followers were Jewish in almost the same sense that they are Muslims according to Islam.


:scratch:

They were ethnically Jews and thought of themselves the natural continuation of the Jewish faith.

They interpeted the Jewish text as predicting the arrival of Jesus and that Jesus would absolve/save them from the original sin/curse inflicted upon A&E.


Was Jesus one of these interpreters?

How would we know? We have no direct writing of him.


Indeed.

What we do know, both from the bible and other early Christian texts, is that this is the origin myth: that god had to sent Jesus to (paraphrasing) create a loophole out of the eternal, inheretable sin of A&E.


Yes, I am aware this is *a* myth about the theological necessity to accept Jesus as a Savior.

And we know this was apparently a controversial theological dogma even into the 5th century BC - when Augustine was trying to hammer out the details of this supposedly 'founding myth'.

proudfootz wrote:
Anyplace I can do some more reading on these Muslim followers of Jesus who came up with the notion of Jesus as a Savior from reading the Torah?

Read my post again, that's not what I said.


Jesus and his followers were Jewish in almost the same sense that they are Muslims according to Islam.


They interpeted the Jewish text as predicting the arrival of Jesus and that Jesus would absolve/save them from the original sin/curse inflicted upon A&E.


:think: