Elon Musk didn’t buy twitter to make money, he bought twitter to control the data stream that AI uses to learn. He’s making himself the kindergarten teacher of future AI and this is pretty smart because he also owns neurolink. So he’ll own not only a chunk of what AI uses to form its world view from but also the technology that is used to convert a human into AI. His whole thing is about trans humanism. I know everyone likes Elon, he’s super cool and all, it seems like he’s for the people but be very careful with this guy. He’s probably a key player in the end times.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (46)
sorted by:
If I understand you correctly, your main argument presented suggests that "traditional Christian teachings" diverge substantially from the source material (Torah), and further deviate when compared with older versions like Nag Hammadi and the Dead Sea Scrolls. I’ll try and examine each point made.
Divergence from Source Material:
You claim that traditional Christian teachings diverge significantly from the source material (Torah). However, it's essential to recognize that Christian interpretations often incorporate a variety of sources beyond the Torah, including the New Testament and theological traditions. The interpretation of the story of the tree of knowledge of good and evil can vary among Christian denominations.
While interpretations of biblical texts can indeed vary, many Christian scholars and theologians engage with the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) and its original languages to derive meanings. It’s simply not accurate to claim that traditional Christian teachings solely rely on the Latin Vulgate and disregard the original Hebrew.
Comparison with Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea Scrolls:
Your argument here suggests that the Nag Hammadi library and Dead Sea Scrolls provide original versions that differ from traditional Christian teachings.
The Nag Hammadi library primarily contains Gnostic texts, which present a distinct theological perspective. The Dead Sea Scrolls, while valuable for understanding Second Temple Judaism, do not contain the entire Hebrew Bible. It is crucial to recognize the diversity of ancient texts and interpretive traditions rather than assuming a singular, unified source.
Broader Context of Information in the Region:
Your claim here implies that broader contextual information from the region, including stone tablets and hieroglyphs from Canaan, Babylon, and Egypt, challenges traditional Christian teachings.
While studying regional contextual information is important, each cultural and religious context has its unique symbols and stories. Comparing these with the Genesis story requires careful consideration of cultural distinctions and the intended theological message.
Reading Older Texts in Original Languages:
You opine that reading older texts in the original Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic reveals substantial deviations from traditional Christian teachings.
Engaging with original languages is crucial for biblical scholarship. However, interpretations are multifaceted, and linguistic nuances require careful consideration. Traditional Christian scholars often consult original languages to enrich their understanding rather than relying solely on translations.
Latin Vulgate as the Sole Source:
You emphasis heavily that “traditional Christian teachings” are derived exclusively from the Latin Vulgate.
While the Latin Vulgate was influential in Western Christianity, it is simply not the sole source for Christian teachings. The Vulgate itself was a translation of earlier texts, and Christian teachings derive their richness from a tapestry of diverse sources, including an array of biblical manuscripts, early translations, and theological writings.
Within the realm of biblical manuscripts, the Masoretic Text stands as the authoritative Hebrew version of the Jewish Bible, forming the basis for the Old Testament in Christian Scriptures.
The Septuagint, an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, played a pivotal role in the early Christian community, influencing theological thought.
Additionally, New Testament manuscripts, like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, contribute to the understanding of Christian scriptures.
Early translations, such as Jerome's Latin Vulgate and the Syriac Peshitta, served as pivotal bridges for disseminating biblical content.
Theological writings from Church Fathers like Augustine, Jerome, and Origen, as well as the formulation of creeds in ecumenical councils, further shaped Christian thought.
Commentaries by theologians like Thomas Aquinas and liturgical texts such as the Liturgy of St. James and the Book of Common Prayer are essential components in the mosaic of Christian teachings. Patristic writings like Augustine's "Confessions" and Athanasius' "On the Incarnation" provide profound reflections, enriching the theological landscape of Christianity.
This intricate interplay of diverse sources has contributed to the vibrant tapestry of Christian teachings over centuries.
To wrap this up (hopefully people are still reading lol), my counter argument raises points about the diversity of textual traditions and the importance of considering original languages and broader contextual information. While engaging with these aspects is fundamental to biblical scholarship, it is important to avoid oversimplifications and recognize the complexity of the interpretive traditions within Christianity. Integrating insights from various sources contributes to a more nuanced understanding of the biblical text.
I agree with this somewhat, but not in the way you imply. While modern day (past century or so) scholars do indeed look at other texts, the dogma espoused by "traditional Christian Teachings" rely specifically on the original teachings of the Catholic Church, the additional (or contrary) teachings of Luther, or Calvin, or other noted scholars from a very, very long time ago. All of these influences on today's dogma (the "Teachings") occurred long before we had access to the archaeological evidence or analytical tools of today. "Traditional Christian Teachings" are exactly that, traditional, having nothing to do with any contrariness found more recently in the older texts. Indeed, anywhere there is a deviation from the traditional dogma, the findings are completely ignored within the actual teachings themselves.
Where I agree is that there are plenty of extra biblical teachings in the "traditional Christian dogma." A great deal has been simply created from seemingly no where (not no where, but having nothing to do with the bible). For example, the story of Satan, or the "fall of Lucifer" has so little to do with the bible it is laughable. Both of those stories were completely (95%+) created by the Catholic Church as a social control mechanism.
Sorta, but not completely true. The Nag Hammadi contains a fair bit of stuff. Also, calling the gospels (stories of Jesus) “Gnostic” is not true as applied. For example, how is a book like the Gospel of Thomas "Gnostic?" It is often attributed to having been written by the brother of Jesus (although the actual authorship is unprovable). It is one of, if not the oldest written book found that relates to the teachings of Jesus. (Scientific dating methods, language dating, etc. of partial scripts found elsewhere suggest it’s authorship may be as early as 50AD). Why do we call it "Gnostic?" Why place it in that box? It isn't canonical, but what is "canon" didn’t become canon until it was solidified into Roman law (ending debate) over three centuries after Jesus by a group of people who created a religion specifically and explicitly stated to reunite the four Roman kingdoms under one flag (the flag of God-Emperor Constantine, a self-proclaimed divine mouthpiece of God on earth, the first "pope" (although not called that at the time)).
The point is, "Gnostic" (as it is being used here) is a box created long after the writing of the texts themselves, designed to ensure what was proclaimed canon by Roman law remained the only canon (even though they kept changing it internally over the centuries). That doesn't mean that "gnostic" doesn't have a more specific meaning in the various schools of thought at the time, but with respect to the non-canonical gospels (stories of Jesus) specifically, they were (mis)placed in the "gnostic" box to ensure that the dogma created by the Roman empire, under the control of God-Emperor Constantine was not challenged (because there are some seriously non-dogma things in those other period works). Indeed, it is broadly thought that the reason these works were completely lost to time prior to the past century is because they threatened that dogma, and were thus forbidden by The Church to even exist. The Nag Hammadi library itself, because of the timing (dating) of the their burial (in the 4th century AD), is thought to have been a purposeful effort to preserve those thoughts which had become illegal under Roman law.
Another important note, “Gnostic Christianity” predates the modern version of the dogma (which is much more closely aligned with the Roman law version) by a few hundred years.
To oversimplify, there were basically two schools of thought; the “Gnostic” version and the “Saul” version (there were more than that, but this is an oversimplification). The Saul version, coming from the self-proclaimed top level spy of the Pharisees (an aristocratic Priest Class of Jews, the exact same people who rule the world behind the scenes today), and self-admitted mass murderer of Christians, won in the end.
Makes you think.
Well, at least it makes me think.
I agree completely. My problem is, Christian dogma (not all scholarship, but the dogma) does not follow this advice.
Agree completely. However, purposefully not recognizing the influences within those symbols, stories, cultures and contexts that challenge the dogma is so common in "Traditional Christian Teachings" as to discredit the entire dogmatic system.
One of the main repeating statements here is "Christian scholarship" does this, that or the other thing. I am not talking about scholars or their work. This conversation is about Traditional Christian Teaching, which doesn't benefit from modern (post Reformation) scholarship excepting where the scholarship agrees with the already established dogma. It is the dogma that has not changed, no matter the scholarship or evidence.
Agreed, as I stated earlier, there are plenty of extra-biblical teachings that influence the dogma.
Prove it.
The oldest versions of texts known prior to the Latin Vulgate are, as you note, the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. They were not available to scholars until more recently. They have been edited, and/or written over (a palimpsest, altering the original work at some point after their original creation) and yet still deviate in some very important ways from the Latin Vulgate in the new testament (notably Matthew and Mark regarding the resurrection story, and the self-proclaimed divinity of Jesus). More importantly perhaps, in these deviations the modern bible agrees with the Latin Vulgate, not the earlier works. So your suggestion that these works “changed the dogma” are not warranted in some very important pieces of evidence to the contrary.
The Latin Vulgate itself deviates a fair bit from the modern bible, but the changes didn’t come from other period works, because there were no other period works that existed in the hands of the scholars (at least not provably so). They came from papal decree or other “scholarship” (as you yourself note) created from where ever it was created from (not older works) that changed the story over time.
The oldest version of the Masoretic texts was first created in the 11th century, influenced by (or possibly even derived from) the Latin Vulgate (or the same source material for both works). In other words, at least by the timing of events, you have the listing backwards. The oldest Latin Vulgate is older than the oldest Masoretic texts. That is almost certainly why the Masoretic texts and modern bibles agree on certain key points where the Nag Hammadi and DSS disagree with both.
The creeds are continual restatements of beliefs designed specifically to align thought with the dictates of the Church. (Of note: In any other system, such repetition of beliefs is called brainwashing). The creeds were created specifically to be aligned with Roman Law (see the Codex Theodosianus). The creeds, repeated weekly, biweekly, or monthly (depending on sect) are a restatement of those laws, designed to end debate on things like “the divinity of Jesus” (as it is currently understood within the Traditional Christian Teachings) the “trinity” (which wasn’t actually dogma until 383 AD), etc.. These things were made into law to end the huge amount of debate that was occurring, specifically to unite the Roman Empire, as previously stated. THAT is where the creeds come from. THAT was the purpose of the scholarship at the time. I suggest that that is also why there is some very important disagreements between what we have today, and what we have found in older works, found recently (relatively speaking).
I’m pretty sure this is exactly what I am saying.
How does their work define the actual teachings of Jesus? Or perhaps a better question is, why does their work, created centuries or millennia after the fact, define the teachings of Jesus (as promoted, indeed, enforced by Traditional Christian Teachings) more than say, the Gospel of Thomas?
My point is there is a great deal that goes into the dogma we have today that is not from the teachings of Jesus, and is in uncontroversial disagreement with archaeology, language analytics, or even modern Christian scholarship. These pieces of evidence are completely ignored in the actual teachings we get, regardless of scholarship. Scholarship itself is not allowed to disagree with dogma. If it is, it is called heretical, even today.
There is no freedom of thought, and there is a ton of evidence that is ignored or placed into the wrong box. Works that are very likely actual teachings of Jesus (or at least have just as much archeological and contextual validity as “canon”) are ignored in favor of the dogma created by the early Church, which was, once again, uncontroversially designed to unite Rome and set up a God-Emperor (“Pope” as Divine).
And finally...
Your assertions here point to a fundamental contention of yours: that Christian dogma deviates "significantly" from the actual teachings of Jesus and conflicts with archaeological evidence, language studies, and modern Christian scholarship - and brings us full circle to the start of our discussion. To address these claims, I'd like to delve into a few points and ask a few questions:
Discrepancies Between Dogma and Evidence: Could you provide specific examples or instances where traditional Christian teachings contradict archaeological evidence or linguistic analysis? What particular aspects of Christian dogma do you believe are at odds with modern scholarship or historical findings? This would help me clarify the specific areas where you perceive disagreement.
Freedom of Thought and Scholarship: Are there documented instances where modern Christian scholarship that contradicts traditional dogma has been labeled as heretical? How do these claims align with the scholarly discourse and academic debates within Christian theology, which often involve critical analysis and diverse perspectives?
The Gospel of Thomas and Orthodox Canon: The Gospel of Thomas is indeed a significant ancient text. However, the Gospel of Thomas, along with other non-canonical texts, was excluded from the New Testament canon for various reasons, including late authorship, lack of apostolic authority, and theological differences. How do you reckon with the criteria that early Christian communities used to discern canonical texts from non-canonical ones?
Fantastic discussion! And you bring up extremely important points, Fren. I feel like I'm in Graduate school again!!
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I’ll try and respond when I get time.
There's a lot to go through. I apologize. It's tough to have conversations like this. Each post makes it bigger and bigger. LOL.
I do appreciate your responses however, they are thoughtful.
I said.....
To which you aptly retort: "Prove it."
Okay. here's a brief defense for the statement:
Biblical Manuscripts: The richness of Christian teachings stems from various biblical manuscripts representing different textual traditions. For instance, comparing the Greek New Testament manuscripts like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus with later versions, such as the Textus Receptus, reveals variations that contributed to different theological interpretations. This textual diversity allows for scholarly analysis and deeper understanding of the texts. Sources like "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration" by Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman's "The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture" discuss the wealth of biblical manuscripts and textual variants.
Early Translations: The translation of biblical texts into various languages, such as the Latin Vulgate, Syriac Peshitta, or Coptic versions, brought diverse interpretations and theological nuances. These translations reflect cultural contexts, linguistic differences, and theological emphases of different Christian communities. Books like "The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions" by Bruce Metzger explore the significance of these translations in shaping Christian thought and practice.
Theological Writings: Beyond the canonical scriptures, early Christian theologians like Origen, Augustine, Irenaeus, and others produced a wide array of writings that contributed to the richness of Christian teachings. These writings include commentaries, theological treatises, and letters addressing theological controversies, doctrines, and interpretations of scripture. Sources like "The Fathers of the Church: A Comprehensive Introduction" edited by Hubertus R. Drobner cover the diverse theological insights of early Christian thinkers.
This evidence demonstrates that the richness of Christian teachings indeed arises from a mosaic of biblical manuscripts, translations, and theological writings that offer diverse perspectives, interpretations, and insights into the development of Christian thought. Hopefully that satisfies your request.
There are a few additional, historical and textual nuances to consider in addressing your claims:
Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus: While these manuscripts, indeed among the oldest known, have variations from the Latin Vulgate in some sections, their discrepancies do not uniformly align with the Latin Vulgate. The differences are not solely in favor of the Latin Vulgate; rather, they present a complex picture of textual variations across different manuscripts. They contribute to the understanding of textual transmission and variations but don't unilaterally support the Latin Vulgate over other texts. Scholars like Bart Ehrman's "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration" discuss these manuscript variations.
Deviation in Resurrection Stories: Variations in the resurrection narratives aren't confined to comparisons between the Latin Vulgate and older manuscripts like Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. These differences exist among various ancient manuscripts and textual traditions. The variations in biblical narratives have been studied extensively, contributing to the field of textual criticism.
Latin Vulgate's Influence: The Latin Vulgate indeed had significant influence, especially in Western Christianity. However, attributing all changes or discrepancies solely to the Latin Vulgate overlooks the complexity of textual transmission. The evolution of biblical texts involved various factors, including manuscript traditions, translation practices, theological influences, and textual interpolations or modifications across different regions and time periods.
Masoretic Texts: While the oldest complete Masoretic texts date to the Middle Ages, their textual basis has earlier roots. The Dead Sea Scrolls and other discoveries, such as the Nash Papyrus, showcase Hebrew biblical texts from earlier periods. The relationship between the Masoretic texts, Septuagint, and other ancient versions is a subject of ongoing scholarly discussion.
In essence, the history of biblical texts involves a complex interplay of manuscripts, translations, textual variations, and scholarly traditions. The relationship between different versions isn't a straightforward progression, and attributing all changes to a linear influence from one source overlooks the intricate nature of textual transmission and development. Multiple factors contributed to the formation of biblical texts as we know them today.
There are several onion layers to address in these claims:
Creeds as Brainwashing: The analogy between creeds and brainwashing oversimplifies (term of the day!) the purpose and function of creeds within religious contexts. Creeds were formulated to articulate essential beliefs and doctrines, fostering unity and providing clarity amidst theological debates. While they were used to define orthodoxy, calling this brainwashing overlooks their historical, theological, and communal significance.
Alignment with Roman Law: The connection between creeds and Roman law, particularly the Codex Theodosianus, is complex. While the codex reflected Christian influence in later Roman law, the specific influence of creeds on legal texts like the Theodosian Code is not straightforward. The codex addressed various aspects of Roman life, including religion, but it's not solely a reflection of creeds or religious dogma.
Purpose of Creeds in Ending Debate: Creeds indeed aimed to provide doctrinal formulations to resolve theological disputes. However, attributing their formulation solely to ending debates for political unity overlooks their theological intent in defining essential Christian beliefs. The Councils that produced creeds, like the Nicene Creed, aimed to articulate beliefs that Christians held as foundational rather than solely serving political unification.
Disagreements between Ancient and Modern Works: Variations between older manuscripts or works and contemporary versions of creeds or doctrines exist. However, these differences don't always indicate a deliberate effort to control thought or align with political agendas. Textual variations arise from a complex history of manuscript transmission, translation, theological interpretation, and cultural contexts across centuries.
In summary, while there are correlations between creeds and historical contexts, attributing the creation of creeds solely to political unity or "brainwashing" oversimplifies their significance in articulating foundational beliefs and fostering doctrinal unity within Christianity. The complexities of historical, cultural, and theological factors influence the development and transmission of creeds and religious doctrines.
Could you clarify what you mean by "original teachings of the Catholic Church" and how they differ from the teachings of later figures like Luther or Calvin?
When you mention "archaeological evidence or analytical tools of today," are you suggesting that these newer tools challenge or contradict the traditional teachings of Christianity? If so, then can you cite some examples where they disagree?
I think we agree more than disagree on the amount of influence the Catholic Church exerted on Christendom. But I don't go as far as to say that all traces of 1st century Christian doctrine was lost forever. I don't know if you go that far either, you haven't stated as much, but if so, then I'm willing to defend my position.
Gospel of Thomas: The Gospel of Thomas is indeed considered one of the Gnostic texts. Its attribution to Jesus' brother is debated among scholars, and dating estimates vary widely. While it's not part of the canonical New Testament, it's often categorized as Gnostic due to its thematic content and style, emphasizing secret knowledge and individual enlightenment, characteristics common in Gnostic literature.
Gnostic Labeling: The term "Gnostic" generally refers to a set of beliefs and texts that often emphasize "hidden" or "secret" knowledge for spiritual salvation. The Gospel of Thomas contains teachings that resonate with Gnostic thought, focusing on esoteric sayings attributed to Jesus rather than narrative accounts, like the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John).
Canonical Status: The canonization of the New Testament wasn't a single event but a gradual process that concluded in the 4th century. The criteria for canonization included apostolic authorship, orthodoxy, widespread usage, and consistency with established Christian teaching. The decision was not solely political but also considered theological factors and community acceptance.
Constantine's Role: While Emperor Constantine indeed played a role in convening the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, which addressed doctrinal disputes, the notion that he personally determined the canon or dictated religious beliefs is historically inaccurate. The council's primary focus was on resolving theological controversies like the nature of Christ.
Church Development: Constantine's influence on the early church, especially regarding state support and its impact on Christianity's development, is acknowledged historically. However, attributing the entirety of the New Testament's canonization or the shaping of Christianity solely to Constantine oversimplifies a complex historical process involving theological considerations, tradition, and broader ecclesiastical consensus.
Gnostic Labeling as a Box: The term "Gnostic" indeed evolved over time and was applied more broadly in later contexts. In terms of early Christian texts, however, including non-canonical gospels, the label "Gnostic" primarily refers to certain philosophical and theological characteristics found in those writings. While this label was applied for categorization purposes, it was not necessarily a deliberate attempt to suppress alternative views as you insinuate.
Role in Canonization and Dogma: The classification of non-canonical gospels as "Gnostic" wasn't solely for the purpose of maintaining Roman canon. It's essential to note that the criteria for the New Testament canonization involved theological factors like apostolic authorship, orthodox content, and widespread acceptance. While some non-canonical texts contain divergent theological perspectives, the process of canonization was not solely driven by a desire to reinforce Roman authority.
Suppression of Alternate Views: There were instances of theological disputes and efforts by certain factions within early Christianity to suppress competing beliefs. However, attributing the loss or suppression of certain texts solely to the early Church or Roman authorities oversimplifies a complex historical context with multiple factors at play. The reasons for the disappearance of certain writings are varied and not solely due to "intentional suppression" by a central authority.
Nag Hammadi Library's Preservation: The Nag Hammadi discovery in the 20th century indeed revealed valuable non-canonical texts, including Gnostic writings. The circumstances of their burial in the 4th century suggest efforts to preserve these texts. However, while there might have been efforts to safeguard certain teachings from persecution, attributing the entire loss of these texts solely to deliberate Church action may oversimplify the historical complexities of that period.
even though Gnostic Christianity predated the modern version of the dogma (which is much more closely aligned with the Roman law version), the main tenants of 1st century Christianity teachings were already a part of the diverse landscape of early Christian thought, coexisting alongside other theological perspectives. It wasn't an either "Gnostic Christianity" or "Roman Christian Dogma" situation.
IOW, it wasn't a binary situation of Gnostic Christianity versus Roman Christian dogma. Instead, it was a complex milieu where various Christian groups held differing theological views, interpretations of scripture, and practices. These groups coexisted alongside each other, contributing to the rich tapestry of beliefs within early Christianity. Over time, certain theological perspectives became dominant and were eventually formalized into what is often considered orthodox Christian doctrine, but this process involved a wide range of beliefs and perspectives in the earlier stages of Christianity's development.
Yes. I fully agree with you here when you say 'to oversimplify." kek!
Your statement DEF reflects a highly oversimplified view of early Christian history and theological development.
Gnostic vs. Saul Version: The portrayal of early Christianity as a conflict between "Gnostic" and "Saul" versions oversimplifies the diverse theological landscape of the time. It's important to note, like I mentioned above, that Paul's teachings and the emergence of Gnostic thought were not the only two schools of Christian thought. Early Christianity was marked by a wide array of beliefs, communities, and interpretations of Jesus' teachings.
Saul/Paul's Background: Describing Paul as a "self-proclaimed top-level spy of the Pharisees" and a "self-admitted mass murderer of Christians," while fun, requires a little more nuance. While Paul had Pharisaic training and initially persecuted Christians, his conversion to Christianity is a pivotal aspect of Christian history. He became a prominent figure in spreading early Christian teachings and his writings constitute a significant portion of the New Testament.
Winning of Saul's Version: The implication that Paul's teachings "won in the end" oversimplifies the complex process of Christian theological development. While Paul's influence was substantial, early Christianity experienced diverse theological perspectives and did not singularly conform to Paul's teachings. The canonization of the New Testament and the formation of orthodox Christian doctrine, as mentioned prior, were gradual processes shaped by various factors beyond Paul's influence alone.