Bauer via Ehrman on Early Christian Orthodoxy

This is from Bart D. Ehrman's book, "Jesus Interrupted". Ehrman is discussing how the Orthodox Christan scriptural canon came into being, and references Walter Bauer's 1934 book "Orthodox and Heresy in Earliest Christianity".

"Bauer looked at our earliest evidence for Christianity in a range of geographical regions throughout early Christendom - For example, in Egypt, Syria, Asia Minor and Rome. He found that if the sources are studied in minute detail, they tell a very different story from the one told by Eusebius. In many places of early Christianity, forms of Christian belief that were later labeled heretical were the original form of Christianity, and in some parts of the church so-called heretics outnumbered those who agreed with the orthodox form of the faith. In some places Marcionite Christianity was dominant; in other places, one or another of the Gnostic systems prevailed.

Moreover, a number of Christian groups saw no sharp divisions between what would later be called heresy and what would be called orthodoxy. The clear theological distinctions of Eusebius's day were not original to the faith, but were created later when the battle lines were drawn up. Some people who were later considered heretics would have been seen, and were seen, as completely orthodox in their own day.

The way Bauer saw it, the church of the second and third centuries was not made up of one massive and dominant movement known as orthodoxy, with heretical groups at the fringes. Early on there were all sorts of groups with all sorts of views in lots of different places. Of course, all of these groups believed that their views were right, that their beliefs were orthodox.

But in the struggle to win converts, only one group eventually won out; this was the group that was particularly well represented in the city of Rome. The Roman Christians asserted their influence on other churches; as the church in Rome, the center of the empire, this community was larger, wealthier, and better organized than other Christian groups.

This Roman group acquired more converts than any of the others, eventually stamped out all of its competition, declared itself orthodox, argued that its views really were those of Jesus and the apostles, claimed that it had always been the majority view, and then - as a final coup de grace - rewrote the history of the conflict. What emerged was a Christianity characteristic of the Roman church. It was Roman Christianity - Roman catholic (meaning universal) Christianity.

Eusebius stands at the end of this process. It was his rewriting of history that made all later historians think that his group had always been the majority opinion. But it did not really happen that way."

Think the King James Version IS the Bible?

Might want to read this.

http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVarticles/OriginOfKJV.htm

The Bible has a Liberal Bias (and Conservapedia aims to fix that!).

I am so stunned by this, that I can't even write much about it now. At first, I thought it was a parody, but evidently, it's authentic.

http://conservapedia.com/Conservative_Bible_Project

Christians call for revolution

A bunch of religious nuts are calling for a "revolution" on the steps of the Supreme Court.  It happened two days ago, and I'm not surprised that I didn't hear a peep about it in the news.  Here's my favorite idiotic quote from their press release:

"A call to Christian Revolution will be made at the steps of the Supreme Court. The Declaration of Independence was unanimously signed and proclaimed by our Founding Fathers on July 4, 1776. It was a call to obey God rather than men. When our Founding Fathers declared their independence from England's King George III, they were really declaring their dependence upon Almighty God -- the God of the Bible. They pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to proclaim-God is true."

That's so wrong on so many levels that it's not even possible to argue rationally against it.  It would be like trying to explain quantum physics to your dog.  The Declaration was written by a group of people who were largely not Christian, and who wrote many nasty things about organized religion.  It contains no mention of the Bible or Jesus Christ whatsoever, and only the most passing mention of God ("endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights...").  It declared independence from a system that claimed the divine right of kings to rule, and that established Christianity as the official religion.  And somehow, these morons twist that around in every way possible to mean the total polar opposite.

Here's the article on Dispatches.

Priest throws a hissy over "wafer"

So, the Worcester, Massachusettes Telegram does a story about how the local Catholic church is dealing with concerns about swine flu, and they use the terms "communion wafer" and "wine" to describe the components of the communion ritual.  A priest writes a letter to the editor to complain.  Here's the funny part:

Second, the Roman Catholic Church doesn’t now, nor has it ever offered a wafer and wine as Communion. We do offer the body and blood of Jesus Christ, which in John’s gospel he proclaims to be our source of life in Him. To refer to the Eucharist as a wafer and wine is to demean the value of this sacrament, seemingly equating it to an evening snack.

Ok, this is really getting ridiculous.  Here's the explanation of transubstantiation from catholicapologetics.org:

Transubstantiation reflects Roman Catholic faith in the literalness of the words of the Bible.  Jesus (omnipotent God) said: "This is my body; this is my blood." And again Jesus said: "I am the bread of life;" "My flesh is true food; my blood is true drink;" "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood ...;" etc.  Roman Catholics take Jesus at His word: the bread is his body; the wine is his blood.  From the Apostles at the Last Supper until today, the bread and wine of Eucharist looks and feels and tastes like bread and wine in the eating and drinking.  Similar to all of God's Word, faith is essential. Faith in what? In the words of Jesus even though the bread does not look, feel, taste like flesh; even though the wine does not look, feel, taste like blood.

Ok, three things:

1. NOBODY really has faith in "the literalness of the words of the Bible."  If they say they do, they're either lying or delusional.  It's not possible to take the Bible literally; it's both self-contradictory and completely at odds with observation.  If you're going to take this literally, then you'd better be prepared to believe a whole lot of (other) really bizarre stuff that goes along with it, and I know for a fact that you don't.
2. It depends on what your definition of "is" is.  Do Catholics really reject the possibility that Jesus (assuming for the sake of argument that he actually existed AND said any such thing) was speaking metaphorically?  This is a classic case of missing the forest for the trees.
3. Do you mean to tell me that if I visited a factory that produces these communion "items", that I would find boxes labeled "Twenty dozen cartons of individual pieces of the flesh of Jesus Christ"?

Believe what you want, I guess, but don't expect everyone else to automatically accept it as true.  Get a grip.

Bible largely a forgery

Oh, really?  No kidding?

Click here for the story on CNN.com.

Iowa and Gay Marriage

Iowans really need to get a grip over the gay marriage issue.  Now that our state Supreme Court has invalidated the "one man, one woman" law, clearing the road for gay marriage in the state, the usual idiots and bigots (*cough Steve King cough*) are waxing apoplectic about the apocalypse that's sure to result.  Oh, spare us, please.  Some points to consider at your convenience:

• The ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court was unanimous.  Surely you're not going to claim that they're all godless liberal atheists who hate the institution of marriage?
  
• If you think the supreme court overstepped its authority, and created legislation from the bench, you need a serious refresher in Government 101.  Study up on the Separation of Powers and the Equal Protection Clause.
• People calling for a vote on the issue are totally missing the point.  Can the people vote to overturn Constitutionally-protected civil rights?  Brush up on "tyranny of the majority".
• The arguments being made against gay marriage are identical to those once used to oppose abolition, desegregation and interracial marriage.
• There's no threat here to "traditional marriage".  Heterosexuals will go right on getting married at the same rate as before.  My marriage is not suddenly meaningless now that gays can do it, too.
• If you're concerned about the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality, you may want to actually read the Bible.  All of it.  You could probably find 50 things you do that are condemned in there somewhere.  You could also find justifications for all sorts of nasty stuff, slavery and genocide to name two.
• And even if the Bible DID condemn homosexuality clearly and unequivocally, so the hell what?!?  Biblical pronouncements do not override equal protection under the law.
• If you believe that adherence to the rule of (secular) law will bring the wrath of God down upon the whole nation, maybe you should ponder whether a God like that is really worthy of worship.
• And has anybody considered why government should be in the marriage business at all?  Why not let marriage go back to being a religious institution, and stop giving legal and financial perks to certain people as a reward for participating in a religious ritual?