Unfortunately, a lot of energy goes into proving just the opposite. For example, what little I've read by Karl Barth argues precisely that text is the origin of meaning, and not the reader.
Even taking your tack, it seems clear to me that the authors of the Old Testament believed that the Lord punished disobedience on a national scale. To pick one of many numerous examples, when David ordered a census of his people, God retaliated against the people. It is fair to say that every indication we have of ancient Judeo-Christian belief is that God will punish the Israelities if they misbehave -- specifically, if they worship other gods, or sometimes if they show mercy to ordained enemies.
The movement that spawned Christianity can even be shown to be a direct product of this belief, if the early Christians are indeed linked to the Dead Sea sect.
Now, whether the position in question is Christian is fascinating. The early Christian movement seems to have been a rejection of this concept of God, and everything that goes with it -- the ceremonial and imperial artifice that was justified by this belief.
Even if so, scholars like Crossan and Pagels, among others, have demonstrated, to my mind quite convincingly, that Christianity moved away from that radical belief and in fact mutated so that Christians supported a position that was perfectly in line with the old belief -- that is, that God is the Lord who ordains the government (instead of being opposed to it).
So, I can see nothing in mainstream Christian doctrine that leads me to conclude other than I have above.
"I can see nothing in mainstream Christian doctrine that leads me to conclude other than I have above."
If by 'mainstream Christianity' you mean post-Reformationist thought, then I would agree with you. However, this is an entirely inappropriate definition for 'mainstream Christianity' -- given that it accounts for a minority of extant Christians and a minority of Christian history. It is probably reasonable to call this 'mainstream American Christianity.'
"Karl Barth argues precisely that text is the origin of meaning"
Of course fundamentalist theologians argue this. That's precisely the error I was alluding to, and precisely what causes them to endorse the erroneous and offensive beliefs in question.
"the authors of the Old Testament believed that the Lord punished disobedience on a national scale."
Sure. But this seems like a non sequitur if we're considering people who are advocates of the New Covenant rather than the Old.
"scholars like Crossan and Pagels, among others, have demonstrated, to my mind quite convincingly, that Christianity moved away from that radical belief"
Pagels is in error on this account. She reads the early Christians in a post-Reformationist context which is entirely inappropriate to them. The divergance of symbolic and fundamentalist Christian lines did occur, but it occurred a millenium after the disputes of early Orthodoxy and Gnosticism (and the symbolic tradition has remained Christian). The Gnostic-Christian disputes were over entirely different matters.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sophiaserpentia) wrote2004-08-19 02:51 pm
no subject
Unfortunately, a lot of energy goes into proving just the opposite. For example, what little I've read by Karl Barth argues precisely that text is the origin of meaning, and not the reader.
Even taking your tack, it seems clear to me that the authors of the Old Testament believed that the Lord punished disobedience on a national scale. To pick one of many numerous examples, when David ordered a census of his people, God retaliated against the people. It is fair to say that every indication we have of ancient Judeo-Christian belief is that God will punish the Israelities if they misbehave -- specifically, if they worship other gods, or sometimes if they show mercy to ordained enemies.
The movement that spawned Christianity can even be shown to be a direct product of this belief, if the early Christians are indeed linked to the Dead Sea sect.
Now, whether the position in question is Christian is fascinating. The early Christian movement seems to have been a rejection of this concept of God, and everything that goes with it -- the ceremonial and imperial artifice that was justified by this belief.
Even if so, scholars like Crossan and Pagels, among others, have demonstrated, to my mind quite convincingly, that Christianity moved away from that radical belief and in fact mutated so that Christians supported a position that was perfectly in line with the old belief -- that is, that God is the Lord who ordains the government (instead of being opposed to it).
So, I can see nothing in mainstream Christian doctrine that leads me to conclude other than I have above.
no subject
If by 'mainstream Christianity' you mean post-Reformationist thought, then I would agree with you. However, this is an entirely inappropriate definition for 'mainstream Christianity' -- given that it accounts for a minority of extant Christians and a minority of Christian history. It is probably reasonable to call this 'mainstream American Christianity.'
"Karl Barth argues precisely that text is the origin of meaning"
Of course fundamentalist theologians argue this. That's precisely the error I was alluding to, and precisely what causes them to endorse the erroneous and offensive beliefs in question.
"the authors of the Old Testament believed that the Lord punished disobedience on a national scale."
Sure. But this seems like a non sequitur if we're considering people who are advocates of the New Covenant rather than the Old.
"scholars like Crossan and Pagels, among others, have demonstrated, to my mind quite convincingly, that Christianity moved away from that radical belief"
Pagels is in error on this account. She reads the early Christians in a post-Reformationist context which is entirely inappropriate to them. The divergance of symbolic and fundamentalist Christian lines did occur, but it occurred a millenium after the disputes of early Orthodoxy and Gnosticism (and the symbolic tradition has remained Christian). The Gnostic-Christian disputes were over entirely different matters.