Since "Christianity" has everything to do with belief in the Bible
Christianity has everything to do with following Jesus and sharing in his life, death, and resurrection. It has little to do with "belief in the bible."
Jesus himself foretold that Christianity would be infiltrated by imposters who would look for all the world like the real thing initially.
No, later authors, who never met Jesus, wrote that Jesus said that. And, of course, their cultural and societal context was far different from that of Jesus. Even Paul dealt with "super-apostles," who may or may not have been authentic.
Small beginnings led to monumental changes, but gradually introduced over time as the weeds grew. Gradualism works as we all know. Since what we have today is the only Christianity that people have ever known, they are not aware of just how far they are removed from the Christianity that Jesus taught.
First of all, cultural contexts will change belief and practice, bringing different relevant situations to the forefront. Second, Xy was never meant to be kept in stasis under glass. Xy is a
living faith, and things that are alive grow and
change over time. We look little like our Neanderthal and Homo Erectus forebears, but that makes us no less authentic.
In the first-century Christian congregation, there were no class distinctions.
Well, first, it's not fair to use a writing that is more-or-less second-generation Xy to point to what was going on in the first gen of Xy. Second, 1 Cor was written at least 30 years prior to Matthew, and, in it, Paul certainly deals with class distinctions.
By the second century, a hierarchy of bishops and presbyters had come into existence, resulting in a separation of clergy and laity.
There was a hierarchy in place long before the second century. Paul, himself, writing in the 50s, talks about people who were leaders and deacons, and deals, again, with a group of "super-apostles" in Corinth.
Next, such pagan doctrines as the Trinity, the immortality of the soul, and hellfire came to be accepted by those who claimed to be Christians. (2 Cor 6:14-18)
2 Cor was written in the early 50s -- about 20 years after the crucifixion. 1 Thess. was written about the year 48, about 15 years after the crucifixion. In these two documents, Paul plays with decidedly Platonic thought in his theology. And Mark, Matt and Lk certainly take a Pagan stance in their theology, so I don't think you can hold up the bible as some pure standard, while decrying Pagan influence. Mark's idea of resurrection is decidedly pagan, and the Eucharist is modeled directly on the Roman
symposium. So, Xy is rife with Paganism -- even in the bible, which you uphold as THE standard for Christian belief.
Then, in 313 C.E., Roman Emperor Constantine ordered that this apostate form of Christianity be recognized as a lawful religion.
Here's where you make a GIANT leap of assumption. Christianity at that point could hardly be described as "apostate."
By the end of the fourth century, the “Christian” Church, which was actively meddling in politics, was promoted to be the official religion of the Roman Empire, and it became known as the Roman Catholic Church.
No. It wasn't known as the Roman Catholic Church until after the Great Schism in 1054. And, FYI, the church was "meddling in politics" from the beginning. Jesus was executed as an act of capital punishment for sedition. That's "meddling in politics."
Those I believe are the facts, no matter what the church says.
Your belief of what are "facts" is decidedly wrong. No matter what Watchtower says.
What is "myth" is a matter of opinion. Many myths have a basis in fact, but somewhat embellished by human imagination over time. Just because something was relegated to a myth doesn't mean there was not some truth in its essence.
I just don't think you have a dog in this hunt, because it's clear that you have no idea what constitutes "myth." What is myth is a matter of literary definition, and they have truth -- not fact -- at their base.
The Genesis account of the flood is very likely the basis for Greek mythology with its gods and demi-gods.
Perhaps, but the Genesis flood account is an obvious rip-off of the Gilgamesh Epic.
That might be true except that many of those scholars were blind in their own bias towards Christendom's doctrines.
No. What separates the men from the boys in the biblical scholarship game, is that scholars are trained to not let their biases get in the way. Many times, scholars are taken to task for asserting things that the church simply doesn't like.
Forcing scripture to say what you want to believe is an art form for Christendom.
It seems the JWs are masters at this sort of thing, so I'm not surprised that that's the first thing you all usually accuse the rest of the church of doing. Since the texts are polyvalent, interpretation is rather more flexible than you imagine.
They count on the fact that the majority of their adherents are Biblically illiterate.
Actually, the dynamic is usually the reverse. People don't like for the experts to tell them what they think, and when the experts tell them stuff based on solid scholarship, they become petulant and leave. In order to keep that from happening, many experts acquiesce to the illiterate masses.
It has been an introduced notion over the centuries that the priest or minister knows it all for his flock, and that somehow let's them off from having to know much at all
You really have no idea how much biblical training the average clergy with standing has under her/his belt.
ust show up for a Bible reading that is never explained and some meaningless ritual and make sure you bring your money to pay your way into heaven.
1) The whole point of the sermon is to expound on the text. 2) ritual is never "meaningless." If you don't get anything out of it, it's because you're willfully Not. Paying. Attention.
3) I've been involved in A. Lot. of churches, and have never, ever, been required to "buy my way into heaven." This is nothing but cheap provocation and ignorant dismissal.
Without those qualities, which are a by-product of God's holy spirit...you have no Christianity....no church....and therefore no relationship with God.
Well, since you just claimed that scholars let their biased beliefs get in the way and are, therefore, "wrong" in their machinations, one should think that not having a relationship with God would be a
good thing, as far as biblical scholarship is concerned. Why are you now knocking it as "essential" for such endeavors? Make up your mind!
You can keep your textural criticism for what its worth at the end of the day......whatever you envision that to be.
Since it is that work that provides a basis for proper interpretation, it's worth quite a bit.
