history of the bible

crosstrainer1

with the recent programmes about the bible is the truth of its history and who wrote it making us bettter christains

Fanny Cradock

crosstrainer1 wrote: »

with the recent programmes about the bible is the truth of its history and who wrote it making us bettter christains

Assuming the views expressed in the programmes are accurate - and I wouldn't be so quick to assume they are - than perhaps they makes us more knowledgeable Christians. The word "better" is ill-defined, and I don't think being a better Christian automatically goes hand-in-hand with an in-depth knowledge of all things biblical. I would think that God would be far happier with a Christian who honours the Lord but doesn't know his Nicene Creed from his Athanasian Creed (I personally don't know a great deal about either) over a Christian who knows a whole lot about the history of the bible and Christianity but doesn't live the life.

ISAW

crosstrainer1 wrote: »

with the recent programmes about the bible is the truth of its history and who wrote it making us bettter christains

Here are some rough political observations about christians in relation to the "politics " of the bible.

Mainstream Christianity comprises three groups Orthodox Roman and Anglican. Together these make up 80 to 95 percent of Christians . the oldest (arguable) most traditional group are the Orthodox Christians. They are geographically closer to the original Holy land and were the Greek Parts of the Roman Empire. The Empire split to East and west and while Rome collapsed Constantinople became the centre of the Byzantine Empire and orthodox christianity for over 1000 years until Islam eventually overtook it. Eventually the Russian Empire became ofically Orthodox as a State religion. The next oldest is the Roman church based mostly in Rome which for a while (for about a century in the 1300's) was based in Avignon the south of France. Finally are the Anglican communion based in Cantebury (well only the church of englnd is really and n they would argue no Pope and each Bishop is equal throughout the world so it isnt "based" there but it began in England about Henry VIII time during the REformation and is more like the Catholic church of England than the Catholic Church of Rome and quite different from other Protestants ). you could start extending in Lutheran etc. who are coming into commune with the other mainstream elements.

As a rough rule the Orthodox are the most traditional and are very influenced by the spiritual aspect of Christianity. Anglicans are influenced by the written word and therefore the Bible. Given that many of these Protestants moved to the historic US, much American Christianity is heavily influenced by the "word". sitting in the middle of this are the Romans who if they steer towards tot Orthodox move away from Anglicans and vice versa. I would have to say thought that the central Roman aspect is the body of Christ particularly as manifested in transubstantiation communion and in this they are identical with Orthodox Christians. now this is all handwaving there are those who claim Eastern Christians were wholly apart from Rome or Byzantium and Romans would claim to be carrying on the original
tradition etc. so don't take it as gospel it is just to illustrate the following



Where does that leave the Bible?
So on one hand you have "tradition" and teaching of the Orthodox who lives the life of Early Christianity and spoke the actual language (and still do) in Which the Bible was written. Also there was no "new testament" in a single volume for about 400 years after Christ.

http://www.publictechnology.net/content/2623


So these early Christians while they lived "according to the bible" did so in their life and not by literal "it says this here so this is what we must do". Thus we have a "non written tradition" and a "magesterium" i.e. they had their own ways of carrying on the faith and had other books outside of the Bible and listened to their Bishops who led them.
They also had church fathers to discuss on decide on church policy and "inform the conscience" or the members of the church.

Later on, one aspect of Protestantism is that we don't need clergy between us and God.
So if nobody is informing us how do we "hear from God"? This is why the written word in the Bible is so important to Protestants.

so, whatever you mean by "better" the Bible is viewed by some Christians as the only way God communicates with us particularly those without sacrements like communion, conformation, Holy orders etc.

One way in which knowing about history might assist a christian is in dispelling the myth at the Bible was made up by a conspiracy about the fourth century. According to this theory the Bible was written only then and the history changed and Jesus and all the other stories invented or changed or embellished to fit into the narrative. if you are aware of the history you can easily see how this is bunkum! a plethora of diverse independent writings predate the 4th century codex.

that might make you "better" or maybe trusting Church historians was already good enough for you.