The rise of Christianity raised questions on how this new mode of thinking, based on faith, could fit and interact with a world that had not based its thinking on faith but instead on human reason. While some rejected that the new and old modes of thinking were compatible, others sought and found ways to reconcile both ways of exploring the world. The traditional philosophical method of starting with assumptions that cannot be proven but are assumed to be true and progressing to conclusions based on those assumptions was applied by both Aquinas and Descartes to address the mutual challenge posed by Christianity and philosophy.
First, he discusses the unreliability of biblical writings, like the gospels of the new testament, stating that "the Gospels cannot simply be taken at face value as giving us historically reliable accounts of the things Jesus said and did", (Ehrman 88), because not only were they written after Jesus 's death, but they were also not from eyewitnesses who 'd personally seen or heard Jesus. Because the sources used in these writings are unknown, and the purpose of them was to, in Ehrman 's words, spread the "good news" of Jesus, the information in them must be carefully analyzed, and compared with other sources, before it can be accepted as true. This leads into one of Ehrman 's main arguments-that because the Hebrew Bible spoke of a messiah who was thought to be the future ruler of the people of Israel, but Jesus did not fit that image because of his pacifistic and compassionate views, Ehrman claims that Jesus 's actions would not have led anyone to believe he was the messiah, ergo he must have told them he was. Another interesting point that Ehrman makes is that some of Jesus 's early teachings differed from the views of early Christians. For instance, Ehrman cites a biblical passage which implies that people who are good and help others can get to heaven, despite the fact that the early church preached that heaven and salvation could only be attained by belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus.
Therefore, Creationists deny scientifically proven facts All of these are valid points if there actually based on reasonable assumptions. For example, in the first dilemma, they argue that the Bible is full of inaccurate facts, but usually they base their “error... ... middle of paper ... ...le has any scientific accuracy. For the science portions, it may be easier to rely on Christian organizations that discuss the science of this regularly such as Answers in Genesis (www.answersingenesis.org) or the Creation Research Institute (www.icr.org). Even though evolutions are often stubborn, they typically show great interest in learning, and there we have the chance to help them learn about the God Who created them. Works Cited Kondepudi, D. K. Introduction to Modern Thermodynamics.
Ironically, the Jews rejection of Jesus as Messiah was the catalyst for the leaders of the church to take the message to the Gentiles. This growing movement threatened the foundation of the Roman Empire. Although controversial, the Bible is used as a primary source document to understand the beliefs and customs of Judaism and Christianity. For the majority of Christians, the Bible is seen as historically accurate and is fundamental to their faith. The difficulties that the early church faced such as racism, tradition, and immorality are the same struggles we face today.
For example literalists believe that the human race started as Adam and Eve while evolution would prove otherwise. Symbolic truth is of... ... middle of paper ... ...e to show that the bible isn’t historical fact but that they have deeper meanings behind the stories told. Some Catholics but not all recognize the truths; Literalists see the bible as historical fact. They ignore the meanings behind the stories; the meanings intended to be seen by the writers. Works Cited Casamento, John, Lynne Muir, Kathleen Engebretson, and Shaun Britton.
Secondly, when inquiring about his causal origins, the emphasis is most certainly on finding the source of the idea of the perfect being that Descartes has within himself, rather than any other causal explanation for his existence. Despite this, the fact that the second version relies on the premises and presupposed conclusions of the first version means that it retains the same weaknesses of the first version. Descartes argument for the existence of God from an innate idea in each of us is simply not convincing. In my opinion, trying to prove the existence of God is contrary to the doctrine of faith that is inherent in being a Christian. As a Christian himself, it puzzles me that Descartes chose this route to proceed with his meditations, and even returned to the subject with the Ontological Argument later in his discussions.
This is more evidence of Peter trying to create a "convenient" religion. The problem of acceptance of Jewish Law, I believe, is the fundamental split in Christianity. It can still be seen today: Catholicism represents Paul's view of Christianity, while Seventh Day Adventist Christians keep Jewish Law. However, if Paul had preached the Law, I don't believe that Christianity would even be present today (especially among the gentiles). He did much to advance Christianity; however, Gentile Christianity became a religion of Paul, rather than a religion of Jesus.
While we speak about the tenuous relationship between Christians and Jews dating back to the time of Christ, the seeds for the schism within Judaism may have been planted more than 500 years prior. Jeremiah was one of a group of distinguished prophets whose works became part of the Old Testament canon. The Jewish "wisdom" prophets lectured, warned and blamed all who would listen about the sins of their own people, the resulting punishments that God had prescribed for them, and what they had to do to get back into God's good graces. Some prophets targeted Jewish monarchs as an idolatrous distraction which prevented the people from properly hearing the Word of God. Other prophets still maintained that Jews should continue to believe that God would not abandon his chosen people.
Ultimately, both Matthew and Luke’s gospels have different and and even inaccurate historical information in their birth narratives of Jesus. However, as you saw from the two main examples I gave, the chances are that both authors were more focused on showing the reader just how important Jesus was going to be in relation to Gods kingdom, the Jewish people, as well as the Gentiles. In the end, the gospels were probably not written more to show deeper meaning than accurate historical information. Works Cited Coogan, Michael D., et al. The new Oxford annotated Bible : with the Apocrypha.
The customs and traditions that early Christians followed were mostly Jewish traditions. However, over the time, both religions grew up to the animosity towards each other. Observing the animosity, there has been many incidents where Jews and Christians have not tolerated each other. Therefore, understanding Judaism is essential to learn the holistic nature and history of the Christianity. First of all, historically, the early Christians were the Jewish people who believed in the teaching of the Jesus Christ.