日志
岳氏治史，双重悖谬 - 驳《基督教不清白的历史》贴文
热度 19 ||
岳氏治史，双重悖谬 - 驳《基督教不清白的历史》贴文
说明：红字是我的回复，黑字是原贴文字，为了便于阅读和区分，我把原贴文字放在方框之中。
基督教不清白的历史：教义来自希腊迷信
第一， 基督教历史又清晰又清白，不清晰不清白是因为你的立场和你根据的史料原因。前者是根本原因，后者是你根据前者选择的结果，当然你所用资料的作者也有不可推卸的责任。他如果不写，你起码不能以它为借口。
第二， 发现一些相似之处，就当作基督教信仰的来源，这是心中无神，又坚持反基的朋友共有的通病和惯用的策略。基督教的信仰来自圣经，讨论基督教的朋友千万不要太健忘这个根基。
第三， 基督教信仰和其他文化信仰有相似之处，估计所有反基朋友都不知道原因何在。第一，所有的文化也是在神的掌管之下，所以有相同之处毫不奇怪。第二，这些相同之处正是将来福音传扬的接触点之一，为了神的目的实现而在文化方面神所做的预备。
第四， 希腊文化本身并没有真神。其高峰不过是三架马车哲学思考出来的形而上学的抽象神。而基督教的根基是永活具有完全独立位格既超越又临在的三位一体独一真神。这些本质属性是怎么也不能在希腊文化中找到的。
我在《信而不割，难逃一劫》一文中，根据对圣经文字的分析指出，割礼是耶和华要求其子民在身体上做的记号，对于信而不割的，耶和华的惩罚是处死。我最后得出结论："信耶和华而不割，是很危险的，很可能受到惩处。要信，先割了才有发言权。"
既然你是在研究历史，请你找出哪怕一例因为没有割礼而被处死的历史事实来证明你的结论。如果没有，你的结论是根据什么作出的？你是在研究历史，还是在写玄幻小说？再有，你既然是讨论的历史涉及基督教信仰，你知不知道信是什么，割礼是什么，更重要的，二者之间的关系是什么？如果知道，你起码应该把你理解的说说作为你讨论和基础吧。如果不知道，或者知道的一知半解，甚至错误，你就夸夸其谈，岂不贻笑大方？你以为你是在人有多大胆，地有多高产的时代，只要敢说就行？这个问题是在你的引言里，我也不具体说了。总而言之，你原来的结论就是根本错误的，现在你又以原来的错误为基础和出发点，企图进一步臧否基督教信仰，可想而知，即使你从现在开始都是对的，也因为你的基础错误而生出错误的结果来。事实是你在错误的方向上越走越远，导致你后面得出的结论也就更加荒谬。
毋庸讳言，你是非常聪明的，从你的行文和方式上可知，你不是历史学科班出身。非科班而做到这样也算不错了。不过你固有的骄傲自大，使你即使从历史学角度也犯两个重大错误。
第一个重大错误，就是你所使用的根据。你根据的书籍，无疑是作者比较全面的资料汇集。你把你的根据全然建立在他的这本书上，似乎他说的就是完全可靠，是等同于历史实际的历史事实，来作你的讨论和论断的独一依据。这样，你的依据不仅单薄，而且你如何就能断定他是可靠的？你知道他的信仰状况吗？你知道信仰不同写出的东西会大不一样吗？你如果回答说没有什么区别，就凸现出你的史学基础造诣的缺乏了。第二个重大错误就是你在第一个错误上走得更远，变成了直抒心意，把反基的态度和观点不和历史联系不求历史根据而直接表达出来。
这里，我必须先介绍一些历史学的一些最基本的知识。
第一，什么是历史。所谓历史，实际是包含真实的历史和书写的历史。这二者的关系是，如果我们不通过书写的历史，我们就不可能知道真实的历史。但是，二者的不同是必须注意的。即使写的再好的历史也不等同真实的历史。这种不同，其一是在全面性上。没有任何人可能把所有人所有事情都写进历史。其二是在对历史素材的选取上。也就是说作者面对杂乱的原始资料，必须有的采用，有的舍弃。这就涉及作者的信仰立场了。历史学家也和其他人一样，有思想，有喜恶，有判断，所有他所写的历史是他选材的结果。他选材的标准，当然是和他的信仰协调一致。除了这个重大原则以外，还有一条，他如果受条件所限，而且肯定会受到限制，他一定只选取他认为有重大意义的事情入史。
第二，写史方法 – 夹叙夹议。只写史实，叫做叙，也就是叙述历史；如果对一些历史进行评议，就是议，也就是对历史事实进行评价。这个评价显然是根据该史学家的信仰或者立场。问题是，这个立场，基本上没有人事先声明，广而告知。只有依靠读者自己去分辨。如果读者不愿意或者没有能力分辨，最好这种状态只限于他自己，不要宣称那位史学家是不偏不倚地直说历史事实。实际上事情是更复杂的。虽然夹叙夹议几乎是所有历史文献的表达方式，其实即使是叙述的部分，也并不是没有立场。举例说吧。我们都知道所谓的春秋笔法。如果有人不知道的话，说明他有可能是理科生。春秋笔法，应该是根据孟子的一句话“孔子作春秋，乱贼臣子惧。” 春秋笔法又称微言大义，指行文中虽然不直接阐述对人物和事件的看法，但是却通过细节描写，修辞手法（例如词汇的选取）和材料的筛选，委婉而微妙地表达作者主观看法。在记述历史时，暗含褒贬。比如，置人死地的动词用杀、弑、诛，其实各有深层含义。杀指无罪而杀，弑指以下犯上，诛则指有罪、有理而杀。而这本书的作者，不但只选他自己满意的史料，而且充满了脱离历史史料的论断。
第三，写史态度- 直笔曲笔。直笔就是按照确定的原则去描述历史；曲笔就是屈服于压力放弃原则不安事实真相描述历史。中国历史上直笔最有名的例证就是司马迁。传言他的受腐刑的原因是因为他坚持直笔写史。当然直接的原因是因为他为投降的李陵求情而触怒汉武帝。不过看中国历史，时代越近，直笔越少，曲笔越多。到后来 “为尊者讳耻，为贤者讳过，为亲者讳疾”的礼训，就占领了史学领域，取代了直笔传统，以至于明清以降，直笔绝迹，曲笔独行。
根据上面三点讨论，我简单地对作者的书籍作一评论，当然只涉及被引用的部分。我也分三点分别论述。
第一， 首先需要明确的是，对错不管，作者的产品只是对历史的描述，而不是历史本身。只有分不清二者关系者才会把作者的评论之言看成是“历史结论”。而这个历史书价值本身，需要和作者的生活年代和信仰背景联系起来衡量。作者生活在十五世纪中叶，他所写的对象使徒保罗却是一世纪中叶的人。相差十四个世纪之远，可见其史料都不是第一手资料。最好是二手，甚至是十手八手都有可能。这样在他判断和选择史料的过成中，他的信仰和立场所起的作用就更大。从该作者在书中对高级批判的那些人持赞赏和支持的态度看，他自己在信仰上最高的程度也就是与那些对圣经进行高级批判的人一样。具体体现在历史上，就是相信和依靠所谓历史学家，否定圣经。这显然是他写这些历史书的信仰根基和原因。
第二， 该作者的写作风格明显是叙述和议论都有相当大的比重。叙述的部分真实性如何，除了事过十四世纪之远以外，作者的宗教立场对材料的选取以及他对历史资料所采用的角度和高度都会带来重大影响。作者生活在15世纪中叶，即使他非常公正，他也不能得到第一手资料。而对非第一手资料的重大考量就是经手对这些资料的再加工，也就是离真相越来越远的可能性。可见，经手的人越多，这种可能性越大。而作者的态度，如果看他在其他部分关于耶稣的有关真实性的叙述和评议，可知他非常赞赏对圣经的高级批判。而对圣经的高级批判，实质就是对圣经的否定，起做法是不承认圣经的权威，而是通过各种人为的技术和手段对圣经鉴定真伪。只有通过这些所谓专家权威的鉴定，才获得他们的认可。在历史学领域，就是凡是涉及历史上圣经人物和事件，就必须依赖历史学家按他们的原则和方法逐一鉴定，否则就不是真的。这样一来，圣经的从神而来的绝对权威和信实可靠就被这些所谓的历史学家的研究结果所代替。既然作者对这些高级批判的作者和成果持极度赞赏的态度，他自己也在身体力行，写出这部历史著作。显然他自己也是其中一员，也就是说，把从根本上离开圣经的权威，把自己当作至高无上的权威来决定他的选材和表态。这样他的叙述的部分，已经是他自己按自己的信仰对历史进行装扮和修饰。至于议论的部分，即使他完全根据他所选取的史料，也只能是被他歪曲的历史和意义，何况他还脱离自己的史料根据，随便妄下论断。比如，关于保罗，一开始他就说保罗是基督教神学的创立者。这根本就是不顾事实的胡说八道。基督教神学是根据全部66卷圣经建立起来的。比如加尔文的基督教原理，就引用大量的旧约圣经，尤其是诗篇。再比如，他在保罗历史的结尾，从一世纪的事情，突然跳到了十六世纪，断定抗议宗是保罗战胜了彼得；基要主义是保罗战胜了耶稣。这种关公战秦琼的把戏只有在笑话中才可以遇到。由此可见，不管是叙还是议，他都远离历史事实。叙的是一厢情愿的片面历史；议的结果是他脱离历史根据本人臆想的任意表述。
第三， 该作者的态度可称曲笔的典型例证。直笔的典范是圣经的作者。别的不说，极端反基津津乐道集中火力攻击的所谓“屠城杀婴”就是他们直接取材于圣经记载自己按己意解读出来的。新约中关于耶稣的生平和使徒开创教会的矛盾，困难，和冲突都一一记述得非常清楚，以至于任何心怀叵测之徒都可以在其中很容易地就找到攻击点。反观该书作者，对圣经的权威记叙他不但按自己的需要任意取舍，而且把史学家的良知俯伏在所谓高级批判的权威之下，而后者充其量不过是对真正的历史顶多一知半解，却对同样的一些藐视圣经权威的人有影响的人。要说对历史的理解，全然掌管历史进程的神不说，难道他们比直接见证人的圣经作者更有权威？屈服在高级批判这些人的权威之下的显然后果，就是该作者既把圣经原人类作者置之不顾，更有甚者，又把基督教信仰的主人我们信仰的神完全排除在历史之外。须知，作者是在叙述基督教的历史，没有基督教信仰对象和全然掌管者的基督教还叫什么基督教。没有实质内容，没有内在联系的基督教，只能是一些人偶然在一起作出了一些历史上的偶然事件。这就是这些所谓的在高级批判旗帜下聚集历史学家所坚持的历史学之实质。该书作者也侧身其中。他的曲笔还表现在他对保罗的抹黑式的描述和议论上。保罗明明是靠织帐篷为生，没有从教会中收取他本应该得到的报酬，那些传扬假道的人却无事生非造谣说保罗有经济问题。这明显是撒旦的伎俩，目的的阻止福音真道的传扬，神的救赎大工的开展。作者却没有告知事实真相，把本来清楚的事情用模棱两可的语言和猜度误导读者。保罗所建立的教会捐献支持耶路撒冷的教会，是因为那里的信徒面临持续很长时间的自然灾害而形成的暂时财政困难，作者却说是保罗发展的基督徒富裕，捐献是为了换取他们对不行割礼的认可。而真正的原因却被因而不见，更加不要说主内一家的关爱这个更深层的原因了。可见，作者的笔曲到了何等程度。他自己心目中只有利益驱动，就定意把基督教信仰也描绘成这个样子。由此可见，作者的曲笔是他治史的基调和主流，在关于保罗相关的历史的记述和评议上得到了充分的体现。
那么，这篇贴文（以后简称原贴）的作者又是如何解读和对待原书的作者（Will Durant，以后简称原书作者）和原书（《Caesar and Christ 》）的记载的？进行简单比较以后，不得不感叹：岳氏治史，双重悖谬。
这第一重悖谬，就是依靠的是一个有上述问题作者和他的产品，而且是只依靠这样一个来源，把他当作权威，全然相信他的史料和观点。这种态度，倒是和原书作者一脉相承，就是除了不相信神以外，盲目相信所谓的历史学家的权威。这种单薄的依据，即使是不考虑信仰上的关键偏差，也为严谨的学者所不取。象这样和圣经相关的历史，起码应该知道到更接近历史发生时间的圣经里去对照核实一番。可惜，估计是由于主观的原因，这篇贴文的作者华丽地忽视了圣经，把一切依靠都放在了这位作者身上。简言之，选取和依赖一个充满谬误的资料来源是第一重悖谬。
第二重悖谬，原贴作者在原书作者的悖谬基础上，进一步在同一个方向上走得更远。这个更远的原因，显然是原书作者虽然不承认圣经的权威，起码还知道找一些理由和原因，作为自己良心亏缺的遁词。而原贴作者直接就站在了反神的立场上，否定圣经了。因此，对相关的问题，就是不管历史如何，直抒心意了。可以这样比较性地说，原书作者的观点还可以找出历史痕迹和联系；原贴文的作者就是天马行空，不着边际，无际可寻了。怪异的是，却是在历史研究的名义下这样做的。也就是说，以历史研究为名，完全背离历史研究的规则。以至于得出的结论只是自己反神心态的直抒心怀。这是第二重悖谬。
反正原贴不长，我就逐一做一下分析。
其实还是犹太人聪明。开始，他们根据圣经要入教的人都割，结果很多gentile人不愿割，但这些人有钱。于是犹太人说，不用割，出钱出力就可以了。于是很多gentile人就加入了，出钱出力。至于不割的后果？反正不关犹太人的事。相关历史，包括涉及金钱的部分，参见文末引用的文献。
1. 不行割礼的原因是因为割礼跟得救没有关系，不是外邦人不愿意。
2. 这些人有钱只是你的推测。
3. 不行割礼是教会的决定，可能有犹太人作为教会的成员，但是本质和是否是犹太人已经没有关系。这事关得救，不是一个礼仪问题。
4. 再阐明一次，教会的捐献是帮助信徒度过困难，和割礼无关，不要把信仰问题和现代的请愿游说团体混为一谈。
5. 本来就是得救不涉割礼，你非要联系在一起，搞个一波三折，故弄玄虚。
6. 引用的文献，不可靠不说，本身也不支持你的论点。
保罗从未见过耶稣，原本是基督教的反对者，曾杀害基督徒，但后来宣传耶稣是上帝之子，而逐渐获得耶稣门徒的信任，更重要的是，他吸收的非犹太人信徒有钱，而耶路撒冷的母教会很穷。
1. 保罗在去大马士革的路上遇见耶稣，生命得到根本的改变，后来又被提到三层天受到主耶稣的教诲。当然这些你是不承认的。但是基督教历史似乎也不用你承认才有效。
2. 保罗迫害过教会，但是圣经没有记载他杀害过基督徒。你说他杀害基督徒，谁被保罗所杀？《使徒行传》第七章只提到“作见证的人把衣裳放在一个少年人名叫扫罗的脚前”（7：58）和“扫罗也喜悦他的被害”。（7：60）这里既没有提到保罗直接参与对司提反的杀害，也没有说保罗杀害基督徒。而原书作者却说他参与了对司提反的杀害；原贴作者则更进一步，直接说保罗杀害基督徒。
3. 与钱相关的题材总是被唯利是图的心态解释成唯一的驱动，而不管历史真相和圣经的信实记载。再说一遍：耶路撒冷的基督徒需要帮助是因为灾荒；其他教会的基督徒帮助是因为爱心。不知道的话看看哥林多后书。
围绕着基督徒是否要割的问题，相关的历史表明，耶稣在世的时候一直是要割的。耶稣死后，保罗认为，如果要求割的话，基督教很可能会消失，于是提出要放宽割的条款。耶稣的门徒们先是反对，但经过辩论，决定变通一下。
1. 这是典型的时空错乱。耶稣传道 的地方都是犹太人，他传道的目的是改变人心，不是改变传统，哪里有割礼问题？而保罗所在地区是外邦，根本就没有割礼这个传统，他的福音是救人，而不是推广犹太人的传统，有什么理由要求割礼？
2. 基督教的建立不是在割礼的基础上，也不是因为没有割礼；反对割礼的理由是它不是得救的条件。和福音真道不相混淆的前提下，割与不割都没关系。根本就没有你说的那种权衡。
3. 有人坚持割礼，是因为不明白福音真道，这个矛盾的本质是到底什么是纯正福音。而最后得到了澄清，福音真道得到确认和传扬，而不是你所说的权衡以后的变通。
4. 反对和赞成的都是耶稣的门徒。不是你杜撰的耶稣门徒和非门徒之间的矛盾。
基督教里的关键教义，包括信徒死后灵魂得救之类，并非来自耶稣，而是保罗在耶稣死后根据埃及与希腊迷信为了迎合gentile人口味而创造。基督教徒们信教，其实最终信的可能是他们的上帝不予接受的异端邪说。加上保罗原本反基督、杀害基督徒，以及后来教友们指控其利用传教敛财的指责，当今的教徒们可能被简单地耍了。
1. 基督教的关键教义之一是罪人得救，不是只有灵魂，而是全人得救。人包括身体和灵魂两个部分，得救缺一不可。对基督教一知半解的人才认为只有灵魂得救。
2. 神的救赎步骤是先救灵魂。这个救赎不是在死后，而是在人活着的时候完成的，也就是说，只有在没有死的时候灵魂得救才是得救，否则死后就再也没有得救的机会了。可见你的错误理解是多么重大。
3. 耶稣在事工过程中尤其是升天之前，一再说他到天上为信徒预备地方，然后会再来。他也一直做的是灵魂拯救工作，你如何断定这不是耶稣的教导，而是保罗从外邦人那里借用来的？
4. 得救的福音是为所有得救的人预备的，包括犹太人和外邦人，是从神而来。到了你那里就成了从外邦人来，为了应和外邦人的口味了。你解释一下为什么犹太人有人信耶稣？外邦人有人不信？解释不了的话，还是丢掉你的口味论吧。
5. 基督教信仰不是你能评定的。先东拉西扯的胡编乱造一个东西来，然后对此表示怀疑，好像很逻辑有理的样子。岂不知你说的对象只是挂了基督教信仰的名字，实际上根本就不是基督教信仰。
6. 你口中的异端邪说，正好适合你自己改造过的产品。你这样做，也算搬起石头砸自己的脚，自食其果了。你或者对基督教别做修改，原汁原味；或者改了以后，自我夸口，也算有理。这样自相矛盾，费力不讨好，还真是罕见。
7. 看来你是遵循谎言重复千遍成真理的套路了。把自己的谬论当前提，发展新的谬论，似乎前面的谬论就成了不用质疑的真理。
8. 关于说保罗杀害基督徒，请你回答应对第二段贴文中所提的问题，除了司提反被杀和保罗有一定的联系以外还有哪件事能给保罗按上这个罪名。
历史结论： “Protestantism was the triumph of Paul over Peter; Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ.” 抗议教主义是保罗赢了彼得；原教旨主义是保罗赢了耶稣。
1. 先分清什么是历史，什么是史学家的观点再说吧，且不论他的观点多么牵强附会。
2. 抗罗宗是路德开始的，如何和保罗挂钩？
3. 基要派胜耶稣更是天大的笑话。如果不是顺服在耶稣首领之下，哪里有什么基督教？基要派坚持的就是基督教信仰的主要真理内容，正是顺服基督耶稣的明证。
4. 这也显明了原书作者和原贴作者与严谨的治史态度和风格相距有多么遥远。证据和结论跨越了十四个世纪。
保罗的故事也告诉我们，死背教条是不行的，一种宗教要发展必须顺应时代与环境。
1. 首先，你自己反复强调的必须受割礼和你现在主张的宗教改变是直接唱反调的，不知道你如何解释这种矛盾主张，你是想守旧，还是想革新，还是反正不关你的事情，越乱越好。
2. 新约和旧约的关系，教会历时历代的教义和教导就是对新情况下如何应用神的不变的教导的反应。你所谓的死背教条从整个教会发展史看，和神的渐进其实看，都是你无中生有的杜撰。
3. 你所主张的为顺应时代与环境而改变基督教信仰，和我们信仰的实际是两码事。你所主张的是抛弃基督教信仰的核心内容，随波逐流，如同自由神学，成功神学等等一样，迎合的是世人的世俗趣味和要求。这个实质看你下面的细项就一目了然。
基督教已经完全与时代脱节了。要继续生存，至少应该进行下列改革，去除下列教义或者概念。
1）上帝创造世界与人的概念---这来自古以色列神话，但已经太原始了，谁说相信大半是在撒谎；
2）耶稣是上帝儿子的概念，玛利亚是处女的概念---这都是耶稣死后其门徒编的，现代人都知道DNA，这个神话已经没有市场了；
3）原罪的概念---AUGUSTINE发展的东东，什么光屁股乱跑学会穿衣是原罪，婴儿在娘胎里就有罪，太荒唐、太不讲人性；
4）死后灵魂得救的概念---这是PAUL借用的希腊迷信，本来就不属于耶稣教。
1. “基督教与时代脱节”的观点完全是你的立场所决定的。你说说你认为什么时候没有脱节？基督教所面临的问题依然是老问题 – 罪；基督教的解决办法依然是老办法 – 救人。你说说是今天人没罪了，还是罪人不用拯救，自己就脱胎换骨，改恶从善了？
2. 基督教存在的必要是这个世界还有人需要拯救，一旦神预定的拯救计划完成，就会自然谢幕。而那个时候，必然也是末世审判来临的时候，同时也是到那时还没有悔改的人失去最后机会的时候。你现在不思悔改，还在那里没事人似的高谈阔论基督教的生存，却偏偏忽略自己的生存，不知道到底是聪明还是糊涂。或者是在至关紧要的大事上糊涂，在一些鸡毛蒜皮的细小事情上，甚至是街谈巷议的题材上明白。
3. 神造世界，这个是基督教的神观，因之是基督教信仰的基础，当然也是客观真理。你反对这个基础的根基是不可知论或者进化论，除此以外还能有什么？别说根本，就是按常理比较，你的根基也不过尔尔，毫无优势。你既然提出不要这个根基，你起码也要建议一个替代，才算正常。如果没有替代，有要抛弃，你觉得这种鸡飞蛋打两手空空的主张是常人可以重视的吗？
4. 你不相信，当然不知道相信者的心态。和自己不一样，就认为不一样的是在说谎，这种反对对方的方法也太粗暴和浅薄了。照你这样的观念推理，世界上也只有你是说真话的。如果不同意这个推断，你可以找出和你完全一致的一个人来。因为你说谎的定义是和你的观点不一致。
5. 耶稣是神的儿子，是圣灵感孕道成肉身，是基督教两个必不可少的基本教义的内容，就是三位一体神论和耶稣是人又是神的基督论。如果别的还有的商量，搁置待后再议的话，这两条是没有任何改变的余地的。改变的话，就是从基督教跑到了别的教去，连异端都做不成了。
6. 圣经的成书，都是神的默示，通过神兴起的人记录下来的。看来原贴作者对此毫无所知，否则也不会以耶稣门徒是作者为理由否定了。如果这样笑话可以当作借口，岂不是整本圣经都是如此？如果这个蹩脚的理由就可以否定圣经，反基朋友早就弹冠相庆了。
7. DNA如果能否定神，否定神的作工，那么事情早就偃旗息鼓了。因为这样的想法任何一项新的科学发现问世的时候，都会冒出来。DNA不过就是神造人的一项规则，难道神的工作之一可以否定神自身？你就是把所有人的DNA找到，发现他们都一样，你能由此断定没有神的超自然做工？
8. 原罪就是始祖亚当违背神的命令把人从无罪状态带到有罪状态的罪，并非是奥古斯丁的发明，顶多只是他的明白阐述。而且也决不是你所谓的穿衣服是犯罪。这个论调我已经驳斥过你，这里不赘述。婴儿在娘胎里有罪，是原罪，因为他们都亚当的后裔。就如同在土匪山寨的孩子，官府必然把他们和土匪一视同仁。
9. 有罪而拒绝认罪，拒不悔改，神给了机会，反而断然拒绝，回头又抱怨，这才是真正的荒唐。死不悔改，不但害了自己，还贻害后代，祸及他人，才是真正的不讲人性。这么一目了然的事情，竟然被原贴作者颠倒黑白。
10.关于死后灵魂得救，前面已经论述过，原贴作者根本就不知道什么意思，就乱发议论。有兴趣的朋友可以看前面的讨论，这里就不重述了。
结论
第一，原书作者出于高级批判史学家的本分，按照否定圣经的立场，选择迎合世人口味的史料，把神的作为完全排除在历史之外，写出了一部没有实质内容，没有内在联系的基督教史书。是一部远离历史实际，用曲笔记述和评议历史的产品。
第二，原贴作者把原书的史料作为唯一的依据，无条件地接受原书作者的否定圣经的观点，并在此基础上，继续远离历史真相，没有根据地妄断历史，并提出自己毫无根据，没有逻辑的观点和建议，比原书作者更进一步，也更加毫无遮掩地表示自己反基反神立场。
第三，不管是原书作者还是原贴作者都不知道神是历史的全然掌管者，知道所有真相。因为任何历史进程都是神计划，神操作，为了神的目的，通过时间窗口的。不知道这样的基本，就是在历史长河中懵懂无知。可笑的是，还以为历史是他可以驾驭的。
第四，只有悔改认主，才是认识历史，和神同在的唯一出路，才能不逆历史而动，融入历史的潮流之中。原书作者已经作古，我们对他的结局无能为力，只能希望他与神同在；原贴作者却依然充满活力，能够渴慕并接受真道，改变自己由亚当带给人类的悲剧结局，不消灭圣灵的感动，顺服神的拯救旨意，因而成为心意改变，生命更新的天路同行人。这篇贴文之所以写成，是带着这样期望的努力结果。
/////先把相关历史拷贝于下--节选自《Caesar and Christ 》 by Will Durant /////////
II. PAUL
1. The Persecutor
The founder of Christian theology was born at Tarsus, in Cilicia, about the tenth year of our era. His father was a Pharisee, and brought up the youth in the fervent principles of that sect; the Apostle of the Gentiles never ceased to consider himself a Pharisee, even after he had rejected the Judaic Law. The father was also a Roman citizen, and transmitted the precious franchise to his son. Probably the name Paul was the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew Saul, so that both names belonged to the apostle from infancy.22 ...We may believe that some Stoic theology and ethics passed from the university environment of Tarsus into the Christianity of Paul. ...The mystery religions prepared the Greeks for Paul, and Paul for the Greeks.
...Stricter Pharisees were shocked to find him gazing appreciatively even upon pagan women.25 ...Despite Paul’s initiation into Hellenism he remained to the end a Jew in mind and character, uttered no doubt of the Torah’s inspiration, and proudly maintained the divine election of the Jews as the medium of man’s salvation.
...
He began by attacking Christianity in the name of Judaism, and ended by rejecting Judaism in the name of Christ; at every moment he was an apostle. Shocked by Stephen’s disrespect for the Law, he joined in killing him, and led the first persecution of Christians in Jerusalem. Hearing that the new faith had made converts in Damascus, he obtained authorization from the high priest to go there, arrest all “who belonged to the Way,” and bring them in chains to Jerusalem (A.D. 31?).30 It may be that the fervor of his persecution was due to secret doubts; he could be cruel, but not without remorse; possibly the vision of Stephen stoned to death, perhaps even some youthful glimpse of Golgotha, troubled his memory and his journey, and fevered his imagination. As his party neared Damascus, says the Acts,
a sudden light flashed upon him from heaven, and he fell to the ground. Then he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?” “Who are you, sir?” he asked. “I am Jesus,”. . . said the voice. . . . Saul’s fellow-travelers stood speechless, for they heard the voice but could not see anyone. When he got up from the ground and opened his eyes he could see nothing. They had to take him by the hand and lead him into Damascus. For three days he could not see.31
No one can say what natural processes underlay this pivotal experience The fatigue of a long journey, the strength of the desert sun, perhaps a stroke of heat lightning in the sky, acting by accumulation upon a frail and possibly epileptic body, and a mind tortured by doubt and guilt, may have brought to culmination the half-conscious process by which the passionate denier became the ablest preacher of Stephen’s Christ... A few days later he entered the synagogues of Damascus, and told their congregations that Jesus was the Son of God.
2. The Missionary
...
Then Barnabas came and asked his aid in ministering to the church at Antioch. Working together (43-44?), they made so many converts that Antioch soon led all other cities in the number of its Christians. There for the first time ... the name Christianoi—followers of the Messiah or Anointed One. There too, for the first time, gentiles (i.e., people of the gentes or nations) were won to the new faith. Most of these were “God-fearers,” predominantly women, who had already accepted the monotheism, and in some part the ritual, of the Jews.
...
...To the Jew circumcision was not so much a ritual of health as a holy symbol of his people’s ancient covenant with God; and the Christian Jew was appalled at the thought of breaking that covenant. For their part Paul and Barnabas realized that if these emissaries had their way, Christianity would never be accepted by any significant number of gentiles; it would remain “a Jewish heresy” (as Heine was to call it), and would fade out in a century. They went down to Jerusalem (50?) and fought the matter out with the apostles, nearly all of whom were still faithful worshipers in the Temple. James was reluctant to consent; Peter defended the two missionaries; finally it was agreed that pagan proselytes should be required only to abstain from immorality and from the eating of sacrificial or strangled animals.34 Apparently Paul eased the way by promising financial support for the impoverished community at Jerusalem from the swelling funds of the Antioch church.35
The issue, however, was too vital to be so easily laid. A second group of orthodox Jewish Christians came from Jerusalem to Antioch, found Peter eating with gentiles, and persuaded him to separate himself, with the converted Jews, from the uncircumcized proselytes. We do not know Peter’s side of this episode; Paul tells us that “he withstood Peter to his face” at Antioch,36 and accused him of hypocrisy; perhaps Peter had merely wished, like Paul, to be “all things to all men.”
...Revisiting his churches in Asia Minor, Paul attached to himself at Lystra a young disciple named Timothy, whom he came to love with a profound affection that had long been starved for an object. Together they went through Phrygia and Galatia as far north as Alexandria Troas. Here Paul made the acquaintance of Luke, an uncircumcized proselyte to Judaism, a man of good mind and heart, probably the author of the Third Gospel and the Book of Acts—both designed to soften the conflicts that from the beginning marked the history of Christianity...
...
It was a brave effort to reconcile Christianity with Greek philosophy.† ...Paul offered his gospel to the gentiles of Corinth, and made many converts among them. Christianity may have seemed to them an acceptable variation of the mystery faiths that had so often told them of resurrected saviors; possibly in accepting it they assimilated it to these beliefs, and influenced Paul to interpret Christianity in terms familiar to the Hellenistic mind.
...
He spent some happy months with the little congregations he had founded in Philippi, Thessalonica, and Beraea. ... They had accused him of profiting materially from his preaching, laughed at his visions, and renewed the demand that all Christians should obey the Jewish Law. Paul reminded the turbulent community that he had everywhere earned his living with the work of his hands; and as to material profit, what had he not suffered from his missions?—eight floggings, one stoning, three shipwrecks, and a thousand dangers from robbers, patriots, and streams.40 Amid this turmoil word was brought him that the “party of the circumcision,” apparently violating the Jerusalem agreement, had gone into Galatia and demanded of all converts the full acceptance of the Jewish Law. He wrote to the Galatians a wrathful epistle in which he broke completely with the Judaizing Christians... Then, not knowing what sharper tribulations awaited him there, he left for Jerusalem, eager to defend himself before the Apostles...
3. The Theologian
The leaders of the mother church gave him “a hearty welcome” (57?); but privately they admonished him:
You see, brother, how many thousand believers there are among the Jews, all of them zealous upholders of the Law. They have been told that you teach all Jews who live among the heathen to turn away from Moses, that you tell them not to circumcize their children, nor to observe the old customs. . . . They will be sure to hear that you have come. So do what we tell you. We have four men here who are under a vow. Join them, undergo the rites of purification with them, and pay their expenses. . . . Then everybody will understand that there is no truth in the stories told about you, but that you yourself observe the Law.41
Paul took the advice in good spirit, and went through the rites of purification. But when some Jews saw him in the Temple they raised an outcry against him as “the man who teaches everybody everywhere against our people and the Law.” A mob seized him, dragged him from the Temple, and “were trying to kill him” when a squad of Roman soldiers rescued him by arrest. Paul turned to speak to the crowd, and affirmed both his Judaism and his Christianity. They shouted for his death. The Roman officer ordered him to be flogged, but desisted when he learned of Paul’s Roman citizenship. The next day he brought the prisoner before the Sanhedrin. Paul addressed it, proclaimed himself a Pharisee, and won some support; but his excited opponents again sought to do him violence, and the officer withdrew him into the barracks. That night a nephew of Paul came to warn him that forty Jews had vowed not to eat or drink until they had killed him. The officer, fearing a disturbance that would compromise him, sent Paul in the night to the procurator Felix at Caesarea.
...
When Festus succeeded Felix he suggested that Paul should stand trial before him at Jerusalem. Fearing that hostile environment, Paul exercised his rights as a Roman citzen, and demanded trial before the emperor. King Agrippa, passing through Caesarea, gave him another hearing, and judged him “mad with great learning,” but otherwise innocent; “he might be let go,” said Agrippa, “if he had not appealed to the emperor.” Paul was put on a trading vessel, which sailed so leisurely that it encountered a winter storm before it could reach Italy. Through fourteen days of tempest, we are told, he gave crew and passengers an encouraging example of a man superior to death and confident of rescue. The ship broke to pieces on Malta’s rocks, but all on board swam safely to shore. Three months later Paul arrived in Rome (61?).
The Roman authorities treated him leniently, awaiting his accusers from Palestine, and Nero’s leisure to hear the case. He was allowed to live in a house of his choosing, with a soldier to guard him; he could not move about freely, but he could receive whomever he wished. He invited the leading Jews of Rome to come to him; they heard him patiently, but when they perceived that in his judgment the observance of the Jewish Law was not necessary to salvation, they turned away; the Law seemed to them the indispensable prop and solace of Jewish life. “Understand, then,” said Paul, “that this message of God’s salvation has been sent to the heathen. They will listen to it!”42 His attitude offended also the Christian community that he found in Rome. These converts, chiefly Jews, preferred the Christianity that had been brought to them from Jerusalem; they practiced circumcision, and were hardly distinguished by Rome from the orthodox Jews; they welcomed Peter, but were cold to Paul. He made some converts among the gentiles, even in high place; but a bitter sense of frustration darkened the loneliness of his imprisonment.
.....influenced perhaps by Platonist and Stoic denunciations of matter and the body as evil; recalling, it may be, Jewish and pagan customs of sacrificing a “scapegoat” for the sins of the people, Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the words of Christ: that every man born of woman inherits the guilt of Adam, and can be saved from eternal damnation only by the atoning death of the Son of God.* 50 Such a conception was more agreeable to the pagans than to the Jews. Egypt, Asia Minor, and Hellas had long since believed in gods—Osiris, Attis, Dionysus—who had died to redeem mankind; such titles as Soter (Savior) and Eleutherios (Deliverer) had been applied to these deities; and the word Kyrios (Lord), used by Paul of Christ, was the term given in Syrian-Greek cults to the dying and redeeming Dionysus.52 The gentiles of Antioch and other Greek cities, never having known Jesus in the flesh, could only accept him after the manner of their savior gods. “Behold,” said Paul, “I show you a mystery.”53
Paul added to this popular and consoling theology certain mystic conceptions already made current by the Book of Wisdom and the philosophy of Philo. Christ, said Paul, is “the wisdom of God,”54 the first-born Son of God; “he is before all things, in him all things exist . . . through him all things have been created.”55 He is not the Jewish Messiah who will deliver Israel from bondage; he is the Logos whose death will deliver all men. Through these interpretations Paul could neglect the actual life and sayings of Jesus, which he had not directly known, and could stand on an equality with the immediate apostles, who were no match for him in metaphysical speculation; he could give to the life of Christ, and to the life of man, high roles in a magnificent drama that embraced all souls and all eternity. Moreover, he could answer the troublesome questions of those who asked why Christ, if very god, had allowed himself to be put to death: Christ had died to redeem a world lost to Satan by Adam’s sin; he had to die to break the bonds of death and open the gates of heaven to all who should be touched by the grace of God.
Two factors, said Paul, determine who shall be saved by Christ’s death: divine election and humble faith. God chooses from all eternity those whom he will bless with his grace, and those whom he will damn.56 Nevertheless, Paul bestirred himself to awaken faith as a rod to catch God’s grace; only through such “assurance of things longed for,” such “confidence in things unseen,”57 can the soul experience that profound change which makes a new man, unites the believer with Christ, and allows him to share in the fruits of Christ’s death. Good works and the performance of all the 613 precepts of the Jewish Law will not suffice, said Paul; they cannot remake the inner man, or wash the soul of sin. The death of Christ had ended the epoch of the Law; now there should no more be Jew and Greek, slave and freeman, male and female, for “in union with Christ Jesus you are all one.”58 ...
4. The Martyr
...But from the defeated Paul came the theological structure of Christianity, as from Paul and Peter the astonishing organization of the Church. Paul had found a dream of Jewish eschatology, confined in Judaic Law; he had freed and broadened it into a faith that could move the world. With the patience of a statesman he had interwoven the ethics of the Jews with the metaphysics of the Greeks, and had transformed the Jesus of the Gospels into the Christ of theology. He had created a new mystery, a new form of the resurrection drama, which would absorb and survive all the rest. He had replaced conduct with creed as the test of virtue, and in that sense had begun the Middle Ages. It was a tragic change, but perhaps humanity had willed it so; only a few saints could achieve the imitation of Christ, but many souls could rise to faith and courage in the hope of eternal life.
The influence of Paul was not immediately felt. The communities that he had established were tiny isles in a pagan sea. The church at Rome was Peter’s, and remained faithful to his memory. For a century after Paul’s death he was almost forgotten. But when the first generations of Christianity had passed away, and the oral tradition of the apostles began to fade, and a hundred heresies disordered the Christian mind, the epistles of Paul provided the framework for a stabilizing system of belief that united the scattered congregations into a powerful Church.
Even so, the man who had detached Christianity from Judaism was still so essentially Jewish in intensity of character and sternness of morality that the Middle Ages, adopting paganism into a colorful Catholicism, saw no kindred spirit in him, built few churches to him, seldom sculptured his figure or used his name. Fifteen centuries went by before Luther made Paul the Apostle of the Reformation, and Calvin found in him the somber texts of the predestinarian creed. Protestantism was the triumph of Paul over Peter; Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ.
发表评论 评论 (51 个评论)
（估计只有写长贴的才有这样的体会）
为你高兴
- 回复 追求永生
- 等你逐条驳斥。我论及到原书作者和你都是因为分析他的书和你的贴必不可少的一个部分，并没有所谓的只顾个人，不顾重点。我不认为我有意对你和原作者进行人身攻击，也没有时间和心情做这些事情。我的主要逻辑就是你们立场如何，决定了你们的观点。所谓历史研究，只不过是你们要表达观点所需要的工具。
岳东晓: 不错。给了我逐条予以驳斥的靶子。不过我不会回应你的ad hominem论辩，而只是针对你对历史与圣经的理解或者曲解。 ...
- 回复 追求永生
- 你不如说你只是挑起争端，然后就没你的事了。你的观点都放出来，我驳斥你反而倒要我们统一意见，不统一就是浪费时间，就是低水平？你这个遁词也太强词夺理了吧？
岳东晓: 我建议你先跟其他教徒一起把你的辩驳修改一下，太多的明显的逻辑错误，让我耗费时间来反驳就显得这场辩论水平太低了。 ...
你认为我的回复太多逻辑错误，你怎么没反思一下你自己那篇贴文的错误有多少？我的回复起码比你的长几倍不是？且不说你所谓的逻辑错误只是你那样认为而已。你要是没有错误我怎么需要批驳你？我可没有要求你修改了以后再回复。你要驳斥我，还要求我统一意见，提高水平，否则你就不驳斥？
- 回复 木一剑
- 本来就是嘛。这么多年在网上网下反基，确实也交了一些基督徒好朋友，你啊大S啊sousuo啊，觉得挺亲切，和平共处是自然而然的。再说我绝对不打算改变你们的信仰，但是我坚持你们信仰的那个体系是错的，反过来也一样嘛
追求永生: 恩，肯定说明你对。能够和平共处就是最大的正确。
- 回复 追求永生
- 你说的有道理。
木一剑: 本来就是嘛。这么多年在网上网下反基，确实也交了一些基督徒好朋友，你啊大S啊sousuo啊，觉得挺亲切，和平共处是自然而然的。再说我绝对不打算改变你们的信仰， ...
我个人认为，别管只有今生，还是有了永生，人活着就需要有智慧地最高质量地生活，追求幸福。这个包括处理好人际关系。人际关系的一个方面就是有许多朋友。
别管网上还是网下，我还真不敢说基督徒朋友比非基督徒朋友多。大概是因为我还不够基督徒吧。我认为，不太愿意思考就信的，不见得比经过思考而拒绝的懂得事情更多。但是懂得少的不见得就幸福少。世事还真是难料。我最近思考预定论比较多，有时还真是感叹，机关算尽，未必能改变什么。反过来说，如果注定要这样，即使改变不了什么，也是要机关算尽的。
