“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#421796 Nov 21, 2012
I'm guessing resurrectionist will be missing for a while and then come back and pretend he doesn't know anything about the questions I asked. That's okay. I'm good for a reminder.

“Live Love Laugh”

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#421797 Nov 21, 2012
Okay, folks. Time for family to roll in.

To each and every one of you on this thread:

Happy Thanksgiving.

Gobble till you wobble.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#421798 Nov 21, 2012
water_nymph wrote:
I'm guessing resurrectionist will be missing for a while and then come back and pretend he doesn't know anything about the questions I asked. That's okay. I'm good for a reminder.
You give yourself too much credit. At this point, I don't think we quite understand each other. Due to the Thanksgiving Holiday, why don't we call a cease fire and come back to it after the holiday? If you're as good for a reminder as you claim, you won't have any problem waiting.

Of course if you wish to continue, we can. It's your choice.

“The future begins”

Since: Jul 07

every moment

#421799 Nov 21, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe that the Gnostic gospels were written by anyone even remotely close to Jesus and His disciples. That's why.

I believe that the early church fathers (long before Constantine)recognized the authenticity of the canonical gospels. Their criteria seems to indicate that they only accepted the writings and quotations of those who were eye witnesses to Jesus, or who had known and spoken to eye witnesses to Jesus. For example;
both Polycarp and Ignatius were disciples of John, while Mark and Clement were disciples of Peter. John apparently told Papias, Ignatius, and Polycarp that Mark was basically Peter's scribe, which is likely to be true if Peter was illiterate. John and Peter were both in the inner circle of the 12 disciples of Jesus, and so John would be a good authority on this subject. John and Peter would have also known if Matthew was writing down notes at the time they were following Jesus, and this is reasonable to accept as truth because Matthew was alleged to be a tax collector. Tax collectors had to keep records of some type, and therefore would know how to write, and would have writing materials with them.

This is the criteria that the early church fathers were using as early as the late 1st century. Even Paul and James (brother of Jesus) recognized the importance of this.

The gnostics seem to be written in the 2nd century, while the canonical gospels were all likely written prior to the 70A.D. destruction of Jerusalem.
This is my understanding, and in light of ancient history, it makes the most sense to me.
You have arranged the facts to meet your pre-conditions. Even the most conservative scholars admit to the ancient practice of ascribing anonymous works to persons of stature. We have no idea who wrote the "gospels". That's a simple and unavoidable fact. You can suppose as it please you, but you don't, and can't, know. "Gospel" from an anonymous source is nice and all, but holds no more inherent authority than The Shepherd of Hermas or The Gospel Of Judas.

You err in your timeline. The canonical list we have today was compiled by Athanasius toward the end of the 4th century (Constantine's decree being earlier in the same century). Prior to that date, bishops around the Mediterranean all had their own favorites, some to include books not now in the Bible, or even the apocrypha, and some to exclude books now considered "canon". Being the erudite scholar you claim, you should know that several of the books caused heated debate amongst the early churches, most especially The Revelation and Hebrews, but several others as well (1200 years later, Martin Luther still rejected The Revelation" as inspired). The first three centuries are also where the most significant discrepancies between extant manuscripts can be found, as bishops and their surrogates "edited" the writings to cause them to conform to local interpretation, and to fix or remove passages that were being used by others to develop non-conforming "doctrine". This is why, as Dr. Ehrman says succinctly, there may be a word of God out there somewhere, but we don't have it. All we have are copies of copies, all at odds with each other.

The criteria Athanasius used is obviously the same you evidence today - they had by then, 3 centuries after Jesus - endured all the controversies of "heresy", knew what they had to address, and decided what was "orthodox" teaching. The acceptable books had to conform to that doctrine. How James and the Revelation slipped thru that fence is an interesting mystery.

John is post-Temple, and not even in dispute. One wonders why you say that...

Thomas may well be the earliest writing, or at least concurrent with Mark. The evidence leans heavily in that direction. You have no concrete basis on which to ascribe it a later date except a doctrinal need to have it so. That isn't the scholarly process, but then you guys aren't interested in truth so much as conformity.

“No Invisible Means of Support ”

Since: Nov 12

Simian Crease

#421800 Nov 21, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
You give yourself too much credit. At this point, I don't think we quite understand each other. Due to the Thanksgiving Holiday, why don't we call a cease fire and come back to it after the holiday? If you're as good for a reminder as you claim, you won't have any problem waiting.
Of course if you wish to continue, we can. It's your choice.
Typical Topix Christianndeflection. Yep, you can't answer the questions. Of course not, you entire world view is a lie.

“No Invisible Means of Support ”

Since: Nov 12

Simian Crease

#421801 Nov 21, 2012
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text>Here's another thought. Since he claims to go by the books annnointed by the Laodicean council, which includes the teachings of Paul, why does he think it's okay to have women speak in church? Why does he think it's okay for women to teach men? These things are strictly forbidden by Paul.
Every time someone sets out the rules for everyone else, they forget that they have also set out those same rules for themselves. Jesus never makes a new rule for women being allowed to teach men. This would have been forbidden by every precept of Judaism. So no, he is not going back to the earliest teachings of Jesus. Christianity, either. That's just a lie he tells himself to make things more acceptable for him. It is a lie he tells himself so that being gay is not a sin. Which of course, it isn't. It's self-inflicted-nonsense to think that it is a 'sin' to be who you were made to be.
You can follow the teachings of Jesus without having to change them. Jesus never said a word against homosexuality. If it had been such a big deal to God, it would have been in the ten commandments and surely Jesus would have made it a priority as the evangelicals do today.
Sheesh. It's like we are seeing a new religion every time we come to Topix.
The Buble: The Grand Book of Multiple Choice.

“No Invisible Means of Support ”

Since: Nov 12

Simian Crease

#421802 Nov 21, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
Evangelical as practiced by fundamentalist Christianity would cancel out the word progressive in a strictly textual context. However, "evangelism" as practiced in the early Church wasn't nearly as obnoxious in the ancient Middle East as it is in Western civilization today. Evangelizing in antiquity was a style of proclaiming good news and originated with the Romans. Because of it's effectiveness, it was adopted as a means of communicating beliefs by the church fathers. So "progressive evangelism" is simply trying to get back to the roots of early Christianity with more of an emphasis on presenting the truth and the history than on dogmatic practices.
There is no such thing as an early church. There was a hobnob of goblins obsessed illiterates who were finally corralled by Constantine. Funny, you are the 10 billionth idiot to claim that their version of Christianity is the only true one and ties directly back to imaginary Jesus. Don't you people ever listen to each other?

“No Invisible Means of Support ”

Since: Nov 12

Simian Crease

#421803 Nov 21, 2012
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that is the heart of the matter.
I respect Christians who understand the history of their religion, have well reasoned personal arguements to defend their beliefs AND act and talk according to those beliefs.
I also respect those who know nothing about their relgion, don't try to convert anyone and live decent, loving lives.
Both sides of that aisle are rare. They are generally never found here.

“No Invisible Means of Support ”

Since: Nov 12

Simian Crease

#421804 Nov 21, 2012
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text>Now that I've read that, I know exactly who resurrectionologist is. Odd how they give themselves away at every turn.
An old favorite?

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#421805 Nov 21, 2012
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
I think that is the heart of the matter.
I respect Christians who understand the history of their religion, have well reasoned personal arguements to defend their beliefs AND act and talk according to those beliefs.
I also respect those who know nothing about their relgion, don't try to convert anyone and live decent, loving lives.
Great post G_O_D..I agree with you 100%. Thank You

“No Invisible Means of Support ”

Since: Nov 12

Simian Crease

#421806 Nov 21, 2012
T-Town Clown wrote:
The christians are winning... the non-belivers are goofy
Winning the insanity contest? Of course.

“No Invisible Means of Support ”

Since: Nov 12

Simian Crease

#421807 Nov 21, 2012
Wasssuuup must be getting date raped in cell block 3 today.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#421808 Nov 21, 2012
HipGnosis wrote:
<quoted text>You have arranged the facts to meet your pre-conditions. Even the most conservative scholars admit to the ancient practice of ascribing anonymous works to persons of stature. We have no idea who wrote the "gospels". That's a simple and unavoidable fact. You can suppose as it please you, but you don't, and can't, know. "Gospel" from an anonymous source is nice and all, but holds no more inherent authority than The Shepherd of Hermas or The Gospel Of Judas.
You err in your timeline. The canonical list we have today was compiled by Athanasius toward the end of the 4th century (Constantine's decree being earlier in the same century). Prior to that date, bishops around the Mediterranean all had their own favorites, some to include books not now in the Bible, or even the apocrypha, and some to exclude books now considered "canon". Being the erudite scholar you claim, you should know that several of the books caused heated debate amongst the early churches, most especially The Revelation and Hebrews, but several others as well (1200 years later, Martin Luther still rejected The Revelation" as inspired). The first three centuries are also where the most significant discrepancies between extant manuscripts can be found, as bishops and their surrogates "edited" the writings to cause them to conform to local interpretation, and to fix or remove passages that were being used by others to develop non-conforming "doctrine". This is why, as Dr. Ehrman says succinctly, there may be a word of God out there somewhere, but we don't have it. All we have are copies of copies, all at odds with each other.
The criteria Athanasius used is obviously the same you evidence today - they had by then, 3 centuries after Jesus - endured all the controversies of "heresy", knew what they had to address, and decided what was "orthodox" teaching. The acceptable books had to conform to that doctrine. How James and the Revelation slipped thru that fence is an interesting mystery.
John is post-Temple, and not even in dispute. One wonders why you say that...
Thomas may well be the earliest writing, or at least concurrent with Mark. The evidence leans heavily in that direction. You have no concrete basis on which to ascribe it a later date except a doctrinal need to have it so. That isn't the scholarly process, but then you guys aren't interested in truth so much as conformity.
The list may have been officially written down as you say, and yes there was some debate, but none of the core Christian orthodoxy are affected by those debates. It is true that many of the early church fathers rejected Revelations. The reasons why aren't exactly clear. At least not to me.

Paul, Peter, and James all recognized the authority of the earliest NT writings, and Matthew is believed by many to be the first gospel. I count myself among that consensus based upon his profession before being called by Jesus as a disciple.

I hold to the tradition of the Protestant Bible with it's 66 books. last night at Bible Study our pastor went into a little history on the Book of Jude. It had previously been omitted from some manuscripts which is something I hadn't known.

For what it's worth, I do investigate every new claim and I see how it stacks up to the plausible evidence I see in favor of the traditional canonical Bible. I don't accept the Bible just because I am told to. I don't try to make the evidence fit my views. I open my mind and evaluate what is most plausible in light of what has already been established by scholars far more educated than you and myself combined.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#421809 Nov 21, 2012
To HipGnosis:

Also,(I failed to mention in my previous post) the dating of the Gospel of John is now in dispute in many church circles as well as secular circles as well.

I hold the view that all 4 gospels were written prior to the 70A.D. destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. I don't hold this view just because early dating favors events as more likely to be historic.
I hold this view because of a curious omission in all 4 gospels.

In the account described in Matthew 24:2, Jesus is in the Temple complex with the disciples who are marveling at the buildings. Jesus tells them in a prophecy;

But he responded, "Do you see all these buildings? I tell you the truth, they will be completely demolished. Not one stone will be left on top of another!" -Matthew 24:2 (NLT)

(Unless otherwise noted, I use the New Living Translation (NLT) as it is accurate and consistent with the earliest Greek texts in my experience.)

Now, with regard to the above prophecy, there isn't one single account in the Bible that speaks of the destruction of the 2nd Temple in 70 A.D. from a historical perspective. Not one single past tense narrative anywhere in the NT. I think this prompts a very important question that currently can only be answered by speculation from the skeptical community.

If this prophecy by Jesus was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Temple, then why didn't John or any of the others point to it and declare it as a fulfilled prophecy? Don't you think that would have been a very convincing argument for the advancement of Christianity? That would basically be a golden "I-told-you-so!" opportunity for the gospel writers.
So why is it missing if the gospels were written late? It wouldn't be omitted if it were available, and the only plausible reason I can see for that omission is that it hadn't been written about historically because it hadn't happened yet! I think that has enormous ramifications that significantly challenge the skeptical worldview. If you have a better explanation I'm certainly open to discussion.

“Selected Marksman”

Since: Aug 08

Northern Virginia

#421810 Nov 21, 2012
Mary Palm wrote:
Wasssuuup must be getting date raped in cell block 3 today.
Willingly of course while telling the convicts they are forgiven so in case they ever get out they can continue and even become a pastor like he is...here's an example...
http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/target_8/John-...

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#421811 Nov 21, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
No I don't think the King James Bible is accurate at all. It was assembled by men with rudimentary knowledge of Greek and Hebrew. While the KJV is a masterpiece of hyperbolic English literature, it has distorted the true historical teachings and life of Christ to the point that understanding it is an exercise in frustration for anyone not well grounded in ancient Judaic and Christian history.
The gnostic gospels present Jesus as a philosopher which is not consistent with historic research regarding Judaic culture. Ben Witherington III, N.T. Wright, and Craig Evans have conducted years of research regarding the gnostic gospels. Hearing N.T. Wright speak on this research has been enlightening. You should listen to him some time. You'll learn a lot. He's no dummy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =Rru48WBaM0sXX&feature=rel ated
I was talking about the selection of books, not the translation.

You don;t have a clue what are in the banned books.

<face palm>

BTW, Judaism is nothing but philosophers... like Jesus.

Since: Sep 12

Location hidden

#421812 Nov 21, 2012
G_O_D wrote:
<quoted text>
I was talking about the selection of books, not the translation.
You don;t have a clue what are in the banned books.
<face palm>
BTW, Judaism is nothing but philosophers... like Jesus.
Why do the gnostic gospels appeal to you?

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#421813 Nov 21, 2012
water_nymph wrote:
<quoted text> And I am still waiting for him to tell me which Bible he uses that has III Kings and IV Kings, I and II Esdras and is missing Romans as he said he rejects the Gnostic gospels due to the criteria of the Laodicean Council. This should be interesting.
What is really interesting, and proves how stupid they were, The Gospel of John is heavily gnostic which is why it is completely different from the other three in the Bible.

Paul sounds more like a gnostic pagan as well.

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#421814 Nov 21, 2012
Mary Palm wrote:
<quoted text>Both sides of that aisle are rare. They are generally never found here.
There are a couple. My favorites are X and Senecus. One from each 'side'. <smile>

“Love much, trust none”

Since: Jul 11

There

#421815 Nov 21, 2012
Resurrectionologist wrote:
<quoted text>
.... Christian orthodoxy.....
Which didn;t exist until 300 years after Jesus died and only becane so by killing all other Christians (and anyone else who disagreed with them, like the Jews) and burning their scriptures.

<face palm>

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 7 min Dr_Zorderz 4,756
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 8 min Robert F 548,238
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 9 min Thinking 229,859
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 9 min Buck Crick 749,849
Why do white men hate white women who want blac... (May '11) 11 min Paul really is dead 2,911
Why do we live life when we have to die anyway? (Jul '13) 12 min Kid_Tomorrow 131
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 35 min bacon hater 96,065
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 49 min Pegasus the Patriot 261,601
Have any girls on here had sex with a dog??? (Feb '12) 11 hr nikki 124

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE