|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,838 Year: 4,095/9,624 Month: 966/974 Week: 293/286 Day: 14/40 Hour: 3/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is it moral for God to punish us? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
Faith writes: As I said, and I repeat: Gnostic stuff just sounds like a lot of pseudophilosophical babble, silly sophistries.The gnostic words imputed to Jesus simply are not Jesus. His sheep hear His voice and will not follow a fake Jesus. If anyone is tempted to give credence to the gnostic gospels, simply read them next to the canonical gospels. (They are easily available on the web) You will see dramatic differences between the two. The Gospel of Thomas is a typical example. It contains no narrative or historical content, but is just a collection of apparently random sayings attributed to Jesus. It claims to contain hidden, secret knowledge:
Gospel of Thomas writes: These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded.
Many of its sayings are similar or identical to those found in the canonical gospels. But other sayings are just goofy or offensive, e.g.
Gospel of Thomas writes:
7 Jesus said, "Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human. 2And foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion still will become human."... 114 Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary leave us, for females don't deserve life." 2 Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. 3For every female who makes herself male will enter the domain of Heaven." The gnostic gospels are completely different from the canonical gospels. The canonical gospels give Jesus' sayings a historical setting and incorporate them within a narrative which has a theological purpose and direction."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Greatest writes:
What evidence do you have that there was an "original plethora"? FaithWhy are there only 4 gospels and not the original plethora? Biblical ErrancyRegards DL The early church fathers quote from all of the four canonical gospels by the early to mid second century, and some of these quotes go back to the first century. Thus the four canonical gospels were written by the early to mid second century; many scholars believe that they were written in the first century. The gnostic gospels were written later. They come from the latter part of the second century or the third century. There was no "original plethora" of gospels. There were four original gospels, followed by a later plethora of gnostic writings. As I've mentioned earlier, it is misleading to call these gnostic writings "gospels". This implies that they are similar to the canonical gospels, which they are not. They are merely collections of random sayings, which is radically different from the canonical gospels."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
ringo writes:
No, I'm just pointing out that the gnostic "gospels" have a completely different structure and style than the canonical gospels. (If you've read both, these differences should be glaringly obvious.) Calling them both "gospels" is very misleading. kbertsche writes:
You seem to be using a self-serving definition of "gospel".
As I've mentioned earlier, it is misleading to call these gnostic writings "gospels".
The gnostic "gospels" are collections of sayings. In this aspect they are probably similar to the hypothesized "Q". We don't call Q a "gospel", but a "source" or a "collection of sayings." In the same way, it would be more accurate and less misleading to refer to the gnostic "gospels" as gnostic "collections of sayings". The gnostic "gospels" may be analogous to Q, but they are in no way analogous to the canonical gospels."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
ringo writes:
Yes, and this is very odd. Perhaps the devotees of the gnostic "gospels" want to muddy the waters, and make people think that these are in some way analogous to the canonical gospels? kbertsche writes:
And yet they are called gospels.
Calling them both "gospels" is very misleading. Have you actually read any of the canonical gospels, and any of the gnostic gospels??
ringo writes:
Scholars don't refer to Q as a "gospel", but as a "collection of sayings". They do this not to discount Q, but to distinguish it from the canonical gospels, which are radically different than a mere collection of sayings.
You're distinguishing "gospel" from "collection of sayings" apparently in an attempt to discount the gnostic gospels ringo writes:
Do you have any evidence that there actually was an "original plethora" of gospels? Do you have evidence that the gnostic gospels date to the first or early second centuries? If so, please present your evidence. - i.e. to suggest that there was no "original plethora" of gospels. What we're talking about here is information about Jesus' life. I don't think it's legitimate to nitpick about how the information was presented."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
ringo writes:
Can you please be more specific? What are the names and dates of some representatives of this "plethora" of alternative "gospels" which existed in the first or early second centuries?
The evidence is the apocryphal gospels, non-canonical gospels, Jewish-Christian gospels, and gnostic gospels. You can say what you like about how different they are from the canonical gospels. I just don't think that's a very convincing way to shore up the credibility of the canonical gospels. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
ringo writes:
There's a difference in style, in moral teachings, and in date of authorship.
I googled "gospel". And your date restriction is just as irrelevant as your style restriction.In the context of this topic ("Is it moral for God to punish us?"), it's the content of the "gospels" that's significant, not how or when that content was conveyed. If there's a different in moral teachings, you might have a case. The date of authorship is the main subject of the present sub-thread discussion. Not because the classification of "gospel" is connected to the date, but because in message #78, Greatest I Am claimed that there was an "original plethora" of gospels. You expanded his claim in message #91, claiming that there were "apocryphal gospels, non-canonical gospels, Jewish-Christian gospels, and gnostic gospels". I disagree with this. I believe that the gnostic "gospels" (and the categories that you added) date from much later than the canonical gospels. Hence, I believe that there were originally only four canonical gospels--not an "original plethora". I believe that the other so-called "gospels" came significantly later than the canonical gospels. I have asked for evidence that there was an "original plethora" of gospels. This amounts to evidence that a number of these other "gospels" were written in the first or early second centuries. I'm still waiting for this evidence. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given. Edited by kbertsche, : No reason given."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Greatest I Am, you have presented a history of things that Constantine and company did to try to eliminate what they saw as heresy. I agree that these were heavy-handed (though not nearly as heavy-handed as Nero, Vespasian, and other Roman rulers). This is a good reason not to unite church and state.
But you have not provided what I asked for; evidence of an "original plethora" of gospels, i.e. evidence that a number of the gnostic "gospels" (or other categories as added by ringo) were contemporary with the original canonical gospels. Do you have any evidence of this? Or is your claim of an "original plethora" of gospels simply wishful thinking?"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
ringo writes:
No, I'm just asking Greatest I Am to back up his claim that there was an "original plethora" of gospels. In his original context, by "original" he seems to mean "contemporaneous with the canonical gospels".
kbertsche writes:
Hence, I believe that there were originally only four canonical gospels--not an "original plethora". I believe that the other so-called "gospels" came significantly later than the canonical gospels. You're just playing with the word "original". ringo writes:
True, but not especially relevant. GIA's claim is that there was an "original plethora" of gospels, including gnostic "gospels". You have expanded this claim to include other non-canonical "gospels". Where is your evidence that this "plethora" existed "originally", i.e. "contemporaneous with the canonical gospels"?
Earlier material isn't necessarily original material. ringo writes:
True. There is a fair amount of shared material between Matthew and Luke, both of which also seem to rely on Mark. John is somewhat different.
As I understand it, there is evidence of cross-copying within the canonical gospels - i.e. they are not all original material. But the issue we have been discussing is not "original material". It is "original gospels", i.e. finished compositions.
ringo writes:
You could say the same thing of John, which has less similarities to the other canonical gospels. But again, this is not relevant to the question at hand.
If anything, the differences in the non-canonical gospels make them more authentically "original". Was there an "original plethora" of gospels, i.e. a plethora of "gospels" that are contemporaneous with the canonical gospels? If so, please present evidence for this claim.
ringo writes:
Yes it does, as GIA used the phrase "original plethora". If you disagree, please show me how I have misinterpreted what he meant. (You may want to redefine the phrase "original plethora", but in this sub thread I have been responding to GIA's claim and meaning.)
kbertsche writes:
No. It doesn't.
I have asked for evidence that there was an "original plethora" of gospels. This amounts to evidence that a number of these other "gospels" were written in the first or early second centuries. ringo writes:
Yes, they certainly are there. I am certainly not trying to "nitpick them out of existence". I am stressing that they were written significantly later than the canonical gospels, perhaps in response or reaction to the canonical gospels.
The apocryphal gospels, non-canonical gospels, Jewish-Christian gospels, and gnostic gospels are there, whether you try to nitpick them out of existence or not. There was no "original plethora" of gospels. There were originally only four canonical gospels, followed at a significantly later time by a "plethora" of false "gospels" of various forms. GIA disagrees with this; I'm still waiting for his evidence."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
Greatest I Am writes:
There is good evidence that the four canonical gospels had been distributed and read by the early second century. I believe they were all widely accepted. I don't believe any other "gospels" had been written at this time, so there was nothing else to choose from. kbertscheDo you really believe that there were only 4 gospels that were viewed and chosen from? What was all the voting on then? What were all the mystery schools that were decimated teaching from if not other gospels? RegardsDL So far as I know, the gnostic gospels were written later, in the late second through third or fourth centuries. I believe the "mystery schools" were during this same time period. The voting and suppression that you mention were post-Constantine, so were fourth century. This is much later. The four canonical gospels had already been distributed, read, and accepted for 200 yers by this time."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
PaulK writes:
You raise a good point about Luke 1:1. Was Luke referring to Q? To other collections of sayings? It's hard to tell, but this would be interesting to try to understand. Luke 1:1 talks of many accounts - which can hardly be true if the author knew only of Mark and Matthew (and he may not have known Matthew). We have fragments of the Oxyrnchus 1224 and Egerton Gospels, which have similar dates, and are otherwise unknown. The idea that only the canonical four existed by the early 2nd Century is rather unlikely to be true.
It's possible that a few of the gnostic "gospels" were written before the early second century, but I believe that most were written in the late second century or after. Dr A has mentioned the Gospel of Mary. Wikipedia has some interesting things to say about this:
quote: The Wiki entry on the Gospel of Thomas is also interesting:
quote: In summary, it is very difficult to determine the dates of authorship of these gnostic writings. We don't have the rich body of copies and early written references to these documents that we have for the canonical gospels. And as I've been saying, it is a misnomer to refer to the gnostic writings as "gospels". These Wikipedia entires agree. The term "sayings-gospel" is probably more descriptive and more accurate."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
PaulK writes:
I completely agree (as I've said earlier) that no-one should disparage collections of sayings. But neither should anyone confuse a collection of sayings with a narrative. They are two different things. As for sayings, Q is thought to be primarily a collection of sayings, and Papias attributes a collection of sayings to Matthew. So I don't think that disparaging collections of sayings is entirely justified either."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined: |
nonukes writes:
But think about this a bit more deeply. Why don't we have a similar rich body of early copies and written references for the gnostic writings? I can see only two explanations; either these gnostic writings had not been written yet, or they were not generally accepted. kbertsche writes:
That's correct. And we must conclude from that fact, that the reasons for excluding those gospels is unlikely to be strongly based on dates of authorship. There must have been other considerations.
In summary, it is very difficult to determine the dates of authorship of these gnostic writings. We don't have the rich body of copies and early written references to these documents that we have for the canonical gospels. By the middle of the second century, the early church fathers had quoted from every book in the New Testament. They accepted and respected these books (including the canonical gospels) as divinely inspired. If the gnostic gospels had been written and generally accepted by this time, we would expect quotes of them as well."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kbertsche Member (Idle past 2159 days) Posts: 1427 From: San Jose, CA, USA Joined:
|
Greatest I Am writes:
Are you claiming that the canonical gospels are plagiarized and forged versions of gnostic writings that came at least a half-century later?!? Do you think the gospel writers had invented time travel?
I don't really care when the plagiarized and forged documents that made up the cannon were invented. Myth is myth regardless of when written. The morality of religion is what turns my crank. Not when the myths were invented. RegardsDL "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024