Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8748 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-22-2017 7:22 PM
400 online now:
Asgara (AdminAsgara), Coyote, CRR, edge, Hyroglyphx, kjsimons, Meddle, Tanypteryx (8 members, 392 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: kmastes01
Post Volume:
Total: 808,793 Year: 13,399/21,208 Month: 2,881/3,605 Week: 223/933 Day: 119/104 Hour: 0/6

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
56
7
8910Next
Author Topic:   Is it moral for God to punish us?
ringo
Member
Posts: 13017
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 91 of 145 (771990)
11-02-2015 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by kbertsche
11-01-2015 10:06 PM


kbertsche writes:

Do you have any evidence that there actually was an "original plethora" of gospels?


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by kbertsche, posted 11-01-2015 10:06 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-02-2015 11:34 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply
 Message 93 by kbertsche, posted 11-02-2015 6:41 PM ringo has responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11346
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 92 of 145 (771991)
11-02-2015 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by ringo
11-02-2015 10:46 AM


kbertsche writes:

Do you have any evidence that there actually was an "original plethora" of gospels?


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.

Those are the exceptions that prove the rule.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by ringo, posted 11-02-2015 10:46 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1359
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 93 of 145 (772000)
11-02-2015 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by ringo
11-02-2015 10:46 AM


ringo writes:


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.


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?

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by ringo, posted 11-02-2015 10:46 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by ringo, posted 11-03-2015 10:58 AM kbertsche has responded
 Message 96 by Greatest I am, posted 11-04-2015 1:14 PM kbertsche has responded
 Message 102 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-05-2015 12:14 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13017
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 94 of 145 (772023)
11-03-2015 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by kbertsche
11-02-2015 6:41 PM


kbertsche 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?


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by kbertsche, posted 11-02-2015 6:41 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by kbertsche, posted 11-04-2015 9:12 PM ringo has responded

  
Greatest I am
Member
Posts: 1382
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 95 of 145 (772072)
11-04-2015 12:33 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by kbertsche
11-01-2015 1:39 PM


kbertsche

Indeed. Especially the Gnostic Gospels are superior to the canonical because it has not thrown out the wisdom saying from the Nazarene.

Possibly the only decent archetypal Jesus. I think he formed the original Chrestians and Gnostic Christians mystery schools.

Constantine chose the Christians who altered the Chrestian name to Christian while trying to kill off all the free thinkers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR02ciandvg&feature=BFa&l...

Regards
DL


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by kbertsche, posted 11-01-2015 1:39 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
Greatest I am
Member
Posts: 1382
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 96 of 145 (772074)
11-04-2015 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by kbertsche
11-02-2015 6:41 PM


kbertsche

The list you seek is within the context of whom Constantine's forces murdered and whose gospels they burned. One of the first chores of the new church.

Nice eh?

Constantines laws against free thought and why Christianity became the Western religion.

Here is some history. It's a list of Roman laws starting around Constantines time and extending forward from there.

I'll bold and underline the killers for those with limited time.

Quote:

http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/imperial-laws-364/

313CE Oct 31

Certain catholic clerics are being harassed by heretics so that compulsory public services are too much for them to bear. They should be relieved of their civic duties, and replacements found, and in the future, clerics should not be forced to fulfill compulsory public services.

318CE June 23

Constantine gives Christians the right to take their cases before an ecclesiastical court rather than a secular court. The ruling of those bishops will carry the same authority as a secular court.

325CE

Constantine exhorts the Alexandrians to follow the Nicene faith, which he praises, and to disavow Arius, whom he condemns. The council is to be regarded as the will of God.

326CE Sept 1

Exemption from compulsory public services shall only be granted to clergy of the Catholic Church, and not to heretics or schismatics.

327CE

Constantine invites Arius to his court, where he may end his exile by confessing the Nicene faith before Constantine. Arius is allowed to use public transportation.

333 or 327CE

Constantine orders that Arians now be referred to as Porphyrians, that all works of Arius or Arians be burned, and that anyone hiding a work of Arius suffer capital punishment.

Constantine sends a long, belittling letter to Arius and his followers. At the end, he threatens to heavily fine the Arians and force them to accept compulsory public services unless they immediately return to the catholic faith. If Arius returns, he promises to be lenient.

341CE

Pagan superstition and sacrifices are completely forbidden, in accord with the law set forth by Constantine.

346CE Dec 1

Pagan temples are to be closed; access to them is denied, and violators face capital punishment.
The property of a violator will be given to the state treasury. Governors who fail to carry out this
punishment will be punished.

347CE

The Donatists were ordered to be reconciled with the Catholic Church in North Africa. Those who refused were to be exiled or killed.

352 July 3

Persons who join Judaism from Christianity, if the accusation can be proven, shall have their property confiscated and given to the state treasury.

353 Nov 23

Night-time pagan sacrifices, which had briefly been allowed under the usurper Magnentius, are again forbidden.

356 Feb 20

Those guilty of idolatry or pagan sacrifices must suffer capital punishment.

362

Julian castigates the pagan Alexandrians, who had murdered Athanasius rival archbishop George when he ruined the temple of the local god Serapis. They should not have broken the law, but should have taken out their grievances legally.

No Christians are allowed to teach the pagan classics (essentially debarring them from being teachers).
Any student may study them, however.

370CE Feb 17

Laws formerly enacted against Christians under Julian shall have no validity, and policies of the late Constantius are to be upheld.

372CE Mar 2

Manichaeans and similar groups may not assemble. Their teachers will be punished, their followers segregated, and their places of gathering confiscated.

377CE Oct 17

Any who teaches a second baptism is to desist and be restored to the Catholic Church. The uncorrupted faith of the Evangelists and Apostles must be preserved. Furthermore, properties where re-baptizers or other expelled persons gather are to be confiscated.

379 Aug 3

All heresies are forbidden. One may hold to heretical teachings in his own mind but is forbidden to teach them to others, especially the teaching of re-baptism. Assemblies of those who hold to
re-baptism are forbidden, and none may teach this doctrine.

380CE Feb 28

This edict is sometimes referred to as Cunctos Populos. Everyone in the empire shall be part of the religion that believes in God as a single Deity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit the Holy Trinity, as taught by St. Peter to the Romans, and now taught by Damasus of Rome and Peter of Alexandria. Only those following this rule shall be called Catholic Christians.

Meeting places of those who follow another religion (including heretics of a Christian variety) shall not be given the status of churches, and such people may be subject to both divine and earthly retribution.

381 Jan 10

Heretics shall have no place of meeting. Heretics are defined as those who do not observe the Nicene faith.
The Phontinians, Arians, Eunomians and others are specified, but not exclusively. Their teachings are forbidden.
A definition of the Trinity and the term ousia is established. Catholic churches throughout the empire are to be returned to orthodox bishops. Heretics are to be driven out of the churches and the cities.
The property rights of Manichaeans are revoked, and property inherited from a Manichaean which should have been confiscated by the state is now to be confiscated. Manichaeans are forbidden to gather.

381 May

Christians who have converted to paganism shall not be allowed to make a will, and any will made by such a person is invalidated.

Manichaeans may not inherit property or leave it to others through wills, and any property inherited from a Manichaean is to be confiscated. The only exception is the child of a Manichaean who converts to the Catholic faith. Also, Manichaean assemblies and sacraments are prohibited.

381 July

It is forbidden for Arians, Eunomians, or followers of Aetius to build churches.
If any such churches are built, they will be confiscated.

391CE

Persons with inherited rank or status who abandon Christianity shall lose their position and be branded with infamy.

Heretics are to be driven from cities, villages, and communities. They are not able to hold public meetings or secret gatherings.

so on and so forth... the jackboot is in.

Regards
DL


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by kbertsche, posted 11-02-2015 6:41 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by kbertsche, posted 11-04-2015 9:25 PM Greatest I am has responded

    
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1359
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 97 of 145 (772078)
11-04-2015 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by ringo
11-03-2015 10:58 AM


ringo writes:


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.


There's a difference in style, in moral teachings, and in date of authorship.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by ringo, posted 11-03-2015 10:58 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by ringo, posted 11-05-2015 10:44 AM kbertsche has responded

    
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1359
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 98 of 145 (772079)
11-04-2015 9:25 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Greatest I am
11-04-2015 1:14 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Greatest I am, posted 11-04-2015 1:14 PM Greatest I am has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Greatest I am, posted 11-05-2015 3:25 PM kbertsche has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13017
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 99 of 145 (772085)
11-05-2015 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by kbertsche
11-04-2015 9:12 PM


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". Earlier material isn't necessarily original material. As I understand it, there is evidence of cross-copying within the canonical gospels - i.e. they are not all original material. If anything, the differences in the non-canonical gospels make them more authentically "original".

kbertsche writes:

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.


No. It doesn't. 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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by kbertsche, posted 11-04-2015 9:12 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by kbertsche, posted 11-05-2015 11:44 AM ringo has responded

  
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1359
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 100 of 145 (772090)
11-05-2015 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by ringo
11-05-2015 10:44 AM


ringo writes:

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".


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".
ringo writes:

Earlier material isn't necessarily original material.


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"?
ringo writes:


As I understand it, there is evidence of cross-copying within the canonical gospels - i.e. they are not all original material.


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.

But the issue we have been discussing is not "original material". It is "original gospels", i.e. finished compositions.

ringo writes:


If anything, the differences in the non-canonical gospels make them more authentically "original".


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.

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:

kbertsche writes:


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.


No. It doesn't.

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.)

ringo writes:


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.


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.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by ringo, posted 11-05-2015 10:44 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by ringo, posted 11-05-2015 12:01 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13017
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 101 of 145 (772094)
11-05-2015 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by kbertsche
11-05-2015 11:44 AM


kbertsche writes:

In his original context, by "original" he seems to mean "contemporaneous with the canonical gospels".


I don't see where he implied any such thing. Since GIA cheered my Message 87, I'm guessing we're on the same page - and we seldom agree on anything.

So your obsession with contemporaneity is irrelevant to the discussion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by kbertsche, posted 11-05-2015 11:44 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15922
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 102 of 145 (772095)
11-05-2015 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by kbertsche
11-02-2015 6:41 PM


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?

Well, Wikipedia dates the Gospel of Mary as "c. 30180 CE?" I don't know where they're getting that from, but I presume there's some sort of scholarship behind that rather than someone just pulling it out of his ass. We could look into that if you like, but it seems on the face of it that there were some early non-canonical gospels.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by kbertsche, posted 11-02-2015 6:41 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

  
Greatest I am
Member
Posts: 1382
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 103 of 145 (772097)
11-05-2015 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by kbertsche
11-04-2015 9:25 PM


kbertsche

Do 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?

Regards
DL

Edited by Greatest I am, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by kbertsche, posted 11-04-2015 9:25 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by kbertsche, posted 11-06-2015 12:47 AM Greatest I am has responded

    
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1359
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 104 of 145 (772101)
11-06-2015 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Greatest I am
11-05-2015 3:25 PM


Greatest I Am writes:

kbertsche
Do 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?

Regards
DL


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.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Greatest I am, posted 11-05-2015 3:25 PM Greatest I am has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by PaulK, posted 11-06-2015 7:34 AM kbertsche has responded
 Message 106 by Greatest I am, posted 11-06-2015 10:46 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12680
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.8


(3)
Message 105 of 145 (772107)
11-06-2015 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by kbertsche
11-06-2015 12:47 AM


quote:

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.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by kbertsche, posted 11-06-2015 12:47 AM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by kbertsche, posted 11-06-2015 2:20 PM PaulK has responded

    
Prev1
...
56
7
8910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017