Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 111 (8738 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2017 9:18 AM
135 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jayhawker Soule
Post Volume:
Total: 805,076 Year: 9,682/21,208 Month: 2,769/2,674 Week: 193/961 Day: 57/136 Hour: 3/4

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
567
8
910Next
Author Topic:   Is it moral for God to punish us?
Greatest I am
Member
Posts: 1382
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 106 of 145 (772116)
11-06-2015 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by kbertsche
11-06-2015 12:47 AM


kbertsche

"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."

So the council of Nicaea decided nothing in particular. Ok.

If they were accepted as you say, then why did all that scripture burning and murder of those who did not like those 4 gospels happen at all?

And if there were no other gospels, why bother forcing the literal interpretation of the 4?

If only 4, what are these other gospels?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Gospels

Here is history and not the fantasy you follow.

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

Regards
DL


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by kbertsche, posted 11-06-2015 12:47 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by NoNukes, posted 11-06-2015 1:28 PM Greatest I am has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9429
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 107 of 145 (772119)
11-06-2015 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Greatest I am
11-06-2015 10:46 AM


"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."

So the council of Nicaea decided nothing in particular. Ok

That is not what was claimed. What was said was that all of the gospels other than the four accepted ones were written later. You've cited a list of gospels. All that is left is to point to ones that meet the time requirement. Why not do that?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Greatest I am, posted 11-06-2015 10:46 AM Greatest I am has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Greatest I am, posted 11-06-2015 6:33 PM NoNukes has responded

    
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1359
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 108 of 145 (772120)
11-06-2015 2:20 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by PaulK
11-06-2015 7:34 AM


PaulK writes:

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.


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.

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:

Although the work is popularly known as the Gospel of Mary, it is not canonical nor is it technically classed as a gospel by scholastic consensus.
...
Most scholars agree that the original gospel was written in Greek sometime during the 2nd century. However, Hollis Professor of Divinity Karen King at Harvard Divinity School suggests that it was written during the time of Christ.

The Wiki entry on the Gospel of Thomas is also interesting:

quote:

The Gospel According to Thomas, (or the Gospel of Thomas), is an early Christian non-canonical sayings-gospel that many scholars believe provides insight into the oral gospel traditions.
...
Scholars generally fall into one of two main camps: an "early camp" favoring a date for the "core" of between the years 50 and 100, before or approximately contemporary with the composition of the canonical gospels and a "late camp" favoring a date in the 2nd century, after composition of the canonical gospels.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by PaulK, posted 11-06-2015 7:34 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by PaulK, posted 11-06-2015 2:30 PM kbertsche has responded
 Message 111 by NoNukes, posted 11-06-2015 5:05 PM kbertsche has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12562
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


(1)
Message 109 of 145 (772122)
11-06-2015 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by kbertsche
11-06-2015 2:20 PM


quote:

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 seems to be talking about narratives. (And I would add that Q is proposed on the grounds that Luke did not have access to Matthew, so I would be reluctant to count both)

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by kbertsche, posted 11-06-2015 2:20 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by kbertsche, posted 11-06-2015 4:44 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1359
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 110 of 145 (772128)
11-06-2015 4:44 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by PaulK
11-06-2015 2:30 PM


PaulK writes:

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.


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.

"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 109 by PaulK, posted 11-06-2015 2:30 PM PaulK has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9429
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 111 of 145 (772129)
11-06-2015 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by kbertsche
11-06-2015 2:20 PM


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.

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.

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by kbertsche, posted 11-06-2015 2:20 PM kbertsche has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by kbertsche, posted 11-06-2015 9:54 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

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


(1)
Message 112 of 145 (772131)
11-06-2015 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by NoNukes
11-06-2015 1:28 PM


NoNukes

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.

Regards
DL


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by NoNukes, posted 11-06-2015 1:28 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by kbertsche, posted 11-06-2015 9:57 PM Greatest I am has responded
 Message 117 by NoNukes, posted 11-07-2015 10:27 PM Greatest I am has responded

    
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1359
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 113 of 145 (772141)
11-06-2015 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by NoNukes
11-06-2015 5:05 PM


nonukes writes:

kbertsche writes:


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.


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.

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.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by NoNukes, posted 11-06-2015 5:05 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by PaulK, posted 11-07-2015 5:03 AM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
kbertsche
Member
Posts: 1359
From: San Jose, CA, USA
Joined: 05-10-2007
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 114 of 145 (772142)
11-06-2015 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Greatest I am
11-06-2015 6:33 PM


Greatest I Am writes:


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.

Regards
DL


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?

"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 112 by Greatest I am, posted 11-06-2015 6:33 PM Greatest I am has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Greatest I am, posted 11-07-2015 3:29 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 12562
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 115 of 145 (772146)
11-07-2015 5:03 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by kbertsche
11-06-2015 9:54 PM


With regard to sayings I don't think there's much confusing them with narratives - aside from the fact there's a spectrum rather than a clear divide. Either a collection of sayings or a largely narrative account can be called a Gospel

quote:

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.

Why must we speculate about Luke's sources? Why are the documents represented by the Egerton and Oxyrynchus 1224 fragments otherwise unknown?

We don't have much from the 1st or 2nd centuries from either the Gnostic or the orthodox camps in terms of actual manuscripts, and we can be sure that many documents have been completely lost and forgotten.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by kbertsche, posted 11-06-2015 9:54 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

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


Message 116 of 145 (772163)
11-07-2015 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by kbertsche
11-06-2015 9:57 PM


kbertsche

Some scholars think they might have.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJgvws0ZYUE

I see both the canon and all other gospels as attempts to control the thinking of the masses through a best wisdom saying contest.

So far I prefer the Gnostic Christian free thinking way as compared to the Christian, you have to think my way, idiocy.

To think that wisdom and knowledge of God is only in one plagiarized book is idiocy. That would include the Bible and the Qur'an.

Fairy tales hold more wisdom in many cases as compared with gospels which are fairy tales for adults.

Those fairy tales mostly came from Sumer and Egypt.

http://www.dailymotion.com/...-zone-pagan-christ-1-of-3_news

That is why I prefer to concentrate on the morality of the scripture and not where it is found.

Regards
DL


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by kbertsche, posted 11-06-2015 9:57 PM kbertsche has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Phat, posted 11-10-2015 2:19 AM Greatest I am has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9429
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 117 of 145 (772169)
11-07-2015 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Greatest I am
11-06-2015 6:33 PM


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.

That's fine. My only complaint would be that the arguments you made were offbase. If you really don't care about any of it, then why even delve into the process of canonization?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Greatest I am, posted 11-06-2015 6:33 PM Greatest I am has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Greatest I am, posted 11-09-2015 8:01 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 118 of 145 (772199)
11-09-2015 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by NoNukes
11-07-2015 10:27 PM


NoNukes

The delving I did was speaking to the 4 main ones and the plethora of others that were rejected. Not the dating.

Even the oldest they have are plagiarized so timing them is impossible.

Even "Christian" was stolen from what I think was the origins of Gnostic Christianity. Chrestiam.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=r...

Regards
DL


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by NoNukes, posted 11-07-2015 10:27 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
Phat
Member
Posts: 9283
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 119 of 145 (772218)
11-10-2015 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Greatest I am
11-07-2015 3:29 PM


More Gnock Gnock Jokes
So far I prefer the Gnostic Christian free thinking way as compared to the Christian, you have to think my way, idiocy.
But which way is more logical to God? Christians don't say you have to think their way. They encourage you to think His way.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." Mark Twain

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Greatest I am, posted 11-07-2015 3:29 PM Greatest I am has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Pressie, posted 11-10-2015 6:58 AM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 121 by Greatest I am, posted 11-10-2015 9:51 AM Phat has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1561
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


(1)
Message 120 of 145 (772223)
11-10-2015 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Phat
11-10-2015 2:19 AM


Re: More Gnock Gnock Jokes
Phat writes:

Christians don't say you have to think their way. They encourage you to think His way.

Thanks for the comment, Kim Jong-un.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Phat, posted 11-10-2015 2:19 AM Phat has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
567
8
910Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017