Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 AustonT wrote:
Any historian of any stripe should be challenged when introducing new research. Ehrman has been aiming at a non scholarly audience increasingly but he has had some really good debates with legitimate theologians and historians; he generally comes out looking pretty solid but definitely radical. I simply take issue with the use of what it at its very best a publication on par with Beck.

Well yeah, obviously there are a lot of Beck-level people who hate his books, and they should be ignored. But I'd be wary of quoting Ehrman too confidently since there seem to be a lot of legitimate issues with his work.

I said I'd like to see him review Karen King's work, they have a lot of intersecting research. If he disagrees it basically makes the discovery bunk.

But I'd be wary of quoting Ehrman too confidently since there seem to be a lot of legitimate issues with his work.

The problem is that Ehrman is extremely speculative, which can be okay, but he's the bad kind of speculative who will take an unsupported position (EDIT: A position that makes sense but has no factual basis) and refuses to move from it. Still. That kind of 'scholarship' serves a useful purpose.

 LordofHats wrote:
he Early Church got together and decided what books to include in canon and excluded both those that they thought were less useful and those that they felt were incorrect.

In other words, a particular branch of the Bible fandom decided to, in the absence of an official canon policy from the author(s), create a fanon of their own. Like I said, I understand the appeal of doing so, but I don't see why those particular fans have any authority, or why we should use their canon policy over the default assumption that all works by the original author/publisher in a universe are canon.

They were right to exclude Gnostic texts and the Gnostics had very different beliefs about God, Jesus, and salvation. Canonization was not the product of decided what they liked an didn't like and more a compromise produced by a very diverse body to put together a document that was as short as possible and covered all necessary points. It was initially made for the early clergy as a reference work of sorts.

In other words, the Bible fandom decided that the continuity errors should be resolved by excluding one particular group of works but not others (sadly ignoring many other continuity errors in the process). I understand the appeal of fixing those errors when the author doesn't seem interested in doing so, but why should we treat that choice as official? Why shouldn't we consider the Gnostic works to be canon and throw out the rest?

And I really don't see why this should be considered newsworthy. We don't publish news articles when a bunch of comic book fans decide that Superman #9290430234 (published in 1964) got his costume color wrong and should be considered non-canon, so why should we act like it's a newsworthy event when some Bible fans have a dispute over canon policy in their fictional universe?

 Peregrine wrote:
In other words, a particular branch of the Bible fandom decided to, in the absence of an official canon policy from the author(s), create a fanon of their own.

There is no branch of Bible fandom in the early church because there was no Bible. You can't have fandom for something that doesn't exist yet. And I guess you'd rather be obtuse about the distinction between Gnostics and Christians and the relationship between the two. The authors were all dead, and the Bible was not canonized into a text for the purpose (at the time) of decided outright which documents were true and which weren't. It was a practical measure to get everyone on the same page and as a rather democratic process.

Gnostic texts were not included because Gnostics were not present because Gnostics were not Christian. Sooner or later people are going to figure that out. Calling Gnostics Christian and their texts Christian is like calling Hindu's Buddhists. It diservices both belief systems by unfairly equating them because of theological connections and similarities and geographic proximity.

In other words, the Bible fandom decided that the continuity errors should be resolved by excluding one particular group of works but not others (sadly ignoring many other continuity errors in the process).

There are no continuity errors (not in this sense). Gnostics had their own thing going on, and anyone with the slightest clue about Gnostic theology knows that it has very little in common with Christianity. It spawned from the mystery religions of the Hellenistic world, not the Abrahamic traditions.

I understand the appeal of fixing those errors when the author doesn't seem interested in doing so, but why should we treat that choice as official?

There is no author. The Biblical texts were not a fantasy series written by someone as a creative work. Only a few books have the same author (namely the Epistles) and some have more than one. The authors had no unified vision, and no intention that their work would ever be codified into a collection. Most of the books in the New Testament were written to a specific audience with a specific purpose in mind. A canon did not exist until the Bible was canonized and one was created (and its not even like there's a definitive date where this can be said to have happened).

In other words, drop the false analogy.

Why shouldn't we consider the Gnostic works to be canon and throw out the rest?

For the same reason that Star Trek fans don't consider Star Wars as their canon. This really is very simple.

And I really don't see why this should be considered newsworthy. We don't publish news articles when a bunch of comic book fans decide that Superman #9290430234 (published in 1964) got his costume color wrong and should be considered non-canon, so why should we act like it's a newsworthy event when some Bible fans have a dispute over canon policy in their fictional universe?

Because religious controversy sells. Since when has news ever been about news?

 AustonT wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
What proof do you have that Peter accepted Paul's views? It is entirely more likely the Pauline teaching became scripture around the same time the document in the OP was written.

Paul's letters are all from the first century. They were written to the churches of the world. As far as "becoming scripture," meaning there existed a well-defined and widely-accepted canon, yes that was the fourth century.

None of which answers the question what proof do you have Peter accepted Paul.

You're right. And I have no proof that Jesus ever even lived, much less Paul or Peter. I suppose your question is not really worth asking if we can't even establish that they existed.

The accusations about the historical existence of Biblical figures baffles me. Anyone with any knowledge of history quickly realizes that most of history before the Roman Empire can only be attested to by one or two sources (if we're lucky). Even in the Roman Empire, we're lucky to have more than three or four contemporary sources for events.

As a comparison: There is more literary evidence that Jesus was real than the Battle of Marathon.

 LordofHats wrote:
As a comparison: There is more literary evidence that Jesus was real than the Battle of Marathon.

Except the difference is nobody believes anything supernatural about the Battle of Marathon. While there may be some evidence for a historical Jesus, preacher and martyr, there isn't any historical evidence for the fictional character Jesus, son of god and savior of humanity. I'm sure the historical Jesus is of some interest to historians, but when people say "Jesus" they tend to be talking about the fictional character.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
There is no branch of Bible fandom in the early church because there was no Bible. You can't have fandom for something that doesn't exist yet. And I guess you'd rather be obtuse about the distinction between Gnostics and Christians and the relationship between the two. The authors were all dead, and the Bible was not canonized into a text for the purpose (at the time) of decided outright which documents were true and which weren't. It was a practical measure to get everyone on the same page and as a rather democratic process.

Ok, let's ignore the nitpick and understand "Bible" as "the literary works that make up the fantasy novel currently known as the Bible", whether they existed as various separate short stories or as a single compiled book at any given moment. All you're describing is the kind of canon war that happens between comic fans arguing over which author wrote the "real" version of Superman, except you've declared that somehow one section of the fandom was correct even though none of the original authors have made any statement on their canon policy.

There is no author. The Biblical texts were not a fantasy series written by someone as a creative work. Only a few books have the same author (namely the Epistles) and some have more than one. The authors had no unified vision, and no intention that their work would ever be codified into a collection. Most of the books in the New Testament were written to a specific audience with a specific purpose in mind. A canon did not exist until the Bible was canonized and one was created (and its not even like there's a definitive date where this can be said to have happened).

In other words, originally there were various stories about the characters of the Bible, and eventually some fans got together and wrote a volume of unofficial fanfiction tying it all together. This isn't really news, people write fanfiction all the time but it doesn't make their work any more canon than other fanfiction, and it certainly doesn't make an official statement on whether a newly-discovered official (or supposedly official) work is canon.

For the same reason that Star Trek fans don't consider Star Wars as their canon. This really is very simple.

Except the key difference is that both the current fanon for the Bible universe and the "heretical" Gnostic stories share the same characters, same setting, etc.

 Peregrine wrote:
While there may be some evidence for a historical Jesus, preacher and martyr, there isn't any historical evidence for the fictional character Jesus, son of god and savior of humanity.

Jesus either existed or he didn't. Unless we believe Ronald Regan had clones, someone either is what they are or they are not. The Bible claims there was a man named Jesus who claimed to be the Son of God and savior of all man kind. There is no reason to assume such a man didn't exist. Whether he was telling the truth or was a loony is a separate matter, beyond the scope of history.

Except the key difference is that both the current fanon for the Bible universe and the "heretical" Gnostic stories share the same characters, same setting, etc.

Your ignorance is showing. The Demiurge/Monad/Archons have little in common with God the Father. Christians have no concept of Sophia, Spiritual plains or beings, or of human ascension. There are no Aeons of God in Christianity. Likewise, Gnostics do not have a concept of salvation, the Trinity, heaven or hell. Jesus is a completely different interpretation (want to talk about fictional characters...) and in Gnosticism post-dates Christian views that were already in the process of being canonized.

Gnosticism is a hybrid of Christianity and the Hellenistic mysticism. Again. Calling Gnostics Christian is a diservice to both Gnostics and Christians. They are NOT the same. Gnosticism as a definable belief system didn't even exist until the late second century, when most Christian texts were already codified forty of fifty years prior.

Perhaps the lesson here is to study something before spewing off illogical nonsense?

What has happened since I've been gone dear lord!

 LordofHats wrote:
Jesus either existed or he didn't. Unless we believe Ronald Regan had clones, someone either is what they are or they are not. The Bible claims there was a man named Jesus who claimed to be the Son of God and savior of all man kind. There is no reason to assume such a man didn't exist. Whether he was telling the truth or was a loony is a separate matter, beyond the scope of history.

Except when most people say "Jesus existed" they mean WAY more than "some guy ran around claiming to be the son of god and then got executed for annoying the wrong people". Outside of a few historians it's a safe bet that when someone starts talking about the "evidence for Jesus" they aren't just taking a side in an academic debate, they're using the evidence for "Jesus the crazy preacher" to prove that "Jesus son of god" existed. Essentially they're two very different people, and more often than not the motive for ignoring that split is a dishonest one.

Your ignorance is showing. The Demiurge/Monad/Archons have little in common with God the Father. Christians have no concept of Sophia, Spiritual plains or beings, or of human ascension. There are no Aeons of God in Christianity. Likewise, Gnostics do not have a concept of salvation, the Trinity, heaven or hell. Jesus is a completely different interpretation (want to talk about fictional characters...) and in Gnosticism post-dates Christian views that were already in the process of being canonized.

And you think that kind of continuity error is surprising? Go look at a comic book forum and you'll see that exact same kind of debate over all the many ways in which author X got Superman wrong. But in the end we still say that all of them are fans of the same character, we don't seriously accept the idea that one side has the "real" Superman and everything else is an entirely different universe.

It's not just a continuity error. It's a very different story.

Essentially they're two very different people, and more often than not the motive for ignoring that split is a dishonest one.

Honestly, the motive for claiming there is a split is dishonest. The distinction of the 'historical Jesus' was invented solely to avoid debate with Christians that their Jesus might not actually be the Son of God. Well, dishonest or sadly practical.

And you think that kind of continuity error is surprising? Go look at a comic book forum and you'll see that exact same kind of debate over all the many ways in which author X got Superman wrong. But in the end we still say that all of them are fans of the same character, we don't seriously accept the idea that one side has the "real" Superman and everything else is an entirely different universe.

Then I guess you're one of those types that prefers your fantasy reality to actual reality. Good to know my jaded world view is still in tact.

This topic is not as interesting as it would be if some scrolls had revealed Jesus to have had a husband.


...Just sayin', that'd be interesting is all.

Did they say whether he waited until his wedding night or was it more of a shotgun wedding?

 LordofHats wrote:
Honestly, the motive for claiming there is a split is dishonest. The distinction of the 'historical Jesus' was invented solely to avoid debate with Christians that their Jesus might not actually be the Son of God. Well, dishonest or sadly practical.

Err, lol? The distinction of "historical Jesus" exists because many Christians can't understand that giving evidence for a mortal man named Jesus is not the same as giving evidence for the supernatural elements of the story. There's no need to avoid debate when the evidence is overwhelmingly against any Son of God (or God) existing, it's just important to actually debate what you claim to be debating and not use evidence for one to prove the other.

As for the question of whether the Bible is anything more than a particularly popular fantasy novel, well, I think that one is pretty conclusively settled at this point.

Then I guess you're one of those types that prefers your fantasy reality to actual reality. Good to know my jaded world view is still in tact.

Keep telling yourself that the Bible is special, and completely different from all those comic book debates over the same kind of conflicts between multiple fictional works involving the same characters.

 azazel the cat wrote:
This topic is not as interesting as it would be if some scrolls had revealed Jesus to have had a husband.


...Just sayin', that'd be interesting is all.

true dat.

As some of you know, I'm a heathen...

So, what's the big dealio?

 azazel the cat wrote:
This topic is not as interesting as it would be if some scrolls had revealed Jesus to have had a husband.


...Just sayin', that'd be interesting is all.

That's why there's Jesus/Judas fanfiction.

(Seriously. If you want hot Jesus porn, it's out there.)

I smell a movie that will set the Christian world on fire. Wonder whose embassies we'll protest at

 Peregrine wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
This topic is not as interesting as it would be if some scrolls had revealed Jesus to have had a husband.


...Just sayin', that'd be interesting is all.

That's why there's Jesus/Judas fanfiction.

(Seriously. If you want hot Jesus porn, it's out there.)

And how would you know?

 whembly wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
This topic is not as interesting as it would be if some scrolls had revealed Jesus to have had a husband.


...Just sayin', that'd be interesting is all.

That's why there's Jesus/Judas fanfiction.

(Seriously. If you want hot Jesus porn, it's out there.)

And how would you know?

Is it my fault I find a man nailing another man as a third man is nailing him to a cross hot?

 Peregrine wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
This topic is not as interesting as it would be if some scrolls had revealed Jesus to have had a husband.


...Just sayin', that'd be interesting is all.

That's why there's Jesus/Judas fanfiction.

(Seriously. If you want hot Jesus porn, it's out there.)

And how would you know?

Is it my fault I find a man nailing another man as a third man is nailing him to a cross hot?

Um... okay! Go for it man!

 Peregrine wrote:
Is it my fault I find a man nailing another man as a third man is nailing him to a cross hot?

Hmmm... What's more eerie. That someone suggest such a thing, or that I can honestly believe that somewhere it exists?

In the words of Philosoraptor:

 generalgrog wrote:
2) Bart Ehrman is hardly the guy you want to trust, as his book's have been refuted by the likes of Timothy Paul Jones and James White.

If Timothy Paul Jones took the time to refute him he must be pretty good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
Well yeah, obviously there are a lot of Beck-level people who hate his books, and they should be ignored. But I'd be wary of quoting Ehrman too confidently since there seem to be a lot of legitimate issues with his work.

Sure, but there's general wisdom to be found in being wary of quoting any single source too confidently.

It's just funny to hear 'don't listen to that guy, Timothy Paul Jones refutes him'.

Manchu wrote:

 AustonT wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
What proof do you have that Peter accepted Paul's views? It is entirely more likely the Pauline teaching became scripture around the same time the document in the OP was written.

Paul's letters are all from the first century. They were written to the churches of the world. As far as "becoming scripture," meaning there existed a well-defined and widely-accepted canon, yes that was the fourth century.

None of which answers the question what proof do you have Peter accepted Paul.

You're right. And I have no proof that Jesus ever even lived, much less Paul or Peter. I suppose your question is not really worth asking if we can't even establish that they existed.

That's categorically false we have independent accouts that confirm the existence of all three, what we don't have is any indication that Peter accepted Paul as a "special apostle" or in any way endorsed his letters.

Asherian Command wrote:What has happened since I've been gone dear lord!

Semi intellectual conversation not related to politics.

azazel the cat wrote:This topic is not as interesting as it would be if some scrolls had revealed Jesus to have had a husband.


...Just sayin', that'd be interesting is all.

There has been a great deal of speculation concerning the nature of the Judas kiss, not explained away by customs of the time.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Is it my fault I find a man nailing another man as a third man is nailing him to a cross hot?

Hmmm... What's more eerie. That someone suggest such a thing, or that I can honestly believe that somewhere it exists?

In the words of Philosoraptor:

Oooh I feel the need to go Old testament on someone's ass for this. Quick someone find me an embassy and some flags - but only cotton flags!

I hear the French Embassy has Croissants. And that they hate Wiener dogs.

 AustonT wrote:
That's categorically false we have independent accouts that confirm the existence of all three, what we don't have is any indication that Peter accepted Paul as a "special apostle" or in any way endorsed his letters.

Categorically? I think not. A widely accepted argument is not the same thing as categorical truth. What we truly rely on in all serious consideration is the tradition. The gospels themselves are after all artifacts of tradition.

 d-usa wrote:
Nothing in the ministry of Jesus looses any value or meaning if he was in fact married.

This guy knows what's up.

I don't see what the big deal is really. I mean, yes, it's very interesting to talk about about, but at the end of the day, it doesn't really change anything from a theological standpoint.

Rebus itch.

lizard speolp