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: Doesn't really matter what he meant, what he said was foolish, what he meant was to discredit my source as relevant to Christianity. In that he fails utterly regardless of what he meant.
Well, it is true that none of them determined anything that is a matter of dogma. And all of them are thought of as not so good on at least a few subjects.
"Some books were certainly excluded for such a reason" So, you agree on that, and yet you find no problem with it? Like that they ditched the Gospel of Thomas perhaps only on two or three grounds: It spoke of Salome defining herself as a diciple of Jesus; they did not understand some comments in it, and/or the gospel was studied by Gnostics.
How many other Gospels suffered that fate for that reason, that could have made Christianity more complete?
Gospel of Judas?
Gospel of Mary?
"There were dozens of councils with thousands of church leaders involved".
But what says that some then simply decided together anyway what to be and what not to be, and any who did not follow it was defined as gnostics?
It could simply be another case of If you are not with us, you are DOOMED thing.
Really, i find Peregrine's comparison of the whole thing to a comic fandom to be more "on spot" than you seem to think.
The difference between me and him, though, is that i consider this thing as serious, and i also know a thing or two about gnosticism(not much, but enough) as well as about how people prefer to protect what they know if they feel preassured, even if that "knowledge" actually is incorrect.
I have also read the Gospel of Thomas, and i wonder what could be considered "Gnostic" in it.
That humaniy is unfinished in its creation? Heh, as if the whole thing about Jesus' sacrifice isn't a proof of that humanity is unfinished in its creation ...
I can, at best, consider that they saw those texts commonly studied by gnostics, and thus thought that they were false by association.
"Probably, but Gnosticism being a separate religious doctrine, I fail to see how that's much of a problem for Christians." I am not talking about Gnosticism here, i'm talking about valid Gospels that may have been mistaken or "mistaken" for Gnostic scriptures!
See the difference?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/21 11:34:54
Was once trying to make a 2D action-strategy scroller based on a mix of WH40K & MLP FiM .... but is no longer.
Tiina Brown wrote: So, you agree on that, and yet you find no problem with it?
Um, considering the MASSIVE quantity of writings produced by Christians, it's horribly impractical to include them all. A purpose was set out by all the canonization councils, and that was to put together a collection of texts that could best surmize Christian beliefs in as short a space as possible (with a preference towards the oldest documents available, and a lot of documents ended up forgotten after the first 100 years or so).
Like that they ditched the Gospel of Thomas perhaps only on two or three grounds: It spoke of Salome defining herself as a diciple of Jesus; they did not understand some comments in it, and/or the gospel was studied by Gnostics.
Specifically Thomas was excluded because it is a Sayings gospel. It's just a collection of quotes. Councils excluded these as lacking proper context sufficient for canonization. EDIT: I should say 'probably' here, as it doesn't seem any sayings gospels were considered for canonization, going off the assumption Thomas wasn't the only one which seems probable.
How many other Gospels suffered that fate for that reason, that could have made Christianity more complete?
That would depend on how you define complete. Arian texts for example, were certainly excluded solely for being Arian (or even produced by an Arian) and that might be a problem, but then I've never felt the Arian debate is modernly relevant to anything. Or even at the times of the early church really. I kind of wonder why a works focused movement would care so much about Jesus' physical existence (though oddly the Gnostics may have sparked that debate in the church).
Gospel of Judas?
Th Gospel of Judas is a Gnostic text.
Gospel of Mary?
Despite being commonly called a Gospel, the gospel of Mary isn't actually a gospel (we believe, the text is not complete in modern times). It might also be Gnostic but we don't really know without the other half of the piece. It's also from the 5th Century, by which point most of the books in the running for canonization had already be determined (the Bible as we have it now was in form by at least the late 2nd century before official canonization).
But what says that some then simply decided together anyway what to be and what not to be, and any who did not follow it was defined as gnostics?
Because once you hit the 4th century, Gnosticism is on the down swing and it ceases to be an issue for the early church.
Really, i find Peregrine's comparison of the whole thing to a comic fandom to be more "on spot" than you seem to think.
Sigh. Go look up false analogy. The reason his comparison is stupid is because comparing a religious text (or collection of) created to sum up the beliefs of a group to a comic book made for the sole purpose of monetary gain is a stupid comparison. Insult it by calling it a fantasy novel, but comparing the Bible to any typical work of fiction is ignoring a mountain of nuance and a lot of common sense. It also shows a horrible lack of understanding as to how the Bible came to be, but I kind of expect that these days. A better comparison is looking at comic books 200 years from now and try to separate Deadpool from Deathstroke.
I have also read the Gospel of Thomas, and i wonder what could be considered "Gnostic" in it.
That's because its probably not. EDIT: It's was considered Gnostic for a long time because the copy we have was found in the Nag Hammadi library alongside a large number of Gnostic texts. The collection was generalized to be a Gnostic collection but that's now called into question as an unsupported assumption. It could just be a generalized collection of texts that a Gnostic or Christian scholar of the 2nd or 3rd century might of had lying around. Most likely a collection belonging to a proto-Coptic church father, as Gnosticism and Christianity had no greater proximity to one another than in Egypt and Coptic Christianity reflects that influence.
I am not talking about Gnosticism here, i'm talking about valid Gospels that may have been mistaken or "mistaken" for Gnostic scriptures!
See the difference?
Good luck finding any book that was excluded without a good reason. I doubt we have a copy of everything ever produced (hell I'm dead sure we don't), but the lack of understanding about how the Bible came to be baffles me. It was probably the most democratic process you'll ever find in Christian history, took about a thousand years, and the books that we know were excluded got excluded for good (or at least understandable) reasons. Hell some of these books despite being rejected for canonization, still ended up effecting doctrine. The Book of James is the origin of the doctrine of perpetual virginity of Mary. At the time the Bible was being formed, being rejected for inclusion was not the same as being untrue.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2012/09/21 13:29:39
Tiina Brown wrote: I am not talking about Gnosticism here, i'm talking about valid Gospels that may have been mistaken or "mistaken" for Gnostic scriptures!
See the difference?
Good luck finding any book that was excluded without a good reason. I doubt we have a copy of everything ever produced (hell I'm dead sure we don't), but the lack of understanding about how the Bible came to be baffles me. It was probably the most democratic process you'll ever find in Christian history, took about a thousand years, and the books that we know were excluded got excluded for good (or at least understandable) reasons. Hell some of these books despite being rejected for canonization, still ended up effecting doctrine. The Book of James is the origin of the doctrine of perpetual virginity of Mary. At the time the Bible was being formed, being rejected for inclusion was not the same as being untrue.
This pretty much sums up your reasoning, or rather the part i find disturbing.
You were not there, and neither were i.
You say it happened in a democratic fashion, but i find that quite improbable.
Discussions were held, of course, and attempts to reason were also done, but what says that any of those had any effect on the bible?
It took a thousand years? As far as i know, the official design of the Bible were defined in Nice (still unsure of the spelling), and anything after that were rather to enforce that form on others.
But still, if you are correct, that just show how long it took to get people to agree on that the bible should look in a certain way, rather that defining its form.
An interesting thing, is that the only originals that is said to exist, in the Vatican of course, is Paul's letters here and there.
There is no known originals of the Gospels, at least ...
And if they wanted to add books representing christianity, then why did they choose 4 books that says pretty much the same?
Why not include at least one book with sayings, such as Thomas?
And by the way, while i'm at it, if you now are so certain that the Gospel of Judas is Gnostic, then what is it about it that says so?
EDIT:
And "excluded for a good/understandable reason" by those people at that time, do not mean it would not have made more semse today.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/21 15:11:54
Was once trying to make a 2D action-strategy scroller based on a mix of WH40K & MLP FiM .... but is no longer.
AustonT wrote: Doesn't really matter what he meant, what he said was foolish, what he meant was to discredit my source as relevant to Christianity. In that he fails utterly regardless of what he meant.
Well, it is true that none of them determined anything that is a matter of dogma. And all of them are thought of as not so good on at least a few subjects.
This is for you:
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
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.
Do you guys really believe that?
It makes all the difference in the world, actually. If Jesus was truly married, his ministry would mean nothing, and I would believe him to be no more than a liar and a hypocrite.
The equivalent argument to this is that Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha trod on a grasshopper once by mistake or had some lamb and therefore his entire ministry and practice is lies and deceit.
Not much of a Buddhist scholar are you?
I know a reasonable amount for a non-believer, the statement is meant to be as ludicrous as the argument above it.
\
Except its not similar at all. Siddhartha eating lamb would not invalidate his teachings at all. He was a prince. They tend to eat good things. Factual evidence of Jesus having a wife would cast doubt for a lot of followers. Maybe not for you but it would shock the church to the core. But there is also zero evidence for it and there never will be so you are kinda right, its a non-issue.
DutchKillsRambo wrote: Factual evidence of Jesus having a wife would cast doubt for a lot of followers. But there is also zero evidence for it and there never will be so you are kinda right, its a non-issue.
Unless say a ketubah or similar marriage document is found and dated, Stranger things have happened.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
Philip Harland wrote:Walter Bauer and Diversity (Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity, 1932, translated into English in the 1970s): Walter Bauer wrote what can be considered among the most influential works in the study of early Christianity. Turning the traditional theory of Eusebius on its head, Walter argued that heresy came first, orthodoxy later. Not only that, but the various forms of Christianity often called “heresies” were, in fact, in the majority. When orthodoxy began to emerge in the second and subsequent centuries, it continued as the minority for some time until the church at Rome increased its hold on Christianity elsewhere. Walter continued to use the terms “orthodoxy” and “heresy” despite the fact that his own theory began to deconstruct these very notions. Most who study early Christianity now recognize that, although Walter’s theory clearly has its problems, Walter was at least correct in emphasizing that various forms of Christianity existed from early on, and that “orthodoxy” only developed later in an attempt to get the diversity under some control. He was also correct in deconstructing the Eusebian view of the orthodox, united church threatened by later heresies, which does not accurately reflect what actually went on in the first centuries of Christianity.
Obviously not perfect, but it's also not exactly recent. There's plenty of scholarship that has come to the conclusion that Paul and Pauline Xnity were a significant divergence from Jesus and Petrine Xnity and that eventual orthodoxy was the combination, largely to the detriment of the doctrines established by Peter whom as you have quoted ITT Jesus charged to found the church.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
Wait, so you're telling me there was no need to develop a right answer until people started to get it wrong? I am familiar with an ecumenical council, you know.
It's written by one of the most well respected/known bible scholars in the world; Bart Ehrman. It speaks on how early Christian scribes deemphasized women in the church--and the various clerical errors that have been stitched together from text to text. Excellent read.
Adepticon TT 2009---Best Heretical Force
Adepticon 2010---Best Appearance Warhammer Fantasy Warbands
Adepticon 2011---Best Team Display
Manchu wrote: Wait, so you're telling me there was no need to develop a right answer until people started to get it wrong? I am familiar with an ecumenical council, you know.
Tut tut I answered your Wonka, your turn.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
I'll do my best but I don't think you answered my Wonka and I'm not totally sure what yours was getting at.
Until recently, the canons of the Church have specified the only purpose of marriage to be procreation. Now marriage is considered to have many purposes, among which is companionship. Sex, properly contextualized by a emotionally healthy sacramental marriage, is certainly understood as a good.
Manchu wrote:I'll do my best but I don't think you answered my Wonka and I'm not totally sure what yours was getting at.
Until recently, the canons of the Church have specified the only purpose of marriage to be procreation. Now marriage is considered to have many purposes, among which is companionship. Sex, properly contextualized by a emotionally healthy sacramental marriage, is certainly understood as a good.
No, I'm pretty sure transfers of property were also included in the church's reasoning for marriage.
It's written by one of the most well respected/known bible scholars in the world; Bart Ehrman. It speaks on how early Christian scribes deemphasized women in the church--and the various clerical errors that have been stitched together from text to text. Excellent read.
I was trying to stay out of the thread until this.
This is why I mentioned the problem with relying on Ehrman earlier in the thread, and refrained from getting back in, when the "Glen Beck" stuff started.
Sure...have fun reading Misquoting Jesus...but then you should also read Misquoting Truth which was Dr. Timothy Paul Jones' response. Dr.TPJ is hardly Glen Beck. Also recommend watching some of Dr. James White & Bart Ehrman's debates.
It's real easy to read a work like Ehrman's and believe him unquestionably, than to to do your own scholarly research on the subject.
Now that I'm on the subject... there are many books on the subject of how the Bible was compiled..I recommend that the participants in this thread read some books on the subject instead of attempting to guess at how the canonization of the bible happened.
[DCM]
GW Public Relations Manager (Privateer Press Mole)
I actually have read Misquoting Truth--it sits about 4 books down on my shelf from Misquoting Jesus . Nothing against the text but it struck me more as a rather long, ranty ad hominem more than a piece of scholarly text--the Amazon reviews are rather frightful. Opinions may vary of course
Adepticon TT 2009---Best Heretical Force
Adepticon 2010---Best Appearance Warhammer Fantasy Warbands
Adepticon 2011---Best Team Display
AustonT wrote: Doesn't really matter what he meant, what he said was foolish, what he meant was to discredit my source as relevant to Christianity. In that he fails utterly regardless of what he meant.
Well, it is true that none of them determined anything that is a matter of dogma. And all of them are thought of as not so good on at least a few subjects.
This is for you:
"God created man in his own image . . . male and female he created them"; He blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and multiply"; "When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created."
Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others.
Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.
"In creating men 'male and female,' God gives man and woman an equal personal dignity.""Man is a person, man and woman equally so, since both were created in the image and likeness of the personal God."
Each of the two sexes is an image of the power and tenderness of God, with equal dignity though in a different way. The union of man and woman in marriage is a way of imitating in the flesh the Creator's generosity and fecundity: "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."121 All human generations proceed from this union.
2336 Jesus came to restore creation to the purity of its origins. In the Sermon on the Mount, he interprets God's plan strictly: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."123 What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.
"Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."
Tobias got out of bed and said to Sarah, "Sister, get up, and let us pray and implore our Lord that he grant us mercy and safety." So she got up, and they began to pray and implore that they might be kept safe. Tobias began by saying, "Blessed are you, O God of our fathers. . . . You made Adam, and for him you made his wife Eve as a helper and support. From the two of them the race of mankind has sprung. You said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.' I now am taking this kinswoman of mine, not because of lust, but with sincerity. Grant that she and I may find mercy and that we may grow old together." And they both said, "Amen, Amen." Then they went to sleep for the night.
"The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude." Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure
The Creator himself . . . established that in the function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.
Manchu wrote: I'll do my best but I don't think you answered my Wonka and I'm not totally sure what yours was getting at.
You said to tell you about Orthodoxy, und so I did. If your not sure what I'm getting at maybe you should read upthread to the person I was actually responding to originally.
It's written by one of the most well respected/known bible scholars in the world; Bart Ehrman. It speaks on how early Christian scribes deemphasized women in the church--and the various clerical errors that have been stitched together from text to text. Excellent read.
Dr.TPJ is hardly Glen Beck. Also recommend watching some of Dr. James White & Bart Ehrman's debates.
I'll try not to laugh. With such scholarly hits like "Finding God in a Galaxy Far, Far Away:A Spiritual Exploration of the Star Wars Saga," "Guide to End-Times Prophecy," and "Trained in the Fear of God: Family Ministry in Theological, Historical, and Practical Perspective" He has really established himself as a researcher of note. In other words: No, just no. I love that you hung Dr on the front of James White, I have a certificate that says I'm a spaceshuttle door gunner that I got off the internet too. His literary gems include "What's With the Mutant in the Microscope: Stuff to Know When Science Says Your Uncle Is a Monkey," and "The Same Sex Controversy: Defending and Clarifying the Bible's Message About Homosexuality." You really brought the big guns on this one. If TPJ is Glenn Beck, White is Rush Limbaugh. I mean what serious bible scholar DOESN'T check Star Wars or discard evolution as pseudo-science, oh that's right scholars
It's real easy to read a work like Ehrman's and believe him unquestionably, than to to do your own scholarly research on the subject.
You should take your own advise, start with finding scholars instead of personalities. Just so my utter scorn isn't just implied: As a contrasting point to Misquoting Jesus Jones and White are like high school math students writing in opposition to Einstein.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
Manchu wrote: I'll do my best but I don't think you answered my Wonka and I'm not totally sure what yours was getting at.
You said to tell you about Orthodoxy, und so I did. If your not sure what I'm getting at maybe you should read upthread to the person I was actually responding to originally.
It's written by one of the most well respected/known bible scholars in the world; Bart Ehrman. It speaks on how early Christian scribes deemphasized women in the church--and the various clerical errors that have been stitched together from text to text. Excellent read.
Dr.TPJ is hardly Glen Beck. Also recommend watching some of Dr. James White & Bart Ehrman's debates.
I'll try not to laugh. With such scholarly hits like "Finding God in a Galaxy Far, Far Away:A Spiritual Exploration of the Star Wars Saga," "Guide to End-Times Prophecy," and "Trained in the Fear of God: Family Ministry in Theological, Historical, and Practical Perspective" He has really established himself as a researcher of note. In other words: No, just no. I love that you hung Dr on the front of James White, I have a certificate that says I'm a spaceshuttle door gunner that I got off the internet too. His literary gems include "What's With the Mutant in the Microscope: Stuff to Know When Science Says Your Uncle Is a Monkey," and "The Same Sex Controversy: Defending and Clarifying the Bible's Message About Homosexuality." You really brought the big guns on this one. If TPJ is Glenn Beck, White is Rush Limbaugh. I mean what serious bible scholar DOESN'T check Star Wars or discard evolution as pseudo-science, oh that's right scholars
It's real easy to read a work like Ehrman's and believe him unquestionably, than to to do your own scholarly research on the subject.
You should take your own advise, start with finding scholars instead of personalities. Just so my utter scorn isn't just implied: As a contrasting point to Misquoting Jesus Jones and White are like high school math students writing in opposition to Einstein.
I can sum your whole post up as follows.
Ad Hominem.
I like how you conveniently pick 1 book of Dr. Whites and try and present him as a Limbaugh. here lets give the man proper credit shall we.
Justification by Faith. Crowne Publications, November 1, 1990. ISBN 0-925703-40-0.
Answers to Catholic Claims. Crowne Publications, November 1, 1990. ISBN 0-925703-36-2.
God's Sovereign Grace. Crowne Publications, April 1, 1991. ISBN 0-925703-41-9.
Letters to a Mormon Elder. Crowne Publications, April 1, 1991. ISBN 0-925703-59-1.
The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?. Bethany House Publishers, March 1, 1995. ISBN 1-55661-575-2.
The Roman Catholic Controversy. Bethany House Publishers, July 1, 1996. ISBN 1-55661-819-0.
Grieving: Our Path Back to Peace. Bethany House Publishers, August 1, 1997. ISBN 0-7642-2000-4.
Is the Mormon My Brother?: Discerning the Differences Between Mormonism and Christianity. Bethany House Publishers, November 1, 1997. ISBN 0-7642-2047-0.
What's With the Dudes at the Door? (w/ Kevin Johnson). Bethany House Publishers, May 1, 1998. ISBN 0-7642-2070-5.
Mary-Another Redeemer?. Bethany House Publishers, July 1, 1998. ISBN 0-7642-2102-7.
The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief. Bethany House Publishers, November 1, 1998. ISBN 1-55661-725-9.
What's With the Mutant in the Microscope: Stuff to Know When Science Says Your Uncle Is a Monkey. (w/ Kevin Johnson) Bethany House Publishers, October 1, 1999. ISBN 0-7642-2187-6.
The Potter's Freedom: A Defense of the Reformation and the Rebuttal of Norman Geisler's Chosen But Free. Calvary Press; Revised edition edition May 15, 2000. ISBN 1-879737-43-4
The God Who Justifies. Bethany House Publishers, August 1, 2001. ISBN 0-7642-2288-0.
The Same Sex Controversy: Defending and Clarifying the Bible's Message About Homosexuality (w/ Jeffrey D. Niell). Bethany House Publishers, April 1, 2002. ISBN 0-7642-2524-3.
Debating Calvinism: Five Points, Two Views (w/ Dave Hunt). Multnomah Publications, February 1, 2004. ISBN 1-59052-273-7.
Stan Norman (editor); Chad Brand (editor); James Leo Garrett, Jr.; Robert L. Reymond; James R. White; Paul F. M. Zahl; Daniel L. Akin (editor); R. Stanton Norman (editor). Perspectives on Church Government: Five Views of Church Polity. Broadman & Holman Publications, July 1, 2004. ISBN 0-8054-2590-X.
Scripture Alone: Exploring The Bible's Accuracy, Authority, And Authenticity. Bethany House Publishers, October 1, 2004. ISBN 0-7642-2048-9.
Pulpit Crimes: The Criminal Mishandling of God's Word. Solid Ground Christian Books October 26, 2006. ISBN 1-59925-090-X
From Toronto to Emmaus: The Empty Tomb and the Journey from Skepticism to Faith. Solid Ground Christian Books March 27, 2007. ISBN 1-59925-112-4
Formal debates
"Is the Bible True?" vs. Robert M. Price, May, 2010, aboard ship on the Carnival Legend
"Did the Bible Misquote Jesus?" vs. Bart Ehrman, January, 2009, aboard ship on the Celebrity Century
"Is Homosexuality Compatible with Authentic, Biblical, Orthodox Christianity?" vs. John Shelby Spong, November, 2006, Orlando, FL
"Is the New Testament We Possess Today Inspired?" vs. Shabir Ally, May, 2006, La Mirada, CA "The Resurrection of Jesus Christ", vs. Marcus Borg and John Dominic Crossan (with James Renihan), August, 2005, aboard ship on the Sun Princess
"Is the Orthodox, Biblical Account of Jesus of Nazareth Authentic & Historically Accurate?", vs. John Dominic Crossan, August, 2005, Seattle, WA "Are Roman Catholics Our Brothers and Sisters in Christ?", vs. Douglas Wilson, November, 2004, Los Angeles, CA "Is Homosexuality Consistent with Biblical Christianity", vs. Barry Lynn, May, 2001, Long Island, NY
"The Papacy", vs. Fr. Mitch Pacwa, SJ, May, 1998, Long Island, NY
"Sola Scriptura", vs. Gerry Matatics, August, 1990, Long Beach, CA
I'm not a Dr. White apologist, but am just appalled by the way you just castigate a person as a "nonscholar" because he takes a different scholarly opinon than Ehrman. Please note how I didn't castigate or denounce Ehrman as a lunatic or idiot..just misguided.
Dr. Jones has written 32 books, but there isn't an easy way to copy paste his. Again you do the gentlemen a disservice much as you did Mr. white.
I like how you conveniently pick 1 book of Dr. Whites and try and present him as a Limbaugh. here lets give the man proper credit shall we.
Sorry, but anyone who writes a book defending creationism is a gullible idiot, and it's safe to ignore anything else they have to say. Unless he's apologized for his mistakes and stopped publishing the book his credibility is slightly below the crazy guy with a sign yelling about how you're going to hell.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
I like how you conveniently pick 1 book of Dr. Whites and try and present him as a Limbaugh. here lets give the man proper credit shall we.
Sorry, but anyone who writes a book defending creationism is a gullible idiot, and it's safe to ignore anything else they have to say. Unless he's apologized for his mistakes and stopped publishing the book his credibility is slightly below the crazy guy with a sign yelling about how you're going to hell.
Again..he might be a creationist therefore he is wrong about evrything else..classic Ad hominem fallacy.
AustonT wrote: Doesn't really matter what he meant, what he said was foolish, what he meant was to discredit my source as relevant to Christianity. In that he fails utterly regardless of what he meant.
Well, it is true that none of them determined anything that is a matter of dogma. And all of them are thought of as not so good on at least a few subjects.
This is for you:
"God created man in his own image . . . male and female he created them"; He blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and multiply"; "When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created."
Sexuality affects all aspects of the human person in the unity of his body and soul. It especially concerns affectivity, the capacity to love and to procreate, and in a more general way the aptitude for forming bonds of communion with others.
Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.
"In creating men 'male and female,' God gives man and woman an equal personal dignity.""Man is a person, man and woman equally so, since both were created in the image and likeness of the personal God."
Each of the two sexes is an image of the power and tenderness of God, with equal dignity though in a different way. The union of man and woman in marriage is a way of imitating in the flesh the Creator's generosity and fecundity: "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh."121 All human generations proceed from this union.
2336 Jesus came to restore creation to the purity of its origins. In the Sermon on the Mount, he interprets God's plan strictly: "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."123 What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.
"Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."
Tobias got out of bed and said to Sarah, "Sister, get up, and let us pray and implore our Lord that he grant us mercy and safety." So she got up, and they began to pray and implore that they might be kept safe. Tobias began by saying, "Blessed are you, O God of our fathers. . . . You made Adam, and for him you made his wife Eve as a helper and support. From the two of them the race of mankind has sprung. You said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.' I now am taking this kinswoman of mine, not because of lust, but with sincerity. Grant that she and I may find mercy and that we may grow old together." And they both said, "Amen, Amen." Then they went to sleep for the night.
"The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude." Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure
The Creator himself . . . established that in the function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.
[spoiler]
Allow me to remind you what you originally responded to:
There were some interesting Christian rites before normatized Christianity. One tha remained pretty steady was the sex made the body unclean
20th century=AFTER normatized xnity. You are welcome to come back when you find something relevant to what you quoted in the first place. Good luck on your trip
Manchu wrote: I'll do my best but I don't think you answered my Wonka and I'm not totally sure what yours was getting at.
You said to tell you about Orthodoxy, und so I did. If your not sure what I'm getting at maybe you should read upthread to the person I was actually responding to originally.
It's written by one of the most well respected/known bible scholars in the world; Bart Ehrman. It speaks on how early Christian scribes deemphasized women in the church--and the various clerical errors that have been stitched together from text to text. Excellent read.
Dr.TPJ is hardly Glen Beck. Also recommend watching some of Dr. James White & Bart Ehrman's debates.
I'll try not to laugh. With such scholarly hits like "Finding God in a Galaxy Far, Far Away:A Spiritual Exploration of the Star Wars Saga," "Guide to End-Times Prophecy," and "Trained in the Fear of God: Family Ministry in Theological, Historical, and Practical Perspective" He has really established himself as a researcher of note. In other words: No, just no. I love that you hung Dr on the front of James White, I have a certificate that says I'm a spaceshuttle door gunner that I got off the internet too. His literary gems include "What's With the Mutant in the Microscope: Stuff to Know When Science Says Your Uncle Is a Monkey," and "The Same Sex Controversy: Defending and Clarifying the Bible's Message About Homosexuality." You really brought the big guns on this one. If TPJ is Glenn Beck, White is Rush Limbaugh. I mean what serious bible scholar DOESN'T check Star Wars or discard evolution as pseudo-science, oh that's right scholars
It's real easy to read a work like Ehrman's and believe him unquestionably, than to to do your own scholarly research on the subject.
You should take your own advise, start with finding scholars instead of personalities. Just so my utter scorn isn't just implied: As a contrasting point to Misquoting Jesus Jones and White are like high school math students writing in opposition to Einstein.
I can sum your whole post up as follows.
Ad Hominem.
I like how you conveniently pick 1 book of Dr. Whites and try and present him as a Limbaugh. here lets give the man proper credit shall we.
Giant block quote cut down by Mannahnin
I'm not a Dr. White apologist, but am just appalled by the way you just castigate a person as a "nonscholar" because he takes a different scholarly opinon than Ehrman. Please note how I didn't castigate or denounce Ehrman as a lunatic or idiot..just misguided.
Dr. Jones has written 32 books, but there isn't an easy way to copy paste his. Again you do the gentlemen a disservice much as you did Mr. white.
GG
I'd claim ad hominem too if the authors I used to refute an author published by the likes of Oxford and Harvard University Press(es) were solely published by evangelical publishers. The problem with ad hominem is it relys on a negative characteristic. Your pet "scholars" are a snow ball of negatives. You could bother to check through the Amazon search you did on TPJ of his 32 "books" there are several pamphlets, audio readings, and hard/soft cover alternatives for the books he HAS written. I'm sure his pamphlet "Why You Should Trust the Bible" is the penultimate expression of biblical research.
Your logical fallacy is: Argumentum Ad Verecundiam as in they don't have any to appeal to.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/22 02:43:59
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
generalgrog wrote: Again..he might be a creationist therefore he is wrong about evrything else..classic Ad hominem fallacy.
No, it's a simple recognition of the fact that people who posses the almost unimaginable levels of stupidity and poor critical thinking skills required to reject evolution tend to be less than qualified in other fields. It's just like how you probably wouldn't trust a book written by the crazy guy standing on the corner yelling to himself about government mind control rays, except the crazy guy is a calm and reasonable scholar in comparison.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Tiina Brown wrote: Discussions were held, of course, and attempts to reason were also done, but what says that any of those had any effect on the bible?
Because we have numerous essays and papers produced by various people debating the merits of various books. The Book of Peter in particular has a well documented line of debate as to its inclusion. We still have the notes from various councils as well.
It took a thousand years? As far as i know, the official design of the Bible were defined in Nice (still unsure of the spelling), and anything after that were rather to enforce that form on others.
The First council of Nicea was primarily a debate over Arianism and the exact nature of Jesus' existence on Earth. It established the Nicean Creed (but even that wasn't official until the First Council of Constantinople). The Seven Ecumenical Councils had a lot of... red tape. There was a ton of debate and consensus was reached. We know 50 Bibles were commissioned by Constantinople sometime during the Councils but their form and what books they contained is unknown (likely the same ones we have today with a few extras possibly). The Ecumenical Councils didn't deal too much with canonization. They were about doctrinal issues between various Christian sects.
The Bible we have today seems to have been in circulation by the 2nd century and widely accepted by the early church by the 3rd. The Bible as we have it today was first 'canonized' in the 4th century as the collection already known and accepted by the church, but debate concerning canon continued well into the Crusades. The Council of Trent in 1543 was when the canon was finally fully articulated and set into stone and debate ceased (though actual debate seems to have ended by the 9th or the 10th century save a few individuals).
But still, if you are correct, that just show how long it took to get people to agree on that the bible should look in a certain way, rather that defining its form.
Well as I've already said, the Bible was not originally a collection of the only true books. It had the side effect of producing a easily available and copied collection that resulted in other texts being ignored in their favor, which led to belief by later Christians that only the books in the Bible were true.
There is no known originals of the Gospels, at least ...
We don't have originals for most of the Biblical books (I don't even think we have 'original' Pauline letters. We have copies that were in distribution, supposedly during Paul's life time which would make them second or third hand copies). The oldest known text types for the Canonic Gospels are from the Alexandrian text types and date either late 1st or early to mid second century to the early 3rd.
And if they wanted to add books representing christianity, then why did they choose 4 books that says pretty much the same?
Then you don't know much about the Canonic gospels. They were each chosen specifically because they paint different pictures of the man they're about. Roughly; John is the Spiritual Jesus, Luke is the Suffering Jesus, Mark is Jesus the Man, and Matthew is Jesus the Messiah. The Synoptic Gospels were likely chosen both because they agree with one another, and because they were among the most popular Gospel texts and the most familiar to Christians as well as among the oldest available. Ironic to this conversation there is debate that the authors of Mark may have had Gnostic influence in their writing.
Why not include at least one book with sayings, such as Thomas?
Well Thomas is the only sayings book we know to exist. It's possible that Thomas itself wasn't widely known. And though Q makes a lot of sense, there's oddly no reference to such a text by the church fathers (while we do find references to books like James, Peter, and even Judas among them). The document, if it exists, was likely forgotten. Humans do prefer narratives, so the narrative Gosples probably hedged any sayings collections out. But then, that's not a huge problem either, as we assume the gospels were compiled using sayings documents as Q proposes.
And by the way, while i'm at it, if you now are so certain that the Gospel of Judas is Gnostic, then what is it about it that says so?
Because it discusses a Jesus and a spirituality in which souls are in a state of imprisonment, which is directly in line with Gnostic thought concerning souls. The book posits that Judas killed Jesus to set his soul free, so that he could then lead other humans through the Aeons. It's pretty much the entire point of Judas that Judas Iscariot was given secret knowledge by Jesus not shared with anyone else and that it concerned a specific spiritual future for humanity. Add in its gnostic leanings and that how on earth would anyone know what Judas might have been told by Jesus when he was already long dead, and you can see how this book would get dismissed. The Gospel of Judas espouses secret knowledge. It's Gnosticism bread and butter.
And "excluded for a good/understandable reason" by those people at that time, do not mean it would not have made more sense today.
True but what pisses me off is the conspiracy bull crap and the lack of understanding as to just how democratic the process that created the Bible was. Anyone claiming that early church fathers through out any text simply because it disagreed with them, is being an idiot. We have plenty of documentation of debates and discourses held concerning various books, why church fathers supported or didn't support them, and how numerous theological issues were ultimately resolved. Many of them are debatable, but most of the doctrinal debates don't stem from texts themselves but rather interpretation. Peter was solely excluded not because it was believed untrue, but because church fathers feared it was too easily mistranslated into supporting Docetism.
I don't claim we know everything anymore than I think the church fathers knew everything. They likely picked the position that made the most sense and through the debates and councils that followed cut down the diverant interpretations into what we have now. I'm just sick of the hundreds of ignorant idiots out there hell bent on grinding their biased axes without know anything about what their railing against. The issue of canonized texts is one of the most annoying debates in modern discussion of the Bible. Of course Christian theologians opposed Gnostic texts. Why wouldn't they? Gnostic theology was completely at odds with Christian thought. Of all the books we now have copies of, at least 2/3 are Gnostic and yet not including them is somehow a grand conspiracy.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/09/21 23:42:37
I'd claim ad hominem too if the authors I used to refute an author published by the likes of Oxford and Harvard University Press(es) were solely published by evangelical publishers.
Your logical fallacy is: Argumentum Ad Verecundiam as in they don't have any to appeal to.
Oh the Irony is painful....just painful.
By the way I didn't attempt to argue from authority..all I did was point out your logical fallacy that a PHD theologian's/Bible scholar's writings were equivalent to Glen Beck (a TV personality).
GG
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/22 11:49:37
LordofHats wrote: [Well as I've already said, the Bible was not originally a collection of the only true books. It had the side effect of producing a easily available and copied collection that resulted in other texts being ignored in their favor, which led to belief by later Christians that only the books in the Bible were true.
Why not include at least one book with sayings, such as Thomas?
Well Thomas is the only sayings book we know to exist. It's possible that Thomas itself wasn't widely known. And though Q makes a lot of sense, there's oddly no reference to such a text by the church fathers (while we do find references to books like James, Peter, and even Judas among them). The document, if it exists, was likely forgotten. Humans do prefer narratives, so the narrative Gosples probably hedged any sayings collections out. But then, that's not a huge problem either, as we assume the gospels were compiled using sayings documents as Q proposes.
And by the way, while i'm at it, if you now are so certain that the Gospel of Judas is Gnostic, then what is it about it that says so?
Because it discusses a Jesus and a spirituality in which souls are in a state of imprisonment, which is directly in line with Gnostic thought concerning souls. The book posits that Judas killed Jesus to set his soul free, so that he could then lead other humans through the Aeons. It's pretty much the entire point of Judas that Judas Iscariot was given secret knowledge by Jesus not shared with anyone else and that it concerned a specific spiritual future for humanity. Add in its gnostic leanings and that how on earth would anyone know what Judas might have been told by Jesus when he was already long dead, and you can see how this book would get dismissed. The Gospel of Judas espouses secret knowledge. It's Gnosticism bread and butter.
And "excluded for a good/understandable reason" by those people at that time, do not mean it would not have made more sense today.
True but what pisses me off is the conspiracy bull crap and the lack of understanding as to just how democratic the process that created the Bible was. Anyone claiming that early church fathers through out any text simply because it disagreed with them, is being an idiot. We have plenty of documentation of debates and discourses held concerning various books, why church fathers supported or didn't support them, and how numerous theological issues were ultimately resolved. Many of them are debatable, but most of the doctrinal debates don't stem from texts themselves but rather interpretation. Peter was solely excluded not because it was believed untrue, but because church fathers feared it was too easily mistranslated into supporting Docetism.
I don't claim we know everything anymore than I think the church fathers knew everything. They likely picked the position that made the most sense and through the debates and councils that followed cut down the diverant interpretations into what we have now. I'm just sick of the hundreds of ignorant idiots out there hell bent on grinding their biased axes without know anything about what their railing against. The issue of canonized texts is one of the most annoying debates in modern discussion of the Bible. Of course Christian theologians opposed Gnostic texts. Why wouldn't they? Gnostic theology was completely at odds with Christian thought. Of all the books we now have copies of, at least 2/3 are Gnostic and yet not including them is somehow a grand conspiracy.
Hmm ...
You actually proved enough of my real point as well as yours, and even though i still have some questions, i can bow out of this discussion now.
It has been informative for me as well, and that is something that is valuable to me.
However, i must point out one thing:
I never said it was wrong to exclude gnostic texts from the bible, i just pointed out the risk that valid christian texts may have been excluded because the were thought of, or defined as, Gnostic.
But, i understand that you may have gotten that impression. It is, after all, a matter of interpretation, and perhaps the fact that english isn't my first laguage has resulted im me formulating myself ... not entirely correct for you to understand what i meant.
Was once trying to make a 2D action-strategy scroller based on a mix of WH40K & MLP FiM .... but is no longer.
generalgrog wrote: By the way I didn't attempt to argue from authority..all I did was point out your logical fallacy that a PHD theologian's/Bible scholar's writings were equivalent to Glen Beck (a TV personality).
Except he's a "PHD" and "scholar" in name only. His "degree" is from an unaccredited mail-order diploma mill (IOW, its only value is as toilet paper), and the fact that he published a book disputing evolution proves that he's laughably unqualified as a scholar. Comparing him to Glen Beck is probably a bad comparison, but only because Glen Beck is actually successful and wealthy in his chosen field, while your "scholar" is just a fraud.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/22 22:02:18
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
. Nothing against the text but it struck me more as a rather long, ranty ad hominem more than a piece of scholarly text--the Amazon reviews are rather frightful. Opinions may vary of course 
