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.

 Orlanth wrote:
This reads like the script for Innocence of Muslims.

Or a porn film. Really, I think the Bible has much more potential as the script for a porn film than as a serious work of literature.

 Peregrine wrote:

Oh, and before you claim that this is unfair to the poor Christians, I'll just point out that there are plenty of accredited religious schools offering degrees in religious subjects. The only thing preventing a "scholar" from getting a real degree from one of these schools is the fact that they don't want to invest the effort required.

That, or a lack of intellectual ability.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
This reads like the script for Innocence of Muslims.

Or a porn film. Really, I think the Bible has much more potential as the script for a porn film than as a serious work of literature.

Please try to make your criticisms more polite. A fair amount of your comments in this thread have come pretty close to trolling. I'd appreciate it if you made an effort to be less inflammatory.

 Orlanth wrote:
Can you expand on that please.

The Gospel of James specifically states that Mary remained a virgin and works of Irasmus, Jerome, and Epiphainus (among others) attest to their belief in the perpetual virginity and they cite the now non-canonic Gospel of James. Peter also contains an implication to the perpetual virginity a Irasmus and Jerome note this. As you've pointed out, none of the canonic books support the doctrine, so it had to come from somewhere else obviously

 LordofHats wrote:
Sorry, but I can't buy that, its very likely Mary was Josephs only wife, polygamy was sinful and Joseph was a righteous man.. Yes several Old Testament characters practiced polygamy, such as Solomon, always with negative results. By this time AFAIK it was not usual in Jewish society to practice polygamy.

Jewish law allowed for Polygamy and Roman law despite not supporting polygamy allowed it within the region (you're right in that it wasn't common) as attested to by the works of Josephus on marriage at the time. But I meant and left out that both polygamy and previous marriages are possibilities. The Old Testament and Jewish Law do not present polygamy as sinful. That is a later Christian doctrine developed to account for different cultural needs. Augustine wrote extensively on this issue as it was an ongoing debate in the early church into the 3rd century (1st Corinthians be damned?).

Herod had multiple wives because as a Roman in Palestine the law allowed it, as did some Jewish figures of the time. Joseph as a Carpenter wouldn't have been blindingly rich, but its likely he made enough money to support 1 or 2 wives (he may have also had a previous marriage as the Bible doesn't list his age). Especially at this time, skilled artisans were short throughout the Roman Empire. A carpenter who was decently good, could make a lot of money. The Gospel of James supports this view (which of course it also supports the perpetual virginity).

EDIT: Eastern Orthodoxy supports a doctrine that Joseph had a previous marriage to a woman named Salome. I don't know what the basis for this belief is.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Can you expand on that please.

The Gospel of James specifically states that Mary remained a virgin and works of Irasmus, Jerome, and Epiphainus (among others) attest to their belief in the perpetual virginity and they cite the now non-canonic Gospel of James. Peter also contains an implication to the perpetual virginity a Irasmus and Jerome note this. As you've pointed out, none of the canonic books support the doctrine, so it had to come from somewhere else obviously

And this evidence 'overrules' Matthew 1:5 ?

I cannot see how the Catholic church draws from works considered non-canonical by its own doctrine in favour of a direct contradictory verse from established canon.

 LordofHats wrote:

Jewish law allowed for Polygamy and Roman law despite not supporting polygamy allowed it within the region (you're right in that it wasn't common) as attested to by the works of Josephus on marriage at the time. But I meant and left out that both polygamy and previous marriages are possibilities. The Old Testament and Jewish Law do not present polygamy as sinful. That is a later Christian doctrine developed to account for different cultural needs. Augustine wrote extensively on this issue as it was an ongoing debate in the early church into the 3rd century (1st Corinthians be damned?).

Polygamy is a rare case of the category of not recommended rather than the category of offense to the Lord.

 LordofHats wrote:

Herod had multiple wives because as a Roman in Palestine the law allowed it, as did some Jewish figures of the time. Joseph as a Carpenter wouldn't have been blindingly rich, but its likely he made enough money to support 1 or 2 wives (he may have also had a previous marriage as the Bible doesn't list his age). Especially at this time, skilled artisans were short throughout the Roman Empire. A carpenter who was decently good, could make a lot of money. The Gospel of James supports this view (which of course it also supports the perpetual virginity).

None of the Herods are a good example of anything except "do as I say not as I do".

We have no evidence of a second wife, only conjecture, and abjured scripture considered non canonical before the Marian doctrine came to prominence. I cannot say there was no second wife, we can say there isn't anything to pin a theology on, if, and it is if, there was a second wife she is of no more validity to the Biblical account than anyone else living at the time.

 LordofHats wrote:

EDIT: Eastern Orthodoxy supports a doctrine that Joseph had a previous marriage to a woman named Salome. I don't know what the basis for this belief is.

Some of the old stories are contemporary, especially Eastern Orthodox and Coptic stories. That doesn't mean authentic, also with healthcare being what it was Joseph could have had a first wife, and been widowed.

At best there are maybes, and they have to directly contradict established canon to do so. Sorry, I don't buy this at all. Nice discussion though.

 Orlanth wrote:
And this evidence 'overrules' Matthew 1:5 ?

I cannot see how the Catholic church draws from works considered non-canonical by its own doctrine in favour of a direct contradictory verse from established canon.

Its the darndest thing isn't it? Almost like the formulation of church doctrine was a long process with numerous view points. Remember. The Canon was not final until 1563 with the conclusion of the Council of Trent. In the first few centuries of the church much of this was up in the air for debate.

Polygamy is a rare case of the category of not recommended rather than the category of offense to the Lord.

That is a Christian view, not a Jewish one of the time period. That's an accurate summary what Augustine had to say about polygamy in the OT in the 4th century, but cut out the NT and nothing in the OT supports a view that polygamy was wrong.

We have no evidence of a second wife, only conjecture, and abjured scripture considered non canonical before the Marian doctrine came to prominence.

Oh? What canon? We're talking the 4th and 5th century. No canon existed until 1563, and the time the Marian doctrines formed was in the middle of the height of the canon debates. The early fathers didn't just read the books of the bible and believe only those books were authoritative. They read numerous now non-canonical texts and didn't necessarily believe them untrue. Listing Jesus' brothers as brothers isn't inherently claiming they're his siblings anymore than calling John the disciple he loved makes Jesus gay. Words do not always mean exactly what they say, especially in religious texts.

I do agree about the second wife though to the extent that we can never really know. I'm unaware of any text other than James that mentions any other wives and that one specifically says it was a previous marriage. But James also isn't the most reliable of texts on the subject because the author obviously supported perpetual virginity.

At best there are maybes, and they have to directly contradict established canon to do so. Sorry, I don't buy this at all. Nice discussion though.

I actually find it kind of odd that such doctrines get so much attention in the early church. In retreospec they seem kind of, trivial. Even the same substance/similar substance of Jesus Christ debate seems kind of silly to me today cause I'm not really sure why it matters to much. I mean sure if you want to understand the exact nature of Jesus Christ in his relationship to god the father it matters, but understanding that isn't a requirement for salvation. The Early church spent a lot of time dealing with questions it really didn't necessarily have to.

 LordofHats wrote:
Even the same substance/similar substance of Jesus Christ debate seems kind of silly to me today cause I'm not really sure why it matters to much. I mean sure if you want to understand the exact nature of Jesus Christ in his relationship to god the father it matters, but understanding that isn't a requirement for salvation. The Early church spent a lot of time dealing with questions it really didn't necessarily have to.

But why does any of it matter? It's like saying arguing over the color of Superman's cape in issue #30945 is a trivial detail, but arguing over the shape of the logo in issue #34650 is a deep philosophical debate. So how is it a trivial detail to argue over whether Jesus had a brother or whatever the whole "same substance/similar substance" debate is, but not a trivial detail to argue about other parts of the Bible and/or the history of how it was written? In the end it's all still just as fictional and I really don't see any reason to favor one debate over another besides personal aesthetic preference for what to argue about.

Still here with that silly analogy are you? Try reading instead of pandering and maybe you'd learn something because I answer that question in my own post. Whether Jesus had brothers, or whether Mary was always a virgin, has no bearing on salvation. They're side questions that might be interesting in a purely theological sense, but in retrospect hold no practical value to the typical believer, i.e. knowing the correct answer to those questions bears no consequences on human salvation. Hence they're trivial when compared to questions like work based or faith based salvation.

 Jihadin wrote:
Is God republican, democrat, or independent?

A forum moderator of course


Well we veered perilously close to the precipice but appeared to have steered back to safety.

Whilst the odd joke or light hearted comment is fine and dandy, please bear in mind that on topics like this other posters are quite likely to have differing values and opinions and what to you is meant as a bit of fun might wind up being needlessly offensive to others, just take a moment a'fore posting. keeps the forum, nay the world itself p'raps, a cheerier place.

Thanks !

 LordofHats wrote:
Whether Jesus had brothers, or whether Mary was always a virgin, has no bearing on salvation.

Sure it does. Let's set aside all the other overwhelming reasons to believe that the Bible is entirely a work of fiction and consider the brother issue. How many people consider the Bible and/or their church doctrine to be the absolute work of god? Lots of them. So now we consider an argument that church doctrine and/or the Bible could be wrong. If it's true, it completely destroys the "infallible" word of god argument that their faith depends on and casts serious doubt on everything else the Bible says.

Or consider the entire catholic church, with that pesky little problem in their doctrine where the church is infallible and speaking through god. If they're wrong about Mary being a virgin it absolutely disproves their claim to be the infallible voice of god on earth, and that's hardly a trivial detail. And this isn't some little 10-person ultra-fundamentalist church we're talking about either.

They're side questions that might be interesting in a purely theological sense, but in retrospect hold no practical value to the typical believer, i.e. knowing the correct answer to those questions bears no consequences on human salvation. Hence they're trivial when compared to questions like work based or faith based salvation.

Except for the tiny little detail that god doesn't exist and salvation is just a comforting myth. The exact method of salvation is just another detail in a fictional work, possibly of interest to devoted fans of that work but not really a serious philosophical debate. Nothing in the real world depends on it, and there's no compelling reason to argue about it one way or another unless you just happen to like discussing that aspect of a work of literature. And once you're considering some details like that, what reason is there to exclude other arguments from the field of "legitimate" discussion about that work?

(And yes, I know that individual people may feel strongly about some issues but not others, my point is that it's just personal aesthetic preference and there's no good reason to say that one issue is more important than others. Just like we don't say one literary critic (in an academic context) is bad for focusing on small details of a work while another is good because they prefer to discuss broad themes.)

Still grinding axes and missing the subtlety of nuance I see. Stay classy.

 LordofHats wrote:
Still grinding axes and missing the subtlety of nuance I see. Stay classy.

What nuance is there? All I see is your personal aesthetic preference for spending your free time considering certain questions and not others, and a lot of debate over who gets to decide the "official" version of a bunch of events where there's no reason to believe they ever happened at all.


Edit: I forgot the funny part where someone claimed that a "degree" from a mail-order diploma mill qualifies you as a "scholar". That was actually pretty good.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
And this evidence 'overrules' Matthew 1:5 ?

I cannot see how the Catholic church draws from works considered non-canonical by its own doctrine in favour of a direct contradictory verse from established canon.

Its the darndest thing isn't it? Almost like the formulation of church doctrine was a long process with numerous view points. Remember. The Canon was not final until 1563 with the conclusion of the Council of Trent. In the first few centuries of the church much of this was up in the air for debate.

The canon was established in 367 and remained unchanged from that point, though it took a little while longer for the Eastern Orthodox to accept the Book of Revelations. The Council of Trent was just a rubber stamp needed to authorise a Catholic bible in response to Lutheran disputes, it was a name change and didn't affect actual canon.
The first council of Nicaea also cemented most of the canon we had to day, most of the apocryphal texts were eliminated before the 3rd century.

The only notable differences between the churches regards the inclusion of which Old Testament books. the formal Catholic Apocrypha neatly includes those tests not included in the standard Protestant Bible in seperation.

 LordofHats wrote:

I actually find it kind of odd that such doctrines get so much attention in the early church. In retreospec they seem kind of, trivial. Even the same substance/similar substance of Jesus Christ debate seems kind of silly to me today cause I'm not really sure why it matters to much. I mean sure if you want to understand the exact nature of Jesus Christ in his relationship to god the father it matters, but understanding that isn't a requirement for salvation. The Early church spent a lot of time dealing with questions it really didn't necessarily have to.

Both Marys are important as they show women in positions of importance and reverance in the church, and there are claims they were subject to revisionism by those who wanted to limit authority of women.
Priscilla is largely ignored, yet her church leadership role in the book of Acts is plainly described.

 Orlanth wrote:
The canon was established in 367 and remained unchanged from that point,

I don't consider the announcement of a single Bishop authoritative as to the canon, especially not when his reason was that "these are the ones everyone reads so these are the ones we'll use" and we have evidence of continuing debate as to canon going on after his announcement. In 380, Gregory produced a canon that didn't include Revelation. In 394, Amphilochius of Iconium wrote about debate over a canon that didn't include 1st or 2nd Peter, Jude, or Revelation. Cassiodorus rejected the same books in a canon list in the 6th century. There are canon lists into the 8th century that omit Revelation. Jude, 1, 2, 3 John, Revelation, James, and 1 and 3 Peter were being debated in the seventh century. The Maccabees and Tobit were being debated in the eighth.

Also don't know where you heard that about Nicaea. Only a single source attests to any canon being debated by the first council and it only attests to Judith's acceptance.

Both Marys are important as they show women in positions of importance and reverance in the church, and there are claims they were subject to revisionism by those who wanted to limit authority of women.

The Mary's are more important than Priscilla or Junia? Not sure I'd agree that they really had any positions of importance. Women followed Rabbis. It's not like Jesus was rocking the boat by hanging out with women (He rocked it because he accepted a prostitute as a disciple).

I've honestly not convinced of the issues with Pauline Epistles and Women. I definitely agree that Timothy was not written by Paul, but Corinthians? There's no evidence that it was altered, just a baseless assumption based on another baseless assumption that Paul was more approving of women than is traditionally believed. It centers around Paul calling men and women equal in the eyes of god but then saying that women can't be ordained. If I had a dime for every instance in history where 'equal' meant something other than the modern conception of equality, I'd be up at least $3.

LordofHats wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Matthew is pretty explicit in naming Jesus' brothers

Um, no. Matthew is explicit in naming Jesus' familial lineage through his parents. Its ambiguous as to any potential siblings. There are versus that say he has brothers and sisters, but it was common practice among Jews that cousins and close relatives of the same age be referred to as brothers and sisters, so whether those are Mary's children is unclear (once the doctrine of perpetual virginity was established the answer for the church became no). The interpretation that they are merely close relatives makes sense though since Matthew was written to a Jewish audience (but its still ambiguous). But of course Mark also says he had brothers and sisters and Mark was written to a gentile audience. Another possibility is that they are Joseph's children through a previous marriage, but no evidence for that theory exists.

There isn't enough information available from the texts to definitively determine one way or the other. That said, the Doctrine of Perpetual Virginity was a later addition to church doctrine and it would seem, odd, for Mary to only have one child. It's impossible to determine the historical status of James, Jose, Simon, and Judas in relation to Jesus. It thus becomes a purely doctrinal problem (and a silly one at times).

I know that someone else already posted this but:
Matthew 13:55(NIV)Isn’t this the carpenter’s son? Isn’t his mother’s name Mary, and aren’t his brothers James, Joseph, Simon and Judas?
I don't know about you but generally when I talk about someone's family I don't mention his/her parents by name and then randomly name their cousins without their own parents. By logical inference this is a description of Jesus' nuclear family. Linguistically and culturally Jews of this time period were Hellenistic, and Greeks have a delineation between cousins and brothers that Jews did not. After more than three centuries of Hellenization its ridiculous to say the disciples couldn't differentiate between close family and cousins of varying degrees, and the Greek words for each.

I seem to recall at least one apocraphy Thomas is Jesus' twin which is...problematic.

None of the Canonic or Apocraphal books accepted by the Christianity today list any twins for Jesus.

Yeah, that must be why it's apocryphal. It's the Acts of Thomas where Jesus is portrayed not just as Thomas' twin but his identical twin. Elaine Pagels has postulated that the doubling of the Hebrew and Greek words for twin in the introduction to the Gospel of Thomas implies that he is the twin of Jesus.

Peregrine wrote:
Except for the tiny little detail that god doesn't exist and salvation is just a comforting myth.

If you believe this why click on a thread that is obviously about religion?

 AustonT wrote:

Peregrine wrote:
Except for the tiny little detail that god doesn't exist and salvation is just a comforting myth.

If you believe this why click on a thread that is obviously about religion?

Because I like asking questions and seeing religious people fail to answer them? Because I think it's amusing that disagreement over canon policy in one fictional work is a deep philosophical debate, while disagreement in other fictional works is written off as obsessive geeks arguing about stupid trivia?

 AustonT wrote:
After more than three centuries of Hellenization its ridiculous to say the disciples couldn't differentiate between close family and cousins of varying degrees, and the Greek words for each.

Gee and here I thought the Jews were still writing in Hebrew and Aramaic and still capable of speaking their own language. Hellenization isn't everyone became Greek. It's everyone became more Greekish. Mark and Matthew were probably not written by any of Jesus' disciples but pulled together from early sources (one of Matthew's is MarK). You can see the effect of Hellenization on the Jews in Daniel and its not that great. The Jews heavily rejected Hellenization in the 2nd and 1st century BCE. Lots of sources outside of Palestine from Babylon to Persia and Egypt Greece and Roman attest to the cultural stubbornness of the ancient Jews. It's ridiculous to assume that because a people lived under Greek rule that they accepted every single aspect of Greek Culture while maintaining none of their own, especially not under Hellenization which was as much other cultures mixing in with Greek as it was Greek spreading through the ancient world.

Yeah, that must be why it's apocryphal. It's the Acts of Thomas where Jesus is portrayed not just as Thomas' twin but his identical twin. Elaine Pagels has postulated that the doubling of the Hebrew and Greek words for twin in the introduction to the Gospel of Thomas implies that he is the twin of Jesus.

Its not even aprocryphal for Christians, hence why I said Christian text. Acts of Thomas as we have it now is a Gnostic text. Much like Judas it deals with a doctrine of secret knowledge and freeing the soul from Captivity. It's also horribly unlikely we have the original version. We've found fragments of the text with sections not in the complete versions we have. At some point in time Acts of Thomas underwent heavy editing. Textual criticism of the text also reveals as many as five different authors. The two theories are that Acts of Thomas was originally a Syriac Christian text that was Gnosticized in the 4th century, or that it was a Gnostic text that underwent redactions at some point.

The book you are looking for is called Thomas the Contender (ignore Elena Pagels on this, her book was stupidly dumb in handling the twin thing). A partially complete gnostic text from the Nag Hammadi library which contains a line where Jesus identifies Thomas as his twin. But why should we accept the words of a single book that claims one of Jesus' apostles was also his twin brother when no other book in Christian or Gnosticism identifies Jesus as having a twin, let alone that it was Thomas? Let alone a text likely written sometime in the 4th century. Some gnostics likely saw Thomas was not only called a twin but that his name also means twin and ran with it as one of their super secrets, possibly diluting the only Christian text chronicling the eastern ministry and destroying its original version.

If you believe this why click on a thread that is obviously about religion?

Because then he'd never get to cry fantasy and no one would know how much he doesn't believe?

 LordofHats wrote:
Because then he'd never get to cry fantasy and no one would know how much he doesn't believe?

Yeah, how rude of me to interrupt a discussion of complex details of the emperor's fashion choices by pointing out that he's naked.

Part of being an enlightened super-atheist consists of telling everybody how awesome smart they are.

Not all that different than a person who found Jesus telling all their friends about it.

Atheists and evangelicals are more alike than either of us like to admit.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
The canon was established in 367 and remained unchanged from that point,

I don't consider the announcement of a single Bishop authoritative as to the canon, especially not when his reason was that "these are the ones everyone reads so these are the ones we'll use" and we have evidence of continuing debate as to canon going on after his announcement. In 380, Gregory produced a canon that didn't include Revelation. In 394, Amphilochius of Iconium wrote about debate over a canon that didn't include 1st or 2nd Peter, Jude, or Revelation. Cassiodorus rejected the same books in a canon list in the 6th century. There are canon lists into the 8th century that omit Revelation. Jude, 1, 2, 3 John, Revelation, James, and 1 and 3 Peter were being debated in the seventh century. The Maccabees and Tobit were being debated in the eighth.

The single bishop' Athanasius set the 27 books of the New Testament, cince that time the New testament has not changed, this was agreed with by the church of the time, by Augustine and the Councils of Carthage.

The Council of Trent did nothing to change this. Until the Council of Trent canonicity of the 27 includes scriptures was up for debate, but not actual change. What the council did was remove the debate, it didn't add or subtract any. The New Testament of 367 was the New Testament of today in the Catholic church, and most others.

Any attempt to use the bible pre-Council of Trent to back up the doctrine of using non canonical scriptures is futile. ALL the works used to back up 'perpetual virginity' have been rejected at least from 367, indeed the New Testament has been mostly stablilised since about c200. However perpetual virginity is absolutely refuted in Matthew 1:5, you can choose to argue for perpetual virginity but only by first acknowledging that it is directly contrary to Scripture.

It wouldn't be the sole Catholic teaching that runs completely contrary to Biblical teaching. Praying to saints is also forbidden etc. I can say you are wrong on a point of scripture, but thats as far as I take it. Wars have been fought over gak like this, I much prefer to look at another denomination that has doctrines that misread a verse or two as fellow brothers in Christ instead of rivals. So long as the doctrine salvation by belief and profession of Jesus death for sin and resurrection is preached I dont care as much about anything else.

 LordofHats wrote:

I've honestly not convinced of the issues with Pauline Epistles and Women. I definitely agree that Timothy was not written by Paul, but Corinthians? There's no evidence that it was altered, just a baseless assumption based on another baseless assumption that Paul was more approving of women than is traditionally believed. It centers around Paul calling men and women equal in the eyes of god but then saying that women can't be ordained. If I had a dime for every instance in history where 'equal' meant something other than the modern conception of equality, I'd be up at least $3.

A lot of the hangups over Paul would go away if it was understood that the epistles were letters to individual churches. Paul was happy to visit Priscilla and Aquillas joint ministry without remving Priscilla. Corinth was a strange place, it was the wordlwide headquarters of the cult of Aphrodite Pornae, which explains itself in its title. Priestesses of Aphrodite shaved their heads, and that explains the charge for Christian women in Corinth to grow their hair. Greeks educated themselves to a very high degree by for the times but only the menfolk were educated, this explains the teaching restrictions and silencing questions by women. No wonder the book of Romans was different, Roman women had more power more authority and an education Greek women purposefully lacked.

However perpetual virginity is absolutely refuted in Matthew 1:5, you can choose to argue for perpetual virginity but only by first acknowledging that it is directly contrary to Scripture.

If you looked back in the thread you'd see I agreed perpetual virginity was a crock posts ago. What I reject is the idea that there is a fine line in the 1st Millennium CE that can be drawn for the finalization of canon. The Canon was NOT closed (despite what Augustine thought) to the early church at any point till at least the Crusades when debate seemed to have ceased. The church fathers were discussing the value of texts for centuries and this resulted in some unusual texts and some contradictory doctrines working their way. I was trying to explain where perpetual virginity came from and why it persisted. I was not trying to argue that it was true.

Also, the Synod of Hippo, the first of Augustine's councils rejected Revelation. Revelation was not accepted by Augustine's councils until the second council of Carthage in 419.

A lot of the hangups over Paul would go away if it was understood that the epistles were letters to individual churches. Paul was happy to visit Priscilla and Aquillas joint ministry without remving Priscilla. Corinth was a strange place, it was the wordlwide headquarters of the cult of Aphrodite Pornae, which explains itself in its title. Priestesses of Aphrodite shaved their heads, and that explains the charge for Christian women in Corinth to grow their hair. Greeks educated themselves to a very high degree by for the times but only the menfolk were educated, this explains the teaching restrictions and silencing questions by women. No wonder the book of Romans was different, Roman women had more power more authority and an education Greek women purposefully lacked.

Seconded.

 Peregrine wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Because then he'd never get to cry fantasy and no one would know how much he doesn't believe?

Yeah, how rude of me to interrupt a discussion of complex details of the emperor's fashion choices by pointing out that he's naked.

Ok Peregrine we get it..we ALL get it.... you don't believe in God or a God, or you have a lack of belief in a God(however you like to put it). I'm guessing that you are age 16 to 18 by the way you delight in "enlightening" us Religious types..(nevermind that your belief system is based on a set of assumptions that you will never admit to)

Here is a little hint..we have all heard it before.. and by your continual parroting of athiest rhetoric, which you probably read from a Hitchens or Dawkins book, or some other website, you really do not do yourself or side any service.

GG.

 Peregrine wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
Because then he'd never get to cry fantasy and no one would know how much he doesn't believe?

Yeah, how rude of me to interrupt a discussion of complex details of the emperor's fashion choices by pointing out that he's naked.

When a group of people are engaged in a conversation over fashion choices of a naked emperor, you have to ask yourself: "do they know that he's naked?"

It's a little presumptuous to assume that you are the only one that can see, right?

Interrupting a conversation is still rude, right? Sharing an insight that everybody has heard isn't pivotal.

I have no beef with atheism. As rational beings, there's no problem in deciding that faith is unwise. As beings of conscious, there's no logical flaw in deciding that there is a guiding force to the universe. But as beings of empathy, we can all agree that being a prick about your choice isn't cool.

 generalgrog wrote:
Ok Peregrine we get it..we ALL get it.... you don't believe in God or a God, or you have a lack of belief in a God(however you like to put it). I'm guessing that you are age 16 to 18 by the way you delight in "enlightening" us Religious types..(nevermind that your belief system is based on a set of assumptions that you will never admit to)

Oh good, the classic "atheism requires faith too" argument. Hasn't this one been disproved enough times already?

(Hint: all of the assumptions that atheism is based on are shared by every religion and, in fact, by every sane person who wants any hope of interacting with the world around them. The same is not true of religion, which makes an endless list of assumptions that are not required or shared by other belief systems.)

 Polonius wrote:
Interrupting a conversation is still rude, right?

Not when you have something legitimate to say. For example, criticizing someone for dismissing some questions of theology as "pointless trivia" while insisting that others are serious philosophical debates. Or dismissing comic book fandom as "obsessive geeks" like society as a whole does, but treating obsessive discussion of canon policy for another fictional work as a newsworthy event that deserves the highest level of respect. Why should these ridiculous statements go unchallenged?

And also, it's a forum. You know, the place where you have public discussions. It's not like I'm interrupting a private conversation, or even interrupting a discussion on a forum explicitly intended to be a community with shared beliefs.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Interrupting a conversation is still rude, right?

Not when you have something legitimate to say. For example, criticizing someone for dismissing some questions of theology as "pointless trivia" while insisting that others are serious philosophical debates. Or dismissing comic book fandom as "obsessive geeks" like society as a whole does, but treating obsessive discussion of canon policy for another fictional work as a newsworthy event that deserves the highest level of respect. Why should these ridiculous statements go unchallenged?

And also, it's a forum. You know, the place where you have public discussions. It's not like I'm interrupting a private conversation, or even interrupting a discussion on a forum explicitly intended to be a community with shared beliefs.

You used the word interrupt, not me. But yes, even a public conversation can be interrupted. It's not like Ron Paul and Ralph Nader can crash the presidential debates and claim they're simply entering a public discussion.

As long as you assume that all aspects of theology are equally worthless, nobody can convince you that there are points worth arguing and those that are pointless. You've made your decision and won't listen to any rationale. Good job keeping an open mind. Nobody is saying that theology needs to be important to you, any more than, say, the finer points of astrophysics need to be important to you. That doesn't mean they aren't important to others.

I'll let you in on a secret: religion is important to society because it's important to many of the people in it. And not important like a football game you have $20 on. I mean, important because it is a central part of the way a person interacts with the world, and understands life.

You think that's stupid, and that's fine. But you're not going to convince theists that god isn't important, and most moral atheists understand the importance of religion in the lives of the religious.

So, even if you want to reduce it to fanboyism. there's large and small areas of important in any area. The exact shade of superman's cape is less important than his powers, which in turn is less important than his moral stance on using those powers. If superman decided to use his powers to bring about an Objectivist utopia, that would dramatically change the nature of superman. If superman gained the ability to moved objects through telekinesis, that changes his skill set, but he's the same superman. If he changes to a scarlet cape... that's a pretty superifical change.

 LordofHats wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
After more than three centuries of Hellenization its ridiculous to say the disciples couldn't differentiate between close family and cousins of varying degrees, and the Greek words for each.

Gee and here I thought the Jews were still writing in Hebrew and Aramaic and still capable of speaking their own language. Hellenization isn't everyone became Greek. It's everyone became more Greekish. Mark and Matthew were probably not written by any of Jesus' disciples but pulled together from early sources (one of Matthew's is MarK). You can see the effect of Hellenization on the Jews in Daniel and its not that great. The Jews heavily rejected Hellenization in the 2nd and 1st century BCE. Lots of sources outside of Palestine from Babylon to Persia and Egypt Greece and Roman attest to the cultural stubbornness of the ancient Jews. It's ridiculous to assume that because a people lived under Greek rule that they accepted every single aspect of Greek Culture while maintaining none of their own, especially not under Hellenization which was as much other cultures mixing in with Greek as it was Greek spreading through the ancient world.

If the Jews, especially the disciples of Christ were so resistant to Hellenization why was the New Testament written in Greek, why does Paul quote from the Septuagint instead of the bible in Hebrew? By the time Jesus was born more Jews were capable of reading and writing in Greek than in Aramaic or Hebrew. It's very evident that the Jews were capable of understanding the nuances of the language and relationships as we are aware that Barnabas is John Mark's cousin and not his "brother." I can specifically quote it if you think its necessary but by the time Rome conquered the Hasmoneans Judaism was inseparable from the Hellenization of Palestine. Cultural stubbornness perhaps, but outright ignorance of a language spoken nearly daily for nearly 400 years. No

Its not even aprocryphal for Christians

If you haven't figured out why this doesn't make sense, I cannot help you.

 AustonT wrote:
If the Jews, especially the disciples of Christ were so resistant to Hellenization why was the New Testament written in Greek, why does Paul quote from the Septuagint instead of the bible in Hebrew?

Probably has something to do with most of the authors of the books not being Jewish? John Mark was from North Africa for example. Paul was born in Turkey. Acts was written by Gentiles for Gentiles. Its not shocking it would use the Greek term for Cousin in relation to John Mark and Barnabas. Matthew was written by a Jew for Jews. Knowing that Jews had used the term in this manner its possible the author of Matthew also used it in the same manner to appeal to his audience.

And not all the books of the Church were written in Greek. Many were written in Aramaic and Syriac.

Cultural stubbornness perhaps, but outright ignorance of a language spoken nearly daily for nearly 400 years.

There is a difference between choosing to use words in one sense due to cultural tradition and being ignorant of their technical meaning.

If you haven't figured out why this doesn't make sense, I cannot help you.

There are 0 references to Acts of Thomas until Epiphanius briefly notes its existence in the 5th century (probably because of the Nestorian Crisis) and Gregory translates it in the 6th only for it to be ignored by pretty much everyone. It is never mentioned again until the Council of Trent which declared it heretical. I can only assume you're just throwing around the word apocrypha without knowing what it means and what kinds of books constitute the category with regards to canon.

 LordofHats wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
If the Jews, especially the disciples of Christ were so resistant to Hellenization why was the New Testament written in Greek, why does Paul quote from the Septuagint instead of the bible in Hebrew?

Probably has something to do with most of the authors of the books not being Jewish? John Mark was from North Africa for example. Paul was born in Turkey. Acts was written by Gentiles for Gentiles. Its not shocking it would use the Greek term for Cousin in relation to John Mark and Barnabas. Matthew was written by a Jew for Jews. Knowing that Jews had used the term in this manner its possible the author of Matthew also used it in the same manner to appeal to his audience.

And not all the books of the Church were written in Greek. Many were written in Aramaic and Syriac.

You're joking right because I want you to be joking. Paul was a Pharisee and Jews were in North Africa in the 6th century BC. There were literally hundreds of thousands of Jews living in North Africa from Alexandria to Carthage. Not just most ALL of the authors of the canon were Jews. Which books of the canon were written originally in Aramaic or Syriac?

I can only assume you're just throwing around the word apocrypha without knowing what it means and what kinds of books constitute the category with regards to canon.

It's funny this encapsulates how I feel you are using the word apocrypha.

Wikipedia wrote:The early 3rd century text called Acts of Thomas is one of the New Testament apocrypha

Catholic Encyclopedia wrote:Acts of St. Thomas

No Apostolic apocryphon has reached us in a completeness equal to that of the Thomas Acts.

There are 0 references to Acts of Thomas until Epiphanius briefly notes its existence in the 5th century

And lets get to this. Epiphanius wrote the Panerion around 375 +/- 2 years Which is the 4th century and the Acts of Thomas were suppressed by name in 367, hense Nag Hammadi. It doesn't really matter when it was written it is still numbered among the apocryphal texts.

 AustonT wrote:
You're joking right because I want you to be joking. Paul was a Pharisee and Jews were in North Africa in the 6th century BC. There were literally hundreds of thousands of Jews living in North Africa from Alexandria to Carthage. Not just most ALL of the authors of the canon were Jews. Which books of the canon were written originally in Aramaic or Syriac?

Meh. Not joking. Brains was going out on me (EDIT: Being honest I've got so much going on up there I'm surprised I don't screw up like that more often). Though by certain irony Thomas was probably originally written in Syraic.

My point in identifying Paul as being born in turkey and John Mark in North Africa is to point out the difference in their origin relative to the author of Matthew, which compounds on top of the audiences they were writing for. For Paul. Mark might not have written anything.

The early 3rd century text called Acts of Thomas is one of the New Testament apocrypha

The joys of Wiki and religion escape. Also, the 3rd century bit in that opening sentence references the likely time of the writing of the original text (which also happens to be wrong it could be from the mid 2nd). Read the following sentence and then stop reading Wikipedia for information on the early church. Have you read the Apocrypha article? It's a giant mess of contradictory uses of the term "apocrypha" because no one can keep straight which sense of the word their using. EDIT: And for the love of god never go to the article on the Temple, 1st or 2nd.

Catholic Encyclopedia wrote:Acts of St. Thomas

No Apostolic apocryphon has reached us in a completeness equal to that of the Thomas Acts.

This is actually laughable. Acts of Thomas is probably the biggest mess of any text. People like to throw around additions made to books and alterations with no evidence they occurred but Thomas is nothing but a massive edit job and somehow everyone ignores that when discussing the book. As many as four different versions produced by different groups in three different languages, and no one can tell which is the original or if the original even exists anymore. Not my definition of complete. I suppose if you consider there aren't that many other apostolic works other than Thomas of Thomas's scale that might work.

It doesn't really matter when it was written it is still numbered among the apocryphal texts.

If you want to use apocryphal in the sense of "every text written/read ever" go ahead but that sense is meaningless as to whether or not the text was afforded any value by the church. The early church classified and categorized apocryphal texts. Thomas was never classified by anyone under any category in any source available to us, which is considerably remarkable since we have classifications for dozens of other texts including ones we don't have copies of.

I'd like a source for that suppression. I'm not an expert by any standard, but I've read plenty and I've never found any reference to a direct suppression of Thomas (ignoring that suppression probably means being declared heretical and would remove it from the apocrypha anyway). I think you're confusing it again with Thomas the Contender, which some have proposed is the lost Gospel of Matthias which was suppressed in the 4th century.

Being declared heretical sets a text into its own category of 'worth absolutely nothing" and there's no reason to consider Thomas as having any meaning to Orthodox Christians at any point in time. It probably only meant something to the Nestorians who likely produced the Syraic redacted version.

 LordofHats wrote:


Meh. Not joking. Brains was going out on me (EDIT: Being honest I've got so much going on up there I'm surprised I don't screw up like that more often). Though by certain irony Thomas was probably originally written in Syraic.

It happens to all of us, I figured something like that was going on. I was aware that AoT was written in Syriac too that's why I asked what canon books were written in Aramaic or Syriac, the answer we are looking for here is none. Only books in the apocrophon are confirmed to have originated in Semitic languages.

My point in identifying Paul as being born in turkey and John Mark in North Africa is to point out the difference in their origin relative to the author of Matthew, which compounds on top of the audiences they were writing for. For Paul. Mark might not have written anything.

It's a fair point to make I suppose but contextually it makes no difference. In antiquity Jews were Jews. That's not to say they were homogenous, but the society of the Jews always has been and always will be deeply interconnected. That's why the Talmud that was largely received by Jews on the whole was the Babylonian Talmud and not the Jerusalem Talmud. It's why Jews the world over wrote to Alexandria, Cordoba, and Antioch instead of Palestine. Obviously I'm stretching the timeline to make a point. Paul and Matthew had more in common than they didn't. Not just because regardless of where he was born Paul was a child of Jerusalem.

The early 3rd century text called Acts of Thomas is one of the New Testament apocrypha

The joys of Wiki and religion escape. Also, the 3rd century bit in that opening sentence references the likely time of the writing of the original text (which also happens to be wrong it could be from the mid 2nd). Read the following sentence and then stop reading Wikipedia for information on the early church.

I don't read Wikipedia unless I have to, and my information on the early church comes from a formal background in religious history. For you to tell me not to read Wikipedia for information on the early church is insulting at best given your repeated assertion that the text we are discussing is not apocryphal and your continued belief that the church has to accept a book for it to be apocryphal, as evidenced later in this very post. It's useful to pull text from wiki when it's cited because it saves me having to transcribe from a book in my lap, not to mention finding the book. This quotation is, however correct, AoT is positively dated to the early 3rd and tentatively dated as early as the mid 2nd century.

Catholic Encyclopedia wrote:Acts of St. Thomas

No Apostolic apocryphon has reached us in a completeness equal to that of the Thomas Acts.

This is actually laughable. Acts of Thomas is probably the biggest mess of any text. People like to throw around additions made to books and alterations with no evidence they occurred but Thomas is nothing but a massive edit job and somehow everyone ignores that when discussing the book. As many as four different versions produced by different groups in three different languages, and no one can tell which is the original or if the original even exists anymore. Not my definition of complete. I suppose if you consider there aren't that many other apostolic works other than Thomas of Thomas's scale that might work.

It's not laughable at all, so many version of AoT have been found in so many languages that it is easy to determine which versions are divergent, redacted, or incomplete. As opposed to say the Apocalypse of Peter which cannot be confirmed by cross examining editions.

It doesn't really matter when it was written it is still numbered among the apocryphal texts.

If you want to use apocryphal in the sense of "every text written/read ever" go ahead but that sense is meaningless as to whether or not the text was afforded any value by the church.

Yeah silly me using the actual definition of the word apocrypha instead of making my own up, if you want to be childish about it none of the Christian texts are apocryphal at all, because the word originally refers to the 14 books included in the Septuagint. The actual definition of apocryphal is:
Various religious writings of uncertain origin regarded by some as inspired, but rejected by most authorities.
It has literally nothing to do with the codification or lack thereof of the church. Simply Christian writings not in the canon. You know the definition religious historians have agreed upon for more than a century.

Being declared heretical sets a text into its own category of 'worth absolutely nothing"

And we'll end with that: this statement is rubbish.