Originally posted by UncleRobbHad a brief look at Marcus Borg and again, looks like I've got a lot of reading to do...
...In a way, what it all boils down to is your definition of truth. Can a statement be true, even if it is not factual?...
Having said that, your statement above is scary - do you mean if a statement is wrongly attributed, does it matter if the content is meaningful/true? I don't think so - which is the last part of my first post :- Are we still able to 'read' the Bible?
Can we extract the knowledge / information about ourselves / others / relationships etc all aspects of humanity (pain, affection, love, betrayal, hurt, empathy, healing) and understand what all these people were trying to tell us about what their experiences were.... without getting bogged down in dogma etc... We have many other books today that have today's experiences, but not a lot where ideas on how best to live life have been tested through generations.
Originally posted by Conrau KUm. There is evidence as to what Q contained. The evidence is in
What are you talking about? There is no evidence as to what the Q source is. There is some debate as to whether it even exists (assuming still that you accept the four source hypothesis). And assuming that it does exist, and eschewing any discussion on what it might have been, it really isn't that difficult to extrapolate what it would have contained (err d ...[text shortened]... ource was postulated?)
And how might the Q source negate the authenticity of the Gospel's?
Sts Matthew and Luke, as well as St Thomas. Except among those
scholars with axes to grind (i.e., work off of a framework that the
Bible is an inspired work rather than treating it like any ancient text),
there is almost no debate about the two-source theory.
Q wouldn't negate the 'authenticity' of the Gospels, anyway. Even if
we found an unadulterated Q source from, say 50 CE, the Gospels
would remain composite texts representing a particular author's
viewpoint on what they thought Jesus was in relation to them. I mean,
even without Q, we can deduce that Sts Matthew and Luke had
different theological redactions to the same saying (consider the
beatitudes!). They were editors, and of this there can be no reasonable
debate.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Conrau K
While I agree that some communities would have rejected John's gospel, John's gospel is reasonably faithful to the accepted Jesus narrative that the apostles promulgated.
St John's biographical material is irreconcilable with that of the
Synoptics. The theological material and the way in which Jesus
presents it is totally different (but not utterly irreconcilable).
Sure, each gospel espouses its own theologies, but they are fairly similar in the fundamentals. My point was that the gnostics are not consistent with the teachings of the apostles and hence must be rejected.
You are speaking of Gnosticism as if it had clearly-defined
theological dogmas and doctrines. Various sects of Gnosticism might
have utterly different theological viewpoints. Unless you are widely
familiar with the multiferious theologies which comprise Gnosticism,
I doubt that you can make your claim with any sort of certainty.
For example, can you provide a citation from a specific Gnostic text
which you feel is utterly irreconcilable with Orthodox theology?
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioI'm pretty sure I said there's evidence as to what Q contained (assuming that it is existed). That's standard source criticism. And I was arguing that Q wouldn't negate the authenticity of the gospels too. Why are you attacking me?
Um. There is evidence as to what Q contained. The evidence is in
Sts Matthew and Luke, as well as St Thomas. Except among those
scholars with axes to grind (i.e., work off of a framework that the
Bible is an inspired work rather than treating it like any ancient text),
there is almost no debate about the two-source theory.
Q wouldn't negate the ...[text shortened]... beatitudes!). They were editors, and of this there can be no reasonable
debate.
Nemesio
There's is one thing though I do disagree with. Matthew and Luke were more than editors. Luke particularly has a strong sense of authorship. I think that the scholar, Tannehil, treats the gospels more as literature than as redactions.
Originally posted by NemesioIn short, yes! I am interested in finding out more about this subject and as one who seems to have travelled this road (a fair bit it seems from the posts!) I would appreciate pointers as the better sources...
..... I would be happy to provide you with a
few citations.
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioSt John's biographical material is irreconcilable with that of the
Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]While I agree that some communities would have rejected John's gospel, John's gospel is reasonably faithful to the accepted Jesus narrative that the apostles promulgated.
St John's biographical material is irreconcilable with that of the
Synoptics. The theological material and the way in which Jesus
presen ...[text shortened]... fic Gnostic text
which you feel is utterly irreconcilable with Orthodox theology?
Nemesio[/b]
Synoptics.
Definitely. But if we reduced all the gospels to one-hundred words, there would be little variation. IT might go something like: Galilean ministry --> Journey narative --> Ministry in Jerusalem --> Passion --> Resurrection stories. The gnostics on the otherhand contravene most of this.
You are speaking of Gnosticism as if it had clearly-defined
theological dogmas and doctrines.
Not at all. It's just that they're all so different in both theology and narrative,
For example, can you provide a citation from a specific Gnostic text
which you feel is utterly irreconcilable with Orthodox theology?
I wouldn't want to bog down the discussion with theology. My point was that many of the gnostics depict a Jesus irreconcilable with the one presented by the apostles and missionaries.
Originally posted by no1marauderArguing that certain people are the apostles because they taught a creed that was subsequently accepted as the Apostolic Creed is circular.
Arguing that certain people are the apostles because they taught a creed that was subsequently accepted as the Apostolic Creed is circular. I suggest you read Nemesio's posts again. The fact is that Gnosticism was probably more popular than the Pertine Kerygma at various points in early Church history; the doctrines of Marcion and Valentinus seem to have been held by the majority of Christians at various points.
Technically not. I suggest you look up the definition of circular. But I get the insinuation none the less.
I would first dispute that the gnostic were popular (and where would they have been popular?) There is evidence as close to 180CE that the synoptics were in popular use. And before I try to debate with you, how exactly do you define the "Church"?
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KCan you provide an example of such an irreconcilable viewpoint (and
I wouldn't want to bog down the discussion with theology. My point was that many of the gnostics depict a Jesus irreconcilable with the one presented by the apostles and missionaries.
which Gnostic source supports it)?
Originally posted by Conrau KOriginally posted by Conrau K
I'm pretty sure I said there's evidence as to what Q contained (assuming that it is existed).
There is no evidence as to what the Q source is.
Unless you are asserting that what a source 'is' is somehow distinct
from what it contains, I think you are confused.
What is Moby Dick? What it is a novel about a whale (that is,
what it contains).
What is Q? It is a 'sayings gospel' which contained the earliest
written record of sayings attributed to Jesus.
Are you disagreeing with this?
And, as I said, there are almost no non-axe-grinding scholars who
reject its existence, so unless you wish to argue this point, I
recommend that you discontinue bringing it up, since it is basically
moot.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Conrau KSt John differs on all of these points. Every single one. St Mark
IT might go something like: Galilean ministry --> Journey narative --> Ministry in Jerusalem --> Passion --> Resurrection stories. The gnostics on the otherhand contravene most of this.
Doesn't even have a (post-)Resurrection story!
Have you even read the (passion) Gospel of St Peter? What do you
suppose is the theological objection other than the fact that it is
even more fantastical the St John's?
Nemesio
4 edits
Originally posted by Conrau KThere is nothing contrary between saying certain branches of Christian Gnostic thought were "popular" and "evidence as close to 180CE that the synoptics were in popular use". The synoptics contradict each other in parts, so that some Gnostic texts would contradict certain parts of the synoptics is unexceptional.
[b]Arguing that certain people are the apostles because they taught a creed that was subsequently accepted as the Apostolic Creed is circular.
Technically not. I suggest you look up the definition of circular. But I get the insinuation none the less.
I would first dispute that the gnostic were popular (and where would they have been popular?) There ...[text shortened]... e in popular use. And before I try to debate with you, how exactly do you define the "Church"?[/b]
I'm not sure I used the word Church; I was speaking about Christians. If you are going to define the "Church" and "Christians" as excluding the early Christian Gnostics, just say so; I won't bother to discuss the matter with someone who simply defines away the issue.
EDIT: As to the "popularity" issue, consider Marcion:
At the end of July, 144 CE, a hearing took place before the clergy of the Christian congregations in Rome. Marcion, the son of the bishop of Sinope (a sea-port of Pontus along the Black Sea) who had become a wealthy ship-owner, stood before the presbyters to expound his teachings in order to win others to his point of view. For some years he had been a member of one of the Roman churches, and had proved the sincerity of his faith by making relatively large contributions. No doubt he was a respected member of the Christian community.
But what he now expounded to the presbyters was so monstrous that they were utterly shocked! The hearing ended in a harsh rejection of Marcion's views; he was formally excommunicated and his largesse of money was returned. From this time forward Marcion went his own way, energetically propagating a strange kind of Christianity that quickly took root throughout large sections of the Roman Empire and by the end of the 2nd century had become a serious threat to the mainstream Christian Church. In each city of any importance the Marcionites set up their church to defy the Christian one.
http://www.ntcanon.org/Marcion.shtml
Or Valentinus:
Valentinus was the founder of Roman and Alexandrian schools of Gnosticism, an eclectic, dualistic system of religious doctrines postulating the evil origin of matter and the revelatory enlightenment, or gnosis, of an elite. Valentinus flourished 136-165 CE in Rome and Alexandria. Valentinian communities, by their expansion and long standing, provided a major challenge to 2nd and 3rd century Christian theology.
http://www.ntcanon.org/Valentinus.shtml