23 Aug '06 20:12>
Originally posted by Conrau KNewsflash: Acts and the Letters of St Paul have biographical
I recommend you read the book of Acts, and better still, the letters of Paul. That should give you an idea.
inconsistencies.
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?...
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?
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
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]
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.
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.
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).
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.
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]