Spirituality
15 May 06
18 May 06
Originally posted by David CThe earliest complete manuscripts of any of the four synoptics are dated to the Codecii Vaticanus (325 CE) and Sinaiticus (350 CE).
The earliest complete manuscripts of any of the four synoptics are dated to the Codecii Vaticanus (325 CE) and Sinaiticus (350 CE). Any mention of the gospel(s) prior to this are likely interpolations or outright forgeries by Church fathers such as Eusebius. The events described or the historical backdrop may date to 60-100 CE, but the actual t ...[text shortened]... das etc. AFAIK, any fragmentary documents are of questionable origin and essentially undateable.
So? If there were an extant manuscript of the Synoptics dating back to 37 AD but it was only 80% complete, would you ignore it?
Further, do you think extant manuscripts are absolutely necessary to date a text? If every copy of Shakespeare printed/written before 1980 were destroyed would you claim that Othello was written 26 years ago?
These are old cliched arguments - on a par with "Have you ever seen a subatomic particle?"
Any mention of the gospel(s) prior to this are likely interpolations or outright forgeries by Church fathers such as Eusebius.
Prove it. Now you're cooking up Moon Landing Hoax-style conspiracy theories.
AFAIK, any fragmentary documents are of questionable origin and essentially undateable.
Again, prove it.
You're just making a bunch of unsubstantiated assertions - that doesn't make it a valid argument.
18 May 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhoa, there, Hammy. Your hunger strike must be rattling your brain a bit. YOU made the initial claims regarding the dating of your precious little everlasting-life-fairy-tale manuscripts. I'm sure you are aware of recent and growing textual/historical criticisms outlining my "claims", despite your feigned ignorance and "intellectual" outrage.
Prove it. Again, prove it.
At any rate, they are no less spurious than your claim of a supernatural creator entity, or of the birth-death-resurrection of Skippy the Jesus.
18 May 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerI am not aware of any evidence that these disciples actually existed (other than the texts in question.) Furthermore there is no reason to believe that they checked on the 'factual correctness' of the Gospels. In fact much of the Gospels is either fiction or 'inspired writing' and could not possibly have been known by the disciples anyway.
And that makes all the difference in the world. When the first Gospel was written, the disciples of Jesus were still around to ensure factual correctness. This is not true of the Gospel of Judas.
What's more, people forget that the last thing that Gnostics were interested in was historical accuracy - it's clear from their philosophy why that is so.
And it is well known that the Gospel writers were interested in factual accuracy? You must be joking!
In matters of faith and doctrine, yes.
Again that is your personal belief with no logical reasoning. What exactly was so 'wrong' with the gnostics anyway?
18 May 06
Originally posted by David CI've not heard of any "growing textual/historical criticisms" that claim that all mentions/citations of the Canonical Gospels in Church Fathers like Ignatius, Iranaeus and Clement are forgeries - you made the claim, the burden is on you to demonstrate it. In fact, even with Eusebius, I haven't heard anyone say that his mention of the Gospels (specifically) is a forgery.
Whoa, there, Hammy. Your hunger strike must be rattling your brain a bit. YOU made the initial claims regarding the dating of your precious little everlasting-life-fairy-tale manuscripts. I'm sure you are aware of recent and growing textual/historical criticisms outlining my "claims", despite your feigned ignorance and "intellectual" outrage.
At any rate, ...[text shortened]... m of a supernatural creator entity, or of the birth-death-resurrection of Skippy the Jesus.
Further, the large part of my post was pointing out the logical fallacies in your reasoning (e.g. referring to complete extant manuscripts - hence my Shakespeare analogy[1]).
The last bit about Skippy is a smokescreen - whether my beliefs are spurious or not has no bearing on whether your claims are spurious. You made some claims, you should expect to be challenged on them. Attacking me instead of producing evidence for your claims is plain old ad hominem.
---
[1] For a reasonably unbiased approach to dating the Gospels that does not fall to this fallacy, read Andrew Bernhard's article:
http://journalofbiblicalstudies.org/Issue4/Articles/dating_early_christian_gospels.htm
18 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am not aware of any evidence that these disciples actually existed (other than the texts in question.)
I am not aware of any evidence that these disciples actually existed (other than the texts in question.) Furthermore there is no reason to believe that they checked on the 'factual correctness' of the Gospels. In fact much of the Gospels is either fiction or 'inspired writing' and could not possibly have been known by the disciples anyway.
[b]What's mo ...[text shortened]... lief with no logical reasoning. What exactly was so 'wrong' with the gnostics anyway?[/b]
You're kidding, right? Besides all the canonical Gospels and the other NT books, you've also got the apocryphal Gospels and the writings of the Church Fathers (the earliest ones who knew the disciples personally). If you're going to ignore dozens of documents as part of a large conspiracy theory, you might as well dismiss the existence of Julius Ceasar, for instance.
In fact much of the Gospels is either fiction or 'inspired writing' and could not possibly have been known by the disciples anyway.
"In fact"? Can you prove it?
And it is well known that the Gospel writers were interested in factual accuracy? You must be joking!
No, I'm not. Whether the Gospel writers got it right or not isn't the question - the point is they tried to get the facts right (except maybe John). This is clear from the openings of Matthew and Luke, in particular.
Again that is your personal belief with no logical reasoning.
No, it isn't. The earlier you go in the Church, the closer you get to what Christ Himself taught. This is standard historical reasoning.
18 May 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou have yourself brought into question the accuracy of these other writtings. Can you give a link to any information on writtings of Church Fathers who claimed to have met a disciple of Jesus. I had not heard of that before.
You're kidding, right? Besides all the canonical Gospels and the other NT books, you've also got the apocryphal Gospels and the writings of the Church Fathers (the earliest ones who knew the disciples personally). If you're going to ignore dozens of documents as part of a large conspiracy theory, you might as well dismiss the existence of Julius Ceasar, for instance.
There is much more evidence for Julius Ceasar and you know that.
No, I'm not. Whether the Gospel writers got it right or not isn't the question - the point is they tried to get the facts right (except maybe John). This is clear from the openings of Matthew and Luke, in particular.
So these openings make it clear, but the lack of such an opening in the Gospel of Thomas makes it factually inaccurate ? poor logic there.
No, it isn't. The earlier you go in the Church, the closer you get to what Christ Himself taught. This is standard historical reasoning.
Here we have absolute proof that what you teach is as far from what Christ Himself taught as is possible (untill next year that is).
18 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou have yourself brought into question the accuracy of these other writtings.
You have yourself brought into question the accuracy of these other writtings. Can you give a link to any information on writtings of Church Fathers who claimed to have met a disciple of Jesus. I had not heard of that before.
There is much more evidence for Julius Ceasar and you know that.
[b]No, I'm not. Whether the Gospel writers got it right or no ...[text shortened]... teach is as far from what Christ Himself taught as is possible (untill next year that is).[/b]
Yes, I did - but I didn't say they should be tossed outright. This isn't a binary situation.
Can you give a link to any information on writtings of Church Fathers who claimed to have met a disciple of Jesus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Fathers
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01637a.htm
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.html
I had not heard of that before.
There is a lot more to Christian belief than just "I believe X; you don't therefore you're wrong".
There is much more evidence for Julius Ceasar and you know that.
Maybe (I know there is much more evidence for the existence of the Apostles than there is for Alexander the Great and Socrates). The point is that you're not just rejecting one or two documents, but dozens. And the counter-theory needed to sustain the rejection of those sources has no backing evidence whatsoever. Occam's Razor - the simplest explanation is that the Apostles really did exist.
So these openings make it clear, but the lack of such an opening in the Gospel of Thomas makes it factually inaccurate ? poor logic there.
No - the Gnostic tradition that the Gospel of Thomas was a part of makes its factual claims less believable. Please do not take my statements out of context.
Here we have absolute proof that what you teach is as far from what Christ Himself taught as is possible (untill next year that is).
Don't nitpick for its own sake. If you want to play word-games - try Scribbles. As I said earlier, please do not take my statements out of context. My statement was about the importance of early Church practices and teachings for Christians today. Simply repeating them does not change their accuracy.
18 May 06
Originally posted by David CI'll decline to respond to your ad hominems other than to suggest that you check the definition of exegesis. Unless, perhaps, you feel that eisegesis would be more appropriate in Chick's case.
I'll decline to respond to your ad hominems other than to suggest that you check the definition of exegesis. Unless, perhaps, you feel that eisegesis would be more appropriate in Chick's case. Certainly, he has put more into interpreting NT scripture than your average Sunday warrior.
I'll only ask this of you: on what specifically, fr ...[text shortened]... shmellows with heathens like me?
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0071/0071_01.asp
Eh? Baffled me again, I'm afraid. You attack me by lumping me in with the Westboro Church and Chick, with absolutely no affinity between their angry messages and anything I have offered. If affinity existed, you could justify your original post as a "statement of fact."
Apparently, you have figured out the difference between ex and eis, but still you are unsure where either fits. Upon being corrected for saying the crap that Chick spews out is a result of his exegesis, you should have realized the word was used improperly. That improper use prompted my correction, so it is not likely that I need to follow through on your suggestion to "check the definition."
Certainly, he has put more into interpreting NT scripture than your average Sunday warrior.
I'll give you that. However, it is his eisegesis that is so troubling to even the casual Bible sympathizer, let alone those dedicated to the pursuit.
I'll only ask this of you: on what specifically, from your "humanistic viewpoint", do you disagree with Jack Chick?
The list of examples would be long, but in general, it is his characterizations of the spiritual realm, view of repentance, and hamartiology. His delivery ain't so hot, either.
Since some Roman Catholics feel they can get to heaven by their works, and pray to statues of the Virgin Mary....are they slated for the Lake of Toasted Marshmellows with heathens like me?
Let me try one out on you first. Before I tell you what you already know the Bible says about salvation, have you ever in accepted what Jesus Christ did on the cross as though it were your work?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
19 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadAnd yet people disagree on what the correct translation is and as far as I know the authenticity of the text has never been established. And why is a belief oriented approach wrong? And does exegesises somehow explain away all the contradictions, if not what is the answer when there are two alternatives?
And yet people disagree on what the correct translation is and as far as I know the authenticity of the text has never been established. And why is a belief oriented approach wrong? And does exegesises somehow explain away all the contradictions, if not what is the answer when there are two alternatives?
[b]Many people think that the Church selected al all Christians today should rely on the judgement of the early Christian communities?[/b]
There is very little difference in translations, the authenticity is irrelevant, a belief orientated approach is wrong because the Gospels were not intended to be interpreted according to ones faith but the writer's faith - which requires an exegetical analysis- and I dont know what contradictions you're talking about.
Why do you separate "The communities" and "The gnostics" surely the gnostics were a community? Are you saying it was a majority thing?
Do you have any good references which show that conflicting texts were not suppressed?
The gnostics all have one common characteristic: that Jesus communicated a secret message to an elite group of people. Sure, they constitute a community, but an exclusive one. The christian communities were established by the apostles and disciples of Jesus ministry (or people close to), they spread the gospel message (also called the Kerygma). These gnostics, however, negate the Kerygma (that Jesus was betrayed, died, was restored in life and is the redeemer). The gnostics can hardly even be described as Christian. Some advocate violence and the like. The fact that they were rejected by the majority indicates that the gnostic conflicted with their understanding of Christ (which would probably be more accurate).
So all Christians today should rely on the judgement of the early Christian communities?
Who else should they rely on?
Point is: the early Christian communities would have had a close relationship to Jesus through the apostles. Remember that Jesus was quite notorious at his time, so any attempt to suppress his true teachings or to deny his ministry would have been repudiated.
22 May 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerIn fact, even with Eusebius, I haven't heard anyone say that his mention of the Gospels (specifically) is a forgery.
I've not heard of any "growing textual/historical criticisms"
http://jdstone.org/cr/files/fathereusebiustheforger.html
http://www.christianism.com/html/add36.html
In fairness, here is Pearse's defense of Eusebius:
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eusebius/eusebius_the_liar.htm#rebound
The last bit about Skippy is a smokescreen
Yeah, I'll grant you that...and a pretty disrespectful one at that. Haven't lost my touch!
22 May 06
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou attack me by lumping me in with the Westboro Church and Chick, with absolutely no affinity between their angry messages and anything I have offered.
Eh? Baffled me again, I'm afraid.
Well, except for the central theology involved. Have I used that word correctly? The need for the sinner to be "Born Again", Faith Alone, OSAS, "the non-meritorious faith in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross"...have I mischaracterized your belief structure, or Chick's?
so it is not likely that I need to follow through on your suggestion to "check the definition."
Humour me.
http://www.dtl.org/trinity/misc/glossary.htm
Exegesis: The study of the text of Scripture in order to bring out the meaning of it. This is to be distinguished from the error of eisegesis, i.e. reading a meaning into the text.
Given that definition, I'm sure Jack would be the first to defend his exe- rather than eise-. Whatever makes you feel better, but it seems to me the difference in the definitions could only be described as subjective.
I'll give you that. However, it is his eisegesis that is so troubling to even the casual Bible sympathizer, let alone those dedicated to the pursuit.
Fair enough. Why, then, has he (and others like him) managed to find so many followers?
Before I tell you what you already know the Bible says about salvation, have you ever in accepted what Jesus Christ did on the cross as though it were your work?
Of course not. Salvation, eternal life, and the anthropomorphization/allegory that is "Jesus Christ" are merely coping mechanisms. Effective, I suppose, but essentially unnecessary and counter-productive. Now...you were saying?
23 May 06
Originally posted by David CThe first link calls Eusebius a forger several times, although the Josephus text is the only one mentioned as evidence. Nevertheless, there is no evidence presented that Eusebius either forged the Gospels themselves, or forged mentions of the Gospels in the writings of other Fathers. Neither does the second link.
[b]In fact, even with Eusebius, I haven't heard anyone say that his mention of the Gospels (specifically) is a forgery.
http://jdstone.org/cr/files/fathereusebiustheforger.html
http://www.christianism.com/html/add36.html
In fairness, here is Pearse's defense of Eusebius:
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eusebius/eusebius_the_liar.htm#rebound
...[text shortened]...
Yeah, I'll grant you that...and a pretty disrespectful one at that. Haven't lost my touch![/b]
You have yet to present any evidence for your assertions.
23 May 06
Originally posted by David CWell, except for the central theology involved. Have I used that word correctly? The need for the sinner to be "Born Again", Faith Alone, OSAS, "the non-meritorious faith in the work of Jesus Christ on the cross"...have I mischaracterized your belief structure, or Chick's?
[b]You attack me by lumping me in with the Westboro Church and Chick, with absolutely no affinity between their angry messages and anything I have offered.
Well, except for the central theology involved. Have I used that word correctly? The need for the sinner to be "Born Again", Faith Alone, OSAS, "the non-meritorious faith in th ...[text shortened]... I suppose, but essentially unnecessary and counter-productive. Now...you were saying?[/b]
There is no other word for Chick's intepretation of biblical concepts, given the overwhwelming contradictory information available. With respect to that narrowly characterized doctrine, i.e., non-meritorious faith, Chick has that one right. That one and little else.
Fair enough. Why, then, has he (and others like him) managed to find so many followers?
People love human view point.
Of course not.
Not even once, earlier in your youth, eh?
Salvation, eternal life, and the anthropomorphization/allegory that is "Jesus Christ" are merely coping mechanisms.
Coping mechanisms. Do tell.
