Originally posted by NemesioI meant with respect to her opinion on the Gnostic works being as/more important than the synoptic gospels. Next time ask for clarification *before* ridiculing. She does not deny that the synoptics are dated earlier, but she wishes to make the Gnostic gospels as important anyway because the Gnostics put emphasis on personal experience, i.e. "the secret knowledge that only *we* know".
LOL! This forum is full of priceless statements, but yours is the
quintessential definition of psychological projection.
She is a [b]historian who, in no small part, covers the evolution of how
the canon came to be the accepted one and, as a consequence, how
other texts came to be regarded as heretical.
She places almost no emphasis on 'subjec ...[text shortened]... se,
as a historian, she lets the data inform her, not her opinion shape the
data.
Nemesio[/b]
Originally posted by NemesioI do remember that she began one of her books by recounting her experience of learning a son had cancer and she found herself in a church foyer during a run. This would be a subjective religious experience for her, but for me I found that it lended humanity to her story which I appreciated. But that's just me.
LOL! This forum is full of priceless statements, but yours is the
quintessential definition of psychological projection.
She is a [b]historian who, in no small part, covers the evolution of how
the canon came to be the accepted one and, as a consequence, how
other texts came to be regarded as heretical.
She places almost no emphasis on 'subjec ...[text shortened]... se,
as a historian, she lets the data inform her, not her opinion shape the
data.
Nemesio[/b]
As far as I understand it Emperor Constantine (I think it was) prayed to God that if he won a battle then he would make Rome Christian. He won and therefore it was do. It is then that the whole of the Christian world as we know it was based on warfare (thou shalt not kill anyone??!!) Following that a council was formed to decide which books were included in the new Testament (e.g Luke was the Gospel for the Gentiles hence it is the only one of the 4 gospels that mentions Hell. Also interesetingly Purgatory was created by the Catholic Church and isn't mentioned in the original Bible). This Council then debated whether Jesus was the son of God. Jesus never said this himself other than to call God "Father" which most Christians do today (and is why Muslims hold him as a prophet). They decided he was and lo! The New Testament was formed choosing the 4 most similar texts that suited the council's decision. This is what I was taught recently at a tour of of the Vatican by a Vatican official. As far as I can see you can't get much closer to the horse's mouth. Judas' gospel was left out as were about 45 others because they didn't fit with the 4 chosen ones. In some of the Gospels Jesus (whilst growing up) tormented his friends with his divine powers. Hardly fitting for the modern Christian (this was one of the oldest texts omitted from the Bible-interesting isn't it?)
Originally posted by Chufty JonesI think you may be mistaken. The Council that met to debate, amoungst other things, the sonship of Jesus, was the First Council of Nicaea. The output, as far as I can gather, was the Nicaea Creed and the agreement on seven issues by a vast majority of attendees.
As far as I understand it Emperor Constantine (I think it was) prayed to God that if he won a battle then he would make Rome Christian. He won and therefore it was do. It is then that the whole of the Christian world as we know it was based on warfare (thou shalt not kill anyone??!!) Following that a council was formed to decide which books were incl ristian (this was one of the oldest texts omitted from the Bible-interesting isn't it?)
Before and during this period (AD325 - followed by six other councils to AD787?) I understand there to be large numbers of canons seeming to include various books, versions of books etc :- my original question was as to the veracity of the King James Bible?
- the things you can learn eh? It seems that there are many texts that were for one reason or another rejected by various early churches and together were described as 'Apocrypha', and that there are various different Bibles still in use by for example the Catholic Church, the Protestant Church etc.
Now back to my original question - Tell me, please, why the Bible is the 'Word of God'...
"Why is the Bible the word of God?"
That's a great question. A lot of things can be meant when you make a statement like "The Bible is the word of God." As already stated in this thread, the Bible is a collection of many books, compiled by a people of faith. Whether or not it was chosen out of pure politics or by a divine hand is up to debate, and I'm not sure that anyone can answer that question for anyone else. I, for one, believe that we have our current Bible for a reason that transcends politics, and that it is trustworthy for what it was intended to be used for. It is intended to tell us about God, to help us know God through the stories of how God and God's creation have interacted through the generations. It is meant to teach us how to live with each other, how to worship, how to pray. It contains eternal truths and divine wisdom. But it is not a science book. It is not a history book (in the modern sense of what we consider to be a history). It is not even a biography in the way that we think about biography.
It is a book that belongs to a people of faith. As people of faith, Christians choose to give it authority. I give it authority in my life not because I believe that God dictated its words to a few men thousands of years ago, but because I believe that it contains truth about the world - my world - that can help me grow closer to God. Unfortunately it has been abused and used for evil, but when it is used properly it is a source of life.
Do not believe in the Bible because people say that you should. Do not believe in the Bible because you think God wrote it. In fact, do not believe in the Bible at all. Believe in God, and use the Bible to make that belief stronger, more substantial, more productive in the world we all share.
Originally posted by Chufty JonesThis is simply not true. There is evidence that the synoptic gospels were well accepted among christian communities before any canonization by a council occured. However, a council was convoked in order to address the emergence of gnostic gospels. Generally, the council did not select any gospels that weren't already in popular use (and the fact that they were in popular use implies that they were consistent with the original stories promulgated by missionaries, such as Paul.) Contrary to your suggestion, it is extremely unlikely that the gospels were chosen based on any ideology. If they were, they would have been rejected because they would have been unfamiliar to their audience (who would have reliable sources of Jesus.)
Following that a council was formed to decide which books were included in the new Testament (e.g Luke was the Gospel for the Gentiles hence it is the only one of the 4 gospels that mentions Hell.
And I don't understand why the fact that because Luke is writing to Hellenistic audience (ergo gentile) he mentions Hell. Mark was writing Romans. Why didn't he mention hell?
Originally posted by Conrau KI wasn't claiming to be an expert just quoting from what I learnt on a trip to the Vatican. If it so wrong then I apologise. However, I do think that it is widely recognised that there were many Gospels (most of which were left out) and Christian Rome was founded on a basis of war and the Church of England was founded on the premise that Henry VIII wanted to get divorced and the Pope wouldn't let him. Hardly the basis for a loving God I would argue. Personally I think Jesus was a good bloke and said good stuff to simple folk. His advice was sound and can be used today. I have a problem with organised religion, its churches and leaders and the power that they wield and the fact that so many people have died in the name of a supposed all loving(!?) God.
This is simply not true. There is evidence that the synoptic gospels were well accepted among christian communities before any canonization by a council occured. However, a council was convoked in order to address the emergence of gnostic gospels. Generally, the council did not select any gospels that weren't already in popular use (and the fact that they w ...[text shortened]... udience (ergo gentile) he mentions Hell. Mark was writing Romans. Why didn't he mention hell?
Originally posted by Chufty Jonesread the first section:
I wasn't claiming to be an expert just quoting from what I learnt on a trip to the Vatican. If it so wrong then I apologise. However, I do think that it is widely recognised that there were many Gospels (most of which were left out) and Christian Rome was founded on a basis of war and the Church of England was founded on the premise that Henry VIII wa ...[text shortened]... wield and the fact that so many people have died in the name of a supposed all loving(!?) God.
http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/index.htm
Originally posted by UncleRobbjust wanted to say thank you for that
"Why is the Bible the word of God?"
That's a great question. A lot of things can be meant when you make a statement like "The Bible is the word of God." As already stated in this thread, the Bible is a collection of many books, compiled by a people of faith. Whether or not it was chosen out of pure politics or by a divine hand is up to debate, and I' ...[text shortened]... o make that belief stronger, more substantial, more productive in the world we all share.
Originally posted by DarfiusCan I ridicule you now?
I meant with respect to her opinion on the Gnostic works being as/more important than the synoptic gospels. Next time ask for clarification *before* ridiculing. She does not deny that the synoptics are dated earlier, but she wishes to make the Gnostic gospels as important anyway because the Gnostics put emphasis on personal experience, i.e. "the secret knowledge that only *we* know".
First of all, she doesn't think that the Gnostic works are 'as/more important than the synoptic
gospels.' That claim doesn't even make a lot of sense, unless you qualify the nature of the
importance: more important for worship? more important for history? more important for
revealing what Jesus 'really' taught?
Yes, you are right if you are claiming that the Gnostic gospels were more important to the
Gnostic community, but so what? There is nothing subjective on her part in making such an
observation; indeed, it would be foolish to assert otherwise.
She writes her texts on the Gnostic sect of Christianity because 1) we know less about it than
what became mainstream Christianity; 2) it was actively suppressed which makes discovery
about it more elusive; and 3) it presents a very different picture of 2nd-century Christian life
than fundamentalist nut cases would like to claim.
And, again, you are projecting: you are ridiculing the Gnostics for claiming that they have 'secret
knowledge that only "they" know.' Do you even read what you write? You are one of the greatest
proponents of 'secret-decoder-ring Christianity ' on this site!
Nemesio
Originally posted by Conrau KThe four Gospels canonized were the most widely used across communities, yes, but not in a
This is simply not true. There is evidence that the synoptic gospels were well accepted among christian communities before any canonization by a council occured. However, a council was convoked in order to address the emergence of gnostic gospels. Generally, the council did not select any gospels that weren't already in popular use (and the fact that they w ...[text shortened]... udience (ergo gentile) he mentions Hell. Mark was writing Romans. Why didn't he mention hell?
composite sense. That is, a community may have used the Gospel of Luke, but would have
considered St John's to be absurd. The council was the great mediator; it allowed the
majority of communities to maintain their texts. The Gnostics, who didn't have a partisan majority
(so to speak) got largely screwed; St John's Gospel was the best they got which is proto-Gnostic
at best.
The problem that most people are having here is the presumption that Christian communities were
remotely unified by the fourth century -- they weren't! A quick glance of the debates among the
Church Fathers reveals that there was great theological tension. Why do you think the Creeds
were written? (Answer: to establish Orthodoxy in an effort to cull out Heresy.) When the
Apostles' Creed was insufficient, then the Nicene Creed 'clarified' things. When that proved
inadequate, the Athanasian Creed was composed.
And so on, and so on.
2nd-century Christianity was widely diverse and cloistered. The third century saw a move towards
unity which wasn't really realized until the fourth century. Consequently, a study of the diversity
within 2nd-century Christianity is a worthy exercise -- hence, Pagels' work.
Nemesio
Originally posted by Nemesioyou seem to know a bit about all this (well OK then a lot)
The four Gospels canonized were the most widely used across communities, yes, but not in a
composite sense. That is, a community may have used the Gospel of Luke, but would have
considered St John's to be absurd. The council was the great mediator; it allowed the
majority of communities to maintain their texts. The Gnostics, who didn't have a pa ...[text shortened]... within 2nd-century Christianity is a worthy exercise -- hence, Pagels' work.
Nemesio
As I understand it 'heresy' is a rather meaningless phrase, except when considered against what most others were saying (the 'orthodox'😉. From what you have said and I have read to be a heretic you were simply in a minority, and with the coalescing establishment were eventually sidelined. Does this mean that the early Bible grew from the most popular books of the time? If it served or was fit for purpose = survival, excluded=no support=extinction?
I'm trying to find the right words to express my astonishment that the Bible as I was brought up to understand as being 'set in stone' was actually quite a fluid and dynamic set of writings/documents/books whatever.
Originally posted by NemesioWhile 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. 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. It's not a case that the gnostics were screwed because they were part of a minority (well, gnosticism does kind of entail marginalism) but that the content of the gnostics substantially deviates from the apostolic kerygma.
The four Gospels canonized were the most widely used across communities, yes, but not in a
composite sense. That is, a community may have used the Gospel of Luke, but would have
considered St John's to be absurd. The council was the great mediator; it allowed the
majority of communities to maintain their texts. The Gnostics, who didn't have a pa ...[text shortened]... within 2nd-century Christianity is a worthy exercise -- hence, Pagels' work.
Nemesio
I hope I'm making sense here.
