05 Jul 07
Originally posted by whodeyTertullian and Origen? You know those guys were heretics, right? Clement of Alexandria ain't on the saints list now, either.
"From the beginning, Revelation was considered an authentic work of the apostle John, the same John who wrote teh gospel and 3 epistles. This was held to be true by Justin Martyr, the Shepherd of Hermas, Melito, Irenaeus, the Muratorian Canon, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and others."
You know that the Shepherd of Hermas is an apocryphal work, right? As in, not in the canonical Protestant Bible?
Your Bible's blurb, in other words, is appealing to the authority of suspect (if not outright delegitimated) sources.
06 Jul 07
Originally posted by blakbuzzrdThis is a fair observation, however, l would add a few thoughts. First of all, what may have been considered heretical by the Catholic church, may not carry much weight with me. I use the Bible to ascertain if what the Catholic church is teaching is "sound doctrine" as commanded for us to do by Paul. Also, being heretical does not necessarily assume a negative context. In fact, Martin Luther was heretical towards the Catholic church, however, the reasons for this were perfectly justifiable in my view. In fact, I would have stood with Martin Luther in his defiance of the Catholic church regarding his objections.
Tertullian and Origen? You know those guys were heretics, right? Clement of Alexandria ain't on the saints list now, either.
You know that the Shepherd of Hermas is an apocryphal work, right? As in, not in the canonical Protestant Bible?
Your Bible's blurb, in other words, is appealing to the authority of suspect (if not outright delegitimated) sources.
I am not a Catholic and neither do I embrace the "inerrant" doctrine the way most of of fundamentalist contemporaries embrace it even though I consider myself to be a fundamentalist. You see it is somewhat ironic that as a fundamentalist one is expected to defend the Bible as 100% perfect and to follow every word of the Bible as such. However, the Bible does not claim to be 100% perfect, rather, it only claims to be the inspired word of God. What you then see are interpretations and assumed implications for the Bible being the inspired word of God such as the "inerrant" doctrine.
Having said that, I would agree that the names you have mentioned in my view should be considered heretical (in a negative context) and I would therefore question what they may have to say in regards to Revelation. In fact, it seems very ironic to me that many of the names you mention embrace Revelation as written by the apostle John. After all, many of the heretical ideas these men had was in direct conflict with the theology in Revelation. Why then would they embrace a theology they assumed was embraced by the apostle John that was contrary to their own theology? I can only assume that they did not give much weight to what the apostle John wrote or thought. The question then becomes, did they even care what Christ had taught because we only have the original 12 to tell us what was done and said by Christ. Then if they do not care about what Christ did and said, perhaps they should not be called "Christians".
Having said that, what of the other names on the list who are not considered "heretical"? What of men like Justin Martyr etc? I think the object was to show a broad range of agreement within Christiandom that included heretical branches of the church. What was said was accurate even though it may give one pause to consider ALL of the sources that embrace Revelation as written by the apostle John.
06 Jul 07
Originally posted by whodeyJust so you know, this is a pretty poor definition of Gnosticism.
"A one-sentence description of Gnostcism: a religion that differentiates the evil god of this world (who is identified with the god of the Old Testament) from a higher more abstract God revealed by Jesus Christ, a religion that regards this world as the creation of a series of evil archons/powers who wish to keep the human soul trapped in an evil physical bod ...[text shortened]... sdom or knowledge only to a select group as necessary for salvation or escape form this world"
Nemesio
06 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayA literalist approaches the table with an a priori assumption that the Bible's information is
Who is not a conservative Christian, a liberal Christian is okay?
I guess, I'll look into it, or not, do not worry about it either way.
If I come up with someone I guess their political or religious beliefs
would have to be found out and documented to suit your position and
I'm not sure I want to go through the motions.
Kelly
correct. So, if it says 'A letter from St Paul to Timothy,' then by necessity of having been penned
in that fashion, St Paul wrote it.
This is not scholarship. When doing scholarship, you set aside your a priori assumptions and
let the evidence speak to you.
No scholar utilizing normative translation and text critical techniques believes that the authors of
St John's Gospel and Revelation are the same person. Only those with the aforementioned assumptions
do, which renders their scholarship dubious.
Nemesio
06 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyWell, to be fair, 150 CE is a little late even amongst the most antagonistic scholars. Generally,
"The Second Epistle of Peter, on the other hand, appears to have been copied, in part, from the Epistle of Jude, and some modern scholars date its completion as late as 150 AD. Guess when Peter died? Was it anywhere near 150 AD? No, it was not. It more like around 64 AD, or at least according to Wiki. Therefore, the quesiton remains, who wrote the second ep ...[text shortened]... However, it is evident that Peter was long dead before any of these works had been completed.[/b]
the date used is closer to 110-130 CE.
The author for the second letter and the 'Apocalypse of St Peter' are not even close to being one in the
same. The letter derives from a rather Orthodox community, the Gospel derives from a distinctly
Gnostic community.
Nemesio
06 Jul 07
Originally posted by t0lkien
Nemesio, surely you realize the inherent bias in your argument. You are asking for a source by someone who doesn't believe, that implies they believe. That's just silly. All you've done is to limit the discussion to one side of argument, and say that proves the argument!
Absolutely false. Roman Catholic theologians have in their own editions of the Bible many of the
things I wrote (such as disputed authorship, added passages). I don't require that the person be a
'disbeliever,' only that they approach the texts without any assumptions before hand.
Also, to say that someone who isn't a Christian doesn't have preconceived conclusions is a self-evident fallacy. No-one believes that. We all have biases, Christian or otherwise. There is no such thing as true objectivity. The idea is to acknowledge the bias as honestly as possible and work around it.
That's right. No one believes that. Not even me.
The assertion that someone who holds a particular position can't approach the discussion honestly is also rather arrogant. If that's true, you need to stop discussing anything, because you have excluded yourself from meaningful discussion by virtue of holding an opinion.
Do you think a 'scholar' who assumes that every word is false before analyzing any of it can approach
the discussion honestly?
Of course you don't. The only people who can approach it honestly are people who 1) Strive to discard
their preconceptions; and 2) Are willing to abandon a conclusion in the face of compelling evidence
to the contrary.
Biblical literalists fail on both fronts.
Nemesio
07 Jul 07
Originally posted by whodeyThe only reason you have to ask these questions comes from the fact that Constantine I adopted the infant sect Christianity. If this event never had happened, Christianity in point of fact would have been lost to history and unknown to us. Some sects live and grow, Christianity is just one insipid example of the extremities of selfish human fantasy. The motivations, reasons and desires of which died long ago with the individuals who conceived them. . . . . Amen.
I have recently undergone a study of the 12 aposltes to see how they lived their lives after Christ had sent them into the world to proclaim the "good news". A book called, "The search for the 12 disciples" written by Wlliam McBirnie helps trace their steps once Christ sent them on the great commision.
1. Peter is the first disciple and arguably the mo ...[text shortened]... st had arisen, or maybe, just maybe, they are witness to the truth of his resurrection.
07 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by EAPOEYou can give Constantine the credit for the survival of Christianity. However, if the 12 did not go out and spread the good news then would Constantine have been able to make it his religion? You could then credit the 12 disciples with the spread of Christianity but what of their teacher Jesus? If Jesus had not taught them and if Jesus had not been raised from the dead, would they have been able and/or motivated to go out and preach the good news? You could then give Jesus the credit for the spread of the good news but what of the Father? Was not Jesus simply doing the will of the Father by going to the cross? We could then trace the credit back to the Father for the spread of Christianity.
The only reason you have to ask these questions comes from the fact that Constantine I adopted the infant sect Christianity. If this event never had happened, Christianity in point of fact would have been lost to history and unknown to us. Some sects live and grow, Christianity is just one insipid example of the extremities of selfish human fantasy. The motiva ...[text shortened]... easons and desires of which died long ago with the individuals who conceived them. . . . . Amen.
There, I think we have finally given credit where credit is due. 😀
07 Jul 07
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyWell, it's a real pickle, actually. Trying to define 'Gnosticism' is kind of like defining 'Christian.'
So what would be a "fair" definition?
I mean, try to define Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Baptists, Quakers, Mormons and
Unitarians in three sentences or less. It's not reasonably possible.
Just the same, Gnostics have various divergent strains which have theological differences that are as
profound as, say, those between Quakers and Mormons. Yes, they have points of similarity but they
are vastly overwhelmed by their points of divergence.
The definition is particularly poor in the presumption that all Gnostics believed in the division between
the God of Hebrew Scriptures and the God of the Christian ones. This is not the case, but is a later
development amongst some branches of Gnosticism. The 'archons/powers' bit is similarly a
highly defined tenet of a particular branch of Gnosticism.
Generally, Gnostics believed in the pursuit of Gnosis or knowledge through the intimate study of
the logos and ascetic contemplation. The flesh was not so much evil (at least at first) but a
distraction from the higher spiritual nature (note this is Pauline in flavor). Denial of the flesh --
sexual abstinence, fasting, long desert meditations away from worldly distractions -- was a means
by which one came in contact with the spiritual and thus was blessed with Gnosis.
That's a fast and dirty definition, but reasonably more consistent than that abominable wikipedia one.
I would describe it as a 'fairer' definition, if not 'fair.' I hope it helps.
Nemesio
07 Jul 07
Originally posted by NemesioWhat examples are there of gnostics who did not believe that the God of the OT was evil?
Well, it's a real pickle, actually. Trying to define 'Gnosticism' is kind of like defining 'Christian.'
I mean, try to define Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Baptists, Quakers, Mormons and
Unitarians in three sentences or less. It's not reasonably possible.
Just the same, Gnostics have various divergent strains which have theologica ...[text shortened]... d describe it as a 'fairer' definition, if not 'fair.' I hope it helps.
Nemesio