lpetrich

Recorded long after the fact.

(Lord Raglan's profile)
rcscwc, don't make me laugh. First Lord Raglan wanted to discredit the historicity of Jesus Christ, then he wanted to discredit the historicity of Krishna, Buddha, and Mahavira. Where will it end?

That I'd like to see.

What Hindu sources, and how securely are they dated?

This is supposed to be an ecumenical sort of program, and the argument is that it can't be properly ecumenical without also offering the thoughts of atheists and freethinkers and secularists.

Given the sorts of claims that many Xian apologists make, I'd be surprised if that one made the more cautious statement instead of the stronger statement -- I've seen "best-documented figure in history" elsewhere.

IamJoseph

Agreed. The belief is genuine; what it is based on is a different matter.

Clivedurdle

"glass darkly"

See Gnostic Paul by Elaine Pagels. And read some church history.

Why do you assume the perspective of the winners is the correct one?

Why was the concept of heresy invented?

And why do you think gnostic views are heretical? Why these humpphh reactions?

Roger Pearse

I have read a certain amount of church history, and I don't see anything wrong with the comment above. I don't know why we should treat Pagels as some kind of authority. The statement made is certainly the view of the early Christians, including the apostle John and his disciple Polycarp, towards such things.

Indeed so. After all, what are Pagels and her lot but those who won out in academic infighting since the 60's?

Evidence is better. After all, the idea that people don't write fake gospels to undermine Christianity is absurd, since people are still doing it even today.

Nor need we spend much time on the idea that anyone who claims to be a Christian is one; the apostles and those whom they appointed thought otherwise. It is, after all, absurd.

The word refers to the philosophical schools, where people made up their own teachings in order to attract (paying) pupils. The gnostics did the same, and for much the same reasons; thus the term was applied to them. Tertullian, indeed, lists the major gnostics and the philosophers that they are plagiarising.

Because they are not what Christ taught, the apostles preached, the New Testament records, and the fathers transmitted; but instead a collection of teachings, derived from the contemporary pagan culture and adjusted as seemed convenient to any of those professing them.

That's what the word means.

Indeed.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

rightwing

:huh:What are inerrantists? Well, lets us look at this dilemna. Rome fell apart. Practically all of western civilization uses an estimate of the year of his birth as a beginning for their calendars.
I direct your attention to a young man, of some ill repute that was going around killing 'heretic, blasphemos (sp) Christians', and who by chance was 'appointed' the author (practically) of the New Testament.
Saul of Tarsus. Renamed Paul. Who accounts in great detail the life and teaching of Jesus. Not dates, times and places but the message.
These facts will not sway your opinion, as I can tell from your writing that you will not believe that Jesus of Nazareth actually lived and died in Judea.
O.K. I can live with that. Can you?

rightwing

Jesus lives. If you don't believe it, just ask me.
Peace be with you.

rightwing

What about the Bible makes it an unreliable historical reference?
experiment: without using some sophisticated scientific instrumentation, prove the sun is made of hydrogen. You cant but there it is. You've heard it, you've read it, you accept it. Why do you scoff at people who apply the same illogical faith toward a man; a very good, strong, loving man?
Ahh!!@! The devil made you do it. LOL

bacht

This message has been around almost 2000 years. It never ceases to amaze me how fervent believers think they're the first to discover these things. Many here are former church members who've heard all the basic teachings before. And there are still biblical scholars who cling to the orthodox interpretation of the NT.

Your perspective is still the majority opinion rwing, to the extent that most people still believe there was a real Jesus who said and did much of what is recorded in the gospels.

If you really want to have serious discussions with skeptics you should learn some basic logic/argumenation, and open your mind to the marvellous tools of disinterested scientific investigation.

show_no_mercy

Experiment: without using any knowledge found in the Bible or repeating the claims made by any of your preachers, tell us something you know about this Jesus character.

Solo

Just some notes on the margin:

1) The Gospel of Peter is not considered a gnostic Gospel. It has some 'docetist' features but TMK no-one of any academic statue considers it a product of gnostic teachings as traditionally understood.

2) Elaine Pagels' Gnostic Paul does not quite allege that Paul himself was a teacher of gnosticism. Her book tracks the exegesis of Paul by the Gnostic sects, like the Naassenes and Valentinians.

3) The source of the tradition that Polycarp was the disciple of apostle John, whom he met at Ephesus is Eusebius' History. Irenaeus, who personally knew Polycarp and would have confirmed such a relationship did not do that. He mentions only that “Polycarp was instructed by the apostles, and was brought into contact with many who had seen Christ” (Adv. Hær., iii. 4).

In which phiosophical school people do not make up their own teachings ? Pray tell, Roger !

Actually, the word heresy implies selection. As Garry Willis explains in his Why I am a Catholic people were branded hairesioi in the early church because of their tendency to select 'one apostle, one set of sayings. one school of mysticism and reject the rest'. According to Willis, it was not a fight between the authoritarian orthodoxy and charismatic gnosticism, but between the church defending the whole tradition against the heretics' arbitrary exclusions. I am not sure except for one thing : Irenaeus, who popularized the word, saw it that way.

Jiri