Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Vorkosigan · 09-04-2004, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pierneef

The Gospel is regarded as highly significant by a number of scholars of note, including Crossan, who agrees with Grenfell and Hunt:

So here we have significant scholars saying that the Gospel was of independent origin and composed very early. That makes it quite unique, and therefore a very significant document. It may, by some quirk, have been unavailable to those who put the Gospels together; but it could just as easily have been available.

Yet other significant scholars, including those who have made a particular study of it, believe it to be dependent and late. Opinions are irrelevant. When Crossan makes that claim, what is its methodological justification?

renegadebabe · 09-04-2004, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by long winded fool

This is explained by the Old and New Covenants. Before the Son, humans were under an old covenant, i.e. an old set of rules. The sacrifice of the son ushers in a New Covenant. Changed laws do not necessarily indicate a problem with God. I used to get yelled at if I didn't conspicuously look both ways before crossing the street. Now I don't. My parents are not suffering from multiple personalities, and they are not the ones who have changed, even though they do things differently than they used to. I have. They trust me more now than they did when I was less wise, so they have different rules now than they used to. And I didn't always understand the rules, and I didn't like being punished, but that was my fault, not theirs. Changing rules are merely an indication that change is occuring in the relationship between the rule maker and the rule followers, not necessarily that change must be occuring in the rule maker. When the followers learn, the rules must often change.

But it's more than just the "rules" or even the punishments that have changed. Going from a God that condones hanging , stoning, and war with your neighbor would not say "love thy neighbor" and "whoever is sinless shall cast the first stone" as he does in the New Testament. That's a little more significant than a changing relationship. A more accurate analogy would be my mother telling me it is okay to pinch a classmate or call people names when I'm younger but when I'm older she suddenly feels that that is not appropriate behavior and I must never hurt or ridicule a classmate. And what indication is there that the people changed or matured requiring a new covenant? That's just pure speculation to make it all make sense. Anyway, as I said, I would not want anything to do with a God who viewed stoning as appropriate punishments at any time. So even if the relationship did mature, knowing that he ever did that sickens me to death.

JEST2ASK · 09-04-2004, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by renegadebabe

But it's more than just the "rules" or even the punishments that have changed. Going from a God that condones hanging , stoning, and war with your neighbor would not say "love thy neighbor" and "whoever is sinless shall cast the first stone" as he does in the New Testament. That's a little more significant than a changing relationship. << Skip >> Anyway, as I said, I would not want anything to do with a God who viewed stoning as appropriate punishments at any time. So even if the relationship did mature, knowing that he ever did that sickens me to death.

Just personal opinion / observation but reading passages in Matthew concerning the end times or tribulation and reading Revealation shows the true nature of The Son / Lamb ... a harsh unforgiving avenger ... (IMO) One of the biggest differences (again IMO) is that in the OT god acts immeaditely and directly (under a Theocroacy) in the NT belevers are powerless until the future promised time when all will be set right with the return ... [B] Vengance is Mine ..

pierneef · 09-05-2004, 06:37 PM

Quote:

Yet other significant scholars, including those who have made a particular study of it, believe it to be dependent and late. Opinions are irrelevant. When Crossan makes that claim, what is its methodological justification?

There are more than twenty pages of methodolgy using the conventional methods of textual analysis that most biblical scholars use. You can find them in his Birth of Christianity. The credibility of Thomas has also been strongly supported by the Jesus Seminar, which included it along with the canonical gospels, and found many of the sayings to be highly probable in terms of their authenticity. As I am sure you know, this effort involved tha participation of some of the leading Biblical scholars in the world.

The only efforts I have read to discredit Thomas have come from schoars with an agenda, conservative orthodox Catholics who wish to defend the sancity of the Four Gospel structure. As they have strong incentives (and have launched quite ugly attacks against Crossan), I would not regard them as unbiased, whereas Crossan and the Jesus Seminar participants have nothing to prove.

Perhaps you can give me the citation for what you consider the most credible discrediting of Thomas, and I will be happy to read it. I have no ax to grind, and am most open to persuasion.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.