Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
10-11-2004, 12:58 PM | #11 | |
Moderator -
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 4,639
|
Quote:
None of the authors of the gospels even claim to be eyewitnesses of Jesus much less apostles. |
|
10-12-2004, 04:22 AM | #12 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,230
|
Quote:
The names you cite above (not including Fred) were Greek. "Pete" was Petros. There is a character in the Pauline epistles called Cephas, and there is speculation as to whether this was the same man as Peter of the gospels (as the name means the same thing.) |
|
10-12-2004, 04:44 AM | #13 | |
Banned
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Alaska
Posts: 9,159
|
Quote:
When you invent a tradition like this you can't get too specific or elsewise provide the means of checking up on the veracity of the claim. |
|
10-12-2004, 05:01 AM | #14 | |
Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
|
Quote:
Vorkosigan |
|
10-12-2004, 09:08 AM | #15 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Broomfield, CO
Posts: 21
|
Quote:
This is most likely a generic greeting to a colleague or friend, and not to a specific person. The modern equivalent might be, "Dear Fellow Christian." Nobody's sure whether Luke was writing a polemic to other nameless "friends of God," or whether he was addressing someone in particular. |
|
10-12-2004, 09:38 AM | #16 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Broomfield, CO
Posts: 21
|
Quote:
In choosing Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, the Synods expressly excluded nearly sixty other documents that had been labeled "gospels" throughout the years, but for one reason or another, were considered inappropriate for inclusion in the New Testament. Why? Hard to say. Only fragments of many of these documents exist today, but many of these other gospels run contrary to "accepted" church doctrine and were even considered heretical. The Gospel of Thomas, for example, is only a "sayings" gospel and attributes to Jesus no miracles, and makes no mention of the Resurrection. The author of the Thomas writings was most likely also a gnostic, which was a small sect which claimed exclusive knowledge (or gnosis) of the meanings of Jesus' messages, which obviously clashed with the teachings of the early Church. In the fragmentary Gospel of Mary Magdalene, it's suggested she was Jesus' wife. Hardly appropriate for the Canon. And on and on. there are gospels of Peter, of Barrabas, Matthias, James, Philip, an infancy gospel of Thomas, none of which passed muster as far as the Synods were concerned. |
|
10-12-2004, 12:24 PM | #17 | ||
Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: London UK
Posts: 16,024
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
10-12-2004, 03:26 PM | #18 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: none
Posts: 9,879
|
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|