FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12-27-2006, 02:41 PM   #41
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 4,287
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sven View Post
Yes, that's the answer I expected. But we all know that "reliable oral tradition" is an oxymoron, no?
I'm sure I've heard that in fact, we can't assume that. And it's killing me but I can't find the damn source for that. I remember references to oral tradition in the ancient world being often a matter of transmission by people with specific skills in telling and memory. But I can't prove I'm not pulling that out of my ass at the moment.

Still, what sources are there for the idea that oral tradition in not reliable?
WishboneDawn is offline  
Old 12-27-2006, 02:53 PM   #42
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 430
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamera View Post
There was no canon by definition among Christians before the rise of the canon. Only literate persons would even care about a canon, and that is what we are talking about.
In Rome maybe but in Syria? Marcion certainly had them beat all to hell and back on that one.
Casper is offline  
Old 12-27-2006, 02:58 PM   #43
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 430
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rlogan View Post
Paul is also the source of the Mayan Calendar and stonehenge.
Well now we know why he prefaced it all as a "vision". Psychedelic at that
Casper is offline  
Old 12-27-2006, 04:50 PM   #44
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Palm Springs, California
Posts: 10,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper View Post
In Rome maybe but in Syria? Marcion certainly had them beat all to hell and back on that one.
Well, Marcion was a literate man.

By the way, I think to this day his canon was the best. Christiantiy would have been better served to have stuck with the Christian scriptures and put the Hebrew scriptures to the side, since they were and are confusing and ultimately indecipherable. I would argue (with Marcion) that the gospel stands by itself.
Gamera is offline  
Old 12-27-2006, 04:52 PM   #45
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Palm Springs, California
Posts: 10,955
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rlogan View Post
Paul is also the source of the Mayan Calendar and stonehenge.
Well, if Greeks had known about the Mayan Calendar, Paul probably would have studied it at some time. He was a well-read man.
Gamera is offline  
Old 12-27-2006, 05:15 PM   #46
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 430
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamera View Post
Well, Marcion was a literate man.

By the way, I think to this day his canon was the best. Christiantiy would have been better served to have stuck with the Christian scriptures and put the Hebrew scriptures to the side, since they were and are confusing and ultimately indecipherable. I would argue (with Marcion) that the gospel stands by itself.
Marcion was da man!

When I discovered Marcionism it set a whole chain of events in motion in my psyche. I was electrified. Part of the joy was simply that there were others who must have felt the same as I did. Even if they were long gone.

I wonder if early Marcionites felt that way about Paul?
Casper is offline  
Old 12-27-2006, 06:41 PM   #47
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Middlesbrough, England
Posts: 3,909
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic
The truth about the New Testament Canon.
If there had been a canon in the new testament the Jews would have easily beaten the Romans. It's all bollocks.

Boro Nut
Boro Nut is offline  
Old 12-28-2006, 12:04 AM   #48
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamera View Post
Paul was writing in the 50s or 60s CE. That's early church by any standard.
That makes Paul a member of the early church. It does not make him equivalent to the early church. For all we know, 99 percent of all Christians living during that time would have said Paul was full of crap.
Doug Shaver is offline  
Old 12-28-2006, 08:58 AM   #49
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Rockford, IL
Posts: 740
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Shaver View Post
That makes Paul a member of the early church. It does not make him equivalent to the early church. For all we know, 99 percent of all Christians living during that time would have said Paul was full of crap.
It's possible, but unlikely. By all accounts Paul enjoyed great popularity among Christians. In one of his Epistles he even tries to discourage people from following him. Even the Gnostics seem to have valued Paul's teachings.
hatsoff is offline  
Old 12-28-2006, 11:50 AM   #50
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hatsoff View Post
... By all accounts Paul enjoyed great popularity among Christians. ...
You mean by all of Paul's accounts? Are there others? I think that there are some church fathers who refer to him as the apostle of the heretics.
Toto is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:43 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.