Solo

So, if the selection was made on the base of the theological views of the church hierarchy, how could it be a case of 'survival of the most popular' ? Or 'the fittest' for that matter ?

It's like saying that if the Ford's Model T was commercially succesful it was because it was designed by the market of automobile buyers.

Jiri

Johnny Skeptic

How can a vote reasonably establish what is or is not the word of God? How was the vote regarding the New Testament Canon any more reliable than Roman Catholic cardinals voting for a Pope? Why wasn't the Gospel of Thomas included in the New Testament Canon?

Why do you accept the Gospels as being historical?

Are you aware of any firsthand eyewitness claims in Matthew, Mark, and Luke?

andrewcriddle

The historical point is that probably the Canon was established by consensus rather than a formal vote.

Presumably the consensus of Christians can establish what are the Christian sacred texts.

AFAIK almost nobody thought the Gospel of Thomas should be in the Canon. It seems to have been too minority interest a work for the question to really arise.

Andrew Criddle

Joan of Bark

Okay, I'll revise my statement. It was 'survival of the most popular among the church hierarchy'.

SeekingKnowledge

Established by concensus of whom? The concensus of the majority of the congregation? Concensus of the heirarchy of the church?

So a concensus of which stories the people believe most? Wait, could these people even read the texts they were confirming or denying? Weren't they told by the priests what these books said? How is that a fair concensus?

No human agenda whatsoever in the Canonization process?

Right...

Johnny Skeptic

Obviously, but why not? What about the Gospel of Thomas indicates to you that it does not belong in the Bible?

I find it to be quite odd that a God would use written records as a primary means of communicating with humans, and that if a God did choose to use written records as a primary means of communicating with humans that he inspired lots of confusing writings. A good example of confusing writings is the story of the flood. There are currently several threads about the flood at the Evolution/Creation Forum. Many Christians believe that the flood was global, and many Christians believe that the flood was localized. Among Christians who believe that the flood was localized, some believe that it occurred in Mesopotamia, and some believe that the localized flood could not have occurred in Mesopotamia. Regarding Christians who are theistic evolutionists, and believe that the flood was localized, if they had been born centuries ago, many of them would have believed in the story of Adam and Eve, and would have believed that the flood was global.

Christians have been confused about many issues for the last 2,000 years. The Bible says that God is not the author or confusion. How can that be true since even today, Christians disagree about many issues? I assume that withholding useful evidence causes confusion. I also assume that a God would prefer telepathy over written records. That way, he could communicate the same messages to everyone in the world, thereby causing much less doubt and confusion.

andrewcriddle

I don't think it would have been a disaster if Thomas was in the canon.

However it seems further away from any plausible historical Jesus than are the canonical Gospels, and it seems to put too much emphasis on knowledge and not enough on love.

Andrew Criddle

Johnny Skeptic

Elaine Pagels said that if the Gospel of Thomas had been included in the New Testament that Christian history would probably have been different.

As far as I know, Elaine Pagels believes that a historical Jesus existed.

The best conclusion is that even if a historical Jesus existed, he was not the Jesus who is mentioned in the Gospels. For one thing, there is not sufficient non-biblical evidence that Jesus performed miracles. Are you aware of any firsthand eyewitnesses testimonies in Matthew, Mark, and Luke regarding the miracles that Jesus performed? I do not know of any. The book of John was written too late to be of any significant value to Christians.

Even if Jesus rose from the dead, that would not be a sufficient endorsement of Christianity because that would not tell us why he rose from the dead. There is not sufficient non-biblical evidence that Jesus said anywhere near everything that the Gospels say that he said.

Can you make a good case for Christianity without using the Bible? I once asked James Holding that question. He said that he could, but I never got around to asking him to do it.

Johnny Skeptic

God sending skeptics to hell for eternity without parole is not about love. Neither is God withholding evidence that would convince more people to become Christians.

andrewcriddle

It would obviously have made some sort of difference. However if the Gospel of Thomas had been added to the canon, everything else remaining the same, this would presumably have involved interpreting this Gospel so as to harmonize with the others. The canonising of Thomas by an otherwise orthodox Church would have muted the distinctive and radical teaching that Elaine Pagels finds in Thomas.

Andrew Criddle