Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Febble · 04-19-2006, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyDancer_0202

imo, its rather stupid (from a religious person's standpoint) to believe Judas was NOT doing what Jesus/God wanted. If Judas hadn't "betrayed" him, he wouldn't have gotten to make that pretend sacrifice of his life for all of us sinners. If Judas had "chosen" (free-will and all that) not to "betray" Jesus - then what? Did God have a back-up plan?

A bit of a theological straw man here. The point of the doctrine of the incarnation is that God became man, and men die. No back-up plan required.

SkyDancer_0202 · 04-19-2006, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febble

A bit of a theological straw man here. The point of the doctrine of the incarnation is that God became man, and men die. No back-up plan required.

the 'back-up' plan I was joking about is: what would god have done if Judas, exercising his free will, had decided NOT to "betray" Jesus. We are expected to believe that Judas is some sort of horrible betrayer because he voluntarily "betrayed" Jesus, yet if he had not, the entire crucifixtion sequence would not have occurred - which then negates the entire supposed purpose of God as Jesus (or God's only son or whatever) making his little visit to earth.

As such, it makes more sense (even within the framework of nonsensical beliefs in deities) to believe that Judas was in on the plan and knew from Jesus/God that it had to be done to allow all the rest to happen.

no strawman here.

jonibug · 04-19-2006, 02:37 PM

I recently re-read Carrier's The Formation of the New Testament Canon and found a couple of interesting quotes:

Quote:

Even in 327 A.D., when Eusebius published the final draft of his Church History, two years after the great Council of Nicea, which set out to establish a decisive orthodox creed that would be enforced by law throughout the world, there was no official Bible.

Quote:

Most astonishing is the fact that, after leaving us with this confusing state of affairs, Eusebius reports that the Emperor Constantine commissioned Eusebius personally to produce fifty excellent copies of the sacred scriptures which would be the basis, no doubt, of the official imperial Bible (Life of Constantine 4.36.37), yet we are never told what books Eusebius chose to include, or on what authority or criteria.

Febble · 04-19-2006, 03:14 PM

Well, this is the strawman:

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyDancer_0202

... the entire crucifixtion sequence would not have occurred - which then negates the entire supposed purpose of God as Jesus (or God's only son or whatever) making his little visit to earth.

although I kinda recognise it as one strand of Christianity. But there are plenty of strands of Christianity that would survive the burning of this particular strawman - e.g. the strand that regards the crucifixion as not sought but inevitable, and as the outward and visible sign of God's continual suffering every time any of us "crucifies" another, as we do, sadly, daily.

And that's a pretty mainstream interpretation.

SkyDancer_0202 · 04-19-2006, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Febble

Well, this is the strawman:

you are claiming that it is a strawman to say that one of the tenents of christanity is that Jesus was sacrificed on the cross to cleanse the sins of humanity? You are claiming that it is a strawman to say that Jesus IS God (in certain sects) or the SON of God (in others)? You are seriously claiming that I am presenting a strawman here?

Quote:

although I kinda recognise it as one strand of Christianity.

uh huh - which means it is NOT a 'strawman' thank you very much

Quote:

But there are plenty of strands of Christianity that would survive the burning of this particular strawman - e.g. the strand that regards the crucifixion as not sought but inevitable, and as the outward and visible sign of God's continual suffering every time any of us "crucifies" another, as we do, sadly, daily.

you have just acknowledge that this IS the belief of at least "one strand" of christianity, therefore it is NOT a strawman.

As for "sought" vs "inevitable" - well, that looks like its shaping up to be one of those "free will" contradictions.

I. C. Unicorns · 04-19-2006, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkyDancer_0202

imo, its rather stupid (from a religious person's standpoint) to believe Judas was NOT doing what Jesus/God wanted. If Judas hadn't "betrayed" him, he wouldn't have gotten to make that pretend sacrifice of his life for all of us sinners. If Judas had "chosen" (free-will and all that) not to "betray" Jesus - then what? Did God have a back-up plan?

Judas had free will to do what he wished, but he didn't have the ability to know the outcome of his decisions.

Magdlyn · 04-19-2006, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by I. C. Unicorns

Judas had free will to do what he wished, but he didn't have the ability to know the outcome of his decisions.

Well since Jesus had already told the apostles he would suffer and die and even told his followers to all take up their crosses and follow him, Judas would not have needed to be clairvoyant to know "the outcome of his decisions."

Phlox Pyros · 04-19-2006, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.C.Carlson

Different parts of canon were canonized at different times. I think that it is safe to say that among orthodox Christians, the four-fold gospel collection was closed by the early third century. (If Gaius who denied John was heterodox then the gospel collection was effectively closed for the orthodox even earlier.)

Hmm...I'd have to go back to my books on the early third century for the 4 gospels. I'm not sure I agree with that late a date.

Quote:

Discussion of when canon as a whole was closed, which, in any case, did not happen at Nicea, and the gospel of Jesus is largely beside the point, because the relevant sub-collection of the canon had been closed for at least century earlier.

Thank you. Did I not say this earlier? I thought I did. Perhaps it was in another thread. Finally some sanity...

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-19-2006, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phlox Pyros

Thank you. Did I not say this earlier? I thought I did. Perhaps it was in another thread. Finally some sanity...

Don't get too excited. It was only partially "closed" for some Christians, not all.

Ben C Smith · 04-19-2006, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phlox Pyros

Hmm...I'd have to go back to my books on the early third century for the 4 gospels. I'm not sure I agree with that late a date.

Perhaps you are thinking of the moment in time when the four gospels first came together in a codex, in a text (like the Epistola Apostolorum, perhaps), or in the sentiments of a single church father (like Irenaeus), while Stephen is thinking of the moment when the orthodox church everywhere came to accept only those four and no others.

Ben.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.