Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
06-16-2003, 07:07 PM | #11 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 4,109
|
Re: Re: Dating the Gospel of Thomas
Quote:
SLD |
|
06-16-2003, 07:13 PM | #12 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 4,109
|
Re: Re: Dating the Gospel of Thomas
Quote:
Perhaps we need to invite Elaine Pagels to these boards and clear this matter up - of course, then there'd be no need to buy her book. SLD |
|
06-16-2003, 07:14 PM | #13 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 4,109
|
Re: Re: Dating the Gospel of Thomas
Quote:
SLD |
|
06-16-2003, 09:28 PM | #14 |
Junior Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Fort Worth, TX
Posts: 86
|
Ever heard of Herocleon?
|
06-17-2003, 08:54 AM | #15 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Portlandish
Posts: 2,829
|
Quote:
|
|
06-17-2003, 08:58 AM | #16 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Portlandish
Posts: 2,829
|
Re: Re: Re: Dating the Gospel of Thomas
Quote:
your use of the term "variant" itself belies our modern bias toward what we know today as orthodox Xianity. It seems pretty clear from the evidence that there was a great diversity of opinion very early on. Xianity was defined only later when various competing theologies battled to see who would get to define orthodoxy. |
|
06-19-2003, 01:23 AM | #17 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Yes, I have dyslexia. Sue me.
Posts: 6,508
|
I just want to know what the dissenting 5 bishops said .
|
06-19-2003, 03:22 AM | #18 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
CX,
Careful there. You may have overstated your case. The fact that 'orthodoxy' won a political battle does not mean we can simply assume that it was not the earliest or dominant sect from square one. The trajectories hypothesis is built on much less evidence and far more theory than is usually supposed. For instance, nowhere is there evidence (a part from Edessa, perhaps) of non-orthodox Christians arriving earlier than the orthodox. Nowhere is there evidence that non-orthodox ideas were taken into orthodoxy rather than the other way around. The evidence for really early heresy is extremely scanty and has been extrapolated a lot further than it will reasonably go. To repeat, we cannot assume that there was equivalance between early Christian sects and we have no reason to disbelieve that the main reason orthodoxy won out was because it was by far the largest and earliest group. Yours Bede Bede's Library - faith and reason |
06-21-2003, 04:51 PM | #19 | |||
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa
Posts: 6,523
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Thats an interesting theory though. I might want to look into that. Vinnie |
|||
06-21-2003, 09:29 PM | #20 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 1,315
|
Quote:
Sheesh Vork... you've been here at least as long as I have. Do you really mean to tell me you've managed to not see all the times posters have been doing this? I find that hard to believe, given that I myself have argued with many such posters here... Or did my statement hit too close to home perhaps? Names? Why bother? -As if I would want to spend all my time memorising the names of idiots! But I doubt I'll quickly forget the wackiness of people like Iasion, IronMonkey, Yuri Kuchinsky. Neville Lindsay has also been brought to my attention recently as another one. Of course, I can't say that people Toto or Steven Carr are a great lot better either, but at least they're not quite as bad. Then we've got the awesome book writers such as Acharys S and Andrew Templeman. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|