In need of some religious expertise....

[HoreTore]

Philipvs and Rhyfelwyr, you wouldn't happen to know this one, would you?

I've been pondering what I learned about christianity in my childhood, as it seems that I've learned two odd things. I thought it was the normal variant of christianity until I was around 16 or 17 I think, when I learned that the "rest of the christian world" thought the exact opposite. And I'm curious as to what version of christianity I've been exposed to.... So here are the two things:

1. I was thought that the word of the bible was absolute, delivered by god through the holy ghost, who "possessed", in lack of a better term, all the various writers of the bible, thus making it god's own words. Also, the holy ghost has protected every single translation of it, so every translation of the bible is just as correct. But the normal view is that the bible was written by men, isn't it?

2. Judas and the way he betrayed Jesus. I was taught that Judas did not betray Jesus. He was told by Jesus to do what he did, and that it was all part of Jesus' grand plan. And also that Judas was reluctant to do it, because of his great love for Jesus...

So, could anyone clear this one up for me? I'd be most grateful :bow:

[Zim]

I can say that #2 is not all that common, at least among the denominations I've been exposed to. Every once in a while someone writes what they consider a "groundbreaking" book on the possibility, it gets talked about for a short while, and then seems to be forgotten shortly after... I've never heard of a denomination accepting the idea, although perhaps another poster has.

As for #1, I think a lot of Christians say if asked that everything written in the bible is true, and that the writers were inspired by God/the Holy Spirit, but they often mean different things by it. In America you hear the word "inerrancy" thrown around a lot in regards to this subject, with proponents believing every word in the bible is literally true (and thus coming to conclusions like that the earth is only 6000 years old or that all animals existed at the same time originally). I've noticed a lot of people with this view tend to believe that stories in the bible are not allegory unless it is explicitly stated, and go to great lengths to explain what some may see as contradictions in the bible. Generally inerrancy is applied only to the originaly manuscripts, or for some reason sometimes the King James version of the bible.

I'd say most protestant Christians would say the bible is true and inspired, but that some accounts in it are allegory (say, Genesis 1 and 2, for example). Another idea that seems to be popular is that the writers were inspired but still subject to human errors or writing as dogma things that came from their culture.

I'm sure someone more knowledgable will come along but that's my understanding...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Philipvs and Rhyfelwyr, you wouldn't happen to know this one, would you?

I've been pondering what I learned about christianity in my childhood, as it seems that I've learned two odd things. I thought it was the normal variant of christianity until I was around 16 or 17 I think, when I learned that the "rest of the christian world" thought the exact opposite. And I'm curious as to what version of christianity I've been exposed to.... So here are the two things:

I've always thought the Christianity you were exposed to was well...odd. Mind, my Norwegian friends have had similar experiences.


1. I was thought that the word of the bible was absolute, delivered by god through the holy ghost, who "possessed", in lack of a better term, all the various writers of the bible, thus making it god's own words. Also, the holy ghost has protected every single translation of it, so every translation of the bible is just as correct. But the normal view is that the bible was written by men, isn't it?

Ok, this is largely a hardline Protestant invention. It comes from a percieved need to interpret scipture directly without sufficient education. The fact is, and it is generally recognised, tanslations are always faulty. There have been at least ten popular and servicable translation of the Bible into English in the last 40 years or so, and many less servicable ones. They don't agree, and these dissagreements are manifest evidence the fallability of the translators.

No one is seriously going to dispute that translations are inperfect if they have actually studied the Bible. I think Rhy would happily agree with me on this point, at least.

To be honest, if the reformers had really wanted people to read the Bible they would have taught everyone Greek and Hebrew, like Islam or Judaism.

The actual fallability of the original text is a more complex issue. Every Christian accepts that the motivation for the writing of the Bible was genuine and devout. So far as that goes, it could be called the "prompting of the Holy Spirit". It is also now widely recognised, and always has been all the way back before the Latin Vulgate really, that surviving manuscripts from the early Church suffer from scibal error, damage etc. As far as this goes, one of the rationals for the New Revised Standard Version about 20 years ago was that previously unavailable, and superior, copies of texts had come to light in the Dead Sea Area.

There are a number of scribal corruptions, varriations etc. The Gospel of Mark has two endings, long and short. So at some point God took his eye off the ball there.

As far as infallability of the orignal, this is a different issue. It is also, from a textual criticism point of view, irrelevant. All extant copies of the Gospel exibit chonological, geographic and historical oddities, even Mathew and Luke, theoretically the closest, dissagree at points. John dissagrees with Mathew to the extent that one, or both, is clearly wrong at certain points where they should converge. Mark demonstrates a confused understanding of Judean geography etc.

So, assuming God exerted his Power and subverted the free will of the original authors, one would wonder why he bothered at all. He clearly made no definitive effort afterwards.

Added to this, there are whole libraries devoted to the varried and nuanced ways to interpret what we do have.


2. Judas and the way he betrayed Jesus. I was taught that Judas did not betray Jesus. He was told by Jesus to do what he did, and that it was all part of Jesus' grand plan. And also that Judas was reluctant to do it, because of his great love for Jesus...

So, could anyone clear this one up for me? I'd be most grateful :bow:

This, I have not seen in a while. It comes, I believe, from the same determinist school of thought that says the Bibile must be infallable, just because. Basically, this is the idea behind the "Gospel of Judas" recently translated and published. The first known reference in the Letters of the Church Fathers is about 120 AD when it is denounced as heresy.

I know that's rather long, hope it helps.

[Zim]

I've always found the groups most for inerrancy to be the ones most hostile to that idea. Most of the people I encountered that seriously entertained it have been the ones that believe that the writers of the bible were fallible, and/or that the canon's establishment was faulty. Given the way Judas is depicted in the four gospels, I'd think it would be hard to come to the conclusion that Jusdas was really a good guy while still thinking the main four gospels were inerrant.



This, I have not seen in a while. It comes, I believe, from the same determinist school of thought that says the Bibile must be infallable, just because. Basically, this is the idea behind the "Gospel of Judas" recently translated and published. The first known reference in the Letters of the Church Fathers is about 120 AD when it is denounced as heresy.

I know that's rather long, hope it helps.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I've always found the groups most for inerrancy to be the ones most hostile to that idea. Most of the people I encountered that seriously entertained it have been the ones that believe that the writers of the bible were fallible, and/or that the canon's establishment was faulty. Given the way Judas is depicted in the four gospels, I'd think it would be hard to come to the conclusion that Jusdas was really a good guy while still thinking the main four gospels were inerrant.

The key part was "just because"

The arguement runs that Jesus must have known Judas was going to betray him, and that since it was planned Judas could really be blamed.

These are people who believe a consistantly bad anthology to be final word of God until the Rapture, I wouldn't look for consistancy.

[Zim]

Ah yes, I've heard that line of reasoning before, although it's been a while. I was thinking more of the people who cling to whatever new "gospel"/conpiracy theory about the catholic church/etc book has just come out.

Are you saying you don't believe the antichrist will be a European Jew who rises to power in the 20th 21st century? :laugh4:


The key part was "just because"

The arguement runs that Jesus must have known Judas was going to betray him, and that since it was planned Judas could really be blamed.

These are people who believe a consistantly bad anthology to be final word of God until the Rapture, I wouldn't look for consistancy.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Ah, this calls for a devout Christian such as myself...

1. I was thought that the word of the bible was absolute, delivered by god through the holy ghost, who "possessed", in lack of a better term, all the various writers of the bible, thus making it god's own words. Also, the holy ghost has protected every single translation of it, so every translation of the bible is just as correct. But the normal view is that the bible was written by men, isn't it?The Koran is the direct word of God. The Bible is always indirect. I have never heard of a large denomination that thinks otherwise. (That belongs to tiny cults and, franky, amateur bible teachers. Or perhaps a deliberate simplification to teach the Bible to kids, who may not have the development of mind to grasp all nuances)

Catholicism considers Jerome's Latin translation, the Vulgate, as its official text. The exact status of the Hebrew and Greek originals, I am not sure about. I do not know whether Catholic theologians (at least of old) study these. Modern Catholicism, since Pius XII, allows other languages, and even archeology, as sources of theological knowledge.




2. Judas and the way he betrayed Jesus. I was taught that Judas did not betray Jesus. He was told by Jesus to do what he did, and that it was all part of Jesus' grand plan. And also that Judas was reluctant to do it, because of his great love for Jesus...

So, could anyone clear this one up for me? I'd be most grateful :bow:This argument belongs not so much to any doctrine. It is an ancient theological debate, which follows from pondering the consequences of the crucifiction.

The commonly held (at least Catholic) doctrine is that Judas betrayed Jesus. For this he is punished with eternity in hell.

However, so the argument goes, it was God's plan, His intention, to save mankind. Jesus sacrificied Himself, died for our sins. Only through Him will man find salvation. This then raises the question: 'what are a few hours on a cross compared to an eternity in hell?'
If the death of Jesus was the intention, then all the players played out their part. So who made the bigger sacrifice? Jesus, sitting next to His Father in His kingdom, or Judas, tormented forever?


It all hinges on predestination and free will.
Either Judas could've chosen to betray or not betray Jesus. Which makes his choice to betray a sacrifice. Or else mankind would not have been saved. (And thus, this is an anti-argument, neither would Judas have been. Poor bugger. Damned if he did, damned if he didn't. One way or another he was going to burn)
Or Judas was destined to be a betrayer. And burns not for his sacricife but for his sin.


Struggling with this same topic and portraying a very interesting Judas is Nikos 'Zorba the Greek' Kazantzakis, in his book 'The Last Temptation'. (Okay, dropping the pretentious charade, I only know it through the excellent movie by the same name).
Incidentally, it also features the best Jesus I've ever seen. He too is not will-lessly playing out His act. Here he is a struggling man and God. I thought it very touching. It strengthens, even allows for, Jesus' sacrifice. Jesus here is not a mindless lamb that is sacrificied, as if struck by lightning. Here he is a person who willfully sacrifices himself. The temptation not to sacrifice is present, forcing Jesus to choose, and by making a choice, a difficult one at that, is shown not to be killed by others, but of making a sacrifice of his own making.
Needless to say, the book was put on the Index.

[LittleGrizzly]

I only recently heard the theory about Judas betrayal being part of Jesus' plan (youtube documentary) i found it fascinating and thought its a possibility*...

*When I think on it I make the assumption that christianity is the true religion, though i suppose it could also work if Jesus was an ordinary man who wanted to be a martyr...

Edit: Not that I am an expert on Christianity just from the little I know the Judas theory didn't really contradict it (outside of the parts that directly said Judas did betray Jesus that is)

[rory_20_uk]

Read the Gospel of Judas. Very enlightening.

In this he is described as the first of the twelve, given the task ordained by God to betray Jesus.

There's more excluded from the New Testament than remains. Lots that didn't make the cut doesn't appear to be"on message" and like modern day back benchers was silenced.

I don't understand that considering the large numbers of works that were written, how did the Bishops know which were divinely written by proxy and which were not - or were all the editors also divinely possessed, as well as those that chose the editors and so on...

~:smoking:

[Husar]

I don't understand that considering the large numbers of works that were written, how did the Bishops know which were divinely written by proxy and which were not - or were all the editors also divinely possessed, as well as those that chose the editors and so on...

~:smoking:

That is a question I haven't really found an answer to except the one you gave, they were also divinely inspired to choose the right works. It all does seem a bit wonky though and one could wonder how the different groups of chrisitanity come into that as in some accept this selection as the catholic church made it and others may not, I think there are a few differences here and there but then who made the real, true, divinely inspired works and selections? Does god really care whether we choose the right ones? This is a hard one and most will tell you that god will let you know when you make the right choices but all believers from all denominations will tell you that god told them that they made the right choice... :dizzy2:

It's one of the things that actually made me drift towards the agnotic/atheist corner. :shrug:

[miotas]

You could just simplify the whole thing by taking my view, that until we die there is no possible way to know what's what, so just stop worrying about and get on with life.

No worries mate, it's a good way to live :grin:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Read the Gospel of Judas. Very enlightening.

In this he is described as the first of the twelve, given the task ordained by God to betray Jesus.

There's more excluded from the New Testament than remains. Lots that didn't make the cut doesn't appear to be"on message" and like modern day back benchers was silenced.

I don't understand that considering the large numbers of works that were written, how did the Bishops know which were divinely written by proxy and which were not - or were all the editors also divinely possessed, as well as those that chose the editors and so on...

~:smoking:

This assumes the Gospel of Judas is correct. As I said, it does not appear in records until 120, and irrc the extant copy is philologically dated to be later. All of the Canonical Gospels are dated to before 100 AB, with the possible exception of John. In any case, the "silencing" is a result of modern printing methods, apophrycal books were read and studied during the medieval epoch, as were the Letters of the Church Fathers.

Personally, I do not give this conspiracy theory and more credence than the lies the Inquisition spread about the Temple Knights.

[rory_20_uk]

This assumes the Gospel of Judas is correct. As I said, it does not appear in records until 120, and irrc the extant copy is philologically dated to be later. All of the Canonical Gospels are dated to before 100 AB, with the possible exception of John. In any case, the "silencing" is a result of modern printing methods, apophrycal books were read and studied during the medieval epoch, as were the Letters of the Church Fathers.

Personally, I do not give this conspiracy theory and more credence than the lies the Inquisition spread about the Temple Knights.

Of course. And seeing as there is no more evidence for this one compared to the four that were chosen - a minority of those that were written that we know of. What explanation is there that all these other texts were excluded? Most were written decades after the event including those that are canonical.

~:smoking:

[Rhyfelwyr]

1. I was thought that the word of the bible was absolute, delivered by god through the holy ghost, who "possessed", in lack of a better term, all the various writers of the bible, thus making it god's own words. Also, the holy ghost has protected every single translation of it, so every translation of the bible is just as correct. But the normal view is that the bible was written by men, isn't it?

I don't think anyone would argue that the holy spirit possessed every translation, but many people do believe that for the original versions, or at least that enough was inspired to give us what we need. Historically, pretty much everyone believed the scripture was inspired, at least for use in spiritual matters if not scientific or historical ones. Nowadays, this view is only really found amongst the more conservative Protestants, I suppose as a consequence of the whole 'Sola Scriptura' idea.

Alas, I am somewhat torn on this issue of late. From my reading of the Bible, I've always thought it to be divinely inspired (even if my translation, which is a KJV, doesn't always get it 100% right), but this is really only from my personal conviction and not a lot else. And so I've been looking into the issue a bit of late, and a fresh perspective entered my head the other day... what if the respect we Protestants give to the Bible is a form of idolatry? The thought really smacked me in the face when I was mulling over the Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin's main work. What really got me was when I recalled how Calvin argued that God and the word play a duel role in people's salvation, with the scripture being a sort of anchor to give all people a common root in their understanding of God, and which they can use to better understand their relationship with him. The problem with this is that it reduces the role of God so that He is not the sole author in bringing about our salvation, although at the same time of course Calvin would believe that God is sovereign in choosing who is saved. To bring me further confusion of the matter, John 1:1 has the whole "in the beggining was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God" verse... which while I'm well aware does not actually clarify what books ought to be seen as the 'word' (apocrypha etc), it does suggest the scripture shares some sort of common essence with or in God while being distinct, kind of like with the elements of the Trinity. While I have always held the scripture in high regard, I'm aware that many do the same with their idols, even if they are something as simple as a cross, and so I must always be aware of the risk of idolatry distracting me from direct communication with God. Gah! When I see people sitting in from of images of Jesus, or even just praying near a cross, it makes we want to jump in front of them and smash them in front of their faces, and tell them that God is living still! Now, I can perhaps see the hypocrisy in this... when praying in the past, I would usually have the Bible in front of me or resting on my chest if I was in bed... if this made me feel closer to God then it was very immature of me. I feel Calvin must have been like me when it came to reverence for the scripture. He was such a logical and methodical guy, in terms of volume and originality his work is unparalleled... but I am also aware that in the 'Institutes', he never gives a sufficient answer as to why he holds the scripture in such high regard, it is the one weakness I can see in an otherwise brilliant work. Although in fairness he was also aware of this himself, he often says that there is not sufficient evidence to back up his views in this respect, and while he does go some way to proving his point, he still leaves some purely to his own convictions.

And if I may give some anecdotal evidence, so you know where I'm coming from if nothing else, I was praying for a bit of guidance on the issue a couple of days ago, and asked if God would give me a bit of a hint as to what I ought to believe. And that night I happened to be going over Ephesians again, and just a couple of verses in, I was sure I saw a mispelling, and I thought that maybe was a hint I was looking for. And so I was thinking over it for a few minutes, and making sure it was indeed a mispelling, I concluded that God had given me a hint and that I should seriously think about my views. But then, when I realigned me eyes to the book to continue reading, I reread the verse to pick up at the next one, and I noticed that the word had in fact been spelled correctly all along. There it was plain as day, I had been sure I had all the proof in front of me, I checked and checked, and yet I was wrong all along, the scripture had it right. Doubly interestingly, the rest of the chapter went on to some up all my Calvinistic beliefs, it was all about predestination etc. Which made me think... maybe the scripture exists to give us a basis for our doctrines, while at the same time not necessarily being divinely inspired or beyond error when it comes to historical events etc. Generally speaking, the canon of most churches are (considering the vast number of books in circulation amongst the early Christians) are very similar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_Bible), and plus points go to us Proddies for our OT alinging almost exactly with the Jewish 'Tanakh'.

In the Reformation we took away idols from the church, we ended the select priesthood, we strived to worship in a more acceptable manner centred purely on God, maybe there is one last bastion of idolatry remaining in the church today?


No one is seriously going to dispute that translations are inperfect if they have actually studied the Bible. I think Rhy would happily agree with me on this point, at least.

I would indeed. I don't think I've ever heard anyone suggest that all or, for most people, any translations are divinely inspired. Not even the US Evangelicals would believe that, there was quite a bit of controversy over the 'King James Only' movement, where some people claimed that the KJV was divinely inspired just as the original translations. However, the movement was shunned by most people and is seen almost as heretical by some, it gets lumped into that borderline orthodox area alongside ideas such as annihilationism and soul sleeping.


This, I have not seen in a while. It comes, I believe, from the same determinist school of thought that says the Bibile must be infallable, just because. Basically, this is the idea behind the "Gospel of Judas" recently translated and published. The first known reference in the Letters of the Church Fathers is about 120 AD when it is denounced as heresy.

Judas willingly transgressed against Jesus, and acted sinfully in betraying him. Jesus does indeed tell his disciples that he chose them, and that the prophecy regarding his being betrayed must be fulfilled, but at the same time it is clear from several parts of the NT that Judas was not doing Jesus a favour (otherwise it couldn't properly be called a betrayal), but in fact willfully sinned agaist him, as Jesus knew he would.


It all hinges on predestination and free will.
Either Judas could've chosen to betray or not betray Jesus. Which makes his choice to betray a sacrifice. Or else mankind would not have been saved. (And thus, this is an anti-argument, neither would Judas have been. Poor bugger. Damned if he did, damned if he didn't. One way or another he was going to burn)
Or Judas was destined to be a betrayer. And burns not for his sacricife but for his sin.

In Reformed theology at least, the idea of Judas sacrificing Jesus is completely incompatible with other core beliefs. A crucial part of the whole argument for predestination rests on Jesus being the ultimate high priest as was prophecied, in that Christ offers the payment to God as part of a substitutionary atonement, which only he is able to do due to his role as a 'mediator' for humanity. Also, Christ is himself the 'lamb without blemish', the thing sacrificed itself. And finally, as the high priest, Christ is also seen as having the role of applying the things obtained by the sacrifice, namely forgiveness to those for whom it has been purchased. To be the high priest, Christ must be mediator, oblation, and intercessor. If you attribute any of these characteristics to another person, he could not have fulfiled the prophecies, or have been a truly perfect sacrifice before God.

[miotas]

If god did make the whole world and everything, and he is all powerful and what not then I swear he must have bin bloody drunk at the time :laugh4:

[Samurai Waki]

If god did make the whole world and everything, and he is all powerful and what not then I swear he must have bin bloody drunk at the time :laugh4:

I thought about this as well, through reading through this thread. If god is all powerful, couldn't he have just forgiven man's sins without the compelling story? Something seems amiss...

[HoreTore]

Alright, so we've kinda sorted out the issues in my two questions, thanks a lot for that :bow:

But.... There's still the question of "what the hey have I been exposed to?" Now, I didn't go to church or anything as a kid, so this knowledge comes from my religion teacher at school, my grandparents and possibly my great-grandmother... I know of the "judas-conspiracies", and I highly doubt that I've been subject to anything like that. Remember, I live in backwater hillbilly Norway. ~;) Also, it must've been presented as the normal truth, not something controversial or something.... Otherwise there would've been some doubt in there, and I was completely oblivious to any other theories on the subjects...

As for church affiliations, my grandparents belong to the norwegian state church, as far as I know anyway. My great-grandmothers church is called "Betania"(I think), if that tells you anything... I'm pretty sure they also practice adult baptism, but that's about it for my knowledge of that church.

Thanks a lot Philipvs and Rhyfelwyr, for some very interesting posts :bow:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Of course. And seeing as there is no more evidence for this one compared to the four that were chosen - a minority of those that were written that we know of. What explanation is there that all these other texts were excluded? Most were written decades after the event including those that are canonical.

~:smoking:

Date, the Patristic Letters of Clement etc. place a canon of four Gospels very early, 100 AD is the earliest one, I think. By contrast, the arguement for Revelations is very weak, so much so that Luthor tried to remove it. By all accounts Judas is not only lately written, but lately commented on.

Remember, the Biblical canon is merely a list of those books most trusted, it does not preclude you reading the Gospel of Peter or Thomas.


In the Reformation we took away idols from the church, we ended the select priesthood, we strived to worship in a more acceptable manner centred purely on God, maybe there is one last bastion of idolatry remaining in the church today?

Let me turn that on its head for you. Maybe there's nothing wrong with crosses, crucifixes, and icons so long as we remember they are representations?

I might go so far as to suggest that the closed Bible is more idolterus because it is nothing more than a book, and it represents merely the written word, the [/i]scriptura[i], which in English is "writing", while the Latin for WORD is "Verbum", and the Greek is "Logos".

None of those are etymologically related to writing or books, but to speaking.

[HoreTore]

Miotas, please stay on topic, or make thyself ye own thread ~;)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Alright, so we've kinda sorted out the issues in my two questions, thanks a lot for that :bow:

But.... There's still the question of "what the hey have I been exposed to?" Now, I didn't go to church or anything as a kid, so this knowledge comes from my religion teacher at school, my grandparents and possibly my great-grandmother... I know of the "judas-conspiracies", and I highly doubt that I've been subject to anything like that. Remember, I live in backwater hillbilly Norway. ~;) Also, it must've been presented as the normal truth, not something controversial or something.... Otherwise there would've been some doubt in there, and I was completely oblivious to any other theories on the subjects...

As for church affiliations, my grandparents belong to the norwegian state church, as far as I know anyway. My great-grandmothers church is called "Betania"(I think), if that tells you anything... I'm pretty sure they also practice adult baptism, but that's about it for my knowledge of that church.

Thanks a lot Philipvs and Rhyfelwyr, for some very interesting posts :bow:

Well, the Norwegian Church is Evangelical Lutheran, and while that might make it a bit "fire and brinstone" in certain flavours it isn't known for these sort of hardline nonsensical statements, the Church is in Communion with the Episcopal Churches in Britain and Ireland as well as Spain. It seems fairly mainstream Protestant (more like me than Rhy)

So, I have no idea what you were exposed to, Ignorantia Sacerdotum as John Cantur would have said (Ignorant Priests).

[rory_20_uk]

Date, the Patristic Letters of Clement etc. place a canon of four Gospels very early, 100 AD is the earliest one, I think. By contrast, the argument for Revelations is very weak, so much so that Luthor tried to remove it. By all accounts Judas is not only lately written, but lately commented on.

Remember, the Biblical canon is merely a list of those books most trusted, it does not preclude you reading the Gospel of Peter or Thomas.

The Bible hardly makes it clear that there is an analogue scale with a "readers digest" of the most popular ones freely available and the others there only if you specifically know what you're looking for.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Bible hardly makes it clear that there is an analogue scale with a "readers digest" of the most popular ones freely available and the others there only if you specifically know what you're looking for.

~:smoking:

The Bible doesn't come with an introduction and explanatory notes, unless they are modern. I'm sorry, but I feel this is a petty complaint. If you want to know about the formation of the canon and the New Testemant Apophryca you just need to go to the Theology section of a half-decent Llibrary.

Look: http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_w_h_?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=gospel+of+Thomas

The Gnostic Gospels are on Amazon for less than £20, inc postage.

[Viking]

I thought about this as well, through reading through this thread. If god is all powerful, couldn't he have just forgiven man's sins without the compelling story? Something seems amiss...

Or just refraining from creating them, cutting things shorter. :creep:


HT, you seem very well educated. Coming from someone who got a Christian upbringing, all the important stuff that I got taught was that gays should not be able to marry and that one should not touch alcohol. ~;)

[HoreTore]

HT, you seem very well educated.

Indeed, my good sir, I am a certified high school dropout! :yes:

I never learned the "don't touch alcohol/thou shalt not stick thy wiener up thy neighbors bum"-stuff though. Might have something to do with me being raised by anti-religious heathens though :beam:

[Sigurd]

The infallibility of the Bible is as Philipvs says a protestant claim. And it is understandable because they have no other peg to hang their mantle of authority on.
If the Bible is in any way faulty, the foundation on which they have built their churches will crumble.
I know this might sound a bit pretentious, but it is IMO why they hold so hard to this idea that the Bible is complete and has no faults.
This is one of those topics I have been studying and my favourite religious topic.

Your question Tore, regarding the Bible and what you were taught is mainstream Norwegian Lutheranism. Nearly 90% of the Norwegian population was a very few years back members of the Norwegian Lutheran church (today the number might be less). But like early Catholicism there are movements within the church. You have the Manichaeists, Bogomils, Catharists, Montanists, Arianists and Donatists of today teaching their distorted and slightly off doctrines. This is more common in the countryside with their “bedehus” and new-age born-againism. They seldom have a common doctrine and will meet together to argue about small obscure scripture references. I know, I have been at a few of these meetings. Common for them all is the feeling of being amongst lunatics. It is a theology built on a nonexistent foundation with ideas pulled out of thin air. I can say this because none of them claims divine revelation.

Concerning the Bible and what ought to be in it and what should not be in there, is one of the greatest argument against the infallible Bible. The Catholic Church, which is the mother of the Bible, has a lot to say about it. They have IMO a healthier attitude towards the Bible. That is because they have it as a supplement to claimed divine authority, in the non-broken line to Peter, and the continuously open channel with the beyond and above.
The early church didn’t really have anything other than the Old Testament. Apparently they used the Greek version of the Old Testament – the Septuagint (the 70) which is a translation done by 70 Jewish scholars at Alexandria Egypt sometime a few hundred years BC. The book was a translation of the Hebrew Pentateuch and some other books added to it totaling 51 OT books.
How many does the Protestant bible have today? (39) The Catholic Bible has 46 OT books.

So … the Protestants believe firmly the Bible is complete and there can be nothing added to it. If you look at this historically, how can they defend this position?
Besides, most of these movements in the Lutheran church do not consider the OT, in fact, they have only the New Testament in their canons, yet they proclaim it is complete.
I had to listen to this new age Lutheran, going on about the original manuscripts being kept safe in the Vatican. What a load of … The Catholic Church does not claim this themselves. From an article published in the name of the Catholic Church: "There are no original manuscripts of any books of the Bible in existence today. We have only copies. The oldest copy is the Book of Isaiah, which is in Hebrew, and dates from about 100 B.C. It was found in a cave near Jericho in 1947, and is part of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The oldest New Testament manuscripts we have date from approximately A.D. 350".

To illustrate the trouble the translators faced when set to the task of translating was the extensive use of uncial writing in scriptures. This is a type of writing with all capital letters and no connection in between. There were no commas, punctuation, spaces, verses or chapters.
e.g. GODISNOWHERE which could either read: God is now here or God is nowhere. Quite different proposals.

The 27 books of the New Testament were proposed as canon by St Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria. He listed the 27 books as found in the bible today and they were declared Apostical and Canonical at the council of Hippo, the council of Carthage, with Pope Innocent I and at the council of Trent. The same declared the 46 books of the Catholic OT as Canon 73 books in all.

The criterion they used for the New Testament which was previously not compiled into one book was:

1. Written by an Apostle or one close to an Apostle.
2. Liturgical use – use at Mass was an official approval.
3. Orthodoxy in doctrine – the teaching had to agree with the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Interestingly Martin Luther disagreed with what was canonical. He rejected 7 books of the OT and rejected Hebrews, 2 John, 3 John, James, Jude and Revelation from the NT.
By 1700, Lutheran scholars restored the New Testament books back into the protestant Canon.

The Early Church made references to 120 different manuscripts of which not all exists today. They all contended for a place in the canon and only 27 made it in. As an example there were 38 Gospels: (Bolded those that were added to the canon)

Andrew
Apelles
Twelve Apostles
Barnabas
Bartholomew
Basilides
Birth of Mary
Cerinthus
Egyptians
Ebionites
Encratites,
Eve
Hebrews
Hesychius
Infancy of Jesus Christ
Infancy (by Thomas)
John
Jude
Judas Iscariot
Lost Gospel of Peter
Luke
Marcion
Mark
Matthew
Matthias
Mernthus
Nazarenes
Nicodemus
Perfection
Peter
Philip
The Protevangelion
Sythianus
Titan
Thaddaeus
Thomas
Truth
Valentinus

[rory_20_uk]

The infallibility of the Bible is as Philipvs says a protestant claim. And it is understandable because they have no other peg to hang their mantle of authority on.
If the Bible is in any way faulty, the foundation on which they have built their churches will crumble.
I know this might sound a bit pretentious, but it is IMO why they hold so hard to this idea that the Bible is complete and has no faults.
This is one of those topics I have been studying and my favourite religious topic.

Your question Tore, regarding the Bible and what you were taught is mainstream Norwegian Lutheranism. Nearly 90% of the Norwegian population was a very few years back members of the Norwegian Lutheran church (today the number might be less). But like early Catholicism there are movements within the church. You have the Manichaeists, Bogomils, Catharists, Montanists, Arianists and Donatists of today teaching their distorted and slightly off doctrines. This is more common in the countryside with their “bedehus” and new-age born-againism. They seldom have a common doctrine and will meet together to argue about small obscure scripture references. I know, I have been at a few of these meetings. Common for them all is the feeling of being amongst lunatics. It is a theology built on a nonexistent foundation with ideas pulled out of thin air. I can say this because none of them claims divine revelation.

Concerning the Bible and what ought to be in it and what should not be in there, is one of the greatest argument against the infallible Bible. The Catholic Church, which is the mother of the Bible, has a lot to say about it. They have IMO a healthier attitude towards the Bible. That is because they have it as a supplement to claimed divine authority, in the non-broken line to Peter, and the continuously open channel with the beyond and above.
The early church didn’t really have anything other than the Old Testament. Apparently they used the Greek version of the Old Testament – the Septuagint (the 70) which is a translation done by 70 Jewish scholars at Alexandria Egypt sometime a few hundred years BC. The book was a translation of the Hebrew Pentateuch and some other books added to it totaling 51 OT books.
How many does the Protestant bible have today? (39) The Catholic Bible has 46 OT books.

So … the Protestants believe firmly the Bible is complete and there can be nothing added to it. If you look at this historically, how can they defend this position?
Besides, most of these movements in the Lutheran church do not consider the OT, in fact, they have only the New Testament in their canons, yet they proclaim it is complete.
I had to listen to this new age Lutheran, going on about the original manuscripts being kept safe in the Vatican. What a load of … The Catholic Church does not claim this themselves. From an article published in the name of the Catholic Church: "There are no original manuscripts of any books of the Bible in existence today. We have only copies. The oldest copy is the Book of Isaiah, which is in Hebrew, and dates from about 100 B.C. It was found in a cave near Jericho in 1947, and is part of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The oldest New Testament manuscripts we have date from approximately A.D. 350".

To illustrate the trouble the translators faced when set to the task of translating was the extensive use of uncial writing in scriptures. This is a type of writing with all capital letters and no connection in between. There were no commas, punctuation, spaces, verses or chapters.
e.g. GODISNOWHERE which could either read: God is now here or God is nowhere. Quite different proposals.

The 27 books of the New Testament were proposed as canon by St Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria. He listed the 27 books as found in the bible today and they were declared Apostical and Canonical at the council of Hippo, the council of Carthage, with Pope Innocent I and at the council of Trent. The same declared the 46 books of the Catholic OT as Canon 73 books in all.

The criterion they used for the New Testament which was previously not compiled into one book was:

1. Written by an Apostle or one close to an Apostle.
2. Liturgical use – use at Mass was an official approval.
3. Orthodoxy in doctrine – the teaching had to agree with the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Interestingly Martin Luther disagreed with what was canonical. He rejected 7 books of the OT and rejected Hebrews, 2 John, 3 John, James, Jude and Revelation from the NT.
By 1700, Lutheran scholars restored the New Testament books back into the protestant Canon.

The Early Church made references to 120 different manuscripts of which not all exists today. They all contended for a place in the canon and only 27 made it in. As an example there were 38 Gospels: (Bolded those that were added to the canon)

Andrew
Apelles
Twelve Apostles
Barnabas
Bartholomew
Basilides
Birth of Mary
Cerinthus
Egyptians
Ebionites
Encratites,
Eve
Hebrews
Hesychius
Infancy of Jesus Christ
Infancy (by Thomas)
John
Jude
Judas Iscariot
Lost Gospel of Peter
Luke
Marcion
Mark
Matthew
Matthias
Mernthus
Nazarenes
Nicodemus
Perfection
Peter
Philip
The Protevangelion
Sythianus
Titan
Thaddaeus
Thomas
Truth
Valentinus


Fantastic post! I just never find enough time to read enough on this topic.

~:smoking:

[Sigurd]

To bring me further confusion of the matter, John 1:1 has the whole "in the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God" verse... which while I'm well aware does not actually clarify what books ought to be seen as the 'word' (apocrypha etc), it does suggest the scripture shares some sort of common essence with or in God while being distinct, kind of like with the elements of the Trinity.


The Logos John is speaking of is Jesus Christ.
Think about it ---

* In the beginning the Word was (I AM).
* The Word was with God
* The Word was a God

Then the clue in verse 14:

So the Word became flesh and resided among us and we had a view of his glory...
(NWT)
Then in Revelation we find this:

And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
(KJV Rev 19:11-14)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The Logos John is speaking of is Jesus Christ.
Think about it ---

* In the beginning the Word was (I AM).
* The Word was with God
* The Word was a God

Then the clue in verse 14:

So the Word became flesh and resided among us and we had a view of his glory...
(NWT)
Then in Revelation we find this:

And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself.
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
(KJV Rev 19:11-14)


Now, why didn't I try to explain it like that?

[Rhyfelwyr]

@Sigurd: thanks for two very insightful posts. :bow:

I had pretty much accepted that the Word was indeed the promise/message of Christ, but those posts were helpful in consolidating the idea, it's always a good idea to appeal to the Book of Revelation when dealing with Reformed folks. :beam:

I may/may not come back to this after some more reading...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

@Sigurd: thanks for two very insightful posts. :bow:

I had pretty much accepted that the Word was indeed the promise/message of Christ, but those posts were helpful in consolidating the idea, it's always a good idea to appeal to the Book of Revelation when dealing with Reformed folks. :beam:

I may/may not come back to this after some more reading...

It's not so much the promise/message, it's more intangibable than that.

It comes back to Exodus, "I am, I am".

If John really did write Revelation as well he was probably dosed, and his Gospel certainly seems to show some evidence of that.

[Rhyfelwyr]

It's not so much the promise/message, it's more intangibable than that.

It comes back to Exodus, "I am, I am".

If John really did write Revelation as well he was probably dosed, and his Gospel certainly seems to show some evidence of that.

Yeah I know, I was trying to put something into words when they can't really do justice to it, but you know what I mean.

And don't dis John, I like my end-time prophecies. :whip:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yeah I know, I was trying to put something into words when they can't really do justice to it, but you know what I mean.

And don't dis John, I like my end-time prophecies. :whip:

I shall "dis" John for as long as he dissagrees with Mathew, Mark, and Luke, :beam:. Really though, I'm dissing Jerome and Augustine the Bishops that decided Revelations should be in the Bible.

Oh, those darn Bishops!

Yes, I am gently teasing.

Anyway, more seriously.

I picked up Alastair McGrath's book on Evangelicalism today. He's very erudite and tallented (Read Dawkins' God, or the Dawkins Delusion), but he glossed over this issue somewhat. Scripture is inspired by God, but authored by God AND Man. He made the comparison between that and Christ as God-and-Man, but I was dissapointed that he didn't then draw the distinction that only Christ, as perfectly united Man-and-God is infallable.