Slashdot Mirror

Well, I can't say all theists are particularly given to analytical synthesis, such that, say, they'd realize that Quantum Mechanics would be an ideal back-door to all of reality to allow unlimited changes (e.g. miracles) at will, untraceably, as from a physics perspective it would simply be an outlier of the probabalistic nature of QM...

Still, in any case, I've yet to encounter anyone saying -everything- not mentioned in the bible is false.

I'll stick with the origin of all the denominations you've mentioned, Lutheran churches, and original documents for my enlightenment, thanks.

"When you see your likeness, you are pleased. But when you see your images which came into being before you, and which neither die nor become manifest, how much you will have to bear!"

Perhaps you can ask your evangelical friends whether that was Darwin as of the 19'th century, or Jesus as of the first century. Enlightenment may take more, but the discussion should be informative.

There is pretty good indication that Matthew was written by an actual witness to the events.

The main source for the Gospel of Matthew is the Gospel of Mark out of which the author copied large amounts of text. Nearly half of Matthew is lifted from Mark. Why would an eye witness copy somebody else's account (even on the Christian tradition, Mark was not an eye witness)?

These manuscripts copies are within a hundred years of Jesus' life, and are copies of earlier ones. Most scholars view the original manuscript to be closer to 50-60CE, placing it within the lifetime of a contemporary of Jesus, claiming to have known him (20-30 years)

The consensus is more like 80-100CE for Matt. Not an eye witness.

You can't believe the words written in the Bible, even if they are phrased as quotes. They weren't quotes. They were written down by someone who never met Jesus, and never met anyone who had seen him within the last 30 years.

That is your opinion. ;)

and probably a correct opinion.

...entertained the oneness of trinity idea. It was actually formalized in the Athanasian creed in the fourth century A.D.

Nope.

No, but you can find quite a few already translated here.

I always thought that this passage in Acts was referring to this letter that became widely spread in the Early Christian Church then lost for 1600 years:
The Didache

In brief (and I tend to be brief nowadays since I realized simply by waiting I automatically win)...

As stated, your "Since Thomas didn't write... the same is true..." is simply a direct, blatant, lie. There is no possible way you could -know- this as the case, in particular with respect to Thomas. In fact, this book tends to cause some consternation within the mainline Christian churches, as it is quite difficult to counter the scholarly consensus of first-or-second-century provenance, and many find it doctrinally objectionable. In other words, to remove some perceived bias from the discussion, though many Christians themselves would like your statement to be known as true regarding Thomas, that simply isn't the case. Naturally, you're going well beyond what any serious scholar would state regarding a 2000-year-old document, and going ahead and stating that you personally know for a certain fact it was not written by Thomas, nor anyone who knew him. Not merely that, but somehow you know this as a fact regarding -all- New Testament books. Unfortunately for you, that claim is absurd on its face.

But let's say you are correct--in that case, it still wouldn't matter. "The Gospel According to X" does not assert that "X" wrote the document, simply. If I collected, say, statements of Yoko Ono regarding John Lennon, which were provided verbally and/or second hand, it is still perfectly acceptable and reasonable to state that my document is "John Lennon According To Yoko Ono". You may choose to not believe that my claim that Yoko Ono said something is factually true, but the mere title does not get you to that conclusion. Somehow, I expect you already realized this, some time while you were wishing it was logically coherent that attacking your personal expectations of authorship would invalidate the content.

For any readers who would be interested in historical analysis that is actually serious regarding these books, by actual Christian -and- secular historians, I suggest http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ .

Yes, this is off-topic, but ....

Here is a site with a wealth of links and views on the historical Jesus:

Historical Jesus Theories

A couple points:

The view that Jesus never existed is a minority view and does not agree with the current scholarly consensus. Please read the materials in the link I have provided if you don't believe me.

I am familiar with the field and can see right off that some of Price's statements make no sense. For example, All of the various Christian groups in the early centuries believed that Jesus was a real historical person, the fact that some believed that this Jesus was not made of "flesh" not withstanding. Price's use of that data is misleading. This is a minor example, but one that is easy to state. It is enough to doubt that Price is a very good source. There are better skeptical views in the site I reference above.

A lot of what went on in early christianity was effectively done by the roman state in order to try to keep the unruly christians in line. One interesting thing about the christian church is that originally the churches were households and in rome most households were run by women though supposedly under the will of the man. Anyway the head of the household also functioned as the head of the church in question, so many women were priests in the early days of christianity. However, you simply can't have women in charge of things, so when the movement began to gain political currency they kicked them all out of their positions of power. And, in particular, the Gospel of Mary which exalts Mary Magdalene over Jesus' male disciples, and The Gospel of Mary Magdalene are both left out of the bible as if they were unimportant.

The Gospel of St.Thomas is considered to be the most accurate recordings of Jesus teachings.

Google is your friend:

• Is this ossuary proof of Jesus, or is it spurious?
• Was James' Ossuary Found In Israel? The Story Of A Really Neat Hoax
• The Stone Box
• Burial Box of St. James Found?
• Experts Say Burial Box for 'Brother of Jesus' is a Forgery

The word "effeminate" shows up in the ASV and KJV, and it was there in the Latin, so I didn't even check other translations. It's not there in the German Catholic Bible either, though it does reference "sex boys" and "boy violators", which is close enough to the NIV phrasing.

Anyways, it's not entirely clear that general homosexuality is being condemned, because the terms being used in the (German and Latin at least), also refer to other acts that should be deemed immoral (e.g., prostitution).

As you suggested, only going to the Greek can resolve the question. (But which version of the Greek?)

(I could go forever on this topic -- I'm a linguist specializing in the lexicon with a focus on "exotic" languages. I use translations of the Bible as a standard source for comparison.)

The word "effeminate" shows up in the ASV and KJV, and it was there in the Latin, so I didn't even check other translations. It's not there in the German Catholic Bible either, though it does reference "sex boys" and "boy violators", which is close enough to the NIV phrasing.

Anyways, it's not entirely clear that general homosexuality is being condemned, because the terms being used in the (German and Latin at least), also refer to other acts that should be deemed immoral (e.g., prostitution).

As you suggested, only going to the Greek can resolve the question. (But which version of the Greek?)

(I could go forever on this topic -- I'm a linguist specializing in the lexicon with a focus on "exotic" languages. I use translations of the Bible as a standard source for comparison.)

The texts of Paul, which are the earliest of the NT, don't contain any references to what Jesus supposedly did. Paul saw Christ only in a vision, as he claimed himself. And this was after the time-frame Jesus supposedly died. Theologians say that he wasn't interested in his earthly life.

The numbers on the site you were refering to are way optimistic for some kind of christianity. There is evidence that one of todays gospels existed 110AD, but that's it. Even the catholic church would disagree with the figures you gave. In fact, the catholic church is much more open to historically acurate research about the NT, since they don't depend on it to be the direct and historical word of god anyway. The NT was put together by the catholic church, so it's basically their book. Since they basically claim to be god's one and only branch office on earth, the book is automatically godly, since the church produced it and everything done by the church is guided by the holy ghost.

There used to be numerous alternative gospels which disagreed in major points. They were destroyed but some were rediscovered, or at least quoted or outlined in secondary literature.

Alternative Gospels can be found here

An article about the formation of the NT, based on current scholarship, by Richard Carrier (an eval atheist)

Weird, I've found a different version, which makes it clearer that you should avoid acquiring (and spreading?) forbidden knowledge:
that it is better for you to remain in ignorance, lest you should come to know what you ought not, because you have acquired the knowledge of what you ought to know.

It looks like there already is a Gospel of Judas.

I am fascinated to hear that more gospels may be revealed. The Gospel of Thomas was enlightening and actually led me to a better understanding of mainstream Christianity. Non-ecumenical gospels are fascinating because they haven't been highly tainted through interpretations and translations.

Secret Gospels of Mark

What's more amazing is that in such a complex world, you can have such a simplistic view of things, like you're the president of the USofA of something. Believe it or not, there are persons in this world who embrace ideas from both the right AND left. There are liberal Christians, conservative athiests, tree-hugging vegan capitalists (ever shopped at Whole Foods?), etc. You should probably turn off Rush for a bit, step outside and get some fresh air. All that propaganda clouds your vision and makes you say stupid things in public.

By the way, I lost the link - can you tell me where I can download a copy of the "liberal doctrine"? Oh wait, I remember, it's right here and here.

This is the only evidence [in favor of a late date for Revelation] of any value, and it is so slight as to be nearly worthless. Irenaeus was a church father of the second century, many of whose letters have come down to us. Concerning the mystic number of the beast given Revelation 13:18, Irenaeus says thus: "If it were necessary to have his name distinctly announced at the present time it would doubtless have been announced by him who saw the apocalypse; for it was not a great while ago that (it or he) was seen, but almost in our own generation, toward the end of Domitian's reign." It should be observed that the subject of the verb "was seen" is ambiguous, and may be understood to refer to either John or the apocalypse. To argue as do some that the subject of the verb is the apocalypse is purely arbitrary. In fairness, either John or the apocalypse may be the subject. But what is the point of saying the vision was seen in recent times? The nearness of the vision cannot not open the symbols of the book. It was the author John to whom it belonged to expound the meaning of the mystic name. Thus if the reference is to anything, it would seem to be to John. However, even if Irenaeus' statement is granted to mean what advocates of the 96 A.D. say, this is the only independent, external evidence favoring that date.

And Victorinus agrees, saying John was banished by Domitian. Eusebius agrees as well. Sulpicius Severus said:

John, the apostle and evangelist, was banished by Domitian to the isle of Patmos, where h