The idea that "you send yourself to hell"

[Baruch]

Randy ... you are just parroting (regarding everything, not just the Gospel of Thomas).  Most liberal theologians are terrified by the Gospel of Thomas and so must reject it ... because it is oracular literature, not narrative.  Oracular literature merely requires some oracle, not a messiah.  Oracles were a dime a dozen back then.  The Gospels are made of the "bioti" and "logi" ... life and words of Jesus and the disciples.  The Gospel of Thomas is only "logi".  People also ignore The Didache, because, like the Epistle of James, it shows those Jewish origins that Gentiles object to, too much.  A hagiographical novella makes a much better recruiting tool.  In a sense, the Jefferson NT was the first NT, because the oracular saying of a spiritual Jesus (which featured James, not Paul or Peter), were obtained via seance.  The life was entirely fraudulent ... and anti-Semitic (at least within the Jewish family, if not a Gentile fabrication).

[drunkenshoe]

That girl in the meme is a friend of mine of 25 years. Seriously.

[Randy Carson]

<meme removed>

The point is that the gnostic gospels were not included in the canon of scripture because they had no apostolic origin, taught unorthodox doctrines, and had not been accepted by the universal Church.

[Randy Carson]

Randy ... you are just parroting (regarding everything, not just the Gospel of Thomas).  Most liberal theologians are terrified by the Gospel of Thomas and so must reject it ... because it is oracular literature, not narrative.  Oracular literature merely requires some oracle, not a messiah.  Oracles were a dime a dozen back then.  The Gospels are made of the "bioti" and "logi" ... life and words of Jesus and the disciples.  The Gospel of Thomas is only "logi".  People also ignore The Didache, because, like the Epistle of James, it shows those Jewish origins that Gentiles object to, too much.  A hagiographical novella makes a much better recruiting tool.  In a sense, the Jefferson NT was the first NT, because the oracular saying of a spiritual Jesus (which featured James, not Paul or Peter), were obtained via seance.  The life was entirely fraudulent ... and anti-Semitic (at least within the Jewish family, if not a Gentile fabrication).

Let me assure you that we Catholics apologists do not ignore the Didache because it contains some very important information about the beliefs of the Early Church which illustrate its "Catholic" orientation. Of course, it did not make the final cut of the canon.

But I understand what you are getting at.

[Baruch]

In canon or out of canon .. was decided by politicians in clerical garb, and politicians in royal garb.  Not people I could rely on.  Fortunately the winners didn't quite destroy all the evidence.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

The point is that the gnostic gospels were not included in the canon of scripture because they had no apostolic origin, taught unorthodox doctrines, and had not been accepted by the universal Church.

Nice deflection.

All Abrahamic texts claim to be the inspired word of God, and all of them have been chosen from a selection of books by humans. The only reason I harp on this is because every such text is very clear on the fact that humans are inadequate both morally and intellectually. The very basis of what all Abrahamic religions consider to be true is inconsistent in and of itself.

You probably imagine that I'm sitting here behind my desk actively looking for things to be critical of, but honestly it's just 14 years of passively observing while people try to sell me this shit. I always say that enough evidence will convince me of just about anything, but I've seen enough from the Abrahamic religions and Christianity in particular to realize that you have none. This is why I can confidently say that you will never succeed in convincing me: the only thing consistent about your religion is its total inability to present evidence that would make it past a court of law, much less a scientific inquiry.

[Randy Carson]

In canon or out of canon .. was decided by politicians in clerical garb, and politicians in royal garb.  Not people I could rely on.  Fortunately the winners didn't quite destroy all the evidence.

Incorrect. Ultimately, you would be relying on God to guide the Church's decision.

The standards for determining whether a book was to be included in the canon were:

1. Was the book apostolic in origin?
2. Was the book doctrinally orthodox?
3. Was the book universally accepted as scripture by the Church?

Debate generally centered around this last question since books such as the Didache and 1 Clement has been viewed as scripture in some local churches.

Consequently, the people you would be relying on to make the call were not only the leaders of the Church, the bishops, but also the vox populi, as well.

Oh, and the Holy Spirit, of course.

[Randy Carson]

Nice deflection.

All Abrahamic texts claim to be the inspired word of God, and all of them have been chosen from a selection of books by humans. The only reason I harp on this is because every such text is very clear on the fact that humans are inadequate both morally and intellectually. The very basis of what all Abrahamic religions consider to be true is inconsistent in and of itself.

"By humans"? God had no role in the correct establishment of His own book?

You probably imagine that I'm sitting here behind my desk actively looking for things to be critical of, but honestly it's just 14 years of passively observing while people try to sell me this shit. I always say that enough evidence will convince me of just about anything, but I've seen enough from the Abrahamic religions and Christianity in particular to realize that you have none. This is why I can confidently say that you will never succeed in convincing me: the only thing consistent about your religion is its total inability to present evidence that would make it past a court of law, much less a scientific inquiry.

That's an interesting claim.

I say that because two people who are probably more qualified to speak about what qualifies as evidence in a court of law would take exception to your statement.

J. Warner Wallace, a former atheist, is a cold-case detective with a 30-0 track record for solving cold-case murders. He is a Christian because he examined the evidence.

Lee Strobel, a former atheist, is the former legal editor of the Chicago Tribune and a graduate of Yale Law School. He is a Christian because he examined the evidence.

You can read their books. Or watch Jim Wallace on YouTube or visit his website. www.coldcasechristianity.com.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Fair and balanced (like Fox News).

[Randy Carson]

<meme removed>

I have not claimed that anyone (other than the Pope) is infallible. I have appealed to the idea that we can (and do daily) rely on honest men who have expertise in various fields of study to teach us what they have learned rather than attempting to verify everything for ourselves independently.

If you deny this concept, then I recommend you get busy recreating every scientific experiment every performed just so you can say that the outcomes of those experiments are true. When you have that finished, I have some math theorems and proofs for you to tackle next.

We'll save investigations of history and archaeology for later.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

The memes will continue until valid points are made.


Fair and balanced (like Fox News).

[Gerard]

Incorrect. Ultimately, you would be relying on God to guide the Church's decision.

The standards for determining whether a book was to be included in the canon were:

1. Was the book apostolic in origin?
2. Was the book doctrinally orthodox?
3. Was the book universally accepted as scripture by the Church?

Debate generally centered around this last question since books such as the Didache and 1 Clement has been viewed as scripture in some local churches.

Consequently, the people you would be relying on to make the call were not only the leaders of the Church, the bishops, but also the vox populi, as well.

Oh, and the Holy Spirit, of course.

None of the Gospels were Apostolic of origin. Do we know all that much about the process that lead to the Canon?

Gerard

[Randy Carson]

None of the Gospels were Apostolic of origin. Do we know all that much about the process that lead to the Canon?

Gerard

I have argued for the authorship of the gospels in another thread. You can join it already in progress.

[Baruch]

Incorrect. Ultimately, you would be relying on God to guide the Church's decision.

The standards for determining whether a book was to be included in the canon were:

1. Was the book apostolic in origin?
2. Was the book doctrinally orthodox?
3. Was the book universally accepted as scripture by the Church?

Debate generally centered around this last question since books such as the Didache and 1 Clement has been viewed as scripture in some local churches.

Consequently, the people you would be relying on to make the call were not only the leaders of the Church, the bishops, but also the vox populi, as well.

Oh, and the Holy Spirit, of course.

Standard criteria of the Constantine Church circa 375 CE, when the Arians et al were going at it.  I just don't think Roman Christians of the 4th century to be anything special, in fact nothing that is consistent with the Constantine Church is more than "someone else's history" to me.  Before Constantine for instance, almost all Christians were pacifists, like the Buddhists.  And some Christians who came later of course.  Otherwise they were simply tools of Roman politics.

[Randy Carson]

Standard criteria of the Constantine Church circa 375 CE, when the Arians et al were going at it.  I just don't think Roman Christians of the 4th century to be anything special, in fact nothing that is consistent with the Constantine Church is more than "someone else's history" to me.  Before Constantine for instance, almost all Christians were pacifists, like the Buddhists.  And some Christians who came later of course.  Otherwise they were simply tools or Roman politics.

Check out what Irenaeus was saying before the end of the second century:

http://www.ntcanon.org/Irenaeus.shtml