Flann 5 wrote: The historical evidence doesn't support this. You 'sceptics' need to be willing to question the assertions of Elaine Pagels also,and whether her 'reconstruction' of early Christian history is itself accurate or her thesis credible.

http://www.thirdmill.org/newfiles/mat_g ... agels.html

That is something I'm willing to do, question her assertions. I haven't read The Gospel of Thomas, but am reading The Gnostic Gospels and haven't seen anything that makes me think she's reconstructing. She refers to works that figures such as Irenaeus and Tertullian blasted as heretical and finds that the content they criticize match much of the contents of the Nag Hammadi material. Even though those manuscripts are thought to have been produced in the fourth century, they can reasonably be thought of as reflecting beliefs current in the second century due the fact that "catholic Christians" denounced writings that sound similar. She doesn't claim that the gnostic writings have very early dates, although she mentions one scholar who believes a part of them might.

Are you familiar with The Gnostic Gospels? I'm wondering whether Pagels takes a different view of Christian history in The Gospel of Thomas or whether her views are essentially the same in both books.

DWill wrote:That is something I'm willing to do, question her assertions. I haven't read The Gospel of Thomas, but am reading The Gnostic Gospels and haven't seen anything that makes me think she's reconstructing.

Hi Dwill. Irenaeus "Against Heresies" is quite late c175-185A.D. I gather. There were dissident groups like the Docetists quite early and even Paul and John are responding to some of these ideas in the first century. I haven't read her book on the Gnostic gospels.

I don't think her minimizing of early beliefs in favour of ethics is warranted, and the criticism that she is effectively disregarding Paul on what the gospel actually is,would be an example of this.

Everything is undecided in the first century on her view and Irenaeus is the villain who determines orthodoxy in the late 2nd century.
The Gnostic gospels are considered later and derivative from the canonical ones by most scholars.Gnosticism itself is earlier of course and the impression I get is that those who liked these ideas applied them to the Christian teachings.

To make the gospel of Thomas primary and John a reaction to it without good evidence for this as Pagels does,seems to be turning things on their head.

If the supernatural is ruled out for whatever reason the gospels and Christian history will remain enigmatic. They must be later embellishments or Robert's allegories.

Neither of these are satisfactory I think, but that's what's left as options.

Flann wrote:Neither of these are satisfactory I think

yes it is so much more satisfactory to believe in the supernatural resurrection from the dead and things like "Satan is a fallen angel. A conscious intelligent malevolent spiritual being."

yes that is way more satisfactory

and if you aren't washed in the blood well, you are going to hell my friend, Jesus loves you but you gotta bow the knee now or you'll be forced to later, because every knee will bow.

Jesus: knock knock!
you: who's there?
Jesus: it's Jesus, let me in!
you: why?
Jesus: so i can save you!
you: save me from what?
Jesus: from what I'm going to do with you if you don't let me in

If only all the unbelievers on this board could see how wrong they are.

If only Chris and Interbane and geo and DWill and Taylor and Robert and well.... Everyone could see how inevitable a personal supernatural interventionist deity is, if only they could accept the virgin born son of a shellfish banning slavery condoning God. If only they could suspend disbelief long enough to accept an ancient book that is a mish mash of lots of old ideas as the inerrant word of God, if only they didn't expect it to make sense....

Oh well

As the good book says It's foolishness to those that perish anyway

Flann wrote:the impression I get is that those who liked these ideas applied them to the Christian teachings.

hmmm "applied" seems to be a synonym for "copied" to you Flann

"Now the image of God is the Word, by which all the world was made."

– Philo, "The Special Laws", I (81)

New Testament, John 1:1-3

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

So here we have the Holy Spirit inspiring the apostle John to rip off Philo!?!?!

or perhaps the Holy Spirit travelled back in time to inspire Philo so John could rip him off, yeah that must be it

youkrst wrote:Flann wrote:
the impression I get is that those who liked these ideas applied them to the Christian teachings.




hmmm "applied" seems to be a synonym for "copied" to you Flann



Quote:

"Now the image of God is the Word, by which all the world was made."

– Philo, "The Special Laws", I (81)

youkrst wrote:New Testament, John 1:1-3



Quote:
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.




So here we have the Holy Spirit inspiring the apostle John to rip off Philo!?!?!

or perhaps the Holy Spirit travelled back in time to inspire Philo so John could rip him off, yeah that must be it

Philo mixed Jewish O.T. ideas with Greek ones. There are O.T. passages like in Proverbs where God is said by "wisdom" to have created everything.
The fact that John used the word Logos doesn't mean that he was "ripping off" Philo. No one thinks John's gospel is remotely gnostic or that it is promoting gnostic ideas. On the contrary.

You make the usual anti supernatural comments but that's just your philosophical naturalism.
If God exists these criticisms are irrelevant and redundant.
Astrotheology is the absurd theory.

Flann wrote:You make the usual anti supernatural comments but that's just your philosophical naturalism.
If God exists these criticisms are irrelevant and redundant.

And if god doesn't exist, his criticisms are relevant. No point is made. Your worldview holds itself up by its bootstraps. And you don't need to be a philosophical naturalist to be anti-supernatural. You just need to have your head on straight. http://www.booktalk.org/why-the-superna ... 25284.html

Interbane wrote:Flann wrote:
You make the usual anti supernatural comments but that's just your philosophical naturalism.
If God exists these criticisms are irrelevant and redundant.




And if god doesn't exist, his criticisms are relevant. No point is made. Your worldview holds itself up by its bootstraps. And you don't need to be a philosophical naturalist to be anti-supernatural. You just need to have your head on straight. why-the-supernatural-doesn-t-exist-t25284.html

How is your theory falsifiable Interbane? Let's say that Jesus called Lazarus from the grave historically. On your theory there must be some other unknown naturalistic explanation.
I somehow doubt that God will be waiting for your permission to act.

Flann wrote: Let's say that Jesus called Lazarus from the grave historically.

Let's say people have taken mythology literally

which of the two is more probable?

Flann wrote:I somehow doubt that God will be waiting for your permission to act.

and I somehow doubt that anyone should be waiting for the permission of a virgin born son of a shellfish banning slavery condoning God for anything.

which of the two doubts seems more reasonable?

Flann wrote:How is your theory falsifiable Interbane? Let's say that Jesus called Lazarus from the grave historically. On your theory there must be some other unknown naturalistic explanation.

What theory of mine?

To be clear about one thing, you're making an initial assumption. Let's go with your example. The claim that we need an explanation for isn't that "Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead". The claim we need an explanation for is that "the bible is a truthful account of an actual event where Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead". The difference is that we are removed by a degree.

Put another way, the words in the bible are what we are in need of explaining. Not the supposed claim they make. So the question becomes, is there a naturalistic explanation for why the bible claims that Jesus called Lazarus from the dead?

Are there naturalistic explanations for the words in the bible that claim Jesus called Lazarus from the dead? Yes, including the explanation that this particular part of the story was fabricated. It truly is that simple. In order to appeal to a supernatural explanation, you must not only rule out this explanation, but every other possible naturalistic explanation. After that, you must move on to proving the events as described could not be naturalistic.

When you have a claim like this, you examine the vessel first. Take a court of law. If a video is submitted showing a crime, the integrity must be proven before the jury moves on to examining the contents. No tampering, a rock solid chain of custody, and a clear, concise picture. Even with a video from a CCTV security system, that's a difficult process. But you expect it to be taken for granted for the bible? We can't move on to the supposed events, because the vessel itself is the thing being questioned.

Here's a key question you need to answer: Is it impossible for there to be a naturalistic reason that this claim is contained in the bible? This claim being "Jesus called Lazarus from the dead."

Your faith is misplaced Flann. I don't know the right set of words to convince you, but if you could teleport inside my head, you'd see how certain it was. It baffles me that something so simple is rejected time and time again.