Theological Opinions , PART II

[Rían]

The opening section of the Gospel of Luke tells why Luke wrote his gospel.

[Spock]

I thought he did it 'cause three of the other guys beat him to it.

[Mercutio]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

As to the notion that its silly to take it seriously at all because it wasnt written down till the second century well that doesnt really hold any water because thats only the ONE version we know of. Could it not have been written down before that and just lost? And couldnt it have been passed along by oral tradition like the other gospels? I mean even the 'youngest' of the four main gospels was a good 65 years AFTER the death of christ I believe so you could certainly make the same argument that writing about Lincolns teachings in the 1920's or 1930's would have been silly as well. But you would discounting a lot of unknown factors.

It is highly unlikely to have been written earlier because of all the gnostic ideas in it. This theology just wasn't developed at the time the canonical gospels were written.

And it's not just that it was a certain number of years after the events it records--this is a few generations later.

You can take GJ very seriously for what it is and only is...a gnostic document.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And by the way Im a big Elaine Pagel fan.

And no one would accuse you of being orthodox!

Come on you have to take them seriously if they sit them down in front of screen shots of 1st century ruins and/or a wall of library books!

I mean even the 'youngest' of the four main gospels was a good 65 years AFTER the death of christ I believe so you could certainly make the same argument that writing about Lincolns teachings in the 1920's or 1930's would have been silly as well. But you would discounting a lot of unknown factors.

More like the oldest, and it was written by someone very close to Christ, so it still counts.

Originally Posted by Ri

a)Gwai, are you saying that IYO, "common people" are stupid?

b) (and please fix your quote tags - my writing is showing up as your writing)
Today 01:54 PM

a) I think that people as a whole are whatever you want to call it, dumb, stupid, uninformed, undereducated, etc. I should avoid the term 'common people', since it seems to signify something other than 'people as a whole' but really doesn't.

b) Done.

[Lief Erikson]

Insidious Rex, I'm responding to your post with several evidences I hope you'll consider, but I must note that you haven't responded to any of the points, arguments or evidences I have thus far presented in my posts. You're also just making suggestions.

Here's a relevant point I'm curious how you'll respond to. A question of logic.

The Gospel of Judas is written by an unknown author, and note that Wikipedia says it is almost certainly not Judas. If it was not Judas, who would have had access to those private conversations? The only possible ones are the disciples, but what did they say about Judas???



Moving on, the Gospel of Judas is more fantastical in its account than the cannonical scripture. It flies in the face of those who knew Judas, and claims to be a "secret account" . You can believe in the secret account, but you must deny all evidence and reason to do so, and base yourself fully on supposition and guesswork.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Is it possible that from the very start all the original gospels were written in a way designed more to appeal to converts since this was the driving force of the first christians? To preach the word of Christ and make more Christians? And that the church was then built around the notions laid forth in these spoken and written gospels?

The evidence suggests that the early Christians were not concerned about this. There were comments in the Bible that require close examination to see that they aren't contradictory and theologically make sense. For example, Jesus' cry on the cross, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" A quick reading might interpret this as weakness and despair. Also the passage Gwaimir brought up earlier, "I do not come to bring peace, but a sword." A cursory reading might say, "oh, Jesus wants violence! But hang on, he was supposed to be the Prince of Peace . . . " The Book of Romans is packed with complex theology. The Apostle Paul never tries to distort what he believes to be truth in order to present a simple message. Instead, he goes carefully through the arguments on theological issues of great complexity.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And perhaps many of the other gospels were simply spin-offs based on the wide spread cultural prevalence to a spoken delivery of these teachings which by nature are likely to quickly evolve on their own as they are passed from person to person? When the first gospels were first written down who was it for? For posterity? For the masses? The vast majority of the masses could do nothing with written words. So what was the inspiration to write them down originally? For the literate elders of the religion? Was it kind of like a text book that they were to use when speaking to possible converts?

Let's look at a teaching found in Gospels and Epistles: Communion. Jesus taught, "you must drink my blood and eat my flesh." This is a much harder teaching to understand and accept than the teaching that Jesus sent Judas on the death mission. Paul hardened that teaching even further, saying that many fall sick and die because of drinking Communion without reverence.

Let's look at a teaching NOT found in any of the Gospels: Circumcision is no longer necessary. At the time the Gospels was written there was a great internal struggle in the church over circumcision. The Early Church Fathers argued that circumcision was no longer necessary now that people were saved by faith rather than the law. Many Jewish Christians objected and argued that circumcision was completely necessary. If the Gospel writers were willing to tamper with their story a bit to make things easier for the Early Church, in all probability they would have put a teaching in Jesus' mouth about circumcision. Instead, there is absolute silence from Jesus on the matter.

Let's look at another point from the Gospels. They present the disciples as little better than morons, almost never understanding what Jesus is telling them (as is only logical- they were untrained laymen and he was presenting radical new teachings). These were the leaders of the church at the time the gospels were written, and two of these Gospels were written by these disciples! Their account is certainly humble. My point again is that if you're willing to tamper with your account and present things in a way that isn't completely truth, you won't leave your the disciples, the leaders of the Early Church, looking like morons. They do.

Another evidence from scripture: The first witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus were women. In Jewish culture, women's testimony was considered to be worthless. If the gospel writers were willing to alter their account to make it easier to accept, they would have changed this and made Peter or John the first witnesses.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Sure YOU may have been willing to give up your life for inconsistent and/or confusing messages

Huh?

You honestly think all those disciples gave up their lives for inconsistent and confusing messages?

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

a) I think that people as a whole are whatever you want to call it, dumb, stupid, uninformed, undereducated, etc. I should avoid the term 'common people', since it seems to signify something other than 'people as a whole' but really doesn't.

To me, "stupid" and "uninformed" are two completely different things, and IMO, education is no indicator of intelligence.

By "common people", I meant the general populace. I don't think they're stupid by any means - in fact, I imagine many of them are a good deal smarter than many "educated" people! Not everyone can afford an education, or has the opportunity for an education, so IMO there are many intelligent people who are uneducated.

Also, there are different types of intelligence - I just read an amusing account today of some Cal Tech students who were rescued on the top of a mountain (they were stuck up there, wearing tutus, for a hazing stunt). The guy in charge of the rescue commented that intelligence and common sense don't necessarily go together. I think common sense is an important type of intelligence, and I imagine that many "uneducated" people get some good laughs out of the ineptness of some "educated" people.

Also, I certainly hope you're not proud about being intelligent (which I think you are (intelligent), and which I imagine you think you are, too) - it's certainly not in any list of things that God praises that I know of, and you certainly did nothing in your mother's womb to merit the intelligence you have. Intelligence is rather low on the list of things that God really likes - which makes sense, because we have nothing to do with how much intelligence we have, anyway. Wisdom, of course, is a different thing. The verse that intelligent people need to keep soberly in mind is the one that goes, "To whom much is given, much is required."

I await with interest to see what God, in His love, will do with your opinions!

[Lief Erikson]

Here's a scripture relevant to the discussion. Even Peter found Paul's theology complex!

Originally Posted by 2 Peter 3:15-16

15 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

In spite of people distorting Paul's complex message, the Early Church embraced it.

[Farimir Captain of Gondor]

I'm sorry, I know I should've posted something in responce to what's going on, but I couldn't help it.

[Bombadillo]

Regarding the argument over the Judas Gospel, all I have to say is that it's not unique. There have been councils for centuries that exist just to debate the validity of religious documents like that one and decide whether or not they should be accepted as canon. There are only four or five specific requirements that each document in question must meet in order to get the Church's approval, and they include: 1- cannot contradict any biblical or widely accepted teaching; 2- a credible source/author.

Before the time of documentaries, a scroll was discovered that told of Jesus as a little boy. There was a discussion as to whether or not this should be admitted as a fifth gospel, but they decided no, because it made Jesus seem like a brat. He might have been one, but that would have gone totally against the idea, already being taught, that he never sinned. It would have been contradictory, confusing to both the uneducated and the educated, and anti-Christians would never let the Church live it down. They're pretty open about the way they determine a document's "validity" only by comparing its content to other, more famous, documents; there's no secret or conspiracy about it. Most often they'll even say it's OK to believe in a document that they don't want to add into the bible.

I didn't see the show, though, and I admit I've actually been avoiding the articles because it seems like too much hype to me too.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

By "common people", I meant the general populace. I don't think they're stupid by any means - in fact, I imagine many of them are a good deal smarter than many "educated" people! Not everyone can afford an education, or has the opportunity for an education, so IMO there are many intelligent people who are uneducated.

Also, there are different types of intelligence - I just read an amusing account today of some Cal Tech students who were rescued on the top of a mountain (they were stuck up there, wearing tutus, for a hazing stunt). The guy in charge of the rescue commented that intelligence and common sense don't necessarily go together. I think common sense is an important type of intelligence, and I imagine that many "uneducated" people get some good laughs out of the ineptness of some "educated" people.

Also, I certainly hope you're not proud about being intelligent (which I think you are (intelligent), and which I imagine you think you are, too) - it's certainly not in any list of things that God praises that I know of, and you certainly did nothing in your mother's womb to merit the intelligence you have. Intelligence is rather low on the list of things that God really likes - which makes sense, because we have nothing to do with how much intelligence we have, anyway. Wisdom, of course, is a different thing. The verse that intelligent people need to keep soberly in mind is the one that goes, "To whom much is given, much is required."

I was raised to be proud of my intelligence and proud of all of my stregnths, and while I know it's not the most important characteristic, I think it is something to be proud of. At the very least, it's definately valueable, don't you think?

I think of the common populace as a bunch of stupid people too though. (Thanks for saying it first, IR. ) But when I keep in mind how psychological baggage can really slow a person down, I really can't hold it against them individually, so I give them the benefit of the doubt that they're worthy of my respect. It might be a mean predisposition, but it isn't harmful anyway.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

A literal interpretation of the scripture is still pretty widespread among Christians, I've always thought. I know there are large Christian groups that reject this interpretation though, of course. This is particularly true since liberalism gained such strength in society.

Gah! I hate that word. Liberalism has nothing to do with it IMO. At school, they taught me that certain parts of the bible were intended to be interpreted allegorically. Genesis and Jonah's story are the first two to come to mind, and I think maybe Job. Catholic teaching says that nitpicking the details is dangerous to our understanding of the story's importance and meaning.

To summarize Genesis, for example: God created everything, including mankind, who he made in his image, and it's all good. When people debate over how many days he actually took , they're distracting attention from the meaning!

They also say that Jesus is fully human and fully divine: 200%. Nuh-uh! They mean that he's a transcendental figure, and not some sort of hybrid. Jesus himself says "I am the temple" and "you'll eat my body and drink my blood." Catholics acknowledge that the wine and host is not actually Jesus, physically, literally, because that's silly--it doesn't taste, smell, or look like it, and a person just knows--but it is "in essence." To claim that it is "in essence" makes much, much more sense.

There's a lot in the bible that only makes sense if looked at figuratively, and I don't understand why many people nowadays think 'figurative' equates to 'damned liberal.' The message is actually better taken from a figurative standpoint sometimes, IMO. Of course, they still teach that he's real and that his word should be considered and obeyed, and that such dogma is a different, more important truth. It's just that anything paradoxical, like the trinity, can be explained away by saying "not really, but..." without subtracting from the validity or the goodness or whatever it is you value in the teaching.

Plus, that way, even the cynics can understand and have faith in it as sincerely as the most wooden Christian fundamentalist on Earth! It allows more people to believe in the religion; it doesn't misguide them with skewed information. I think it's more so the fundamentalists that mislead people, into thinking of Christianity in its entirety as an organization that prohibits normal human questioning and personal opinion. It's not a flexible system of beliefs, but it's not complete unless that allegorical interpretation is allowed.

*reminisces* I once tried to convince Emplynx of this at his old board, Took Talk. Whoa.

EDIT: *indents 24-line paragraph* Oops. If you've gotten to this point in my post I congratulate you, and apologize for making it so long in the first place. Some of it was a combo of me blowing off steam and pre-emptively addressing objections.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Bombadillo

I was raised to be proud of my intelligence and proud of all of my stregnths, and while I know it's not the most important characteristic, I think it is something to be proud of. At the very least, it's definately valueable, don't you think?

Yes, it's certainly a valuable gift. But I don't think it's anything to be proud of in the way that one can be proud of an achievement, because we had nothing to do with how much intelligence we ended up with. I think we can be proud (or ashamed) of what we DO with our intelligence, though. And we can be grateful for our intelligence and our other strengths, if you think there's anyone to be grateful TO . If you believe in evolution, though, then I suppose you can just be grateful to "blind luck" or any of the other evolution gods.

I think of the common populace as a bunch of stupid people too though.

I think you guys are wrong. I think, if anything, it's mostly a lack of opportunity and training in how to think. I don't think it's just sheer stupidity in general.

But when I keep in mind how psychological baggage can really slow a person down, I really can't hold it against them individually, so I give them the benefit of the doubt that they're worthy of my respect.

I'm glad to see this attitude in you. I think it is SO wrong to look down on people who have less intelligence than you (since you did nothing to earn it) and who have had less opportunity to develop what they DO have than you (since you did nothing to merit being born into the family/situation you were born into that let you get some education, as opposed to, say, having to drop out of school to support your siblings because your dad left you and your mom's on drugs). And I still have a great deal of respect for the common sense intelligence of a lot of "common people".

It allows more people to believe in the religion ...

Do you think this is a good thing? If so (or if not), why?

I think it's more so the fundamentalists that mislead people, into thinking of Christianity in its entirety as an organization that prohibits normal human questioning and personal opinion.

I think anything that prohibits honest questioning is seriously wrong.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Insidious Rex, I'm responding to your post with several evidences I hope you'll consider, but I must note that you haven't responded to any of the points, arguments or evidences I have thus far presented in my posts. You're also just making suggestions.

Relax lief. This isn’t a contest. I asked Christians what they thought of the whole Judas thing because its been in the news lately. Im certainly not an advocate for it. I just find it interesting and also find it interesting how some Christians react to these kinds of things as they are discovered. So im not here to debate you and prove the Gospel of Judas is the ultimate word of god or something and that all the other Christians have it all wrong. Relax. I cant help it if some Christians react to these kinds of questions (suggestions?) with a sort of knee jerk defend the faith approach. That’s a shame really. Im just looking for some feedback by others. You gave me a lot which is why I didn’t simply pick apart your post. Instead I grabbed hold of something you said and followed the concepts it proposed. And responded at best in a devils advocate kind of way.

The Gospel of Judas is written by an unknown author, and note that Wikipedia says it is almost certainly not Judas. If it was not Judas, who would have had access to those private conversations? The only possible ones are the disciples, but what did they say about Judas???

That’s really the question. Could it have come from a disciple himself? Or what he taught others after jesus’s death? What do we know about the lives of ALL the disciples after Jesus’s death? What did they all end up doing?

Moving on, the Gospel of Judas is more fantastical in its account than the cannonical scripture. It flies in the face of those who knew Judas, and claims to be a "secret account" . You can believe in the secret account, but you must deny all evidence and reason to do so, and base yourself fully on supposition and guesswork.

For me it’s a lot less of a jump from the main four Gospels to Judas then it is for you and others Im sure because im not a true believe. And it makes sense to me to write symbolically for the sake of the message rather then some arcane pointless historical account down to the last period which I find farcical really and missing the point. Human nature being what it is is going lead to variation in approach to spirituality. And all approaches might be useful if you stop and listen to what they are trying to say. Is it your suggestion that the Gospel or Judas is ludicrous insane rambling with no redeeming value whatsoever?

Let's look at a teaching found in Gospels and Epistles: Communion. Jesus taught, "you must drink my blood and eat my flesh." This is a much harder teaching to understand and accept than the teaching that Jesus sent Judas on the death mission.

I don’t think that’s a useful example though. That may be a complicated concept but its not contradictory to other statements made elsewhere and I don’t see how it would chase people away from the religion really. Im sure a lot of Christians think “well whatever� when they are presented with that concept but it doesn’t cause them to soul search their belief system like statements saying the agent of the devil (Judas) was in fact the chosen disciple of god himself. Heresy! And you want me to die for such schizophrenic nonsense?! Surely that would eat away at the personal foundation of ones grasp on christianity more so then "what do they mean by drink my blood and eat my flesh".

If the Gospel writers were willing to tamper with their story a bit to make things easier for the Early Church, in all probability they would have put a teaching in Jesus' mouth about circumcision. Instead, there is absolute silence from Jesus on the matter.

Now just a second I was always told that Jesus DID speak of it in John 7:14.

Let's look at another point from the Gospels. They present the disciples as little better than morons, almost never understanding what Jesus is telling them (as is only logical- they were untrained laymen and he was presenting radical new teachings). These were the leaders of the church at the time the gospels were written, and two of these Gospels were written by these disciples! Their account is certainly humble. My point again is that if you're willing to tamper with your account and present things in a way that isn't completely truth, you won't leave your the disciples, the leaders of the Early Church, looking like morons. They do.

Funny I assumed the whole point WAS to show that Jesus, the son of god himself, would come to the most common and simple among us to deliver his message. Not that the disciples were idiots. It certainly makes Jesus look better then he would if he spent most of his time among Jewish scholars and theological experts. He would just come across as a radical extremist and a rambling fool and a heretic. Not a wise one of a kind teacher worthy of reverance and worship.

Another evidence from scripture: The first witnesses of the resurrection of Jesus were women. In Jewish culture, women's testimony was considered to be worthless. If the gospel writers were willing to alter their account to make it easier to accept, they would have changed this and made Peter or John the first witnesses.

I think this again fits into the pattern I mentioned above. It’s a consistent theme in the bible. Whether its touting the goodness of the meek or helping the sick or showing the animals as gentle and noble etc. What a great hook for the downtrodded of the earth! Id buy that for a dollar! Meanwhile almost all mention of those in authority paint them as close minded or cruel or misguided or ignorant or just plain evil. I think the message is clear.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Huh?

You honestly think all those disciples gave up their lives for inconsistent and confusing messages?

um no and whats with the big dorkish lettering? I believe what I said was why would I want to give up my life for a message that seemed inconsistent and downright contradictory. Thats all. Why did you get all excited over that?

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

To me, "stupid" and "uninformed" are two completely different things, and IMO, education is no indicator of intelligence.

I wouldn't really say stupid; I was expressing agreement with the basic idea rather than the particulars. 'Stupid' and 'Uninformed' are certainly two completely different things.

By "common people", I meant the general populace. I don't think they're stupid by any means - in fact, I imagine many of them are a good deal smarter than many "educated" people! Not everyone can afford an education, or has the opportunity for an education, so IMO there are many intelligent people who are uneducated.

Of course, it depends on how you define 'stupid' and 'smart'. I think that defining 'smart' as essentially the same as 'intelligent', or 'able to understand well and quickly', would be fair, with 'stupid' being 'lacking such ability'. If so, then I would say that while some of the common people (it sounds so Victorian upper-class to say that! ) (and since you are opposing the CP to the educated people, would 'uneducated' be a fair definition of 'common'?) are doubtless smarter than some of the educated people, I don't think I would say many are, for that word has a little bit of an implication of a general trend, which I think is not present.

Also, there are different types of intelligence - I just read an amusing account today of some Cal Tech students who were rescued on the top of a mountain (they were stuck up there, wearing tutus, for a hazing stunt). The guy in charge of the rescue commented that intelligence and common sense don't necessarily go together. I think common sense is an important type of intelligence, and I imagine that many "uneducated" people get some good laughs out of the ineptness of some "educated" people.

You are doubtless right there.

Also, I certainly hope you're not proud about being intelligent (which I think you are (intelligent), and which I imagine you think you are, too) - it's certainly not in any list of things that God praises that I know of, and you certainly did nothing in your mother's womb to merit the intelligence you have. Intelligence is rather low on the list of things that God really likes - which makes sense, because we have nothing to do with how much intelligence we have, anyway. Wisdom, of course, is a different thing. The verse that intelligent people need to keep soberly in mind is the one that goes, "To whom much is given, much is required."

I don't really think I'm that intelligent. I'm probably more intelligent than the average American (or even the average European ), but I don't really think I am anything really special. I do think, however, that intellectual pride is one of the sins I tend to fall into, though I try to counteract it.

*checks the thread title* Okay, good, this next comment is kosher. You're quite right that I did nothing to merit what (I think limited) intelligence I have. It is absolutely and wholly true that I merit absolutely nothing which is good; all good things which come to me come by the grace of God. 'You have made him little less than a god', not that he is so by nature. I have not done a single good thing in my life of my own volition. Even my belief in God is a gift directly from Him; all I do is receive and cooperate with His grace.

I actually think that Scriptural wisdom is more or less the same as intelligence as we understand it today. But that's a different question.
[/QUOTE]

They also say that Jesus is fully human and fully divine: 200%. Nuh-uh! They mean that he's a transcendental figure, and not some sort of hybrid. Jesus himself says "I am the temple" and "you'll eat my body and drink my blood." Catholics acknowledge that the wine and host is not actually Jesus, physically, literally, because that's silly--it doesn't taste, smell, or look like it, and a person just knows--but it is "in essence." To claim that it is "in essence" makes much, much more sense.

That's not the Christian view. He is not some transcendental figure; He is fully divine and fully human. This of course does not mean that He is 200%, for that would no different from saying that He is 50% human and 50% divine. It means rather that His human and divine natures are hypostatically united and made into one new, 'homogeneous' (to make an analogy) nature.

There's a lot in the bible that only makes sense if looked at figuratively, and I don't understand why many people nowadays think 'figurative' equates to 'damned liberal.' The message is actually better taken from a figurative standpoint sometimes, IMO. Of course, they still teach that he's real and that his word should be considered and obeyed, and that such dogma is a different, more important truth. It's just that anything paradoxical, like the trinity, can be explained away by saying "not really, but..." without subtracting from the validity or the goodness or whatever it is you value in the teaching.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Relax lief. This isn’t a contest. I asked Christians what they thought of the whole Judas thing because its been in the news lately. Im certainly not an advocate for it. I just find it interesting and also find it interesting how some Christians react to these kinds of things as they are discovered. So im not here to debate you and prove the Gospel of Judas is the ultimate word of god or something and that all the other Christians have it all wrong. Relax. I cant help it if some Christians react to these kinds of questions (suggestions?) with a sort of knee jerk defend the faith approach. That’s a shame really. Im just looking for some feedback by others. You gave me a lot which is why I didn’t simply pick apart your post. Instead I grabbed hold of something you said and followed the concepts it proposed. And responded at best in a devils advocate kind of way.

Okay. I thought you really were advocating it . Sometimes I do take things too seriously. I'll get over that as time passes, I hope .

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

That’s really the question. Could it have come from a disciple himself? Or what he taught others after jesus’s death? What do we know about the lives of ALL the disciples after Jesus’s death? What did they all end up doing?

We know the Gospel of Judas was a Cainite Gnostic text, however. For it to have been a disciple who wrote it, one would have to say that this disciple supported Gnosticism. If that was the case, it would have found its way into the New Testament. There was ferocious debate over Gnosticism going on at that time. This Gnostic disciple would have had to be a coward, because he was unwilling to speak up in support of those whose beliefs he really adhered to, while the debate was taking place. We know that all of the disciples died for their beliefs though except John, who was exiled to an island (and preached views that differed strongly from Gnosticism in the New Testament before going there). Thus, it is clear that none of the disciples were cowards. So we would have to assume a disciple who had a complete flip flop of character.

Also, this disciple was unwilling to speak up for those beliefs he agreed with, but he was willing to die for beliefs he DIDN'T completely agree with. Gnosticism and Christianity have some pretty strong differences. So why was this disciple unwilling to even speak up for what he did agree with, but willing to die for what he disagreed with? It's pretty strange.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Is it your suggestion that the Gospel or Judas is ludicrous insane rambling with no redeeming value whatsoever?

I haven't read it, so I couldn't say. I do know that where it differs from the Gospels, it is very probable that it is historically in error, since there is a great deal of evidence that the Gospels were historically reliable accounts.


I'll probably respond to the rest of your post later, and Bombadillo's. I'm just too tired right now . But thanks for your responses!

[hectorberlioz]

I thought about this quite a bit:

I'm no longer surprised that Dan Brown hit it big with the Da Vinci Code. The time was ripe for something like this.

In an age that looks for thrills and conspiracies around every corner, The Da Vinci Code is just one in a big line of thrill after thrill, that only satisfy you to the point that you want...more thrill.

And the "recent discovery" of the Gospel of Judas (in reality, the old church fathers knew about it. It's not new to history, only to this century), seem to make a statement that we can all take too seriously: that perhaps christianity is something way different than what we think. And in a way, they're right. Most of us are used to either: Evangelical Protestants, or the Catholic Church in its present form.

Almost NOBODY today actually sits down to read what church scholars read, or even what Dan Brown read as "research".

If you think the Gospel of Judas may be Christianity's nightmare: look again. This "Gospel" was not written by someone who "knew the truth about Jesus and Judas". It is a Gnostic Gospel. The Gnostics beleived that truth is entrusted to only a select few (the moderns are the Jehovah's Witness). So if in your opinion you think Christianity is weird, and you look to this document as a relief, you're merely exchanging something weird for something weirder.

One of the National Geographic reps said something quite ignorant about the whole thing: the gospel showed that early christianity had "diverse" sects. And he was right, but this is nothing new! You could find out the same thing if only you bothered to look into these things yourself!

The arguments about Christ's divinity are nothing new to this world, they were fought about way before your grandma said hi.
Of course SOMEONE is bound to pounce on the oppurtunity of making this into a conspiracy if he knows what the general public doesn't know...hence the thing we call Da Vinci. (forget about the REAL Da Vinci, he didnt exist).

This is only a prelude people, I'll be back.

[Curubethion]

Agreed. There's always people looking for something behind everything, and they're not satisfied with the fact that the Church has amazingly survived 2,000 years. They have to convince themselves that it's done so through subterfuge, etc...

The public is always going to be looking for someone to blame, and the Church is always the first thing to go. It won't end there.

I think the reason that conspiracy theories are so popular is that people enjoy the prospect of having "secret knowledge" about political and religious organizations. Ironic...that's also why so many people latched onto Gnosticism. And now another Gnostic "gospel" appears. No wonder they're so eager.

[Spock]

This is better suited for an existing topic thread we have:

Theological Opinions , PART II

moving

[trolls' bane]

Do you think it's right to beleive in two things simultaneously that others are constantly at odds about?
This question has been bothering me for some time. Therefore, I have decided to cross the line I have not yet dared to cross (nor do I plan to ever again), and that is the line of religion versus science. Though I am aware of several threads that include this, such as the Should We Teach Evoloution thread among others, but I don't beleive there is an all encompassing one that will leave me with a satisfying answer.
To start, I must lay down the causes of this conflict within me. As many of you may know, I am a firm beleiver in science. I don't say it like it is, I say it as though it is. But, on the side, though I am rarely public about it, I am also a firm beleiver in God. Now, religion and science actually don't have a conflict until you get into the very realms in which I beleive. There, you run into two ideas, two theories, that ignites the flame between scientists and Christians. These are the Big Bang theory and the theory of evoloution.
My conflict is this. Though beleiving fully in biblical teachings, I can't help but to consider them incomplete. They fail to give a good answer to why things are the way they are, they just tell how things should be, and how they might have been. The largest problem I face is one that has troubled many for centuries. How was the universe created?
I beleive, as many physicists, cosmologists, and others hint towards but rarely openly proclaim, that God created the universe through the Big Bang. This is where the opposite problem takes hold. The universe is so grand, so vast, so beautiful and elegant that how could anyone not beleive that there is some sort of intelligent design. Where did the universe come from? How could time not exist until the Big Bang?
The second question is the one that causes the biggest clamour and conflict. If the book of Genesis says that God created man directly in a day, how come all says otherwise. Conversely, why did evoloution favor bipeds, and why should there be humans at all? Why did life start out here in the first place, and furthermore, how?
This is where it gets me the most. Though beleiving in biblical teachings, I have to contradict that statement by denying the book of Genesis. What can I do? Two things I thoroughly beleive in are mortal enemies.
The overall problem is in the people I interact with. While some would be glad to hear that I favor science, and shake their heads if I didn't, others, such as my mom, would be furious if the former was the case. How can I keep everyone happy? I certainly don't want God mad at me, but everything in the first book of the Bible is in direct conflict with observation, and over all of that, the explanation laid down therein is inexplicably dull. This leads me to wonder, why the conflict? Where in human history did we go wrong, or are we just trying to see this from a firmly divided viewpoint without accepting any other soloution? The universe is not black and white.
I conclude this statement with a quote from a famous physicist who's name I need not mention. The reason for my putting it is the meaning underlying those words. I will explain soon.

"Subtle is the Lord, but malicious, he is not."

[Farimir Captain of Gondor]

I'm sure someone is going to come along and tel you this belongs in the Theologic Opinion thread, but I'll go ahead and answer you here.

Originally Posted by TB

I beleive, as many physicists, cosmologists, and others hint towards but rarely openly proclaim, that God created the universe through the Big Bang. This is where the opposite problem takes hold. The universe is so grand, so vast, so beautiful and elegant that how could anyone not beleive that there is some sort of intelligent design. Where did the universe come from? How could time not exist until the Big Bang?

Lief and I were having this same discussion in said thread. I believe in the Big Bang theory as well. I think alot of the beauty that is in the universe is do to light traveling through/not through an object, which I'm sure you know more about than I do , and we simply percieve these thing as beautiful.

Originally Posted by TB

The second question is the one that causes the biggest clamour and conflict. If the book of Genesis says that God created man directly in a day, how come all says otherwise. Conversely, why did evoloution favor bipeds, and why should there be humans at all? Why did life start out here in the first place, and furthermore, how?

I think we were evolved and then took the earth after we no longer had any competition. If 'God' did create man, why did he start with dinosaurs and then let them run around for millions of years before he decided he was done them? Was it just sort of weirs experiment he was having? I don't think evolution favored bipeds in particular, we just happened to come out on top because of our ability to think and make tools.
I'm not going to say to much because like I said, I have a feeling they are going to tell you to move this. Sorry.