but... wasn't he... never mind...

Unless you or Bart have a degree in theology, specifically, then you or Bart are not theologians.



That's too easy to defeat. Why didn't god create all life, afterlife as well as first life, without suffering? Surely if he is all powerful and good then he would intervene and disallow suffering and sin. Of course, he doesn't, that much is obvious, even though he intervened many, many times in the bible. Who cares if it has a 'spiritual significance', he could just as well use spiritually significant acts to rid all suffering. For instance, he mentions that the view of one Muslim theologian that propunded that there are no such things as laws, all goes according to his will. If the universe were like that, what would be wrong with that, at least if God truly is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient? And so what if the universe is finely tuned? If God is all powerful, then he could create a universe with laws without suffering. I'm telling you, this d'souza guy is trash, nothing but a lying politician with no experience in theology.



They do not share the same theological view when dissected in a literary analysis. There are quite a few differences between all three synoptic gospels, and a further distinction of the Gospel of Thomas from all of them. Its not the fact that an outside source 'peiced' it together, they literally wrote the gospels from collections of sayings, and they were not eyewitness testimony. That much is known. I can bring up quite a few points about how they were not eyewitness testimony, easily. Here, I'll give you one point: If they were eyewitness testimony, why did they sometimes copy verbatim from another gospel, and intersperse differenty sayings in differing places differing from the other gospels with different messages for those sayings?

Why don't you address my post #100?

This post was edited by AEtheric on May 14 2013 07:39pm

while not going to argue against it, there is this saying "history is written by the victor" (also read my previous post)
no-one knows for sure what exactly the teaching of jesus were, all what was transmitted was the understanding others had of it
and there were quite some disputes about that in early christianity - how relevant were they? since the teachings have 'evolved' into an 'accepted' scripture ... who cares?
in the end it is only an academic question because it is not going to change the understanding of those who don't want their understanding changed

And here I thought suicide was a sin, but Jesus didn't sin o_O

Then why did Bart take part in a theological debate? Run around in circles more please.



I can't explain why God didn't create heaven as the first initial life, but frankly with the charge against God of being unloving due to this world is not sufficient enough considering the notion of a place without suffering.

Like why doesn't your mom just prevent all kind of suffering for her child, like going to the dentist, or having to be disciplined in study, or being prohibited from eating candy all the time. Sometimes we don't understand, but later we do. It is not in my belief to be able to explain God's decision for you, it's completely well within my belief to say God is loving, suffering does exist, though there is a place where eternal reward also exists. If Bart is going to find dissension among Christian theology, he needs to do so with addressing the entire theology. D'souza retorts very well to shut him up, by showing Bart that his charge of theodicy holds no merit with the notion of heaven!

Sure God could create a world without suffering (btw it's called heaven), and God does have the power to remove suffering from us, though if he chooses not to do so, it isn't a charge to his "unloving" character, nor can we even pin it on God to be unloving because, who ARE we do even comprehend what God can? Spend an extra second on this point, and don't end up like Bart Erhman and please don't make his faults.





There is strict criterion when it comes to biblical canonization and Gospel of Thomas doesn't add any new information to the dimension of Jesus. It's literary work actually is quite different from the narrative nature of what a "gospel" should be, so first off the bat, we can't even call it a "gospel".

Let's talk about the origins of the so called "gospel'. Mark is originated near 68AD, Matthew and Luke a few decades later, but the Gospel of Mark is written near 175AD - 200AD. There is more discrepancy with its literature and that adds to a few more questions to its authenticity. You can tell because it quotes from multiple NEW TESTAMENT sources in the gospel which is odd since the NT hadn't been officially established yet. By clear logic you can date the gospel of thomas to a later date, rather than an early date.

Let's also consider content - most of the sayings don't add much to the already known content, AND it doesn't reflect the kind of era its proposed date suppose to be. Translate the gospel of thomas to the syrian language and you see many many distinguishing features of a blended mix of matthew, mark, luke and john, which can only be done if the New Testament had already been established with a later dating of the text.

I lumped your two quotes together to answer with this final conclusion: we can go back and forth several times on the matter but in the end one still needs to have one thing, which is faith. I have faith in God, and I also have faith in the scripture. The reason why many scholars are unfazed with the Q source, Priest source, Jehovah source and the Deuteronimist source, is because scholars have faith in the final composer of the bible. You are going to pull supposed "evidence" of writers of the Gospels who are illegitimate or 'biased' though in the end no one can be sure. For example, archaeologist will dig up the remains of Jesus' ossuary and claim "BEHOLD JESUS IS DEAD!" where in few years later one finds out that the ossuary is a scam. Well should your faith be hinged on human research? Should your belief in God really be correlated to the "most recent discovery"? You make claims that the authorship are falsified and thus making them psuedipigraphas. Well I believe they are truly from eyewitness accounts passed on through oral tradition and then eventually written down by the scribes of specific disciples. We don't really know how the transmission is done, I just know that scholars have verified its authenticity. That's enough for me. What's enough for you? You want God to come down with a glowing silver book and say to you "this is MY WORD"?

Sigh.. Just to tie it all up now, for many decades now, the most informed scholars of scholars have testified that the Bible in its current form is not only authentic and legitimate, but one of THE MOST accurate ancient writings we have to date. To reject the historicity and authenticity of the Bible is an absolute ignorant position to hold.

Because people can debate theology without being theologians? Jesus. How am I running around in circles? You're claiming that anyone can be a theologian, and if you actually say that to a real theologian, he would probably laugh in your face.





So in other words, you don't know why we don't exist in heaven already, and yet you think you can refute my stance by spewing baseless conjecture all you want. How would you like to starve to death? Would you feel that God cares about you if you are the one starving to death in southern Africa and you're praying your heart out but he never intervenes? And you do realize that there is also hell? So, God's character as well as existence comes into question when we assume that God intervenes, as Bart had established, and he doesn't intervene to stop ALL suffering while supposedly being omnibenevolent and omnipotent. It doesn't matter if Heaven truly exists in the after-life, do you really believe that it is just that people are being eaten alive by animals, dying by the millions due to many natural occurrences, and more? Stop comparing God to humans, you are making God in your own image. We can judge God's character and existence because we were made in his image, and we are able to judge good and evil by the fact that we ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and became like God. If you really want to go down the route of comparing God to humans, how about we take this scenario: You are the father of one of your sons. Your son is retarded, and he has no fucking clue about anything going on around him except for what is filtered through his autistic mindset. You starve him to death because you want him to be raised by his mother, and so he starves to death and you felt as though you shouldn't intervene, so he essentially starved to death because of you. But in the end, you say, I am a Christian, and it doesn't matter how he suffered by starving to death, because he was a Christian as well, and so he's going to heaven now. As the father, you say "I didn't do any wrong by not intervening, I simply sent him to heaven to end his suffering." Now does that seem right? Does it seem fair that I compared this situation to God? You will cry that we cannot hold God to human standards, all the while using your own analogy dealing with humans anyways.








It adds a whole new viewpoint of Christianity when examined by a critical eye. It has sayings that are used in the other gospels, but it is obviously before them, so it doesn't really matter if it doesn't add anything new, because it preceded the rest of the gospels.

L


No, you can't, because its sayings are far more primitive, and lack interpretation and embellishment that Mark places on the sayings. It is also a collection of sayings, which is an earlier type of writing, similar to Q.




I suggest you read this dissertation: http://www.academia.edu/3319019/An%5FInquiry%5Finto%5Fthe%5FOrigin%5Fand%5FTransmission%5Fof%5Fthe%5FGospel%5Fof%5FThomas
Specifically the part "II. THE QUESTION OF THE PROVENANCE" You keep on referring to Thomas as though since it has the same sayings it is dependent upon them, but if you actually learn about the arguments they are VERY weak. Stephen J Patterson shows so in his book 'The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus'




Your faith biases you beyond any dispassionate, calculated reason. You only believe that the gospels were written by their pseudepigraphic author claims just because you have faith, while the vast majority of scholars know that they are pseudepigraphic and certainly not written by an apostle. I don't know enough about the ossuary or archaeology of that time to actually come to a conclusion on that ossuary, but I certainly do believe that Jesus was not resurrected, as I do not believe in miracles, and I certainly am not as naive to think that in a world of billions that only a handful of people were raised from the dead by God. That's an incredible denial of common sense and scientific honesty when we assume that due to faith. So far I haven't really seen any true arguments from you about the Gospel of Thomas' dependences on the synoptic gospels except for the fact that they are the same, which you somehow then take a leap and end up with the conclusion that since they have the same sayings that the synoptic gospels are the Gospel of Thomas' source. I already suggested a book to read. I would post some of the major refutations from it, but, alas, I don't have the book with me at the moment, I gave it to my brother to read and he hasn't returned it to me.

This post was edited by AEtheric on May 16 2013 03:59pm

What if you never find it's a scam? Are you really arguing human research should not influence our beliefs because hoaxes and misinterpretations can exist? Should we just pack it up and quit science?

This is why it appears (at least to the non-religious) that religious beliefs get such a privileged position in terms of intellectual endeavors that it seems silly to argue that it's true in the sense that empirical knowledge is true -- if faith trumps complicating discoveries, what's the point of research? Why not just call it faith and cease apologetics entirely?

This post was edited by N1ccolo on May 16 2013 04:07pm

Exactly! I have read both sides of the argument against the Gospel of Thomas' independence, and I came to the conclusion while not being Gnostic, mind you, that the Gospel of Thomas is, indeed, independent. He simply uses his faith to verify a conclusion he had already committed himself to rather than actually reading the arguments.

Stand a few steps back from your argument here and analyze what you are saying. I first attribute the fact that Bart Ehrman doesn't have his collective nuts and bolts together because of his argumentation with D'souza, but you are now saying that alone shouldn't discredit him because he's not a theologian? But now you are saying anyone can debate a theologian, in attempt to give Ehrman back some credit? Let's say in two seconds you're going to show me how WELL he actually did in that debate, so then his credentials are somehow irrelevant at this point? Give me a break.

Yes anyone can debate a theologian, and Ehrman did a poor job of it. I still stand firmly on the fact that many people are theologians - they just come to the table with different areas of expertise and tools. The world of interpretative study and hermeneutics is such a big universe, there is absolutely no one person who can tackle it all. Like how a young child is a scientist, so can young children be theologians. It just takes an "idea" about God. Bart is indeed a theologian and he makes his jab at theodicy.



I am not refuting your stance at all. I'm saying D'souza's response is completely sound in the realm that he presented it in.

If tomorrow I starved to death, I would be okay with it. I have been blessed beyond my imagination and for God to take it all away is fine to me. It will be hard no doubt about it, but I'd rather lose my life and keep my soul tyvm.

We can't hold God to our logical standards, but we attempt to use human analogies to describe God. It's very poor argumentation you have here, pretty much strawman gg. If we judge God that will be the pinnacle of our arrogant existence, but to try and understand characteristics of God through human illustration is the pinnacle of our creative soul. Just look at how Jesus masterfully explain the dimension of faith. It is like a mustard seed. The smallest of all seeds. But when it grows, it is like the biggest tree of all. (and I really hope you don't think heaven is a literal rainforest).






I've argued that the dating is not earlier than the other gospels. They ought to be read, but not seen with authority. Before, I mentioned there is high criterion for scripture to be labeled as scripture. There is absolute nothing the gospel of Thomas adds that is teaching or authoritative that is unique from any other gospel. Even using the word GOSPEL is really hard with Thomas' work. I hope you see that!

Again, we can go back and forth back and forth back and forth on the matter, so why don't we just let the scholars decide?



I don't play the game where I read what you want me to read, and then I give you something to read. What's the point in that? Why don't you summarize it, synthesize it, and add some of your own conclusions to it, so i'm not talking to a book?



Yes faith is bias. I have nothing against that. Modernism may have something against bias, but I believe everything in this world happens for a reason. I have traces of pre-modernism, modernism, and even post-modernism in my blood.

You reject faith because you are also biased in your own way. You are biased to think you are being objective, when you have not considered the implication of faith and scripture. Let me ask you, why don't you think God can raise a handful of people from the dead? Is it because it's against the laws of science? Have you really such a shallow view of God?

I have presented my argument to you on the gospel of thomas, but you will reject it because you only hear what you want to hear. You want scientific evidence to show that the gospel of thomas ought not to be authentic or beneficial to the understanding of the Word of God. I can't offer you that! I can't show you a glowing silver book with the table of contents showing you that the gospel of thomas is indeed non-authoritative. I concede that the writings are definitely ancient, and definitely some category of manuscript, but it is not (in my belief) the Word of God. I trust the early church for making the bible canon, and so therefore my pre-modern senses tell me that it's alright to have faith in the bible. That's my argument basically, to have faith. We can do all the research to keep ourselves above water in terms of blind-faith and genuine faith, but the end remains the same.



You're over generalizing the situation, but over the specific topic we can banter all we want, but in the end it takes faith. Other things do not, for example if someone claimed to have written the Exclusive Diablo Version of the Bible, it's a little more clear whether or not we can do diligence to weed it out. But some things do require faith. The ossuary is a good example. Any kind of archaeological evidence that usurps the faith always comes up (especially around easter), and many of the claims are simply for attention, easy $$$, and fame. Can we really trust all the mumbo jumbo that we hear?

Don't get me wrong, i'm all for scientific research. But when it comes to something so unprovable like God, it really requires the element of faith.

&


seems to me that you are in principle agreement (and reflecting my principle position as well)
except perhaps on the purpose of apologetics, maybe it's just the issue of 'my faith is better than yours' which drives them