Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT

Atheist Penelope

<< < (41/90) > >>

JonSnow:

--- Quote from: tragic_pizza on 04 Jan 2009, 18:29 ---The criteria for canonical inclusion:

Apostolic Origin - attributed to and/or based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their closest companions).
Universal Acceptance - acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the Mediterranean world (by the end of the fourth century).
Liturgical Use - read publicly along with the OT when early Christians gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).
Consistent Message - containing theological ideas compatible with other accepted Christian writings (incl. the divinity and humanity Jesus).

The "gospels" you keep harping about fail miserably in at least three of the four citeria.

--- End quote ---
and these are good rules why?
The piece by Euzebe clearly illustrates that not even the people who made the canon were sure what was written by an apostle and what wasnt. They had educated guesses, but were never sure. So the first rule is not a good one for selection

The second rule: universal acceptance, did you really think they held public fora about this: which books of the Bible do you accept and which do you reject? LOL The ruling heads of the Church where the ones who had to accept it for it to be good. So once again this rule simply states it has to fit with what, the heads of the church feel it should fit ( aka biased)

Rule 3: Is kinda the same as rule 2, as it should fit with what we have been saying all along. It only serves as a nice excuse for saying, hey look if it's been told for that long it has to be true. This rule is more for the believer then for the christian leaders at the time.

Rule 4: It must agree with what we have already written down and accepted what as right: if christians accepted texts about flying dogs and fire breathing mice, then well the Bible would be allowed to contain those. This rule just like the 2 above simply state. If I the head of the church do not believe it, preach it, or have read it somewhere and believed it, it aint true. (can you feel the hypocrisy flowing from it?)


--- Quote from: tragic_pizza on 04 Jan 2009, 18:29 ---Further,

--- Quote ---The oldest clear endorsement of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John being the only legitimate gospels was written c. 180 AD It was a claim made by Bishop Irenaeus in his polemic Against the Heresies, for example III.XI.8: "It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the “pillar and ground” of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh."
--- End quote ---


--- Quote ---Eusebius, c. 300, gave a detailed list of New Testament writings in his Ecclesiastical History Book 3, Chapter XXV:

"1... First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles... the epistles of Paul... the epistle of John... the epistle of Peter... After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings."
"3 Among the disputed writings [Antilegomena], which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected [Kirsopp Lake translation: "not genuine"] writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews... And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books."
"6... such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles... they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious."

--- End quote ---


--- End quote ---
They're already talking about heretics, heretics in the same religion not even 200years after the person the religion is about is dead? This heavily implies different opinions within the Christian faith. Which followingly were probably settled by the culling of the heretics by a group of christians that believe as we do now. The thing with culling is, to be culling you need to be more aggressive then the one you're culling. This points a finger at the crueler segmentations of Christianity, meaning that whoever was more willing to kill the people who believed in Jezus, but not exactly like him, would end up deciding

They gentle Christians would never have used the words heretic or heresy as Jezus teaches us to have an open mind for everybodies opinion.
--- Quote from: BreakAtmo on 04 Jan 2009, 22:39 ---

--- Quote from: diablo_man on 04 Jan 2009, 01:51 ---This is exactly what I discussed in my earlier post, apparently rather pointlessly. The big difference between a Christian (or any follower of a religion) saying "My religion is right" and an atheist saying "No it isn't, atheism is right" is that the atheist has logic and reason to back up what they say, and the religious person does not. Atheists are just people who apply logic and critical thinking to EVERYTHING, instead of giving religion an undeserved free pass when is comes to logical criticism.

--- End quote ---

Atheist I by far not applying logic in everything, most atheist even dont. Yes there are those who become atheist out this utter belief in logic. But a lot also become atheist cause they're too afraid to believe in something that isn't tangible. And I use the term afraid cause that group of atheist really are. The first group of atheist (the ones who follow logic) are true atheist in my opinion, the others are just posers trying to get a rise out of christians. Believing by the way is not an unlogical thing to do... discrediting every shred of truth without looking at it that's unlogical,but it is what a lot of your LOGICAL atheist do
--- End quote ---

tragic_pizza:

--- Quote from: JonSnow on 04 Jan 2009, 23:52 ---
--- Quote from: tragic_pizza on 04 Jan 2009, 18:29 ---The criteria for canonical inclusion:

Apostolic Origin - attributed to and/or based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their closest companions).
Universal Acceptance - acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the Mediterranean world (by the end of the fourth century).
Liturgical Use - read publicly along with the OT when early Christians gathered for the Lord's Supper (their weekly worship services).
Consistent Message - containing theological ideas compatible with other accepted Christian writings (incl. the divinity and humanity Jesus).

The "gospels" you keep harping about fail miserably in at least three of the four citeria.

--- End quote ---
and these are good rules why?
The piece by Euzebe clearly illustrates that not even the people who made the canon were sure what was written by an apostle and what wasnt. They had educated guesses, but were never sure. So the first rule is not a good one for selection

The second rule: universal acceptance, did you really think they held public fora about this: which books of the Bible do you accept and which do you reject? LOL The ruling heads of the Church where the ones who had to accept it for it to be good. So once again this rule simply states it has to fit with what, the heads of the church feel it should fit ( aka biased)

Rule 3: Is kinda the same as rule 2, as it should fit with what we have been saying all along. It only serves as a nice excuse for saying, hey look if it's been told for that long it has to be true. This rule is more for the believer then for the christian leaders at the time.

Rule 4: It must agree with what we have already written down and accepted what as right: if christians accepted texts about flying dogs and fire breathing mice, then well the Bible would be allowed to contain those. This rule just like the 2 above simply state. If I the head of the church do not believe it, preach it, or have read it somewhere and believed it, it aint true. (can you feel the hypocrisy flowing from it?)
--- End quote ---
All of which means you are ignorant of history, nothign more. And nor does it serve to repair your arguments for the gnostic-heresy gospels.


--- Quote from: tragic_pizza on 04 Jan 2009, 18:29 ---Further,

--- Quote ---The oldest clear endorsement of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John being the only legitimate gospels was written c. 180 AD It was a claim made by Bishop Irenaeus in his polemic Against the Heresies, for example III.XI.8: "It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the “pillar and ground” of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh."
--- End quote ---


--- Quote ---Eusebius, c. 300, gave a detailed list of New Testament writings in his Ecclesiastical History Book 3, Chapter XXV:

"1... First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles... the epistles of Paul... the epistle of John... the epistle of Peter... After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings."
"3 Among the disputed writings [Antilegomena], which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected [Kirsopp Lake translation: "not genuine"] writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews... And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books."
"6... such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles... they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious."

--- End quote ---
They're already talking about heretics, heretics in the same religion not even 200years after the person the religion is about is dead? This heavily implies different opinions within the Christian faith. Which followingly were probably settled by the culling of the heretics by a group of christians that believe as we do now. The thing with culling is, to be culling you need to be more aggressive then the one you're culling. This points a finger at the crueler segmentations of Christianity, meaning that whoever was more willing to kill the people who believed in Jezus, but not exactly like him, would end up deciding

They gentle Christians would never have used the words heretic or heresy as Jezus teaches us to have an open mind for everybodies opinion.
--- End quote ---
Ummm, what?

Please, kind sir, offer me a textual citation for that last part before we go on.

JonSnow:
you gave me the textual citation yourself.
The oldest clear endorsement of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John being the only legitimate gospels was written c. 180 AD It was a claim made by Bishop Irenaeus in his polemic Against the Heresies, for example III.XI.8: "It is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout all the world, and the “pillar and ground” of the Church is the Gospel and the spirit of life; it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh."

Eusebius, c. 300, gave a detailed list of New Testament writings in his Ecclesiastical History Book 3, Chapter XXV:

"1... First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles... the epistles of Paul... the epistle of John... the epistle of Peter... After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings."
"3 Among the disputed writings [Antilegomena], which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. Among the rejected [Kirsopp Lake translation: "not genuine"] writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews... And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books."
"6... such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew and John and the other apostles... they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious."

Both clearly state that an opinion not conform with the mainstream opinion was concidered herecy, by the people that made the Biblical canon

tragic_pizza:
No, spanky, the textual citation for this:

"They gentle Christians would never have used the words heretic or heresy as Jezus teaches us to have an open mind for everybodies opinion."

Try and keep up.

pwhodges:

--- Quote from: tragic_pizza on 04 Jan 2009, 23:24 ---a bloo bloo bloo.

"ATHEEISTS IS SMART PEEPLES XTIANS IZ NOT."

--- End quote ---

Well...  you see, in my mind this response sadly cancels out all your more thoughtful and interesting posts.  It simply ignores the point and offers ridicule instead of argument.

 :-(

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page