Kevin's Watch

Avatar wrote:I think it developed from it, not outside of it.

I think my point is that, AFAIK, they were part of the bible at one point. With (presumably) the same claim to divine inspiration.

--A

If my memory is right, it is even closer than "from" it: At least some of these gospels were supposedly written by actual disciples/people who knew Christ, up close and personal [which, again, if I recall correctly, at least Paul did not...and he's all over the new testament]
Of course, there are still problems of accuracy, attribution, authenticity...but no more so than with any of the books included in current and historical "accepted" bibles.

Avatar wrote:I think it developed from it, not outside of it.

I think it existed before Christianity (not that much before, but before nonetheless)... That's if memory serves correctly....let me do a quick search to find something....here! Of course, it seems that this is a point of debate.

I think my point is that, AFAIK, they were part of the bible at one point. With (presumably) the same claim to divine inspiration.

The "bible", as we call it, did not exist until the point when these writings were ejected by canon. Now, one could argue that they may have been accepted as sacred writings before hand, but I think that it was mainly so among the gnostic sects. For the most part, what you see in the modern Bible (New Testament, anyway) is what was mostly and generally considered canon by the various Christian sects of the time. The ones that made it in that were not are (if memory serves) Hebrews, James, 2nd and 3rd John, 2nd Peter, and Revelations.

Avatar wrote:Thing is, how confident can one be that it is God's word? What about the Gnostic Gospels, excised from the bible on the order of the church? Do those form part of God's word?

--A

Not sure that matters in this discussion. The churches we're talking about believe it is God's Word, so if it emphasizes meditating on it, than it takes precedence over church dogma. If you don't believe it is God's Word, why would you be a part of that church? That's a whole different topic, stop stalling!

Cybrweez wrote:

Avatar wrote:Thing is, how confident can one be that it is God's word? What about the Gnostic Gospels, excised from the bible on the order of the church? Do those form part of God's word?

--A

Not sure that matters in this discussion. The churches we're talking about believe it is God's Word, so if it emphasizes meditating on it, than it takes precedence over church dogma. If you don't believe it is God's Word, why would you be a part of that church? That's a whole different topic, stop stalling!

I think it might matter. Do these churches, all or some, claim not only is the Bible God's Word, but ONLY ONE bible is actually God's Word, and all the others are mistakes or lies, or do they allow that others might have some of God's Word, too...they're just not important enough? [which would be very very odd].

Vraith wrote:At least some of these gospels were supposedly written by actual disciples/people who knew Christ, up close and personal [which, again, if I recall correctly, at least Paul did not...and he's all over the new testament]
Of course, there are still problems of accuracy, attribution, authenticity...but no more so than with any of the books included in current and historical "accepted" bibles.

Hmmm, Not sure about that. IIRC, it's generally accepted that the earliest canononical gospel was written around 70 years after Christ, while the eraliest of the gnostic gospels is estimated to have been written in the 2nd century AD.

None of the new testament was written by actual contemporaries AFAIK.

'Weez, I dunno...I was thinking more on an individual level. But since you bring it up, do we then simply accept the churches claim that this is the true and only word of god?

--A

Avatar wrote:But since you bring it up, do we then simply accept the churches claim that this is the true and only word of god?

Well, if you can't accept that, you may have larger problems with the dogma in general...

dw

I only chimed in in response to dw talking about questioning church dogma, specifically, Catholic dogma. The Catholic Church says the Bible they use is the Word of God, and that Word says to meditate on it. God says in Isaiah, search me. I just meant to say the Bible portrays a picture of a God who says question me.

I didn't mean, nor really want, to engage in a debate about the origins of the Bible (which is more than the NT) or who should accept it. That roads usually doesn't go anywhere, and I'm sure has been traveled here b4.

But I think there are some multiple interpretations possible there.
This may be my bias more than anything else, but the underlying Catholic message I get isn't 'question me' as much as 'think a lot about more deeply accepting the things that you must accept to remain a good Catholic'. It's the difference between 'search me' and 'search for me'. If you are at the point where you are looking for God in all things, then you have already accepted the majority of the dogma you need to "get" the rest. And a lot of the dogma is self-referential, so if you are still stuck at the door, wondering about what's in the far corner does you no good whatsoever.

dw

Cybrweez wrote:I only chimed in in response to dw talking about questioning church dogma, specifically, Catholic dogma. The Catholic Church says the Bible they use is the Word of God, and that Word says to meditate on it. God says in Isaiah, search me. I just meant to say the Bible portrays a picture of a God who says question me.

I didn't mean, nor really want, to engage in a debate about the origins of the Bible (which is more than the NT) or who should accept it. That roads usually doesn't go anywhere, and I'm sure has been traveled here b4.

Oh, I wasn't referring to a specific...uh...sect...at all. Just meant in general, how do you know it is the word of god.

And yeah, like DW, I've never really thought of it as meaning "by all means question me." In fact, didn't god get upset with a few people who demanded signs or something?

Now, god may be fine with us doubting, but if we don't believe, well, he's gonna make us suffer.

--A

The proliferation of French cheeses is proof enough that we were put here to suffer.