| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Voice of Truth" |
| Date: |
15 Oct 2004 11:51:51 PM |
| Object: |
What Was First: The Church or The Bible ? |
First the Church, then the New Testament
The New Testament was not, any more than the Old, all written at one
time, or all by one man. At least 40 years passed away between the
writing of the first and the writing of the last of its books.
It is made up of the 4 gospels, 21 letters, the Apocalypse (or
Revelation), and the Acts of the Apostles. Some of the letters were
written by Paul, and we do not know who wrote some of the others. The
book called the Acts of the Apostles was written by the same person
who wrote the third Gospel. So we have works written by several
different writers, and from the year that the earliest book was
written (probably the first letter of Paul to the Thessalonians in
about 51 A.D.) to the year John's Gospel was written (between 90 and
100 A.D.), nearly fifty years had passed.
Christ himself never, as far as we know, wrote a line of Scripture.
Certainly none has been preserved. He never told his Apostles to write
anything. He told them to "go and teach all nations", "preach the
Gospel to everyone", "the one who hears you, hears me". In other
words, he told them to do exactly what he had done himself -- that is,
deliver the word of God to the people by the living voice -- convince,
persuade, instruct, convert them by addressing themselves face to face
to living men and women, not entrust their message to a dead book
which might be destroyed or misunderstood and misinterpreted and
corrupted. He gave them a safer and more natural way -- presenting the
truth to them by word of mouth, training others to do the same after
they themselves were gone, and so by a living tradition preserving and
handing down the word of God as they had received it, to all
generations.
This was the method the Apostles adopted. Nothing was written till
nearly twenty years after the death of Christ.
Do you see what follows? The Church and the Faith existed before the
Bible. That seems a simple fact which nobody can deny. Thousands of
people became Christians through the work of the Apostles and
missionaries of Christ in various lands. They believed the whole truth
of God as we believe it now. They became saints and died for their
faith before ever they saw read a single sentence of our New
Testament. (Most could probably not read anyway.)
How, then, did they become Christians? In the same way that people are
converted today, by hearing the truth from the lips of Christians and
seeing that truth lived out in their lives. When the Apostles set out,
how did they intend to evangelize? By distributing copies of the New
Testament? Such a thing did not exist, and, we may safely say, was not
even thought of. Why did Our Lord promise them the gift of the Holy
Spirit, and command them to be "witnesses"? Why did the Spirit come
down upon the Twelve and endow them with the power of speaking in
various languages? Only so that they might be able to "preach the
Gospel to all people".
The books of the New Testament were called forth by special
circumstances that arose. No-one had the idea of composing works that
would be collected and put in one volume to make the Christian Holy
Book. We know that many letters must have been lost. We can see from
St. Paul's letters that nothing could replace the authoritative
teacher: "How shall they hear without a preacher? How shall they
preach unless they are sent? Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by
the word of Christ". The fact is that no religion has ever been
effectually spread except by word of mouth, and certainly neither the
Apostles nor the Jews would have understood the spread of the faith by
means of a written word.
The first work of the Apostles was to deliver in living words a
personal testimony to the facts of the Gospel -- the Ministry, the
Death, and the Resurrection of Our Lord. It was only in the course of
time and under the influence of circumstances that they committed
their testimony, or any part of it, to writing. Their special duty was
to preach.
Will you then say that we are belittling and despising God's word? No,
not at all. We must simply put it in the place God intended it to be
-- the fruit of the Church's preaching.
It is easy to see how the Gospels came to be. As long as the Apostles
were still living, there was no necessity for written records of the
words and actions of Our Lord. But then it was good that there was
some correct and reliable account of the work of Christ should be
left. This was all the more necessary because there were being spread
abroad incorrect and unfaithful Gospels. Look at Luke 1:1, where he
says he considers it right to set down in writing reliable information
from eyewitnesses.
But remember that all the Gospels are incomplete and fragmentary,
giving us certainly the most important things to know about our
Saviour's life on earth, but still not telling us all we might know.
For much, Christians have always depended on the teaching of the
Church. Without the Church we might well have not understood that
Jesus Christ is both perfectly God and perfectly human, for the Bible
alone will not teach us these things.
If we look at the other writings of the New Testament, we see that
they were called into existence at various times to meet pressing
needs and circumstances. Most were addressed to particular individuals
and communities in various places as problems arose in those
communities. So we find Paul writing to his converts in Thessalonica,
or Ephesus, or Corinth, or Philippi. For what reason? Either in answer
to communications sent to him from them, or because he had heard from
other sources that there were some things that required correction in
these places. All sorts of topics are dealt with, sometimes in the
most homely style. It might be to advise the converts; or reprove
them; or to defend himself from false accusations. It might be a
letter about a private person, like the letter to Onesimus. But
whatever the letters deal with, it is absolutely clear that they were
written just at particular times to meet particular cases that
occurred naturally in the course of his missionary labours. It is
therefore certain that neither Paul or anyone else intended these
letters to set forth the whole scheme of Christian salvation, any more
than Pope John Paul II intended to do when he wrote his latest letter
to all the Bishops of the Catholic Church last year.
True, Paul was an Apostle and therefore inspired, and his letters are
a final and decisive authority on the various points he deals with.
But that does not alter the fact that they nowhere claim to state the
whole of Christian truth, or to be a complete guide of salvation to
anyone. They are written to believers. In other words, the Church --
the people of God -- existed and did its work before these letter we
call "the Scriptures" existed. It would have done so, even if these
letters had not been written at all!
I repeat. We are not undervaluing the word of God. We are simply
recognizing the place it was meant to occupy. It was written by the
Church, by members of the Church. It belongs to the Church and it is
her job, therefore, to say what it means. It is intended for
instruction, meditation, encouragement, devotion, and serves as a
proof and witness of the teachings of the Christian people. But it was
never intended to be, and could not be, a complete guide to truth in
the hands of anyone who cares to pick it up and read it. The Bible is
part of the tradition of God's people, what they hand on with
reverence and pride and love. And these people (the Church) are the
writers and interpreters of the Bible, their greatest treasure.
Fr. Francis Jamieson (March 20, 2004)
http://www.holyspiritinteractive.net/columns/francisjamieson/biblefacts/bible04.asp
.
|
|
| User: "The New Prophets" |
|
| Title: Re: What Was First: The Church or The Bible ? |
16 Oct 2004 06:38:51 AM |
|
|
"Voice of Truth" wrote in message
First the Church, then the New Testament
It is made up of the 4 gospels, 21 letters, the Apocalypse (or
Revelation), and the Acts of the Apostles. Some of the letters were
written by Paul, and we do not know who wrote some of the others. The
book called the Acts of the Apostles was written by the same person
who wrote the third Gospel. So we have works written by several
different writers, and from the year that the earliest book was
written (probably the first letter of Paul to the Thessalonians in
about 51 A.D.) to the year John's Gospel was written (between 90 and
100 A.D.), nearly fifty years had passed.
But Voice of Truth, your opinions are sneaking in here. Paul was killed by
what 60-62AD. Therefore all his letters must have been written before then.
One fact remains, which you fail to address. Jesus and all his desciples
were raised in the Jewish religion, and in that religion, scripture was
extremely important. Luke in Chapter 2: 46, has Jesus in the temple
discussing questions. He obviously knew the Jewish scriptures.
One fact, as you mention above, we don't know who wrote those gospels. They
have been assigned to authors. Take Matthew. Do a search under Matthew in
Google, and you will find that scholars vary on when it was written, some
say as early as 36AD. Some say as late as 100AD. The fact remains that we do
not know,
We have numerous writtings said to be by apostles. Many of them are not in
the bible. When were they originally written. We don't know, and we will
never know. All that exists are copies. What is the earliest know manuscript
of Matthew. There is nothing that dates before about 400AD.
When did Matthew die? Luke? Mark? We don't know, so how can we know when the
books ascribed to them were written? We don't know. We will never know.
But for you to state that the biblical books were written years after Jesus'
death, is nothing but your opinion.
He never told his Apostles to write anything. He told them to "go and teach
all nations", "preach the Gospel to everyone", "the one who hears you, hears
me". In other
words, he told them to do exactly what he had done himself -- that is,
deliver the word of God to the people by the living voice -- convince,
persuade, instruct, convert them by addressing themselves face to face
to living men and women, not entrust their message to a dead book
which might be destroyed or misunderstood and misinterpreted and
corrupted. He gave them a safer and more natural way -- presenting the
truth to them by word of mouth, training others to do the same after
they themselves were gone, and so by a living tradition preserving and
handing down the word of God as they had received it, to all
generations.
This was the method the Apostles adopted. Nothing was written till
nearly twenty years after the death of Christ.
Do you see what follows? The Church and the Faith existed before the
Bible. That seems a simple fact which nobody can deny. Thousands of
people became Christians through the work of the Apostles and
missionaries of Christ in various lands. They believed the whole truth
of God as we believe it now. They became saints and died for their
faith before ever they saw read a single sentence of our New
Testament. (Most could probably not read anyway.)
Here is another example of your faulty reasoning, Most could probably not
read anyway. This is only your opinion. Give us something to back that up.
Lets see, Acts 17, 1-3 has Paul teaching the Thessalonians, and what was he
teaching them. Oooops, reasoning with them out of the scriptures. But now
read verse 11. The Thessalonians searched their scriptures daily, to see if
what Paul was telling them was so.
My God, Thessalonians could obviously read.
Now lets check 2 Timothy 3: 15. Paul tells Timothy, that he has known
scripture from when he was a child. How old was Timothy, what year was 2
Timothy written.
But the key is, Paul tell Timothy, from those scriptures, which are able to
make thee wise unto salvation through faith, which is in Jesus Christ.
Can you tell us where in the Old Testament, that salvation through faith
which is in Jesus Christ is located??
Would it be possible that there were early writings that Paul is referring
to? Certainly it is possible.
Paul further tells Timothy, that scripture is to be used for correction, for
reproof, and instruction in righteousness.
What would scripture be correcting. Simple, what was being told to you.
Luke says the same thing. Luke 1: 3-4. He says he wrote the Gospel, so that
Theophilus, would know the certainity of those things that he had been
instructed.
? Such a thing did not exist, and, we may safely say, was not
even thought of. Why did Our Lord promise them the gift of the Holy
Spirit, and command them to be "witnesses"? Why did the Spirit come
down upon the Twelve and endow them with the power of speaking in
various languages? Only so that they might be able to "preach the
Gospel to all people".
The books of the New Testament were called forth by special
circumstances that arose. No-one had the idea of composing works that
would be collected and put in one volume to make the Christian Holy
Book. We know that many letters must have been lost. We can see from
St. Paul's letters that nothing could replace the authoritative
teacher: "How shall they hear without a preacher? How shall they
preach unless they are sent? Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by
the word of Christ". The fact is that no religion has ever been
effectually spread except by word of mouth, and certainly neither the
Apostles nor the Jews would have understood the spread of the faith by
means of a written word.
The first work of the Apostles was to deliver in living words a
personal testimony to the facts of the Gospel -- the Ministry, the
Death, and the Resurrection of Our Lord. It was only in the course of
time and under the influence of circumstances that they committed
their testimony, or any part of it, to writing. Their special duty was
to preach.
The Voice of Truth then says Paul says that Teaching is more important. But
did Paul ever Know Jesus, travel with him? Or did Paul have a hallucination,
caused by sun stroke on the road to Damascus.
The fact is Paul was constantly fighting with the Church that Jesus founded
in Jerusalem, and headed by his brother James. So why should we believe
Paul?
Will you then say that we are belittling and despising God's word? No,
not at all. We must simply put it in the place God intended it to be
-- the fruit of the Church's preaching.
It is easy to see how the Gospels came to be. As long as the Apostles
were still living, there was no necessity for written records of the
words and actions of Our Lord. But then it was good that there was
some correct and reliable account of the work of Christ should be
left. This was all the more necessary because there were being spread
abroad incorrect and unfaithful Gospels. Look at Luke 1:1, where he
says he considers it right to set down in writing reliable information
from eyewitnesses.
But remember that all the Gospels are incomplete and fragmentary,
giving us certainly the most important things to know about our
Saviour's life on earth, but still not telling us all we might know.
For much, Christians have always depended on the teaching of the
Church. Without the Church we might well have not understood that
Jesus Christ is both perfectly God and perfectly human, for the Bible
alone will not teach us these things.
No one will argue that the so called Church teaches these things. But there
is a lot of writings that would argue that. Arius certainly did not believe
that Jesus was perfectly God. Neither did a lot of early writers. Where are
there writings? Destroyed by the so called Church.
If we look at the other writings of the New Testament, we see that
they were called into existence at various times to meet pressing
needs and circumstances. Most were addressed to particular individuals
and communities in various places as problems arose in those
communities. So we find Paul writing to his converts in Thessalonica,
or Ephesus, or Corinth, or Philippi. For what reason? Either in answer
to communications sent to him from them, or because he had heard from
other sources that there were some things that required correction in
these places. All sorts of topics are dealt with, sometimes in the
most homely style. It might be to advise the converts; or reprove
them; or to defend himself from false accusations. It might be a
letter about a private person, like the letter to Onesimus. But
whatever the letters deal with, it is absolutely clear that they were
written just at particular times to meet particular cases that
occurred naturally in the course of his missionary labours. It is
therefore certain that neither Paul or anyone else intended these
letters to set forth the whole scheme of Christian salvation, any more
than Pope John Paul II intended to do when he wrote his latest letter
to all the Bishops of the Catholic Church last year.
True, Paul was an Apostle and therefore inspired, and his letters are
a final and decisive authority on the various points he deals with.
But that does not alter the fact that they nowhere claim to state the
whole of Christian truth, or to be a complete guide of salvation to
anyone. They are written to believers. In other words, the Church --
the people of God -- existed and did its work before these letter we
call "the Scriptures" existed. It would have done so, even if these
letters had not been written at all!
Again, you are saying that Paul was an Apostle. Where did he get his
authority from?? Clement says that all apostles had to have a letter of
authority from James, the first bishop of the Church of Jerusalem. Did Paul
ever talk to Jesus, meet him? I guess according to you, we rely on a man
with a vision.
I repeat. We are not undervaluing the word of God. We are simply
recognizing the place it was meant to occupy. It was written by the
Church, by members of the Church. It belongs to the Church and it is
her job, therefore, to say what it means. It is intended for
instruction, meditation, encouragement, devotion, and serves as a
proof and witness of the teachings of the Christian people. But it was
never intended to be, and could not be, a complete guide to truth in
the hands of anyone who cares to pick it up and read it. The Bible is
part of the tradition of God's people, what they hand on with
reverence and pride and love. And these people (the Church) are the
writers and interpreters of the Bible, their greatest treasure.
In fact, the early church, was centered in Jerusalem. Did they have
scriptures. Sure they did. James the first Bishop wrote lots of stuff.
James was allowed in the temple.
What happened when Paul tried to preach in the temple? Read Acts 21: 28.
Paul was teaching against the people and the Law, and this place. He brought
gentiles into the temple.
In verse 30, the people threw him out of the temple.
Who were these people. Read verses 18-20. The church in Jerusalem, many
thousands of Jews who believe, and they are all zealous of the law.
And Paul got thrown out of the temple, Why?
He was preaching against the Law. James' church was Zealous for the Law.
What church are you talking about??
Oh, a bunch of Roman christians, who were meeting like rats in a hole. Ever
hear of the catacombs. Your christians were meeting there. Did they have
scriptures? Probably not. But in the East, where Jessus' church was founded,
there were lots of scriptures.
WHY?? Because all the apostles were brought up in the Jewish religion, and
knew the importance of written instructions.
There are writings by most of the apostles. But Your church, refused and
rejected most of them.
The Gospel of Philip has some very interesting saying in it. But it was
thrown out, simply because it tells us that Jesus was married.
The Gospel of Mary Magdalene was thrown out, simply because it records that
she was a desciple, same as the men. And that would allow women to teach.
But Your church, founded more on Mithras, continues to deny women. Mithraism
did not even allow female members.
You make the same mistake of all Catholics. You identify the New Testament,
as the only scripture. There were many scriptures that were not included in
the so called bible.
Some like the Gospel of Thomas, or the Gospel of Philip, etc. are even
called fakes.
But you cannot truthfully say who wrote most of the New Testament books.
John's Gospel is ascribed to him. But there is no proof of that. Many
scholars will now tell you that John, was written by two people. Acts
changes about halfway through it, the so called WE part.
Inspired. We have to accept that on faith. There is no evidence.
The fact remains, the Catholic church has to advocate, that tradition has to
be added to the bible.
How else would they justify changing the Sabbath that Jesus himself
observed? How would they justify taking the birth of the sun, which is also
the birthday of Mithras, and making it Jesus Birthday?
How would they take Black Friday when Attis was hung on a tree, and make it
Good Friday.
How can they take Jesus own words that he would be in grave three days and
three nights, and cut it down to a day and a half, so that it would fit the
above Attis. Hung on a tee on Black Friday, and arose on the pagan Day of
the Sun.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: What Was First: The Church or The Bible ? |
16 Oct 2004 06:20:34 PM |
|
|
"Voice of Truth" <voiceoftruth227@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:816e1d8c.0410152051.95c493b@posting.google.com...
First the Church, then the New Testament
letter about a private person, like the letter to Onesimus. But
<snip>
I repeat. We are not undervaluing the word of God. We are simply
recognizing the place it was meant to occupy. It was written by the
Church, by members of the Church. It belongs to the Church and it is
her job, therefore, to say what it means. It is intended for
instruction, meditation, encouragement, devotion, and serves as a
proof and witness of the teachings of the Christian people. But it was
never intended to be, and could not be, a complete guide to truth in
the hands of anyone who cares to pick it up and read it. The Bible is
part of the tradition of God's people, what they hand on with
reverence and pride and love. And these people (the Church) are the
writers and interpreters of the Bible, their greatest treasure.
So the RCC lets us read it now, in English, but decides what we are to think
of it.
--
Chinese accordions suck.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: What Was First: The Church or The Bible ? |
16 Oct 2004 12:18:46 AM |
|
|
On 15 Oct 2004 21:51:51 -0700, (Voice of
Truth) wrote:
It is easy to see how the Gospels came to be. As long as the Apostles
were still living, there was no necessity for written records of the
words and actions of Our Lord. But then it was good that there was
some correct and reliable account of the work of Christ should be
left. This was all the more necessary because there were being spread
abroad incorrect and unfaithful Gospels. Look at Luke 1:1, where he
says he considers it right to set down in writing reliable information
from eyewitnesses.
And we know that the four Gospels accepted as canonical are true and
the ones (Thomas, Mary Magdalene, et al) rejected as such are not on
what basis?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Godfrey" |
|
| Title: Re: What Was First: The Church or The Bible ? |
16 Oct 2004 04:26:41 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 05:18:46 GMT, raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com>
wrote:
On 15 Oct 2004 21:51:51 -0700, (Voice of
Truth) wrote:
It is easy to see how the Gospels came to be. As long as the Apostles
were still living, there was no necessity for written records of the
words and actions of Our Lord. But then it was good that there was
some correct and reliable account of the work of Christ should be
left. This was all the more necessary because there were being spread
abroad incorrect and unfaithful Gospels. Look at Luke 1:1, where he
says he considers it right to set down in writing reliable information
from eyewitnesses.
And we know that the four Gospels accepted as canonical are true and
the ones (Thomas, Mary Magdalene, et al) rejected as such are not on
what basis?
Apparently the Roman emperor Constantine and the wise men on the
Council of NIcea had a bit of wine and concluded that it would be
easier to control the populace without Mary's testimony.
It's the literal word of God, you know.
Godfrey
The truth is a precious commodity. That's why I use it so sparingly.
- Mark Twain
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: What Was First: The Church or The Bible ? |
17 Oct 2004 07:52:32 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 05:18:46 GMT, raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
And we know that the four Gospels accepted as canonical are true and
the ones (Thomas, Mary Magdalene, et al) rejected as such are not on
what basis?
Contain falsehoods, or errors, or to be void of anything new.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Lister" |
|
| Title: Re: What Was First: The Church or The Bible ? |
17 Oct 2004 12:27:21 PM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:amq4n0t6t1g1lbpld68a412lk420leha1d@4ax.com:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 05:18:46 GMT, raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com>
wrote:
And we know that the four Gospels accepted as canonical are true and
the ones (Thomas, Mary Magdalene, et al) rejected as such are not on
what basis?
Contain falsehoods, or errors, or to be void of anything new.
Nonsense. The truth is they didn't match the dogma that the Catholic Church
was trying to establish.
--
Bush Lied.
Anybody But Bush.
Regime change begins at home.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: What Was First: The Church or The Bible ? |
17 Oct 2004 04:26:43 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:27:21 GMT, Dave Lister <retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:amq4n0t6t1g1lbpld68a412lk420leha1d@4ax.com:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 05:18:46 GMT, raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com>
wrote:
And we know that the four Gospels accepted as canonical are true and
the ones (Thomas, Mary Magdalene, et al) rejected as such are not on
what basis?
Contain falsehoods, or errors, or to be void of anything new.
Nonsense. The truth is they didn't match the dogma that the Catholic Church
was trying to establish.
No, they contained falsehoods, or errors, or simply void of anything new.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "RetroProphet" |
|
| Title: Re: What Was First: The Church or The Bible ? |
17 Oct 2004 06:30:26 PM |
|
|
And we know that the four Gospels accepted as canonical are true and
the ones (Thomas, Mary Magdalene, et al) rejected as such are not on
what basis?
Contain falsehoods, or errors, or to be void of anything new.
Nonsense. The truth is they didn't match the dogma that the Catholic Church
was trying to establish.
No, they contained falsehoods, or errors, or simply void of anything new.
duke
You know of non-canonical gospels that are "simply void of anything new"
but do not contain "falsehood or errors"?
Or do you just wish to be seen as being open-minded and fair by
tacking on "simply void of anything new"?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Lister" |
|
| Title: Re: What Was First: The Church or The Bible ? |
17 Oct 2004 10:58:16 PM |
|
|
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:kro5n0pshq3s3915j1gijo4ap8i180j3di@4ax.com:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:27:21 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:amq4n0t6t1g1lbpld68a412lk420leha1d@4ax.com:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 05:18:46 GMT, raven1
<quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
And we know that the four Gospels accepted as canonical are true and
the ones (Thomas, Mary Magdalene, et al) rejected as such are not on
what basis?
Contain falsehoods, or errors, or to be void of anything new.
Nonsense. The truth is they didn't match the dogma that the Catholic
Church was trying to establish.
No, they contained falsehoods, or errors, or simply void of anything
new.
No, they didn't fit into the dogma the church was trying to put forward.
For one, Mary Magdelene was just as much an apostle as any of the men,
but that doesn't fit with the Catholic Church's second class status for
women, so eliminate the book.
Jesus is clearly not sinless in the Gospel of Thomas so scratch that
one. Better to make up a gospel and call it "John".
You are dishonest - a liar.
--
Bush Lied.
Anybody But Bush.
Regime change begins at home.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Duncan" |
|
| Title: Re: What Was First: The Church or The Bible ? |
18 Oct 2004 04:12:06 AM |
|
|
"Dave Lister" <retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9585D553ADA3Bretsildivad33hotmail@68.6.19.6...
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:kro5n0pshq3s3915j1gijo4ap8i180j3di@4ax.com:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:27:21 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:amq4n0t6t1g1lbpld68a412lk420leha1d@4ax.com:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 05:18:46 GMT, raven1
<quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
And we know that the four Gospels accepted as canonical are true and
the ones (Thomas, Mary Magdalene, et al) rejected as such are not on
what basis?
Contain falsehoods, or errors, or to be void of anything new.
Nonsense. The truth is they didn't match the dogma that the Catholic
Church was trying to establish.
No, they contained falsehoods, or errors, or simply void of anything
new.
No, they didn't fit into the dogma the church was trying to put forward.
For one, Mary Magdelene was just as much an apostle as any of the men,
but that doesn't fit with the Catholic Church's second class status for
women, so eliminate the book.
Jesus is clearly not sinless in the Gospel of Thomas so scratch that
one. Better to make up a gospel and call it "John".
Jesus wasnt perfect. In fact, he asked a man why he called him "good?" He
didnt claim to be what you castigate him for.
Rob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Lister" |
|
| Title: Re: What Was First: The Church or The Bible ? |
18 Oct 2004 10:51:40 PM |
|
|
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in
news:3pSdnddmrOV0Fe7cRVn-vA@gbronline.com:
"Dave Lister" <retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9585D553ADA3Bretsildivad33hotmail@68.6.19.6...
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:kro5n0pshq3s3915j1gijo4ap8i180j3di@4ax.com:
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:27:21 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in
news:amq4n0t6t1g1lbpld68a412lk420leha1d@4ax.com:
On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 05:18:46 GMT, raven1
<quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote:
And we know that the four Gospels accepted as canonical are true
and the ones (Thomas, Mary Magdalene, et al) rejected as such are
not on what basis?
Contain falsehoods, or errors, or to be void of anything new.
Nonsense. The truth is they didn't match the dogma that the Catholic
Church was trying to establish.
No, they contained falsehoods, or errors, or simply void of anything
new.
No, they didn't fit into the dogma the church was trying to put
forward.
For one, Mary Magdelene was just as much an apostle as any of the
men, but that doesn't fit with the Catholic Church's second class
status for women, so eliminate the book.
Jesus is clearly not sinless in the Gospel of Thomas so scratch that
one. Better to make up a gospel and call it "John".
Jesus wasnt perfect. In fact, he asked a man why he called him
"good?" He didnt claim to be what you castigate him for.
The Catholic Church does claim it. I'm castigating the church not Jesus
or do you need reading comprehesion help?
--
Bush Lied.
Anybody But Bush.
Regime change begins at home.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Duncan" |
|
| Title: Re: What Was First: The Church or The Bible ? |
19 Oct 2004 02:08:20 AM |
|
|
"Dave Lister" <retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote
Jesus is clearly not sinless in the Gospel of Thomas so scratch that
one. Better to make up a gospel and call it "John".
Jesus wasnt perfect. In fact, he asked a man why he called him
"good?" He didnt claim to be what you castigate him for.
The Catholic Church does claim it. I'm castigating the church not Jesus
or do you need reading comprehesion help?
Then poop on the RC. Its in there if anyone wants to read it. Cheer up,
Jesus Christ forgives you! He even forgives people like you. Exalt!!!
Rob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Lister" |
|
| Title: Re: What Was First: The Church or The Bible ? |
19 Oct 2004 08:54:09 PM |
|
|
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in
news:INKdndn-Z6b1IOncRVn-ug@gbronline.com:
"Dave Lister" <retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote
Jesus is clearly not sinless in the Gospel of Thomas so scratch
that one. Better to make up a gospel and call it "John".
Jesus wasnt perfect. In fact, he asked a man why he called him
"good?" He didnt claim to be what you castigate him for.
The Catholic Church does claim it. I'm castigating the church not
Jesus or do you need reading comprehesion help?
Then poop on the RC. Its in there if anyone wants to read it. Cheer
up, Jesus Christ forgives you! He even forgives people like you.
Exalt!!!
Forgives me for what, exactly?
--
Bush Lied.
Anybody But Bush.
Regime change begins at home.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: What Was First: The Church or The Bible ? |
16 Oct 2004 06:12:32 PM |
|
|
raven1 wrote:
On 15 Oct 2004 21:51:51 -0700, (Voice of
Truth) wrote:
It is easy to see how the Gospels came to be. As long as the Apostles
were still living, there was no necessity for written records of the
words and actions of Our Lord. But then it was good that there was
some correct and reliable account of the work of Christ should be
left. This was all the more necessary because there were being spread
abroad incorrect and unfaithful Gospels. Look at Luke 1:1, where he
says he considers it right to set down in writing reliable information
from eyewitnesses.
And we know that the four Gospels accepted as canonical are true and
the ones (Thomas, Mary Magdalene, et al) rejected as such are not on
what basis?
===>The Church Fathers said there were four directions, so,
there had to be four Gospels, no more, no less! ;-)
SEE:
THE FOUR GOSPELS
by Irenaeus in "Against Heresies" (2nd century)
"There are four gospels and only four,
neither more nor less:
four like the points of the compass,
four like the chief directions of the wind.
The Church, spread all over the world,
has in the gospels four pillars and four winds
blowing wherever people live..." -- L.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Clore" |
|
| Title: Re: What Was First: The Church or The Bible ? |
16 Oct 2004 07:57:19 PM |
|
|
Libertarius wrote:
===>The Church Fathers said there were four directions, so,
there had to be four Gospels, no more, no less! ;-)
SEE:
THE FOUR GOSPELS
by Irenaeus in "Against Heresies" (2nd century)
"There are four gospels and only four,
neither more nor less:
four like the points of the compass,
four like the chief directions of the wind.
The Church, spread all over the world,
has in the gospels four pillars and four winds
blowing wherever people live..." -- L.
Pretty bad reasoning, huh? -- If you want to promote faith
in something, you should pick one version, not four
contradictory stories about the same events.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord Wey"rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Duncan" |
|
| Title: Re: What Was First: The Church or The Bible ? |
17 Oct 2004 02:04:21 AM |
|
|
"Dan Clore" <clore@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
news:2tdubjF1ukkndU1@uni-berlin.de...
Libertarius wrote:
===>The Church Fathers said there were four directions, so,
there had to be four Gospels, no more, no less! ;-)
SEE:
THE FOUR GOSPELS
by Irenaeus in "Against Heresies" (2nd century)
"There are four gospels and only four,
neither more nor less:
four like the points of the compass,
four like the chief directions of the wind.
The Church, spread all over the world,
has in the gospels four pillars and four winds
blowing wherever people live..." -- L.
Pretty bad reasoning, huh? -- If you want to promote faith in something,
you should pick one version, not four contradictory stories about the same
events.
--
Dan Clore
Perhaps you need to re-read Christs story about the farmer who sows his
seeds... and learn to apply new meaning to it. Thats why people read the
bible you know, there are always greater insights than what idiots view on
the surface.
Rob
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord Wey"rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Lister" |
|
| Title: Re: What Was First: The Church or The Bible ? |
17 Oct 2004 12:26:42 PM |
|
|
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in
news:CeSdnTy2BJbkhO_cRVn-2A@gbronline.com:
Perhaps you need to re-read Christs story about the farmer who sows
his seeds... and learn to apply new meaning to it. Thats why people
read the bible you know, there are always greater insights than what
idiots view on the surface.
There is in the Book of Mormon, the Koran, and Silmarillion as well. In
fact, I get more out of Dune every time I read it.
--
Bush Lied.
Anybody But Bush.
Regime change begins at home.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: What Was First: The Church or The Bible ? |
17 Oct 2004 05:12:27 PM |
|
|
Dave Lister wrote:
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in
news:CeSdnTy2BJbkhO_cRVn-2A@gbronline.com:
Perhaps you need to re-read Christs story about the farmer who sows
his seeds... and learn to apply new meaning to it. Thats why people
read the bible you know, there are always greater insights than what
idiots view on the surface.
There is in the Book of Mormon, the Koran, and Silmarillion as well. In
fact, I get more out of Dune every time I read it.
===>And what about Star Trek?
"Q" is a perfect example of theological implications. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: What Was First: The Church or The Bible ? |
17 Oct 2004 12:36:18 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:26:42 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in
news:CeSdnTy2BJbkhO_cRVn-2A@gbronline.com:
Perhaps you need to re-read Christs story about the farmer who sows
his seeds... and learn to apply new meaning to it. Thats why people
read the bible you know, there are always greater insights than what
idiots view on the surface.
There is in the Book of Mormon, the Koran, and Silmarillion as well. In
fact, I get more out of Dune every time I read it.
"The Silmarillion" and "Dune " are worth more than the combined
writings of every religion ever known to humanity, IMO.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Duncan" |
|
| Title: Re: What Was First: The Church or The Bible ? |
17 Oct 2004 04:55:08 PM |
|
|
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:4lb5n0dltemhrvg2q2e1a94lelj1v1nuse@4ax.com...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:26:42 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in
news:CeSdnTy2BJbkhO_cRVn-2A@gbronline.com:
Perhaps you need to re-read Christs story about the farmer who sows
his seeds... and learn to apply new meaning to it. Thats why people
read the bible you know, there are always greater insights than what
idiots view on the surface.
There is in the Book of Mormon, the Koran, and Silmarillion as well. In
fact, I get more out of Dune every time I read it.
"The Silmarillion" and "Dune " are worth more than the combined
writings of every religion ever known to humanity, IMO.
LOL, yup, you guys are open minded... and obviously, brilliant. Just what
kind of ethics were the authors of those books promoting? Duh!
Rob
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Lister" |
|
| Title: Re: What Was First: The Church or The Bible ? |
17 Oct 2004 11:02:36 PM |
|
|
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in
news:tP2dnTH4poHcd-_cRVn-1Q@gbronline.com:
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:4lb5n0dltemhrvg2q2e1a94lelj1v1nuse@4ax.com...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:26:42 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in
news:CeSdnTy2BJbkhO_cRVn-2A@gbronline.com:
Perhaps you need to re-read Christs story about the farmer who sows
his seeds... and learn to apply new meaning to it. Thats why
people read the bible you know, there are always greater insights
than what idiots view on the surface.
There is in the Book of Mormon, the Koran, and Silmarillion as well.
In fact, I get more out of Dune every time I read it.
"The Silmarillion" and "Dune " are worth more than the combined
writings of every religion ever known to humanity, IMO.
LOL, yup, you guys are open minded... and obviously, brilliant. Just
what kind of ethics were the authors of those books promoting? Duh!
It is your mind that is trapped shut. You apply circular reasoning to
every post you make - claiming insights exist when in reality you are
only seeing what you want to see.
--
Bush Lied.
Anybody But Bush.
Regime change begins at home.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Duncan" |
|
| Title: Re: What Was First: The Church or The Bible ? |
18 Oct 2004 04:09:07 AM |
|
|
"Dave Lister" <retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote
LOL, yup, you guys are open minded... and obviously, brilliant. Just
what kind of ethics were the authors of those books promoting? Duh!
It is your mind that is trapped shut. You apply circular reasoning to
every post you make - claiming insights exist when in reality you are
only seeing what you want to see.
Just what is it you think I want to see?
Rob
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: What Was First: The Church or The Bible ? |
17 Oct 2004 05:30:57 PM |
|
|
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:tP2dnTH4poHcd-_cRVn-1Q@gbronline.com...
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:4lb5n0dltemhrvg2q2e1a94lelj1v1nuse@4ax.com...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:26:42 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in
news:CeSdnTy2BJbkhO_cRVn-2A@gbronline.com:
Perhaps you need to re-read Christs story about the farmer who sows
his seeds... and learn to apply new meaning to it. Thats why people
read the bible you know, there are always greater insights than what
idiots view on the surface.
There is in the Book of Mormon, the Koran, and Silmarillion as well. In
fact, I get more out of Dune every time I read it.
"The Silmarillion" and "Dune " are worth more than the combined
writings of every religion ever known to humanity, IMO.
LOL, yup, you guys are open minded... and obviously, brilliant. Just what
kind of ethics were the authors of those books promoting? Duh!
Oh, the irony. Obviously you haven't read the bible.
--
__________
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Lister" |
|
| Title: Re: What Was First: The Church or The Bible ? |
17 Oct 2004 11:05:02 PM |
|
|
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in
news:2tga4tF1vl8stU1@uni-berlin.de:
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:tP2dnTH4poHcd-_cRVn-1Q@gbronline.com...
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:4lb5n0dltemhrvg2q2e1a94lelj1v1nuse@4ax.com...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:26:42 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in
news:CeSdnTy2BJbkhO_cRVn-2A@gbronline.com:
Perhaps you need to re-read Christs story about the farmer who
sows his seeds... and learn to apply new meaning to it. Thats why
people read the bible you know, there are always greater insights
than what idiots view on the surface.
There is in the Book of Mormon, the Koran, and Silmarillion as well.
In fact, I get more out of Dune every time I read it.
"The Silmarillion" and "Dune " are worth more than the combined
writings of every religion ever known to humanity, IMO.
LOL, yup, you guys are open minded... and obviously, brilliant. Just
what kind of ethics were the authors of those books promoting? Duh!
Oh, the irony. Obviously you haven't read the bible.
That's just it, if you are a believer there is NO way to read the bible
critically.
--
Bush Lied.
Anybody But Bush.
Regime change begins at home.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Duncan" |
|
| Title: Re: What Was First: The Church or The Bible ? |
18 Oct 2004 04:07:57 AM |
|
|
"Dave Lister" <retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9585D6796C98retsildivad33hotmail@68.6.19.6...
"Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in
news:2tga4tF1vl8stU1@uni-berlin.de:
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:tP2dnTH4poHcd-_cRVn-1Q@gbronline.com...
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:4lb5n0dltemhrvg2q2e1a94lelj1v1nuse@4ax.com...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:26:42 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in
news:CeSdnTy2BJbkhO_cRVn-2A@gbronline.com:
Perhaps you need to re-read Christs story about the farmer who
sows his seeds... and learn to apply new meaning to it. Thats why
people read the bible you know, there are always greater insights
than what idiots view on the surface.
There is in the Book of Mormon, the Koran, and Silmarillion as well.
In fact, I get more out of Dune every time I read it.
"The Silmarillion" and "Dune " are worth more than the combined
writings of every religion ever known to humanity, IMO.
LOL, yup, you guys are open minded... and obviously, brilliant. Just
what kind of ethics were the authors of those books promoting? Duh!
Oh, the irony. Obviously you haven't read the bible.
That's just it, if you are a believer there is NO way to read the bible
critically.
As you mature, and if you keep your interest alive, youll learn to take
religions less literally, then... less figuratively. (and under a different
light.) And perhaps then youll understand the value of it. Not
neccesarrily for you... but for others at least.
Rob
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dan Clore" |
|
| Title: Re: What Was First: The Church or The Bible ? |
18 Oct 2004 09:10:24 PM |
|
|
Dave Lister wrote:
That's just it, if you are a believer there is NO way to read the bible
critically.
I doubt that. See the best translation, the Jerusalem Bible,
done by believing scholars. (J.R.R. Tolkien was one of
them. He did the Book of Jonah--one great fantasist
translating another.)
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://www.wildsidepress.com/index2.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1587154838/thedanclorenecro
Lord We˙rdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/9879/
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
"It's a political statement -- or, rather, an
*anti*-political statement. The symbol for *anarchy*!"
-- Batman, explaining the circle-A graffiti, in
_Detective Comics_ #608
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: What Was First: The Church or The Bible ? |
17 Oct 2004 05:38:32 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 18:30:57 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:tP2dnTH4poHcd-_cRVn-1Q@gbronline.com...
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:4lb5n0dltemhrvg2q2e1a94lelj1v1nuse@4ax.com...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:26:42 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in
news:CeSdnTy2BJbkhO_cRVn-2A@gbronline.com:
Perhaps you need to re-read Christs story about the farmer who sows
his seeds... and learn to apply new meaning to it. Thats why people
read the bible you know, there are always greater insights than what
idiots view on the surface.
There is in the Book of Mormon, the Koran, and Silmarillion as well. In
fact, I get more out of Dune every time I read it.
"The Silmarillion" and "Dune " are worth more than the combined
writings of every religion ever known to humanity, IMO.
LOL, yup, you guys are open minded... and obviously, brilliant. Just what
kind of ethics were the authors of those books promoting? Duh!
Oh, the irony. Obviously you haven't read the bible.
Is he really that stupid, or just pretending?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Duncan" |
|
| Title: Re: What Was First: The Church or The Bible ? |
17 Oct 2004 08:34:01 PM |
|
|
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:51t5n0p2lgk39g53agcc97pjlcvhebadb5@4ax.com...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 18:30:57 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:tP2dnTH4poHcd-_cRVn-1Q@gbronline.com...
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:4lb5n0dltemhrvg2q2e1a94lelj1v1nuse@4ax.com...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:26:42 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in
news:CeSdnTy2BJbkhO_cRVn-2A@gbronline.com:
Perhaps you need to re-read Christs story about the farmer who sows
his seeds... and learn to apply new meaning to it. Thats why people
read the bible you know, there are always greater insights than what
idiots view on the surface.
There is in the Book of Mormon, the Koran, and Silmarillion as well. In
fact, I get more out of Dune every time I read it.
"The Silmarillion" and "Dune " are worth more than the combined
writings of every religion ever known to humanity, IMO.
LOL, yup, you guys are open minded... and obviously, brilliant. Just
what
kind of ethics were the authors of those books promoting? Duh!
Oh, the irony. Obviously you haven't read the bible.
Is he really that stupid, or just pretending?
Ive already mentioned why Tolken wrote the hobbit books, and why Lewis
created his series, has it failed to occur to you that almost all books
reflect the ethics of their authors? And that many books were created,
knowingly, to alter or bolster societal beliefs? Is that too difficult for
you? You HATE Christianity, yet your most favorite books were covert
creations intended to promote Chistian morals. And not those of any other
religion? Learn before speaking, youll sound less like an idiot.
Rob
.
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: What Was First: The Church or The Bible ? |
18 Oct 2004 12:56:18 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 18:34:01 -0700, "Rob Duncan"
<robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:51t5n0p2lgk39g53agcc97pjlcvhebadb5@4ax.com...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 18:30:57 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:tP2dnTH4poHcd-_cRVn-1Q@gbronline.com...
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:4lb5n0dltemhrvg2q2e1a94lelj1v1nuse@4ax.com...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:26:42 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in
news:CeSdnTy2BJbkhO_cRVn-2A@gbronline.com:
Perhaps you need to re-read Christs story about the farmer who sows
his seeds... and learn to apply new meaning to it. Thats why people
read the bible you know, there are always greater insights than what
idiots view on the surface.
There is in the Book of Mormon, the Koran, and Silmarillion as well. In
fact, I get more out of Dune every time I read it.
"The Silmarillion" and "Dune " are worth more than the combined
writings of every religion ever known to humanity, IMO.
LOL, yup, you guys are open minded... and obviously, brilliant. Just
what
kind of ethics were the authors of those books promoting? Duh!
Oh, the irony. Obviously you haven't read the bible.
Is he really that stupid, or just pretending?
Ive already mentioned why Tolken wrote the hobbit books,
I managed to miss it, but if you'd like to either summarize it, repost
it, or provide a Google reference, I'll look it over.
and why Lewis
created his series,
WTF does Lewis have to do with this post? Personally, I find his
fiction well-written, albeit hampered by the ham-handed allegory he
too often employed. As for his philosophical/theological works,
"absolute crap" would be my charitable review of them.
has it failed to occur to you that almost all books
reflect the ethics of their authors?
What's important is not necessarily what POV the author intended to
put forth, but the POV he actually did put forth. Tolkien was a devout
Roman Catholic in personal practice, and certainly many of the
elements of his beliefs were incorporated into his works, but they
also incorporated a substantial amount of Pagan sources and world
view, particularly the idea that the "Shadow" would never be fully
defeated, but would inevitably rise again in a different form; which
relates much more to the Norse idea of Ragnarok, or to the saga of
Beowulf, than to any particularly Christian concept.
And that many books were created,
knowingly, to alter or bolster societal beliefs? Is that too difficult for
you? You HATE Christianity,
No, I don't.
yet your most favorite books were covert
creations intended to promote Chistian morals.
Tolkien was very explicit that his sole intent in writing LOTR was to
tell a really good long story, and that any other intent read into it
was misguided.
As far as The Silmarillion is concerned, its "theology" is so far
removed from orthodox Christianity as to make it silly to try to
connect them. Iluvatar, the "God" of the Silmarillion, is not just
completely detached from personal involvement in Arda, our world,
(with the exception of the destruction of Numenor at the direct
request of the Valar, and the subsequent reshaping of the world); but
He didn't even directly create it Himself; he brought the Music of the
Ainur into existence.
And not those of any other
religion?
What specific religious values was Frank Herbert's "Dune" intended to
promote?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rob Duncan" |
|
| Title: Re: What Was First: The Church or The Bible ? |
18 Oct 2004 04:03:45 AM |
|
|
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:knm6n0lqun2p0b7rrrjb082je7pal0qcii@4ax.com...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 18:34:01 -0700, "Rob Duncan"
<robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote:
"Christopher A. Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:51t5n0p2lgk39g53agcc97pjlcvhebadb5@4ax.com...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 18:30:57 -0400, "Robibnikoff"
<witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote:
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:tP2dnTH4poHcd-_cRVn-1Q@gbronline.com...
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:4lb5n0dltemhrvg2q2e1a94lelj1v1nuse@4ax.com...
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:26:42 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
"Rob Duncan" <robduncan@gbronline.com> wrote in
news:CeSdnTy2BJbkhO_cRVn-2A@gbronline.com:
Perhaps you need to re-read Christs story about the farmer who sows
his seeds... and learn to apply new meaning to it. Thats why
people
read the bible you know, there are always greater insights than
what
idiots view on the surface.
There is in the Book of Mormon, the Koran, and Silmarillion as well.
In
fact, I get more out of Dune every time I read it.
"The Silmarillion" and "Dune " are worth more than the combined
writings of every religion ever known to humanity, IMO.
LOL, yup, you guys are open minded... and obviously, brilliant. Just
what
kind of ethics were the authors of those books promoting? Duh!
Oh, the irony. Obviously you haven't read the bible.
Is he really that stupid, or just pretending?
Ive already mentioned why Tolken wrote the hobbit books,
I managed to miss it, but if you'd like to either summarize it, repost
it, or provide a Google reference, I'll look it over.
and why Lewis
created his series,
WTF does Lewis have to do with this post? Personally, I find his
fiction well-written, albeit hampered by the ham-handed allegory he
too often employed. As for his philosophical/theological works,
"absolute crap" would be my charitable review of them.
has it failed to occur to you that almost all books
reflect the ethics of their authors?
What's important is not necessarily what POV the author intended to
put forth, but the POV he actually did put forth. Tolkien was a devout
Roman Catholic in personal practice, and certainly many of the
elements of his beliefs were incorporated into his works, but they
also incorporated a substantial amount of Pagan sources and world
view, particularly the idea that the "Shadow" would never be fully
defeated, but would inevitably rise again in a different form; which
relates much more to the Norse idea of Ragnarok, or to the saga of
Beowulf, than to any particularly Christian concept.
Think inner evil.
And that many books were created,
knowingly, to alter or bolster societal beliefs? Is that too difficult
for
you? You HATE Christianity,
No, I don't.
yet your most favorite books were covert
creations intended to promote Chistian morals.
Tolkien was very explicit that his sole intent in writing LOTR was to
tell a really good long story, and that any other intent read into it
was misguided.
No, no, no... he belonged to a small organisation that routinely met to
discuss topics, and mull over ideas on how to permanently alter society in a
way that appealed to them. Tolken and Lewis actually DID flip a coin to see
just who would write what. Literally. I havent a clue if you can find it
on the net. I find the net to be a poor source of information and I dont
bother.
As far as The Silmarillion is concerned, its "theology" is so far
removed from orthodox Christianity as to make it silly to try to
connect them.
Theyre not connected, other than in their moral teachings. Theres no
comparable stories or allagories. Well, I shouldnt say that. Anyway...
Well, think back to Lewis' Lion. Im sure youve already figured it out.
Iluvatar, the "God" of the Silmarillion, is not just
completely detached from personal involvement in Arda, our world,
(with the exception of the destruction of Numenor at the direct
request of the Valar, and the subsequent reshaping of the world); but
He didn't even directly create it Himself; he brought the Music of the
Ainur into existence.
And not those of any other
religion?
What specific religious values was Frank Herbert's "Dune" intended to
promote?
Seriously? Its not obvious to you? Did you respect and admire the
determination of its focus?
Rob
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
