28 Sep 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOh, dear, not another Dan Brown disciple... And if you can't comprehend my answer, then don't bother - your mind's probably made up.
The Gnostic gospels, part of the so-called Apocrypha excluded at the big editing session at Nicea, 325 AD. Here's a link for you: www.gnosis.org
The other question is the sentence after the first question.
28 Sep 05
Originally posted by RatXAssumption upon assumption...surely you can do better than this derisive one-liner...rat king...an answer to my second question would at least get things going...my mind is certainly not made up...
Oh, dear, not another Dan Brown disciple... And if you can't comprehend my answer, then don't bother - your mind's probably made up.
28 Sep 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOriginally posted by Bosse de Nage
Assumption upon assumption...surely you can do better than this derisive one-liner...rat king...an answer to my second question would at least get things going...my mind is certainly not made up...
OK, you're not interested in the other gospels. I wonder why.
Assumption upon assumption. Ok, lay out your second question, again please.
28 Sep 05
Originally posted by RatXYou got me--I assumed you knew about the Apocrypha. Let me know what you think of that web site.
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Assumption upon assumption.
Here's da question:
What makes the historical writings about Christ so very different from the historical writings about other magicians--Apollonius of Tyana, for instance?
28 Sep 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI've answered that question. Simplified - the difference is that the people who wrote about Christ didn't create a mythology about him - they believed in what they wrote because they were willing to die for it. I assumed you'd got it.
You got me--I assumed you knew about the Apocrypha. Let me know what you think of that web site.
Here's da question:
What makes the historical writings about Christ so very different from the historical writings about other magicians--Apollonius of Tyana, for instance?
I know about the Apocrypha - interesting stuff here and there, but books like "The gospel of Thomas" or "the gospel of Mary" have been discredited as frauds (except for the illustrious Dan Brown and his ilk). When I get bored, I'll continue this banter and perhaps check out the site...
28 Sep 05
Originally posted by RatXOK, you're saying that the people who wrote the Gospels are different to other authors by virtue of their personal courage.
I've answered that question. Simplified - the difference is that the people who wrote about Christ didn't create a mythology about him - they believed in what they wrote because they were willing to die for it. I assumed you'd got it.
I know about the Apocrypha - interesting stuff here and there, but books like "The gospel of Thomas" or "the gospel of ...[text shortened]... own and his ilk). When I get bored, I'll continue this banter and perhaps check out the site...
I don't think these authors created the mythology--none of them were first-hand witnesses to the reported events; all had to rely on second-hand (at best) testimony in times when people believed in all kinds of crazy things...
"They wrote because they were willing to die for it". Was that really why they wrote--because they were willing to die?--or did they have other motives--like writing to a particular readership?
I note that my assumption was correct. You assert that the gospel of Thomas has been discredited as a fraud--please back that up--if you don't die of ennui first.
28 Sep 05
Originally posted by Bosse de NageOriginally posted by Bosse de Nage
OK, you're saying that the people who wrote the Gospels are different to other authors by virtue of their personal courage.
I don't think these authors created the mythology--none of them were first-hand witnesses to the reported events; all had to rely on second-hand (at best) testimony in times when people believed in all kinds of ...[text shortened]... f Thomas has been discredited as a fraud--please back that up--if you don't die of ennui first.
I don't think these authors created the mythology--none of them were first-hand witnesses to the reported events; all had to rely on second-hand (at best) testimony in times when people believed in all kinds of crazy things...
Assumptions.
The rest of the post doesn't merit a response...
28 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by RatXEven the part where he asks you to back up your claim regarding Thomas? 😕
Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
[b]I don't think these authors created the mythology--none of them were first-hand witnesses to the reported events; all had to rely on second-hand (at best) testimony in times when people believed in all kinds of crazy things...
Assumptions.
The rest of the post doesn't merit a response...[/b]
It seems you're about as useful as tits on a dog.
28 Sep 05
Originally posted by RatXHere's Luke actually saying he wasn't an eye-witness:
Assumptions.
Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us,
2
just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us,
3
I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus,
4
so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings you have received.
The rest of the post doesn't merit a response...
You're quite right, it's unreasonable of me to ask you to substantiate your claims. My humble apologies.
28 Sep 05
Originally posted by darvlayIt seems you're about as useful as tits on a dog.
Even the part where he asks you to back up your claim regarding Thomas? 😕
It seems you're about as useful as tits on a dog.
I'm sure you've found some use for them in your nocturnal activities.
It would take me too much of my valuable time and befuddle you too much getting the documents pasted onto the thread.
You're as useful to the discussion as pigeon-stool on a pump-handle.