You are referring to things like the Gospel of Thomas I am guessing? That is another topic altogether, but Church canon about the gospels has been established from a very early time, and they were aware of these gospels and perhaps others that are still lost. — Lionino
Re: the Pauline "Christ" myth (i.e. conspiracy theory) conjured together by committee in Nicea during the 4th century CE reign of Constantine the Great from the diverse strands of hand-me-down hearsay gossip about 'an itinerant, Aramaic-speaking, wonder-worker who preached mostly to (& for) oppressed, poor, illiterate masses' in and around Galilee in Roman occupied Judea during the 1st century CE reign of Tiberius and who was named "Yeshua" (Iesus in Latin) ...Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. — Ephesians 6:5
I meant Jesus's words drawn from the canonicals and how these words are understood — BitconnectCarlos
Which even then would be goofy, the Church made the Bible, are we going to tell the priest how to preach too? — Lionino
I find gThomas a fascinating document but having read it I do understand why it was not made canon. — BitconnectCarlos
I still think it sounds like you wish to restrict even the opportunity to admire, enjoy, and be edified by Jesus to the teachings of the Church. — ENOAH
If your bishop approves your interpretation and the Pope sanctions it ex cathedra, fine — it won't happen anyway because whatever you may have thought of has been thought of before and addressed —, otherwise, it has been rejected by a reason — Lionino
The Church has given itself that authority. — ENOAH
Your insistence that all talk of Jesus needs to conform to Church teachings makes no other sense to me. — ENOAH
I don't think there is any single individual alive who is more qualified to interpret it — which is to go against the interpretation of the Church. Which even then would be goofy, the Church made the Bible, are we going to tell the priest how to preach too? — Lionino
Because it didn't suit the "orthodox" agenda, right? It was too gnostic. — ENOAH
Yet Luther did. — BitconnectCarlos
You say the Church admitted a mistake regarding indulgences. So the Church can be mistaken. So there is a truth about Christianity that exists regardless of whether the Church acknowledges it. — BitconnectCarlos
I think his legacy speaks for the quality of his ideas. — Lionino
I wouldn't indulgences are doctrine, more like a corrupt practice. — Lionino
My point is that by admiring the teachings of Jesus you are admiring a large subset of the doctrines of the Church — the two are not separable. The story of Jesus is given to us by the Church. — Lionino
I guess so, in the same way that JK Rowling gave herself authority over the Harry Potter IP. You see how that is distinct from simply "giving oneself authority"? — Lionino
From these premises, it seems to follow that claiming that the teachings of Jesus are X instead of Y, as stated by the Church, is a mistake of the same nature as claiming a chapter of HP means X when JK Rowling specified from the start it means Y. — Lionino
You say the Church admitted a mistake regarding indulgences. So the Church can be mistaken. So there is a truth about Christianity that exists regardless of whether the Church acknowledges it. — BitconnectCarlos
I do have to say even in the synoptics Jesus can get pretty gnostic. I did not pick up anything in there that was antithetical to the synoptics but I only gave it a brief look. — BitconnectCarlos
Sorry, Lionino, that's a good point by Bitconnect. I'm really trying to understand. You've already helped me get the first part, I had wrong. Do you recognize how nevertheless you have misapplied it, and assertively? — ENOAH
I would need to review Paul's writings for antisemitism — BitconnectCarlos
Of course contrary to the teachings of the so called Church, and with respect to that perspective, many have taken a historico-critical approach. And while I am not up to speed, I recall that both the gospels and epistles need to be understood in their historical (Pre-The One Holy and Apostolic Church) context. And--even unashamedly to the authors--you find that there were "political" "scriptural" "religious" motivators in the writing.I came away from the Gospels hating the Pharisees/Jews — BitconnectCarlos
Nasty anti-semite — BitconnectCarlos
I came away from the Gospels hating the Pharisees/Jews — BitconnectCarlos
like Adam hiding himself in clothes, dividing himself from God. We all do it. — Fire Ologist
The hypothetical moment when "we" divided/displaced "God's creation" our natural selves, with our constructions, choosing knowledge over life. — ENOAH
But it wasn’t just a moment. It happens everyday, — Fire Ologist
It wasn’t bad to put clothes on. It wasn’t the knowledge itself. — Fire Ologist
Yes. Uncanny, eh? It's tragic that art can be admired universally in pretty much any form except religion. Has Christianity been an influence for good? Maybe the pith of the question is too obvious to ask, it has been an influence, period. Like DaVinci or Einstein, but on a much grander scale. We write good and bad, regardless of the influence.The story in the Bible shows us what is happening right now — Fire Ologist
lest I misrepresent my angle, I'm approaching this particular segment of this thread as mythico-poetry, not theologically (not saying you are/aren't). But, yes. I do think so. He says, "wake up," and turn your attention. The "Thing" we're all looking for, because we lost it, is not where you're looking. God's world is the birds in the sky, the flowers in the field, who neither reap nor sow, labor nor spin. It's not in the gathering nor the knowing, it's in the living. Dont believe your constructions from time to time, believe in that eternally. Find your soul. What profit is in gaining the whole world but losing your living soul. And not only did his contemporaries kill that in order to remain with their attachments to knowledge, repeating the mistake in Eden, but the moment he died they constructed a fiction in his name, Christianity and we have pretty much been lost in that and its antitheses (heresy, atheism, secularism, science, Islam/Eastern "paganism", hedonism/materialism, communism) ever since.we killed him, we still want to hide. That’s just like us, don’t you think? — Fire Ologist
Thank God, 'cause I've wandered so deep into "my" imagination here that science is a faint echo in a remote corner of--by the way--the same system, functioning to find truth, in the end, in the same way, settling upon what is most fitting/functional given all competing factors.misses the significance of the Picasso to seek the uses and causes of something sublime. — Fire Ologist
Good or bad is just how we write. — ENOAH
it's in the living — ENOAH
Just because something is constructed only for humans and only by humans doesn’t require that it not be real, not be, not be thereby constructed. Humans are being humans too. — Fire Ologist
you find that there were "political" "scriptural" "religious" motivators in the writing.
The opponents to that movement were portrayed deliberately accordingly.
I think your comments about Luke and ff, if understood in the context above, reveals that the early church, far from being antisemitic, were carrying on a Jewish tradition, opposing, not Judaism nor the Jewish race, just their "political" opponents in the Sanhedrin.
Galatians as opposed to Romans regarding Paul's complete thinking. — BitconnectCarlos
Yes, very much so it could have been that. Galatians simply illustrates a "desperation" not to have the evangelical success go backwards. But for sure you are correct.Could it not have been both? That he was both an evangelist who was serious about spreading Xtianity and reasonably saw circumcision and dietary laws as a hindrance to that end and that he was sincere in his views that Jesus was God and that salvation occurred through faith in him? — BitconnectCarlos
Yes. Good point. I agree.gThomas lends further credence to Paul's disregard for circumcision. — BitconnectCarlos
80-90 AD I don't know the extent to which the Sanhedrin was opposing or dealing with the Early Church in those days. — BitconnectCarlos
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.