How so? Sociological conditions at the time would lend credence to the discussion as much as a "document" brought forth to coincide with a major motion picture that will bring into question the cornerstone of faith for billions of people.
Surprisingly enough, written by a reverend. It would be interesting to see people not so known of religious beliefs write up something like this (and yes, I know that atheists wouldn't sign this kind of text so I don't mean them).
Even though the man can be right, it always take a scratch away from the written word's relibiality if the writer is known to have bias into one direction or another. The only problem just is that not-so-religious people don't bother trying to prove something like this.
Plus, there're some points one could argue...
Anyway, I'd like to rise up another thing I truly wonder.
"Sociological conditions at the time would lend credence to the discussion as much as a "document" brought forth to coincide with a major motion picture that will bring into question the cornerstone of faith for billions of people."
I'm afraid that sentance doesn't make much sense to me at all.....
I believe he's referring to "The DaVinci Code" and it's upcoming release in theatres. Unfortunately, there are still people out there that do not realize that this book was pure fiction. I have read many articles and even one from the creator of the supposed "Priory of Scion" who ADMITS that he made up the name of the group. It was named after a mountain in his hometown. People are so damn gullable it's amazing. This book is as factual as "Jurrasic Park".
What, people are this worked up of a work of fiction . . .must be good it has started such a debate!
Temple...yes, I realize that The DaVinci Code is pure fiction. I also am very aware that many "scientific" channels and publications used its release to hop on a bandwagon and lend their version of credence to the "possibilities." Hitler said, "Tell a big enough lie long enough and loud enough..." (paraphrased, of course).
My point, gentlemen, is that the so-called Gospel of Judas floated around on the black market of antiquities for years. I find it more than coincidental that it's coming to the forefront now. I've had discussion after discussion with people who have tried to use pseudo-science, revisionist history, and "the travesties of the church" to refute the authenticity of the Bible. Facts, as of late, have become as malleable as the interpretation of them.
I agree wholeheartedly! The "church" has inflicted evil after "evil" on humanity since it's religio-political inception. My disagreement is in including a body politic (namely organized "religion") and a Body Deific in the same lump assessment. Those who have comitted said atrocities may have done so in the Name of Jesus, but it was not at His behest.
Ultimately, Jesus wasn't Catholic or Episcopalian or what-have-you. Neither was Peter. Neither was Paul. Neither am I. A "church" doesn't accomplish what we believe He did. And I find it sad that so many have excluded themselves from true Christianity because men in funny hats have claimed and acted on authority never given them.
The historical documentation of how and why for instance Constantine and his flunkies picked, chose and were bribed to include some books in the Bible and to drop others is proof enough for me.... Proof enough at least for me to question the validity of the whole thing.... I see no evidence of anything 'divine' guiding their choices, and I see evidence of more mundane influences (bribery, a desire to control just to name two)
I guess, if it was to be put in legal terms, what I have is "Reasonable Doubt" which is all that is required to set any accused free...
And we see how well it worked. The only ones who misused the system were the ones who were "in the know." The "church" considered it a crime for anyone to read their Bibles, or to own one, for that matter. So it couldn't very well be used to control the masses, could it?
I can strongly espouse my beliefs because I've tried everything (more or less) else. I was raised Christian, albeit "religious Christianity", and rebelled. Call it a pilgrimage.
That's actually fair enough. The biggest peeve I have with organized religion is that they don't really offer people a chance to truly find themselves. They start converting us so young that we don't yet have a true sense of what this world around us may be or be not. In my opinion we should offer our descendants a fair chance to look into this stuff themselves should they find it interesting, instead of telling them these things as facts at the moment they just seem old enough to understand at least something about them.
You Doc seem to have been out there on the neutral ground just like I have, and have truly made your decision of faith by yourself, and I respect that. Despite we have found ourselves standing in different camps concerning this subject, we're more alike than one could prematurely assume.
Truth to tell, most Christians these days don't know what they believe. I had a discussion with an atheist once. He was actually impressed when I quoted Scripture. He said it was the first time he'd had a Christian take him to the Bible to answer a Bible-based question.
This thread was supposed to be about the Gospel of Judas Iscariot. The Noah's Ark find thread was supposed to be about that. The pre history and god thread was supposed to be about just that. Other threads, all de-railed into the Etherium... into debates about faith or the existence or non existence of god, or the validity of the scriptures. I simply love where CH takes all these posts...
Last edited by fortuneandglory : 09-09-2006 at 02:23 PM.
Other threads, all de-railed into the Etherium... into debates about faith or the existence or non existence of god, or the validity of the scriptures. I simply love where CH takes all these posts...
I don't blame CH, if blame is even the word to use. Such is the nature of the beast...when we make statements of faith and interpret the evidence as such, those who have a different view, and a strongly held one, will be compelled to voice it.
I like to believe that maybe, like William Ramsay, exposure to fact AND truth will prod my colleagues to reconsider their view. Beating me over the head with ideologies did nothing but make me run from Christianity...I would expect no other reaction from those in similar positions. Remember, F&G, that Paul reasoned with thos ein the synagogues and on Areopagus and saw fruit from his labor.