Papyrus found Jesus married

[One Bad Pig]

Add the Pig to the list of people that can't read.

It was easy to read your post the way I did, since you had just talked about him - and since you waxed hyperbolic in the second part of your post, I was inclined to dismiss the first part as well. OingoBoingo cleared things up, though I have seen 2 Peter and the Pastorals dated to the mid-2nd century (and IIRC John was once dated at that time).

[One Bad Pig]

Oh, OK. If all you care about is what Christians believe, then, sure; the entirety of the Christian Testament was compiled in the First Century CE. However, the final work was not completed until well into the 3rd and 4th centuries.

In other words, there was not a cohesive Christian "story" until much later than most Christians think. There are dozens and dozens of "Gospels" that were floating around in the first two centuries at least (Irenaeus didn't start tossing books until mid 2nd century, I think).

So who knows how much of those original manuscripts were edited and added to by then.

I'll go out on a limb and guess that you're basing your opinion here on ...books.

For example, I just completed a manuscript of a book it took me 2 years to write. It has been updated, edited, redacted and tweaked all throughout this entire two year period. So, the date of publication is when the final work is in the hands of my readers.

Which has what, exactly, to do with how books were composed 2,000 years ago?

Of course, this is all beside the point that you are basing your faith on writings that are at least 2000 years old. Making claims that they are even older than they really are is not helping.

NORM

Why should you care how old the books are when you denigrate basing your beliefs on any books? Coherence is not your strong suit, is it?

[NormATive]

Thanks, Oingo, that is indeed correct and should have been obvious to anyone reading it, but we're dealing with lao and norm after all.

Am I supposed to be insulted?

NORM

[Manw� S�limo]

It was easy to read your post the way I did, since you had just talked about him

If you say so.

[NormATive]

Why should you care how old the books are when you denigrate basing your beliefs on any books?

I don't, because they do not form the core of my worldview.

But you obviously do.

NORM

[NormATive]

I'll go out on a limb and guess that you're basing your opinion here on ...books.

Not exactly. I did a summer internship (sort of) at Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Israel. We got to examine actual fragments from the Qumran find. It was fascinating! There were many lectures and discussions, etc. So, no; not "just books."

What impressed me most were the QUANTITY of religious writings that were found. There are SO MANY gospels that you've never heard of! Christianity was far more vibrant and complex than it is now. It is a true shame that the men who decided on what your religion should be composed from excluded so much from the mix.

I actually love books of antiquity. I get a feeling of awe in the presence of documents that were written many hundreds and thousands of years ago. It's like going on board a time machine. But, I certainly don't think they are any more worthy of consideration than any other human writing. They have meaning within the context of their time, but I don't think ought to be a basis for ordering modern society.

NORM

[OingoBoingo]

Simple enough to me too.

Oh good. Glad I wasn't the only one.

[robrecht]

Not exactly. I did a summer internship (sort of) at Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Israel. We got to examine actual fragments from the Qumran find. It was fascinating! There were many lectures and discussions, etc. So, no; not "just books."

What impressed me most were the QUANTITY of religious writings that were found. There are SO MANY gospels that you've never heard of! Christianity was far more vibrant and complex than it is now. It is a true shame that the men who decided on what your religion should be composed from excluded so much from the mix.

I actually love books of antiquity. I get a feeling of awe in the presence of documents that were written many hundreds and thousands of years ago. It's like going on board a time machine. But, I certainly don't think they are any more worthy of consideration than any other human writing. They have meaning within the context of their time, but I don't think ought to be a basis for ordering modern society.

NORM

In terms of other gospels found, I'm sure you heard about these in the lectures you attended, but none we found at Qumran. I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that; just thought I'd clarify for others. I suspect One Bad Pig is already well aware of these other gospels. He seems to be pretty well informed.

[OingoBoingo]

Oh, OK. If all you care about is what Christians believe, then, sure; the entirety of the Christian Testament was compiled in the First Century CE. However, the final work was not completed until well into the 3rd and 4th centuries.

In other words, there was not a cohesive Christian "story" until much later than most Christians think. There are dozens and dozens of "Gospels" that were floating around in the first two centuries at least (Irenaeus didn't start tossing books until mid 2nd century, I think).

So who knows how much of those original manuscripts were edited and added to by then.

For example, I just completed a manuscript of a book it took me 2 years to write. It has been updated, edited, redacted and tweaked all throughout this entire two year period. So, the date of publication is when the final work is in the hands of my readers.

Of course, this is all beside the point that you are basing your faith on writings that are at least 2000 years old. Making claims that they are even older than they really are is not helping.

NORM

By "you are basing your faith on writings...", I'm assuming you mean a general "you", correct? Because I haven't stated my faith in this thread.

About your dozens and dozens of Gospels claim, we know that there were many after the very first century, but aside from the Gospel of Thomas which is sometimes dated to the 1st century (but usually its dated to the 2nd or 3rd century), I can't think of any non-canonical "Gospels" before the 2nd century. Can you? Which non-canonical works do you feel should have been included in the canon? I think a good argument can be made for the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and maybe 1 Clement, but there were guidelines for canonization, which accounts for why many 2nd, 3rd, 4th century books were not included in the canon. The canonizers attempted to address the very issue you brought up in post #26. One of the guidelines was that a book considered for canonization had to be early.

I agree with you (as I mentioned in post #50) that the books that were eventually canonized were redacted to some degree. Based on your familiarity with ancient texts, what are some of the more surprising redactions and interpolations you're familiar with? I'm aware of the shorter version of Mark, and the insertion of the Pericope Adulterae in John, but I can't think of too many others that change the meaning of the text significantly. Papias mentioned a Hebrew version of Matthew, maybe that was used as a basis for the present Greek version, or maybe he was talking about another Gospel altogether. Who knows. Can you think of anything else off hand?

In post #66 are you saying that there were many gospels found at Qumran, or is that a misreading? Obviously, there weren't any Christian gospels found in Qumran, since the trove there is usually associated with the Essenes, and not Christians.

[Juvenal]

By "you are basing your faith on writings...", I'm assuming you mean a general "you", correct? Because I haven't stated my faith in this thread.

Actually you did. It's a context thing.

[OingoBoingo]

Actually you did. It's a context thing.

How do you mean?

[Juvenal]

How do you mean?

You didn't have a problem reading the Doofus' position, but went blank on Norm's. That speaks to your identification.

[OingoBoingo]

You didn't have a problem reading the Doofus' position, but went blank on Norm's. That speaks to your identification.

That's some wild deductive reasoning. I understood Manwe's position (I'm assuming he's the Doofus), because I followed the thread. Therefore, I share Manwe's faith, and not Norm's?

What's your deal exactly lao tzu? I've notice that you rarely offer anything in these serious threads but condescension, and snap judgments. From other threads you appear to be some sort of educator. If your behavior here is anything like it is in the classroom, I feel bad for your students.

[One Bad Pig]

Not exactly. I did a summer internship (sort of) at Hebrew University of Jerusalem in Israel. We got to examine actual fragments from the Qumran find. It was fascinating! There were many lectures and discussions, etc. So, no; not "just books."

I'm sure it was fascinating. I'm also sure that the fragments you examined had nothing to do with Christian gospels, canonical or otherwise. So you're just boasting of your somewhat related experience instead of answering the question posed.

What impressed me most were the QUANTITY of religious writings that were found. There are SO MANY gospels that you've never heard of! Christianity was far more vibrant and complex than it is now.

I've read quite a few of those other writings (most of which were not actual gospels). They were not accepted because they were fundamentally incompatible with orthodox Christianity and were of late provenance. You can't (legitimately) claim to be talking about what we believe when you lump third-century gnostic writings with our canon.

It is a true shame that the men who decided on what your religion should be composed from excluded so much from the mix.

Funny you should say that; my canon of Jewish scriptures is larger than yours (though the Jews used Sirach through about the 14th century IIRC).

I actually love books of antiquity. I get a feeling of awe in the presence of documents that were written many hundreds and thousands of years ago. It's like going on board a time machine. But, I certainly don't think they are any more worthy of consideration than any other human writing. They have meaning within the context of their time, but I don't think ought to be a basis for ordering modern society.

NORM

Who here is arguing for a theocracy? I agree that books need to be understood within the context of their time, but I also believe that human nature has not changed; despite the different context, we're still encountering the same problems.

[Juvenal]

That's some wild deductive reasoning. I understood Manwe's position (I'm assuming he's the Doofus), because I followed the thread. Therefore, I share Manwe's faith, and not Norm's?

What's your deal exactly lao tzu? I've notice that you rarely offer anything in these serious threads but condescension, and snap judgments. From other threads you appear to be some sort of educator. If your behavior here is anything like it is in the classroom, I feel bad for your students.

That's "badly."