Protestantism

» pink101 - What is Christianity?

In response to What is Christianity? posted by BrianTubbs:

.
I always liked Tom.
.
:~)
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brother_Jones - Honesty

In response to Honesty posted by BrianTubbs:

but I'm not sure "honest" was the right term for you to use. It implied that she was being deceptive.

No, I did not want to imply she was trying to deceive. My apologies to Paper Turtle. But we can all be deceived from time to time about the true nature of Christ and the true nature of Satan.

i am just an oldtimer for the Lord.

-- posted by Brother_Jones

» Migisi - Secular Evidence

In response to Secular Evidence posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Of course...it's wrong for you or anyone to just dismiss the Bible out of hand. At the very least, a person has to accept the Bible as a collection of ancient literature.
.
Just your opinion that it's 'wrong'. Do you dismiss the collection of ancient literature referred to as the Gnostic gospels?

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Secular Evidence

In response to Secular Evidence posted by Migisi:

.
Touche'
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Gnostic Gospels

In response to Secular Evidence posted by Migisi:

I don't "dismiss" them. I accept them for what they are - documents written in the second and (I believe also) third century. No historian that I'm aware of, for example, claims that the disciple Thomas wrote the Gospel of Thomas.

» Migisi - Gnostic Gospels

In response to Gnostic Gospels posted by BrianTubbs:
.
I accept them for what they are - documents written in the second and (I believe also) third century.
.
When were the canonized gospels written? Same time period, right?
.
No historian that I'm aware of, for example, claims that the disciple Thomas wrote the Gospel of Thomas.
.
If you agree with those historians, then you actually do dismiss them - doubting their authenticity. You are aware that esteemed Bible scholars do question the authorship of some of the canonized books and a couple of Pauline epistles, right?

-- posted by Migisi

» Migisi - Gnostic Gospels

In response to Gnostic Gospels posted by Migisi:
.
I wrote: "When were the canonized gospels written? Same time period, right?"
.
I'm wrong. They were first century. Duh.
.
Do you dismiss the ancient literature known as the Apocrypha / Deuterocanonicals - which were written primarily in the time between the Old and New Testaments? They're found in the Catholic Bible, but not in Protestant Bibles. Books: 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, Prayer of Manasseh, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, (and additions to Esther and Daniel).

-- posted by Migisi

» badactor - Gnostic Gospels

In response to Gnostic Gospels posted by Migisi:
The literature known as the Gnostic gospels is generally believed to have been written in the second and third centuries CE; Thomas may have origins as early or earlier than any of the cannonized books. (ie the Pauline letters) The format is a common one from that era, a book of sayings.

Let no one forget it took almost two thousand years to shed a little light on these early banned books. One might argue it took the grace of God to preserve them until a time when their value could be more fully understood. There is little doubt that the early beliefs surrounding this Jeshua of Nazareth were a lot more varied than most churches would have us believe.

-- posted by badactor

» _Boanerges_ - Gnostic Gospels

In response to Gnostic Gospels posted by badactor:

Let no one forget it took almost two thousand years to shed a little light on these early banned books.

banned? umm no.. rejected? uhmm yes.. A little bit of a difference...

The gnostics believed in an after life, but not with a physical body...

and you say what about an afterlife?

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» Brian Tubbs - Point of Perspective

In response to Gnostic Gospels posted by Migisi:

It's true that, as a Baptist pastor, I only accept the sixty-six (66) books in the present canonized Protestant Bible as divinely inspired and authoritative. I accept these books of the Bible as the Word of God and preach from the Bible every Sunday at Sligo Baptist Church. HOWEVER....

That really is NOT the perspective from which I'm carrying on this discussion with you. I'm actually setting aside my personal, conservative, evangelical POV and arguing from a much more inclusive, moderate position.

That being that there is at least SOME value in all of the ancient religious literature. There are DEGREES of credibility that we can assign to the books of the Bible and also to the apocraphal books and the Gnostic writings and so on.

I'm saying that all these books should be respectfully engaged as ancient literature - that they should be analyzed with the same degree of scholarly respect that historians and/or literary scholars would give to ANY ancient works.

THAT is the position I'm arguing from right now. And within that perspective, I'm saying that there is at least some degree of credibility that any scholar - conservative, moderate, or liberal - would have to give the Bible. Otherwise, the person is being a truly irrational critic.

So, as a Baptist pastor, I would say to you - No, I do not accept the Catholic Bible. And I do not accept the Gnostic writings. But when I say that I don't "accept" them, I mean that I don't embrace them as divinely inspired. It does NOT mean that I think they're worth nothing more than fire kindling.

Does that make sense?