My understanding is that freewill is granted but is conditional. It is almost always granted but I believe is revoked at times for extreme reasons (Pharo) and circumstances. The factors that God uses to revoke freewill are unknowable and I imagine are not hard fast rules. These factors possibly applie to both examples but whatever they are they are not equivalent. I think it probable and likely God revoke freewill to an extent that allowed for infallable original revelation.
That works only to the extent that the phrase, "God hardened Pharaoh's heart" is taken as literal fact, and not as a metaphorical statement. I just don't think God works that way in reality. I further don't think God provided for an "infallible original revelation." I think human beings are created to be as they are, and that means that there are very fallible filters of understanding in place. That's why "no one can see God's face and live." We can only perceive God's "backside" through our human filters.
The idea of "infallible original revelation" is only necessary to the extent that such is necessary in order for us to perceive God in any coherent way. I don't believe that the bible bears that kind of responsibility.
The writers of the bible and countless theologians say the bible in it's original revelations are literally God's word. I stand behind that.
I do not. We don't even know who the writers were, other than Paul and a couple of others. Everything is anonymous. I just don't buy the "God said it, I believe it, that settles it" approach. It's morally and scholastically irresponsible.
Is there any work you know of that could be included as a whole and would not contradict the bible that does exist? Thomas sure does not qualify.
to the contrary. I think Thomas is an
excellent example of such. As are The Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and a few others. Heck, there is enough contradiction on the part of the canon texts, themselves, to make any wariness of contradiction unnecessary. Contradiction is part of the biblical makeup, because the impetus wasn't to create "a seamless story," but to "include all the tradition." The exclusion of certain books makes that inclusive impetus impossible to achieve, which is why I asserted that the canon fails miserably.
The designation and codification of the canon was in it's self largely responsible for it's prolific transmission and reliablity.
It was also largely responsible for limiting theological study to a much narrower perspective.
"Reliability" with regard to what, exactly?
A gun has no will and so the danger lies in something outside it.
I don't want to divert attention by engaging a philosophical discussion of danger, but the power potential of a gun greatly amplifies either intent or ineptitude. There's a real good reason why, on fighter jets, for example, there are several "danger" notifications.
That is not a meaningful answer. I was looking for an answer with the power to invest your opinion with validity. This did not do that.
I'm sorry you don't think so. A degree with honors from an accredited graduate seminary program of exegetical and theological study may not carry much validity for you, but it does for me.
Do you tend to trust physicians who've actually graduated with honors from, say, Johns Hopkins?
Do you tend to trust engineers who've actually graduated with honors from, say, MIT or MST?
Sure doesn't look that way. Especially since you did not show what validated your claims. It is very easy to assert things devoid of justification (I mistakenly do it myself sometimes).
have you taken any graduate courses dealing with that process?
Xy must have some meaning for you but I have never even heard of it until you said it.
It's an abbreviation for "Christianity," using "X" as the first Greek letter in "Christ." Most (if not all) students of christian theology know this abbreviation.
I am a native American and your claims are too general to have any application.
Which claims? The ones about forced conversion? Study the history of Central and South America, as well as the history of the Spanish Inquisition.
They are also somewhat nieve.
Oh?
Really! How do you figure? (And be specific, since we wouldn't want any generalities to sour the milk.)
Inclusion and tolerance have watered down and renedered impotent truth for the entire history of man.
Truth is usually broader than we give it credit for, since we are able to employ only one perspective at a time. Truth is usually greater than a single perspective allows for.
Truth is necessarily exclusive.
Truth is necessarily inclusive, because truth must apply to everything, taking all into account.
Jesus said enter by the narrow gate not by the broad road.
Jesus wasn't talking about theological constructions or doctrinal beliefs here.
In a world of human fallability truth is a reare and precious commodity and should be protected from liberal thinkers.
In a world of human fallibility, truth is a rare and precious commodity and should be protected from conservative thinkers.
There is nothing in the methods of the Church fathers in general to fault.
No, but specifically in their insistence upon uniformity.
What, I thought you said it wasn't considered because it wasn't known at the time when the canon was being decided on? There has been no serious debate over the canon's contents for over a thousand years.
We were discussing Revelation, specifically, at this point. Not Thomas.
Well about half a dozen sites said 300 or earlier. I have no opinion but why are you sure they are wrong?
That's not what I'm saying. Yes, Thomas is probably quite early. But my objection was to your assertion that it wouldn't have been lost if God "intended" it to be in the bible.
If so how was it as you said in and out of canonical lists?. That time frame was when the actual canon was being decided on.
That reference was to Revelation -- not Thomas.
Revelation was in and out of canonical lists.
Keep up, plz.
How can a text that has contradictions and gnostic teachings as well as no comparable pedigree be used to determine anything about the bible. I do not know what sites you are getting this from but this one is not correct.
Almost every text contains contradictions. John contains some gnostic teachings. I have no idea what "pedigree" you're talking about. Scholars have identified the veracity of Thomas for some time now.
I don't get my information from the internet. My information comes from seminary professors, textbooks, commentaries and scholarly journals.
As I said, Thomas is useful in helping to determine which quotations of Jesus are likely to be authentic, because it shares a common source with Q, that is very, very early -- less than 10 years following the death of Jesus. It can also be cross-referenced to Mark in some instances.
If you don't understand the significance of that, there's no further use in my discussing it with you.
It is not even close to being reliable enough to determine anything about Jesus, at least at this time.
Yes. It is. There are too many attestations in common with other sources.
I just randomly selcted over a dozen. They were unanimous but to different degrees. The very nature of that text justifies those sites. There is not one single reason to accept it as valid on the whole.
Well, randomly-selected internet sources are
certainly more reliable than any peer-reviewed scholarly article or text book on the subject. (Irony meter pegs the scale here)
They may be but since I have no way to know that then what weight do you think it should carry with me?
Oh, well, I suppose not
nearly as much weight as you attribute to the randomly-selected internet people. Check out names like Rob't. Miller, Rob't. Funk, Brandon Scott, John Crossan, David Rhoads, John Kloppenborg, etc.
Well enough of them do (probably the majority) that it can't be trusted.
"Trusted" in what way?
Only if they did not reveal their completely reasonable reasons for doing so.
Define precisely what you mean by what might be "reasonable."
I think oriental philosophy would be more appealing to you.
Christianity is inherently "Eastern."
See my response about the exclusivity and rarness of truth as well as how liberals have destroyed many bastions of relatively pure truth with this inclusive attitude.
Yeah, I remember my first joint, too.
Even modern morallity is being eroded by the same mindset.
Oh, you mean stuff like accepting homosexuals as normal, OK people just as they are?
Maybe you think it was the conservatives who started the Civil Rights Mvt. and got women the vote?
Since there are most times only one absolute truth and infinate amount of error this would seem obvious.
Got news for ya: Truth is relative. Ask Einstein.
Inclusion without extreme scrutiny is destructive 99.9% of the time.
Exclusion without extreme scrutiny is destructive 99.9% of the time. Ask the Shakers. but you'll have to go to the "extinct" district to find one.
