Christianity is not defined solely by the Bible

[AmbiguousGuy]

No, because your first statement here is untrue.

Please don't get us dragged into limbo, sojourner. I'm just starting to get warmed up for battle with you guys.

Could you stand it if my marvelous jewels of wisdom were hidden from public view?

Ask yourself that... is all I'm saying.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I don't believe you know how old you are..

Actually I don't. What's the importance of that?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Since we're not talking about fictional characters, I don't see that it matters.

Oh. Sorry. Sometimes I lose my place. I thought we were still talking about Jesus.

Nevermind.

-- nor does your opinion count NEAR as much as those of people who are scholars.

And yet... you can't seem to quit me, can you, cowboy.

 

[sojourner]

So, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is mostly theology?

Actually, there's a lot of theology imbedded in the non-canonicals -- even though they're different in form from the canonicals, I think they deserve more scholarly (and theological) weight than they're generally given.

Once again, none of this is to say that Christianity is remotely "defined" by the Bible. In fact, as I've said before, I feel that it's the other way 'round.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

So you didn't check out the sources that I provided for you, after you asked for just that.

You’re mistaken. I never asked you for sources. And for the record, I will virtually never follow one of your links. I’m here to hear you defend your beliefs, if you can. Not to trade articles with you.

Fine. However, honestly, I don't care what your personal opinion is if you are not willing to do the work and actually do some research

You are welcome to drop the debate. I’ll miss you, but it’s your choice. There are plenty of others here with whom you can swap your articles.

So I should back up what I say with evidence; such as scholarly books and websites?

Umm... no. Absolutely not. What you should do is address my direct questions so that I can maybe understand what you are saying. But so far, you don’t seem comfortable doing that. Remember I asked you to define your use of ‘fact’ and ‘prove’, for just one example?

That would be a good start. You’re using those words in such a very strange way that I can’t understand what you mean by them.

Defining one’s terms when asked is the very heart of debate, yes? It’s also courteous, if courtesy interests you.

So far as gospel issues, you should see if you can defend those beliefs with rational discussion and evidence. Not offstage papers or articles written by academics. But your own words. Toss in an abstracted paragraph now and again if you must.

Instead you attack me, and try to dismiss me.

Well, you consider it a dismissive attack for me to refer to your personal opinions as personal opinions. So I guess I’m guilty of attacking you in your personal lexicography. I don’t know what to do about it, though. It’s just the way I see things.

Unsure if I’ll answer your other messages or not. The agitation level is rising again, and I’d like to honor the moderator’s request for less personal debate. Maybe I’ll just hit the high points.

 

[Kathryn]

Google’s amazing, isn’t it? I recommend it to everyone. Just type something like ‘godman jesus compare’ or somesuch. If you can’t find the site, let me know and I’ll find it for you.

.

You said, in your example that Jesus is a typical godman, that He was visited by three shepherds - like other godmen.

Just where in the bible is Jesus visited by three shepherds? I mean, in order for your claim that Jesus is like other godmen in part because he was visited by three shepherds, we need to determine that this assertion is indeed part of the biblical story of Jesus.

By the way, I'm pretty adept at Googling. It's easy to find many sites which reference the "three shepherds" in the Gospel of Luke (chapter 2:8-20 to be exact). However, there's a problem. Luke doesn't mention three shepherds. Neither does any other Gospel account found in the Bible. Not that I can find anyway - but of course if you can show me where this is mentioned in biblical accounts, I'd be very eager to see your evidence.

Are you perhaps referring to the tradition of the three wisemen? I'm sure you do realize that there is no actual number of wise men mentioned in the Bible - the tradition comes from the three gifts mentioned.

But three shepherds? That's a new one for me. Please give sources to back your assertion.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Just where in the bible is Jesus visited by three shepherds? I mean, in order for your claim that Jesus is like other godmen in part because he was visited by three shepherds, we need to determine that this assertion is indeed part of the biblical story of Jesus.

It's in one of the non-canonical gospels, I think. Gospel of the Hebrews?

Would you like me to find the reading material for you about it?

 

[sojourner]

It's in one of the non-canonical gospels, I think. Gospel of the Hebrews?

Would you like me to find the reading material for you about it?

Well... that's a little better than Google -- but not much. Unfortunately for you, there is no reference to three shepherds in either the Nazarite or Ebionite gospels. They are fragmentary, and are not as early as the source material for the synoptics. Therefore, they wouldn't be as reliable in telling us what the earliest Xians thought.

 

[Kathryn]

It's in one of the non-canonical gospels, I think. Gospel of the Hebrews?

Would you like me to find the reading material for you about it?

So what you are saying is that there are no references to three shepherds in the accepted canon of the Bible?

If you can give me a direct reference to the passage in the canon of Hebrews which discusses three shepherds visiting the baby Jesus, though, that would be fine.

What I am looking for is a specific source showing that the parallel between canonical texts referencing three shepherds visiting the baby Jesus, and three shepherds visiting other godmen. This was, after all, your assertion.

 

[Kathryn]

Simply put -there are no biblical references to three shepherds visiting the baby Jesus.

 

[sojourner]

Simply put -there are no biblical references to three shepherds visiting the baby Jesus.

Predicted answer:

So?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

So what you are saying is that there are no references to three shepherds in the accepted canon of the Bible?

Not to my knowledge, no. I remember some mention of shepherds around Jesus' birth, but the canonical gospels talk about three magi, don't they?

If you can give me a direct reference to the passage in the canon of Hebrews which discusses three shepherds visiting the baby Jesus, though, that would be fine.

I'm confused by your phrasing. The canon of Hebrews? Can you say exactly which book you are asking me about? I can't tell if you're thinking about Paul's letter to the Hebrews or the gospel which I mentioned.

In a quick googling, I can't find searchable text of the Gospel of the Hebrews. I'll look again when I have a minute, or you could do the research yourself. It's very easy to find articles and references using common search engines.

What I am looking for is a specific source showing that the parallel between canonical texts referencing three shepherds visiting the baby Jesus, and three shepherds visiting other godmen. This was, after all, your assertion.

No, not my assertion. You may have me confused with someone else or perhaps you misread one of my messages. I think the idea of canonical vs. non-canonical is just bizarre. I think the concept of scripture itself is bizarre.

 

[Mister Emu]

the canonical gospels talk about three magi, don't they?

No, they do not.

 

[sojourner]

I, for one, believe the OP has been satisfied: Xy is not defined solely by the Bible. Xy, as a movement, was extant some time before writings began to appear. Xy is not defined by the Bible. Xy is defined by the life of the man Jesus -- and by the relationship of his followers.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Two, we know from Josephus that James, the brother of Jesus, was living during the time of Paul, in the area that Paul stated.

Well, you may know it, but we certainly don’t know it. As I say, it seems very strange to me when people assert historical truth as a certainty.

But then most people assert everything as a certainty, so....

But you make a good point about the historicity of James. I’ll look into it when I can.

I'm not a theologian.

I think most everyone is a theologian, especially those of us who use the word ‘God’ in constructing our worldviews. Some of us are intense about it, though. You seem like such a person to me. I like passion, even if it seems a bit confused to me.

As for the opinion of Christians on the Messiah, I honestly have to say that I don't care what the majority of them would say.

Yes, that’s apparent to me.

Bandwagon fallacies simply holds little water.

Good. So you’ll stop pointing to your biblical scholars then, and arguing that my own positions are outside of ‘mainstream scholasticism’... as if that carries some weight in the debate? Bandwagon fallacies hold no water, after all.

Because obviously, you know me better than I know myself.

Oh, yes. I know that the thought of defining your terms, in your own words, intimidates you. And I think I know why. Just one example.

You actually haven't offered a rebuttal in this whole quoted area.

Why would I want to offer a rebuttal? When a guy observes that it’s a very pleasant day, I don’t ask him to ‘prove it.’ That seems so silly to me.

Your opinion that Jesus didn’t fulfill the Jewish scriptures is your opinion. Why would I rebut it?

I’ve invited you to actually argue your case, but you don’t seem interested in that.

You dismiss what I say, make "witty" remarks, sidestep issues, and attack me instead of the message I'm portraying.

Ah. So that no-good scumbag has been cursing you again?

I love irony, but not so much when it seems oblivious to itself.

 

[fallingblood]

Actually, there's a lot of theology imbedded in the non-canonicals -- even though they're different in form from the canonicals, I think they deserve more scholarly (and theological) weight than they're generally given.

Once again, none of this is to say that Christianity is remotely "defined" by the Bible. In fact, as I've said before, I feel that it's the other way 'round.

I would agree that there is a lot of theology in the non-canonical Gospels, but I'm not sure I would go as far as Ambiguous went by saying they are mostly theological.

For me personally, when it comes to the life of Jesus, I do dismiss them though. But as historical resources for what different strains of Christianity were practicing and believing, I see an immense wealth of information there.

 

[fallingblood]

I, for one, believe the OP has been satisfied: Xy is not defined solely by the Bible. Xy, as a movement, was extant some time before writings began to appear. Xy is not defined by the Bible. Xy is defined by the life of the man Jesus -- and by the relationship of his followers.

I would fully agree with that.

The writings of the NT came after the actual teaching, and either just put that teaching to pen, or explained that teaching in more depth.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Many Christians will also argue that there are no contradictions in the Bible.

Sure. Why? Are you thinking there are contradictions in the Bible?

Contradictions exist only within the human mind, yes?

I mean, if I say there are many contradictions in your messages to me, and you declare that no such contradictions exist, then are there contradictions in your messages?

Serious question. I’d like to hear your answer.

All you have to do is open any scholarly book on the subject (speaking about the idea of Messianic expectations during the first century, at the time of Jesus), and you will see that he didn't fulfill them.

OK, I guess. And if anyone reads this thread, they will see that your messages are full of contradictions.

The main expectation was that the Messiah would be a leader who would either free Israel through force, or by some supernatural miracle, from the foreign oppressor.

Yes, I understand that many Jews mistakenly believed that the messiah would be a military leader. They should go back and read the messiah predictions more carefully.

Not an argument.

I’m not like you. I won’t browbeat a guy who proclaims that it’s a beautiful day. I won’t insist that he “Prove it.”

That just seems so silly. It really does.

You are welcome to your opinion about Jesus not fulfilling the Jewish prophecies. You’ve given that one bit of evidence now, which I’ve easily refuted, but I really don’t care if you continue to hold your previous opinion about it.

(I'm having trouble with forum mechanics -- trying to keep up with unanswered messages. And I have no idea if I can download a thread for review offline. So I may not answer everything you've written me. But if you'll point to specific questions or material which you'd like me to address, I'll do that.)

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I said you don't understand, I have even pointed to your statements which showed you don't understand.

So I ask you for a message number and the text where I’ve misunderstood oral culture... and you reply that you’ve already done so and have no time for it now?

But you have not done so, Blood. So your statement is false. I won’t say it’s a lie, since you may actually believe it, but it is clearly false. You’ve been proclaiming over and over and over that I am ignorant of oral cultures, but you are apparently terrified of providing your evidence for such a claim.

It’s not a position of intellectual integrity, in my view.

 

[sojourner]

I would agree that there is a lot of theology in the non-canonical Gospels, but I'm not sure I would go as far as Ambiguous went by saying they are mostly theological.

For me personally, when it comes to the life of Jesus, I do dismiss them though. But as historical resources for what different strains of Christianity were practicing and believing, I see an immense wealth of information there.

I pretty much agree with you. There is some theology there, but there are reasons why they were left out of the canon. They don't shed any real new light on the Jesus Event, for the most part.