Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Evolution, Genesis and Original Sin: A debate continued... watch

    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn1)
    For the sake of your dignity I will accept that you meant 'a gnostic' gospel as a play on words, rather than a synoptic gospel!
    Pardon?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BloodyValentine)
    Darwin didn't work out that man evolved from amino acids, furthermore they didn't evolve from amino acids if you follow that view, they evolved from molecules capable of replicating themselves.
    Debatable. It may well be that life evolved BOTH from amino acids and replicating molecules, separately and at different times, and then the two came together at some point (along the lines of the endosymbiont theory). *is reading book on the origin of life*

    Moncal, if you believe that the entire Bible is to be taken literally then you must take Leviticus literally. I assume you make sure the women in your family don't utter a word in church? And you presumably take part in village stonings, as of course a loyal Christian or Jew would.

    If you're going to interpret one part of the Bible literally you have to take the lot. If you pick and mix, surely it's worthless? Incidentally, I think the Catholic Church already made it worthless by excluding certain gospels from the Bible: saying that the gospels by Mary Magdalene and St Thomas etc were 'not divinely inspired' smacks to me of straw-clutching. Especially as some of what is quoted there seems to contradict some of the precious teachings of the catholic and protestant Churches - such as "find your own way in religion" ie there's no one true faith... (I'm an agnostic but I dislike the Church intensely!)

    Incidentally when I was checking Leviticus I noticed something I'd not spotted before:

    29: All the males among the priests shall eat thereof: it is most holy.
    All the males among the priests? So there were women priests? So why aren't there now? :confused:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MadNatSci)
    All the males among the priests? So there were women priests? So why aren't there now? :confused:
    The jewish priesthood was and is hereditary- the Cohens are hereditary priests. I think that "All the males among the priests" means all of the men in those families.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The problem with all of the Abrahamic religions- apart from the fact that they are ridiculous- is the concept of god. Big G can do anything and knows everything. He sets the whole universe going to see what people will do (though he already knows), gives a set of absurd and arbitrary instructions to obey (again, already knowing who will and won't obey them) and is going to roast anyone who fails these tests for ever. This shows what a wonderful chap Big G is. Modern xtianity is the doctrine that none of this is actually true, but it's all true-ish and we feel better for believing it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MadNatSci)
    Moncal, if you believe that the entire Bible is to be taken literally then you must take Leviticus literally. I assume you make sure the women in your family don't utter a word in church? And you presumably take part in village stonings, as of course a loyal Christian or Jew would.

    If you're going to interpret one part of the Bible literally you have to take the lot. If you pick and mix, surely it's worthless? Incidentally, I think the Catholic Church already made it worthless by excluding certain gospels from the Bible: saying that the gospels by Mary Magdalene and St Thomas etc were 'not divinely inspired' smacks to me of straw-clutching. Especially as some of what is quoted there seems to contradict some of the precious teachings of the catholic and protestant Churches - such as "find your own way in religion" ie there's no one true faith... (I'm an agnostic but I dislike the Church intensely!)

    Incidentally when I was checking Leviticus I noticed something I'd not spotted before:


    All the males among the priests? So there were women priests? So why aren't there now? :confused:
    The moseic law is no longer in effect. Leviticus was part of the law, but when Jesus rose again the law was no longer needed because all it did was point to the coming of Jesus. But nearly everything that was said in the old testament is again repeated in the new testament, besides the law. There are no women priest and I don't see how you derived that there were? Women weren't allowed into the actual church so there was no way that they could speak in them. Today women aren't allowed to preach or pray in church. They are also never allowed to teach a class that contains adult males.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gnostic XXX)
    Paul refers to a female as an apostle in Romans 16:7 - Junia.
    She was most likely a teacher to the women and a student of paul and jesus and the other apostles. She probably spent a lot of time listening to paul preach. And as paul says she was with the apostles, then I would imagine that she listened to jesus preach too.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gnostic XXX)
    An "apostle" was a rank within the ecclesia - an active worker, a messanger, the highest position indeed in the ecclesia.
    Apostle was the term used for people taught directly by christ. It doesn't have any other meaning as far as I know.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gnostic XXX)
    Apostle means messanger. It was the highest position within the ecclesia. Paul never met Jesus but was an apostle, a messanger. People could become apostles who never met Jesus. Mani centuries later claimed the title, as did Mohammad, who considered himself an apostle to the arabs.
    Paul was taught by the holy spirit and declared an apostle. Mohammad made up his own religion so of course he was the apostle.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Moncal)
    Paul was taught by the holy spirit and declared an apostle. Mohammad made up his own religion so of course he was the apostle.
    Peter and Paul made up their own religion too.

    As did Abraham.

    And L. Ron Hubbard.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gnostic XXX)
    You really are an idiot, yawn, aren't you?

    You refused to even consider the logical consequences of the deconstruction of the myth of Eden upon your theology, muttering that that I'm just looking for excuses not to become an evangelical hooligan like you.

    And now you're manifesting your ignorance of the gnostic gospels.

    The 4 gospels in the NT aren't the only ones that have survived the ancient times.
    And you really have an attitude problem boy!

    You talk about the 'myth' of Eden as though it is a myth. I don't believe it is therefore I cannot consider any consequences to your attempts at 'deconstruction' as it is totally irrelevant to me. Refrain from personal comments - it does nothing to elevate your status.

    Tell me more about the gnostic gospels - I have never heard of them but that is not to say that someone hasn't invented them!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn1)
    Tell me more about the gnostic gospels - I have never heard of them but that is not to say that someone hasn't invented them!
    The most 'authoritative' accounts of a historical Jesus come from the four canonical 'synoptic' Gospels of the Bible. These Gospels did not come into the Bible as original and authoritative from the authors themselves but rather from the influence of early church fathers, especially the Irenaeus of Lyon, who lived in the middle of the second century.

    Many 'heretical' gospels had been written by that time but Irenaeus considered only some of them for mystical reasons. He claimed only four in number, 'like the four zones of the world, the four winds, the four divisions of man's estate, and the four forms of the first living creatures - the lion of Mark, the calf of Luke, the man of Matthew, the eagle of John. The four gospels then became Church cannon for the orthodox faith, which grew out of the political considerations of the day, serving to legitimize and consolidate early church leadership. Most of the other claimed gospel writings (Gnostic texts) were burned, destroyed, lost or ignored by the mainstream of Christianity.

    Gnosticism's Christian form grew to prominence in the 2nd century AD Ultimately denounced as heretical by the early church, Gnosticism proposed a revealed knowledge of God ('gnosis' meaning 'knowledge' in Greek), held as a secret tradition of the apostles.

    Christianity may have developed quite differently if Gnostic texts had become part of the Christian canon. Gnosticism celebrates God as both Mother and Father, shows Jesus's relationship to Mary Magdalene as very human, suggests the resurrection is better understood symbolically, and speaks to self-knowledge as the route to union with God.

    http://www.essene.com/Gospels/GnosticGospels.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    hi all, can i ask what people think of the story of the fall (symbolically and literally). as i understand it, and please correct me if i am wrong, adam and eve were punished because they ate from the tree of knowledge? does anyone not find it odd that knowledge would be forbidden by God?
    any insights?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spk)
    Peter and Paul made up their own religion too.

    As did Abraham.

    And L. Ron Hubbard.
    Peter and Paul didn't make up any religion. Abraham didn't start Judaism, he is just given credit for it. And I don't have a clue who L. Ron Hubbard is.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spk)
    The most 'authoritative' accounts of a historical Jesus come from the four canonical 'synoptic' Gospels of the Bible. These Gospels did not come into the Bible as original and authoritative from the authors themselves but rather from the influence of early church fathers, especially the Irenaeus of Lyon, who lived in the middle of the second century.

    Many 'heretical' gospels had been written by that time but Irenaeus considered only some of them for mystical reasons. He claimed only four in number, 'like the four zones of the world, the four winds, the four divisions of man's estate, and the four forms of the first living creatures - the lion of Mark, the calf of Luke, the man of Matthew, the eagle of John. The four gospels then became Church cannon for the orthodox faith, which grew out of the political considerations of the day, serving to legitimize and consolidate early church leadership. Most of the other claimed gospel writings (Gnostic texts) were burned, destroyed, lost or ignored by the mainstream of Christianity.

    Gnosticism's Christian form grew to prominence in the 2nd century AD Ultimately denounced as heretical by the early church, Gnosticism proposed a revealed knowledge of God ('gnosis' meaning 'knowledge' in Greek), held as a secret tradition of the apostles.

    Christianity may have developed quite differently if Gnostic texts had become part of the Christian canon. Gnosticism celebrates God as both Mother and Father, shows Jesus's relationship to Mary Magdalene as very human, suggests the resurrection is better understood symbolically, and speaks to self-knowledge as the route to union with God.

    http://www.essene.com/Gospels/GnosticGospels.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnostic
    Thank you - spk -for your civilised explanation! It is a shame that gnostic in his various incarnations always manages to 'slip through' the moderators and post his disrespectful rants.

    I was not aware of the existence of what are termed the 'gnostic' gospels but as we live in 'spurious' times, have come to expect anything from those who seek to undermine the Word.

    Incidentally, although the New Testament is composed of the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, only Matthew, Mark and Luke are 'synoptic'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn1)
    Incidentally, although the New Testament is composed of the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, only Matthew, Mark and Luke are 'synoptic'.
    As Gnostic pointed out, the Gospel of John is regarded by many as a gnostic gospel.

    I know that deists would argue that god guided the early church fathers to make the 'correct' choice as to which texts to include in the NT but, as an atheist, I think it is mighty bizarre that all these other contemporary documents exist but are totally ignored by most Christians, whereas the NT gospels are believed as accurate, unquestionable historical fact.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn1)

    I was not aware of the existence of what are termed the 'gnostic' gospels but as we live in 'spurious' times, have come to expect anything from those who seek to undermine the Word.
    They are as old and as accurate as the synoptic gospels. You need only use a library, an encyclopaedia or even google to learn about them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    How I understand it is: John was published after the 'synoptic' Gospels, but was written c. 37 AD. Mark was published about 66 AD. Matthew and Luke are partially based on Mark (hence they are 'synoptic') and were published around 80 AD.

    My interest in this is this: Mark made no mention of the 'virgin birth', but Matthew and Luke emphasised it.
    Your source is? There is a lot of debate about when the various gospels were published and their relationship with one another.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn1)
    I was not aware of the existence of what are termed the 'gnostic' gospels but as we live in 'spurious' times, have come to expect anything from those who seek to undermine the Word.

    Incidentally, although the New Testament is composed of the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, only Matthew, Mark and Luke are 'synoptic'.
    Other relevant books to the bible (some of which formerly were part of it) all come under the category of the Apocrypha or deuterocanonical books - look them up.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    Revd. John Fleetwood, 'The Life Of Our Lord And Saviour Jesus Christ'.
    As the book is over a hundred years old, it may well have been superseded.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Joseph wasn't Jesus's father. If he had a father then his mother couldn't be a virgin and there couldn't be a virgin birth.
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.