Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

@Son of Placid

l wanted to write. Have you seen or heard this? l heard this on radio with an audio replay with a lot of bleeping-out of obscenities.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/6/christian-activists-booted-from-seattle-coffee-sho/ 

If they got thrown out for being Christians there is an issue.

If they got thrown out for being disruptive, different matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ya Aba 3abdillah said:

List of Gospels,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Gospels

Excuse my lack of knowledge into Christian history with this question; who chose which Gospels (and under what authority) make up the New Testament, and, have their translations into contemporary English been validated as truly reflecting the language of the original Gospels?

This isn't a good reference.

For example, there is no mention of Epistles. "Peter 1" is 'accepted, "Peter 2" is used but controversial, "Peter 3" is rejected and "Peter 4" is rejected.

You are already on how hadith science is done. Similarly, when churches decided to create a unified "church" in the face of the Mani movements, each of the major churches had their own tradition, their own gospels and some variation in those gospels. So all of this had to be sorted out --which is how 10 versions of Matthew were gathered together. Then letters and references had to be sorted for authenticity and coherence, ad infinitum.  Compromises, such as including Bishop of Alexandria, Clement's "Book of Revelation" (circa 196 CC) had to be made. Other groups, such as the Ayrians, refuse to accept the crucifixion story and were later declared 'heretics'.

Most English translations are reputable. First was John Wycliffe's in the 1300s, the King James improvement by having it 'written for the ear' and easier to remember, and Young's literal translation. After this you go to the historical-time of Greek. The biggest problem is that hokey "Christology" influence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, LeftCoastMom said:

If they got thrown out for being Christians there is an issue.

If they got thrown out for being disruptive, different matter.

As everything l read or heard, it is the first reason. The group only stopped for coffee and made their orders before this started.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ seems to me it is about the group's literature, which is very anti-gay. ( Reading comments from some other pro-life groups, they said this bunch is particularly aggressive , even towards other pro-life groups.) The store owner said he has found anti-abortion literature in his shop. ( Theirs?)

I doubt he is systematically refusing service to Christians,but whether he had any actual good cause to kick this particular group out is a good question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hasanhh said:

This isn't a good reference.

For example, there is no mention of Epistles. "Peter 1" is 'accepted, "Peter 2" is used but controversial, "Peter 3" is rejected and "Peter 4" is rejected.

Not necessary. You only need to find a list of the NT books to know which are accepted. They are:

Book of Matthew

Book of MARK

Book of LUKE

Book of JOHN

Book of ACTS

Book of ROMANS

Book of 1 CORINTHIANS

Book of 2 CORINTHIANS

Book of GALATIANS

Book of EPHESIANS

Book of PHILIPPIANS

Book of COLOSSIANS

Book of 1 THESSALONIANS

Book of 2 THESSALONIANS

Book of 1 TIMOTHY

Book of 2 TIMOTHY

Book of TITUS

Book of PHILEMON

Book of HEBREWS

Book of JAMES

Book of 1 Peter

Book of 2 Peter

Book of 1 John

Book of 2 JOHN

Book of 3 John

Book of Jude

Book of Revelation

------------------

For info on not accepted books, letters and historical known info about eatly Christianity, this is an informative site with many good links.: 

www.earlychristianwritigs.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hasanhh said:

Most English translations are reputable. First was John Wycliffe's in the 1300s, the King James improvement by having it 'written for the ear' and easier to remember, and Young's literal translation. After this you go to the historical-time of Greek. The biggest problem is that hokey "Christology" influence.

Modern translators have more old NT documents available and also better knowledge of the original language than earlier translators. Modern translations are better, but still the differences between translations in reality make no difference. It is my impression that they are more similar than english translations of the Quran. (?). Especially when it comes to text in brackets that seem to reflect different interpretations.

The differences between the 4 Gospels when it comes to Christology and historical contradictions may be confusing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, andres said:

Not necessary. You only need to find a list of the NT books to know which are accepted. They are: ...

------------------

For info on not accepted books, letters and historical known info about eatly Christianity, this is an informative site with many good links.: 

www.earlychristianwritigs.com

What is the first thing l wrote before?

This:

4 hours ago, hasanhh said:

This isn't a good reference.

 ...

Wiki makes a good quick look-up, but it is still not authoritative. Does your dot com mention the Naghamadi Library found after WW2 ?

And, which are gospels and which are epistles when everything in your list is writ "book" ?

EDIT: Hey, lt Does.

Yet if you re-read my post, you could infer that a lot of material was rejected, and most for good-cause.

So what is your point?

Edited by hasanhh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

 

What is the first thing l wrote before?

This:

Wiki makes a good quick look-up, but it is still not authoritative. Does your dot com mention the Naghamadi Library found after WW2 ?

And, which are gospels and which are epistles when everything in your list is writ "book" ?

EDIT: Hey, lt Does.

Yet if you re-read my post, you could infer that a lot of material was rejected, and most for good-cause.

So what is your point?

In earlychristianreadings you can also find links to translations into english of the Nag Hammadi founds.

Yes. Most of the material found in this site were rejected. Did they choose the best scriptures? What they choosed is what we have got, and historians agree they choose the oldest material. The compilators of the Quran had the same task, only they did not at all have that much to choose between, and not that long time had passed. My point? To give a more detailed link than wikipedia. It would be nice if there also were a www.earlyislamicwritings.com with links to historical critisism. 

Edited by andres

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, andres said:

In earlychristianreadings you can also find links to translations into english of the Nag Hammadi founds.  l have my own.

... It would be nice if there also were a www.earlyislamicwritings.com with links to historical critisism. 

Agreed. There must be some isolated translations around somewhere in cyberspace.

Most criticism is doctrinal. There is also "high criticism".

Very short reply, here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hasanhh said:

 

Most criticism is doctrinal. There is also "high criticism".

Very short reply, here.

Very short. By historical criticism I mean high criticism. ( I also think most historians do)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, hasanhh said:

@Son of Placid

l wanted to write. Have you seen or heard this? l heard this on radio with an audio replay with a lot of bleeping-out of obscenities.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/6/christian-activists-booted-from-seattle-coffee-sho/ 

I've had my own experiences with pro life. Didn't care what religion they claimed to be, didn't ask. We spray painted their posters while they wore them. They got so angry we had to call the police. It was kinda fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ This might need to be its own thread, but it would be ironic if they decided to sue. They would be using a law that groups like theirs traditionally hate and are trying to get around...lol. The Civil Rights Act. Ultra-conservative anti-gay Christian groups often believe ( wrongly) that  a business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Which this business owner was doing. Nice turn-about there.

Might be difficult to make it stick that they were being thrown out for being Christians. Not all Christians oppose abortions and not all anti-abortion folks are Christians. And I'm pretty sure most Christians get served in his shop.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, andres said:

Very short. By historical criticism I mean high criticism. ( I also think most historians do)

Uhh, NO.

When l went to school this was "Higher Criticism" http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Higher_criticism .

Then, any other kind of criticism of the Bible --even if academic-- was considered blasphemous.

Personally, l thought a lot of this was contrived. That which l didn't was time-based usage of the words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, hasanhh said:

Uhh, NO.

When l went to school this was "Higher Criticism" http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Higher_criticism .

Then, any other kind of criticism of the Bible --even if academic-- was considered blasphemous.

Personally, l thought a lot of this was contrived. That which l didn't was time-based usage of the words.

Well, I said: "By historical criticism I mean high criticism"

Your link starts: "Historical criticism orhigher criticismis a branch of literary analysis that investigates the origins of a text. "

Historical or higher criticism sometimes confirm Christian tradition, sometimes contradict it. The same when it comes to Islam, only historical criticism of the Quran has not been practised as long as that of the Bible. Blasphemy? If you believe that everything in the Bible/Quran is perfectly true, historical criticism cannot avoid hurting your feelings. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, andres said:

Well, I said: "By historical criticism I mean high criticism"

Your link starts: "Historical criticism orhigher criticismis a branch of literary analysis that investigates the origins of a text. "

Historical or higher criticism sometimes confirm Christian tradition, sometimes contradict it. The same when it comes to Islam, only historical criticism of the Quran has not been practised as long as that of the Bible. Blasphemy? If you believe that everything in the Bible/Quran is perfectly true, historical criticism cannot avoid hurting your feelings. 

What are you trying to write?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, andres said:

That by historical criticism I mean higher criticism. Was not sure if you understood this.

What l wrote was that when l was in college -decades ago-  these were two distinct things. That is why l posted the New World Ency link. This showed the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, hasanhh said:

What l wrote was that when l was in college -decades ago-  these were two distinct things. That is why l posted the New World Ency link. This showed the difference.

Ok. I thought that you meant your college teachers were critical historians. Fundamental Christians cant be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, andres said:

Ok. I thought that you meant your college teachers were critical historians. Fundamental Christians cant be.

Salam,

Personal experience about fundamentalists, new testament, and "word of god".

l was working in pagan Asia. One day this came-up in class. One of the women asked, "Can't your god tell the same story the same way twice?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2017 at 9:04 AM, Son of Placid said:

I've had my own experiences with pro life. Didn't care what religion they claimed to be, didn't ask. We spray painted their posters while they wore them. They got so angry we had to call the police. It was kinda fun.

The story is a little longer. They made a gauntlet at the "Y" of an already busy walkway which was the entrance gate to a blues festival. People going around had to step off the curb. Ethan, head of security called me to deal with it. I tried to talk them off the sidewalk, and asked them why they would pick such a venue. Come to find out the posters of aborted embryos were not human, and they didn't see the irony in aborting animal embryos for photos. That's when Ethan showed up with the spray cans. Also worth noting; the average age of a blues fan is 50+ so pro-life was as relevant as save the whales.

In the same way the coffee shop owner rejected the activists, so did we. I wouldn't accuse any of them of being Christian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×