[QUOTE="Insane00"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="Hewkii"]Dracargen
Nobody said the NT was from Apostolic times.:|
His point, and mine when i originally pointed out the fact that there is an ancient text stating that Hell is not eternal is that man, NOT GOD, decided what writings should be included in what we now call the New Testament.
Check out this link, Here, you will find it says that the church fathers decided what to include as canon, I think it was during the council of Trent. In other words, a bunch of old Roman dudes got together and decided what the rest of christianity could and could not read.
However, since said decision, and especially in the last 50 years a number of original ancient texts, just as old or older than any of the NT canon we have, have been found. Why is it that these are not included, who is to say they are lies? Take for instance the infant gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Judas (which by the way doesn't state that Judas was a good guy after all, but a demon that Jesus didn't want to do unless he understood why. go here to read it) why were all of these writings not included, why, despite the fact that in general they contain much the same messages, were they deemed improper, despite the fact that just their existence proves that at some point people took these stories as truth and insight into the life of Jesus. This then goes on to the Revelation of Peter, since some people held it as truth and it asks the same question many religiously oriented people ask. Namely, since there are a countless number of ways to believe in God, and many if not most of them deem most other versions heretical to the point of resulting in eternal damnation, how is someone supposed to pick the right version, even just in christianity, since the pope as recently characterized all christian sects as "Catholicism is the only true path to salvation.", how are we mere mortals supposed to pick the right one since God doesn't put his approval sticker on any of them. And if we make the wrong decision, how can God be justified in damning us for all eternity, especially if we tried our hardest to love him.
Do you know why these writings we found were not included in the Canon? Because most of them were either written way too long after the events in question, or they had nothing to do with Jesus! The "Gospel" of Thomas, for example, barely even mentions Jesus; Why call it a gospel? Why iclude it into the Canon?
The Gnostic "Gospels" were written by people who had never met Jesus, but decided that they should include their ideas about Him anyway.:|
In addition, you assume that their existence proves that people took them as holy texts--Bull****. Many of them were never even considered holy texts, like the Gnostic "gospels." The Gospel of Mary states that Jesus and Mary had a deep relationship, which contradicts the known history of Jesus, who was celibate.
Oh, and here is another question. Can anyone here really think of any action, heck even a lifetime of actions that would justify an eternity of infinite torment. I mean that's like saying to my really nice gay friend, "Cause you get of on dudes, God's gonna make sure that for the rest of existence after you die you suffer greater than you ever have or will druing your short time on earth. How is that 'all loving'? Sounds pretty dictatorial to me. I mean if we're saying that if you look at God, understand he's God, and are aware of what's at risk and you tell him to F'off, that's one thing, but to screw up and make a couple of wrong choices in this already messed up and confusing society, which I might add would send you to the electric chair faster than you can say psycho if you actually lived by biblical law (try expaining to the judge you threw rocks at his head until her brains spilled on the ground because god and the bible tell you to do that to gay people). That is the point, some part of this just doesn't add up, not with the Judeo-Christian understanding of God that we have.
Please read the rest of the topic on the discussion of what Hell is.
Um, well some of them yes, but you obviously don't know what a Gospel is if you are saying the infancy Gospel of Thomas was about Thomas. A christian Gospel is about Jesus, period, so while the name may have one other than Jesus (The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) the stories are still about him. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is about Jesus as a child. Further, while you are right, the Gospel of Mary does imply that Jesus and Mary had a deeper relationship, but to imply that it was sexual, seems to also imply that the Gospel is trying to say that Jesus was gay as it also contains this passage spoken by Peter, "He questioned them about the Savior: Did He really speak privately with a woman and not openly to us? Are we to turn about and all listen to her? Did He prefer her to us?" Go on here to read it. But if that Gospel is really saying Jesus and Mary danced the horizontal mambo, then what is it implying about Jesus and his apostles?
And, back then, while some manuscripts may have been obviously written too late or too early, considering the final version of the New Testament wasn't decided on until the second century, how were the church fathers supposed to know the difference between a Gospel written in AD 60 and one written in AD 110. Now, we know the difference by studying writing $TYL3 (GS won't let me write the word), syntax, terminology, as well as looking at how old the oldest copies we have are, but they didn't have these techniques 1800 years ago, so in all liklihood they made their decision based on what they agreed with rather than when they thought a document was written.
So are you saying that the Gnostics didn't consider their Gospels holy texts? Are you saying that the people that wrote and read these writings, such as the revelation of Peter, which was widely read throughout christianity until the 4th century, did it for a good time. They wrote and spoke BS about about Jesus, knowing its BSness? You may be able to say this about the original authors, but what we have are copies of copies, so someone, other than the author gave these writings enough importance to copy them in order to preserve them long after the original authors were dead. Being as they are religious documents, I seriously doubt they pursued such a creation without their belief and faith on their minds
I don't understand your last comment. Read what about a discussion of Hell? Hell is the 'weeping and nashing of teeth' hell is eternal damnation, hell is eternal torment. I haven't read anything different. If you want my personal opinion about what hell is, it is being absence from God's love. But again, that doesn't counter anything I said in my last paragraph you quoted. If you would like to clarify that last statement, I will read whatever you suggest will help me understand your opinion.
Log in to comment