What's on your mind?

[SarahsKnight]

I like seeing your avatar and the companion in your signature. ^-^

You have @Multifavs to thank for Athena the Silver Noble, to be sure it is known.

 

[Rene Loup]

You have @Multifavs to thank for Athena the Silver Noble, to be sure it is known.

Hey, I got a rescue quest involving a maiden for you!

...I need you to get me out of here! Bath time is near, and this woman is coming home with rose-scented shampoo! I can't stand that stuff! Your reward shall be whatever is in my pocket: a penny, a ball of lint, a paperclip, a button, a dead moth, and a chewed wad of gum!

What say you, brave and noble knight?

 

[Rene Loup]

Did you all hear that @SarahsKnight discovered a scientific way of getting the sword out of the stone? He got a Nobel Knight Prize in physics for it!

 

[SarahsKnight]

Found this as a dating site ad on my FB a while ago. .... Certainly was tempting to investigate if they use a lady this cute to advertise. ^-^

 

[Multifavs]

The downside to using a software called Cakewalk for my music?

...It makes me want cake!

 

[Rene Loup]

The downside to using a software called Cakewalk for my music?

...It makes me want cake!

Let them eat cake!

...Why are you all looking at me like that?

(Later...)

 

[Hawthorne]

We reject critical scholars' assertions that the historical Daniel didn't write Daniel and their multiple authorship schemes of "Second" and "Third Isaiah," but why do we accept their assertions that anything resembling Jesus or Christianity in the Pseudepigrapha must be a Christian interpolation?

These texts were preserved (largely) by monastic communities for Christians. The question arises: Why would they be preserved if they were forgeries or had been adulterated with interpolations? Saying "they didn't know," is insulting their intelligence; saying "they preserved them anyway" accepts the secularists' narrative about the apostles' devotion to the Gospel: they knew it was false, yet they persevered and died for it. Unlikely!

Orthodox Christian priest Father Stephen De Young was not speaking of Christian interpolations in the Pseudepigrapha, but his words still apply: "[W]e’re at a state now where a lot of our Christian friends will believe everything pagans write about ancient history, but nothing that Christians write about ancient history outside of the Bible. . . . So the pagans are all telling the truth and the Christians are all liars doesn’t make a lot of sense as the Christian perspective on historical trustworthiness."

....I reckon that's what's been on my mind these past many months.

 

[RileyG]

We reject critical scholars' assertions that the historical Daniel didn't write Daniel and their multiple authorship schemes of "Second" and "Third Isaiah," but why do we accept their assertions that anything resembling Jesus or Christianity in the Pseudepigrapha must be a Christian interpolation?

These texts were preserved (largely) by monastic communities for Christians. The question arises: Why would they be preserved if they were forgeries or had been adulterated with interpolations? Saying "they didn't know," is insulting their intelligence; saying "they preserved them anyway" accepts the secularists' narrative about the apostles' devotion to the Gospel: they knew it was false, yet they persevered and died for it. Unlikely!

Orthodox Christian priest Father Stephen De Young was not speaking of Christian interpolations in the Pseudepigrapha, but his words still apply: "[W]e’re at a state now where a lot of our Christian friends will believe everything pagans write about ancient history, but nothing that Christians write about ancient history outside of the Bible. . . . So the pagans are all telling the truth and the Christians are all liars doesn’t make a lot of sense as the Christian perspective on historical trustworthiness."

....I reckon that's what's been on my mind these past many months.

I think there are many writings that were revered by the early Christians but did not make it in the official NT canon. The Shepherd of Hermas is one example. It's a great question, nonetheless. I also assume many early writings were also destroyed, but would have had some spiritual benefit. Other Gnostic/Heretical writings were preserved but did not contain orthodox Christian teaching.

 

[RileyG]

Good evening everyone!

 

[Hawthorne]

I think there are many writings that were revered by the early Christians but did not make it in the official NT canon. The Shepherd of Hermas is one example. It's a great question, nonetheless. I also assume many early writings were also destroyed, but would have had some spiritual benefit. Other Gnostic/Heretical writings were preserved but did not contain orthodox Christian teaching.

Indeed. Some material from the Psalms of Solomon seem prophetic of Christ (and iirc predates Christ), but is normally dismissed as "obviously later Christian additions." Definitely a vast majority of the literature is suspect for one reason or another, such as the Nag Hammadi library you mentioned.

 

[.Mikha'el.]

No @Somber since Monday.

 

[SarahsKnight]

No @Somber since Monday.

She's the kind of girl who is easily missed.

 

[GodDoesListen55]

Happy April Fools' Day! Always remember to be kind!! A joke is only funny when everyone is laughing with you, not laughing at you!

 

[DragonFox91]

I can't live up to their standards

Yesterday was a waste. I spent all day bored at work really really tired then slept as soon as I got home & didn't get up till this morning, now I get to be bored all day at work again. Yay! What a life

At the store they only had gross yogurt. Oh well. Gross yogurt is better then no yogurt I guess

 

[DragonFox91]

We reject critical scholars' assertions that the historical Daniel didn't write Daniel and their multiple authorship schemes of "Second" and "Third Isaiah," but why do we accept their assertions that anything resembling Jesus or Christianity in the Pseudepigrapha must be a Christian interpolation?

These texts were preserved (largely) by monastic communities for Christians. The question arises: Why would they be preserved if they were forgeries or had been adulterated with interpolations? Saying "they didn't know," is insulting their intelligence; saying "they preserved them anyway" accepts the secularists' narrative about the apostles' devotion to the Gospel: they knew it was false, yet they persevered and died for it. Unlikely!

Orthodox Christian priest Father Stephen De Young was not speaking of Christian interpolations in the Pseudepigrapha, but his words still apply: "[W]e’re at a state now where a lot of our Christian friends will believe everything pagans write about ancient history, but nothing that Christians write about ancient history outside of the Bible. . . . So the pagans are all telling the truth and the Christians are all liars doesn’t make a lot of sense as the Christian perspective on historical trustworthiness."

....I reckon that's what's been on my mind these past many months.

I think there is some truth in the rejected Gospels. Which one is the Sayings Gospel? Thomas? I could easily see Christ saying a lot of those sayings that aren't found in the Gospels.
That being said, it is obvious there are gnostic teachings in a lot of these rejected Gospels, including the Sayings Gospel (Thomas is it?). Rejecting them was the right call.

(Plus they weren't in wide circulation like the other Gospels, there's far less copies, & it's believed they were written a lot later than the cannonical Gospels)

I'd encourage people to read them & study them, because maybe there is some truth in them, but it's also good to know why they were rejected

 

[DragonFox91]

A common attack against Protestants is we reject Roman Catholicism b/c of the obsession w/ tradition. This is over simplifying it.

 

[mojoboy31]

No @Somber since Monday.

Who's Somber?

 

[DragonFox91]

I found some good podcasts to listen to! Today's flying by!

 

[DragonFox91]

It never changes

 

[SarahsKnight]

Who's Somber?

You know you only joke like that because you are as fond of her as the rest of us.