Cobol - Re: OT: Racial superiority / Intelligent design was Re:

Author

Re: OT: Racial superiority / Intelligent design was Re:

roger.pearse@googlemail.com

2008-01-30, 6:56 pm

On Jan 30, 7:16=A0pm, Alistair <alist...@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 29 Jan, 16:07, "roger.pea...@googlemail.com" >
>
> Whoa! Remove the double negative gives:
>
> There is possible doubt that books that had been considered canonical
> were excluded.

Heh. Yes, that got away from me, in my desire to push nonsense right
back again. I'll try again:

Those texts which are included in the list known in modern times as
'New Testament apocrypha' are not found listed as canonical in any
early source. There is no doubt whatever about that; anyone who
disagrees gets to produce the source which gives the text in question
as canonical. Anyone who claims that texts considered canonical were
excluded gets to produce the minutes of who did this and when. (The
whole canard does not reflect what we actually know about how the
canon came into existence).

The reason that nothing much was excluded is pretty simple. Pretty
much all the texts that had any reasonable claim to being apostolic
were included in the NT.

But forgery of pseudo-gospels by outsiders to try to confuse things
has been a cottage industry from the 2nd century to our own day (there
are several 'gospels' supposedly by Thomas, for instance, of varying
dates). I am always amused when people try to pretend that obvious
frauds (which they tend not to have read) are in some way genuine
products of the apostolic circle. Usually it's just the false
equivalence trick; a standard technique to confuse the dumb, put out
by our Masters.

But all these other texts reveal their later date by their dependence
on the canonical gospels (at best) -- they can hardly have been
written before documents that they quote verbatim. They also reveal
their spurious authorship because they peddle ideas which are not
documented in the apostolic age, nor among the organisation that those
apostles founded, but are instead clearly identifiable as products of
later movements (of various complexions). Fakes have to have these
fingerprints; they're created to peddle some novel idea, and so a
novel idea *must* be present in them. And so indeed is the case.

Note that there were some texts that do have genuine claims to emanate
from the apostolic circle. The gospel of the Hebrews is one. But
none of these have survived. Those that have are crude frauds.

> I have no doubt that the gospel according to mary was excluded.

That is because you are mis-informed (and why this one of out the
hundreds of apocrypha? Is this the DVC again?). The pseudo-gospel of
Mary was never considered canonical in any of the apostolic churches.
A look at its contents indicates that it emanates from some part of
the 2nd century gnostic movement.

>
>
> Or perhaps you examine the style of the text and find that it is
> inconsistent. I presume that you know about the Q manuscript? If not
> then look it up on wikipedia.

I do indeed know about Q, which of course is not a manuscript... <g>

What we today suppose to be issues of style is not a reliable guide to
authorship or construction, unfortunately, although always
interesting. Pardon me; I know that you are not likely to believe me,
not least as you aren't educated enough (sorry, but you DID make this
plain just now with your reference to Q) to do more than repeat
whatever you read somewhere. I do happen to know about this. You
will appreciate that I have little interest in shouting "DID...DIDN'T"
to and fro.

Instead, your best method to learn about this is to find a non-
controversial text (NOT the bible) and do some stylistic analysis on
it, and read about what scholars say on the subject.

>
> Like bible scholars? Interesting that you threw in the word meme.

Oh dear. Now I rather regret having taken the time to respond
substantively. Now I wonder if anything else you say deserves my
time. Let me look.

>
[color=darkred]
>
> Even Judson can justify his belief system. Atheists and agnostics are
> equally capable.

Tellingly, you don't attempt it. Somehow they never do.

The remainder of the post doesn't relate to mine in any substantive
way, and doesn't deserve a response.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

roger.pearse@googlemail.com

2008-01-31, 9:57 pm

On Jan 31, 8:29=A0pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 11:59:24 -0800 (PST),
>
> "roger.pea...@googlemail.com" <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Its condemnation has been around for a significant amount of time...

True; the Lex Scantiniana indicates this.

But we've drifted off context; my remarks were not as to whether
buggery was normative in ancient society, but whether the Christian
faith condemns it down the years or not.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Sponsored Links