The idea that "you send yourself to hell"

[Baruch]

None of the Gospels were Apostolic of origin. Do we know all that much about the process that lead to the Canon?

Gerard

The development of the canon, after Constantine got ahold of it, is pretty clear, because it was recorded, proceedings at that point were official Roman government business.  Before Constantine, the evidence is one sided, specifically the side that Constantine picked.  There were a few minor points of contention in that side, that took a few more decades to work out after Constantine, like Arianism.  Personally I think that Constantine was a major heretic (in terms of Orthodox Christianity as it later developed) and that this was covered up.  Constantine I am convinced, considered himself the Second Coming, when he wasn't being the incarnate Sol Invictus.  But then he did have his second wife boiled alive.  Thank goodness the Holy Spirit was directing all of this and not the dead spirit of Nero (who was also imagined to be coming back) ;-(

[Baruch]

Check out what Irenaeus was saying before the end of the second century:

http://www.ntcanon.org/Irenaeus.shtml

Irenaeus was a heresiarch ... and like most pubic homophobes are closet homosexuals, I would suspect he was a heretic doing deflection.  Anything Christian, post 135 CE is pretty much anti-Semitism or inter-bishop jealousy.

[Randy Carson]

Irenaeus was a heresiarch ... and like most pubic homophobes are closet homosexuals, I would suspect he was a heretic doing deflection.  Anything Christian, post 135 CE is pretty much anti-Semitism or inter-bishop jealousy.

Show me the heresy founded by Irenaeus and which scholars support this view.

[Baruch]

Show me the heresy founded by Irenaeus and which scholars support this view.

Irenaeus was pretty close to where Orthodoxy evolved to 200 years later.  So he was one of the most influential Church Fathers.  However on theodicy and atonement ... those are non-negotiable:

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

Many atheists would agree that the world as it is, is simply too ugly to be the product of a good god.  So they reject G-d.  I agree that it is too ugly to be the product of a good god, but not too ugly to be the product of an amoral god.  Orthodox Christians redefine good, so that their god isn't rejected.  I consider that temporizing with evil.  I accept G-d, but G-d's amorality is unacceptable.  On theodicy I consider him a heretic ... as I do most Christians, for that and other reasons.

[Randy Carson]

Irenaeus was pretty close to where Orthodoxy evolved to 200 years later.  So he was one of the most influential Church Fathers.  However on theodicy and atonement ... those are non-negotiable:

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

Many atheists would agree that the world as it is, is simply too ugly to be the product of a good god.  So they reject G-d.  I agree that it is too ugly to be the product of a good god, but not too ugly to be the product of an amoral god.  Orthodox Christians redefine good, so that their god isn't rejected.  I consider that temporizing with evil.  I accept G-d, but G-d's amorality is unacceptable.  On theodicy I consider him a heretic ... as I do most Christians, for that and other reasons.

And this makes him a heresiarch?

[Baruch]

"heresiarch" ... fighter against heresies, particularly Gnostics.  I happen to be a Jewish Gnostic, so I take offense personally.  Those other Gnostics, they can defend themselves if they can.  The double entendre you didn't get ... from an Orthodox POV, he was anything but a heretic, but that is because the game was fixed ... by later Christians.

[Randy Carson]

"heresiarch" ... fighter against heresies, particularly Gnostics.  I happen to be a Jewish Gnostic, so I take offense personally.  Those other Gnostics, they can defend themselves if they can.  The double entendre you didn't get ... from an Orthodox POV, he was anything but a heretic, but that is because the game was fixed ... by later Christians.

The reason I asked is because the word actually means:

he·re·si·arch
həˈrÄ"zÄ"ˌärk,ˈherÉ™sÄ"-/Submit
noun
the founder of a heresy or the leader of a heretical sect.

Irenaeus fought against heresies; he did not start them.

[Baruch]

You forget what I said earlier ... the only motion in religion is created by heresy .... the conformists are manikins.  So if Irenaeus was successful, it is because he was a heretic ... even if you don't recognize that position, and your own as a heresy.  Jesus (the fiction) and Paul, were both Jewish heretics ... and we wouldn't know their names if they hadn't been.

[Gerard]

I have argued for the authorship of the gospels in another thread. You can join it already in progress.

Can you give me a link? It's an interesting question. Bart Ehrmann and John Crossan as well I believe wrote about this extensively. Basically Ehrman argues that the Apostles (with the obvious exception of Paul) couldn't read or write. Which is confirmed by Acts (in the case of Peter) and also by common historical sense. They also argue that the gospels were anonymous and written by people who could (although with varying talent for those arts) write very nice to substandard Greek. Also some decades after the lifetime of Jesus or his Apostles. Also this wasn't argued by Ehrman or Crossan first. This is the result of philological research that has been going on for the best part of two centuries and that is agreed upon by most (Catholic and other) theologians.

Gerard

[Baruch]

Can you give me a link? It's an interesting question. Bart Ehrmann and John Crossan as well I believe wrote about this extensively. Basically Ehrman argues that the Apostles (with the obvious exception of Paul) couldn't read or write. Which is confirmed by Acts (in the case of Peter) and also by common historical sense. They also argue that the gospels were anonymous and written by people who could (although with varying talent for those arts) write very nice to substandard Greek. Also some decades after the lifetime of Jesus or his Apostles. Also this wasn't argued by Ehrman or Crossan first. This is the result of philological research that has been going on for the best part of two centuries and that is agreed upon by most (Catholic and other) theologians.

Gerard

As I posted elsewhere today, G-d wrote the NT ... and deliberately used imperfect Greek just to trap future suckers for hellfire (not).  Excuse me if I channel my inner pre-Nicene Father ... who were obviously high on wine or stronger drugs, if you read any of their so called arguments.

[Randy Carson]

Can you give me a link? It's an interesting question. Bart Ehrmann and John Crossan as well I believe wrote about this extensively. Basically Ehrman argues that the Apostles (with the obvious exception of Paul) couldn't read or write. Which is confirmed by Acts (in the case of Peter) and also by common historical sense. They also argue that the gospels were anonymous and written by people who could (although with varying talent for those arts) write very nice to substandard Greek. Also some decades after the lifetime of Jesus or his Apostles. Also this wasn't argued by Ehrman or Crossan first. This is the result of philological research that has been going on for the best part of two centuries and that is agreed upon by most (Catholic and other) theologians.

Gerard

Gerard-

I looked at my previous posts and decided that they were inadequate on this subject, so I've just started a new thread:

Who Wrote the Gospels?
http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=10034.new#new

I addressed your second point here:

When were the Gospels written?
http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=8929.0

From this, I think you will see that there is no reason for scholars to be overly cautious about dating the gospels early. No scholar wants to wander to far from the mainstream, but I think that the evangelical scholars have a good argument for early dating and that the Catholics need to stop being so wimpy!

I got out my copy of Did Jesus Exist? last night so that I can re-read it. I'll be mindful of looking for Ehrman's views on authorship as I do. But the next question is: Does it really matter? J. Warner Wallace says no here:

But what if we don’t know precisely who wrote the gospels? Does this invalidate them as eyewitness testimony? I don’t see why it should. Let me offer a simple observation. Most people who claim that the gospels have been attributed to people who are not the true authors argue that the early Church attempted to validate the texts by attributing them falsely. If so, why use Mark and Luke as attributions? Why not use someone with more status? Have you noticed that the late fictional gospels (like the gospels of Judas, Mary, Phillip or Thomas) are far more likely to have been attributed to authors who were close to Jesus and close to the action? Meanwhile, two of the four accounts that appear earliest in history (the four canonical gospels) are attributed people who don’t even claim to have been present during Jesus’ ministry! If I were trying to pull one over on gullible potential converts, I would have pick better false attributions for these two gospels. And concerning the gospels of Matthew and John, I’m not sure why it matters if they have been properly attributed (although I believe they have). The real question is simply whether or not these accounts can be trusted. Are they reliable?

+++

For those keeping score at home, I have now address four key points in the chain of evidence for the resurrection:

1. The texts of the gospels we have today are extremely accurate reconstructions of the original, inspired autograph manuscripts. We know what the authors wrote.
2. The gospels were written early enough to have been authored by actual eyewitnesses. We know that the authors were present at the scene.
3. The gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. We know that the authors were authoritative eyewitnesses.
4. The gospels were corroborated by non-biblical sources. Jewish and Roman historians provide enemy attestation of key points from the gospel message.

Still to come:

Are the gospel writers trustworthy? Can we believe what they wrote?