Comments on: XFiles: Plan B http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2009/10/17/xfiles-plan-b/ The theology of Reality Sun, 11 Sep 2011 22:49:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1 By: Deacon Duncan http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2009/10/17/xfiles-plan-b/comment-page-1/#comment-14672 Deacon Duncan Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:54:16 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=1121#comment-14672 Hmmm, not really on topic, but it does possess the virtue of brevity. I'll provisionally accept this one. ;) Hmmm, not really on topic, but it does possess the virtue of brevity. I’ll provisionally accept this one. ;)

]]> By: cl http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2009/10/17/xfiles-plan-b/comment-page-1/#comment-14669 cl Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:55:00 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=1121#comment-14669 Today I just want to say, "Hello Parker." We'll see if DD lets this one through. Today I just want to say, “Hello Parker.” We’ll see if DD lets this one through.

]]> By: Dominic Saltarelli http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2009/10/17/xfiles-plan-b/comment-page-1/#comment-14627 Dominic Saltarelli Tue, 20 Oct 2009 21:20:19 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=1121#comment-14627 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html see chapters 9 and 10 http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html

see chapters 9 and 10

]]> By: Dominic Saltarelli http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2009/10/17/xfiles-plan-b/comment-page-1/#comment-14626 Dominic Saltarelli Tue, 20 Oct 2009 21:16:03 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=1121#comment-14626 I honestly doubt it. The original intent of new testament scriptures is a complete mystery. Whether the Gospel accounts (matthew mark luke john) were an attempt at forming official 'scripture' as you suggest, an honest stab at creating a historical record as historians rather than clergy, or genuine mythology in the vein of The Iliad and The Odyssey, we'll never know. Plus, as has been chronicled here, the whole Jesus = God bit can't be taken for granted as a belief among the earliest Christians like it is today. I've seen texts dated as late as 200 A.D., preserved by the Greek Orthodox Church (and conveniently posted online, I'll try to find them again), that refer to Jesus as God's servant. I honestly doubt it. The original intent of new testament scriptures is a complete mystery. Whether the Gospel accounts (matthew mark luke john) were an attempt at forming official ‘scripture’ as you suggest, an honest stab at creating a historical record as historians rather than clergy, or genuine mythology in the vein of The Iliad and The Odyssey, we’ll never know.

Plus, as has been chronicled here, the whole Jesus = God bit can’t be taken for granted as a belief among the earliest Christians like it is today.

I’ve seen texts dated as late as 200 A.D., preserved by the Greek Orthodox Church (and conveniently posted online, I’ll try to find them again), that refer to Jesus as God’s servant.

]]> By: Parker http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2009/10/17/xfiles-plan-b/comment-page-1/#comment-14549 Parker Sun, 18 Oct 2009 17:50:56 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=1121#comment-14549 It's true, but these stories of Jesus were written with the intent of becoming this larger body of work, right? I mean, they had the foresight (just as any novelist would) to make Jesus do what you'd expect him to. Plus, regardless of what was already written or what was to be written, wouldn't jesus, as Omniscient God, know what to expect? ;) It’s true, but these stories of Jesus were written with the intent of becoming this larger body of work, right? I mean, they had the foresight (just as any novelist would) to make Jesus do what you’d expect him to.
Plus, regardless of what was already written or what was to be written, wouldn’t jesus, as Omniscient God, know what to expect?
;)

]]> By: Dominic Saltarelli http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2009/10/17/xfiles-plan-b/comment-page-1/#comment-14542 Dominic Saltarelli Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:06:56 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=1121#comment-14542 @Parker Don't forget that the Bible itself wasn't compiled until much later. 'Scripture' refers to a much larger body of individual documents. @Parker

Don’t forget that the Bible itself wasn’t compiled until much later. ‘Scripture’ refers to a much larger body of individual documents.

]]> By: Parker http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/2009/10/17/xfiles-plan-b/comment-page-1/#comment-14533 Parker Sat, 17 Oct 2009 21:17:52 +0000 http://blog.evangelicalrealism.com/?p=1121#comment-14533 You also have to look at what G&T are analyzing here. In the BIBLE, Jesus is said to be god (or some form thereof), and in the BIBLE he preaches to his listeners and quotes 'confidently' his own Holy Book. Besides the obvious problem you've raised here DD, wouldn't a book about God have then the ManGod referencing (and confidently, at that) his own book? Should we be surprised Jesus isn't having his apostles analyze the Egyptian book of the dead? Should we feel obligated to somehow count that as proof that the Bible is God's one and only book, because he himself, in what was to become part of that same book, said so? My miiiiiiinnnnnddd.... The bible is bumming me out over here, but not as bad as G&T are. You also have to look at what G&T are analyzing here. In the BIBLE, Jesus is said to be god (or some form thereof), and in the BIBLE he preaches to his listeners and quotes ‘confidently’ his own Holy Book. Besides the obvious problem you’ve raised here DD, wouldn’t a book about God have then the ManGod referencing (and confidently, at that) his own book? Should we be surprised Jesus isn’t having his apostles analyze the Egyptian book of the dead? Should we feel obligated to somehow count that as proof that the Bible is God’s one and only book, because he himself, in what was to become part of that same book, said so? My miiiiiiinnnnnddd….
The bible is bumming me out over here, but not as bad as G&T are.

]]>