Evidence for God from Science

touchingcloth wrote:qqMOARpewpew - The BBC and the History Channel are terrible sources. I'm not aware of any mainstream media that gives high quality coverage on on history, or science, or even politics. They are mostly characterised by sloppiness and spin.

So are authors and historians going back before biblical times, people munipulate information to control the masses.

We know that books and gospels have been banned from the bible for instance. (gospel of Mary Magdalene, The Book of Enoch, The
Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas)

Do you have specific examples of trickery from bbc/ the history channel?

touchingcloth wrote:Attenborough is a very welcome exception to the rule

In fact the BBC Natural History unit do tend to make a good job of things, but they still aren't exactly, erm, authoritative. I think them problem with a lot of TV shows and news articles is that there's too much of an emphasis of spinning everything around a narrative. That's more entertaining than a stale representation of the facts so I guess it brings in the viewers.

Definitely most of the shows are intend to entertain first, education on the side, with at times alot of speculation, absolutely

qqMOARpewpew wrote:We know that books and gospels have been banned from the bible for instance. (gospel of Mary Magdalene, The Book of Enoch, The
Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas)

We know that do we? May I ask how, because I know more than a few New Testament historians who are very unaware of this and, in fact, have very different views on those books . . . maybe you should correct them?

Jac3510 wrote:

qqMOARpewpew wrote:We know that books and gospels have been banned from the bible for instance. (gospel of Mary Magdalene, The Book of Enoch, The
Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas)

We know that do we? May I ask how, because I know more than a few New Testament historians who are very unaware of this and, in fact, have very different views on those books . . . maybe you should correct them?

I was under the impression they were well known. Before the Bible was as it is today there were many versions of Christianity and many different gospels. The Council of Nicaea, and Constantine made the bible that we have today, they banned many gospels and had most of them burned, some survived and have resurfaced over the years; or this is my understanding of how the modern bible was compiled.

these some of the ones we know of today and have even been translated, some of them are not complete gospels but bits and pieces;

Apocalypse of Peter
Gospel of The Birth of Mary
The Gospel Called The Protevangelion
Infancy of Jesus 1
Infancy of Jesus 2 (Young Childhood)
Gospel of Nicodemus
Epistle of Jesus Christ and Abgarus
Epistle of Paul To The Laodiceans
Epistle of Paul and Seneca
Acts of Saint Paul and Thecla
First Epistle of Clement
Second Epistle of Clement
Epistle of Barnabas
7 Epistles Of Ignatius
Epistle of Polycarp To The Philippians
The Epistle Of Polycarp
The First Book Of Hermas Called His Vision
The Second Book Of Hermas Called His Commands
The Third Book Of Hermas Called His Similitudes
The Books Of Adam and Eve
The Book Of Enoch
Gospel According To Mary Magdalene

Are your friends unaware of these? Maybe they weren't taught them, or maybe they went to school awhile ago as many of these have surfaced recently.

qqMOARpewpew wrote:I was under the impression they were well known. Before the Bible was as it is today there were many versions of Christianity and many different gospels. The Council of Nicaea, and Constantine made the bible that we have today, they banned many gospels and had most of them burned, some survived and have resurfaced over the years; or this is my understanding of how the modern bible was compiled.

these some of the ones we know of today and have even been translated, some of them are not complete gospels but bits and pieces;

Apocalypse of Peter
Gospel of The Birth of Mary
The Gospel Called The Protevangelion
Infancy of Jesus 1
Infancy of Jesus 2 (Young Childhood)
Gospel of Nicodemus
Epistle of Jesus Christ and Abgarus
Epistle of Paul To The Laodiceans
Epistle of Paul and Seneca
Acts of Saint Paul and Thecla
First Epistle of Clement
Second Epistle of Clement
Epistle of Barnabas
7 Epistles Of Ignatius
Epistle of Polycarp To The Philippians
The Epistle Of Polycarp
The First Book Of Hermas Called His Vision
The Second Book Of Hermas Called His Commands
The Third Book Of Hermas Called His Similitudes
The Books Of Adam and Eve
The Book Of Enoch
Gospel According To Mary Magdalene

Are your friends unaware of these? Maybe they weren't taught them, or maybe they went to school awhile ago as many of these have surfaced recently.

Ah, well I'm glad you recognize that is only some of them, as you have left off more than a many, many that we could discuss. In any case, we're hardly unaware of them. Perhaps what we are unaware of is how you know that "The Council of Nicaea, and Constantine made the bible that we have today." Now, I will note that you said that "this is my understanding of how the modern bible was compiled." I can't help but notice, however, that "my understanding" is much different from "We know."

So in light of this, I have two questions for you:

1. Are we talking about your understanding or some nebulous "we," and if the latter, who exactly comprises that group?
2. Can you tell me what your understanding of the process of canonization that was applied to the NT? I would be especially interested in how those processes were applied to non-canonical works as compared to those now considered canonical. The more specific, by the way, the better . . . I expect since you "know" that those books were banned, you will be more than capable of giving me the fullest explanation of the process.

Jac3510 wrote:

qqMOARpewpew wrote:I was under the impression they were well known. Before the Bible was as it is today there were many versions of Christianity and many different gospels. The Council of Nicaea, and Constantine made the bible that we have today, they banned many gospels and had most of them burned, some survived and have resurfaced over the years; or this is my understanding of how the modern bible was compiled.

these some of the ones we know of today and have even been translated, some of them are not complete gospels but bits and pieces;

Apocalypse of Peter
Gospel of The Birth of Mary
The Gospel Called The Protevangelion
Infancy of Jesus 1
Infancy of Jesus 2 (Young Childhood)
Gospel of Nicodemus
Epistle of Jesus Christ and Abgarus
Epistle of Paul To The Laodiceans
Epistle of Paul and Seneca
Acts of Saint Paul and Thecla
First Epistle of Clement
Second Epistle of Clement
Epistle of Barnabas
7 Epistles Of Ignatius
Epistle of Polycarp To The Philippians
The Epistle Of Polycarp
The First Book Of Hermas Called His Vision
The Second Book Of Hermas Called His Commands
The Third Book Of Hermas Called His Similitudes
The Books Of Adam and Eve
The Book Of Enoch
Gospel According To Mary Magdalene

Are your friends unaware of these? Maybe they weren't taught them, or maybe they went to school awhile ago as many of these have surfaced recently.

Ah, well I'm glad you recognize that is only some of them, as you have left off more than a many, many that we could discuss. In any case, we're hardly unaware of them. Perhaps what we are unaware of is how you know that "The Council of Nicaea, and Constantine made the bible that we have today." Now, I will note that you said that "this is my understanding of how the modern bible was compiled." I can't help but notice, however, that "my understanding" is much different from "We know."

So in light of this, I have two questions for you:

1. Are we talking about your understanding or some nebulous "we," and if the latter, who exactly comprises that group?
2. Can you tell me what your understanding of the process of canonization that was applied to the NT? I would be especially interested in how those processes were applied to non-canonical works as compared to those now considered canonical. The more specific, by the way, the better . . . I expect since you "know" that those books were banned, you will be more than capable of giving me the fullest explanation of the process.

Well I don't know what you and I are talking about, but when I type it is always my understanding of things not necessarily the way it happened. That we know comment really just meant "I heard" or "Sources told me."

As for the other part, I don't even know off the top of my head what canonization is. I would guess it is deciding which gospels were divinely inspired and which ones had questionible authors or sources, but yeah I have nothing.

Know they were banned? Rather I know I heard they were banned, and I know they aren't in today's bible, and they do exist.

Of course we are very familiar with the apocryphal works, the pseudepigrapha works, the early controversies, and later findings such as the Dead Sea Scrolls. You're grasp of it seems to be rudimentary. That's fine though. However you need to understand that neither the cannonization process nor the exclusion of heretical controversy were single events or settled at a single council but rather a lengthy careful consideration of what constituted canonical works and essentials.

Today the Catholic Bible has Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, First and Second Maccabees, and Additions to Esther and Daniel which the Protestant Bible does not. Except for this difference, the issue of cannonization is settled regarding scripture.

Obvious forgeries and plagerisms were excluded from cannonization. Later forgeries, such as the gospel of Judas for example, were easily disqualified as noncanonical long before modern organizations which produce a wealth of heavily biased skewed popular non-scholarly publications such as the National Geographic Society attempted to rehash them as just having been discovered. These organizations engage in this less than ethical behavior to generate controversy (e.g. ideological reasons), increase circulation (e.g. profit motives), and honestly out of ignorance. Having cut themselves off from all but a few of the most liberal, radical, and reckless scholars long ago they simply are not getting accurate balanced information in many instances. But that's for another post.

Beyond just cannonization, the second century brought to the surface serious issues about the traditional interpretation of Jesus and his work. Justin's logos-theology raised the question of whether incarnational christology intended to assert that Jesus is "God with us" or whether a mediatorial logos, when he became incarnate, can be understood as God present in person. Marcion and the Gnostic movement raised the question of whether the idea of incarnation might not be a contradiction in terms, that perhaps "flesh" is the evil with which God can have nothing to do. In his "A Homily on the Passover," Melito of Sardis advocated a physical reality of the incarnation by insisting that God's Son "put on" a human being and suffered. He also attached significance to the history of the people of God prior to the advent of Christ, claiming that as God's firstborn, Christ called and guided Israel and humanity from creation to the incarnation. He asserted that Christ made heaven and earth and was enfleshed in the virgin. Eusebius of Caesarea was challenged for his contention that the logos is not eternal with the Father. He taught that Christ was "begotten" before the creation of the world. Although the apologists had less to say about the Holy Spirit, they do bear witness to the threefold pattern. The trinitarian controversy and Christological controversy were eventually settled,

Another issue of the period that lies on the edge of current discussion is the issue of those who lapsed during persecution. The Canons of Nicea established the policy that once discovered to have lapsed, one appointed to a ministerial office should be deposed. Out of this careful but lengthy process came creeds which bound together authentic believers separating the carefully qualified essentials of the faith from non-essentials (and heresy).

Nowhere was any of this undertaken lightly.

Very informative. Much more so than what I had heard up this point. Thank you C:

qqMOARpewpew wrote:Very informative. Much more so than what I had heard up this point. Thank you C:

You are welcome friend.

Regarding the BBC documentary I mentioned earlier. I'm not claiming it as an authoritative source but from reading qqMOARpewpew's posts and from my own limited knowledge I still think it would be worth a watch as a starting point, the guy who wrote, devised and presents it is Professor of the History of the Church at Oxford. Recommend in the same spirit I would recommend a BBC documentary by David Starkey on the Tudors for someone interested in that period as a starting point. Or an Attenborough documentary for someone interested in natural history, although Attenborough does seem to becoming a little vocal about his bias against religion in his old age.

Far from a terrible source as touchingcloth mentioned I find the BBC a decent starting point for many things. As someone mentioned on another site I frequent in relation to science "Wikipedia is a great starting point and a terrible ending point for scientific investigation".

Has anyone seen any of the documentary I'm referring to? I imagine there are some errors and a bit of poetic license to make it more entertaining but it's a far cry from the DaVinci Code inspired chaos I've seen on the History channel.

I can't say that I have seen it. In my opinion I feel like pbs is much less biased and focused more on educating rather than entertaining. Either way tv shows should be an introduction as you said, to a subject, a jumping platform perhaps to spark some interest.

Even I agree the davinci code stuff is madness. The movie was entertaining at least.

Well at least the BBC is better than CHannel 4 - who decided to seek out contraversy - mainly against Christianity in its programs - especially bang on Christian special days such as Easter and Christmas. - Some to mention -

The Root of all evil - Dawkins
Who really wrote the Bible - (Shown on Christmas Day)
THe Tomb of Jesus - Think this was shown on Easter.

Yet you do not see them showing any programs mocking or debunking Islam. We are fair game it seems.

Silvertusk.

Well yall are the overwhelming majority in this country, picking on minorities isn't kosher apparently. Its not like atheists/jews/muslims have their own world wide station or meeting places on every corner (or every corner in my city in virginia).

Also channel 4? Channels are different across the country and whether or not one has cable or satellite etc, whats the channels name?

qqMOARpewpew wrote:Well yall are the overwhelming majority in this country, picking on minorities isn't kosher apparently. Its not like atheists/jews/muslims have their own world wide station or meeting places on every corner (or every corner in my city in virginia).

Also channel 4? Channels are different across the country and whether or not one has cable or satellite etc, whats the channels name?

You don't see Muslim countries and you never saw communist state atheistic countries allowing a fair analysis of Christianity in their press or airwaves. They persecute and imprison Christians in those countries.

But the real problem in Western Civilization where governments were guided by and built on Christian principles these days is just getting an accurate analysis out of the godless PC moguls that control media organs.

It really shouldn't be too much to ask for them to simply represent the facts accurately and clearly and let the viewer draw their conclusions from there. That's what journalists are supposed to do. But the modern liberals abandoned that principle a long time ago and now simply engage in opinion journalism as a rule.

And you my friend are saying that's OK... it's OK to skew the information and misrepresent facts about Christianity, because after all, Christians are still a majority.

ageofknowledge wrote:

qqMOARpewpew wrote:Well yall are the overwhelming majority in this country, picking on minorities isn't kosher apparently. Its not like atheists/jews/muslims have their own world wide station or meeting places on every corner (or every corner in my city in virginia).

Also channel 4? Channels are different across the country and whether or not one has cable or satellite etc, whats the channels name?

You don't see Muslim countries and you never saw communist state atheistic countries allowing a fair analysis of Christianity in their press or airwaves. They persecute and imprison Christians in those countries.

But the real problem in Western Civilization where governments were guided by and built on Christian principles these days is just getting an accurate analysis out of the godless PC moguls that control media organs.

It really shouldn't be too much to ask for them to simply represent the facts accurately and clearly and let the viewer draw their conclusions from there. That's what journalists are supposed to do. But the modern liberals abandoned that principle a long time ago and now simply engage in opinion journalism as a rule.

And you my friend are saying that's OK... it's OK to skew the information and misrepresent facts about Christianity, because after all, Christians are still a majority.

Washington and many of the founding fathers were deist, not christian, so to say this country was founded on christian philosophy is (in my opinion) far off.

When has any news station/magazine/newspaper simply aired the facts and let views decide complete unbiasedly?
Sure why not, what is an atheistic/islamic country that has free press and a republic?

And our country although it is mostly christian might misrepresent you christians, but they certainly dont represent nontheists at least as far as I have seen.

I don't think its okay to skew the information or misrepresent christianity but you folks on here skew information and misrepresent non-christians so maybe you all should check yourselves before throwing stones. Evolution is not a religion any more than gravity is. Atheism is not a religion any more than theism is. Most atheists aren't like Dawkins, most atheists are agnostic or soft atheists rather than the "Dawkins philosophy."