In Reply to: Re: The Gnostic Gospels posted by Perry on June 09, 2004 at 17:16:32:
Hi, Perry!
This is a very interesting thread!
To the question, "Know where I can find any...[objective academic sources whose intention is to discover the factual, historical record regardless of the impact on theology...?], I say, "Ah; there's the rub".
As Lydia pointed out, extant manuscripts are the most important source for determination of historical accuracy, and that fact IS complicated by the "quasi-fact" that history is "only" (supposedly) written by the winners of wars.
That would kind of leave out the historicity of the documents of the Bible; wouldn't it?
Such an assumption would also infringe upon the idea of the sovereignty of God, and would have to assume, a priori, that He could not preserve ANY critically important said manuscripts.
I will research this. I am trying to recall something I read about 20 years ago, it seems, about the Nag Hammadi Library DEFINITELY arising in the late 2nd and early 3rd centurires, making it impossible to have been a source from which elements of Christianity were supposedly plagiarized. I hope to find it this week. Common search ehgines, whose algorhythms are based on POPULARITY, and that makes them tend to favor specifically Anti-Christian views, and that does make the search difficult.
And, I'll re-quote/repost (below) something I ran across yesterday, written by a Muslim converted to Biblical and experiential Christianity, regarding Gnosticism.
It really speaks to our common experience in TF, where a whole PANTHEON of demonized persons, and demons themselves, were our "substitute imtermediaries" or mediators.
In TF, I gave a prophecy in line with the Mo' Letter Oplexicon BEFORE I had read the letter (complete with a presence that prevented any physical movement while giving it).
So I am an ex-false prophet, myself! I also channeled demons, before TF, in Transcendental Meditation, Silva Mind Control psychic stuff, Hatha, Raja, Siddha, Bhakti, and Kundalini Yoga.
I AT LEAST have the authority of my own experience, and, in the obverse to what Jesus promised about doing and therefore knowing experientially about the Father's will, I can also argue that, having had the experiences, I am in no way at the mercy of someone with a mere argument.
They are categorically demonic.
I would also consult writings of C. S. Lewis, since, before his conversion, which he said was that of "the most reluctant convert in all of England...[where he] was brought struggling and kicking into the Kingdom of God...", he was a militant atheist, and a quite brilliant and highly educated one, who had previously favored rationalist/materialist/atheist doctrines of "falsely so-called science".
He was also a Don at Oxford, and taught at Cambridge as well, as an expert (BEFORE his conversion) on extant manuscripts, which he could read in the original languages (and about 14 of those!).
Philosophically, yes, Biblical Christianity does posit the existence of absolute propositional truth, and that that truth is found in a single person, Jesus Christ, who said, "If any man will do His [the Father's] will, he shall know of the doctrine; whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself".
So, in short, it is intellectually and philosophically dishonest to assume that God could not override the tendency of new rulers to rewrite history in their own favor, BECAUSE of the fact of the existence of extant manuscripts.
It is also absurd to assume that, philosophically, "there ARE absolutely no absolutes, and I'm absolutely sure".
If one digresses further, and claims that there CANNOT EXIST (absolutely) any absolutes, we arrive at absurdity, BECAUSE that is a circular argumentation.
C. S. Lewis also pointed out that "foolishness, even when it is about God, is still merely foolishness". I have to agree--Lewis' logic is usually, I have found, unassailable.
It is equally logically invalid to assume that what Jesus said about doing the Father's will, and discovering, from an inarguable experience, that "the doctrine...is of God" is an impossibility.
I would look up the work of Alvin Plantiga. His arguments are as lucid as Lewis's, if a little more formal in language (sometimes obtuse philosophical jargon--I like to avoid "...enticing words of man's wisdom", since "much study is a eariness of the flesh"! Whew!).
A very good read, though.
I'd also check out the book "Not a Chance: The Myth of Chance in Modern Science and Cosmology",
by R. C Sproul. Be forwarned--he is Dutch Reformed, and argues for what I consider the fallacious argument of neo-Calvinist determinism, but he argues well in this book regarding correct scientific and linear philosophical reasonings versus current fallacies of reasoning (like "false premise", "incomplete middle", "begging the question", "circular argumentation", etc., and MUCH MORE!).
I highly recommend the book.
I would also suggest graduate student-level books on Symbolic Logic--a very tough course: EVERY problem is a mathematical "proof". Whew!
I accept that everyone has presuppositions. I would warn against logical fallacies regarding the "impossibility" about those of truly Biblical Christianity being unable to BE true, a priori, especially if one has been in TF.
That's called a "straw man argument" (like the expression "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"), where one destroys his own false construct, without having honestly dealt with the details of the original argument, and sticking to its major and minor premises.
That, of course, does not follow.
The theodicy/theology of TF is EASILY falsifiable by just about ANY reasonable belief paradigm within, first, plain common sense, as well as within any of the social sciences.
I've found that truly Biblical Christianity DOES exist (like Lewis, I was "Surprised by Joy"--which is the nameof his autobiography), and that it is historically, logically, philosophically, and in every other way, QUITE FORMIDABLE!
GBY!
Later!
Here's the "repost":
_______________________________________________
http://www.exfamily.org/cgi-bin/gf.pl?fmt=dyn&t=chatbbs&m=15&s=0&r=chatbbs/jrny/jrny_main.html
Re: are you sure they know what they believe???
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ Replies to this Post ] [ Post a Reply ] [ Journeys ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by OldtimerToo on June 14, 2004 at 14:38:50
In Reply to: are you sure they know what they believe??? posted by lydia on June 12, 2004 at 13:40:26:
Hi,Lydia! How are you doing?
I've been into alot of philosphyand eastern religion in the past, and had a very powerful and personal experience with Jesus.
As I grew to know Him,it was often at odds with stuff going on in the Family.
I'd like to go prettty deep into explaining why gnosticism should be avoided,why it is a spiritual lie, and a doctrine specifically taught by demons, but, for now, I'l just paste in something I just read.
Oddly enough, it is about a former Muslim, and he's answering questions much like your comments.
Here's his response to a question about Gnosticism, which I thought was particularly good:
"Again, it was Constantine who placed so much authority in the church, not Christianity. New Testament theology is quite clear that Jesus Christ Himself is our mediator with God and that the Holy Spirit, God's own spirit, personally indwells every believer in Christ. Christ removed the barrier between man and God (as pictured by the veil in the temple being torn from top to bottom when Jesus died on the cross). Gnosticism was itself an attempt to substitute "secret" knowledge for the simple doctrine of salvation by grace through faith in Christ. True Christianity never places anything between the individual and God; no teacher, no institution, no rule, no interpreter, no hierarchy, just direct, unlimited access to God Himself, from the very core of your being."
Very interesting, no?