Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Religion
In reply to the discussion: Is ‘The Lost Gospel’ Book a Fraud? [View all]cbayer
(146,218 posts)110. Sorry about your alert not working out.
Maybe you should try one on stopbush's personal attacks.
Might be more successful.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
126 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
No, it is an actual ancient document. Now, does it actually reveal an historica fact?
Agnosticsherbet
Nov 2014
#1
Nicaea had nothing to with Bible canon. Constantine had nothing to do with Bible canon.
Leontius
Nov 2014
#41
Among its accomplisments, The Council of Nicea formed the beginning of Canon Law.
Agnosticsherbet
Nov 2014
#48
You're right in spirit, biblical canon was something that was selected by the victors.
enki23
Mar 2015
#124
What is wrong, we know there were multiple before the Romans Gospels
Exultant Democracy
Nov 2014
#28
Do you honestly think it takes the same amount of faith to NOT believe in leprechauns...
trotsky
Nov 2014
#17
And, of course, you have to trot out your meme about there being no difference
Fortinbras Armstrong
Nov 2014
#22
What is the difference between believing in god and believing leprechauns?
Exultant Democracy
Nov 2014
#30
Why should there be a distinction between gods that people believed in in the past
stopbush
Nov 2014
#60
I think this is the second or third time you've been "done with me." You'll be back.
stopbush
Nov 2014
#80
You are correct. Post #80 is a very long ad hominem - zero substance just a litany of personal
cbayer
Nov 2014
#109
You can't seem to proceed. Perhaps some immateriality is effectively blocking you?
Warren Stupidity
Nov 2014
#75
Reject it all you want. In the meantime, please point me to the mathematics particle.
LTX
Nov 2014
#87
"the mathematics particle" - ideas about mathematics exist in our heads.
Warren Stupidity
Nov 2014
#97
Its because those whose brains make assumptions and attribute agency to random events are more...
Humanist_Activist
Mar 2015
#116
Yeah, they are all stories yet have historical and personal elements in context of the time written
pinto
Nov 2014
#20
The james ossuary is bullshit outside of biblical studies nutjobs, the list of kings included david
Warren Stupidity
Nov 2014
#36
"It’s not Lost, it’s not a Gospel, it’s a very naughty marketing campaign"
muriel_volestrangler
Nov 2014
#11
It's fascinating to me that books (gospels) were written about Jesus, et al for hundreds of years.
pinto
Nov 2014
#12
Yeah, they are in some way shape or form. I get that. My point was the genesis of the originals,
pinto
Nov 2014
#31
"why these books" was settled by decree and the power of the Roman State.
Warren Stupidity
Nov 2014
#35
In this case, I think I'm going to skip the read and go with the legitimate reviews.
cbayer
Nov 2014
#49
These authors have located an old Syriac translation of a popular much older Jewish short story
struggle4progress
Nov 2014
#66
"... The text has been previously been seen as a Jewish exploration of the Biblical story of Joseph
struggle4progress
Nov 2014
#61
"... Purporting to describe the marriage of Joseph – the Old Testament Joseph,
struggle4progress
Nov 2014
#62
"... We're basically looking at a sensationalist money-making scheme here, and there's nothing else
struggle4progress
Nov 2014
#63
... Oxford University professor Diarmaid MacCulloch told Britain's Sunday Times that the book
struggle4progress
Nov 2014
#64
"... Mr. Jacobovici’s new book essentially claims that the 6th century CE Syriac language version
struggle4progress
Nov 2014
#65
Uhm, is anyone not going to mention the fact that this is a 6th century document?
Humanist_Activist
Mar 2015
#115