Comments on: Ethic of Reciprocity http://plainview.wordpress.com Tue, 01 Dec 2009 23:41:46 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: ichabod http://plainview.wordpress.com/ethic-of-reciprocity/#comment-5657 ichabod Fri, 02 Oct 2009 01:07:24 +0000 http://plainview.wordpress.com/?page_id=2558#comment-5657 Hi Carolina; Feel free to take it :) Hi Carolina;

Feel free to take it :)

]]> By: Carolina Maine http://plainview.wordpress.com/ethic-of-reciprocity/#comment-5656 Carolina Maine Fri, 02 Oct 2009 01:02:44 +0000 http://plainview.wordpress.com/?page_id=2558#comment-5656 Nice post! I feel like I want to steal it for my blog :) Nice post! I feel like I want to steal it for my blog :)

]]> By: Tom http://plainview.wordpress.com/ethic-of-reciprocity/#comment-3977 Tom Tue, 14 Jul 2009 00:59:01 +0000 http://plainview.wordpress.com/?page_id=2558#comment-3977 The choice of the 4 Gospel books, was not made on their ability to form a consensus, for a harmony of these is futile. They were in fact never intended to show a "harmony". What they do portray in common are 4 presentations to our eyes. The common 4 presentations are: 1.The King proclaimed, 2. The Kingdom proclaimed, 3. The Kingdom rejected, 4. The King rejected, and crucified, resurrected and ascended into glory. Yet in their presentations we find 4 different aspects of Christ set forth. In St. Mathew, we see Christ portrayed as The King. In St.Mark we see Christ set forth as The Servant. In St. Luke we see Christ set forth as The Man. And in St.John we see Christ set forth as God Incarnate. These perspectives overlap in all of the 4 accounts, but are dominant as such in the illustrations given here. The reason that they were chosen to be placed in the Christian canon is because the veracity of their authorship was never in doubt. Matthew and John were Apostles of Christ, and eye witnesses. Luke and Mark were contemporaries of St.Paul, and documented their accounts from eye witnesses. The canon of scripture was compiled from documents that were held in common by the various assemblies of Christians. The three documents that many churches also referenced, but are not in the present canon are, The Diddache, The Shepherd of Hermes, and The Epistle of Barnabus. The two most compelling reasons that the books we have were chosen are; firstly, many letters were written in what is known as a pseudopocripha manner. These were written in a way so as to give the impression that another of past and greater authority was the author. This also allowed a degree of anonymity which was desired in a time of persecution. The second is that books that claimed inspired authorship, but varied in their content from the books already authored began to surface. In the end the choice of the canon was made in recognition of two factors. First the attested veracity of their authorship. Second their dispersion and conformity of use among the congregations. We should keep in mind that this cannon is a compilation of "letters" written and copied and dispersed throughout the Christian community world wide. They are letters that most had and held in common and do not exclude others extant at the time from containing sound admonitions. That the Christian Faith had grown into factions as early as the "Acts" era can be documented in St. Paul's letter to the Corinthians. And to a great degree we see in his last communications to Timothy a turning by Paul, away from the burden of the 'Churches' and toward the idea of admonitions to be taken on an individual rather than a collective perspective. In forming a canon of scripture, I would conclude that the basis of the effort was that of recording those truths for posterity. The books that have been excluded, can easily be researched and read. I found some of them interesting, and informative, and others a little nonsensical, however all will show the divergence of thought that existed at that juncture in history. Interestingly enough, we will find the Golden Rule put forth, or a realized conclusion in all the books in the New Testament Canon. However we should also realize that from the Christian perspective the Golden Rule is two fold. First, love God as He has revealed Himself through Christ, and second, Love thy neighbor as thyself. The choice of the 4 Gospel books, was not made on their ability to form a consensus, for a harmony of these is futile. They were in fact never intended to show a “harmony”. What they do portray in common are 4 presentations to our eyes. The common 4 presentations are: 1.The King proclaimed, 2. The Kingdom proclaimed, 3. The Kingdom rejected, 4. The King rejected, and crucified, resurrected and ascended into glory. Yet in their presentations we find 4 different aspects of Christ set forth. In St. Mathew, we see Christ portrayed as The King. In St.Mark we see Christ set forth as The Servant. In St. Luke we see Christ set forth as The Man. And in St.John we see Christ set forth as God Incarnate. These perspectives overlap in all of the 4 accounts, but are dominant as such in the illustrations given here. The reason that they were chosen to be placed in the Christian canon is because the veracity of their authorship was never in doubt. Matthew and John were Apostles of Christ, and eye witnesses. Luke and Mark were contemporaries of St.Paul, and documented their accounts from eye witnesses. The canon of scripture was compiled from documents that were held in common by the various assemblies of Christians. The three documents that many churches also referenced, but are not in the present canon are, The Diddache, The Shepherd of Hermes, and The Epistle of Barnabus. The two most compelling reasons that the books we have were chosen are; firstly, many letters were written in what is known as a pseudopocripha manner. These were written in a way so as to give the impression that another of past and greater authority was the author. This also allowed a degree of anonymity which was desired in a time of persecution. The second is that books that claimed inspired authorship, but varied in their content from the books already authored began to surface. In the end the choice of the canon was made in recognition of two factors. First the attested veracity of their authorship. Second their dispersion and conformity of use among the congregations. We should keep in mind that this cannon is a compilation of “letters” written and copied and dispersed throughout the Christian community world wide. They are letters that most had and held in common and do not exclude others extant at the time from containing sound admonitions. That the Christian Faith had grown into factions as early as the “Acts” era can be documented in St. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians. And to a great degree we see in his last communications to Timothy a turning by Paul, away from the burden of the ‘Churches’ and toward the idea of admonitions to be taken on an individual rather than a collective perspective. In forming a canon of scripture, I would conclude that the basis of the effort was that of recording those truths for posterity. The books that have been excluded, can easily be researched and read. I found some of them interesting, and informative, and others a little nonsensical, however all will show the divergence of thought that existed at that juncture in history. Interestingly enough, we will find the Golden Rule put forth, or a realized conclusion in all the books in the New Testament Canon. However we should also realize that from the Christian perspective the Golden Rule is two fold. First, love God as He has revealed Himself through Christ, and second, Love thy neighbor as thyself.

]]> By: tigercity http://plainview.wordpress.com/ethic-of-reciprocity/#comment-1992 tigercity Sun, 01 Mar 2009 12:05:29 +0000 http://plainview.wordpress.com/?page_id=2558#comment-1992 325 CE: The first Council of Nicaea selected the 4 'gospels' that we know as Matthew, Mark, Luke & John to form the New Testament. Why should we trust these religious men's choice as to what represents the real story of Jesus (if he indeed existed)? Why discount Thomas for example? Didn't they just go for the four that would form the strongest consensus? Strange that Man edited 'god's own' words with the sole intention of keeping a fractured religion together.. 325 CE: The first Council of Nicaea selected the 4 ‘gospels’ that we know as Matthew, Mark, Luke & John to form the New Testament. Why should we trust these religious men’s choice as to what represents the real story of Jesus (if he indeed existed)? Why discount Thomas for example? Didn’t they just go for the four that would form the strongest consensus? Strange that Man edited ‘god’s own’ words with the sole intention of keeping a fractured religion together..

]]> By: What you give is what you get. « flashlights in the white noise: short circuits http://plainview.wordpress.com/ethic-of-reciprocity/#comment-1751 What you give is what you get. « flashlights in the white noise: short circuits Sun, 01 Feb 2009 08:15:57 +0000 http://plainview.wordpress.com/?page_id=2558#comment-1751 [...] Here the Blog with all 21 variations on the Golden Rule: [...] [...] Here the Blog with all 21 variations on the Golden Rule: [...]

]]> By: ichabod http://plainview.wordpress.com/ethic-of-reciprocity/#comment-1409 ichabod Thu, 11 Dec 2008 21:51:18 +0000 http://plainview.wordpress.com/?page_id=2558#comment-1409 Hi Pablo; I didn't write that. Most of this is an excerpt from www.religeoustolerance.org which I credited above. However, I have read the Gospel of Thomas and I don't see it as being anymore heretical as some other things I have read :) Hi Pablo;

I didn’t write that. Most of this is an excerpt from http://www.religeoustolerance.org which I credited above.

However, I have read the Gospel of Thomas and I don’t see it as being anymore heretical as some other things I have read :)

]]> By: Pablo http://plainview.wordpress.com/ethic-of-reciprocity/#comment-1407 Pablo Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:59:16 +0000 http://plainview.wordpress.com/?page_id=2558#comment-1407 I see that you quote the Gospel of Thomas, and you cite that it was "widely accepted by the Early Church." That is a little bit of a stretch. The Gospel of Thomas was most likely not written by Thomas, nor any of the other apostles. As early as the 4th century, it was being condemned as heresy as that it "corrupts the souls." Also, as early as the 2nd century, it is said that "there are four pillars of our faith, the Four Gospels." That doesn't sound as widespread as many have stated. I see that you quote the Gospel of Thomas, and you cite that it was “widely accepted by the Early Church.” That is a little bit of a stretch. The Gospel of Thomas was most likely not written by Thomas, nor any of the other apostles. As early as the 4th century, it was being condemned as heresy as that it “corrupts the souls.” Also, as early as the 2nd century, it is said that “there are four pillars of our faith, the Four Gospels.” That doesn’t sound as widespread as many have stated.

]]>