tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post5653113943624556747..comments2023-11-02T01:20:32.436-07:00Comments on The Forbidden Gospels: Part 5: Why non-canonical texts are useful according to Tony Chartrand-BurkeApril DeConickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06616757055618151612noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-73310328896629444172007-07-03T12:37:00.000-07:002007-07-03T12:37:00.000-07:00Eric, Why do you say that this is pure assumption ...Eric, <BR/><BR/>Why do you say that this is pure assumption when this can so easily be shown from the texts we have?April DeConickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06616757055618151612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-16300149458216150692007-07-03T12:18:00.000-07:002007-07-03T12:18:00.000-07:00The third point listed is a pure assumption. It is...The third point listed is a pure assumption. It is every bit as religious and dogmatic in nature as anything that could come from the pen of a Christian apologist.Eric Rowehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00559055709208918638noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-84514325601374214552007-07-03T11:20:00.000-07:002007-07-03T11:20:00.000-07:00Chartrand-Burke wants to have his cake and eat it....Chartrand-Burke wants to have his cake and eat it. Thus:<BR/><BR/>"All Christian literature, canonical and noncanonical, are the products of authors who felt no hesitation in altering the facts (or better: their sources) to suit their needs (be they theological, christological, social, or political)." <BR/><BR/>"The Synoptic Gospels and the letters of Paul remain our best sources for the Historical Jesus and the emerging Jesus movement."<BR/><BR/>If the latter has been altered by folk who had no hesitiation in doing so, to what extent have they been altered? Was it to the extent that, in fact, there was no historical Jesus?geoffhudson.blogspot.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14724916983698195467noreply@blogger.com