Can people really be this stoopid?

[schrackman]

You were the one who made the assertion, clearly came from a personal conviction. So why don't you explain yourself instead of linking to an article?

Because the articles do such a better job at exposing her shoddy scholarship on this matter.

From that article - "Pagelian orthodoxy rejects the notion that God is the only divine being, that Christ was the unique God-man. Pagelian orthodoxy asserts that adherence to tradition and authority is for those who do not wish to consider the facts or do the hard work of thinking on their own."

He can make the article as lengthy and wordy as possible its still tired desperate rhetoric.

Ms. Pagels uses quite a bit of tired rhetoric herself. So what's your point?

Oh, reformedperspectives.org - again, you may as well present a catholic link.

And why shouldn't religious minds–Catholic or otherwise–react to Ms. Pagels? After all, she is the one who drew "first blood."

Here's yet another link: http://www.answeringinfidels.com/ind...ask=view&id=56

If you take opposition to her work, explain your problems your self, what is it that you dislike about her work?

All of these links I've provided demonstrate a common inconsistency with Ms. Pagels scholarship: she presumes too much and fails to prove much of what she asserts or insinuates is true.

[Anbesol]

she didn't draw first blood, the Christian establishment drew first blood about 1600 years ago, she just exposed the history of the blood. The Nag Hammadi Library speaks for itself, especially once you piece together the language. What do you think a 5th, 6th, and 7th century Catholic government did to dissent, and to what it conveniently called 'heresy'? To the original gospels and epistles which contradicted their orthodoxy? Do you even know a thing about what I am talking about? Have you read Thomas? James? Phillip? the Sophia of Christ?

"All of these links I've provided demonstrate a common inconsistency with Ms. Pagels scholarship: she presumes too much and fails to prove much of what she asserts or insinuates is true."

Then why can't you personally articulate a single charge against her? If you are so confident, why do you keep linking to other websites, instead of explaining your self? It just looks like you dont want to face the argument yourself, and you throw those links as cop-outs. And no, those sites are just convicting themselves to far-fetched religious axioms, not looking into her work scientifically or empirically, full of the same old tired and desperate rhetoric. I wont even bother looking at your newest site, "answering infidels" tells me enough. So stop googling anti-pagels rhetoric to link to me and please explain your opposition yourself. So far you have not made a single charge against her but you have been confident enough to make several personal attacks on her. I have refuted every thing you've called her and composed an argument and all you can do is post some more rhetoric and links. Give me something with substance, be specific - the thomas/john conflict? Anything specific on her exposition of gnostic tradition? Her telling of early Christian tradition? Youre just making blanket statements that look like you don't really know much of anything about her, you just are against her because it coincides with your community.

Are you a fundie/Christian yourself? If so, then its a pointless argument unless you have the gall to check your own faith. If you aren't, then I am perplexed as to what you could possibly have against her.

[schrackman]

she didn't draw first blood, the Christian establishment drew first blood about 1600 years ago, she just exposed the history of the blood.

And that's the rhetoric I was talking about.

The Nag Hammadi Library speaks for itself, especially once you piece together the language. What do you think a 5th, 6th, and 7th century Catholic government did to dissent, and to what it conveniently called 'heresy'? To the original gospels and epistles which contradicted their orthodoxy? Do you even know a thing about what I am talking about? Have you read Thomas? James? Phillip? the Sophia of Christ?

It didn't require a 5th, 6th or even 7th century Catholic Church to dissent to anything; Tertullian, around 213 AD (see his work "On Monogamy"), already makes mention of a formed Canon by which church councils had already deemed certain books non-canonical. Hence, it should not surprise anyone familiar with Patristics that Iraeneus, just three decades previous, attacked the Gnostic books as but a novel invention of heretical writers when the apostolic writings had been known for quite some time by the various churches in the Roman empire.

Then why can't you personally articulate a single charge against her? If you are so confident, why do you keep linking to other websites, instead of explaining your self? It just looks like you dont want to face the argument yourself, and you throw those links as cop-outs.

No, it's because 1) I don't have time for a long, drawn out debate; and 2) the links to the writers I gave demonstrate that they are well-informed and researched on the subject.

Consequenty, one can't just go and dismiss them simply because they come from those with a religious mind. Even Pagels has a religious mind, so you'd be proving your own self inconsistent with your criteria for a credible response to Pagels writings.

What it sounds like to me is that you just don't like the fact that there are actually opposing opinions to Pagels' work that renders it less than "scholarly."

Are you a fundie/Christian yourself? If so, then its a pointless argument unless you have the gall to check your own faith. If you aren't, then I am perplexed as to what you could possibly have against her.

Whether or not I'm a fundie/Chrhistian is irrelevant to this discussion. What is relevant is whether or not Pagels portrays history accurately. And that is something anyone–Christian or not–should be concerned with when they read Pagels claims.

Now, I have to get out to shoot a portrait session for a couple. Have a great night.

[brmill26]

I only have one thing to add to this, and it's not attacking any merits one way or another, but rather the method in which you are debating, Anbesol. You only have one source for your views. Any basic rule of argument, be it debate, law, religion, or whatever, is finding multiple sources to support your point. It's quite easy to find one or two people who say X, even if 99% of everyone else says Y. It doesn't *necessarily* mean the Y's are right, but it creates a strong and reasonable suspicion towards the X's.

To be clear, my point is whomever this Pagel person is, it really doesn't matter to me what her credibilities are, she's still one person. There are thousands, on the other hand, who have studied the religious texts and hold the opposing view. You certainly may chose to disagree with them, but I think you should find more than one source to support your argument, as any good Ivy League professor should know. I would also say that most decent professors do not take challenges personally and instead of attacking their students. One should hear them out and counter with points on the merits, rather than elementary name-calling like "fundie," which accomplishes nothing but disrespect toward your opponent, dishonoring yourself in the process.

[Anbesol]

"And that's the rhetoric I was talking about."

No, it wasn't rhetoric, it was specific and substantive. You may disagree with it, but it is at least a little more than empty rhetoric.

Hence, it should not surprise anyone familiar with Patristics that Iraeneus, just three decades previous, attacked the Gnostic books as but a novel invention of heretical writers when the apostolic writings had been known for quite some time by the various churches in the Roman empire.

Of course Iraneus said that, he followed a very different tradition than any Gnostic*. I mean, he was Johns descendent*. John already makes it clear in his Gospel that he is against the Gnostic tradition**. Iraneus also made mention of a canon that came from ONE camp, from ONE tradition, not any other canon, or lack thereof*. Further, you have even demonstrated my point that there was a variety of methodology in the early traditions of Christianity. This argument you make falls on irrelevance, please explain the relevance you see.

"the links to the writers I gave demonstrate that they are well-informed and researched on the subject."

No, they weren't. What I saw was religious axioms getting in the way of objective investigation.

"Even Pagels has a religious mind, so you'd be proving your own self inconsistent with your criteria for a credible response to Pagels writings."

Ah yes, it has nothing to do with your links writers having 'religious' minds, its about them having dishonest minds.

Whether or not I'm a fundie/Chrhistian is irrelevant to this discussion.

If you were a fundamentalist, this conversation would be pointless as the adherance and faith in the 'infallible word of god' is challenged, and I dont feel like breaking your faith, then its done and theres nothing more to it. If you follow a nicene apostled lineage, then Pagel's work goes against the things you hold as the deepest truths. If you were an atheist, however, you would have a more outside perspective and no personal faith-based convictions to get in the way of your honesty or tenacity, and that way I dont have to talk through all those religious barriers about pagels with you.

What it sounds like to me is that you just don't like the fact that there are actually opposing opinions to Pagels' work that renders it less than "scholarly."

Nope, I'm plenty familiar with people who oppose Pagel's work, I listen to a Hank Hanegraaf broadcast periodically, even keep up with Ravii Zacharias and the sorts. I am not surprised even a little that someone challenges her scholarship, her exposition lays some harsh light on Christian orthodoxy, and I don't think thats going without a fight. I think anybody who has read her work would expect such reaction from the masses.

rather than elementary name-calling like "fundie,"

BRMill, why dont you be a little bit more careful about how you look at my writing. Clearly you are projecting some ideas into my words that I did not intend whatsoever. I use fundie as a term of endearment, I call my fundamentalist friends fundies. In fact, fundamentalists self-title themselves fundamentalists, I just shortened it and said 'fundie'. Its common language, at least down here in Kansas. I dont know how you assumed there was some condescending or derogatory tone in there, but I think you may be coloring my words with your own imagination.

Secondly - I'm sorry, its a small debate with someone on the internet, I'm not writing for an encyclopedia or a college professor. Here, I will throw a couple sources in...

* - www.google.com
** - John 1:1- 21:25... (14:1-10)