quote from Paralipomenon:
"Keep in mind that there were alot of forgeries out there. Most of the Gnostic books have been identified as forgeries which devalues their message to nothingness."
Most? Uhm... no. Unless you mean forgeries as in they weren't really written by "god". And for those of you who believe the Bible was written by god... just know that it was the Catholic Pope who decided WHAT was really god's word (the patriarchal bits) and what was sacrilege worthy of executing hundreds of people (I have found this irony exquisite... Watchtower publications constantly bash Catholicism, but they pretty much accept their chosen books as "the Bible.")
Quote from my dear friend:
"The Hebrew Bible, the Gnostic Gospels, the Christian and Apocryphal Gospels, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita—we use them and others from more recent sources. We never take them literally. We do not consider any of them to be "the word of God" or a final authority. We do not see them as "God's laws," but as men's laws. They are many voices with varying degrees of consciousness expressing, with whatever they could, their vision of the universe and its source. Each the voice of its culture and times. Each colored by its political and social condition—often tainted with fear and the effort to demonize enemies or to justify actions and the establishment of new beliefs. Each a cry for hope. All longing for God. Much in them is of great beauty and wisdom. We recognize and acknowledge the value of these ancient mythologies. By mythology, we mean something that while not necessarily factual, is nevertheless true."
I love her words. That is, I think, a beautiful way to come to terms with it all.
Dead Sea Scrolls, Apocrypha, Nag Hammadi, Deciding on the Bible Canon
by OnTheWayOut 35 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
BabaYaga
-
quietlyleaving
Ferdinand Christian Baur is interesting as well (from wiki)
[edit] Early Christian conflicts
Baur was prepared to apply his theory to the whole of the New Testament; in the words of H.S. Nash, "he carried a sweeping hypothesis into the examination of the New Testament." He considers those writings alone genuine in which the conflict between Jewish-Christians and Gentile-Christians is clearly marked. In his Kritische Untersuchungen über die kanonischen Evangelien, ihr Verhältniss zu einander, ihren Charakter und Ursprung (1847) he turns his attention to the Gospels, and here again finds that the authors were conscious of the conflict of parties; the Gospels reveal a mediating or conciliatory tendency (Tendenz) on the part of the writers or redactors. The Gospels, in fact, are adaptations or redactions of an older Gospel, such as the Gospel of the Hebrews, of Peter, of the Egyptians, or of the Ebionites. The Petrine Matthew bears the closest relationship to this original Gospel (Urevangelium); the Pauline Luke is later and arose independently; Mark represents a still later development according to Baur; the account in John is idealistic: it "does not possess historical truth, and cannot and does not really lay claim to it."
Baur's theory starts with the supposition that Christianity was gradually developed out of Judaism. Before it could become a universal religion, it had to struggle with Jewish limitations and to overcome them. The early Christians were Jewish-Christians, to whom Jesus was the Messiah. Paul, on the other hand, represented a breach with Judaism, the Temple, and the Law. Thus there was some antagonism between the Jewish apostles Peter, James and John, and Paul the apostle to the Gentiles, and this struggle continued down to the middle of the 2nd century. In short, the conflict between Petrinism and Paulinism is, as Karl Schwarz puts it, the key to the literature of the 1st and 2nd century
-
dawg
Once again we see that Ships can only pick and chose that which he thinks he can defend... read all of Matthew 24, he was talking to his dicples and telling them they would see these things in their immeadiate future... you know Ships, Jesus appearing in the sky for all the world to see (Matt 24:30)and things like that, they didn't, Jesus is a false prophet, just like the GB is today. Jesus' own words incriminate him as false, just as Paul's words that follow him. He specifically says that "this" genenration will not pass away until all these things occur... he was talking to his disiples and telling them over and over that "you" will see such and so, know the end is near when it happens and this generation won't pass until it does.... I know you feel you must make this false prophet's words fit, but Jesus was a madman, and didn't know what he was talking about. His own words prove his insanity.
Next, in the "Gospels of Mary Magdaline" we find a verse that says Jesus kissed her on the lips, this action wasn't done by those who wern't married to one another at that time. In the Gospel of Thomas it says that Jesus loved Mary more than the apostles... You see Ships, arguments have to be taken in their entireity, not piece meal... this thread title is listed above, its an attempt to shed light on gosples and other books that didn't make it into the canon. THere are reasons people think Jesus was married to Mary, several quotes from these missing books insinuate they were. THe only reason many Christians don't think Jesus was married was becasue they don't like the idea of their God doing the nasty. Apparenty you aren't one of them-Good for you! Thus the reasons for my statement concerning Jesus defacation and comparing it to sex, I wasn't specifically talking to you about that. It was a general statement-I always find it hard to believe that people become so offended when the marriage of Jesus is brought up, yet we all know he took a dump, something I find much more offensive than sex.
Last, I was trying to get a previous poster to understand how utterly offensive it is to say he knows what God wants, intelligent people understood it to be a joke when I stated that I was the one that knew...that's becasue I have no idea... see the humor? I was poking fun at someone who thinks he does know what God wants making light of the fact that none of us know God and thus can't know what he/she wants.... see? Funny huh? If you failed to see humor in it then don't read it... pass go and collect $200... have a good day Ships.
-
lrkr
"The Jesus Papers" thats one of the ones I read also.
What shocked, bothered and impacted me about all of this was the fact that- like most other facets of 2000 year old history- nothing is sure, set in stone or even provable. But Witnesses are taught that anyone who doesn't believe their brand of interpretation will die for being part of false religion. This was a real turning point for me.
How can we say that people who interpret an unclear 2000 year old manuscript differently than us is part of an evil conspiracy??? It made no sense.
I enjoy the intellectual back and forth. Even a little righteous indignation from some who think we're being a little to cavilier. But damning someone to death for having a different take....thats a little harsh...ok a lot harsh.
-
searcher
(the author is Jewish)
So were Jesus, the Apostles, Paul et al.
-
Meeting Junkie No More
Another good read on this entire subject that I can recommend is
From Jesus to Christianity - How Four Generations of Visionaries & Storytellers Created the New Testament and Christian Faith - by L. Michael White
ISBN 0-06-081610-4