The "other" books don't present so much of a problem if one abandons the position that the bible as we now have it is a translation of documents that were transmitted directly from God to man.
I'm not talking about abandoning Christianity, or any specific belief, by the way, other than the belief that the bible is 'god-breathed', that it is inerrant, and that it fits 'like a hand in a glove'.
It certainly is possible to view each of the various books within the bible as the personal experience of the individual writer, or a treatise clarifying or expounding on well-known doctrines, or even as a pamphlet arguing against views that the writer disagreed with.
None of these positions negate the central message of Jesus.
The "other" writings can be viewed in a number of ways: one is to regard them as a heretical, the product of a mistaken, or in an extreme view, devil-inspired. Another way is to regard them as simply the surviving documents of the losing side. Even within the second choice, there are different possibilities: did the losing side lose because they were wrong, or because the other side had better backing, or bigger numbers?
...and Belle, being down here in 'the basement', helps keep out the riff-raff
I don't necessarily regard it as any less. I just don't find any compelling reason to give it any attention at all (I don't spend a lot of time with the Bhagavagita either, BTW). It's not particularly "accurate" from what I can tell, in historical, biological, astronomical, or physical declarations. It's not internally cohesive. And it's not even a particularly good "read" from my perspective, especially not day in and day out, good grief.
And isn't it still regarded as the sole rule for faith and practice amongst most of Christianity? But we should disregard anything it says if it doesn't pass our own personal "smell" test, yet embrace wholeheartedly the rest of it? Or half-heartedly? I guess I just don't get it. But, then, I never have...
I can understand this line of thought. No particular reason for me to give some of these things thought that don't follow Christiandom either. And as for the rest of it that might be considered part of christianity it would take eons of time and the originals set before you to reference back and forth with the bible in comparison, I would not be able to embrace them whole heartedly because I would never have that kind of time study it even if all materials were given to me which they never would be and I was paid to poor over it with the select few who even get to see these materials in truth.
overwhelming,
Digi
Sorry guys I didn't realize we had a basement. If I did I thought it was the archives not ongoing forums. I hope you don't mind if I hang out now and again ...... would hate to be considered rif raf LOL
Digi, glad to see you found us! Please visit any time! I really like it down here, actually, we usually have civil discussions and even civil disagreements. Why just last week everyone was enjoying beer after agreeing to disagree on a subject. :P
Oak, you're absolutely correct! Thank you for the reminder. ;)
The "other" books don't present so much of a problem if one abandons the position that the bible as we now have it is a translation of documents that were transmitted directly from God to man.
How true that is! The thing that gets me is that those "other" books were widely read, widely discussed and apparently just as important as the other books that DID make it. Why were they completely discarded after they didn't make the cut? Seems a little fishy to me.....
It seems also that many sects and various cultures may have had a foundation of Christianity, but each group worked out the details as it suited their culture, time and individual needs. Not a bad way to go, imo. Seems most of the denominational churches allow for that sort of lifestyle for the most part, too.
I think a lot of the hang up for me has been getting rid of that "God breathed Word" idol that we were taught to worship. It felt sacreligious to not consider the Bible sacred given by revelation scriptures. Perhaps getting past that belief is one of the ways many of us begin to grow and heal. I know, for me, it has been extremely healing and freeing to realize that the Bible is fallible and that it is NOT the end all and be all for my life and the way I'm supposed to live. Like you said, Oak, it's not turning your back on God, although some people may choose to do that as well after giving up the belief that the text is "sacred".
I think the Bible was put together for manipulative, political and financial reasons by those in the power to do so. After all the Bible devotes some 500 verses on prayer, less than 500verses on faith, but over 2000 verses on money and posessions.
Hi Belle..From what I have read the fragments of the dead sea scrolls found do corroborate what is already in the Bible ! Also taking into account the 'harmony of the gospels' etc..when one reads the 'gospel of Thomas' etc..it along with other supposed addendums stick out like the proverbial sore thumb.
Sorry guys I didn't realize we had a basement. If I did I thought it was the archives not ongoing forums. I hope you don't mind if I hang out now and again ...... would hate to be considered rif raf LOL
Digi -- Raf shows up here time and again, but not his *evil twin* Rif. :lol:
I've learned a lot here in the *basement* from others who hold viewpoints very different to mine, yet they made sense so were worth checking out, and learning from.
Civility is common here, as disagreement is also, but discussions of one's personal beliefs are not to be taken lightly, therefore courtesy is usually extended by all to other posters. (IMO)
It's a treat to hear other ideas, and consider them with discussion, rather than arguement.
Hope you do hang out now and again. Always nice to hear a new viewpoint. :)
Oak, you're absolutely correct! Thank you for the reminder. ;)
How true that is! The thing that gets me is that those "other" books were widely read, widely discussed and apparently just as important as the other books that DID make it. Why were they completely discarded after they didn't make the cut? Seems a little fishy to me.....
I think the Bible was put together for manipulative, political and financial reasons by those in the power to do so.
In the early days of Christianity, it would have been fairly easy for competing factions to spring up. Each of these factions would produce their own literature, some from pure motives, some in an effort to discredit those that they disagreed with. As one group became dominant, literature that supported opposing viewpoints would be supressed or destroyed. Again, some of the surpressing might have been done with pure motives, i.e. to guard the church against what it saw as heresy. As the dominant group consolidated it's power, it gained the means and motive to present the "other" books as heretical. Eventually one set of books were canonized as "The Bible", and anything else was viewed as simply not from God.
Not all that surprising.
The compiling of the canon of the new testament took place over a long period of time. Even when it was complete, there was not universal agreeement.
Anyway, that's my view, based on my interpreation of the available facts. Opinions vary.
As the dominant group consolidated it's power, it gained the means and motive to present the "other" books as heretical. Eventually one set of books were canonized as "The Bible", and anything else was viewed as simply not from God.
Not all that surprising.
The compiling of the canon of the new testament took place over a long period of time. Even when it was complete, there was not universal agreeement.
Anyway, that's my view, based on my interpreation of the available facts. Opinions vary.
The earliest-known Christian canon was in circulation approx. between 130 and 144 AD, if not earlier.
It happened to be published by Catholicism's most formidable rival in the "Great Church race", the Marcionite Church. The Marcionite canon comprised of one gospel and ten Pauline epistles, the latter somewhat briefer in length than the versions we encounter in the orthodox canon with which we are most familiar. There are a couple of ways scholars tend to evaluate these canons in comparison:
1.) Marcion removed material from his NT books to accord to his peculiar doctrinal position, a charge made by his critics and too often assumed by scholars; or -
2.) the proto-orthodox text represents an expansion of Marcion's earlier texts - the orthodox movement interpolated much material into these texts to specifically counter Marcion's doctrines.
I have devoted much time and study to exploring this fascinating, latter possibility (perhaps boring many here in the process, I'm sure), as other scholars over the years. Though no Marcionite version of the NT has survived intact, it is possible for us to reconstruct it through the reports of his ancient critics, who cited and alluded to the material in his Bible in order to refute him. Like a puzzle we can piece together a "snapshot"of Marcion's text and in the process, re-assess the material reported as "missing" with Marcion in a whole different perspective, not as material that he excised, but that which was added later by his opponents; material which tends to be quite "anti-marcionite" in its nature.
In addition, the order of Pauline letters differed from that of the orthodox canon. It began with Galatians, not Romans (Bullinger is completely wrong in his assertion that the order of Paul's letters never differed).-
Being that I have to take off for work in a moment, I paste here a sampling of my thoughts (on the topic of "the Newness of the Gospel") on the opening to the orthodox "Romans", which epistle, in my view, represents the most heavily, flagrantly interpolated of all of Paul's epistles.
"The version of To the Romans promoted by orthodoxy was for them the epistolary keystone that underscored and validated their (re-)interpretation of Pauline doctrines in much the same way that Galatians served to the Marcionites. "When in Rome...", how better to celebrate their authority and tradition than by having at the head of their Pauline corpus a fattened epistle dedicated to their beloved city, no less than in their view, the ecclesiastical hub of the true Catholic faith?
Had Marcion been as crass as certain members of the loose federation of churches at Rome, he might have set at the head of his canon an epistle addressed To the Sinopians in honor of his native city, rather than To the Galatians. But to his credit, he didn't.
A distinctive Marcionite belief railed against by all ancient critics from Tertullian to Eznik concerned Marcion's promotion of the "newness" of "the Gospel". The commencement of Romans in the orthodox version was specifically designed to refute the Marcionites in this claim of "newness" (Romans 1:1-5, KJV):
1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
And modern commentators have not hesitated to lend their voice to the orthodox intent behind these passages:
"In these verses, the apostle defines what he means by God's good news [=the Gospel]; First, he says that God promised this [Gospel] by the writers of the Old Testament.
As Denny says, "The gospel is not in principle a new thing, a subversion of the true religion it has hitherto been known to the people of God. God promised it before, through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures"... Thus does Paul at one stroke cut away all objections to his message from the Jews who said he was introducing something new and opposed to the Mosaic economy." -K. Weust, Romans in the Greek New Testament, p.14, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament vol. I., Eerdmans (emphasis mine).
"The Jews" toward which "Paul" is supposedly "cutting away all objections" is a complete dead-ringer for the second-century Marcionites, famously known for claiming that Paul was introducing something new and entirely opposed to the Mosaic economy!
Add to this the piling on of orthodoxy's dogmatic emphasis upon
1) The Old Testament prophets which promised afore the Gospel (Rom.1:1-2);
2) through the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament prophets;
(against Marcion who claimed "Krestus" was new and un-prophesied, and did not enter into the OT creator's realm until "The 15th year of Tiberius Caesar...";
3) made of the seed of David according to the flesh, against Marcion's docetic notion that Krestus possessed a body like an angel, and that he indeed had human flesh, as well as to underscore that Krestus was actually the warlike messiah descended from David and prophesied in the OT;
4) By whom we have received ... apostleship...; notice the conspicuous "we" which deflates Paul's position held among the Marcionites as the one and only true Apostle, who was at odds with the legalistic "false-apostles" (Peter, James and John, cf. Gal.2:9) at Jerusalem. But to orthodoxy, Paul was one among many apostles, and even in subjection to their authority.
Here we are given an explicit outline of the interpolator's intents which he implements in the process of revising and expanding the earlier Marcionite material, recasting "the apostle of the heretics" into a spokesman for the orthodox doctrine of "the faith" (1:7, a term BTW commonly occurring in the deutero-pauline "Pastoral" epistles).
There is perhaps no other Pauline epistle so heavily interpolated than the epistle addressed To the Romans, which revision (approx.150 CE) most likely accompanied the orthodox release of their production of The Book of Acts ending with Paul at Rome, which again, became the seat of orthodox authority. Lengthy sections equivalent to whole chapters were inserted unabashedly into the earlier Marcionite work (e.g., 1:1b-5; 1:20-2:1; 2:15-2:19; 3:1-3:18; 3:23-4:24; chapter 9; 10:18-11:32; 13:1-7; 15:1-16:23).
This new orthodox edition of Romans introduced their Paul, which gave voice to all the doctrines they wanted Paul to promote. And before the ink was barely dry, new epistles were appended (the Pastorals of 1 & II Timothy, Titus) to their Pauline corpus which topped and locked their version of Paul with the "God-breathed" status of "holy writ" against all other versions in circulation. And for any traces of Marcionism they could not entirely eradicate, "Peter" was on hand to assure the readers that there was stuff in Paul "difficult to understand" and liable to be "twisted" (by those pesky Marcionites, of course)."
(thanks Mark) :)
In any event, it's amazing how much one learns when becoming informed as the specific controversies occurring among Christian movements in the second century. These controversies literally shaped the end product which has come down to us.
Oak, it's how the embattled countries wrote history, too, isn't it? The winners always re-wrote history after taking over a country or territory. Why should religions be any different? I agree wholeheartedly with your post.
Danny, VERY COOL!
I have devoted much time and study to exploring this fascinating, latter possibility (perhaps boring many here in the process, I'm sure), as other scholars over the years.
I'm sorry I missed your exploring if you mean that you shared it on here. I just wasn't in a place, yet, to even think about those things. Now I am. :) My ears and eyes are wide open.
It is fascinating to learn about how things were and about those kinds of disputes and such. I wish they were taught in churches instead of being limited to the Bible. They "think" they expand and expound, but they are so limited that people too often miss what Clay talks about.
We get caught up in "chapter and verse" and stuck in what the Bible says that we really do miss that still small voice. Clay you make some excellent points. Thank you.
David, This is where the quote came from: Trivial Trivia
Oak, it's how the embattled countries wrote history, too, isn't it? The winners always re-wrote history after taking over a country or territory. Why should religions be any different? I agree wholeheartedly with your post.
Danny, VERY COOL!
I'm sorry I missed your exploring if you mean that you shared it on here. I just wasn't in a place, yet, to even think about those things. Now I am. :) My ears and eyes are wide open.
It is fascinating to learn about how things were and about those kinds of disputes and such. I wish they were taught in churches instead of being limited to the Bible. They "think" they expand and expound, but they are so limited that people too often miss what Clay talks about.
We get caught up in "chapter and verse" and stuck in what the Bible says that we really do miss that still small voice. Clay you make some excellent points. Thank you.
David, This is where the quote came from: Trivial Trivia
Belle,
I am very happy for you that you believe you are in a place where you're ready to start exploring some spirituality again. That's an important point, imho, of healing and moving on with your life. So hat's off to you.
Danny and I are usually on different ends of the doctrinal wars...he being a Marcionite and me being a Catholic...however, we manage to be able to keep good humor and respect for each other...one thing we have in common is a respect for Patristic writings...
All I can say in a recommendation for you is to check it ALL out in your hunt. It never ceases to amaze me where I had limited my understanding of God and ability to worship Him because of some preconceived notion gotten through TWI. A lot of time's it is sneaky the prejudices that you will have almost subconciously. That can limit you...
The biggest thing is to remember that the purpose of this all is to help us worship God. He needs to be the end of this. The Bible was given to us as a tool for us to know Him and to help us worship Him. But He is the end of it. Beyond all the doctrinal stuff, the most important thing is to grow in love for Him and for each other. Doctrine should teach you how best to do that. I can't speak for ANYBODY else here, but that is my ultimate goal in all of this minutia.
I second Mark's excellent advice concerning the incredible wealth of information and insight found in the Patristic writings - no less than my respect for the wealth of insight offered through his faith (and from a many others here, from their respective beliefs, faiths, convictions and experiences as well).
Though I've immersed myself in the topic of Roman Catholicism's rival sister Church (sisters can be fiercely competitive - I know, because I have 3 of them, lol) - in a number of cases it may not be possible to entirely understand one without the other. In weighing any possible interpolation (or subtraction or alteration) -it's not simply with the aim of the old Wierwillian "scratch it out" and be gone with it; I'm not satisfied until exploring and trying to truly understand the possible reasons behind the development of an interpolation (or subtraction or alteration). Which takes putting oneself in the other guy's shoes. This is where history - and even faith - comes to life. Where juggling foreign dictionaries is not sufficient by itself, but rather, the contemplation of whole various spiritual ideas, where they agree and where they conflict, in both past and present. Clayton is absolutely right that that which is within becomes clarified by time.
I'm delighted you've joined us here in the subterranean catacombs of GS (lol).
I am seeing all types of discussions here on scrolls, writings, tablets etc.....
Who here has actually seen these written works in full? Are they posted in full somewhere ? or are theologians and scientists keeping them under lock and key? Have they even been completely translated?
I really am just curious ......... I know the bible has been in possession for hundreds of years to the public and thus we use it and the materials to research it.
I am by no means condemning these materials .......... but neither do I support them. How do I get my copy to start research if thats what I desired?
I am seeing all types of discussions here on scrolls, writings, tablets etc.....
Who here has actually seen these written works in full? Are they posted in full somewhere ? or are theologians and scientists keeping them under lock and key? Have they even been completely translated?
I really am just curious ......... I know the bible has been in possession for hundreds of years to the public and thus we use it and the materials to research it.
I am by no means condemning these materials .......... but neither do I support them. How do I get my copy to start research if thats what I desired?
The Nag Hammadi scrolls were discovered in the 1940's but took a long time before being researched because the guy who found them first didn't realize they were valuable and his mom used them to start fires at their home. THEN, he thought they might be vauable and dangerous to have, so he hid them. THEN he ended up selling them to scientists and collectors but there was a heated battle about who should have possession of them because of their value - the country where they were found, Egypt, thought they should have possession and sole control over them, but scientists and scholars wanted to translate and research them. It was a full 25+ years before they were translated and in any way made available to the public.
They have now been put online and you can find them at: Nag Hammadi Text. Elaine Pagels is a very well-renowned scholar and intimately familiar with the scrolls. She has written "The Gnostic Gospels" and "The Origin of Satan" which uses her knowledge and research of the scrolls. Our dear poster, Bob, introduced me to Pagels. :)
I believe a lot of the same troubles accompanied the excavation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but I can't be sure.
The reason most people in churches don't know about these is, for one reason, churches generally don't want people to know about them. They contradict some of the things in the Bible and they raise quite a few questions. Also, a lot of church leaders themselves either aren't aware or knowledgeable enough to discuss them. I think, too, that most people have limited themselves to the Bible and, like we did in TWI, to church-sanctioned research material. These scrolls do not necessarily agree with mainstream Christianity.
The Discovery Channel does a great job, imo, of providing documentaries that examine all kind of beliefs, religions and the culture and political influences of ancient times and how that affected modern religions such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc...
I found this site on the Dead Sea Scrolls and parts of them can be read here.... Dead Sea Scroll Library
I know very little and am only just beginning to read, question and study these things, but this is what I know so far. I'm sure if I'm wrong on something that one of our scholars here will be able to correct me. Tis very interesting to me. :) I hope that helps answer your questions somewhat.
Thanks for the references guys. I have seen some of these before, but none of them are completely translated or completely compiled, there are a great many gaps in translation, even the ones that show the so called words of Jesus himself have translation gaps. A complete compilation ......... doesn't mean great spaces of blanks where the translations have not or can not be completed.
The son of [ ....... oops ....] said [ ....oops can't translate these words...] is important. NOT what I call complete
There are quite a few references to theologians compilations and there theories on the subjects but that is not the Word. I really try not to read there theories of what these so callled "lost translations" are by other theologians.
I really do believe that to add or take away from is a dangerous game. Gods word is crucial to us because it is our link to him ....... to know his word is to know him.
I am not saying yet again that these compilations aren't true, maybe God did preserve them like the rest of the word as we know it, then again maybe it was preserved by other means to throw us off.
Re:"I really do believe that to add or take away from is a dangerous game. Gods word is crucial to us because it is our link to him ....... to know his word is to know him."
I guess I could go along with that if The Bible had fallen - complete and unabridged in King Jame's English - directly from heaven. But the truth of how we got that "wonderful matchless Word" is a LOT less edifying.
I think that the reason some of those scrolls aren't completely translated is because of the time it takes to do so and the eagerness to get out to the public what they HAVE figured out so far. Also, the scrolls weren't in pristine condition and, as in the case of the Nag Hammadi, they were beside a stove and being used to start fires, so some parts were possibly destroyed during that time.
Others are completely translated. Many have been studied and have documentation and proof that they were widely distributed and read during the early years of Christianity. The thing that I keep in mind is that the Bible was put together by politicians and politically concerned church leaders of the time. They voted on what was kept and what was tossed, regardless of the popularity and understood value of the particular scrolls/books.
Most of the books of the Bible that we have always taken forgranted as being given by revelation were actually known to NOT be by revelation, nor were they written by the author ascribed to them in the Bible. Scholars couldn't just say, "we don't know who wrote this" and have it carry any weight or authority. Whereas some of the books that were left out are known to be written by respected people in early Christianity, such as John, Mary of Magdalene, etc...
Following times of wars the victors re-write history and the earliest days are no exception. BUT, one has to acknowledge this from a logical, factual perspective and that can be scary and distasteful to someone who has always put the Bible on a pedestal as the end all and be all of their beliefs.
What gets my goat is that many books that weren't included in the Bible were revered and regarded as just as important, if not moreso, than some of the books that DID make it into the Bible. They were read, studied and believed by many. Why has Christianity suppressed these books and why weren't we given them with the ability to make up our own minds? Why were others allowed so much power of the information we were to have? Why? Because THEY wanted to control what we believed; what we did; how we lived. Not really much different than the things that we experienced in the TWI I was in. Information control.
The Apocalypse of Peter or the Apocalypse of James (I can't remember which one) says that every person - every single individual will eventually be saved - no matter how awful they were in their life. Everyone repents and is forgiven by God and welcomed into the kingdom. Fits with the parable of the farmer who paid all workers on his property the same regardless of how long they worked that day, doesn't it? Fits more appropriately with the all-loving, all knowing, all caring God we like to believe exists, does it not?
Leadership did not want people to read, know and believe those things. They said it would give people license to live however they choose to live with no fear of eternal consequences. Control - Manipulation - Cult-like decisions by people who have no right to do so! We don't use God's forgiving nature as license to sin, but to hide truths like this from us remove the ability to make an informed decision. Would you want to lie to people to get them to do what they should be doing according to their own conscience? The leadership who pick and choose what goes into the Bible did - so far as I can tell.
Sorry if this sounds harsh. It's not directed at you. I just get so worked up and so peeved that I was so deceived and so stupid that I was intimidated into ignoring and not looking into these things earlier because TWI said it was a waste of time. I've always been interested in reading the Dead Sea Scrolls and fascinated with the history of religions, but TWI forbid us from reading non-TWI publications and kept us so busy that we couldn't.
George ......... I am not saying that the current bibles on the market are necessarily the complete truth either .......... what is King James on now its 6th version? I just believe its the closest we have to work with along with the research materials available for it.
I own many many different bibles and to be honest I put them all in a box for 2 years and did not look at a one of them during that time.
But I still don't want to be the one adding to or taking away from the word that we have. Thats why I am no longer teaching the word to others. We study here at home and have fellowship here at home with our own family. My husband and myself only teach our children at this point. I still work mainly with my King James but also take many other bibles into consideration.
We do have discussions with other people regarding the word, but a discussion vs teaching something from a biblical standpoint are not the same.
I think that the reason some of those scrolls aren't completely translated is because of the time it takes to do so and the eagerness to get out to the public what they HAVE figured out so far. Also, the scrolls weren't in pristine condition and, as in the case of the Nag Hammadi, they were beside a stove and being used to start fires, so some parts were possibly destroyed during that time.
Others are completely translated. Many have been studied and have documentation and proof that they were widely distributed and read during the early years of Christianity. The thing that I keep in mind is that the Bible was put together by politicians and politically concerned church leaders of the time. They voted on what was kept and what was tossed, regardless of the popularity and understood value of the particular scrolls/books.
Most of the books of the Bible that we have always taken forgranted as being given by revelation were actually known to NOT be by revelation, nor were they written by the author ascribed to them in the Bible. Scholars couldn't just say, "we don't know who wrote this" and have it carry any weight or authority. Whereas some of the books that were left out are known to be written by respected people in early Christianity, such as John, Mary of Magdalene, etc...
Following times of wars the victors re-write history and the earliest days are no exception. BUT, one has to acknowledge this from a logical, factual perspective and that can be scary and distasteful to someone who has always put the Bible on a pedestal as the end all and be all of their beliefs.
What gets my goat is that many books that weren't included in the Bible were revered and regarded as just as important, if not moreso, than some of the books that DID make it into the Bible. They were read, studied and believed by many. Why has Christianity suppressed these books and why weren't we given them with the ability to make up our own minds? Why were others allowed so much power of the information we were to have? Why? Because THEY wanted to control what we believed; what we did; how we lived. Not really much different than the things that we experienced in the TWI I was in. Information control.
The Apocalypse of Peter or the Apocalypse of James (I can't remember which one) says that every person - every single individual will eventually be saved - no matter how awful they were in their life. Everyone repents and is forgiven by God and welcomed into the kingdom. Fits with the parable of the farmer who paid all workers on his property the same regardless of how long they worked that day, doesn't it? Fits more appropriately with the all-loving, all knowing, all caring God we like to believe exists, does it not?
Leadership did not want people to read, know and believe those things. They said it would give people license to live however they choose to live with no fear of eternal consequences. Control - Manipulation - Cult-like decisions by people who have no right to do so! We don't use God's forgiving nature as license to sin, but to hide truths like this from us remove the ability to make an informed decision. Would you want to lie to people to get them to do what they should be doing according to their own conscience? The leadership who pick and choose what goes into the Bible did - so far as I can tell.
Sorry if this sounds harsh. It's not directed at you. I just get so worked up and so peeved that I was so deceived and so stupid that I was intimidated into ignoring and not looking into these things earlier because TWI said it was a waste of time. I've always been interested in reading the Dead Sea Scrolls and fascinated with the history of religions, but TWI forbid us from reading non-TWI publications and kept us so busy that we couldn't.
Belle,
with due respect, before you start formulating conclusions, I suggest you get a little better informed about the facts of how the canon of scripture was formulated.
Your statement that the canon was formulated by politicians is simply unsupportable (or if it is, I challenge you to support it). The Canon was formed in a period of honing down that took several hundred years. Although the Council of Hippo (393) formalized the Canon of the NT, it was more an affirmation of what was accepted. To be sure, heterodox books, including many gnostic texts, were put off and suppressed; however, this was not an "at one time" event...it was more of a process.
As an example, the tetramorph Gospel was clearly identified as early as the second century. This was documented (not decreed) by the Father of the Church Iraneus, in his document Adversus Haereses (III, 1)
1. We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles. For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
Keep in mind that this was written over 200 years prior to the Council of Hippo. You will find that the epistles were largely identified in a similar fashion, over time. Hippo simply codified what was already known. Also, keep in mind that Christianity was not declared the state religion of Rome until 388, under Emporer Theodosius I. Therefore, political power is highly unlikely to be Iraneus' motive in writing Adversus Haereses. Theological Orthodoxy (against, primarily Marcionites) is a likely motive, though.
No offense, I am not hardly trying to get you to stop looking at or considering gnostic or other apocryphal/pseudographical texts, but before dismissing the Canon as a political maneuver to cut the legs maintain power. I would agree that the exclusion of non-canocial texts was a succession of parochial manuevers to maintain orthodoxy; however, that is significantly different than a political manuever.
Now, if you can provide some sources to back up the political intrigue (as opposed to parochial orthodoxy, as I freely will concede), I am more than willing to listen.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
7
12
10
10
Popular Days
Nov 30
23
Dec 12
11
Dec 11
8
Dec 7
5
Top Posters In This Topic
TheInvisibleDan 7 posts
Belle 12 posts
Digitalis 10 posts
markomalley 10 posts
Popular Days
Nov 30 2005
23 posts
Dec 12 2005
11 posts
Dec 11 2005
8 posts
Dec 7 2005
5 posts
Oakspear
The "other" books don't present so much of a problem if one abandons the position that the bible as we now have it is a translation of documents that were transmitted directly from God to man.
I'm not talking about abandoning Christianity, or any specific belief, by the way, other than the belief that the bible is 'god-breathed', that it is inerrant, and that it fits 'like a hand in a glove'.
It certainly is possible to view each of the various books within the bible as the personal experience of the individual writer, or a treatise clarifying or expounding on well-known doctrines, or even as a pamphlet arguing against views that the writer disagreed with.
None of these positions negate the central message of Jesus.
The "other" writings can be viewed in a number of ways: one is to regard them as a heretical, the product of a mistaken, or in an extreme view, devil-inspired. Another way is to regard them as simply the surviving documents of the losing side. Even within the second choice, there are different possibilities: did the losing side lose because they were wrong, or because the other side had better backing, or bigger numbers?
...and Belle, being down here in 'the basement', helps keep out the riff-raff
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Digitalis
George said:
I can understand this line of thought. No particular reason for me to give some of these things thought that don't follow Christiandom either. And as for the rest of it that might be considered part of christianity it would take eons of time and the originals set before you to reference back and forth with the bible in comparison, I would not be able to embrace them whole heartedly because I would never have that kind of time study it even if all materials were given to me which they never would be and I was paid to poor over it with the select few who even get to see these materials in truth.
overwhelming,
Digi
Sorry guys I didn't realize we had a basement. If I did I thought it was the archives not ongoing forums. I hope you don't mind if I hang out now and again ...... would hate to be considered rif raf LOL
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
i don't think there is any thing that has been printed in the past that would
be helpful to attaining a godly relationship directly
reference material is all it is, including the bible
it's good to know these references but not necessary to salvation
the more we know the more we can communicate to others
and more that can come to mind as the eyes see
divine inspiration comes from the living here and now
somehow the writers of old have been held in higher esteem then
then those that write now and all can be considered
there is only one that can put things together
on a continuing living growing knowing
the divine inspiration that is on record was for then and can be understood
in light of divine inspiration now, for it's the here and now that lives
the being of self has it's own being of selfless inspiration and enlightenment
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Digi, glad to see you found us! Please visit any time! I really like it down here, actually, we usually have civil discussions and even civil disagreements. Why just last week everyone was enjoying beer after agreeing to disagree on a subject. :P
Oak, you're absolutely correct! Thank you for the reminder. ;)
How true that is! The thing that gets me is that those "other" books were widely read, widely discussed and apparently just as important as the other books that DID make it. Why were they completely discarded after they didn't make the cut? Seems a little fishy to me.....
It seems also that many sects and various cultures may have had a foundation of Christianity, but each group worked out the details as it suited their culture, time and individual needs. Not a bad way to go, imo. Seems most of the denominational churches allow for that sort of lifestyle for the most part, too.
I think a lot of the hang up for me has been getting rid of that "God breathed Word" idol that we were taught to worship. It felt sacreligious to not consider the Bible sacred given by revelation scriptures. Perhaps getting past that belief is one of the ways many of us begin to grow and heal. I know, for me, it has been extremely healing and freeing to realize that the Bible is fallible and that it is NOT the end all and be all for my life and the way I'm supposed to live. Like you said, Oak, it's not turning your back on God, although some people may choose to do that as well after giving up the belief that the text is "sacred".
I think the Bible was put together for manipulative, political and financial reasons by those in the power to do so. After all the Bible devotes some 500 verses on prayer, less than 500verses on faith, but over 2000 verses on money and posessions.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Allan
Hi Belle..From what I have read the fragments of the dead sea scrolls found do corroborate what is already in the Bible ! Also taking into account the 'harmony of the gospels' etc..when one reads the 'gospel of Thomas' etc..it along with other supposed addendums stick out like the proverbial sore thumb.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Belle -- where did you get these statistics from??
(something seems skewed here).
David
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Digi -- Raf shows up here time and again, but not his *evil twin* Rif. :lol:
I've learned a lot here in the *basement* from others who hold viewpoints very different to mine, yet they made sense so were worth checking out, and learning from.
Civility is common here, as disagreement is also, but discussions of one's personal beliefs are not to be taken lightly, therefore courtesy is usually extended by all to other posters. (IMO)
It's a treat to hear other ideas, and consider them with discussion, rather than arguement.
Hope you do hang out now and again. Always nice to hear a new viewpoint. :)
David
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Not all that surprising.
The compiling of the canon of the new testament took place over a long period of time. Even when it was complete, there was not universal agreeement.
Anyway, that's my view, based on my interpreation of the available facts. Opinions vary.
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
'Oakspear' wrote:
The earliest-known Christian canon was in circulation approx. between 130 and 144 AD, if not earlier.
It happened to be published by Catholicism's most formidable rival in the "Great Church race", the Marcionite Church. The Marcionite canon comprised of one gospel and ten Pauline epistles, the latter somewhat briefer in length than the versions we encounter in the orthodox canon with which we are most familiar. There are a couple of ways scholars tend to evaluate these canons in comparison:
1.) Marcion removed material from his NT books to accord to his peculiar doctrinal position, a charge made by his critics and too often assumed by scholars; or -
2.) the proto-orthodox text represents an expansion of Marcion's earlier texts - the orthodox movement interpolated much material into these texts to specifically counter Marcion's doctrines.
I have devoted much time and study to exploring this fascinating, latter possibility (perhaps boring many here in the process, I'm sure), as other scholars over the years. Though no Marcionite version of the NT has survived intact, it is possible for us to reconstruct it through the reports of his ancient critics, who cited and alluded to the material in his Bible in order to refute him. Like a puzzle we can piece together a "snapshot"of Marcion's text and in the process, re-assess the material reported as "missing" with Marcion in a whole different perspective, not as material that he excised, but that which was added later by his opponents; material which tends to be quite "anti-marcionite" in its nature.
In addition, the order of Pauline letters differed from that of the orthodox canon. It began with Galatians, not Romans (Bullinger is completely wrong in his assertion that the order of Paul's letters never differed).-
Being that I have to take off for work in a moment, I paste here a sampling of my thoughts (on the topic of "the Newness of the Gospel") on the opening to the orthodox "Romans", which epistle, in my view, represents the most heavily, flagrantly interpolated of all of Paul's epistles.
"The version of To the Romans promoted by orthodoxy was for them the epistolary keystone that underscored and validated their (re-)interpretation of Pauline doctrines in much the same way that Galatians served to the Marcionites. "When in Rome...", how better to celebrate their authority and tradition than by having at the head of their Pauline corpus a fattened epistle dedicated to their beloved city, no less than in their view, the ecclesiastical hub of the true Catholic faith?
Had Marcion been as crass as certain members of the loose federation of churches at Rome, he might have set at the head of his canon an epistle addressed To the Sinopians in honor of his native city, rather than To the Galatians. But to his credit, he didn't.
A distinctive Marcionite belief railed against by all ancient critics from Tertullian to Eznik concerned Marcion's promotion of the "newness" of "the Gospel". The commencement of Romans in the orthodox version was specifically designed to refute the Marcionites in this claim of "newness" (Romans 1:1-5, KJV):
1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:
And modern commentators have not hesitated to lend their voice to the orthodox intent behind these passages:
"In these verses, the apostle defines what he means by God's good news [=the Gospel]; First, he says that God promised this [Gospel] by the writers of the Old Testament.
As Denny says, "The gospel is not in principle a new thing, a subversion of the true religion it has hitherto been known to the people of God. God promised it before, through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures"... Thus does Paul at one stroke cut away all objections to his message from the Jews who said he was introducing something new and opposed to the Mosaic economy." -K. Weust, Romans in the Greek New Testament, p.14, Word Studies in the Greek New Testament vol. I., Eerdmans (emphasis mine).
"The Jews" toward which "Paul" is supposedly "cutting away all objections" is a complete dead-ringer for the second-century Marcionites, famously known for claiming that Paul was introducing something new and entirely opposed to the Mosaic economy!
Add to this the piling on of orthodoxy's dogmatic emphasis upon
1) The Old Testament prophets which promised afore the Gospel (Rom.1:1-2);
2) through the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament prophets;
(against Marcion who claimed "Krestus" was new and un-prophesied, and did not enter into the OT creator's realm until "The 15th year of Tiberius Caesar...";
3) made of the seed of David according to the flesh, against Marcion's docetic notion that Krestus possessed a body like an angel, and that he indeed had human flesh, as well as to underscore that Krestus was actually the warlike messiah descended from David and prophesied in the OT;
4) By whom we have received ... apostleship...; notice the conspicuous "we" which deflates Paul's position held among the Marcionites as the one and only true Apostle, who was at odds with the legalistic "false-apostles" (Peter, James and John, cf. Gal.2:9) at Jerusalem. But to orthodoxy, Paul was one among many apostles, and even in subjection to their authority.
Here we are given an explicit outline of the interpolator's intents which he implements in the process of revising and expanding the earlier Marcionite material, recasting "the apostle of the heretics" into a spokesman for the orthodox doctrine of "the faith" (1:7, a term BTW commonly occurring in the deutero-pauline "Pastoral" epistles).
There is perhaps no other Pauline epistle so heavily interpolated than the epistle addressed To the Romans, which revision (approx.150 CE) most likely accompanied the orthodox release of their production of The Book of Acts ending with Paul at Rome, which again, became the seat of orthodox authority. Lengthy sections equivalent to whole chapters were inserted unabashedly into the earlier Marcionite work (e.g., 1:1b-5; 1:20-2:1; 2:15-2:19; 3:1-3:18; 3:23-4:24; chapter 9; 10:18-11:32; 13:1-7; 15:1-16:23).
This new orthodox edition of Romans introduced their Paul, which gave voice to all the doctrines they wanted Paul to promote. And before the ink was barely dry, new epistles were appended (the Pastorals of 1 & II Timothy, Titus) to their Pauline corpus which topped and locked their version of Paul with the "God-breathed" status of "holy writ" against all other versions in circulation. And for any traces of Marcionism they could not entirely eradicate, "Peter" was on hand to assure the readers that there was stuff in Paul "difficult to understand" and liable to be "twisted" (by those pesky Marcionites, of course)."
(thanks Mark) :)
In any event, it's amazing how much one learns when becoming informed as the specific controversies occurring among Christian movements in the second century. These controversies literally shaped the end product which has come down to us.
Well, off to work I go.
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
Cool Danny,
fortunately it's that which lies within that can clarify with time.
and prove what is good and acceptable and perfect
the will of God tailored to now and where we are
sorting thru texts leaves one quite bewildered
but God is a personal God
and will show what is needed when it is needed
the quietness of the heart
the listening ear
the seeing eye
approaching the un approachable
an act of the spirit within every person
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Oak, it's how the embattled countries wrote history, too, isn't it? The winners always re-wrote history after taking over a country or territory. Why should religions be any different? I agree wholeheartedly with your post.
Danny, VERY COOL!
I'm sorry I missed your exploring if you mean that you shared it on here. I just wasn't in a place, yet, to even think about those things. Now I am. :) My ears and eyes are wide open.
It is fascinating to learn about how things were and about those kinds of disputes and such. I wish they were taught in churches instead of being limited to the Bible. They "think" they expand and expound, but they are so limited that people too often miss what Clay talks about.
We get caught up in "chapter and verse" and stuck in what the Bible says that we really do miss that still small voice. Clay you make some excellent points. Thank you.
David, This is where the quote came from: Trivial Trivia
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Belle,
I am very happy for you that you believe you are in a place where you're ready to start exploring some spirituality again. That's an important point, imho, of healing and moving on with your life. So hat's off to you.
Danny and I are usually on different ends of the doctrinal wars...he being a Marcionite and me being a Catholic...however, we manage to be able to keep good humor and respect for each other...one thing we have in common is a respect for Patristic writings...
All I can say in a recommendation for you is to check it ALL out in your hunt. It never ceases to amaze me where I had limited my understanding of God and ability to worship Him because of some preconceived notion gotten through TWI. A lot of time's it is sneaky the prejudices that you will have almost subconciously. That can limit you...
The biggest thing is to remember that the purpose of this all is to help us worship God. He needs to be the end of this. The Bible was given to us as a tool for us to know Him and to help us worship Him. But He is the end of it. Beyond all the doctrinal stuff, the most important thing is to grow in love for Him and for each other. Doctrine should teach you how best to do that. I can't speak for ANYBODY else here, but that is my ultimate goal in all of this minutia.
Anyway, good luck with it!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Belle,
I second Mark's excellent advice concerning the incredible wealth of information and insight found in the Patristic writings - no less than my respect for the wealth of insight offered through his faith (and from a many others here, from their respective beliefs, faiths, convictions and experiences as well).
Though I've immersed myself in the topic of Roman Catholicism's rival sister Church (sisters can be fiercely competitive - I know, because I have 3 of them, lol) - in a number of cases it may not be possible to entirely understand one without the other. In weighing any possible interpolation (or subtraction or alteration) -it's not simply with the aim of the old Wierwillian "scratch it out" and be gone with it; I'm not satisfied until exploring and trying to truly understand the possible reasons behind the development of an interpolation (or subtraction or alteration). Which takes putting oneself in the other guy's shoes. This is where history - and even faith - comes to life. Where juggling foreign dictionaries is not sufficient by itself, but rather, the contemplation of whole various spiritual ideas, where they agree and where they conflict, in both past and present. Clayton is absolutely right that that which is within becomes clarified by time.
I'm delighted you've joined us here in the subterranean catacombs of GS (lol).
Danny
Edited by TheInvisibleDanLink to comment
Share on other sites
Digitalis
I am seeing all types of discussions here on scrolls, writings, tablets etc.....
Who here has actually seen these written works in full? Are they posted in full somewhere ? or are theologians and scientists keeping them under lock and key? Have they even been completely translated?
I really am just curious ......... I know the bible has been in possession for hundreds of years to the public and thus we use it and the materials to research it.
I am by no means condemning these materials .......... but neither do I support them. How do I get my copy to start research if thats what I desired?
Digi
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
If you look at post #22 on this thread (http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?s=&showtopic=8370&view=findpost&p=199584), you will fin a list of four sites that I use and a review of each.
Hope that helps
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Digi,
The Nag Hammadi scrolls were discovered in the 1940's but took a long time before being researched because the guy who found them first didn't realize they were valuable and his mom used them to start fires at their home. THEN, he thought they might be vauable and dangerous to have, so he hid them. THEN he ended up selling them to scientists and collectors but there was a heated battle about who should have possession of them because of their value - the country where they were found, Egypt, thought they should have possession and sole control over them, but scientists and scholars wanted to translate and research them. It was a full 25+ years before they were translated and in any way made available to the public.
They have now been put online and you can find them at: Nag Hammadi Text. Elaine Pagels is a very well-renowned scholar and intimately familiar with the scrolls. She has written "The Gnostic Gospels" and "The Origin of Satan" which uses her knowledge and research of the scrolls. Our dear poster, Bob, introduced me to Pagels. :)
I believe a lot of the same troubles accompanied the excavation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, but I can't be sure.
The reason most people in churches don't know about these is, for one reason, churches generally don't want people to know about them. They contradict some of the things in the Bible and they raise quite a few questions. Also, a lot of church leaders themselves either aren't aware or knowledgeable enough to discuss them. I think, too, that most people have limited themselves to the Bible and, like we did in TWI, to church-sanctioned research material. These scrolls do not necessarily agree with mainstream Christianity.
The Discovery Channel does a great job, imo, of providing documentaries that examine all kind of beliefs, religions and the culture and political influences of ancient times and how that affected modern religions such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc...
I found this site on the Dead Sea Scrolls and parts of them can be read here.... Dead Sea Scroll Library
I know very little and am only just beginning to read, question and study these things, but this is what I know so far. I'm sure if I'm wrong on something that one of our scholars here will be able to correct me. Tis very interesting to me. :) I hope that helps answer your questions somewhat.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Digitalis
Thanks for the references guys. I have seen some of these before, but none of them are completely translated or completely compiled, there are a great many gaps in translation, even the ones that show the so called words of Jesus himself have translation gaps. A complete compilation ......... doesn't mean great spaces of blanks where the translations have not or can not be completed.
The son of [ ....... oops ....] said [ ....oops can't translate these words...] is important. NOT what I call complete
There are quite a few references to theologians compilations and there theories on the subjects but that is not the Word. I really try not to read there theories of what these so callled "lost translations" are by other theologians.
I really do believe that to add or take away from is a dangerous game. Gods word is crucial to us because it is our link to him ....... to know his word is to know him.
I am not saying yet again that these compilations aren't true, maybe God did preserve them like the rest of the word as we know it, then again maybe it was preserved by other means to throw us off.
Digi
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
Digi,
Re:"I really do believe that to add or take away from is a dangerous game. Gods word is crucial to us because it is our link to him ....... to know his word is to know him."
I guess I could go along with that if The Bible had fallen - complete and unabridged in King Jame's English - directly from heaven. But the truth of how we got that "wonderful matchless Word" is a LOT less edifying.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
It lies in the heart George, that noone can see or take away
The word of God is preserved in the heart
which noone can touch
Link to comment
Share on other sites
George Aar
And of course, anything we believe in our heart must be true. (well, unless it contradicts what you
believe in your heart, in which case, I guess YOU must be right, huh?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CM
No that ain't it and you know i wouldn't agree to that.
the word of life, the living word
It sits there like a seed - dead till more seed joins it.
any farmer knows that one seed alone won't grow and produce fruit.
there has to be others to accompany it and produce fruit.
the challenge is gettin the seed in good ground.
so listening to what is said and seeing if it jives with you,
and sparks that spirit that is in every person...every person
what i "believe" and what you "believe"
may be closer then you think
the seed of the spoken word and the seed of christ
a mixture that is one of a kind for each person
of course this can be avoided and not sought after
especially after being burned by the way
but it's there and all will make it to "heaven"
cuz the Lord will see to it
he paid the admission ticket for everyone-no exceptions
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Belle
Digi,
I think that the reason some of those scrolls aren't completely translated is because of the time it takes to do so and the eagerness to get out to the public what they HAVE figured out so far. Also, the scrolls weren't in pristine condition and, as in the case of the Nag Hammadi, they were beside a stove and being used to start fires, so some parts were possibly destroyed during that time.
Others are completely translated. Many have been studied and have documentation and proof that they were widely distributed and read during the early years of Christianity. The thing that I keep in mind is that the Bible was put together by politicians and politically concerned church leaders of the time. They voted on what was kept and what was tossed, regardless of the popularity and understood value of the particular scrolls/books.
Most of the books of the Bible that we have always taken forgranted as being given by revelation were actually known to NOT be by revelation, nor were they written by the author ascribed to them in the Bible. Scholars couldn't just say, "we don't know who wrote this" and have it carry any weight or authority. Whereas some of the books that were left out are known to be written by respected people in early Christianity, such as John, Mary of Magdalene, etc...
Following times of wars the victors re-write history and the earliest days are no exception. BUT, one has to acknowledge this from a logical, factual perspective and that can be scary and distasteful to someone who has always put the Bible on a pedestal as the end all and be all of their beliefs.
What gets my goat is that many books that weren't included in the Bible were revered and regarded as just as important, if not moreso, than some of the books that DID make it into the Bible. They were read, studied and believed by many. Why has Christianity suppressed these books and why weren't we given them with the ability to make up our own minds? Why were others allowed so much power of the information we were to have? Why? Because THEY wanted to control what we believed; what we did; how we lived.
Not really much different than the things that we experienced in the TWI I was in. Information control.
The Apocalypse of Peter or the Apocalypse of James (I can't remember which one) says that every person - every single individual will eventually be saved - no matter how awful they were in their life. Everyone repents and is forgiven by God and welcomed into the kingdom. Fits with the parable of the farmer who paid all workers on his property the same regardless of how long they worked that day, doesn't it? Fits more appropriately with the all-loving, all knowing, all caring God we like to believe exists, does it not?
Leadership did not want people to read, know and believe those things. They said it would give people license to live however they choose to live with no fear of eternal consequences. Control - Manipulation - Cult-like decisions by people who have no right to do so! We don't use God's forgiving nature as license to sin, but to hide truths like this from us remove the ability to make an informed decision. Would you want to lie to people to get them to do what they should be doing according to their own conscience? The leadership who pick and choose what goes into the Bible did - so far as I can tell.
Sorry if this sounds harsh. It's not directed at you. I just get so worked up and so peeved that I was so deceived and so stupid that I was intimidated into ignoring and not looking into these things earlier because TWI said it was a waste of time. I've always been interested in reading the Dead Sea Scrolls and fascinated with the history of religions, but TWI forbid us from reading non-TWI publications and kept us so busy that we couldn't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Digitalis
George ......... I am not saying that the current bibles on the market are necessarily the complete truth either .......... what is King James on now its 6th version? I just believe its the closest we have to work with along with the research materials available for it.
I own many many different bibles and to be honest I put them all in a box for 2 years and did not look at a one of them during that time.
But I still don't want to be the one adding to or taking away from the word that we have. Thats why I am no longer teaching the word to others. We study here at home and have fellowship here at home with our own family. My husband and myself only teach our children at this point. I still work mainly with my King James but also take many other bibles into consideration.
We do have discussions with other people regarding the word, but a discussion vs teaching something from a biblical standpoint are not the same.
Digi
Link to comment
Share on other sites
markomalley
Belle,
with due respect, before you start formulating conclusions, I suggest you get a little better informed about the facts of how the canon of scripture was formulated.
Your statement that the canon was formulated by politicians is simply unsupportable (or if it is, I challenge you to support it). The Canon was formed in a period of honing down that took several hundred years. Although the Council of Hippo (393) formalized the Canon of the NT, it was more an affirmation of what was accepted. To be sure, heterodox books, including many gnostic texts, were put off and suppressed; however, this was not an "at one time" event...it was more of a process.
As an example, the tetramorph Gospel was clearly identified as early as the second century. This was documented (not decreed) by the Father of the Church Iraneus, in his document Adversus Haereses (III, 1)
Keep in mind that this was written over 200 years prior to the Council of Hippo. You will find that the epistles were largely identified in a similar fashion, over time. Hippo simply codified what was already known. Also, keep in mind that Christianity was not declared the state religion of Rome until 388, under Emporer Theodosius I. Therefore, political power is highly unlikely to be Iraneus' motive in writing Adversus Haereses. Theological Orthodoxy (against, primarily Marcionites) is a likely motive, though.
No offense, I am not hardly trying to get you to stop looking at or considering gnostic or other apocryphal/pseudographical texts, but before dismissing the Canon as a political maneuver to cut the legs maintain power. I would agree that the exclusion of non-canocial texts was a succession of parochial manuevers to maintain orthodoxy; however, that is significantly different than a political manuever.
Now, if you can provide some sources to back up the political intrigue (as opposed to parochial orthodoxy, as I freely will concede), I am more than willing to listen.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.