There's more than one Gospel missing from the Protestant Bible. Each of the major branches of the Christian church--Catholic, Orthodox, Ethiopian, Syrian, Protestant, etc.--has their own selection of books. The Ethiopian canon is the broadest, and for example, includes the Shepherd of Hermas, which interestingly is also present in our oldest version of the Bible mentioned above (the Codex Sinaiticus.) The Syrians are more conservative and reject some of the later additions like Revelation.
See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ for a fairly comprehensive list of gospels, acts, apocalypses, and epistles.
Arguing with you is an exercise in futility. You are the most closed-minded person on these forums. You think you have all the answers and NOTHING will change your mind. You'd never even honestly consider another viewpoint. You are only here to satisfy your need to feel intellectual because you read so many books. You'll take any side on an issue that makes you appear like you have considered it with a superior intellect to the majority. You'll read dozens of papers/articles/books on a subject so you can denigrate any argument by simply saying 'well, this guy said differently in his article'. What a waste. Let me let you in on a little secret - cynicism isn't the same as intellectualism.
As always, you're right. You could never be wrong. After all, every Tom, Dick, and Harry's opinions are irrefutable fact when no one else on the forum has read it.
azazyel
Diamond Member
- Oct 6, 2000
- 5,872
- 1
- 81
Conjur, you should really read "the five gospels" I think you would really like it. Over 100 religious experts convened for what they called "the Jesus Seminar". They went over all of the gospels and rated each on the probability that he said it. The classifications were red, pink, blue and black, red being he almost certainly said it, to black which is most likely not. It really gets into the way Jesus spoke which was mostly in proverbs. He also tended to go against the grain as far as social norms went. The book also goes into the "Q" gospel.
Please tell me you aren't going to try to pass the Jesus Seminars off as anything other than a travesty?
I mean, seriously, its laughable to even bring up that conference made up of almost entirely liberal historians and others. Their approach to the whole thing was just terrible--at the outset they all viewed the gospels as generally unreliable, simply because of the supernatural elements recorded. Make no mistake about it, they set out to paint a picture of the naturalistic Jesus they wanted to find, facts be damned.
They didn't search for the truth about the historical Jesus, they searched for "experts" to support the claims they wanted to make. And by making the Jesus Seminars an appeal to the public they very cleverly managed to bypass the direct scrutiny of the vast majority of biblical scholars (at least in the public's view).
They set out with a goal to find a naturalistic Jesus and they accomplished it, and they are right in saying that the Jesus they describe is not the Jesus talked about in the Bible. Too bad they don't have any historical evidence for their outrageous claim that 82% of what Jesus is reported to have said in the Gospels is a lie.
There isn't a large chunk of gospels "missing." The Apocrypha books were written in the time period between the Old Testament and New Testament. The early church didn't consider them inspired, like the rest of the Bible, and the authors of the books didn't claim that they books were inspired. Even more interesting is that unlike other books in the Old Testament none of the books in the Apocrypha are referenced by Jesus or the New Testament writers.
Catholics still have 7 of the books of the Apocrypha in their Bibles, but they are considered "lesser books", although they are still considred canon by them.
And the Gospel of Thomas just doesn't have the historical reliability that the other four gospels in the Bible have. There simply isn't enough historical corroboration, there are questions of motives (using Thomas as the author), etc. It was written around 140AD as much as they can tell, but the problem is it directly conflicts with the other four gospels. It does include some accurate sayings of Jesus, but also some elements of pantheism and other contradictory statements that just fly in the face of the other gospels, all taken to be very reliably confirmations of the life of Jesus.
You're asking me to defend a non-Biblical teaching in a Biblical thread? You don't get it and you never will. Faith and religion aren't based on facts, nor do they require facts. It's not about what religion you are, either. It's about how you live your life. You can bash religion until you're blue in the face and it's no skin off my back. People mock what they don't understand.
I think you are very out of touch with Christianity, and Jesus's teachings as well to say that those things do not matter. The cornerstone of Christianity is the supernatural resurrection of Jesus Christ. If that is not true than Jesus did not conquer death, conquer sin, and ultimately give us life. If that is not true than Christianity is a lie.
Talking about people missing what Jesus was teaching, you should know that you can't call Jesus simply a "wise ethical teacher" without also labeling him insane or a liar. Did you know that Jesus taught more about Hell than anyone else in the whole Bible? How can you say that the supernatural elements are not important... of course they are!
Focusing on supernatural events in the Bible is not what is getting Christians into serious moral trouble today. I would say it is lack of focus on anything in the Bible that is doing that.
I'll agree that it is about how you live your life, not your religion. But keep in mind religion is just philosophy, and true belief should bring likewise action. (All too often this is sadly not the case.)
However, I think you are twisting the definition of "faith", at least the type of faith I am talking about.
There are TWO definitions for faith that I come across:
1. Leap of faith - you believe something based on no reason, or on questionable reasons at best.
2. Walk of faith - you committ to believing in something for good, adequate reasons. You reach a conclusion about something and you commit to it for a reason or reasons.
My faith is very much the second one and not the first. All too often people are telling me I can either choose faith or reason, but I say that I can commit to believing in what I believe for good reasons. We do it every day!
I agree 100%. Faith cannot stand in contradiction to reason, IMO. Rather, they are mutually supportive if faith is based on a proper foundation.
All the arguing about weird conspiracies, bad research etc aside :
The key point is that the early version of the bible is very different from the current one.
I am not sure why this surprises anyone in the least .
The *current* versions of the bible are significantly inconsistent with each other - have a look for yourself :
http://www.bartleby.com/108/01/1.html#S1
http://www.nccbuscc.com/nab/bible/genesis/genesis1.htm
Even specific versions of the bible are constantly being rewritten to update the spelling, grammar and phrasing.
What will be more interesting is the extent of the changes.
Where am I bashing religion? Point out *one* quote of mine where I am bashing religion.
Go ahead.
And, go ahead and keep your head in the sand re:what the Church has done for centuries.
The cornerstone of the modern version of Christianity, perhaps. Don't forget, the early Christians did not believe in a divine Jesus and a virgin birth. That didn't come about for a few hundred years. And, when it did, those who failed to follow Rome were persecuted, tortured, and murdered.
I would say it's a distortion of what the Bible contains that gets the fundamental Christians in trouble. They do as much disservice to their faith as Muslim terrorists do to theirs.
I'm not talking about the Apocrypha. Go check the site--there's far more there than the Catholic Aprocrypha.
There was no single early church. There were many churches then, and they made different decisions. The Catholic/Orthodox precursors made certain decisions, which the Protestants inherited (minus the Aprocrypha), but the differences between the other canons, like the Ethiopian Bible, are much more substantial.
True, but the world consists of more than Catholics and Protestants. The Shepherd of Hermas is not one of the Catholic Apocrypha, but it is in the Ethiopian Bible, which wasn't strongly influenced by the Council of Nicea.
As the four Catholic gospels contradict each other too.
FWIW,
International Bible's New Edition
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4535855
Read an excerpt
http://www.tniv.com/assets/pdf/43-TNIV-Thinline.pdf
International Bible's New Edition
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4535855
Read an excerpt
http://www.tniv.com/assets/pdf/43-TNIV-Thinline.pdf
The only thing I want to reply to is your last statement. There aren't any contradictions with the account of Jesus's life in the four gospels in the New Testament. Keep in mind that in order for any discrepency to be a contradiction, the two accounts must be mutually exclusive, not simply different.
Also, remember the gospels were written during the lifespan of people who had witnessed Jesus alive and crucified (this is not true with the Gospel of Thomas). If there were glaring inaccuracies there would be documentation in history of people countering what was written about Jesus in the first century, especially the Jewish leaders. However, we don't have anything of that sort.
You can speculate all you want, but remember when dealing with historical documents the burden of proof is on the side who wishes to discredit a document. As a rule, the document is considered to be accurate since it is a primary source, unless it can be discredited by other available sources.
The basic doctrines of Christianity are most certainly found in early teachings in the Christian churches, and by Paul and other writers in the New Testament.
Early Christians definately believed in a divine Jesus, Jesus himself made claims to being divine, the writings of Paul, Timothy, and the Gospels all make claims to Jesus's divinity. The resurrection and appearances of Jesus was the initial starting point of Christianity, which triggered the fast spread of Christianity in the early generations. Paul talked about this many times, and he even wrote that he saw Jesus after he was resurrected (which is why he changed from a notable Jewish persecutor of Christians to the main proponent for Christianity).
BZZZT. Wrong answer!
Check out the accounts of what happened on the first Easter morning in Matthew and Mark. In Matthew, it says that after seeing the angel, the women immediately run to tell his disciples. In Mark, they go home too afraid to speak about it to anyone. That's pretty mutually exclusive if you ask me. There are other things that conflict with this one morning's events between the 6 accounts in the New Testament, too.
Many historians believe the Gospel of Thomas is "Q" (theoretical source from which the other four gospel stories were weaved).
Since Thomas was used by first century Christians, devoted to worship of Jesus, it certainly lends credibility to Jesus being something more than just a good man. However it does show that there are quite a few differences in the warm and fuzzy Jesus of fundamental tradition (saving your soul), and a Jesus who seems to have a serious message for discovery and change.
While I am certain that men slanted and distorted facts concerning the historical Jesus, many of these new authors are the same or worse, wishing to rewrite history from limited and less credible evidence.
Are you forgetting the group of followers that didn't believe in the teachings of Peter and Paul? Remember, Paul was anti-feminine as was Peter and they became the foundation for the Church of Rome. The rest of the disciples and others who followed them did NOT believe in the divinity of Jesus and followed Judaic traditions throughout areas of southern Europe.
Jesus never claimed to be divine. You're just suffering from having read the Bible and believing it word for word and not realizing how much selective editing and redaction was performed.
If Paul saw Jesus after the crucifixion it's because Jesus survived the crucifixion. He didn't rise from the dead. Neither did Simon Zelotes (Lazarus.) You're suffering, again, from being confused by relying upon the Bible. The symbolism behind being raised from the dead meant a return from being ex-communicated.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter