*************
M*W: A story about Mary Magdalene appears briefly in the gospels of the NT. Long since the canonical gospels were approved by the RCC, Mary Magdalene appeared again in the lost text of Nag Hammadi. The RCC suppressed these newly found (1896) gnostic gospels. But, back to Constantine's day, many early texts were suppressed. Books were burned, but more importantly, some were hidden. Scholars believe the gnostic gospels were hidden in the desert in Egypt at about 350AD. Did they whisk them away from Constantine so he wouldn't destroy them? The timeline of the gnostic gospels predates the NT gospels back to 50AD. The first NT gospel, Mark, was written in 70AD. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene can be dated as late as the second century.

When the NT speaks of Mary Magdalene's seven demons, what it really means is are the 'chakras' in Sanskrit, or the seven energy centers of the body. Jesus may have healed Mary's body by freeing up the seven energy centers. Christians have always interpreted this to be the seven cardinal sins. Nowhere in any literature, except for the NT, is Mary called a whore. The definition of prostitute in those days was 'a woman of the temple,' 'a woman of independent means,' 'a tower of strength,' etc.. When Jesus was to have exorcised seven demons from Mary M., what he did was free the clouds of energy in her being. It was MM who healed herself within.

Why is the Gospel of Mary Magdalene so important? Mary lived in Jesus' day -- with Jesus -- as his wife. MM walked with him and worshipped him -- but Jesus also worshipped MM. I believe it was Jesus' great love for her that made him great, but Jesus didn't die for MM, although I believe he would have. The dying demigod savior myth was Paul's creation that he based on the previous 16 dying demigod saviors who were born of a virgin.

Anyone care to discuss?

This story was repressed because it was a story about a woman achieving the same or greater spiritual accomplishments as men. This would have contradicted the cultural and biblical notion that women were somehow inferior.

I was just reading this about an hour ago and curiously you wrote on it so here:

http://home.freeuk.net/jesusmyth/formatn.htm#IV

...he political need for a scapegoat: pressure against Christians by the Roman authorities prompted many to criticise other Christian sects with the general theme "they are the bad Christians, but we are the good ones, so you should punish them instead." Thus, pro-Roman elements, and the absence of anti-Roman features, were a precondition for the canonic texts of any church with a chance of success, and this also affected the formation of the surviving canon--and, incidentally, given the tense relations between Rome and the Jews, antisemitic features would also win Roman favor and release the Christians from Roman hostility toward Jews, although one could not take this pandering too far in a church largely comprised of Jews or their descendants.

Although it's not evident whether Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife or not, she did seem to have a special relationship with him, since she alone understood the meaning of his teachings. Sinner or not, after meeting Jesus she underwent a transformation, which is what the seven demons ceremony most likely refers to.

This story was repressed because it was a story about a woman achieving the same or greater spiritual accomplishments as men. This would have contradicted the cultural and biblical notion that women were somehow inferior.

Exactly

Yo MW,

The early period of Christianity is very interesting in that there definately was a supression by the Roman Church of competing sects and texts of early Christians. Especially the Gnostic sect and their texts. These texts were discovered in the Egyptian desert at Nag Hammadi in 1945. These gospels are extremely interesting as they could quite plausibly present a closer aproximation of the truth regarding Jesus`s teaching, rather than the texts the Church voted on to become the Canon. It seems that the gospel of St. John is tantalisingly close to the message of Jesus in the Gnostic Gospels, and displays clear parrallels to the style and metaphysical aspect of the Gnostic texts. Elaine Pagels (Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University), has done extensive research on the subject and these are excerpts from a lecture she delivered in 1996.

"What is interesting about the Gnostic gospels is that they do not deny what is said about Jesus in other gospels, but rather testify that they contain secret teachings of Jesus that their authors believed needed to be preserved. Iraneus, the Bishop of Lyon in France, was one of many Church officials who denounced this literature circulating Europe and defended the four gospels that the Church had selected to be in the canon as the only authentic gospels--because "there are four principle winds, four pillars that hold up the sky, and four corners of the universe; therefore, it is only right that there be four gospels."

Kinda infantile thought process no?

And just for you MW.

"Indeed, the suppression of the Gnostic gospels fits the pattern of rational patriarchy that has marked the Church throughout the centuries. Unlike the dominant imagery of God (The Father) in the institutional Church, the Gnostic gospels recognize a feminine influence in God as Jesus' origin, and also affirm Jesus' upending of Jewish tradition by including women in his ministry."

The page can be found here: http://www.radiofreemaine.com/rfm/gnostic.html

Her book on the subject is: Elaine Pagels: The Gnostic Gospels, Random House, New York, 1989.

Ahem.

Since you have read the Gospels you must now realise that the scriptures point to Him? Now that you know Him, why do you pour over texts? You are like a pirate who follows a map to the treasure, to the spot marked with a cross but when you get to the cross you forget why you came. You do not believe that the cross marks the spot so you go off in search of other maps never realising that the treasure was at your feet when you reached the cross.
Why do you not just dig your treasures up and discard the map? The map has served its purpose already. It has taken you to the spot where the cross did mark the treasure. Now dig already.

peace

c20

does winnie the pooh, point to pooh, or christopher robin, or does alice in wonderland, point to her, or the white rabbit, or does long john silver, or young hawkins point to the treasure, they are all including, the bible fairy stories, theres no real treasure it's just make believe. DUH!

Most scholars, Christian and non Christian alike, believe that the gospel of Mary Magdalene is a forgery. It's date about 120 A.D. However, a lot of those same people think she wrote gospel of John, epistles of John, and possibly revelation.

Since you have read the Gospels you must now realise that the scriptures point to Him? Now that you know Him, why do you pour over texts? You are like a pirate who follows a map to the treasure, to the spot marked with a cross but when you get to the cross you forget why you came. You do not believe that the cross marks the spot so you go off in search of other maps never realising that the treasure was at your feet when you reached the cross.
Why do you not just dig your treasures up and discard the map? The map has served its purpose already. It has taken you to the spot where the cross did mark the treasure. Now dig already.

peace

c20
How would you recognize the treasure if you saw it? I like this analogy, though, it reminds me of a story of the Buddha. He said, after you use the raft to cross the river, why carry it around on your head? Send it back for others to cross.

Yo c20,

"Since you have read the Gospels you must now realise that the scriptures point to Him?"

That is your humble opinion only, nothing more nothing less.

Ahem.

Please people. I hope you know what you're subscribing to by promoting the gnostic gospels. I doubt you will accept the Gnostic message any more readily than that of the Canonical gospels.

For instance, from the Sophia (Wisdom) of Jesus:
"After he rose from the dead, his twelve disciples and seven women continued to be his followers, and went to Galilee onto the mountain called "Divination and Joy"..."
Do you accept that Jesus rose from the dead? Then why subscribe to the Nag Hammadi interpretations, and not the gospels?
This story was repressed because it was a story about a woman achieving the same or greater spiritual accomplishments as men. This would have contradicted the cultural and biblical notion that women were somehow inferior.
Let's see. From the Gospel of Thomas:
(114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

Jenyar: Please people. I hope you know what you're subscribing to by promoting the gnostic gospels. I doubt you will accept the Gnostic message any more readily than that of the Canonical gospels.

For instance, from the Sophia (Wisdom) of Jesus:
"After he rose from the dead, his twelve disciples and seven women continued to be his followers, and went to Galilee onto the mountain called "Divination and Joy"..."

Do you accept that Jesus rose from the dead? Then why subscribe to the Nag Hammadi interpretations, and not the gospels?

Let's see. From the Gospel of Thomas:
(114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."
*************
M*W: Please Jenyar. I can't speak for everybody on the forum regarding their search for the Gnostic Gospels, but I for one am searching to learn. Since they were suppressed by christianity, they need to be read by those who are interested. It matters not to us if Jesus died, because we know he wasn't resurrected. So what if the Gnostic Gospels add proof that Jesus existed. So what? We don't have to believe that either. The truth will be told in the Gnostic Gospels and the Dead Sea Scrolls. You don't want to believe anything that you haven't been brainwashed with. You don't have to believe the truths found in extrabiblical texts, but you are in no position to tell the rest of us what to do! It's ignorants you like that keep your lack of learning back in the Dark Ages.

Let's see. From the Gospel of Thomas:
(114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

I'm aware of this verse, and it doesn't contradict what I said. From the intro to the Gospel of Thomas written by Craig Schenk:

"As the preamble indicates, these are "secret sayings", and are
intended to be esoteric in nature. The Sayings are not intended
to be interpreted literally, as their New Testament parallels
often are, but to be interpreted symbolically, as attested by
Saying #1. While a literal interpretation may make sense, only by
understanding the deeper meanings of the Sayings can one truly
understand them. Thus in Saying #114, it is to be understood that
"male" symbolizes the pneumatic (spiritual, or Gnostic)
Christians, and "female" symbolizes the psychic (unenlightened,
or orthodox) Christians, rather than actually referring to males
and females."

So, this verse really means that women can accomplish the same things as males. To "make herself male" in the context of the time means that through teaching, she may learn to transcend the era's percieved limitations of being female.

Please people. I hope you know what you're subscribing to by promoting the gnostic gospels. I doubt you will accept the Gnostic message any more readily than that of the Canonical gospels.

For instance, from the Sophia (Wisdom) of Jesus:
"After he rose from the dead, his twelve disciples and seven women continued to be his followers, and went to Galilee onto the mountain called "Divination and Joy"..."
Do you accept that Jesus rose from the dead? Then why subscribe to the Nag Hammadi interpretations, and not the gospels
The reason the Gnostic gospels are more sastifiying for me than the Canonical pospels is that the true meaning can only be percieved by personal experience. Rising from the dead can mean many things. The Buddhists also have this notion, that death exists only conceptually, and that, by transcending the idea of the personal ego trapped in a bag of skin, we also transcend death, or as they say "end the cycle of birth and death".

spidergoat: I'm aware of this verse, and it doesn't contradict what I said. From the intro to the Gospel of Thomas written by Craig Schenk:

"As the preamble indicates, these are "secret sayings", and are
intended to be esoteric in nature. The Sayings are not intended
to be interpreted literally, as their New Testament parallels
often are, but to be interpreted symbolically, as attested by
Saying #1. While a literal interpretation may make sense, only by
understanding the deeper meanings of the Sayings can one truly
understand them. Thus in Saying #114, it is to be understood that
"male" symbolizes the pneumatic (spiritual, or Gnostic)
Christians, and "female" symbolizes the psychic (unenlightened,
or orthodox) Christians, rather than actually referring to males
and females."

So, this verse really means that women can accomplish the same things as males. To "make herself male" in the context of the time means that through teaching, she may learn to transcend the era's percieved limitations of being female.
*************
M*W: Thanks, spidergoat, for your comments and citation. I agree with you about the 'secret sayings,' as that is what I have learned from reading the Gospel of MM which teaches how to become 'fully human.' I understood this teaching to mean achieving a balance between Body-Mind-Spirit, which is what the introduction of the gospel indicates. However, I personally believe that becoming 'fully human' would also be to become androgynous -- or both male and female.

M*W: Please Jenyar. I can't speak for everybody on the forum regarding their search for the Gnostic Gospels, but I for one am searching to learn. Since they were suppressed by christianity, they need to be read by those who are interested. It matters not to us if Jesus died, because we know he wasn't resurrected. So what if the Gnostic Gospels add proof that Jesus existed. So what? We don't have to believe that either. The truth will be told in the Gnostic Gospels and the Dead Sea Scrolls. You don't want to believe anything that you haven't been brainwashed with. You don't have to believe the truths found in extrabiblical texts, but you are in no position to tell the rest of us what to do! It's ignorants you like that keep your lack of learning back in the Dark Ages.Well done Jenyar. :)

I'm aware of this verse, and it doesn't contradict what I said. From the intro to the Gospel of Thomas written by Craig Schenk:

"As the preamble indicates, these are "secret sayings", and are
intended to be esoteric in nature. The Sayings are not intended
to be interpreted literally, as their New Testament parallels
often are, but to be interpreted symbolically, as attested by
Saying #1. While a literal interpretation may make sense, only by
understanding the deeper meanings of the Sayings can one truly
understand them. Thus in Saying #114, it is to be understood that
"male" symbolizes the pneumatic (spiritual, or Gnostic)
Christians, and "female" symbolizes the psychic (unenlightened,
or orthodox) Christians, rather than actually referring to males
and females."

So, this verse really means that women can accomplish the same things as males. To "make herself male" in the context of the time means that through teaching, she may learn to transcend the era's percieved limitations of being female.
Thank you for Schenk's opinion. However, let's treat this as we would treat an apparent contradiction in the Bible, shall we? It's very convenient to tell me to "just look deeper", but you wouldn't accept that from me, would you?

Saying 1: These are the secret words which the living Jesus spoke, and which Didymus Judas Thomas wrote down. (Gospel of Thomas (http://www.gospelthomas.com/gospelthomas0.html)).
"A similar incipit opens another document from the Nag Hammadi Library, Book of Thomas 138, 1-4: 'The hidden sayings that the savior spoke to Judas Thomas, which I, Mathaias, in turn recorded. I was walking, listening to them speak with each other.' "
If we take the Nag Hammadi text seriously, it seems likely that these "sayings" were literally words spoken in conversation, as indeed Saying 114 pretends to be. If Jesus or Peter were speaking in code language, then it should be proven from the text. We can't simply accept Schenk's conclusion at face value. And we certainly can't go on "what is more satisfying for me".

What's the difference between "...can mean many things" and "...can mean whatever I want it to?"

Yo Jenyar,

Quote Jenyar:
"What's the difference between "...can mean many things" and "...can mean whatever I want it to?"

Thats rich. Which parts of the Bible are literal? Which figurative? It is all "interpretation" dude.

Quote J:
We can't simply accept Schenk's conclusion at face value. And we certainly can't go on "what is more satisfying for me".

Yeah, yeah... Lets look deeper into the establishment of the Biblical Canon.

"Most people are aware that Catholic editions of the Bible include sections (in fact whole books such as 1 & 2 Maccabees) not found in standard Protestant versions. Fewer are aware that the Orthodox churches include even more material in their scriptures (such as 3 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasseh). So, what about that extra material? Or more to the point, why does the 66-book edition most of us are familiar with not include it, and who decides what is and isn't scripture?"

and,

"Traditionally, evangelical Christians have circled their wagons around the distinction between genuine writings and "apocrypha". Genuine writings being, of course, their 66-book Bible; apocrypha (sometimes called pseudepigrapha) conveniently being everything else. Evangelicals have been quick to assert, for example, an "obvious qualitative difference" between the two. Unfortunately there is an obvious qualitative difference between books within the Bible as well, as anyone will know who has compared the Gospel of John with the Book of Numbers."

Hmmm...

"But wasn't the whole thing decided at the very start of the Christian Church? Here's where things get interesting. The Jewish canon (Old Testament) first reached its present form after 70 AD with a gathering of rabbis at a place called Jamnia (Jabneh), 24 km south of modern Tel Aviv. Notice the date, this is several decades after the establishment of the church. Paul has left the scene and the events related in Acts are already history. Notice too that this was a Jewish council. There was no Christian input into the process at all."

Ahem...

"Christianity, however, was to continue to use the Septuagint based "Alexandrian Canon" for another thousand years! This makes it quite hard to see how modern fundamentalists can justify their present canon as being either "apostolic" or "determined by the Holy Spirit".

and...

"What about the New Testament? The New Testament canon was a matter of debate for centuries. It first reached its present form as late as 367 AD when Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria, compiled a list of recognized books which agrees with the ones we now have. Three hundred years is a long time by anyone's reckoning. If the writing of the New Testament documents had started back in 1840, we wouldn't get to see the final product until the year 2140! Although it seems hard to imagine, during this 300 year period Christians of all persuasions pursued their faith without the benefit of the Bible as we know it today."

Well now,

"As late as 200 AD the Church at Rome still didn't consider the books of Hebrews, James, 1 Peter or 2 Peter as scripture. However they did include two "apocryphal" works: The Apocalypse of Peter and The Wisdom of Solomon."

Mmmm...

" In the end the final selection was to be a narrow thing, with the popular Shepherd of Hermas missing a listing in Athanasius' canon by a whisker, while the controversial books of Revelation and Hebrews squeaked through. The main criteria used in the selection was that the documents should come from the pens of those with first hand knowledge of the events surrounding the creation of the church. We now know that Athanasius made several wrong calls. For example, several of the letters attributed to Paul (such as the epistles to Timothy) are in fact later documents."

Oh well,

"An interesting example of a book that has drifted in and out of favor is 1 Enoch. It was regarded as scripture in many parts of the early church, and is quoted in the New Testament book of Jude (v.14). In the Ethiopian Orthodox Church it still forms part of their Old Testament canon."

Huh,

"The Ethiopian Orthodox Church adds four extra books to its New Testament, and another two (including 1 Enoch) to the Old Testament.

Writing around 300 AD Eusebius, the historian of the early church, listed Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude and Revelation as either dubious or false.

The Syrian Orthodox tradition continues to reject 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude and Revelation.

Irenaeus, who is credited with standardizing the number of gospels at the present four, included a book called The Revelation of Peter in his canon.

Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest complete New Testament manuscript that has come down to us (fourth century AD) includes Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas.

As late as the fifth century the Codex Alexandrinus included 1 & 2 Clement."

So let`s sum it up Jenyar,

"The canon of the Bible, then, did not drop out of the heavens one day, fully formed and divided tidily into proof texts. A basic knowledge of the process of canonization ensures that any concept of inerrancy is untenable, a weakness of those who have (to quote Luther) "swallowed the Holy Spirit feathers and all".

Even today, there is clearly no single Christian canon of scripture, and in fact there never has been."

But I forget, one has to be filled with the holy ghost to get it right eh?

Ahem.

(from: http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~gavinru/canon.htm)

How many of those books have you read, stretched?

"The canon of the Bible, then, did not drop out of the heavens one day, fully formed and divided tidily into proof texts. A basic knowledge of the process of canonization ensures that any concept of inerrancy is untenable, a weakness of those who have (to quote Luther) "swallowed the Holy Spirit feathers and all".
One has to be an idiot to believe that, and completely ignore the message of scripture. Should they teach Inerrancy, or God?

For instance. Name one - ONE - of those books that throw doubt on the existence of God.

Do you believe in God?

There is your canon.

Yo Jenyar,

Eventhought it is beside the point, I have read more books than you can imagine brother. You were however the one knocking the Gnostic texts. Have you read them?

Quote J:
"Please people. I hope you know what you're subscribing to by promoting the gnostic gospels. I doubt you will accept the Gnostic message any more readily than that of the Canonical gospels."

Whatever one`s pov as to what is, and what is not acceptable, the facts that I pointed out in my last post stand. To sum it up again:

"Even today, there is clearly no single Christian canon of scripture, and in fact there never has been."

You can readily research this for yourself.

Quote J:
"One has to be an idiot to believe that, and completely ignore the message of scripture. Should they teach Inerrancy, or God?"

You may indeed be the idiot if you ignore for example, the message of Bhuddism, Sufism or Toaism dude. All of which teach unity and not division. And non of which claim inerrancy.

Quote J:
"For instance. Name one - ONE - of those books that throw doubt on the existence of God."

I agree totally, but that is not the point here either.

Quote J:
"There is your canon."

As I have said before Jenyar, I have no need of a worldly canon. My canon is written in my heart, and my faith is written on the smiles of those who touch me.

Ahem.

"Even today, there is clearly no single Christian canon of scripture, and in fact there never has been."

You can readily research this for yourself.
That's like saying 'there is no single book of scripture'. Yes, and...? There's no single book of history either. No single book on Caesar. No canon of Churchill or Napoleon or Hitler. Does that mean historians are all deluded when they talk about these people, or compare accounts for historicity and accuracy?

The Bible is not God. That was my point. You try to make it sound as if the whole thing depends on how you look at it. Very convenient, but false. The gnostic books offer a secret knowledge. It's exclusive, as saying 114 makes clear, and cryptic to the point of just being ammo for metaphysical foodfights. The gospel of Thomas only offer short saying, robbed of context and meaning. They were reduced from what we have, they don't add to what we have. Jesus' work was inclusive - He came to make God visible, not invisible. That would polarize people, for sure - because it doesn't let them believe whatever they want. He told us what God wants.

What you want is written in your heart. As is the law - the ability to distinguish right from wrong. But where there is a law, there is a judge. No amount of creative interpretation or religious philosophy will make God redundant.

It is always advisable to read texts critically, and what we end up with depends on how critically we have read it. The early church fathers did just that, to the best of their knowledge and abilities, and ended up with something, which they called the "rule" or "measurement" - canon. They did not end up with nothing. Nobody ever did. Coming up with a single canon would mean that only one person got to choose, or only one book was ever available and read. Unfortunately history is never that simple and easy to compile, and everything that was written about God and his involvement in people's lives cannot be that clearly distinguished.

But it's not an impenetrable forest of books and texts, like you make it sound. That's the argument of 'oh, it's too complicated, I'll never understand it, so I won't bother trying'. A seed is much more simple than a grown tree, and the 'canon in your heart' is a seed - what people respond to is how you let it grow, and for that, not everything goes.

Be my guest, read the books for yourself (http://www.carm.org/lostbooks.htm), and form your own "canon" if you want to - the least I expect is that you be honest about whether you believe what they say or not. Criticism is a form of strategic retreat, but somewhere you have to approach God again, or you risk cutting yourself off from Him completely.

Yo Jenyar,

Quote J:
"That's like saying 'there is no single book of scripture'. Yes, and...? There's no single book of history either. No single book on Caesar. No canon of Churchill or Napoleon or Hitler. Does that mean historians are all deluded when they talk about these people, or compare accounts for historicity and accuracy?"

Nope dude, these guys don`t claim inerrant deity status. And you can do better than that silly response. Bottom line, Christians claim their book, the Bible, to be divinely inspired, and the inerrant word of god. Their book comes in many versions. The various denominations claim their various books as "THE CANON". All I am pointing out is that there is an interesting history to the manner in which this "divine" book came to be. And even today there is no definitive "CANON". Which indicates questionable divine authenticity. And it should leave any honestly thinking person curious.

Quote J:
"But where there is a law, there is a judge. No amount of creative interpretation or religious philosophy will make God redundant."

Which god?

Quote J:
"It is always advisable to read texts critically, and what we end up with depends on how critically we have read it. The early church fathers did just that, to the best of their knowledge and abilities, and ended up with something, which they called the "rule" or "measurement" - canon."

It seems rather iffy, about rounded off numbers.See example below:

"C. AD 400:
Jerome translates the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into Latin (called the "Vulgate"). He knows that the Jews have only 39 books, and he wants to limit the OT to these; the 7 he would leave out (Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach [or "Ecclesiasticus"], and Baruch--he calls "apocrypha," that is, "hidden books." But Pope Damasus wants all 46 traditionally-used books included in the OT, so the Vulgate has 46."

(from: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/canon.html)

Quote J:
" Be my guest, read the books for yourself, and form your own "canon" if you want to - the least I expect is that you be honest about whether you believe what they say or not."

I have read many versions of the canon and the apocrypha over many years, and have found certain beauty and wisdom (particularly "The Thunder, Perfect Heart"), but also great cruelty,inanity and naivety. Nothing however inspires me to bestow the term "divinely inspired" on these texts. (yes, yes, my humble, human opinion only)

Quote J:
"Criticism is a form of strategic retreat, but somewhere you have to approach God again, or you risk cutting yourself off from Him completely"

Again, relativism, to you criticism, to me observation. And thanks dude but I am never alone.

Ahem.

I think the crux is that you don't believe God is to be found in them -- not in one word, not in one, 39 or 46 books. The reason is understandable enough: no words will ever be sufficient; God will not be sufficiently contained in them or expressed by them. Indeed, Jews considered the written word inferior to spoken (and remembered) words. But do you reject Israel's God because they don't have everything written down to your specifications? Do you accept all so-called "sacred" texts because they all propose to talk about God?

You might have an unrealistic idea of what it would look like if humanity ever had a authentic encounter with God. What would our failings and uncertainties look like, in that light? What form would our desires and hopes take on, in that light? The moment we come into contact with God, we become part of that relationship - cruel, inane, and naive as we might be. A dialogue in even the highest courts of law, or most illustrious palaces, will reflect both judge and criminal, king and servant. But we should be aware whether we are king or criminal when we listen to what is said, because that will determine what we conclude from it.

We would certainly not assume the face of God ourselves, not in thinking nor in expression. We would continue seeking, as some have sought before, and many will continue to seek - and our recorded searches would look different at various stages of the quest. Until something happens: We Find, or Are Found. When we meet God, it is always on His ground. And you are always alone in His presence.

The Bible is not divine because the paper is sacred, or the words are holy. The message is not divine because it was written in Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek, or by certain "inspired" people. Many deeds and words have since been inspired in exactly the same fashion since, and they haven't been included in the Bible either. Because that's not the point. We're not trying to collect God, but to find ourselves in Him.

We don't believe in Jesus because the Bible talks about Him; we believe in the Bible because it talks about Jesus. He is the Word that was heard. If we ever find another authentic epistle by Paul (we know there were more), then it would be included in the Bible, and the canon would change once again. Not because some person or council thinks it's important, or beautiful, but because it tells us about Christ and the church surrounding him. It can only add to what we have, and if Paul was Paul, it would confirm what he had told the other churches. In the Bible, we don't have a book making a unanimous claim, but we have people who can't stop talking about their witness to God's work.
John 21:25
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
If you don't ask yourself who and what scripture is talking about, then it will always remain words that could have been uttered by anyone. There are enough of those to go around -- I'm sure you've been to earlychristianwritings.com. But the Word of God is only half of the dialogue, and what has been written down comprises even less.

You ask "which god?" as if you know a few. Tell me, do you believe yourself to be divinely inspired?

I think the crux is that you don't believe God is to be found in them -- not in one word, not in one, 39 or 46 books. The reason is understandable enough: no words will ever be sufficient; God will not be sufficiently contained in them or expressed by them. Indeed, Jews considered the written word inferior to spoken (and remembered) words. But do you reject Israel's God because they don't have everything written down to your specifications? Do you accept all so-called "sacred" texts because they all propose to talk about God?

I don't, because I know people lie, etc. I don't accept any of them, not the Bible, not the apocryphal works, not the Qur'an, not the Hadith, Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas, Avesta, blah blah.

In the Bible, we don't have a book making a unanimous claim, but we have people who can't stop talking about their witness to God's work.
John 21:25
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

In the Bible we have many books which were, even by Jewish/Christian tradition, authored by a single person. How many actual PEOPLE authored the books of the Bible? And I am not convinced that "Matthew" and "Luke" were independent witnesses of anything really, considering they seem to copy "Mark" almost verbatim in places. This "66 books" stuff does not really impress me. How many actual human authors are involved in this, even by tradition? Much less than 66. And this "Jesus did so much that I suppose the whole world would not have room for the books", what can I say? What an exaggeration. I can't take that seriously. I interpret that as meaning "Hey, believe me, Jesus really did tons of stuff". I see a claim.

I'm sure you've been to earlychristianwritings.com. But the Word of God is only half of the dialogue, and what has been written down comprises even less.

You ask "which god?" as if you know a few. Tell me, do you believe yourself to be divinely inspired?

Yes, I know about Peter Kirby's website, if we're thinking about the same one. And if you're referring to me, no, I don't believe I'm divinely inspired, but I don't care whether the Bible, or the Avestan writings, or whatever says blah blah, that does not impress me. And I don't think it's true that the Bible has multiple witnesses to a deity/holy man, while other religions don't. Not that you're necessarily claiming this, but this seems to be an implication that the Bible has all these books while other religions don't, as if that makes it better. What about all the lines of tradition about Muhammad in the Hadith? Aren't those witnesses? And I think there are miracle claims in them. If someone wants to take the writings on stone and put them in a book, one could make the claim that there were multiple witnesses to certain deities. There are all sorts of religious writings about certain gods, and I don't trust any of them.

I don't think I'm divinely inspired, but I'm sure as heck going to trust myself, instead of some alleged God, until this deity wants to show himself. I've already had enough trouble with religion, I don't need to put myself into more with it. That's kind of why I question why I joined this forum in the first place.

Anonymous2

How many actual human authors are involved in this, even by tradition? Much less than 66.
Conservative estimates have 40, over a period of 1500 years. But one person may write things that thousands were involved in, and thoughts - like wisdom and beliefs - can include generations of people.

but I'm sure as heck going to trust myself...
Will you also make sure that others can trust you? If you had something important to say, could anyone believe you?

If you can't trust anyone, you shouldn't trust yourself either.
I've already had enough trouble with religion, I don't need to put myself into more with it. That's kind of why I question why I joined this forum in the first place.
Yes, that much is obvious. You've been hurt, and religion was central to that hurt. You've probably lost a relationship with someone. What happened?

Will you also make sure that others can trust you? If you had something important to say, could anyone believe you?

I think I've contributed something of worth to this forum, although I admit that things have turned into a personal matter. But then again, you did ask "What really is your case against God?", didn't you? And I've been explaining some of it.

If you can't trust anyone, you shouldn't trust yourself either.

This is a cute word game, in my opinion. ;) Let me say this then, I prefer to trust myself, instead of another. Fair enough?

Yes, that much is obvious. You've been hurt, and religion was central to that hurt. You've probably lost a relationship with someone. What happened?

Yep, pretty much. Failed relationships at least partially over religion. I was involved with the Jehovah's Witnesses in my early teens, and when I found the "truth" of Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christianity, I was pretty much kicked out of the lives of my "second family". Then after I found the "truth" of Evangelical/Fundamentalist or whatever Christianity, after I had doubts about that, that helped to ruin a relationship with the person I knew who was old enough to be my father at the time. He was my "spiritual father" in a sense. I had a friend who was Jewish who I tried to convert before this and he never bought it. Also, two relationships I had with the opposite sex partially failed I'd say based on religion. So, yep, you got it. But I haven't totally hidden myself about this either, although this is the first time I've been more explicit about it.

It's not only your relationship with them that didn't work - it was also their relationships with you. In the end you have to ask yourself: was your love conditional? Was it based on religion, or on following the precepts of Christ, which is to love unconditionally?

Is there a possibility that you have overcorrected, and made your disappointment with people into a disappointment with God? You are still you, aren't you? If you could love then, you can love now - and religion has nothing to do with it. In fact, loving in spite of religion is what God requires. Chances are, that religion was only the excuse - the reason given - but underlying every belief and action is a person.

It's not only your relationship with them that didn't work - it was also their relationships with you. In the end you have to ask yourself: was your love conditional? Was it based on religion, or on following the precepts of Christ, which is to love unconditionally?

Is there a possibility that you have overcorrected, and made your disappointment with people into a disappointment with God? You are still you, aren't you? If you could love then, you can love now - and religion has nothing to do with it. In fact, loving in spite if religion is what God requires.

Well, the first situation I was pretty much kicked out of their lives after I became involved with the Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christian ideas.. the JW friend I knew at the time called months ago and admitted that the reason I was kicked out of their lives is because of religion. This was like 18 years ago that I was involved with the JW's. So I told him to tell his mom that she shouldn't do that to people over religion. And I'd say I was kicked out of their lives, not the other way around. Although I talked to the Jewish friend I had months ago, but he has never called me back, so.

That "you" has long ago died. Sure, it's quite possible that I have misplaced anger, but do you think I should love God for the things that have happened in my life? Good luck with that I suppose.

Jenyar: That's like saying 'there is no single book of scripture'. Yes, and...? There's no single book of history either. No single book on Caesar. No canon of Churchill or Napoleon or Hitler. Does that mean historians are all deluded when they talk about these people, or compare accounts for historicity and accuracy?
*************
M*W: Why must you always manipulate the conversation to divert our attention from the facts? You would make a great waffling politician.
*************
Jenyar: The Bible is not God. That was my point. You try to make it sound as if the whole thing depends on how you look at it. Very convenient, but false. The gnostic books offer a secret knowledge. It's exclusive, as saying 114 makes clear, and cryptic to the point of just being ammo for metaphysical foodfights. The gospel of Thomas only offer short saying, robbed of context and meaning. They were reduced from what we have, they don't add to what we have.
*************
M*W: You denounce the very texts that may be able to prove Jesus' existence! The Bible does no such thing. What you choose to 'protect' in an apologetic sense is christianity. The reason you decry the gnostic gospels is that they interfere with your own beliefs, and the GG's prove christianity is a false religion.
*************
Jenyar: Jesus' work was inclusive - He came to make God visible, not invisible. That would polarize people, for sure - because it doesn't let them believe whatever they want. He told us what God wants.
*************
M*W: Sorry, but Jesus' work was NOT inclusive nor did he ever write anything himself. That means there is no proof of his existence. The GG's have him speaking directly to MM and the disciples -- not what some phony hallucinatory idiot wrote down not even knowing Jesus!
*************
Jenyar: What you want is written in your heart. As is the law - the ability to distinguish right from wrong. But where there is a law, there is a judge. No amount of creative interpretation or religious philosophy will make God redundant.
*************
M*W: How in the world can you claim that you know what anonymous2's heart says? You've read his posts, and now you think you have psychoanalytic skills (obviously christian-biased beliefs) to analyze his spiritual motives!
*************
Jenyar: It is always advisable to read texts critically, and what we end up with depends on how critically we have read it.
*************
M*W: I've read the texts critically as have many of us on sciforums, and we have found them to lies! You, OTOH, believe the lies you read and try to push them on us as if we are totally incompetent to read and understand them.
*************
Jenyar: The early church fathers did just that, to the best of their knowledge and abilities, and ended up with something, which they called the "rule" or "measurement" - canon. They did not end up with nothing. Nobody ever did. Coming up with a single canon would mean that only one person got to choose, or only one book was ever available and read. Unfortunately history is never that simple and easy to compile, and everything that was written about God and his involvement in people's lives cannot be that clearly distinguished.
*************
M*W: First, those early church fathers have been found to manipulate scripture just like you do!!! It must come with the territory!
*************
Jenyar: But it's not an impenetrable forest of books and texts, like you make it sound. That's the argument of 'oh, it's too complicated, I'll never understand it, so I won't bother trying'. A seed is much more simple than a grown tree, and the 'canon in your heart' is a seed - what people respond to is how you let it grow, and for that, not everything goes.
*************
M*W: My, my, you use a lot of psychoanalytic and metaphorical bullshit to prove your point (which you have failed to do).
*************
Jenyar: Be my guest, read the books for yourself (http://www.carm.org/lostbooks.htm), and form your own "canon" if you want to - the least I expect is that you be honest about whether you believe what they say or not. Criticism is a form of strategic retreat, but somewhere you have to approach God again, or you risk cutting yourself off from Him completely.
*************
M*W: How convenient and how biased you are!!! The website you posted just 'happens' to be one of christian apologetics! This is just another one of your manipulative ploys to defend your false religion! Who the hell cares what christians think??? I know I don't care, and there's a lot of other members who would agree with me, but trying to lead us to a christian website that explain GG's is devious, but you already knew that -- that's why you cited it. What you should be doing is truly apologizing for the christian beliefs you have tried to cram down our throats. Time, Jenyar, is not in your hands. Christianity is dying as we speak. When christianity falls from the grace of major worldwide religions (and it will), who ya gonna call?

If Jesus or Peter were speaking in code language, then it should be proven from the text. We can't simply accept Schenk's conclusion at face value. And we certainly can't go on "what is more satisfying for me".
I woudn't say "code language", this is how religious truths have always been expressed, not as statements of fact, but as metaphors, as poetic language.

Schenk's conclusion is based on:
1) And He said, "Whoever finds the interpretation of these
sayings will not experience death.
This states pretty clearly that interpretation is left up to the reader.


What's the difference between "...can mean many things" and "...can mean whatever I want it to?"
You are eluding to the fact that Christians seem to want everything spelled out for them in simplistic and literal language. They don't trust themselves, yet somehow they trust religious authorities to tell them the correct interpretation. A sincerely religious person who wanted to discover the meaning of these texts would not be satisfied making them fit their own preconcieved notions, rather, they would live with them like a lover of Shakespeare's writing, always discovering new depths in it. Religion should not be the end of discovery, but the beginning.

M*W, the books look genuine, though here's a larger <a href = "http://www.gnosis.org/library/gs.htm">gnostic library</a>. I'm not sure what you're argument is. Let's say I asked you to gather your 72 favorite books. Well, I'm not going to argue why you picked one book but not the other unless if I believe you picked an inferior book.

Whether the gnostic books were burned or not doesn't seem too relevant. I say this because if membership into the Church was by one's own volition, as it was during this time period, then clearly the Church can choose which books are to be read and used. Owing to gnostic secrecy, I fail to see how the Church would come to possess these so-call secret books.

Yo Jenyar,

I will reiterate:

Quote J:
"But where there is a law, there is a judge. No amount of creative interpretation or religious philosophy will make God redundant."

S: "Which god?"

What exactly do you mean by your statement? For all practical purposes God IS redundant per se. Look at the world around you. Apart from the current American slide into the sleep of reason, we live in a largly secular world. On the revolving stage of mankind, gods come and go. History indicates this as fact.
(as an aside, did you grow up in an authoritarian Calvanistic household?)

Quote J:
"You ask "which god?" as if you know a few. Tell me, do you believe yourself to be divinely inspired? "

Nope I am not as divinely inspired as I am inspiringly divine. (heh heh, well, according to the babe anyhow!)

This is actually simple Jenyar,
"No amount of creative interpretation or religious philosophy will make God redundant."

Is Allah your god?

Ahem.

Well, the first situation I was pretty much kicked out of their lives after I became involved with the Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christian ideas.. the JW friend I knew at the time called months ago and admitted that the reason I was kicked out of their lives is because of religion. This was like 18 years ago that I was involved with the JW's. So I told him to tell his mom that she shouldn't do that to people over religion. And I'd say I was kicked out of their lives, not the other way around. Although I talked to the Jewish friend I had months ago, but he has never called me back, so.

That "you" has long ago died. Sure, it's quite possible that I have misplaced anger, but do you think I should love God for the things that have happened in my life? Good luck with that I suppose.
I think you are holding God responsible for the failure of people. JW's are notoriously exclusivistic, and it doesn't surprise me that you were treated that way after you left them, but the behaviour isn't limited to JW as you are aware. Especially if your stance was fundamentalistic as you say (which is also exclusivistic and 'hostile'). Fanaticism is not only dangerous in religion, but in every area of life.

You might be justified to blame religion (although you must realize it is a generalization to blame all religious people as well), as that was the 'family' that treated you this way - and you're not alone in this experience - but if this is behaviour that God condemns, then will it help to blame Him? You have been an orphan of religion on more than one occasion...
James 1:27
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
I don't like to psycholanalyze, and it might sound insensitive of me, but I think it should be said: you are harbouring resentment, and the people who have caused that resentment aren't there to face, so it remains unresolved. You haven't forgiven them, and this is affecting your relationship with God. Yes, He led those people into your life, and they have probably disappointed Him, but do not allow them to destroy your faith. Remember what they meant to you when you were young. Now you also have a responsibility, and it would be good to remember Asaph's words, when he struggled with God about the unfairness of it all:
Psalms 73:13-15
Surely in vain have I kept my heart pure;
in vain have I washed my hands in innocence.
All day long I have been plagued;
I have been punished every morning.
If I had said, "I will speak thus,"
I would have betrayed your children.
Imagine yourself on the ark, battling the waves as they throw you around - do you praise God for the swells, and curse Him for the dips? Or do you take refuge in the fact the God is with you all the way, on that ark - that is what keeps you safe, not dry ground, sunny weather and clear skies.

People weren't there for you when you needed them, let that inspire you to be there for people when they have nobody. Forgive those who have sinned against you, finish your struggle with God, and turn around again to work with Him instead of against Him. Don't let your anger lead you to betray those precious people who are trying to make God's love visible in this world.

"An interesting example of a book that has drifted in and out of favor is 1 Enoch. It was regarded as scripture in many parts of the early church, and is quoted in the New Testament book of Jude (v.14). In the Ethiopian Orthodox Church it still forms part of their Old Testament canon."


Nice summary.

Enoch is quoted in 4 places: Jude 6, 14, 15, and II Peter 2:4

Peace

The reason may have just become self evident. The first synthesis and interpretation to include NT/OT, Apocrypha, The Nag Hammadi Library and the Dead Sea Scrolls, of a wholly new moral conception of the teaching of Christ is on the Net. Entitled The Final Freedoms, this is the first teaching to confirm, by an act of faith, its own efficacy. How ever incredible, the first living and testable proof of the living God has been published. I found my copy [a 1.3mb pdf] at www.energon.uklinux.net