Why Not?

[Buttons*]

The other gospels had clear contradictions with the teachings passed down by Jesus and the apostles, thus they were rejected as being dubious of value.

so the people who knew him first hand: Judas, Thomas, Mary, Phillip, etc... were rejected. However, Paul's letters, Luke's testimony, and the final Revelations written by people who never met Yeshua have more authority on the subject?

 

[lunamoth]

Oh, I like to read the gnostic gospels, and all kinds of other things as well. There's no law against being inspired by things outside the canon. But as for my religion? K.I.S.S.

I figure religion is like an airplane. If it's already flying you don't need to add another wing.

peace,
lunamoth

 

[Buttons*]

Oh, I like to read the gnostic gospels, and all kinds of other things as well. There's no law against being inspired by things outside the canon. But as for my religion? K.I.S.S.

and i think thats really cool!

This question was more for the people who dont do any exploration of their own beliefs.... *shrugs*

I figure religion is like an airplane. If it's already flying you don't need to add another wing.

many things "work" but arent perfect. NOT saying there's a perfect religion!!!! It's not really a matter of if it works... I'm just wondering if people really wanted to know about the life of their savior, why they wouldn't read books that discuss it.

 

[lunamoth]

This question was more for the people who dont do any exploration of their own beliefs.... *shrugs*

Well, I think you just answered your own question. Many people do not feel a need to explore or question their religion. So, what's wrong with that? To each her own.

many things "work" but arent perfect. NOT saying there's a perfect religion!!!!

I could completely agree with you on this one!

It's not really a matter of if it works... I'm just wondering if people really wanted to know about the life of their savior, why they wouldn't read books that discuss it.

I would guess that they already know all they need to about the life of their Savior. Some like to question and explore (and spend way too much time online talking about it, ), some don't care, and others are too busy getting on with the business of living the life. The airplane is flying, now let's get busy delivering these medicines and food to those who need them!

BTW, you've revived choodianism? Has there been a new revelation?

luna

 

[Buttons*]

Well, I think you just answered your own question. Many people do not feel a need to explore or question their religion. So, what's wrong with that? To each her own.

very true. There's nothing wrong with a persons individual involvement in their religion... i was just curious i suppose.

I would guess that they already know all they need to about the life of their Savior. Some like to question and explore (and spend way too much time online talking about it, , some don't care, and others are too busy getting on with the business of living the life.

*nods* this is also true.

now let's get busy delivering these medicines and food to those who need them!

if only that was humanities focus!!!! What a great place Earth would be!

BTW, you've revived choodianism? Has there been a new revelation?

luna

no, actually i just felt like being silly

 

[lunamoth]

no, actually i just felt like being silly

Well,being silly is good for the soul.

I'll always remember with fondness my days as an Orthodox Choodianist (or at least the days I was sober). I had my boobie tassels bronzed.

Now, take two chocolate Easter bunnies and call me in the morning! (As the RF Villiage offical lawn mower I sideline as a neurosurgeon. Lawnmowing is fulfilling, but it just does not pay what it used to.)

Sister luna

 

[Mister Emu]

refresh my memory, which church was that?

Catholic

again, which church was that? Yeshua died before any church was established.

Jesus established a Church on Peter.

I know, but someone made that decision of what was orthodox/original/apostolic, and that person was not Yeshua

The Apostles and the people they taught...

so the people who knew him first hand: Judas, Thomas, Mary, Phillip, etc... were rejected. However, Paul's letters, Luke's testimony, and the final Revelations written by people who never met Yeshua have more authority on the subject?

That is if the attributed actually authored the works...

 

[Scuba Pete]

The letter kills.

The Spirit gives life!

So many think that to "study" the scriptures is the means to understanding God and how to "be" a Christian. In doing so we rob the Spirit of his role in our lives: counselor and guide.

We try to neuter the Spirit because we don't believe him to be that powerful. In doing so we dismiss God's power here on earth.

Does it matter if we have ALL of the scriptures or only one or two lines? Not to the Spirit. The Spirit convicts us of right and wrong: not the letters on a page. Do I need to concern myself with which scriptures to include or not? Nope. The Spirit will be sure to use anything at it's disposal, including secular literature, to make my heart change to love and serve God.

The way I look at it, I have mastered less than %10 of this whole "Love God and Love Everyone Else" thing. Probably a LOT less. After I get those two precepts down pat, I'll be moving on to other scriptures and perhaps even those "other" gospels.

 

[Buttons*]

The letter kills.

The Spirit gives life!

So many think that to "study" the scriptures is the means to understanding God and how to "be" a Christian. In doing so we rob the Spirit of his role in our lives: counselor and guide.

We try to neuter the Spirit because we don't believe him to be that powerful. In doing so we dismiss God's power here on earth.

Does it matter if we have ALL of the scriptures or only one or two lines? Not to the Spirit. The Spirit convicts us of right and wrong: not the letters on a page. Do I need to concern myself with which scriptures to include or not? Nope. The Spirit will be sure to use anything at it's disposal, including secular literature, to make my heart change to love and serve God.

The way I look at it, I have mastered less than %10 of this whole "Love God and Love Everyone Else" thing. Probably a LOT less. After I get those two precepts down pat, I'll be moving on to other scriptures and perhaps even those "other" gospels.

*smiles* I think thats really an awesome outlook on it NetDoc!

I never saw it that way!

 

[Buttons*]

Catholic

....are you Catholic? You sly devil, never knew!!!!

Jesus established a Church on Peter.

Could you quote that in scripture? (i'm too lazy to conduct the search.... which is kind of ironic since I'm bothering you all about not looking things up.... oh well, its 4:30 AM... gimmie a break! ... of that kit kat bar!!!)

The Apostles and the people they taught...

more passaging por favor?

That is if the attributed actually authored the works...

The Bible's current four weren't even written by the people whose names are on them

 

[Mister Emu]

....are you Catholic? You sly devil, never knew!!!!

Converting

Could you quote that in scripture?

Matt 16:18-20

more passaging por favor?

What kind of passaging are you looking for, I am not sure I understand...

The Bible's current four weren't even written by the people whose names are on them

You want me to deny that the Biblical gospels were not written by the attributed authors, but to accept that Thomas, Mary, and Judas wrote those gospels?
Also, evidence?

 

[Buttons*]

Converting

so is my little brother Warren!!! How cool!!!!

Matt 16:18-20

you got me there, frubals!

What kind of passaging are you looking for, I am not sure I understand...

dont mind that, i wrote it EARLY in the morning

You want me to deny that the Biblical gospels were not written by the attributed authors, but to accept that Thomas, Mary, and Judas wrote those gospels?
Also, evidence?

touche!!!

I just saw something on the Discovery channel as far as matt, mark, luke, and john not being written by their actual authors because of the fact that they were written so long after yeshua's death.

Unfortunatley, i havent read or seen anything yet that either proves or disproves thomas, mary, or judas' gospels if they were written by the actual authors or not... so I really dont know.

I'm not asking you to accept anything, I'm just asking why not look into them. Lunamoth let me realize that to each their own and not everyone feels like they need more in-depth exploration... so if this was too invasive i'm sorry.

I was mostly just curious.

 

[lunamoth]

I'm not asking you to accept anything, I'm just asking why not look into them. Lunamoth let me realize that to each their own and not everyone feels like they need more in-depth exploration... so if this was too invasive i'm sorry.

I was mostly just curious.

Oh, you are alright Buttons. If one doesn't ever ask such questions what would we all have to talk about?

So...why do you feel you need more than the canon to believe?

peace,
lunamoth

 

[Buttons*]

Oh, you are alright Buttons. If one doesn't ever ask such questions what would we all have to talk about?

So...why do you feel you need more than the canon to believe?

peace,
lunamoth

I dont believe the canon actually....

But the reason i looked into Gnosticism in the first place is because i picked up a book that discussed Gnostic texts.... and I felt like i'd been lied to all my life because books like Mary and Thomas were not in the Bible... it just felt wrong to me not to give them a look-see.

 

[Bishka]

so the people who knew him first hand: Judas, Thomas, Mary, Phillip, etc... were rejected. However, Paul's letters, Luke's testimony, and the final Revelations written by people who never met Yeshua have more authority on the subject?

I agree, those do have much good in them (so I have heard, haven't gotten the chance to read them yet). You already pretty much know what the LDS view on more teachings on Christ is. =)

I'm sure one day that the LDS Church will take a stand on those books, but for the time being it's not pro or con. I've been told though (by my Christian History teacher) that many of those gospels have things that the LDS Church already believes in and is already in our canon, so I think that means they wouldn't need to incorporate them into our canon.

I agree, why wouldn't the people closest to Christ know about Him and His teachings?

I'll have to reed those gospels and get back to you on that Ashley!

 

[lunamoth]

I dont believe the canon actually....

But the reason i looked into Gnosticism in the first place is because i picked up a book that discussed Gnostic texts.... and I felt like i'd been lied to all my life because books like Mary and Thomas were not in the Bible... it just felt wrong to me not to give them a look-see.

That is interesting. Did you lose faith in the canon/Christianity before you discovered the Gnostic texts, or after?

Also, I don't know a lot about it, you probably know more, but much of the NT was accepted by the eary Christian gnostics. Some people interpet Paul as being gnostic (although I see it differently). I think it was Marcion that put together a gnostic version of the canon that had some of the current NT books in it (although apprently he redacted them)

http://www.christianorigins.com/marcion.html

Paul, with his focus on free grace, was by far Marcion's favorite Apostle. As a result, he rejected the writings attributed to all the other Apostles and relied on forms of Luke's Gospel and ten Pauline epistles that he redacted. Although a small number of scholars have, from time to time, argued that Marcion may have had access to earlier forms of the gospels (especially Luke), even John Knox, the most prominent promoter of this theory, admits that Marcion intentionally and knowingly excised as much Old Testament and Jewish influence as he could find in the Paulines and Gospel of Luke. "That Marcion, for example, did not have the account of John the Baptist's announcement of Jesus as Messiah or the story of Jesus' temptation is almost certainly to be accounted for by Marcion's omission of these passages. Not only are they inconsistent with Marcion's theological position but (more important) they are also deeply imbedded in the Synotpic tradition, and to explain them as late additions to a Gospel which was already dependent (as Marcion's was) upon that tradition is next to impossible." John Knox, Marcion and the New Testament, at 95.
The scope of Marcion's redactions is large. As Dr. Fisher explained, Marcion rejected "the entire Old Testament, [and] settled for Luke's Gospel (eliminating chapters 1 & 2 as too Jewish) and Paul's letters (except for the pastoral ones)." "The Canon of the New Testament," by Milton Fisher, in The Origin of the Bible, ed. Philip Comfort, at 71. Beyond chapters 1 and 2 of Luke, Marcion also removed Luke 4:1-3 (temptation narrative that refers to Dueteronomy 3 times), Luke 4:16-30 (Jesus claiming—while teaching in a synagogue—that his ministry was a fulfillment of the Old Testament), Luke 5:39 ("The old is good"), and Luke 8:19 (reference to Jesus' family). All of these verses were just too Jewish and conflicted too much with Marcion's heresies.
Significantly, Marcion also took a scalpel to Paul's letters, eliminating as many positive references to Judaism or the Old Testament as possible. "Marcion dealt with the text of Paul's letters in the same way as with the text of Luke's gospel: anything which appeared inconsistent with what he believed to be authentic Pauline teaching was regarded as a corruption proceeding from an alien hand." F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, at 140. The mention of Abraham as an example of faith was eliminated from Galatians (3:6-9), as well as the connection between the law and the gospels (3:15-25). He removed Romans 1:19-21:1, 3:21-4:25, and most of Romans 9-11, and everything after Romans 14:23.
Additionally, Marcion simply altered the content of many verses in Luke and Paul's letters to soften the connection with Judaism. For example, in place of "Thy Kingdom Come" in the Lord's Prayer (Luke 11:2), Marcion's gospel stated, "Let they Holy Spirit come on us and cleanse us." Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, at 138. In Ephesians, he changed, "the mystery hidden for ages in God who created all things" (3:9) to "the mystery hidden for ages from the God who created all things." Id. at 139. This simple little change has the creating God being duped by the God of the New Testament.

cheers,
lunamoth

 

[Buttons*]

That is interesting. Did you lose faith in the canon/Christianity before you discovered the Gnostic texts, or after?

Before.

I had attended the Episcopal church all my life and loved it. But we moved when I was 14 and we went to the non-denominational christian church across the street. It really bothered me because it was JUST a social hang out. People lifted their hands to rock music... there's nothing wrong with worshiping that way.... but it never suited me because I was raised differently.

At any rate, the fact that Christians, including myself at the time not only treated their deity like crap, they looked down their nose at others. The LDS friends I had in public school my Freshman year were teased mercilessly by kids i went to church with. One LDS girl told me that I didnt care if my best friend, who was wiccan, went to hell because i didnt convert her. It just bothered me.

I assumed disassociating myself with Christianity on the whole would be better for me. The hypocracy just got to me.... But my wiccan friend mentioned that there was a goddess in Christianity... so i went looking for it and then stumbled upon this book by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy Jesus and the Lost Goddess and that was all she wrote. It covered gnostic topics and early Christianity. I thought I understood, at last, what It meant to be Christian. I thought, "if we wanted to follow the faith, why dont we go back to the roots?"

Also, I don't know a lot about it, you probably know more, but much of the NT was accepted by the eary Christian gnostics. Some people interpet Paul as being gnostic (although I see it differently). I think it was Marcion that put together a gnostic version of the canon that had some of the current NT books in it (although apprently he redacted them)

http://www.christianorigins.com/marcion.html

yes, some gnostics thought that about Paul, but Halcyon and I strongly disagree... he says things that are VERY non-gnostic.

 

[lunamoth]

Before.

I had attended the Episcopal church all my life and loved it. But we moved when I was 14 and we went to the non-denominational christian church across the street. It really bothered me because it was JUST a social hang out. People lifted their hands to rock music... there's nothing wrong with worshiping that way.... but it never suited me because I was raised differently.

At any rate, the fact that Christians, including myself at the time not only treated their deity like crap, they looked down their nose at others. The LDS friends I had in public school my Freshman year were teased mercilessly by kids i went to church with. One LDS girl told me that I didnt care if my best friend, who was wiccan, went to hell because i didnt convert her. It just bothered me.

Mmm, yeah. I personally find the non-denoms to be almost like a different religion. Lots of diversity in the Body of Christ (and that's my more polite way of putting it for some cases).

I assumed disassociating myself with Christianity on the whole would be better for me. The hypocracy just got to me.... But my wiccan friend mentioned that there was a goddess in Christianity... so i went looking for it and then stumbled upon this book by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy Jesus and the Lost Goddess and that was all she wrote. It covered gnostic topics and early Christianity. I thought I understood, at last, what It meant to be Christian. I thought, "if we wanted to follow the faith, why dont we go back to the roots?"

Well, I disagree that gnosticism is going back to the roots, but it is another path. I don't know enough about it to say all of what I might agree with or what I would disagree with. With respect to the God/Godess thing, well, I think God actually is beyond all gender, despite the paternalistic language historically used in Christianity. Esp in the OT you can find some nice phrases honoring the female/mother traits of God. So that never really bothered me. Now, the overt sexism and oppression agains women carried out by organized Christian religion, that's a different story... (grrrr).

yes, some gnostics thought that about Paul, but Halcyon and I strongly disagree... he says things that are VERY non-gnostic.

I still do not have a very clear picture of what your beliefs are. Not to pressue you into creating a box for yourself or anything, but if you ever are interested in doing a thread on it I for one would read it (respectfully).

cheers,
lunamoth

 

[Buttons*]

Mmm, yeah. I personally find the non-denoms to be almost like a different religion. Lots of diversity in the Body of Christ (and that's my more polite way of putting it for some cases).

*nods*

Well, I disagree that gnosticism is going back to the roots, but it is another path.

i know, Gnosticism was around before Christianity and stuff...

I don't know enough about it to say all of what I might agree with or what I would disagree with. With respect to the God/Godess thing, well, I think God actually is beyond all gender, despite the paternalistic language historically used in Christianity. Esp in the OT you can find some nice phrases honoring the female/mother traits of God. So that never really bothered me. Now, the overt sexism and oppression agains women carried out by organized Christian religion, that's a different story... (grrrr).

This is true, and its not about actual gods and goddesses... its about the source.... its really difficult to explain without getting into mythology...

I still do not have a very clear picture of what your beliefs are. Not to pressue you into creating a box for yourself or anything, but if you ever are interested in doing a thread on it I for one would read it (respectfully).

cheers,
lunamoth

Well, maybe a little bit later. As for now I'm working really hard to get through that secret Gospel of John... so maybe after that I'll make a thread for it. If not, I can PM you with it sometime... but it is a bit hard to explain....

 

[Tom Davidson]

The discussion of apocryphal texts is a complex one.

If you look at the teachings of the gnostics (ie the 2nd century sects, not the 'principle' of gnosis as such) they invariably try and 'hi-jack' Christian teachings and lead them off somewhere else.

Christ taught about love, and a one-on-one relationship with the Father - he told people to call God 'Abba'.

Gnostics teaching is utterly different - its all about 'knowledge', not love, so gnosis isn't who you are, but what you know ... in gnostic teachings there are inumerable intermediate levels that separate man from God ... syzergies, archons ... and to pass from one to the next you need 'keys' (knowledge again)...

Scripture, and Christ, taught that the world is essentially 'good' - the gnostic view is the world is essentially evil and the soul is trapped here ...

So 'basic' gnostic teaching is anti-Christian at almost every step.

A favourite technique of the gnostics was to write a 'gospel' in which Christ is utterly devisive, and imparts a 'secret teaching' to one, but not the others. So in one Judas is the 'specially chosen', in another it's Mary Magdalene, in another its Thomas ...

Another technique was to insist that although they never met Jesus, the gnostic teachers actually understood what Christ was teaching, whilst the poor old disciples were too stupid and hadn't got a clue ... that fact that 'their' Christianity bears a stunning resemblance to Zoroastrianism/Manicheanism and is nothing like the orthodox canon, nor the Old Testament, speaks for itself.

The most we know is from Irenaeus, who wrote a refutation of everything they taught. Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp, who was a student of St John, and it is likely that Irenaeus was in communication with people who had actually met Jesus personally, or who 'knew someone who knew him' (and I'll admit that allows for a lot of rumour and misinformation)

But Irenaeus argued that wherever Christianity was taught, the message was the same, in Rome, Alexandria, in Gaul (he was in Lyon) in Antioch ... and yet all those Christians had all got it wrong, and yet wherever gnostics taught, and a 'rule' of gnosticism is that each teacher should make the message his own, and thus no two gnostic teachers taught precisely the same thing, they were all right!

His last argument was that Christ could not have been much good if he hadn't managed to teach even one of his disciples the right message.

And remember that it is axiomatic to gnostic teachings that only a very, very few are saved, because the vast majority of humanity do not have a soul...

Lastly, if you don't believe the Christians, read up on the Greek Philosophers. The Stoics especially ripped into the gnostics at every opportunity for what they saw was very bad philosophy - a lack of reason, logic and intellectual rigour - whilst they acknowledged that they might not believe in the Christian God, Christians argued the case perfectly.

The point is that some gnostics were Christians who tried to express what they thought through what they already knew, others were not Christian at all, but simply wanted to get on the bandwagon (Christianity was spreading like wildfire).

Personally, I am Catholic, but a Christian Neoplatonist, for me Platonic philosophy is far more a 'real gnosis' than the oooh-er mystery stuff the gnostics churn out, but it's tough reading. Gnostics always aimed at popularity, rather than reality.

And if I were to bang my gong, I'd want to know if people want to know the 'real deal' on gnosis, why, Catholics especially, aren't they reading Athenasius, Basil, Clement, Dionysius the Areopagite, Ephrem the Syrian, Eriugena or Eckhart, Gregory of Nyssa, or Nazianzus, (I know, I skipped the 'F'), Hilary of Poitiers, Ignatius, John Damascene or John of the Cross ... Katherine of Siena (I cheated, should be a 'C') ... can't think of an 'L', hang on, Leo the Great! ... Maximus the Confessor (who re-ordered Platonism - my hero!) ...

Hey ... where'd you all go... ?


Thomas