Banned from the Bible

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Christianity
  3. » Banned from the Bible

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2008 10:54 am
This is an interesting video as it explains how the Bible came to what we have today. Please feel free to discuss this topic and any history that you would like to share about the Bible.


Banned From The Bible www.geocities.com/ariainvictus
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2008 02:21 pm
@Dustin phil,
I haven't seen the video as my plug-in isn't working.

For any Christian, or those interested in this sort of scholarship, researching apocryphal material is highly recommended. Keep an open mind. You'll find that the traditional establishment has a certain distaste for this sort of scholarship unless the conclusion is that the material is irrelevant. I think you will also find, if you read up even just a little, that some of the material is invaluable.

Thanks for the video link, Dustin. I'm sure those who can see it will find it to be very interesting.
 
Vasska
 
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2008 02:57 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
It's a full documentary just a few seconds under 90 minutes. Will watch it this weekend when it's not 11 PM ^^ Other that that interesting find, will comment later on this week.

Didymos Thomas: just download the flashplayer; if you have firefox click the puzzlepiece, otherwise download the flashplayer from here(IE) or here (all other browsers). If you already installed it and it's not working just reinstall, works for most people.
 
de Silentio
 
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2008 07:32 pm
@Dustin phil,
Quote:

For any Christian, or those interested in this sort of scholarship, researching apocryphal material is highly recommended.


The apocryphal books are included in the Catholic Bible, are they not?
 
de Silentio
 
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2008 07:35 pm
@Dustin phil,
I think I have seen this show on the History Channel. It is an interesting show, but, from what I remember, it seems like a lot of conjecture, some taking out of context, and more heresay. However, we shoud always keep an open mind.
 
Dustin phil
 
Reply Tue 1 Apr, 2008 08:02 pm
@de Silentio,
de Silentio wrote:
I think I have seen this show on the History Channel. It is an interesting show, but, from what I remember, it seems like a lot of conjecture, some taking out of context, and more heresy. However, we should always keep an open mind.


Do you by chance remember what they took out of context? Heresy? I didn't really see anything biased about it, and they even interviewed many different types of people-seemed to be strictly research.

There was a lot of text that was prohibited from entering Bible canon by church leaders. The documentary tells why if you pay close attention.

I've always been one of those people who stuck strictly with Bible canon. Now that I know it pretty well, I'm starting to explore other texts. I haven't yet seen anything that seems to contradict or go against the canon, but rather more information and a deeper meaning is provided.

For example, the text remaining from the gospel of Mary was prohibited, probably because of how women were thought of back then. It's true that many of Paul's letters state that women are to be subject to their husbands . . . but there are many other instances stating that those in Christ are neither male or female. This is constantly debated even in churches today, and women are still kept down. The deeper meaning reveals that all in Christ are a new creation.

Many don't understand this. But there is no contradiction between the two, because those still living under the old way, so to speak, are said to be in subjection and bound to law.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2008 12:05 am
@Dustin phil,
Quote:
The apocryphal books are included in the Catholic Bible, are they not?


There are a number of different Bibles. The Catholic Bible contains literature that is apocryphal in other traditions, and those traditions have Bibles with literature the Catholic Bible does not contain. Then there is the body of work not included in any (popular) Bible.

Quote:
I haven't yet seen anything that seems to contradict or go against the canon, but rather more information and a deeper meaning is provided.


Depends on how you read the official literature. Prior to any organized consensus on what should be included and what should excluded from official literature, clergy used whatever texts were available, or which ever texts they preferred. Different assortment of texts yield radically different variations of Christianity.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2008 05:52 am
@Dustin phil,
I should add that it's incorrect for Christians to presume that what they call the 'Old Testament' is the same work of scripture that constitutes the Jewish holy scriptures. Furthermore, Rabbinic Judaism has only predominated since after the life of Jesus, and the foundational text of Rabbinic Judaism is the Talmud -- so in the end there is very limited scriptural commonality between Judaism and Christianity.
 
de Silentio
 
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2008 09:14 am
@Dustin phil,
Quote:

Do you by chance remember what they took out of context? Heresy? I didn't really see anything biased about it, and they even interviewed many different types of people-seemed to be strictly research.



It's been a few years, so I could be incorrect.

I meant 'Hear Say', not heresy, sorry. Smile I wouldn't go as far as saying that it was heresy.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2008 01:36 pm
@Dustin phil,
I thought you meant hear say, but wasn't entirely sure. As an aside, though, many Christians influenced by apocryphal literature have been called heretics, and persecuted as such.
 
de Silentio
 
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2008 05:42 pm
@Dustin phil,
Quote:

Many don't understand this. But there is no contradiction between the two, because those still living under the old way, so to speak, are said to be in subjection and bound to law.


Through the 'new way' (Christ) we live the 'old way'.
 
Dustin phil
 
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2008 05:47 pm
@de Silentio,
de Silentio wrote:
Through the 'new way' (Christ) we live the 'old way'.


I'm not sure what you mean. Could you please explain?
 
de Silentio
 
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2008 05:47 pm
@Dustin phil,
Didymos, correct my post if I am wrong.

Quote:
I haven't yet seen anything that seems to contradict or go against the canon, but rather more information and a deeper meaning is provided.


Do they talk about the Gospel of Thomas in the movie? Because, from what I understand, a teaching of the Gospel of Thomas is that Jesus was not God and his purpose for living was to instruct and show us the way. Whereas the Canon is 'built' to suggest that Jesus is God, and that his purpose was to die for man's sins.
 
Dustin phil
 
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2008 05:54 pm
@de Silentio,
de Silentio wrote:
Didymos, correct my post if I am wrong.

Do they talk about the Gospel of Thomas in the movie? Because, from what I understand, a teaching the Gospel of Thomas is that Jesus was not God and his purpose for living was to instruct and show us the way. Whereas the Canon is 'built' to suggest that Jesus is God, and that his purpose was to die for man's sins.


How can Jesus be considered God? His flesh was not God was it? Jesus was only God through the Holy Spirit-and he was given this Spirit without measure.
 
de Silentio
 
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2008 06:02 pm
@Dustin phil,
Dustin wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean. Could you please explain?


My comment stemmed from this comment that you made:

Quote:

because those still living under the old way, so to speak, are said to be in subjection and bound to law.


I will try to exmplain myself the best I can. I did not think of this, so if I am still confusing, let me know and I will try again.

Before Christ died for our sins, man's (apparent) salvation came from the laws of Moses. This is the old way that I thought you spoke of. When Christ came, there came an (apparent) new way of salvation, and it that salvation is through Christ, not just through his atonement, but also through his teaching.

Through loving Jesus and his word, we will inevitably come to follow the core of Mosianic Law. If I love God, I will not murder, steal, covet, idolize, use the Lords name in vien, etc. Through the new way (Christ), we live the old way (laws).

If you want me to explain the 'apparents' I will, but that is a seperate idea.
 
de Silentio
 
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2008 06:05 pm
@Dustin phil,
Quote:

How can Jesus be considered God? His flesh was not God was it? Jesus was only God through the Holy Spirit, because he was given the Spirit without measure.


Basic Trinity is that Jesus is God. He is both Man and God. His flesh is as holy as his spirit is. He is God in the Flesh.

By what 'measure' am I given the Holy Spirit?
 
Dustin phil
 
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2008 07:03 pm
@de Silentio,
de Silentio wrote:
My comment stemmed from this comment that you made:

I will try to explain myself the best I can. I did not think of this, so if I am still confusing, let me know and I will try again.

Before Christ died for our sins, man's (apparent) salvation came from the laws of Moses. This is the old way that I thought you spoke of. When Christ came, there came an (apparent) new way of salvation, and it that salvation is through Christ, not just through his atonement, but also through his teaching.

Through loving Jesus and his word, we will inevitably come to follow the core of Mosianic Law. If I love God, I will not murder, steal, covet, idolize, use the Lords name in vain, etc. Through the new way (Christ), we live the old way (laws).


The law was made for the unrighteous. Christ is already righteous. What did Paul mean when he said, "It is no longer I but Christ" ?

de Silentio wrote:
If you want me to explain the 'apparents' I will, but that is a separate idea.


Okay, sure.

de Silentio wrote:
Basic Trinity is that Jesus is God. He is both Man and God. His flesh is as holy as his spirit is. He is God in the Flesh.


Wouldn't you say it's a little silly to call the flesh of Christ God?

de Silentio wrote:
By what 'measure' am I given the Holy Spirit?


By the measure you were given I suppose. What are you trying to say?
 
de Silentio
 
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2008 07:16 pm
@Dustin phil,
Dustin wrote:
The law was made for the unrighteous. Christ is already righteous. What did Paul mean when he said, "It is no longer I but Christ" ?


I know Christ is righteous, and through him I am righteous. I don't think I implied in anyway that Christ was not righteous, or that he needed the law.

Quote:
Okay, sure.


Let's finish this conversation first.

Quote:
Wouldn't you say that's a little silly to call the flesh of Christ God?


I don't think I would call much silly.

If you would like quotes from the Bible, I can provide them. But, I would like to try another way:

Jesus rose from the grave, his flesh walked again. This can be see by Thomas feeling the wound in his hand and side. His body was the same body, even though it was now glorified. There is nothing that 'changes' in Jesus after he dies and rises again, He is God, he does not change.

Quote:

By the measure you were given I suppose. What are you trying to say?


You said Jesus was God because he was given the Holy Spirit without measure. That seems to imply that we are given the Holy Spirit by a measure, and I am wondering what that measure is.

Perhaps I am unclear what you mean when you say Jesus is God "because he was given the Spirit without measure".
 
Dustin phil
 
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2008 07:41 pm
@de Silentio,
de Silentio wrote:
I know Christ is righteous, and through him I am righteous. I don't think I implied in anyway that Christ was not righteous, or that he needed the law.


Oh no, I wasn't saying that at all. I was only trying to understand your viewpoint.

de Silentio wrote:
If you would like quotes from the Bible, I can provide them. But, I would like to try another way:

Jesus rose from the grave, his flesh walked again. This can be see by Thomas feeling the wound in his hand and side. His body was the same body, even though it was now glorified. There is nothing that 'changes' in Jesus after he dies and rises again, He is God, he does not change.


In 1Corinthians it says that bodies are raised spiritual bodies-the first man is made of dust, the second man is the Lord from Heaven. Something has definitely changed...

I do agree that Jesus Christ was God come in the flesh, but I don't believe his flesh was God. The Bible says his flesh was made sin for us, which he took to the cross to be crucified.

de Silentio wrote:
You said Jesus was God because he was given the Holy Spirit without measure. That seems to imply that we are given the Holy Spirit by a measure, and I am wondering what that measure is.


By the measure that God has given to each of us, I suppose. What are your thoughts?

de Silentio wrote:
Perhaps I am unclear what you mean when you say Jesus is God "because he was given the Spirit without measure".


The Bible says that no one can say Jesus is Lord, except by the Holy Spirit; it mentions that he was given this Spirit without measure, meaning that it was unlimitedly given to him. This means since he fully manifested God, he was God come (by the Holy Spirit) in the flesh.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Wed 2 Apr, 2008 08:09 pm
@Dustin phil,
Quote:
Do they talk about the Gospel of Thomas in the movie? Because, from what I understand, a teaching of the Gospel of Thomas is that Jesus was not God and his purpose for living was to instruct and show us the way. Whereas the Canon is 'built' to suggest that Jesus is God, and that his purpose was to die for man's sins.


It's all in how you read the literature. As far as I recall, Jesus does not claim to be God, nor does he claim not to be God. Nor does the Gospel give a direct answer to the question "What is Jesus' purpose?"

52. His disciples said to him, "Twenty-four prophets have spoken in Israel, and they all spoke of you."

He said to them, "You have disregarded the living one who is in your presence, and have spoken of the dead."

The Coptic Gospel of Thomas is very different from any other Gospel.

As for the canon, and what it suggests... certainly, the canon was selected to support a particular message. I have not read through all of the material surrounding how canon was selected, but we can be safe to summarize and say that politics were no small consideration.

That said, I would not go so far as to say that the Gospel of Thomas is irreconcilable with the other Gospels, or even the whole of official canon. The various Gospels and other materials were penned by different authors, with different agendas, for different people, at different times. They are all different, they all vary. Official canon contradicts itself, so similar difficulties with apocryphal literature are not, in my view, harmful to the credibility of any of the works.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Christianity
  3. » Banned from the Bible
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 04/21/2019 at 11:19:12