NationStates Jolt Archive

So, either last night, or the night before, I saw a show on the History Channel about the books that didn't make it into the Bible that we know today, such as the Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Thomas, and several others. The question is, why didn't they make it into the Bible, was it because they weren't Canon, or that they didn't really pertain to Jesus's teachings, or was it something else? Could it be that the reason the books didn't make it into the Bible is because they expose something about Jesus that the Church at the time didn't want them to know? Was it the fact that some actually calls the divinity of Jesus into question?

The basic question is, with all of these books that didn't make it into the Bible, are we getting the full picture of Jesus and his life, or are we getting a version that the Church deems "acceptable"?

It's because the Church council that chose the books to be in the New Testament had an agenda, so they chose the books that most closely followed that agenda and discarded the rest. It's also of interest to note that the books about Christ's life and teachings were written a minimum of 50 years after his death - including the four gospels.

I watched the same show.

Basically, its becuase there where so many different sects of Christianity, that each of them had thier own Gospel, and believed thier particular Disciple was "the chosen successor to Jesus", or other very different opposing views on Christianity.
Some groups, likle the Gnostics, had several.

There was by no means one group of christians in trhe early days, not until 325, and thats only becuase they killed off everyone else.

The "Canonical books", were the ones approved by The Council of Nicaea, and Constantine.
This was essentially to have one solid idea of what was acceptable, and what was not.
All other books were hence called "apochryphal", or "hidden texts".

In truth, some were not allowed becuase they held contrary views, such as Judas, Mary, and Thomas, and several others.

The Book of Judas was removed because it was a blatant retcon. No-one wanted the Bible to jump the shark.

The Book of Judas was removed because it was a blatant retcon. No-one wanted the Bible to jump the shark.

Impossible.

Einstien didnt invent The Fonz until 1950.

get real. no one is ever going to be given "the full picture" of anything.

not politics, not economics, not belief.

there's too much at stake by too much concentrated power invested in status quoes to ever expect any such thing, even if, it were ever possible.

as for the life of one guy, however charismatic and unusual, not THAT unusual for the most part, the events of his life, thousands of years ago, man, no one gets it right about events even a few decades past, let alone centuries or millinea.

what a crazy question to ask. of course we're not. never have. never can. never will.

we can get a generall feel for what may have been going on in the world when he lived, what kind of conditions and circumstances were faced by people in general, even maybe broken down more specificly to social levels and what a charismatic leader from a less then highest escillons background might be expected to having been looking at.

but not the actual experiences of one individual, about whome nothing was ever written other then his birth, the last three years of his life, and ONE, count em, ONE, incident in his early adolescence!

NOTHING else about his life is KNOWN, or likely ever can or will be.
he could have done or been, litterally absolutely ANYTHING during those unknown years. let your imagination run wild. its ALL possible.

ok, not every conflicting with each other thing at the same time, but i mean like any one of them. he could have been gay. he could have fathered multiple huge famillies. he could have had multiple wives, or mistressess, or none. almost certainly he'd had SOME sort of personal relationship with marry magdalene, without whome, it is unlikely we would have ever heard of him, unless the scrolls of his four scribe buddies had somehow mysteriously turned up somewhere.

but there were things going on historicly, an historical context, and so people are talking about that a bit now, for whatever reasons is motivating them to do so. and this is good in a sense as it gives people some idea, but it can only give a general feel as to what to expect is likely to have been, never the fine accurate and absolute details.

=^^=
.../\...

What you're getting is a story. A story that's been twitched and edited over and over again through 2,000 years.

What you're getting is a story. A story that's been twitched and edited over and over again through 2,000 years.

They have proved that the majority of the bible has not changed in 2000 years by cross checking it with earlier versions.

They have proved that the majority of the bible has not changed in 2000 years by cross checking it with earlier versions.

Source?

Source?

The Dead Sea Scrolls.

we getting a version that the Church deems "acceptable"?

That part.

So, either last night, or the night before, I saw a show on the History Channel about the books that didn't make it into the Bible that we know today, such as the Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Thomas, and several others. The question is, why didn't they make it into the Bible, was it because they weren't Canon, or that they didn't really pertain to Jesus's teachings, or was it something else? Could it be that the reason the books didn't make it into the Bible is because they expose something about Jesus that the Church at the time didn't want them to know? Was it the fact that some actually calls the divinity of Jesus into question?

The basic question is, with all of these books that didn't make it into the Bible, are we getting the full picture of Jesus and his life, or are we getting a version that the Church deems "acceptable"?

It's widely known that the Bible was compiled by people with no particular claim to divine guidance. It was voted on by politicians and theologians who interpreted the books they liked the way they liked and discarded those that they couldn't reinterperet to suit their idea of what Jesus should be like and what Christianity should stand for.

One example, some translations of Mathew describe Jesus getting angry at a beggar and then healing him. Other versions describe Jesus as expressing sorrow and sympathy towards the beggar before healing him. So, was this a hard-line theologian changing the text to warn readers "don't doubt the power of Jesus or he'll be mad at you?" Is it a pacifist saying "even if you are angry, you should still do nice things and not be controlled by your anger?" Or was the word "angry" changed to the word "sad" by someone who read the line and thought "why would Jesus be angry if he's so nice, and if he's angry then why is he healing the guy instead of giving him a smack?"

Just look at the Bible for what it is. A compilation of folktales that have varied substantially from their roots and now exist in many variations, some much more common than others. After all, how many people have heard the original version of Cinderella in which her slipper is made of fur instead of glass?

They have proved that the majority of the bible has not changed in 2000 years by cross checking it with earlier versions.

Quite the opposite.

As Bart Ehrman, biblical scholar and author of Misquoting Jesus, describes it based on his thorough research:

The Bible simply wasn't error-free. The mistakes grew exponentially as he traced translations through the centuries. There are some 5,700 ancient Greek manuscripts that are the basis of the modern versions of the New Testament, and scholars have uncovered more than 200,000 differences in those texts.

"Put it this way: There are more variances among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament," Ehrman summarizes

The Dead Sea Scrolls.How so? The Dead Sea scrolls contain no New Testament writings. The Dead Sea scrolls are texts hidden by the Jerusalem Temple priestship (Sadducees & Essenes) there in the years leading up to the Jewish revolt. Most of the Temple texts, however, were taken by Josephus.

They have proved that the majority of the bible has not changed in 2000 years by cross checking it with earlier versions.

It would appear that you don't have a firm grasp of the numeric value of "more than 200,000" ... i hope it's not some kind of conservative estimate of yours or something. They do you disservice (as they do everyone else). :p

How so? The Dead Sea scrolls contain no New Testament writings. The Dead Sea scrolls are texts hidden by the Jerusalem Temple priestship (Sadducees & Essenes) there in the years leading up to the Jewish revolt. Most of the Temple texts, however, were taken by Josephus.
It's okay, they're just learning the topic. They're still stuck on arguing for american conservativism.

How so? The Dead Sea scrolls contain no New Testament writings. The Dead Sea scrolls are texts hidden by the Jerusalem Temple priestship (Sadducees & Essenes) there in the years leading up to the Jewish revolt. Most of the Temple texts, however, were taken by Josephus.

Talking about the old testament or what I call "The Bible". I have watched several documentaries about the Dead Sea Scrolls and what has been translated. As the documentary says they have matched the old testament. There are also inscriptions from the bible versus found in various places that match perfectly today that are over 2000 years old in the holy lands. I just saw a re-run of this Canadian documentary just the other night. Will have to look it up for a name. Was on the history channel I believe. However I suppose they could be wrong.

It's okay, they're just learning the topic. They're still stuck on arguing for american conservativism.

wtf are you talking about?

It would appear that you don't have a firm grasp of the numeric value of "more than 200,000" ... i hope it's not some kind of conservative estimate of yours or something. They do you disservice (as they do everyone else). :p

Edit: I am talking about the Old Testament. Might want to figure out what version I am referring to before blathering on.

Talking about the old testament or what I call "The Bible". I have watched several documentaries about the Dead Sea Scrolls and what has been translated. As the documentary says they have matched the old testament. There are also inscriptions from the bible versus found in various places that match perfectly today that are over 2000 years old in the holy lands. I just saw a re-run of this Canadian documentary just the other night. Will have to look it up for a name. Was on the history channel I believe. However I suppose they could be wrong.what's your point really? what do the dead sea scrolls have to do with apocrypha of the new testament?
btw do those documentaries still claim that qumran was a scriptorium? if so, you can just forget them.

Edit: I am talking about the Old Testament. Might want to figure out what version I am referring to before blathering on.

Which, clearly, is NOT "The Bible". If you disagree, i readily, happily invite you to pick up a handy bible and find out what exactly it does have in it, since you're not doing so well.
As blathering goes, you disgrace yourself there. Good job.

wtf are you talking about?

Adaptation is the enemy of conservativism? :p

what's your point really? what do the dead sea scrolls have to do with apocrypha of the new testament?
btw do those documentaries still claim that qumran was a scriptorium? if so, you can just forget them.

Because according to what I have seen they include some of the so called hidden text.

As for the last comment it is your opinion nothing else really. What I have seen is speculative but not proven or disproved.

Adaptation is the enemy of conservativism? :p

Are you making the wrong assuption that I am a conservative Christian?

Because according to what I have seen they include some of the so called hidden text. what is they and what do they include?

As for the last comment it is your opinion nothing else really. What I have seen is speculative but not proven or disproved.nope. qumran was a pottery manufacture. the scrolls where only associated with the place because they had been stored in vessels/pots from there.

Which, clearly, is NOT "The Bible". If you disagree, i readily, happily invite you to pick up a handy bible and find out what exactly it does have in it, since you're not doing so well.
As blathering goes, you disgrace yourself there. Good job.Oh, when I think of Bible I also rather think of the Old Testament, which was already in Jesus' time considered scripture and for which the term was coined. The New Testament is a late addition that only narrates a couple of years of some itinerant preacher.

Are you making the wrong assuption that I am a conservative Christian?

No, i am making the comparison between previous arguments you've made in favour of conservativism and your approach to the veracity of the text in question. Similar approaches.
Nothing personal. :)

Oh, when I think of Bible I also rather think of the Old Testament, which was already in Jesus' time considered scripture and for which the term was coined. The New Testament is a late addition that only narrates a couple of years of some itinerant preacher.

In Jesus' time, specifically Romans? Since he didn't say "Talmud" or "Pentateuch" or any of the other names?
bible ...:
http://www.biblehistory.com/75.htm
also, when one makes a bibliography, they're not quoting the OT.

Just so i don't sound insincere, i looked through a little bit of etymology reference.

bible: Gr. (ta) biblia (the) books
pl. of biblion
orig. dim. of biblos, bublos papyrus, scroll
... is that what you meant?

In Jesus' time, specifically Romans? Since he didn't say "Talmud" or "Pentateuch" or any of the other names?
bible ...:
http://www.biblehistory.com/75.htm
also, when one makes a bibliography, they're not quoting the OT.wtf? the talmud was written long after jesus' death, and pentateuch is a medieval designation. bible just means the book(s)/scroll(s) and is basically the same as the word scripture (writings).
and the point is that the septuagint already existed as a canonized bible long before jesus' time.

bible just means the book(s)/scroll(s) and is basically the same as the word scripture (writings).Note above.

and the point is that the septuagint already existed as a canonized bible long before jesus' time.a canonized (obviously only meaning "accepted as authentic") scroll, or papyrus, hmmm.
You really don't have the same point as him, you know.

Note above.
a canonized scroll, or papyrus, hmmm.it's about the text, not the material on which it was written. i consider the septuagint the original bible, to which additions (and omissions) were made later.

it's about the text, not the material on which it was written.That's why i decided to elucidate a bit, to make the distinction between the literal and assumed.
i consider the septuagint the original bible, to which additions (and omissions) were made later.It didn't appear that they were seeing it the same way, which is likely why we're still talking about it. :)

That's why i decided to elucidate a bit, to make the distinction between the literal and assumed.??
It didn't appear that they were seeing it the same way, which is likely why we're still talking about it. :)who they?

??The "sincere" part.

who they?Marrakech II.

The basic question is, with all of these books that didn't make it into the Bible, are we getting the full picture of Jesus and his life, or are we getting a version that the Church deems "acceptable"?
Dude, seriously! Do you really have to ask?

Talking about the old testament or what I call "The Bible". I have watched several documentaries about the Dead Sea Scrolls and what has been translated. As the documentary says they have matched the old testament. There are also inscriptions from the bible versus found in various places that match perfectly today that are over 2000 years old in the holy lands. I just saw a re-run of this Canadian documentary just the other night. Will have to look it up for a name. Was on the history channel I believe. However I suppose they could be wrong.

But what you're saying here does not support your earlier claim that "the Bible has not changed much in the last 2,000 years." What you're saying is that some versions of some Bible Verses in some ancient writings match some Bible Verses in some other ancient writings.

If a million people play ten parallel games of telephone, each 100,000 people long with the same starting message, the first 10 or 12 are going to sound failry close in each of the games. After that they're going to diverge greatly.

You're saying here that #5 from one game is a lot like #3 from another game. But your initial claim made it sound like you were saying that there's little difference between #1 and #100,000.

They have proved that the majority of the bible has not changed in 2000 years by cross checking it with earlier versions.

Well, that's true and false at the same time.

You're thinking that LG said that the general...story of the Bible has changed, ne?

But the exact wording and grammar of the Bible has constantly changed (if you dare tell me that the original Greek and the King James Version are similar...)

So, either last night, or the night before, I saw a show on the History Channel about the books that didn't make it into the Bible that we know today, such as the Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Thomas, and several others. The question is, why didn't they make it into the Bible, was it because they weren't Canon, or that they didn't really pertain to Jesus's teachings, or was it something else? Could it be that the reason the books didn't make it into the Bible is because they expose something about Jesus that the Church at the time didn't want them to know? Was it the fact that some actually calls the divinity of Jesus into question?

The basic question is, with all of these books that didn't make it into the Bible, are we getting the full picture of Jesus and his life, or are we getting a version that the Church deems "acceptable"?

I have researched this a lot lately, because so many people ask about this. To sum up what I have found: It is because those other gospels come much later in church history, or at least in comparison to the canon we have. We know this by carbon dating, and also through the patriachs, or the church fathers. They were the group of people that were directly associated with the apostles. They quoted several thousand pieces of scripture, none of which are these gnostic gospel. I really don't trust much of what is on the history channel anymore. In fact, right now they have a show on UFOs on. What does that have to do with history? Its obvious that the History Channel has an agenda to explore the most crazy ideas out there.

For a look into the issue of the "lost gospels" I suggest reading Lee Strobel's book, "The Case for the Real Jesus" He interviews really credible scholars, on many issues, which includes the credibility of the scripture we have, the gnostic gospels, and so on. However, its not just some evangelical mental masturbation read. there are some things in there that go against what most evangelicals would like to believe, such as the in errancy of scripture, but that is fine, because it is acceptable when you really think about it.


Or if you can't afford the book(its only 15 bucks I think), look at these links which talk in detail about it all:

http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.html
http://www.tektonics.org/lp/nttextcrit.html
http://www.tektonics.org/ntdocdef/gospdefhub.html
http://www.tektonics.org/qm/qmhub.html
http://www.tektonics.org/harmonize/lincoln01.html


Some are quite lengthy, but well worth the read. Its changes one's mind a bit on what Christianity is, and how it should differ from what is being taught today. I recommend it for everyone :)

But what you're saying here does not support your earlier claim that "the Bible has not changed much in the last 2,000 years." What you're saying is that some versions of some Bible Verses in some ancient writings match some Bible Verses in some other ancient writings.

If a million people play ten parallel games of telephone, each 100,000 people long with the same starting message, the first 10 or 12 are going to sound failry close in each of the games. After that they're going to diverge greatly.

You're saying here that #5 from one game is a lot like #3 from another game. But your initial claim made it sound like you were saying that there's little difference between #1 and #100,000.

Ever heard of textual criticism? They can look at the differences and similarities in #1 and #100,000, and still piece the story together very efficiently, and very accurately.

Take this as an example:

Lets say we play the telephone game, with maybe 5 lines of people. You tell the first person of each group something like "John had an egg" Now when you go to hear what the last person of each line says, you might get something like this:

1 totally correct message
1 message saying that John has an egg
1 message saying that John ate an egg
1 message saying that Bob had an egg
and 1 message saying John had a leg.

Now, if those last people were to get together and listen to each story, they could piece together what the original message was. That is how textual criticism works.

Besides, as far as the early Christian community is concerned, there were enough people with the correct message to keep the message pure and true, and that would help weed out any mistakes or whatever.

It's because the Church council that chose the books to be in the New Testament had an agenda, so they chose the books that most closely followed that agenda and discarded the rest. It's also of interest to note that the books about Christ's life and teachings were written a minimum of 50 years after his death - including the four gospels.

But, the letters of Paul, and the apostles, including the half brother of Christ where written with sooner than that, and they all agreed on the same thing that the gospels said, that Jesus was the saviour of mankind, and died and then rose again.

But, the letters of Paul, and the apostles, including the half brother of Christ where written with sooner than that, and they all agreed on the same thing that the gospels said, that Jesus was the saviour of mankind, and died and then rose again.You have evidence for this?

You have evidence for this?

I posted links, i made reference to a book, should I open them up for you? It is well known among scholars dealing in Biblical history, both Christian and non-Christian, that the epistles were written before the gospels.