Banned From The Bible

[Mach]

Here is a video about the.... well...... Books Banned from the Bible.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3601682653729434420

There are even some writings that talk about Mary being "checked" for actual virginity by another woman. Help me out here, I'm not a doctor but wouldn't a virgin trying to have a child have some big problems, not to mention..... how could you check for virginity AFTER the child was born?


Also, could you imagine one called "The Gospel of the Egyptians"....... hmmmmmmm

 

[punkskarockemo]

Is that from the history channel ive seen that before, cant watch it right know on my dial up. But recently ive doing my own research and it seems that a bunch of the things jesus did being born of a virgin, dieing and rising form the dead, and many other things could possibly be based off pagan gods or other religions.

 

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

I have always thought there was a place for religion in schools.

a two semester course.

Fall Semester: Greek/Roman Mythology
Spring Semester: Judeo-Christian Mythology

 

[WRellim]

I have always thought there was a place for religion in schools.

a two semester course.

Fall Semester: Greek/Roman Mythology
Spring Semester: Judeo-Christian Mythology

What about the third semester: Morman Mythology.

Or the fourth: BobBarr Libertarian Worship practices.

And the 3rd year (full year course): Acceptable Superstitions for Atheists (including: Conspiracy Theories [general], Feng Shui, Nostradamus, Beginners guide to Crystals, Indigo Children, Chiropractic, and last but not least Astrology 101).

 

[yongrel]

Well this thread is going to turn nasty.

 

[WRellim]

Well this thread is going to turn nasty.

That was the intent, I'm sure.

It's a pure OP:TROLL thread if ever there was one.

 

[Kludge]

And the 3rd year (full year course): Acceptable Superstitions for Atheists (including: Conspiracy Theories [general])

I thought MRS already attacked the bible.

 

[familydog]

Or the fourth: BobBarr Libertarian Worship practices.

I like the way you think.

 

[Uriel999]

The formation and collection of the canonical bible has a rich and diverse history. The way the bible was put together and the books that didn't make the cut are nothing the idiots at the History channel should ever touch. They just want to use controversial titles like "banned from the bible" to raise ratings. I reccomend to everybody to read books on the history of Christianity. As in an earlier thread I put up which was mostly ignored:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=139647

If one reads those texts, that is the start of actually being capable of providing an intelligent conversation on the issue of non canonical texts. Many books such as the Gospel of Thomas probably belong right next to the 2 synoptic gospels. THe Gospel of John probably has absolutely no business in the canon. The texts that didn't make the "cut" into the bible were usually because they were elitist gnostic writings which discussed how if one did not have "gnosis" or the divine spark as it is commonly refered to were not TRUE Christians. Now while we could spend all day debating what a true Christian is, the founders found these teachings essentially to go against the grain of the Gospel of Jesus (I don't mean an actual book, but the real teachings of Jesus, James M. Robinson has an excellent book that is actually titled The Gospel of Jesus if one wants to further study this and I reccommend it highly).

Beleive me, when you read stories about giant flying crosses talking following the ressurrected Jesus, people start to look at that and say okay, this is probably crap. Not only that, many of these texts come from long after the life and times of Jesus. Essentially any text over 200 CE was never taken seriously by the founders of Christianity.

Also we must remember the beginning of Christianity their was no solid unity. Really when we talk of earlier Christianity to be proper it should be said Christianities. Marcionism, gnosticism, adoptionism, arionism, and montanism, were various threats to the emerging proto-orthodox church which eventually became the Catholic Church. These groups fought it out in beliefs and Arianism almost won the day as the faith causing much trouble in its time.

 

[Uriel999]

So essentially what I am saying, is History Channel can't possibly (because A they are terrible in scholarship and B because in an hour long show you cannot possibly give an accurate explanation for the development and politics of the early Christianities) give a good show on texts "banned from the bible." It's bullshit just trying to raise ratings.

 

[Kludge]

It's bullshit just trying to raise ratings.

Media (any) can't compete without sensationalism these days...

 

[Uriel999]

"Media (any) can't compete without sensationalism these days..."

Yup, speaking of sensationalism, I've been visiting my folks for the past few days and my dad listens to Rush Limbauh or however the hell you spell that guys name....I have no idea how people believe the crap that man spouts out of his mouth.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

The Muratorian document of about AD 170 lists as canon all the NT books that have come down to us except Hebrews, James, and I and II Peter; contemporary early church fathers Ireneaus and Justin Martyr (circa AD 140) mention the remaining books as canon, so taken together this confirms the NT now known to us exactly. Thus John's gospel was attested to as canon very early, and the whole canon was first identified within 50 years of the last written book (Revelation) despite residual debate over texts that would go another century. The gospel of Thomas came in the late second or early third century, much later than the period when any apostle or direct descendant could have written it, and was written in a format (Coptic, in codex, etc.) different than the texts of the first century period.

 

[Uriel999]

Thus John's gospel was attested to as canon very early, and the whole canon was first identified within 50 years of the last written book (Revelation) despite residual debate over texts that would go another century. The gospel of Thomas came in the late second or early third century, much later than the period when any apostle or direct descendant could have written it, and was written in a format (Coptic, in codex, etc.) different than the texts of the first century period.

John's gospel is nothing alike to the synoptic gospels, it is essentially a gnostic text, read the language. The language and terms are mostly gnostic phrases and ideas. Comparisions of Luke, Mark, and Mathew show they are very similar but John is nothing like the synoptics. Thomas may actually be one of the older texts actually, I wish I was at my apartment and not my parents at the moment so I could back this up further, but wait till tommorow! Many scholars call Thomas the 5th gospel. John was popular, but is very gnostic in its nature. In fact the whole opening reaks of gnosticism.

 

[Peace&Freedom]

John's gospel is nothing alike to the synoptic gospels, it is essentially a gnostic text, read the language. The language and terms are mostly gnostic phrases and ideas. Comparisions of Luke, Mark, and Mathew show they are very similar but John is nothing like the synoptics. Thomas may actually be one of the older texts actually, I wish I was at my apartment and not my parents at the moment so I could back this up further, but wait till tommorow! Many scholars call Thomas the 5th gospel. John was popular, but is very gnostic in its nature. In fact the whole opening reaks of gnosticism.

The eminent JT Robinson made the case for John gospel predating Mark, not the Gospel of Thomas. The earliest references to Thomas are found in the the writings of Hippolytus (c. 222-235) and Origen (c. 233), which again conforms to the book being written at least a century after the canon had been completed. On the key question as to whether a proposed text was written within the first century lifetimes of the actual apostles or their direct proteges, the preponderance of evidence suggests John passes the test, and Thomas does not.

 

[Uriel999]

Peace, this is actually a fun argument for me, because its something I have been thinking about for quite some time. However, how do you explain the radical differences between John and the synoptics? Thomas being a saying source, however, while also having a gnostic slant like John seems to me at least (and many scholars) to have more in common with the synoptics and the "Gospel of Jesus" more so than John. Compare the Synoptics in which Jesus tries to be the "secret messiah" if you get the point in that he tried to avoid being put in that box, verses John in which he walks around talks like a mystic and openly claims to be the messiah. BTW I totally respect you for actually knowing something about Christian history, thank you. You made my day, if this is what we are arguing, thank god.