Why were 14 books ripped out of the King James Bible in 1885?

Originally posted by Arles Morningside
reply to post by adjensen

 

Christian Gnosticism really isen't all that different from the rest of the Gnostic groups and individuals in that they sought Gnosis (hence why they are 'Gnostics') nor were they all necessarily dualists, especially when we consider the nature of the Bridal Chamber Mysteries (where Jesus teaches, 'the two are made one'). Like the other Gnostic Traditions of the time, Gnostic Christianity also had their own 'hero'. The Sethians had Seth, The Hermeticists has Hermes, and so on and so forth. They all hold more in common than first appears.

Well, the problem is that the Christian Gnostics were dualists -- I've yet to see a Gnostic text that doesn't have the concept buried in there someplace (well, ancient Gnostics, the neo-Gnostics take a kind of "make it up as you go" approach that doesn't always ally itself with the originals, which I find a bit amusing.)

Given that they needed to reconcile Jesus' Judaic heritage and teaching, which is absolutely and explicitly non-dualistic, they waffled between rewriting Judaism and taking a cue from Marcion and just conveniently forgetting about the whole Jewish thing (ironic, in that Marcion thought about as highly of the Gnostics as he did the Jews.) For the most part, the former won out, hence the recasting of the God of the Jews as the Demiurge and the reimagining who and what Jesus was, to wipe out the inconvenient bits.

reply to post by adjensen


I really don't see that much of a difference between the canonical gospels and the writtings of the Christian Gnostics, atleast in the heart of their message, in fact, I see more similarities than not. Ofcourse, there are some differences however, even with the same scriptures Christians today have divisions, even in how literal and non-literal the scriptures are to be interpretated.

The main issues are the usual, the nature of Jesus and his Mission, the nature of this World, the nature of Scripture and the nature of the Demiurge. Depending on how one interprets the canical scriptures, these do not necessarily contridict them and can serve to add greater understanding. It all depends, I suppose.

I'm not so sure that Jesus and the message of the Apostles is as dualistic free as you say when we consider how Jesus and the Apostles mention the (good) Father and the (bad) 'god of this world' (aka the Devil). Personally, the Christian Gnostic view on the 'Devil' makes far more sense than what is taught today in many Christian Churches. As for myself, I hold a more neutral view abot the Demiurge and it is merely as the creative aspect of The Great Mystery.

I'm still not so intirely sure the writtings of the Gnostic Christians were as dualistic they appear because even though they look into the dualistic aspect of things they don't fail to recognize a third principal which makes it possible for the two to be made one in the Bridal Chamber Mysteries. What is this third principal which unifies, awakens, illuminates and restores in Gnostic Christian writting? The Christos. The writtings speak for themselves, this isn't neo-Gnosticism.

Edit to add: Jesus' heritage would not have been an issue because it would mostly be irrelevent to the message of Christian Gnosticism. What Jesus taught however as the Illuminater would not have been irrelevent. Anti-semitism can be found in both Gnostic Christianity and in the NT, but this dosn't mean that represents Christian Gnosticism or the NT as a whole. Everyone has their bad apples.

reply to post by Arles Morningside


No, neither Christianity nor Judaism are not dualistic, for the simple reason that there is no counterpoint to God. Thus, evil is not the opposite of good, but rather, it is the absence of good. That goes down the line -- cruelty is not the opposite of mercy but the absence of it, tyranny and freedom, and so on.

If Christ was the bringer of Gnosis, there would be no compelling reason to incarnate him in Israel (yeah, I know, he wasn't incarnated, lol) and a lot of reasons not to, so it seems to me that there's a darn good point of inconsistency there. My view has been the Gnostic Christians were Gnostics (or, more likely, wanna be Gnostics) who liked the message and promise of Christ, but didn't want to give up the system that they already knew and liked, so they just tried to shoehorn him in there.

reply to post by adjensen


I went digging through some of my boxes and found my notes. These come from my studies of these subjects over the years. While they should be acurate, I still recommend everything I post be investigated.

What you describe is the nature of 'good', the fact that there can exist an 'absence of good' still places it within the duality camp. According to the Bible and Gnostics (including Christian) though not all mind you, God is transcendent even though both 'good' and 'evil' come from God.
The fallowing verses from the Bible show the nature of duality and from whence they come (The One) :
Eccles. 7:14, Lament. 3:38, Job 2:10, Deut. 32:39-43, Isaiah 45:7 (Light and Darkness), Gen. 50:20, Exo. 4:11
The Gnostic Christian Writtings (and the non-Christian ones) in the Nag Hammadi also display the same understanding, for example, in the Tripartite Tractate, The Father is described to be "singular while being many", this fits in accord to Gen. 1:26 in use of the 'royal we' and also is in accord to Kabbalic understanding and also sheds light on how anything can originate from God without compremising the Oneness of God. The Pattern of how the 'Two' come from the 'One' is described in Eugnostos the Blessed, the following is a description of the Divine Pattern, "As I said before, about what was produced, the One, then the Two, then the Three, up to the tens. The tens dominate the hundreds, the hundreds dominate the thousands, the thousands dominate the ten thousands. This is the pattern among the immortals." (Out of Transcendent emanates the One, then the Two, then the Three, and so on. It all ever loops, hence 'I am the Alpha and Omega' in one of its many layers of meaning) Other traditions also understood this Pattern to be the Divine Pattern, or The Pattern, including in matter, an example of this 'Pattern' can be found in the Tao te Ching, chapt. 42. What is being questioned often in Gnostic Christian writtings is the nature of matter and the demiurge, also, Why are we here? From where did we come? And where are we going? For many Gnostics and not just Gnostic Christians, Jesus would be seen as a or the Shower of the Way, the embodiment of Gnosis and what we all are, after all in the Gospels of the NT, Jesus says that not only will we be able to do the things he does but greater! Through Christ is Gnosis therefore through Christ all things are possible. What exactly that means in the details is up to the initiate, this is why there are so many differing views, because Christian Gnostics like any other Gnostic we're 'cultivating the stone' as Hermeticists like to say, they were searching for the Truth and attempting to Deny Ignorance, this is the heart of all Gnostic teachings, even when there is dissagreement, and even, bad tempers.
When understanding the Pattern, we can also understand the Trinity ( The Father, The Mother and the Child in it's most simplest form which is a description of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit). This is how God can be One yet many and how duality emanates from the One (and the One from Transcendent) yet is not seperate of It and operates ouroborically, the whole one ocean many rivers concept. This seems to be supported by the Bible (note the verses above).
In the Trinity the Father is Three, father=yang, mother=yin and the child=the third principal. All things are done through the Mother, the Son (the Word) and through the Father. I think the best description of the relationship between the Father and Son which is consistent with Gnostic Christian views is found in the Corpus Hermeticum, I. Poemandres, "Not separate are they the one from other; just in their union rather is it Life consists"

This is not to say that some Gnostic Christians wern't dualists, only that not all of them were. The same for any other Gnostic. (As can be seen by some of there writtings which did lean more to extreames than the more harmonious picture I just painted).

So what if i'm absolutely wrong, totally misunderstand and or what have you? Even then, the writtings speak for themselves and show that they are more than appear at first glance. To simply say 'they're a bunch of dualists' I think is incorrect. It's like Christianity today, it is full of variety even with what they share in common.

"Light and darkness, life and death, and right and left are siblings of one another, and inseparable. For this reason the good are not good, the bad are not bad, life is not life, and death is not death. Each will dissolve into its original nature, but what is superior to the world cannot be dissolved, for it is eternal." -The Gospel of Philip, Nag Hammadi

*Laughs at myself* You know, I may have misunderstood the term 'dualism'. I'm running under the understanding that dualism implies two extremes without a third principal and that in a dualist system, there is a division of the two extremes which cannot be reconciled nor can they have a singular origin. This dosn't seem to be the correct definition of dualism when I looked it up. For some reason, i've made a distinction in my mind of the concept of duality as having a different meaning to 'dualism' as a system. I've apparently had one of those mental lapses. My bad. So that may turn my whole arguement a little upside down Ahaha! My apologies for that, the simplest things always get me.

I suppose its not much different to how george lucas has edited the original star wars movies.

I'm perdy honest about being mostly crazy, so people who star any of my posts should be concerned about themselves, especially the person who stared my confession of 'mental lapse' post which is a partial mental lapse post in itself (that is, some of it dosn't make any sense, ahaha).

So, overcoming temporarily the trials and tribulations of my present mental lapses and illumined with my new found understanding of those naughty terms, I toss away half of my arguement and retain that yes there does appear to be dualism in the Bible and I concede that Gnosticism also contains dualism. Even though this descussion is off topic, i've enjoyed having it with you adjensen.

On topic wise, I've heard that some of the OT books which are not included in our present Bible are not present because the Rabbis felt that some of them were 'dangerous' and should be reserved for those who are 'ready' to study them. Has anyone else ever heard about that?

Originally posted by Arles Morningside
Even though this descussion is off topic, i've enjoyed having it with you adjensen.

On topic wise, I've heard that some of the OT books which are not included in our present Bible are not present because the Rabbis felt that some of them were 'dangerous' and should be reserved for those who are 'ready' to study them. Has anyone else ever heard about that?

Well, there are the redactions of several books plus chapter three of Daniel, which are in the Catholic Bible, but not in most Protestant versions, is that what you're referring to?

Old Testament Noncanonical Books

reply to post by adjensen


More along the lines of books like the Book of Enoch. But it was just something i've heard and thought I'd see if anyone else has heard something like that. Being on dial up (hey, it's cheap), I tend to limit my research to real books (plus I go at it at a slow pace lol) and I'm locked down in other studies right now on limited time that I just havn't had the chance to really check it out.

reply to post by ThePeopleParty
Nah, more like fanfic for an original, 200-600 or more years removed. George Lucas was rewriting himself. Closest thing more recent to us would be: Pride and Prejudice and Zombies. Of course, still with the assumption that all is fiction.

reply to post by Arles Morningside
Not too surprising. Part of Daniel directly comes with a warning to seal it or something...

4 "But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase."

Hebrew:
Time/increase/much/end/book/affix a seal/ words/Daniel/to keep close

Greek:
and/you/Daniel/fence in--put to silence/this/word/and/mark with a seal/this/small book--small scroll/til/due measure/til/completion/to teach/many/and/increase/this/knowledge

Basically, seal this part, for a time, in full measure, with the purpose to teach many and to increase knowledge.

So, forget Rabbis: there's at least one book that were sealed for a time because it would increase knowledge to seal them for a period of time?

The only way I can parse that out is that the whole point was to treat the scroll like a time capsule, so that the people who read it at a later date would treat it as relevant to them, when they finally opened it? Some sense, since a good bit of that book really had nothing to do with the Hebrews in Babylonian captivity. *shrugs*

You might want to take a look at this page. It has actual verses that mentions books that are not in todays' bible.

www.answering-christianity.com...

Examples:

Book of the Covenant
Exodus 24:7 And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.
There are those that believe the Book of the Covenant is found in Exodus chapters 20 through 23. There are no authoritative sources for this text.

Book of the Wars of the Lord
Numbers 21:14 Wherefore it is said in the book of the wars of the Lord, What he did in the Red sea, and in the brooks of Arnon,
Certain sources believe that this is to be found by drawing text from several Old Testament books. There are no authoritative sources for this text.

reply to post by EvilSadamClone


The Bible mentions quite a few non-canonical books. Doesn't mean they are inspired Scripture. They are still relevant for culture, history, and writing style. Book of Enoch is one, and Christ mentions the Book of Jasher.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

The Bible mentions quite a few non-canonical books. Doesn't mean they are inspired Scripture.

How did certain people of man, say whether or not they were inspired by God?

Originally posted by jhill76
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

The Bible mentions quite a few non-canonical books. Doesn't mean they are inspired Scripture.

How did certain people of man, say whether or not they were inspired by God?

New Testament wise, the requirements for inclusion in Canon were:

1) A text needed an Apostolic connection - it needed to be written by an Apostle, or sourced directly from one
2) It needed to be in harmony with other accepted scripture
3) The text needed to be in fairly widespread use already

With this in mind, it is fairly easy to see why most non-Canonical texts were not included, and makes the claims of some that "dozens of valid Gospels were rejected" fairly well laughable.

Originally posted by jhill76
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

The Bible mentions quite a few non-canonical books. Doesn't mean they are inspired Scripture.

How did certain people of man, say whether or not they were inspired by God?

Lets not get too cute. The Holy Spirit was the real author of the text, the Biblical "authors" only held the writing utensils. The "fingerprint" of the Author is the heptadic structure underlying the text. (Which follows the TR manuscripts for those interested in such details)

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Lets not get too cute. The Holy Spirit was the real author of the text, the Biblical "authors" only held the writing utensils. The "fingerprint" of the Author is the heptadic structure underlying the text.

I understand that. Actually, some writings were given by the Chief Angel as well to the author. Of course, signed off by Father. But, these minor details are not important. (Man wouldn't have known the difference, as him and Fathers spirit feel about the same when coming down here, to man, and voice is just as strong.) *I don't want to get into this, there is just too much background information needed here.

I am trying to say, how did man decide which ones were inspired or not? Did they ask the Holy Spirit which ones to include or remove?

reply to post by adjensen

1) A text needed an Apostolic connection - it needed to be written by an Apostle, or sourced directly from one

May I ask, how did the authorities decide that God wouldn't come to another who was not an apostle to give to write?

Originally posted by jhill76
reply to post by adjensen

 

1) A text needed an Apostolic connection - it needed to be written by an Apostle, or sourced directly from one

May I ask, how did the authorities decide that God wouldn't come to another who was not an apostle to give to write?

He did. Judas, John Mark, Luke.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by jhill76
reply to post by adjensen

 

1) A text needed an Apostolic connection - it needed to be written by an Apostle, or sourced directly from one

May I ask, how did the authorities decide that God wouldn't come to another who was not an apostle to give to write?

He did. Judas, John Mark, Luke.

Are you saying, Jesus only said, that those are the only ones who can receive word to write in the bible? Even if so, what about the OT? Also, what about Paul, I didn't see him in your list.

*Just trying to understand, from others point of view.