What if there actually was a church council that set the canon? Now there is.

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 12:54 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



But presenting it as a "New New Testament", a "better" perspective on the teachings of Christ, is both ludicrous and contemptible.


In agreement for once...which is odd. Good post.
edit on 5-3-2013 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 09:32 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Since Karen L. King was one of the members of the panel, I wonder if she's included a complete copy of The Gospel of Jesus' Wife? No one else seems to want to publish it, lol.

They want to publish it, but there are still lab tests going on, so it's been postponed.

@OP:
In my opinion, it's high time there was a new review of the "canon" and what should and should not be included. So much has been discovered over the last several centuries that it is a necessity, especially with so much public dissent about it.

Just this morning I was reading about how modern church leaders are scrambling desperately to keep it all together, much like the early leaders did when people wanted the Bible accessible to everyone. This new "internet age" has revived that old problem of allowing the "uninitiated" to access things that they are not trained nor educated to interpret correctly.



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueMule

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic

For a person who offers prayers to dead humans he calls holy, prayers to false gods that desired human sacrifice and turn out to be Lucifer in disguise, then I think your idea of truth and Christianity is fully warped and no authority to judge which direction it should go.




My authority to offer an opinion about which way Christianity should go comes from years of studying comparative religion, comparative mythology, comparative mysticism... and of course my mystical experiences seen in light of that tri-angulated, panoramic, cross-cultural view, and of course from being raised Catholic.

As opposed to the myopic, local, tiny view of ignorant uninitiated dogmatic fundamentalist fools.

"The Christian of the future will be a mystic, or he will not exist at all" -Karl Rahner

edit on 4-3-2013 by BlueMule because: (no reason given)





Why do the nations conspire
and the peoples plot in vain?
The kings of the earth take their stand
and the rulers gather together
against the LORD
and against his Anointed One.
“Let us break their chains,” they say,
“and throw off their fetters.”
The One enthroned in heaven laughs;
the Lord scoffs at them.
Then he rebukes them in his anger
and terrifies them in his wrath, saying,
“I have installed my King
on Zion, my holy hill.”
Psalm 2:1-6


Everything is 'mystic' today, it obviously is therefore false. Mystic Christianity, mystic Freemasonry, mystic Cathokicism, mystic Judaism, mystic Islam, mystic eastern spirituality, mystic Shamanism, mystic New Age, etc etc.

They all;
1. Alter their consciousness through meditation, repetive chanting and mantras and/or drugs
2) All believe that they are gods, divine and little creators
3) All believe that their golden age is arriving and
4) that they are all immortal and
5) they are "one"

Guess how they all arrive at the same conclusion? See # 1.
There are no diviners or sorcerers in the Kingdom of God, and it's pretty clear from the above list how He sends the delusion and what the delusion is all about in these last days. The world is being offered the rotten 'fruit' and they are gobbling it up faster than imaginable because the serpents promises sound attractive to them. And just as then, they are dismissing our Creator's words 'Thou Shalt Die" as a lie.

I'm sure that this new book will be a huge hit among apostate Christians who have already rejected the real Jesus Christ and among those who cannot discern that they've already been taught mystic dogma through the media.



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 10:27 AM
link   
reply to post by WhoKnows100
 


Wow, so...
you are the resident expert to whom we should all defer?

Do you realize that incense and candles and prayers and gestures are the same thing as "mystic connection"? The church pageantry is a continuation of the "rituals" that the mystics have always practiced.

Oh, and I am a "little creator" - I grew two human beings, nurtured them, and if they have children, a part of me will be immortalized. The words I speak out loud will always exist in the atmosphere....
the thoughts I project into the atmosphere as well, will always exist.

And all of that with the Overarching Mystery as the impetus, of course. *closes eyes and intones OM*



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
So much has been discovered over the last several centuries that it is a necessity, especially with so much public dissent about it.

What discoveries?

The stuff that's included here are texts that were known by the church 1800 years ago and were rejected as being heretical.

I don't think that people are understanding what is happening here. This isn't some lone nut, an "AutoWrench" or "Greatest I Am" throwing crazy ideas out there as fact -- the main organizer of this is an ordained and active pastor in the United Methodist Church. He uses Gnostic texts in his Sunday worship, for pete's sakes!

His "panel" consisted of centrist to liberal Christians (the evangelicals he invited turned him down) along with non-Christians. And the conclusion that they've come to, apparently, is that Christianity must embrace Gnostic Christian theology, myth and doctrine, or at least consider it on a par with the New Testament. I looked at their "voting results" on these texts, and some of them appear to have a higher score than they previously gave the books of the New Testament!

Surely even a non-Christian must see something terribly, terribly wrong with that.
edit on 5-3-2013 by adjensen because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   
adj


I looked at their "voting results" on these texts, and some of them appear to have a higher score than they previously gave the books of the New Testament!

Surely even a non-Christian must see something terribly, terribly wrong with that.


You rang?

It's not that I lack a sense of irony, but when wildtimes mentioned


In my opinion, it's high time there was a new review of the "canon" and what should and should not be included. So much has been discovered over the last several centuries that it is a necessity, especially with so much public dissent about it.


Maybe I misinterpreted (and if so, then please correct me, wildtimes), but what if some books were dropped? "Discoveries" weren't just new manuscripts. Paul didn't write the Pastorals, for example. I'm not too concerned about the other three "doubtful" books that nevertheless could be termed "in the tradition of Paul," but the Pastorals are not even in his tradition, IMO.

One addition that qualifies as a relatively recent discovery (and was included in the book that came out today) are the Odes of Solomon. Nobody that we know of "passed them over," they're hymns and very probably were used in Second Century proto-orthodox churches. There's no prose martyrdom narrative in the canon (Our mutual friend, Professor King, suggested Perpetua's memoir to the group, but it is from the early Third Centruy, and so a little later than the usual canon:

www.pbs.org...

). But then again, maybe some later writings wouldn't be out of place? And late writings weren't "passed over" the first time, but rather they weren't considered.

Without arguing that Taussig and his gang did a great job, still, such a project doesn't seem entirely crazy to me.
-
edit on 5-3-2013 by eight bits because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 5 2013 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueMule
 



You would sing a different tune after studying the comparative fields for a few years. That's why you'll rationalize reasons to remain willfully ignorant


This coming from a "Christian" who offers prayers to Satan thinking it is the Divine, the Creator...that's rich.

Your knowledge is not like progressing from milk to meat it is more like (a person that has known righteousness and has turned from it)

2 Peter 2:22 The dog has turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.



Now I'm done bantering with children.


Luke 18:17 Truly I tell you, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.


Too bad!

Needless to say though, I am a ongoing student of comparative religion, I just have not let the BS of the mystery schools and New Age drivel swallow what I know to be True
edit on 5-3-2013 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 

"Which discoveries?"

C'mon, adj, there has been a plethora of discoveries, such as identifying some of the accepted docs as "forgeries", and changes in linguistic understandings, additional documents like the Nag Hammadi find, archeaological findings related to the sites where things supposedly took place; astronomical findings that "reshape" our understandings, and documents and evidence previously unknown (to the West, anyway) that help fill the gaps left by the original.

Maybe I'm not understanding "canon" in the same way as you are. I think of it as being the text representing the faith - that is, the Bible.



edit on 6-3-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


None of that affects what scripture is. The authorship and dating of some books being called into question doesn't really affect their content, neither does archaeological discoveries. As you are not a Christian, the Christian Canon doesn't matter to you, but I assure you that, to a Christian, it very much does.

The acts of this "council", which is nothing more than the friends of this Jesus Seminar guy, are reprehensible -- they've not only incorporated books which have absolutely nothing to do with orthodox Christianity, they've modified the existing New Testament books to better reflect their personal opinion of what Christianity should be (essentially creating a scrubbed, politically correct, New Testament.)

What you don't seem to understand, as a non-Christian, is that this is deeply offensive -- they're not claiming that they're creating a new hybrid religion, which takes elements from two deeply divergent faiths and crams them together at the "council's" convenience, they are saying that this is what the true Christianity really should be. They are saying that Christianity should reject the divinity of Christ and, instead, incorporate the teachings of the Gnostic Christians.

I'm not an "end time proclaimer," not by any stretch of the imagination, but I haven't seen a clearer example of an anti-Christ (in the sense that the Bible says they were running around in Paul & John's time, rather than the "Beast" of Revelation of John) in recent history.

edit on 6-3-2013 by adjensen because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Hasn't the New Testament, and the order in which the books of the OT and NT both are compiled, always been "scrubbed" and "politically correct", though? The Bible as it has been since Nicea was a political construct to begin with.

Constantine himself didn't really "care" what they decided, he just wanted consensus among the Bishops and an end to the doctrinal bickering. It didn't work then, and it hasn't ever worked, really, or there would be only one version of Christianity.

And since Jesus didn't write it himself, it's all someone else's interpretation anyway. In my opinion, the Gnostic Christians had much of it right. But, I respect that this is important, even crucial to you; and I understand why you find it reprehensible.

That said, we make progress all the time in EVERY OTHER FIELD of study....and texts are updated to reflect that.
I guess I just can't relate to your passion about it, though.

Aside from just on principle and your sensibilities, what is inherently, factually "wrong" about the Gnostic ideas, or "right" or "wrong" about Jesus being considered Divine? Isn't his message supposed to be the main thing? What does it really matter if he is revered as a fully wise HUMAN rather than fully God also? Can't you still hear and receive the message? I don't get why folks feel like if you take away his "Divinity", then you might a well have nothing and chuck the whole system. The classic "throwing out the baby with the bathwater."

this Jesus Seminar guy

From what I've read, the Jesus Seminar was a group of very highly respected theologians. When you say "this Jesus Seminar guy" (like saying "you people") you indicate dismissal and contempt. Is that an accurate assessment of your position regarding all ongoing theological schools of thought?
edit on 6-3-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


Neither Constantine nor the Council of Nicaea had anything to do with the selection of Biblical Canon.

Yes, I treat the Jesus Seminar bunch with contempt, and pretty much always have. Do some reading into who they are and what their plainly stated agenda is, and you'll probably see why. This is a good place to start.



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 11:12 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 

Okay, I looked at the blog page.
I see what the author's position is. Oddly, the things the Seminar presented as their thesis or whatever do make sense to me.

But, you didn't answer my other questions. I'll ask again:
"Aside from just on principle and your sensibilities, what is inherently, factually "wrong" about the Gnostic ideas, or "right" or "wrong" about Jesus being considered Divine?

Isn't his message supposed to be the main thing?

What does it really matter if he is revered as a fully wise HUMAN rather than fully God also?

Can't you still hear and receive the message?"

As this dialogue is developing, this also occurs to me:
If "Being Christlike" insofar as possible is the goal of Christians, who also assert that he was "fully Divine" but none of us are.... isn't it like a double-bind?

"You can try, but you'll always fail" -- Who wants to always be a failure? Who wants to embark on a journey where they know ahead of time they will not measure up?
Jesus did say we can all do what he did, and to open our hearts to his message.

I'm not trying to be a troll here, I really want to know what your answers are.
edit on 6-3-2013 by wildtimes because: woopsies - unclosed italic code.



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by adjensen
 

Okay, I looked at the blog page.
I see what the author's position is. Oddly, the things the Seminar presented as their thesis or whatever do make sense to me.

But, you didn't answer my other questions. I'll ask again:
"Aside from just on principle and your sensibilities, what is inherently, factually "wrong" about the Gnostic ideas,

What is wrong with them is that, in a historical and theological context, they cannot be correct. Not "maybe they're not right" or "they got this part right over here" -- the claim that Jesus was the Bringer of Gnosis is impossible. The reasons for that are far beyond the context of this thread, and require a healthy understanding of Judaic theology and Greek philosophy, so I shan't bore you with the details, apart from pointing you in that direction.


or "right" or "wrong" about Jesus being considered Divine?

Because that's the central tenet of Christianity! If Christ is not divine, then Christianity is nothing, it is a series of platitudes that were said before, have been said many times since, and need no special insight to rattle off.


Isn't his message supposed to be the main thing?

No, it is not. The main thing is salvation and a relationship with God.


What does it really matter if he is revered as a fully wise HUMAN rather than fully God also?

Because if he wasn't God, then either the Bible cannot be trusted, in any sense, in which case there is no reason to "revere his wisdom", or he was a liar and/or insane for claiming that he was God, in which case there is no reason to "revere his wisdom."


If "Being Christlike" insofar as possible is the goal of Christians, who also assert that he was "fully Divine" but none of us are.... isn't it like a double-bind?

Because "being Christlike" and "being Christ" are two vastly different things.


"You can try, but you'll always fail" -- Who wants to always be a failure? Who wants to embark on a journey where they know ahead of time they will not measure up?

Because in trying, even if failing, one cannot help but do good.

The Lutherans and Calvinists believe in Absolute Depravity, the concept that humans are inherently flawed, such that nothing we do can be excised from sin -- you might be the most charitable person in the world, but can you really say that you do such out of pure love, without an inkling of self-promotion? Anonymous giving? If one believes in karma, or believes that God sees everything that we do, how can one claim a completely pure motive?

This is extended by Reformed Theology to say that all of our acts are repugnant to God, that he sees through it all, and knows that our actions, even noble ones, are ultimately self-serving. So, by that theology, everything that we do, even the good stuff, just makes God all the angrier. However, we are to continue trying, doing those acts, even in the light of Absolute Depravity.

Why? Because no matter what our motivation is, good to others still comes out of it.

(Kindly bear in mind that I am neither a Calvinist or Reformed Theology follower, I'm just using this as a very stark explanation of why we're supposed to always try to be Christlike, even though we know we'll always fail.)



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


This coming from a "Christian" who offers prayers to Satan thinking it is the Divine, the Creator...that's rich.

Your knowledge is not like progressing from milk to meat it is more like (a person that has known righteousness and has turned from it)

What?

This is a ridiculous statement. How do you know who Blue Mule prays to, or if he "prays" at all? A person who describes themselves as a 'Christian mystic' with a history of studying comparative religion and mythology is not by definition a "Satan worshipper"!!

I don't know Blue Mule at all except from what he posts; he hasn't been real forthcoming with me (although I've tried to engage him in dialogue), but I in no way get the impression he even believes in the myth of "Satan", let alone sends prayers to him!

"That's rich", indeed.



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


The reasons for that are far beyond the context of this thread, and require a healthy understanding of Judaic theology and Greek philosophy, so I shan't bore you with the details, apart from pointing you in that direction.


I have a fairly adept understanding of both Judaic theology AND Greek philosophy; I don't find them "boring" and am, in fact, studying them now. To my understanding, Jesus was teaching mysticism, and brought the ideas to his native land from the East, not to mention that he was a Rabbi.

Socrates had a three-day stay in prison, just like Jesus' 3-days in the tomb. There are MANY parallels between the two, as I interpret things.



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 



What?

This is a ridiculous statement. How do you know who Blue Mule prays to, or if he "prays" at all?


I am referring back to his thead the goddesses invitation for us to pray (which was a thread against my "God's Invitation for us to pray"

And my post to his thread which revealed that multiple goddesses who he offered prayers are known to be just disguised Satan to insiders...he choose not to contest my post.

Thus, why his statements are rich about how enlightened he is....



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by JesuitGarlic
 


multiple goddesses who he offered prayers are known to be just disguised Satan to insiders...

Oh, and you are one of these "insiders"?

No wonder he chose not to acknowledge it! Never mind, then. I also don't have anything else to say to you.



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by adjensen
 


The reasons for that are far beyond the context of this thread, and require a healthy understanding of Judaic theology and Greek philosophy, so I shan't bore you with the details, apart from pointing you in that direction.


I have a fairly adept understanding of both Judaic theology AND Greek philosophy;

Well, in that case, I'll offer you the same "opportunity" I offer to everyone who claims that Jesus was a Gnostic -- explain how a Jewish Rabbi, who followed the Law (was circumcised and presented at the Temple as an infant, taught in Synagogue and Temple and prayed frequently to the God of the Israelites) could possibly be the "Bringer of Gnosis", the cosmic messenger in a polytheistic and dualistic mythos that had absolutely nothing in common with Judaism.

Barring that, explain why he wouldn't have repudiated Judaism at the first possible opportunity, since the Gnostic view was that both the Jewish God and Jewish faith were seriously flawed, to the point of damnation. The God to whom Jesus prayed and preached about, to the Gnostics, was not only a sub-god, he was a bumbling fool, if not downright evil.


To my understanding, Jesus was teaching mysticism, and brought the ideas to his native land from the East

There is no credible evidence for those claims. Stories of Jesus' travels to the east came centuries after his death, and are rooted in eastern communities who had an interest in laying a claim to someone who was a growing religious icon in the west. There is nothing in the Bible that implies that Christ was a mystic or ever left the Middle East.



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 



Oh, and you are one of these "insiders"?

Did you go through the information in my post....my insiders are:
- Albert Pike, head of Scottish rite freemasonry and who wrote their source book of doctrine for 33 degree initiates (and a person I know has this book)
- Aleister Crowley, one of the highest esoteric insiders of all time
- Roger Morneau, a former satanist (and taught by a satanist priest) and member of a top spiritualist secret society who got out and became a member of my church


No wonder he chose not to acknowledge it!

He choose not to acknowledge it because I provided archaeological and historical evidence that some of the goddesses he was saying to pray to demanded sacrifice of human children to them and had institutional rape of girls by priests in their temples.

He choose not to acknowledge it because I showed the history of the human creation of the goddess religion under its various alternatives by Semiramis of ancient Babylon making his supposed sacred religions a mere joke from the thoughts of a murderous prostitute.

He choose not to acknowledge it because he does not have any sources of esoteric knowledge higher than the ones I provided. All he has learnt is lower level mystery school knowledge which is still exoteric...if he had learnt insider esoteric knowledge he would consciously know the other deities he was offering prayers to were Satan (which he didn't know, ignorance in this sense is a good thing)

What he thinks is esoteric enlightenment is exoteric disguised Luciferianiam/Satanism and having his opinion on what should be included in the Bible is therefore unacceptable to a Christian.


Never mind, then. I also don't have anything else to say to you.

Do what you will with the information...that is between you and God to sort out....truth can piss people off
edit on 6-3-2013 by JesuitGarlic because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 6 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   
wildtimes


I'm not trying to be a troll here, I really want to know what your answers are.


Not at all. The questions you're raising are similar to the issues discussed at the New Orleans "Council." That's our topic, so fire away.

adj

You and I are closer to agreement on the Gnostic movement as a whole. We differ the most about specific works. We've discussed the Gospel of Thomas some time ago, but I'd like to turn to another Taussig group "Gnostic" choice, the Gospel of Mary (Magdalene).

Here's a text, with other pages of additional information:

www.maryofmagdala.com...

(Yup, that's the website for Professor King's book about Mary ...)

Like Thomas, most of what we have of Mary is a Coptic translation of what we think, from older fragments, to have been a Greek composition. That opens the door for the original Gospel to have been unGnostic, but what happens to reach us is a Gnostic "Coptic edition." In fact, I see a lot that isn't specifically Gnostic, with obvious Gnostic "hot spots."

The earliest Greek fragment is early Third Century and the Berlin Coptic Codex is Fifth Century. That's at least two hundred years of use in early Christian communities, in at least two languages, with a likely composition date in the Second Century, if not before. There is every reason, then, for a neutral observer to think that this may well have been an important representative early Christian document.

There's a lot "right" in the fragment, if we accept Luke-Acts. Jesus teaches a bit, then ascends into Heaven after giving a short form of the Great Commission. There is a delay before the Apostles preach, during which they consult together, with women among their company. What Mary teaches she attributes to a vision. Peter has visions in Acts that influence doctrine. Paul's visions eventually come to define the character of the church.

If the Mary wasn't originally "Gnostic," and was, as the manuscript evidence suggests, in early and prolonged use, then why wasn't it canonical? I think it has two defects. One is that it is anti-administrative. Jesus says, and then Levi (Matthew) repeats, that the Apostles should add no rule to Jesus' teaching. That, I think would be a problem for a rule-loving church.

But I think the deal killer is that a woman is shown teaching men, at the direct invitation of the Apostles to do so. We know that the faction who wrote the Pastorals won, and this whole scene is contrary to what their "Paul" wrote. It doesn't matter what Mary is depicted as saying, she doesn't have the canonized equipment to tell men anything they don't already know.






top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join