Questions about the Bible , I ask as I read

[Elrohir]

Jesus disagrees with your position. Hell I know you never change your mind, but you really should read up about things outside of your church before you dismiss their writings out of hand, it shows a distinct lack of tolerance of other beliefs, albeit within the same religion.

What your really saying is God is a dinosaur and only man is capable of changing, or are you saying we should not evolve either but remain as backwards and lost as we are now?

Sidhe, the gnostic "gospels" weren't included in the New Testament canon because they weren't considered reliable, even by the early church. That's like using the Theory of Spontaneous Generation in biology class; ridiculous, because it's been discredited for a very long time.

When we say that God does not change, we are saying His personality, and character do not change. And why is this suprising? He's perfect! You can't improve upon perfection; it can't get better, and since He's God it can't get worse. Why would you expect God's character to change?

 

[Sidhe]

Sidhe, the gnostic "gospels" weren't included in the New Testament canon because they weren't considered reliable, even by the early church. That's like using the Theory of Spontaneous Generation in biology class; ridiculous, because it's been discredited for a very long time.

When we say that God does not change, we are saying His personality, and character do not change. And why is this suprising? He's perfect! You can't improve upon perfection; it can't get better, and since He's God it can't get worse. Why would you expect God's character to change?

It's not from the Gnostic Gospels, It's from the Essene scrolls, I'm not sure why these weren't included, seeing as they very much reinforce the New testament, with actual discourse with Jesus as opposed to a sermon style found more often in the NT, my only guess is that particular passage would not of sat well with a bible that was trying to draw Christians together to a common Church, but of course that is supposition.

That aside read the Gnostic Gospels, pretty much all the qoutes are found elsewhere in the NT, so as for reliability I suggest some may have drawn directly from them, the single quote about not finding God in four walls but anywhere you look for him, may also of been considered non condusive to the message, but this quote in Thomas is the only one I can find that in any way contradicts the message of the Church if not the NT. The other Gospels I am not so sure on as I haven't got round to reading them in their entirity yet. However what I've seen does not appear condusive to an interpritation of them being unreliable, in that they simply reinforce Jesus message.


EDIT: As for reliability itself the Gospel of the twelve, has little that the other gospels don't have, actually I don't see why The Gospel of the twelve couldn't have been used as a bridge and a reference book for the NT, dealing as it does with the whole story of Jesus from a single text. Many of these texts are merely reaffirmed in the NT, minus the more contreversial bits. many are dated to the period around Christs life, why then the controversy?

 

[ironduck]

Sidhe, the gnostic "gospels" weren't included in the New Testament canon because they weren't considered reliable, even by the early church. That's like using the Theory of Spontaneous Generation in biology class; ridiculous, because it's been discredited for a very long time.

But don't you see the problem here? How can you be sure what is reliable and what is not? There are many examples of apocryphic scripture not included in the bible that might as well have been. What makes you so sure that the specific texts that have been included are all divine and that none of the apocryphic texts that are not included are not equally divine - such as the one mentioned by Sidhe?

 

[ironduck]

You know, I think the term scripture is easily the best word. Scripture contains myths (which may or may not be true) along with direct advice and commandments.

Usually it's a good term to use, I was just pointing out that if the scripture seems implausible to someone then surely it's not offensive to consider it fiction. As I've mentioned anything is potentially scripture since anything can potentially be considered sacred by someone.

 

[El_Machinae]

That's basically my thoughts too. Even if the writers of some of the gospels were divinely inspired, I have heavy doubts that the members of the Council of Nicea were ...

 

[ironduck]

Actually, sometimes parents will do things that they rationally can forbid their children from doing, such as crossing the street alone. God can do certain things because the consequences would not be as bad for Him. However, I do feel that in general the OT misrepresents Him at least to a degree.

But they are not doing things that are morally wrong (assuming they're ideal parents). In comparison, god telling someone to sacrifice their child is morally wrong.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

But they are not doing things that are morally wrong (assuming they're ideal parents). In comparison, God telling someone to sacrifice their child is morally wrong.

But the child may think that it is morally wrong (inasmuch as he understands morality) for his parents to give him so many restrictions. That is my point; God has a much better idea than us of what is truly moral or not. And (remember that it wasn't His intention that Isaac actually be sacrificed) the whole point is that, like wise, God has a better idea than us of what is moral and what isn't. That is what I mean; not that God doesn't have a higher moral standard, but that he does and therefore what may seem immoral by our limited perspective (like causing someone to die) is actually the moral thing to do. Our understanding of morality is not perfect because we do not truly understand the consequences of everything like He does.

 

[Sidhe]

That's basically my thoughts too. Even if the writers of some of the gospels were divinely inspired, I have heavy doubts that the members of the Council of Nicea were ...

Are you suggesting like me, that they may have ulterior motives for barring some texts, and that there is no real hint of unreliability as such. Let's not forget it was the Catholic Church who kept the Essene scrolls hidden for thousands of years, although this could have been oversight, it seems unlikely.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

At least in the case of the Gospel of Judah, it wasn't supressed for thousands of years - it was supressed for a few decades or centuries, then just forgotten for thousands.

 

[ironduck]

But the child may think that it is morally wrong (inasmuch as he understands morality) for his parents to give him so many restrictions.

I disagree with that. When I was little I remember not being allowed to cross the street alone and I knew that it was only because it was dangerous for me to do, not because it was morally wrong. I was quite able to distinguish between the problem of doing dangerous things such as playing with fire and doing cruel things such as hitting someone.

As for god and morality, I don't know any gods so I can't really comment on that - I've already explained my own view on morality.

 

[ironduck]

Are you suggesting like me, that they may have ulterior motives for barring some texts, and that there is no real hint of unreliability as such. Let's not forget it was the Catholic Church who kept the Essene scrolls hidden for thousands of years, although this could have been oversight, it seems unlikely.

If I may butt in - it would be obvious for a council that creates guidelines for a religion that is moving in a lot of different direction to have a number of agendas. They have their own views on what is right and they want to put those views into their decisions.

Unless, of course, god told them what to do and they followed his/her commands perfectly.

 

[Sidhe]

As an addendum to my last post:-

Although it's fairly plain to see why the Gospel of Thomas might be considered to be "unreliable", when you read it it's not always that obvious.

(44) Jesus said, "Whoever blasphemes against the father will be forgiven, and whoever blasphemes against the son will be forgiven, but whoever blasphemes against the holy spirit will not be forgiven either on earth or in heaven."

Matthew 12.31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 12.32 And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Mark 3.28 "Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; 3.29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"

Luke 12.10 And every one who speaks a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.

(45) Jesus said, "Grapes are not harvested from thorns, nor are figs gathered from thistles, for they do not produce fruit. A good man brings forth good from his storehouse; an evil man brings forth evil things from his evil storehouse, which is in his heart, and says evil things. For out of the abundance of the heart he brings forth evil things."

Matthew 7.16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? 7.17 So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit.

Luke 6.43 "For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit; 6.44 for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thorns, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. 6.45 The good man out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure produces evil; for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.

(46) Jesus said, "Among those born of women, from Adam until John the Baptist, there is no one so superior to John the Baptist that his eyes should not be lowered (before him). Yet I have said, whichever one of you comes to be a child will be acquainted with the kingdom and will become superior to John."

Matthew 11.11 Truly, I say to you, among those born of women there has risen no one greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.

Luke 7.28 I tell you, among those born of women none is greater than John; yet he who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he."

The only problems this text has that it does not present the crucifixion, not that it didn't happen, and there are no miracles. I can see why at face value it would be considered "dangerous", but not why it would be considered unreliable.

EDIT: this text is typical BTW, most of the gospel simply reinforces the new testament. I agree With you Iron duck, many of these Aramaic texts would have been used to draw on and reinforce the message, some would have been of little merit to an agenda, that's what I was saying precisley albeit a little less confrontationally

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

As for God and morality, I don't know any gods so I can't really comment on that - I've already explained my own view on morality.

Okay, you may have your own views; but if there is a God who is more intelligent, wiser, and more capable of love than us, His views of morality will naturally be better or more "correct" than ours. But I think the most important statement you make is that you don't know any gods. I think that the fact that you are used to thinking in terms of no God and no afterlife, might make it a little harder to see the moral implications of such things existing.

 

[Homie]

If I remember correctly, the gospel of Thomas includes a story of Jesus as a child using His divine powers to kill another child whom He didn't get along with, or got in an argument with or something of the kind. Doesn't sound very reliable to me.

 

[Sidhe]

If I remember correctly, the gospel of Thomas includes a story of Jesus as a child using His divine powers to kill another child whom He didn't get along with, or got in an argument with or something of the kind. Doesn't sound very reliable to me.

Jesus Never mentions his childhood in the Gospel of St Thomas, this is a lie, but just to be sure I reread the Gospel, which isn't that long. Read it yourself if you have any doubt. It is available in several other places if you doubt this version.

http://www.thenazareneway.com/The Gospel of Thomas.htm


This has comentary on the meaning of all the passages.

http://www.gospelthomas.com/

EDIT: The Gospel of St Thomas was witten in Greek not Aramaic.

 

[ironduck]

Okay, you may have your own views; but if there is a God who is more intelligent, wiser, and more capable of love than us, His views of morality will naturally be better or more "correct" than ours.

Perhaps, but the god in the OT (and Revelation) does not indicate that, quite the opposite.

But I think the most important statement you make is that you don't know any gods. I think that the fact that you are used to thinking in terms of no God and no afterlife, might make it a little harder to see the moral implications of such things existing.

You're making blind assumptions. I said I don't know any gods. The thinking you attribute to me is quite mistaken. I've already explained I'm not easy to label.

 

[El_Machinae]

If I remember correctly, the gospel of Thomas includes a story of Jesus as a child using His divine powers to kill another child whom He didn't get along with, or got in an argument with or something of the kind. Doesn't sound very reliable to me.

He is the same God who mauled a bunch of children with a bear, for making fun of a bald prophet.

It's completely within God's character to kill children.

 

[Quasar1011]

If anything, I'd say this world alone is proof enough that any and all Gods are quite far from perfect.

This world is not the way God Almighty created it. The Bible said that a pretender to God's throne ruined it.

2 Corinthians 4:4
The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

According to Paul, the god of this age, is Satan. Even Jesus called him, "the prince of this world".

John 14:30
"I will not speak with you much longer, for the prince of this world is coming. He has no hold on me,"

When Satan tempted Jesus, Satan offered Jesus all the world, if Jesus would just worship him. Jesus didn't dispute Satan's ownership of this world.

Luke 4:5-8
The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, "I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. So if you worship me, it will all be yours."
Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.' "

If anything, I'd say this world alone is proof enough that the god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers.

 

[Elrohir]

It's not from the Gnostic Gospels, It's from the Essene scrolls, I'm not sure why these weren't included, seeing as they very much reinforce the New testament, with actual discourse with Jesus as opposed to a sermon style found more often in the NT, my only guess is that particular passage would not of sat well with a bible that was trying to draw Christians together to a common Church, but of course that is supposition.

My mistake. Anyway, the Essenen "Gospels" were not, and are not considered reliable, so I'm not sure why you're bringing them up. They're interesting texts, to be sure - but so is the Iliad. Just because it's interesting doesn't mean it's accurate. They disagree with the canonical New Testament.

That aside read the Gnostic Gospels, pretty much all the qoutes are found elsewhere in the NT, so as for reliability I suggest some may have drawn directly from them, the single quote about not finding God in four walls but anywhere you look for him, may also of been considered non condusive to the message, but this quote in Thomas is the only one I can find that in any way contradicts the message of the Church if not the NT. The other Gospels I am not so sure on as I haven't got round to reading them in their entirity yet. However what I've seen does not appear condusive to an interpritation of them being unreliable, in that they simply reinforce Jesus message.

Not all the quotes. For example, here are a couple weird ones from the Gospel of Thomas:

(7) Jesus said, "Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man."

(114) Simon Peter said to them, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said,"I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

Etc...Some of the quotes sound authentic, or as slight versions of authentic quotes, but a good portion are as wacky as those two.

He is the same God who mauled a bunch of children with a bear, for making fun of a bald prophet.

It's completely within God's character to kill children.

Hold on now, that's a gross misrepresentation. The actual word used for "youths" or "children" could mean people up to 20 years of age. (It's the same word used for Joseph when he was 17, and the men of Abram's army) These weren't a bunch of small children having fun; they were the ancient equivalent of a modern day gang, surrounding and making fun of a prophet of God. Just as importantly, wht they called him, "bald head", wasn't as simple as a simple name: It was basically an accusation that he was senile, and wasn't really a prophet. So, of course, God showed them that he really was.

The idea that these were a bunch of small children, killed simply for having fun is a gross misrepresentation.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

You're making blind assumptions. I said I don't know any gods. The thinking you attribute to me is quite mistaken. I've already explained I'm not easy to label.

What on earth do you mean by that? What I meant by that statement is that it is difficult to imagine the moral implications of an afterlife, and of having the kind of power God has, and it is even harder if one does not believe in such things.