Question for Xians

[triadboy]

I don't visit any other chat rooms, so I don't have access to really wacky xians. So I would like to ask the moderate xians in this room:

What do xians make of the extra-biblical gospels not included in the bible?

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
The Infancy Gospel of James
The Gospel of Thomas
The Gospels mentioned in the bible, but not included in the bible!
etc.

Is the history of the man-made decisions NOT to include these gospels known to xians?

[Crow T. Robot]

I think the majority of Christians are unaware of the existance of the non-Biblical books, although it certainly isn't something that's "hidden" from them. They are discussed at length in reference books on the the Bible, of the type that are used in seminaries. The general concensus in such books is that they were left out because their authinticity/accuracy was subject. It's also obvious that some of the pre-Christian writings that were considered scripture by Jesus and his contemporaries have been lost, as "scripture" is quoted in the Bible that is not available in the Old Testament. For what it's worth, I believe Martin Luthor was of the opinion that Revelations was of dubious origin, and considered publishing a Bible without it. Just think how many fewer end-time cults we would have had if that version had become the standard...

[Gulliamo]

In all my years as a Roman Catholic I had never heard of them. The first mention that I heard was in the movie "Stigmata." I didn't really learn what they were until I awoke to atheism and started learning about religion on my own rather than simply absorbing what was being fed to me.

[swstephe]

I did some research a long time ago on the additional books. I remember that the Gospel of Thomas was rejected because of a statement toward the end where Jesus basically said that women could not go to heaven unless she "made herself like a man", (cross-dressing???). It was considered too gnostic-based, but that would include Revelations. I also read "The Acts of the Apostles", (aka "Didache"). Most of it was okay, (first half was about a male slave who fell in love with his mistress, who dies, second half was a set of commandments) -- the book was probably rejected because one of the commandments said, "do not give money to priests", or something like that.

The Book of Ruth, I believe, (or was it Esther), was also considered for later rejection because God doesn't show up in that book. The selection and rejection process is considered a divine/infallible process by most Christians. That may have been decided by the same council that did the decision process. Certain books were destroyed if they illustrated an Arian position that Jesus might have been mortal.

[triadboy]

The infancy Gospels are hil-larious.

In one of them, the townsfathers bring Joseph down to the river on a Sunday because his son, Jesus, is 'working' on the Sabbath!
They find Jesus making birds out of clay and breathing life into them and letting them go!

In another one, while working carpentry with his 'Dad', Jesus cuts a board too short - so he simply performs a miracle and lengthens it!

Oh, that Jesus....

[calladus]

Originally posted by triadboy
The infancy Gospels are hil-larious.

In one of them, the townsfathers bring Joseph down to the river on a Sunday because his son, Jesus, is 'working' on the Sabbath!
They find Jesus making birds out of clay and breathing life into them and letting them go!

In another one, while working carpentry with his 'Dad', Jesus cuts a board too short - so he simply performs a miracle and lengthens it!

Oh, that Jesus....

New on Saturday Morning Television this Fall, "Little Jesus and the Disciple babies."

Airtime is immediately after, "Tiny Toons," and just before, "Muppet Babies."

:)

[swstephe]

There was one that was rejected because of the part where Jesus kills a kid for splashing mud on him and then raises him back to life after the neighbors complain.

[c4ts]

I wonder what the Gospel of Thomas is like.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by triadboy
I don't visit any other chat rooms, so I don't have access to really wacky xians. So I would like to ask the moderate xians in this room:

What do xians make of the extra-biblical gospels not included in the bible?

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
The Infancy Gospel of James
The Gospel of Thomas
The Gospels mentioned in the bible, but not included in the bible!
etc.

Is the history of the man-made decisions NOT to include these gospels known to xians?

The infancy gospels are, I think, "pop" fiction that arose out of supply and demand. People wanted to hear about the life of the god-man as a little boy, so the stories were generated.

The majority of the pseudepigraphical gospels are post-100 AD. The Gospel of Thomas is mentioned by Eusebius a few times in passing.

For the most part, the accepted Gospels are also the oldest gospels.

I find the Gospel of Nicodemus intriguing, great stuff about Jesus being in Hell. I highly recommend:

www.pseudepigrapha.com

And although they aren't gospels, the Book(s) of Enoch are must-reads.

-Elliot

[triadboy]

Originally posted by c4ts
I wonder what the Gospel of Thomas is like.

Gospel of Thomas is a Gnostic text. Jesus is not a real person. He is a spiritual mythological manisfestation of a 'hero' that all people have in their psyche - Carl Jung called it an archetype.

Myths are the dreams of populations. Archetypes are recurring mythic themes that seem to be important to humans. The dying god-man myth is one of those.

In Thomas, Jesus is like Mithras, Attis, Serapis, Dionysus, etc. That's why xians hate it. If you mention "Gospel of Thomas" to a knowledgeable xian, an Elvis sneer immediately forms and they spit out the word "Gnostic" like it's a loogie of foul origin.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by triadboy


Gospel of Thomas is a Gnostic text. Jesus is not a real person. He is a spiritual mythological manisfestation of a 'hero' that all people have in their psyche - Carl Jung called it an archetype.

So is every person of herioc quality an archetype, or just a mythological manifestation? Or only the heros who do supernatural things?

In other words, if the hero in question has supernatural qualities, that person must not have been a real person, is that the line of reasoning?

If you believe in the existence of archetypes, are they genetically transmitted concepts or culturally transmitted concepts?

-Elliot

[Silicon]

Originally posted by triadboy


Gospel of Thomas is a Gnostic text.

I highly doubt that.



:D

[Roadtoad]

What you're referring to is called the Pseudagraphica, if I'm not mistaken. There's continuing questions about the validity of the books, but not all of them are completely rejected by church authorities. (They may be Gnostic books, but that doesn't mean the Gnostics were completely wrong.)

I've found they're a little tough to find around here. The John MacArthur Study Bible sells better, so you don't find them available in many bookstores. Still looking, though. I frequently have found that by listening to those who do not believe, I'll either find confirmation of something I believe, or, better yet, I'll learn something new.

[Brown]

Originally posted by Crow T. Robot
I think the majority of Christians are unaware of the existance of the non-Biblical books, although it certainly isn't something that's "hidden" from them. I would agree with this. Some Christians are familiar with various versions of the Apocrypha, but are told to pay no attention to it.

Some of the stories in some of the books not included in the Bible are shocking or insulting to the intelligence. Christians who become aware of them often say that the stories ring of untruth because Jesus acts "out of character."

Some of the books that actually made it into the Bible have a highly doubtful provenance. Jude (the book that precedes Revelation) refers favorably to an apocryphal work. 2 Peter, which echoes (more likely plagiarizes) Jude, was almost certainly not written by the apostle whose name is on it, and had the greatest difficult establishing itself in the canon.

Martin Luther objected strenuously to the book of James, not so much because of its questionable origins, but because of its content. James is quite at odds with the various preachings of Paul.

[triadboy]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by elliotfc
So is every person of herioc quality an archetype, or just a mythological manifestation? Or only the heros who do supernatural things?

No, as I understand it, a dream is the manisfestation of the unconscious. A myth is the collective dream of a people. An archetype is a recurring theme or object within the myth.

In 'The Hero With A Thousand Faces', Joseph Campbell tells of an archetypal hero present in myths worldwide - it is of a hero who - with thoughts of others (village/person in trouble) - passes into the supernatural to retrieve the item that will save the village/person. He emerges from the supernatural and uses the item to save the troubled.

These myths seem to be about a regular hero who enters the supernatural and risks his/her life for others.

A person with supernatural powers would be a god-man. God-men were present in the mystery religions, but I can't think of a god-man in a regular myth. Those myths always seem to be about the common man ascending to great heights spiritually.


In other words, if the hero in question has supernatural qualities, that person must not have been a real person, is that the line of reasoning?

At a wedding, Dionysus turns water into wine. Hundreds of years later, a story is told of a wedding where Jesus turns water into wine. One is a known myth. Dionysus was a mythic hero. What is to be said of Jesus?

If you believe in the existence of archetypes, are they genetically transmitted concepts or culturally transmitted concepts?

That's interesting because - why would a culturally transmitted concept be identified in other cultures worldwide?

Genetically? I would say yes. It is part of our brain patterns to think this way. It may be that we are aghast to the core at the possibility we are the highest life form. We want to commune with 'the gods'.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Silicon


I highly doubt that.



:D

I couldn't tell if you were joking or not. The Gospel of Thomas is most definitely a Gnostic text. Just ask any xian.

"Split any wood and I will be there"

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
(They may be Gnostic books, but that doesn't mean the Gnostics were completely wrong.)


Roadtoad - I found an interesting book called The Jesus Mysteries by Timothy Freke. Check it out. It is a good read.

[Roadtoad]

Originally posted by triadboy


Roadtoad - I found an interesting book called The Jesus Mysteries by Timothy Freke. Check it out. It is a good read.

Thanks. I'll look for it.

[Silicon]

Wow, I LOVE that gospel of infancy!

That rules! The Adventures of Jesus Christ, our Lord as a Child!

It's like the spin-off-comic-book version of the Gospel! I almost expected Krypto the Super-dog to show up!


I love those stories. I love the one where Jesus tells all the scientists all about astronomy, medicine, the laws of thermodynamics! They just fall at His feet and adore him!

I also like the stories about mean schoolmasters He killed, and the bully kids who shriveled up and died! And the snake He commanded to suck out the poison! He's like Harry Potter!


I want to write some Baby Jesus adventures!

[Silicon]

Originally posted by triadboy


I couldn't tell if you were joking or not. The Gospel of Thomas is most definitely a Gnostic text. Just ask any xian.

"Split any wood and I will be there"


It's a joke on Thomas, who doubted Jesus.


"But he (Thomas) said unto them, ‘Except I shall see in His hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into His side, I will not believe’" (John 20:25).



Thomas was the Skeptic of the apostles.

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Silicon
Wow, I LOVE that gospel of infancy!

I also like the stories about mean schoolmasters He killed, and the bully kids who shriveled up and died! And the snake He commanded to suck out the poison! He's like Harry Potter!


Yeah,...and when he and Huck Finn where being chased by Injun Joe and got lost in that cave - I thought I'd crap a brick!

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Silicon

It's a joke on Thomas, who doubted Jesus.


Duh! Sorry, I completely missed it. I saw the words and the smiley face, but they didn't match up in my mind. Nice one. :)

[triadboy]

Originally posted by elliotfc

The majority of the pseudepigraphical gospels are post-100 AD.


Is 100 AD some kind of cut-off date for 'reliability' or something?
This was a growing Jewish mystery religion collection of writings. Several of Paul's letters were written in the 2nd century. The Infancy Gospels were written at this time also. And you are correct - they addressed the missing childhood years not present in Matthew and Luke. Infancy James also addressed why - if John the Baptist was born within months of Jesus - he wasn't caught up in Herod's Killing of the Innocents.

But if Jesus never existed as a real human - and these texts were written about a mythological person - then it is the Literalist Xians who came later, who would have the major problem with the timeline. It is the church fathers about 170 AD who begin to alter and fabricate.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by triadboy
Infancy James also addressed why - if John the Baptist was born within months of Jesus - he wasn't caught up in Herod's Killing of the Innocents.This is a minor point, but why would he have been caught up in it unless his parents lived in Bethlehem or its immediate surroundings?

What is the explanation given, at any rate?

[triadboy]

Originally posted by ceo_esq
This is a minor point, but why would he have been caught up in it unless his parents lived in Bethlehem or its immediate surroundings?

What is the explanation given, at any rate?

In Matthew, Herod ordered the killing of all young males up to 2 years old. (This is the only Gospel that has this story. It is, of course, completely made up. It was common for renown mythological people to escape death as a child. Even my relatives, Eng and Chang, were said to have escaped death as children - that's a whole nother story)

Luke is the only Gospel that has a parallel story of John the Baptists birth. Zacharias and Elizabeth gave birth to John. They lived near Joseph and Mary.

Jesus and John were born a couple of months apart and in the same region.

In James, Zacharias will not tell the soldiers where John is, so they kill him. Elizabeth and John flee into the hills.

Since the author of James obviously knew of the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, this Infancy Gospel HAS to be dated after them. Probably sometime in the mid 2nd century.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by triadboy


Gospel of Thomas is a Gnostic text. Jesus is not a real person. He is a spiritual mythological manisfestation of a 'hero' that all people have in their psyche - Carl Jung called it an archetype.

Myths are the dreams of populations. Archetypes are recurring mythic themes that seem to be important to humans. The dying god-man myth is one of those.

In Thomas, Jesus is like Mithras, Attis, Serapis, Dionysus, etc. That's why xians hate it. If you mention "Gospel of Thomas" to a knowledgeable xian, an Elvis sneer immediately forms and they spit out the word "Gnostic" like it's a loogie of foul origin.

Sounds like it may be worth reading.

[triadboy]

Gnostics believe that we are living in Hell. Once we received Gnosis, then we will finally make it to Heaven. In the meantime, we have to keep coming back until we get it right. Sounds a lot like Hinduism, huh?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by triadboy
Gnostics believe that we are living in Hell. Once we received Gnosis, then we will finally make it to Heaven. In the meantime, we have to keep coming back until we get it right. Sounds a lot like Hinduism, huh?

It would appear so. Perhaps one influenced the other, or they both derive from a single source.