Alternate Gospels

[Ssstern]

I know this is kinda late, but over the weekend they had a show on about the Gospels that didn't make the bible. Like Thomas, and Mary and a few others. I guess some are considered unauthentic due to the time frame which they were written. Does anyone have any thoughts on those Gospels?

[Superfluous_Nut]

it's funny, i was just talking about this with somebody. must be the season.

yeah, when the bible was cannonized, constantine (and the council of nicea) selected which books to use. the other ones were tossed out. how did they pick these? well, i doubt politics didn't enter into it. i'm sure the four they picked for the NT were the ones that agreed most with each other and what they wanted the church to be like.

[ECILAM]

I used to have some of those Apocryphal gospels. One of them covers the life of Christ as a child. It reads like "Firestarter" meets "The Bad Seed." According to the one I read, Jesus would get in arguments with other kids and use his powers to kill other kids or make them "wither." People became afraid of him, and his family had to move around a lot. I forget which book it was.

[mathmajors]

I've always been interested in this stuff. Anyone got any recommended reading?

[builder]

I thought the one ecilam was talking about is called the book of eden? Or eve? I read it years ago. Wicked stuff.

[BigVito]

I've always been interested in this stuff. Anyone got any recommended reading?For an introduction to the "Lost Gospels" found at Nag Hammadi, I'd highly recommend "The Gnostic Gospels" by Elaine Pagels. Pagels is a theologian at Princeton University and her books, while academic in nature, are quite accessible and thought provoking.

[vpkozel]

I think that these gospels should only be read if the other gospels are unwilling or unable to perform their duties.

Or if some pictures of them eating at the Y surface....

[Ssstern]

For an introduction to the "Lost Gospels" found at Nag Hammadi, I'd highly recommend "The Gnostic Gospels" by Elaine Pagels. Pagels is a theologian at Princeton University and her books, while academic in nature, are quite accessible and thought provoking.

This is one they mentioned too. It sounded very interesting. I believe she was one of the experts on the show too.

[BigVito]

This is one they mentioned too. It sounded very interesting. I believe she was one of the experts on the show too.I enjoy her work. I believe she has 4 books out, the latest being on the "Gospel of Thomas." Good stuff without jumping all over the place with wild assumptions.

The book I'm currently reading is "Secret Origins of the Bible" by Tim Callahan. I'm just getting started but his angle is comparative mythology with linguistic and phonetic sidenotes. His introduction to the Documentary Hypothesis of the Pentateuch is one of the easiest to understand that I've read. Of course, I'm just a novice at theology and Biblical criticism, so I like it when they use small words.

[kshead]

I think that these gospels should only be read if the other gospels are unwilling or unable to perform their duties.

Or if some pictures of them eating at the Y surface....

I believe you are thinking of the "First Runner Up" Gospels.

[BigVito]

I believe you are thinking of the "First Runner Up" Gospels.See, KS, the "Gospel of Mary Magdalene" actually won, but when it made that deal with Bobus Guccionicus for the pictoral, it was replaced by the Synoptic Gospels. Bad deal.

[slydevl]

I was under the impression the Nag Hamadi gospels were still under consideration for canonization.

Peter himself canonized the writings of Paul.

[BigVito]

I was under the impression the Nag Hamadi gospels were still under consideration for canonization.

Peter himself canonized the writings of Paul.Not sure about the former, Sly. I'd love to learn more if it is true.

As for Peter, I thought the Bible, as we know it, came into being at the Council of Nicea in 325 CE. Wasn't this the meeting that cannonized the Synoptic gospels, made Christ's divinity doctrine, and put an end to the Arian "heresy?"

[slydevl]

Not sure about the former, Sly. I'd love to learn more if it is true.

As for Peter, I thought the Bible, as we know it, came into being at the Council of Nicea in 325 CE. Wasn't this the meeting that cannonized the Synoptic gospels, made Christ's divinity doctrine, and put an end to the Arian "heresy?"

In II Peter, Peter called the writings of Paul gospels. Niceae may have used that in their decision.

[hasbeen99]

I saw part of the documentary Ssstern was referring to. I'd be interested to read the Gnostic gospels someday. I do agree with SN that the inclusion or exclusion of the documents at hand at the time the New Testament was cannonized (sp?) was largely based on how well the doctrines they held agreed with the Old Testament as well as each other. If you read the Bible from beginning to end, you can see the consistent themes running throughout.

The little bit of the show I saw was focused on the supposed gospel of Thomas. The narrator stated that the document included absolutely nothing about Jesus' crucifixion, death, or resurrection. If the apostle Thomas did write a gospel, don't you think the resurrection would've been a HUGE part of it? We're talking about 'doubting Thomas' here, the one who had to place his fingers in Jesus' wounds after the resurrection to believe in it. Seems to me like he'd be one of the most fiercely outspoken supporters of the resurrection of Christ. :thinking:

[mathmajors]

If the apostle Thomas did write a gospel, don't you think the resurrection would've been a HUGE part of it?
I doubt it.:D

[hasbeen99]

I doubt it.:D

Math made a funny. :D

That was good -- it took me a second to get that one. :D

[jbghostrat]

what does cannonize mean?

I saw that book The Gnostic Gospels at the bookstore today.

[Superfluous_Nut]

what does cannonize mean?

I saw that book The Gnostic Gospels at the bookstore today.
www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com) is a great resource. i use it for spelling all the time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page is also a great resource for looking stuff up.


the "canon" is the official set of books in the bible. when they were canonized is when they were made official -- basically, when the bible was created. up til then, there was no official version of the bible and gospels were all sorta used as people saw fit. i think. maybe i should go look it up, just to be sure. :)

[hasbeen99]

www.dictionary.com (http://www.dictionary.com) is a great resource. i use it for spelling all the time.

:D

[VOR]

:D

Never mind this crap, How's your wife?

[hasbeen99]

Never mind this crap, How's your wife?

She's doing much better today than she was yesterday morning. Thanks for asking. :)

[VOR]

She's doing much better today than she was yesterday morning. Thanks for asking. :)
I'm glad to hear it.

[Ice Man]

Who even knows if these books were actually real. The Gospel of Thomas could have been made up by someone else. I'm sure there will be plenty of theories as to why these books were left out. I on the other hand will leave that up to the good Lord himself. He knew which ones he wanted included.

[Superfluous_Nut]

Who even knows if these books were actually real. The Gospel of Thomas could have been made up by someone else. I'm sure there will be plenty of theories as to why these books were left out. I on the other hand will leave that up to the good Lord himself. He knew which ones he wanted included.
are they any less "real" than the other gospels?

[kshead]

Who even knows if these books were actually real. The Gospel of Thomas could have been made up by someone else. I'm sure there will be plenty of theories as to why these books were left out. I on the other hand will leave that up to the good Lord himself. He knew which ones he wanted included.

Let us know the real reasons when He tells you then, ok?

[hasbeen99]

are they any less "real" than the other gospels?

I tend to believe the main reason the Gnostic gospels and others were not included in the Bible is because their integrity was considered highly questionable, and non-conforming to the other verified writings in the New Testament.

If that's true, that renders them as fiction, IMO.

[Superfluous_Nut]

I tend to believe the main reason the Gnostic gospels and others were not included in the Bible is because their integrity was considered highly questionable, and non-conforming to the other verified writings in the New Testament.

If that's true, that renders them as fiction, IMO.
how did they verify their integrity? and aren't the 4 gospels all sorta different? i mean, aside from matthew and luke having been based on mark, they also have different "flavors", do they not?

[hasbeen99]

Different writing styles, different perspectives, sure. They're different authors telling the same story from their own unique perspectives.

[hasbeen99]

how did they verify their integrity?

Good question. I'm not sure what the canonization process included, exactly. Sly probably knows more about it than I do. But lemme do some research and I'll revisit this.

[Superfluous_Nut]

Different writing styles, different perspectives, sure. They're different authors telling the same story from their own unique perspectives.
i mean, tho, they've also got different messages. like, isn't john sorta the one that hilighted the anti-jewish angle? and matthew is sorta down on the whole organized religion thing, in general?

[hasbeen99]

i mean, tho, they've also got different messages. like, isn't john sorta the one that hilighted the anti-jewish angle? and matthew is sorta down on the whole organized religion thing, in general?

As far as I know John was the only apostle who didn't abandon Jesus through His trials, scourging, and crucifixion. If so, he's the only one with an eyewitness account of what was said and done.

I never really noticed Matthew being exceptionally opposed to organized religion, but if he was, it would be understandable considering his personal history. Being a tax collector, he was probably shunned and rejected by most (if not all) of Jewish society, and especially the religious leaders.

[Superfluous_Nut]

As far as I know John was the only apostle who didn't abandon Jesus through His trials, scourging, and crucifixion. If so, he's the only one with an eyewitness account of what was said and done.

I never really noticed Matthew being exceptionally opposed to organized religion, but if he was, it would be understandable considering his personal history. Being a tax collector, he was probably shunned and rejected by most (if not all) of Jewish society, and especially the religious leaders.
so you believe that the gospel of john was written by john the baptist?

[slydevl]

so you believe that the gospel of john was written by john the baptist?

John the baptist was beheaded. Do you mean John the apostle?

[hasbeen99]

so you believe that the gospel of john was written by john the baptist?

No, John the apostle. Were you talking about John the Baptist?

[Superfluous_Nut]

so many johns. i was about to edit... yeah, the apostle.

i've read things that indicate john was the last book to be written.

[slydevl]

so many johns. i was about to edit... yeah, the apostle.

i've read things that indicate john was the last book to be written.

John was the last remaining apostle and the only won to escape execution so that could be true. He wrote revelations also.

[Superfluous_Nut]

John was the last remaining apostle and the only won to escape execution so that could be true. He wrote revelations also.
i've also read things that doubt it's the same author as revelations. oh well, this is getting outside my realm of knowledge...

[hasbeen99]

i've also read things that doubt it's the same author as revelations.

So have I, but most historians and Biblical scholars still think it was John the apostle who wrote both.

[Hockeygirl44]

Never mind this crap, How's your wife?

I'm doing great. Had one rough day, and then a few lazy days, but back to life as usual now. Thanks for asking!!

[VOR]

I'm doing great. Had one rough day, and then a few lazy days, but back to life as usual now. Thanks for asking!!

that's so very nice to hear, good luck to you.