Gospels that didn't make the cut for a Christian establishment

[spunkloaf]

The Gospel of Mary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mary)

The Gospel of Thomas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas)

The Gospel of Truth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Truth)

The Gospel of Philip (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Philip)

The Gospel of Judas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas)

I'm most interested in The Gospel of Judas, as it offers a different perspective of one of the most supposedly villainous men in the Bible.

What is intriguing about all of these gospels is that they were discounted by the Christian establishment because they taught people that they could have a personal relationship with God without having to rely on the church to facilitate it for them. Maybe Gnosticism was what I yearned for all along when I felt this disdain for religious establishment.

[BillyBob]

I like Thomas, myself.

[Mister D]

The Gospel of Mary (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mary)

The Gospel of Thomas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Thomas)

The Gospel of Truth (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Truth)

The Gospel of Philip (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Philip)

The Gospel of Judas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas)

I'm most interested in The Gospel of Judas, as it offers a different perspective of one of the most supposedly villainous men in the Bible.

What is intriguing about all of these gospels is that they were discounted by the Christian establishment because they taught people that they could have a personal relationship with God without having to rely on the church to facilitate it for them. Maybe Gnosticism was what I yearned for all along when I felt this disdain for religious establishment.

I'd imagine you might actually find Gnosticism elitist and irritating. In any case, these works were rejected in the course of Christian self-definition. If you want a personal relationship with God become a fundamentalist Protestant.

[Chris]

Christopher Moore's Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal will probably never make the cut either. But I recommend it.

[KC]

I always wanted to read these and to know the rationale for rejecting them as part of the Christian Bible.

[spunkloaf]

I'd imagine you might actually find Gnosticism elitist and irritating. In any case, these works were rejected in the course of Christian self-definition. If you want a personal relationship with God become a fundamentalist Protestant.

Elitist? That word alone is overused and irritating. But if you must use it, tell me how Gnosticism would be more elitist than Christianity.

[Greenridgeman]

I always wanted to read these and to know the rationale for rejecting them as part of the Christian Bible.


I think the History Channel, or H2, had several programs on lost Gospels.

[Mister D]

Elitist? That word alone is overused and irritating. But if you must use it, tell me how Gnosticism would be more elitist than Christianity.

On that note, so is Gnosticism. There was no 'Gnosticism' but many. It's a modern term to describe a myriad of dfferent belief systems. Anyway, an element of these sects, for lack of a better term, was the belief that Gnosis (i.e. "knowledge") is only available to a select group of human beings. The rest merely have faith.

[KC]

I think the History Channel, or H2, had several programs on lost Gospels.

Sounds cool, I'd like to get an overview like that, even if I don't trust the History Channel very much for accuracy. Sometimes it's entertaining though.

[Greenridgeman]

Sounds cool, I'd like to get an overview like that, even if I don't trust the History Channel very much for accuracy. Sometimes it's entertaining though.


You mean you do not trust the word of cryptozoooligists and ancient alien astronaut theorists?

[Mister D]

Sounds cool, I'd like to get an overview like that, even if I don't trust the History Channel very much for accuracy. Sometimes it's entertaining though.

It's a series called Banned from the Bible.

[spunkloaf]

On that note, so is Gnosticism. There was no 'Gnosticism' but many. It's a modern term to describe a myriad of dfferent belief systems. Anyway, an element of these sects, for lack of a better term, was the belief that Gnosis (i.e. "knowledge") is only available to a select group of human beings. The rest merely have faith.

What's the difference between faith and knowledge these days? People seem so hell bent acting out their faith as if it were the law anyways, and the same group of people refuse to recognize what comes to pass as testable knowledge.

To me, "knowledge" is a more honest form of "faith." You either know something or you do not, regardless of your own opinion. Faith relies on an untestable hunch and can be manipulated more freely.

In that sense, perhaps Gnosticism is more philosophy than theology.

[Mister D]

What's the difference between faith and knowledge these days? People seem so hell bent acting out their faith as if it were the law anyways, and the same group of people refuse to recognize what comes to pass as testable knowledge.

To me, "knowledge" is a more honest form of "faith." You either know something or you do not, regardless of your own opinion. Faith relies on an untestable hunch and can be manipulated more freely.

In that sense, perhaps Gnosticism is more philosophy than theology.

I'm really not sure what you mean by faith as the law or refusing to recognize testable knowledge.

Whatever you want to call Gnosticism is fine just don't call it Christianity.

[TheDictator]

These books did not meet the over 100 standards of what we call the Bible Canon. All of the ones said on this post did not meet the 2nd canon standard of being written in the first century.

[BillyBob]

I always wanted to read these and to know the rationale for rejecting them as part of the Christian Bible.

Thomas is a real quick read, about 120 verses and many are similar to the traditional Gospels. It has been postulated that the Gospels [or at least some] were taken from a book called the 'Quelle' [source].

http://www.religioustolerance.org/gosp_q.htm

[Mister D]

Thomas is a real quick read, about 120 verses and many are similar to the traditional Gospels. It has been postulated that the Gospels [or at least some] were taken from a book called the 'Quelle' [source].

http://www.religioustolerance.org/gosp_q.htm

"Q" refers to a collection of Jesus' sayings and what scholars think is one of the possible sources used by the writers of Matthew and Luke. They weren't taken from Q. They used Q the way any writer would use source material.

[BillyBob]

"Q" refers to a collection of Jesus' sayings and what scholars think is one of the possible sources used by the writers of Matthew and Luke. They weren't taken from Q. They used Q the way any writer would use source material.

It's also assumed that neither Matthew nor Luke were the authors of the Gospels which bear their names. I posted a link if you would like to learn more.

[Mister D]

It's also assumed that neither Matthew nor Luke were the authors of the Gospels which bear their names. I posted a link if you would like to learn more.

It's not assumed. It's argued by many scholars. In any case, that has nothing to do with Q.

[TheDictator]

I always wanted to read these and to know the rationale for rejecting them as part of the Christian Bible.

There are over 100 standards ( called canons ) that each book of the Bible had to meet to be part of the Bible.

Here are three of them

1. Is the book used regularly in all the churches?

2. Was the book written in the first century?

3. Was the book written by an Apostle or by the authority of an Apostle?

[BillyBob]

It's not assumed. It's argued by many scholars. In any case, that has nothing to do with Q.

There are many scholars who disagree with you.

[jillian]

These books did not meet the over 100 standards of what we call the Bible Canon. All of the ones said on this post did not meet the 2nd canon standard of being written in the first century.

i can't speak to the books you're talking about. but we do know as fact that constantine and the council of nicea picked and chose the gospels they wanted.

why do you think that is?

[BillyBob]

3. Was the book written by an Apostle or by the authority of an Apostle?

Which Gospel was written by an Apostle?

[Mister D]

There are many scholars who disagree with you.

There is not a single scholar who disagrees with me. Scholars don't assume their conclusions. If they did they wouldn't be scholars.

[TheDictator]

There are many scholars who disagree with you.

There many scholars who disagree with you also.

[BillyBob]

There is not a single scholar who disagrees with me.

Wrong. There are plenty of them who speculate that the Quelle was the original source for Mark and later Matthew and Luke [and possibly Thomas as well]. For you to say that the Q document isn't relevant is to prompt disagreement with you from a multitude of scholars.

[BillyBob]

There many scholars who disagree with you also.

Disagree with what?

[Mister D]

Wrong. There are plenty of them who speculate that the Quelle was the original source for Mark and later Matthew and Luke [and possibly Thomas as well]. For you to say that the Q document isn't relevant is to prompt disagreement with you from a multitude of scholars.

No, they argue that Q was the sayings source for Matthew and Luke not for Mark. As far as Q's relevance, what are you talking about? Who said anything about Q's relevance?

[TheDictator]

i can't speak to the books you're talking about. but we do know as fact that constantine and the council of nicea picked and chose the gospels they wanted.

why do you think that is?

Well your so called facts are wrong, because history recorded that the council used the canon to chose the books for the Bible. History also records that Constantine wanted 1 Clements add to the Bible but it was rejected.

[TheDictator]

Which Gospel was written by an Apostle?

Matthew and John

[spunkloaf]

Really?

We should all pick and choose which ancient texts to take seriously.

[KC]

There are over 100 standards ( called canons ) that each book of the Bible had to meet to be part of the Bible.

Here are three of them

1. Is the book used regularly in all the churches?

2. Was the book written in the first century?

3. Was the book written by an Apostle or by the authority of an Apostle?

Certainly these criteria only apply to the New Testament Bible, but thanks for posting!

[Mister D]

Really?

We should all pick and choose which ancient texts to take seriously.


I take all of them seriously for their historical value. That's not really the point.

[TheDictator]

Certainly these criteria only apply to the New Testament Bible, but thanks for posting!

Yes, because the canon of the Old Testament was done 500 years before.

[TheDictator]

I take all of them seriously for their historical value. That's not really the point.

I do also, they have historical value but very little religious value.

[Mister D]

I do also, they have historical value but very little religious value.

Agreed

[BillyBob]

That all 27 books of the NT were written in the first century is disputable.

[BillyBob]

Here's a cool link in which the author, Marcus Borg, dates the books of the NT and places them in chronological order. He dates 2 Peter as mid 2nd Century. He also dates Titus and Timothy in the early 2nd Century.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcus-borg/a-chronological-new-testament_b_1823018.html#slide=1417940


About the author:

Marcus Borg is Canon Theologian at Trinity Episcopal Cathedral in Portland, Ore. Known in both academic and church circles as a biblical and Jesus scholar, he held the Hundere Chair of Religion and Culture in the Philosophy Department at Oregon State University until his retirement in 2007.

He is the author of twenty books, including "Jesus: A New Vision" (1987) and the best-seller "Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time" (1994); "The God We Never Knew" (1997); "The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions" (1999); "Reading the Bible Again for the First Time" (2001), and "The Heart of Christianity" (2003), both best-sellers.

More recent books include "Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary" (2006), a New York Times Best-Seller; "Conversations with Scripture: Mark" (2009); three books co-authored with John Dominic Crossan, "The Last Week" (2006), "The First Christmas" (2007), and "The First Paul" (2009): his first novel, "Putting Away Childish Things" (April, 2010); and "Speaking Christian"

[TheDictator]

Here's a cool link in which the author, Marcus Borg, dates the books of the NT and places them in chronological order. He dates 2 Peter as mid 2nd Century. He also dates Titus and Timothy in the early 2nd Century.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcus-borg/a-chronological-new-testament_b_1823018.html#slide=1417940


About the author:

Marcus Borg is Canon Theologian at Trinity Episcopal Cathedral in Portland, Ore. Known in both academic and church circles as a biblical and Jesus scholar, he held the Hundere Chair of Religion and Culture in the Philosophy Department at Oregon State University until his retirement in 2007.

He is the author of twenty books, including "Jesus: A New Vision" (1987) and the best-seller "Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time" (1994); "The God We Never Knew" (1997); "The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions" (1999); "Reading the Bible Again for the First Time" (2001), and "The Heart of Christianity" (2003), both best-sellers.

More recent books include "Jesus: Uncovering the Life, Teachings and Relevance of a Religious Revolutionary" (2006), a New York Times Best-Seller; "Conversations with Scripture: Mark" (2009); three books co-authored with John Dominic Crossan, "The Last Week" (2006), "The First Christmas" (2007), and "The First Paul" (2009): his first novel, "Putting Away Childish Things" (April, 2010); and "Speaking Christian"

I really do not care what some Liberal with an agenda has to say. There are lots of others who would disagree.

[BillyBob]

I really do not care what some Liberal

How do you know he's a liberal and what does that have to do with it?



with an agenda has to say.

What agenda would that be?



There are lots of others who would disagree.

I wonder what their agendas are.....

[spunkloaf]

I really do not care what some Liberal with an agenda has to say. There are lots of others who would disagree.

Such arrogance. Everything that goes against your belief is a liberal with an agenda. I'm taking you less seriously from this post forward.

[TheDictator]

How do you know he's a liberal and what does that have to do with it?

What agenda would that be?

I wonder what their agendas are.....

Because I know who he is, He is a member of a very Liberal group called the Jesus Seminar. He is also a member of the Progressive Christianity Society. A very Marxist and socialist group.

[TheDictator]

Such arrogance. Everything that goes against your belief is a liberal with an agenda. I'm taking you less seriously from this post forward.

Yes, I agree you are very arrogant. I have not taken you seriously from the beginning.

[TheDictator]

I tell you what, you have respected scholars like these come out and say the NT is written in the 2nd century then I will listen.


F. LaGard Smith - Pepperdine
Eli Borden ( 6 time Professor of the year ) New Mexico College Board
Aubrey Malphurs - Dallas Theological Seminary
Ivor J Davidson- U of Otago, New Zealand
Carl Byers - World Bible School

[Mister D]

I tend to avoid Americans altogether. The more liberal theological currents are more popular here.

[Mister D]

I did really like this though:

http://www.amazon.com/Old-Testament-Theology-Exegetical-Canonical/dp/0310218977/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1366159902&sr=8-1&keywords=n+Old+Testament+Theology%3A+An+Exegetical %2C+Canonical%2C+and+Thematic+Approach

[TheDictator]

I did really like this though:

http://www.amazon.com/Old-Testament-Theology-Exegetical-Canonical/dp/0310218977/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1366159902&sr=8-1&keywords=n+Old+Testament+Theology%3A+An+Exegetical %2C+Canonical%2C+and+Thematic+Approach


Thanks I may get the book.

[Mister D]

Thanks I may get the book.

It's quite a tome but it had some very interesting and enlightening parts.

[BillyBob]

Because I know who he is, He is a member of a very Liberal group called the Jesus Seminar. He is also a member of the Progressive Christianity Society. A very Marxist and socialist group.


Did you check the link I posted? He makes some compelling arguments. Besides, why is the time when a 'Book' was written something so upsetting to you?