Banned additions to the bible

ioi8
Posts: 5
Joined: 2006-04-14
User is offlineOffline
Banned additions to the bible

I just watched a show on the history channel about possible additions to the holy bible. According to the show, there were a dozen or more gospels disputed if they should be added to the bible or not. Some reasons why they were not added: said either heaven and hell were states of mind here on earth, or anyone could get out of hell if one asks god to be forgiven.

Now, there were also myriads of other gospels that were completely not even suggested for addition because of bogus writers, and just far-out ideas that conservative christians did not want to include.

Now, im sure that every christian will believe that man is fallible. Hence why they believe that jesus died for their sins. I will also say that humans cannot be right all the time. Not close by a long shot, so i will point this out.

HOW IS A BOOK EDITED BY HUMANS TO CONVEY THE WORD OF A GOD POSSIBLY BE TAKEN TO BE TRUTH?

Is it not possible that some gospels got in that are just completely false? And is not also possible that some gospels that told the truth did not make it in because it did not agree with the editors idealogy?

P.S. if anyone reads this in the next hour... history channel is doing a piece of technology in the bible. Proves how the tower of babel crashed due to natural causes.

Matt

Im a genius surrounded by idiots!


MattShizzle
Posts: 7966
Joined: 2006-03-31
User is offlineOffline
Banned additions to the bible

I guess they had to edit God's own word! Laughing out loud


Rook_Hawkins
RRS CO-FOUNDER
Rook_Hawkins's picture
Posts: 1322
Joined: 2006-02-11
User is offlineOffline
Re: Banned additions to the bible

ioi8 wrote:
I just watched a show on the history channel about possible additions to the holy bible. According to the show, there were a dozen or more gospels disputed if they should be added to the bible or not.

You're thinking of the Nag Hammadi texts. There were thirteen codices and around the ballpark of fifty texts found at Nag Hammadi in egypt in the 1940's. Of these were the following (now) well known gospels: Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Philip, Gospel of Truth, Gospel to the Egyptians, Secret Book of James, the Apocalypse of Paul, the Letter of Peter to Philip, and the Apocalypse of Peter.

Another well known text is the Apocryphon (literally, "secret book"Eye-wink of John, which contains (suppsedly) the teachings of Christ to his disciple John.

These are, of course, merely pseudepigraphs. Most having been written after 70 CE and probably later (some dated as late as 200-350 CE). It is speculated that these were burried by the Catholic Church soon after defining which books to use in their new Bible (eg. Codex Vaticanus).

Quote:
Some reasons why they were not added: said either heaven and hell were states of mind here on earth, or anyone could get out of hell if one asks god to be forgiven.

This is interesting. I love this, because as I wrotein my commentary on Paul, early Christians did not believe Jesus to be a real historical figure. They were esoterical and gnostics (in the most spiritual use of the word) and taught of a non-literal spiritual awakening through Jesus (who was more like an angel or a second Adam through spirit) whom could only give you this knowledge to obtain salvation.

Most of their depictions of Jesus took place on another plain, like a spiritual realm that could not be seen or known by mortals. It does not surprise me that this would be a reason why the Vatican council decided against these narratives. Especially since there was such a fuss about it during that council. (In fact, they voted in that very council as to whether or not Jesus would be a historical or mythical being)

Quote:
Now, there were also myriads of other gospels that were completely not even suggested for addition because of bogus writers, and just far-out ideas that conservative christians did not want to include.

This is not to be taken personally, but I detest the use of the term "conservative christian" when discussing the beginnings of Christianity. This is because quite frankly, there was nothing to be conservative about. Christianity has JUST started and as thus, there were no old traditional thoughts...just fresh new ideas.

This is, partly, why there was a vote to begin with. Here's a little sequence of events:

1. Around the time of 10-5 BCE, the Christ mythos developed. (Possibly even a few decades earlier) It stemed from a combination of greek and hebrew mythology, although it probably was never meant to be taken seriously. Seldom do things work out as planned, however.

2. Gal. 1:12, "For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." Paul states in Galatians that he recieved knowledge through a vision by a spiritual Christ, not a historical figure. Although Acts tells us the story of Pauls conversion through vision, we know Paul had nothing to do with the writing of Acts (probably written around 80-130 CE...long after Paul was dead). Even still, we have evidence through Pauls own hand that he did believed in a non-literal Christ.

3. After the word of Paul's teachings spread, some early Christians start to write about Jesus allegorically. The gospels are a good example of allegorical literature depicting Jesus. They are not meant to be historical documents - at least Mark isn't - but again, plans are fragile things and people seldom stop believing what people tell them. Mark is written shortly after the fall of the temple, anywhere between 70 CE - 90 CE.

4. By now Paul is dead, and the gostic movement is strong and well on it's way. Paul himself has established schools to teach his way to salvation, so the word can be spread. However as time passes, now almost a century (perhaps even a full century), the whisper-down-the-alley rules start to take effect, and soon the story of Paul's ways get muddled, things that Paul says are being attributed to Jesus, some of the things Pauls students say as well. The synoptic gospels are not widely circulated yet, but several other gospels exist during this time which have been circulated, such as Marcion's gospel account and the Q-source. Perhaps some of the Nag Hammadi texts have also been passed around.

5. By the time 150 CE comes around, all four canonical gospels have been written, although John is very late (around 120 CE) and we see much more allegorical literature being written as well. More and more gospels and texts are being written now, however, but followers who are starting to believe that Jesus was a historical figure. About this time, (120 CE) almost four generations of people have passed completely since when the Jesus Christ mythos first developed (Again, this is based off the idea that it developed only a decade prior to the first century, although some Jewish scholarship believes it started much earlier).

6. Now beginning of the third century, most of the Christian community is split in two. Chruch leaders are being ridiculed by greeks who were comparing the Christians Jesus myth to their own myths like Dionysis, and Osirus who'd been around longer then the Jesus myth had. Under such ridicule from people like Celsus, Trypho, etc...claiming that Jesus was merely concocted based off greek and egyptian myths, Christians started saying that, "hey, our guy is real and YOURS were the myths." Stronger support for a historical Jesus arose, more and more people were seeking to find evidence for such a beings actual existence. Early church fathers would use Josephus and the Gospels, the works of Paul and others to prove that Jesus was a real character - although the Testamonium was never used by anybody because it had not been forged into Josephus yet.

7. The gostic belief started to fade in the growing onslaught of Christians who started to believe and follow the allegorical literature. Under the pressure from bishops who were teaching such ideas, and the weight of greeks still claiming patents on the myth their beliefs were based on, it was only a matter of time where a decision had to be made. Now, towards the beginning of the fifth century, the Vatican voted on the several issues regarding Jesus. So diverse were the teachings of the Christ that they finally decided to come to a strict conclusion on the matter. The issues discussed and voted on were as follows:

  1. Christ as Man or Spirit
  2. Christ as God or Son of God
  3. Trinity doctrine
  4. Mary - virgin forever?
  5. Jesus of David's blood?
  6. The Virgin birth

There were, of course, more. However looking at the list, and comparing it to the hundreds of manuscripts they had at the time to choose from, one can see which way they went. After voting on a wide range of subjects, including those above, they not only had to choose which books would become official, but which were the easiest to forge. Several additions to Mark, John, Paul's letters and the entire old testament had to be made in order to fit their conception of Jesus.

As it is, this is why we have the gospel canon of today, the rest were then deemed BANNED by the church and burned or buried. Some gospels we KNOW existed, but have long since been burned by the Church. Only in references by other Christians do we know of such things. Other works like Celsus' dialog have disappeared completely because of his strong opposition. Had it not been for Origen's refutation of Celsus, we may not even have known he wrote anything. And even HIS works would have been under the pen of forgery.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists. Books by Rook Hawkins (Thomas Verenna)


tonyjeffers
tonyjeffers's picture
Posts: 482
Joined: 2012-02-14
User is offlineOffline
BUMP

BUMP   I was bored and dug this up from the archives.   I thought some of you might find Rook's reply worth reading. I"d like to know where Rook gets info like this.

I also found this link you may find interesting as well  "Behind the Bible Fraud" -    http://www.rense.com/general66/hide.htm 

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia


x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
Dead link

x
Bronze Member
Posts: 591
Joined: 2010-06-15
User is offlineOffline
A start

tonyjeffers wrote:
I"d like to know where Rook gets info like this.

I don't know, but search for 'The Jesus Seminar', Bart Ehrman, Richard Carrier, Earl Doherty etc. and you'll find related subject matter.

His new site is at http://tomverenna.wordpress.com/ and it has links to biblical studies.

 


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

tonyjeffers wrote:
BUMP   I was bored and dug this up from the archives.   I thought some of you might find Rook's reply worth reading. I"d like to know where Rook gets info like this.

Where he got it, who knows? It is all over the web but piecemeal. You could google the names and such he give to find material and then google what you find from the first google on those finds and so forth and see for yourself. It should not take more than reading a couple dozens hits before you get a feel for the material and can start directing your own searches.

You will find three categories of material. Believers whom you can tell by their website name who you can ignore because they will ignore this material. Ravers in favor of these ideas but who are embarrassingly incompetent. And reasonably competent presentation of the material and with a little work complete original texts on the subject.

If you are really interested just jump and be confident your curiosity will be satisfied.

It is a fair working summary of what is in evidence. I'd quibble here and there but I'd probably come up with something very close if all I wanted was a general introduction. And I presume he would have no problem with my quibbles as he certainly knows what he had to ignore to post what he did. The additional material is called "richer" by those wanting to make a career of it. It is called confusing by the rest of us. It is also confusing to those who call it richer but they have to pretend to knowledge to make living off of it.

The major problem is we do not think like them and can NOT think like them. Take for example moving water was called living water. Stagnant water was not living water. Baptism has to be poured or in a river because it is living water. The term "water of life" was not mystical to the ancients. It was LITERAL to them and it meant moving water. That is one example. Now imagine all the ideas of the epistles and gospels which sound strange to us were like that. The Greeks held a person was composed of body, mind, soul and spirit. Christians held their god, unlike the Greeks gods, had no body, incorporial if you want to impress the peasants with a big word. What is left is Mind, Soul and (holy) Spirit. No mystery at all just Greek philosophy.

Most all of their ideas were materiallly different from ours. We cannot think like they did any more than they could think like us with our conceptions of the world. They look at the moon and see a goddess. We look at it and see a place we landed. Even creationists know more about the universe than even Newton much less Aristotle. We can define what we do not know. The ancients had very little idea of how much of what they knew was correct. We cannot think like that.

I have written very little on the christian material because it was so well established and generally as he puts it about when I had the time to look into things some twenty years ago. I go after the Septuagint/OT stuff because it has not been exposed to the same extent. Meaning there is room to come up with something new rather than rehashing the old.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
tonyjeffers wrote:BUMP   I

tonyjeffers wrote:

BUMP   I was bored and dug this up from the archives.   I thought some of you might find Rook's reply worth reading. I"d like to know where Rook gets info like this.

I also found this link you may find interesting as well  "Behind the Bible Fraud" -    http://www.rense.com/general66/hide.htm 

 

I'm guessing Rook is something of a Savant, unlike Bob Spence whom I merely lobbed the consideration towards. (In part because I was genuinely curious, and also because it was just too tempting a jab to pass up on)

Rook is exceptionally articulate and analytical in his writing, and not so well-adapted at socializing with others. As to where he gets his info...

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hi Opie

Opie,

So you based your thinking off a TV show? hmm? lol. Did you see that Fred Flinstone episode when they shower they use an elephant to squirt the water on them. perhaps anthropologically speaking, this is how people use to take showers a long time ago.

I think i'm pretty right because I saw it on a TV show.

lol.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
 the ones that didn't make

 the ones that didn't make the cut

 

http://www.thelostbooks.com/

 

 

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


Jean Chauvin
Theistard
Jean Chauvin's picture
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2010-11-19
User is offlineOffline
Hello

Hello,

There were no banned books of the Bible. This is set up as a strawman 100%. The gnostics and dosetists tried to put their own books into the Bible, but they were never a book of the Bible to begin with. So you can't say banned books OF the Bible. Strawman Fallacy. The gnostics were announed as heretics and pagans. Thus in 497-498 there was a small regional conference in NW Africa headed up by Augustine to make it official so that heretics would not be able to add to that which was already there.

It should also be noted that the Church Fathers way before the 5th century (more like 2nd century) had every single Bible Book already in there. The only difference or the only thing that was added in 5th century that was not already recognized in the 2nd century was a total of 6 verses.

So again, this is all set up as a strawman.

It should be noted for a side note, that the "Great" Constantine of 313 AD, that when he became a Christian, he was baptized in infant blood and took to heart some of the gnostic teachings and schnichronized those with Christianity. As a result. Roman Catholicism was formed.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10638
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
WARNING!

^ Jean thinks he knows what he's talking about, but viewers should be aware he's been totally schooled on this subject more than once.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.