The Gospel According To .... Thomas?

[Julie Marie]

There was a very interesting National Geographic special on last night.  A lot of the content wasn't new to me but some was, mostly because it delved more deeply into the subject.

In an nutshell, there are many more gospels than just Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  Gospels by Thomas, Mary Magdalene, and even Judas Iscariot have been found, although dating them takes them back to about 50-200CE.  So at least some was written after their deaths.  Some scholars think they are forgeries.  However, the recognized four gospels also fall into that category of forgeries for the same reason.  But when you think about it, if these writings were used like the Bible is used today, they would get a lot of wear and tear and would have to be re-written over and over.  For the lost gospels, that stopped around 200CE.

The Christians of the known world were a scattered, disorganized bunch until Roman Emperor Constantine stepped in.  He gathered the heads of all the factions at the Council of Nicea and it was there the Bible, as we know it today, was formed.  And it was there that many of the gospels were deleted.  Believers in those gospels were, from that point on, considered to be heretics and you know how they were dealt with.

The gospel of Thomas is believed to be a gnostic gospel.  Gnostic means "of, relating to, or possessing intellectual or spiritual knowledge."  Gnostics were stigmatized as heretics rather than being seen as intellectual or knowledgeable.  Gnostics did not have the need for priests or bishops as an intermediary or a leader.  They communicated directly with God.  The priests and bishops didn't like that. 

The gospel of Thomas has the words of Jesus in it, as if he were there, front and center, with Jesus, recording what he said.  That's a lot better than what is basically hearsay in many of the accounts of Jesus in the Bible.

Constantine, at the Council of Nicea, decided a lot of the spiritualistic stuff was a bit hard to swallow, so he banned it from being taught.  Besides, the religious leaders wanted control and Constantine had to give them something if he was going to get their cooperation.  Constantine also officially made Jesus a deity.  Obviously, this kind of stuff will cause some sabre rattling among the ranks of Bible believers today but the facts are what the facts are. 

The gospel of Mary finds Christian believers also very open to women being accepted as religious leaders, something power hungry men didn't like.  Peter was said to have been very angry when he found out Jesus told Mary things about God and heaven he hadn't told him or the other Apostles (damaged male ego?)  Apparently Constantine and the bishops weren't too fond of the idea either because her gospel was banned at Nicea too.

So, in effect, the Bible that we know today, the one too many people abuse to justify their prejudices (and that would also be against us) was formed by a Roman emperor in 323AD.  He decided what would and what wouldn't be in it.  He hand picked the contents.  And he forced the people to accept what is essentially the Bible according to Emperor Constantine.  He also proclaimed he was the head of all the Christians, which gave him enormous power.  Then he sent his troops out to enforce his new law.

Conclusion: (here it goes) the Bible really isn't the word of God, it is the culmination of editing all the available information at the time the Council of Nicea was held by a power hungry Roman emperor.  The Bible is the word of God according to Roman Emperor Constantine.  There, I said it. 

You'll find me in the bomb shelter over there awaiting the fallout.

[Suzy]

No bombs, my friend.  Just do know that there are some serious historical inaccuracies in what you have written.

but the facts are what the facts are.

Umm, I would agree with this.  And it would cause me to dispute most of your post.  We could do so privately if you wish, or just leave it as is.

Kristi

[Julie Marie]

No bombs, my friend.  Just do know that there are some serious historical inaccuracies in what you have written.

Umm, I would agree with this.  And it would cause me to dispute most of your post.  We could do so privately if you wish, or just leave it as is.

Kristi

Doing it in private wouldn't be fair to the readers.  If what I wrote has historical inaccuracies, please cite them.  I'm a big girl.  I can take it.  I'd rather suffer a bruised ego than establish myself as a gossip columnist. 

What I wrote was based on the special I saw last night.  National Geographic has a reputation for doing its homework and I would imagine the scholars and scientists who shared the results of their studies are very credible.  That's why I posted this here.  If it was from an article in the National Enquirer  , it wouldn't even bear repeating.

But, by all means, please make the corrections you feel will make this more accurate.  You won't be correcting me, you'll be correcting NatGeo and their sources.  Except for the part about Constantine being a power hungry man.  That was my label. 

[Octavianus]

You couldn't make a better sumary on this case, it is very clear.

The discovery of the non-canonical Gospels was my fist careful step in religion beyond the Bible. Indeed, many religious texts concerning Jesus never made it into the Bible. This form of sensorship is a clear indication that the Bible as it exists now is not a true religious book, but instead a book made to control the minds of people. Why else would they leave out texts that encourage people to find their own thruth and lessons in the teachings of Jesus?

When you compare Christianity with the Roman empire there are some striking similarities. On early portraits Jesus is often displayed as a Roman emperor, wearing a purple cloth or even a military dress. There are also striking similarities between the uprise of Jesus and the first Roman emperor: Augustus.
40 jears before Jesus was born, in the time Augustus was already consul, Vergilius wrote a poem that gave him a holy status.

From his 4th poem:

[...]With a new breed of men sent down from heaven.
Only do thou, at the boy's birth in whom
The iron shall cease, the golden race arise,
[...]Under thy guidance, whatso tracks remain
Of our old wickedness, once done away,
Shall free the earth from never-ceasing fear.
He shall receive the life of gods, and see
Heroes with gods commingling, and himself
Be seen of them, and with his father's worth
Reign o'er a world at peace. For thee, O boy,
First shall the earth, untilled, pour freely forth
Her childish gifts, the gadding ivy-spray
[...]Untended, will the she-goats then bring home
Their udders swollen with milk, while flocks afield
Shall of the monstrous lion have no fear.
Thy very cradle shall pour forth for thee
Caressing flowers. The serpent too shall die,
Die shall the treacherous poison-plant.

It sounds a lot like Jesaja.

Many christians believend Vergilius was writing of Jesus' birth, but in fact he wrote of the future emperor Augustus. Just like other poets of the time Vergilius was raised in a time of brutal civil war. The common people longed for peace so much they were prepared to give a devine status to anyone who would end this misery.

In the Aeneis was written:

But next behold the youth of form divine,
Ceasar himself, exalted in his line;
Augustus, promis'd oft, and long foretold,
Sent to the realm that Saturn rul'd of old;

So long before the birth of Jesus Roman poets wrote of the coming of a savior who would live on earth before ascending to the heavens.
Also, Augustus was declared the son of God: DIVI FILIVS.

Suetonius also writes of the birth of Augustus. The senate would have declared that no boy born in 63BC should be kept alive because of the prophecy that a king would be born. A strange story, but doesn't it sound a lot like the massacre of the innocents by Herod?
After this we are told that the mother of Augustus: Atia had a dream during a visit to the temple of Apollo. She was told that she was blessed among women in that she she would give birth to the savior. Atia asked: "How will this happen, I have never been in coitace with a man".

Are these similarities pure coincidence or is there more to it?

[Vanessa_yhvh]

I was first exposed to the Gospel of Thomas and some of the other writings along these lines when studying New Testament at a Southern Baptist college. Our professor felt that if we examined them and canon carefully, we would likely determine for ourselves that canon was the way to go.

These days, multiple versions of Gnostic Gospels and many other collected writings from that general period are in my "philosophy of religion" library, along with primary and secondary sources from various parts of the world & historical eras.

I have even cultivated some modest academic abilities (and lost most of them since) with some of the languages in which many of these things were written.

At this point I guess I have enough respect for the enormity of it all not to trouble people with my opinions on the subject more than seems strictly necessary.

[Suzy]

Well OK, Julie.  I did not see the show you are mentioning.  However, you are correct that there are many gospel accounts.  Forgeries?  I am not sure where you are getting this from.  But it is true that the very dates of some of the documents make this a certainty.  These, I would argue, primarily belong to the apocryphal gospels.  It is also true that these were well known to the early Christin writers and their comments are available for any who wish to pursue this further.  As far as the writings which we have either in manuscript form or mention, the primary ones are as follows, along with their approximate dates or authorship:

Canonical:
Mark      55
Matthew   60
Luke      62
John      80-85
Apocryphal:
Gospel of Thomas   150
Gospel of Truth   140-180
Gospel of the Twelve   2nd century (no surviving fragments)
Gospel of Peter   100-130
Gospel of the Egyptians   2nd century
Gospel of the Hebrews   mid 2nd century
Gospel of Matthias   2nd century
Preaching of Peter   100-120
Acts of Andrew   150-200
Acts of Paul      185-195
Acts of John      late 2nd century
Epistle to the Laodiceans    2nd-4th century    
I Clement      95-96
Epistle of Barnabas   100-135
Shepherd of Hermas    100-175
Apocalypse of Peter    135

One of the ways writings are traditionally dated is by their mention, or lack thereof, of the most important event at the time,  the destruction of the Temple, which happened in 70 AD.  Note the dates of the canonical gospels.  The first three are called the synoptics, because they contain substantially similar material.  Every writing has its own agenda.  Mark is thought by most scholars today to be the first written because of its length and style.  Matthew seems to be very concerned with showing Jesus as the fulfillment of the Old Testament, the reason it is traditionally placed first in the current canon.  Luke seems primarily concerned with the earthy ministry of Jesus, especially concentrating on the poor.  (Acts was originally the second volume by the same author.)  John, however, has a very different emphasis, as Jesus is presented as the Word, as Deity.  It is not meant, according to its introduction,  to be a strictly historical book.  So, even though it was likely written after 70 AD, this would not have been an important book to this author.

To be fair, the date of the Gospel of Thomas is a subject of much scholarly debate right now.    But I still believe the date listed above to be fairly accurate.  But even a perusal of the dates makes it pretty obvious which are firsthand accounts and which are not.

The common misconception is that Constantine formed the canon.  While this is a very popular opinion, history paints a very different picture.  For instance, I am not personally convinced that Constantine was a Christian from his own accounts.  However, during his reign of 274 to 337 A.D. he not only legalized Christianity but made it official.  In so doing he neither did Christianity nor the world a favor.  He did, however, find a wonderful unifying force for his empire.  This is important to understand because it goes to his motives for calling the Council of Nicea in 325.

This first ever council was called primarily because he feared that the disputes he was beginning to see within the church might cause disorder within his empire. The main dispute was Arianism, the belief that Jesus was a created being.  The records of the council indicate a lot of debate concerning the famous phrase, "There was when He was not."   This reference to Jesus was declared heretical by the council and thus resulted in the proclamation about Christ, included in the Nicene Creed: "God from true God...from the Father...not made."

The popular version of the council today talks of manuscripts that were burned at the order of Constantine.  However, historically there is no mention of such a thing actually happening at the order of Constantine or at the Council of Nicea.   The closest thing to this happened at the end of the debate concerning the Arian controversy.  The Arian  document claiming Christ to be a created being, was abandoned by them because of the strong resistance to it and was torn to shreds in the sight of everyone present at the council.

Also contrary to your assertion, Constantine, and the Council of Nicea, for that matter, had virtually nothing to do with the forming of the canon. It was not even discussed at Nicea. The council that formed an undisputed decision on the canon took place at Carthage in 397, sixty years after Constantine's death. However, long before Constantine, 21 books were acknowledged by all Christians (the 4 Gospels, Acts, 13 Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelation). There were 10 disputed books (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, Ps-Barnabas, Hermas, Didache, Gospel of Hebrews) and several that most all considered heretical—Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matthaias, Acts of Andrew, John, etc.

Some modern authors like to purport the idea that the gospels of Thomas and Peter (and other long-disputed books) contain truths that the church vehemently stomped out, but that simply has no basis historically.   It is closer to the truth to say that the writings of the early church fathers show that these books were well-known to the scholars at that time.  However, records indicate that no serious theologians really cared about these books because they were obviously written by people lying about authorship and had little basis in reality. They were not destroyed.  They simply went out of use, other than in isolated pockets of adherents.  That is one reason why a council declaring the canon was so late in coming (397 AD), because the books that were trusted and the ones that had been handed down were already widely known.  With a few exceptions, the books now considered canon were widely ratified by use, and by scholarship long before 397.

Does this mean that the apocryphal gospels have no value?  Of course not.  I find them to be fascinating windows into what some of the common thought and theories being tested at the time happened to be.  The fact that they fell out of use, though, cannot be laid at the feet of Constantine.  Rather, it was due to a coalescing and evolution of Christian thought.

[Tammy Hope]

Kristy can do a much better job than me so i defer to her on the details but, essentially, respected scholars disagree with each other. And even as credible an organization as NatGeo can cherry-pick the scholars that support a position they are comfortable with.

The basic truth is, though, that there is very good scholarship that says that the canonical gospels are verifiability and indisputably more authentic than the non-canonical gospels. Bth in terms of dating and in terms of textual criticism.


There ARE some valid questions about the content of the canon - but they don't generally relate to the Gospels.

[Tammy Hope]

he not only legalized Christianity but made it official.  In so doing he neither did Christianity nor the world a favor.

Hear! Hear!

[Michelle.]

Game/Set/Kristi.

[Julie Marie]

Unfortunately, I am speaking for someone else here, namely the experts who appeared in the NatGeo program and other experts who have shared their findings on this subject, but I'm doing so from a point of view that makes sense to me.  I fully understand there is a lot of debate over the subject matter here by people far more educated in this field than I.  That is why I have attempted to pass on their knowledge.  I pride myself on being as accurate as possible but I am human and I am passing on information I heard.  Any errors are unintended.

Forgeries?  I am not sure where you are getting this from.

One of the experts NatGeo had on the show used this term and I repeated it.  He was explaining some scholars claimed the Gnostic Gospels were forgeries because the archeological evidence indicated they were written after the death of the "authors".  He said in that sense, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are also forgeries.

But, and I reiterate, it is highly possible the writings were reproduced over and over, as wear and tear from use required it. Guttenberg wasn't around then.  So, if these writings were read, they were handled.  If they were handled, they were exposed to wear and tear.  If handled too much, they would have to be replaced.  So archeological dating of the documents thus far discovered only proves when the documents that were discovered were written, not if they were the originals and not by whom they were originally authored and when.

The above paragraph only looks at dating from a scientific viewpoint and can only be applied to actual writings thus far discovered.  We also know much "historical record keeping" at the time was done through word of mouth.  Most people couldn't even read. let alone write, so information had to be passed verbally.  There is a mountain of evidence that anything passed by word of mouth never remains true to the original word.

One of the ways writings are traditionally dated is by their mention, or lack thereof, of the most important event at the time,  the destruction of the Temple, which happened in 70 AD.  Note the dates of the canonical gospels.

That brings in the issue of life expectancy. Some estimate that men born during that time and living in that area had a life expectancy of something in late 30's or early 40's.  Considering that in the US in 1900 the average life expectancy of a white male was 46.6 years (CDC figures), the estimate for ~1900 years earlier would seem reasonably accurate. 

So the dating for the canonical gospels requires the authors to either be many years younger than Jesus or that they surpassed the average life expectancy by 30% or more.  Matthew was probably close to Christ's age as he was already a publican and tax collector when he met Christ.  Mark was probably in his teens when he began to follow Christ.  Luke never knew Christ and only became a follower after his death, through Paul's teachings.  That would make any accounts Luke has about Christ hearsay.  John is said to have been born c.6AD which would have made him a very old man in those times if his writings are dated to c.80-85AD.  The point is accurate dating from 2000 years ago is very difficult to ascertain through information provided in the documents thus far discovered. However, the documents themselves, rather than their content, can provide pretty accurate dating.

The common misconception is that Constantine formed the canon.  While this is a very popular opinion...

And I too have heard that opinion stated though it seems I may have mistakenly believed it to be fact.

history paints a very different picture.  For instance, I am not personally convinced that Constantine was a Christian from his own accounts.

With all due respect, my dear friend, stating personal opinion says nothing about the picture history paints.  However, it is commonly believed Constantine was Pagan going into this and he converted to Christianity, possibly during or after the Council of Nicea.

... However, during his reign of 274 to 337 A.D. he not only legalized Christianity but made it official.  ...  He did, however, find a wonderful unifying force for his empire.  This is important to understand because it goes to his motives for calling the Council of Nicea in 325.

This first ever council was called primarily because he feared that the disputes he was beginning to see within the church might cause disorder within his empire.

And that is what was stated in the program and what I have read elsewhere.  (That is why I labeled him a power hungry emperor.  He did what he had to do to gain control of his empire which in turn gave him even more power.)

The popular version of the council today talks of manuscripts that were burned at the order of Constantine.  However, historically there is no mention of such a thing actually happening at the order of Constantine or at the Council of Nicea.   The closest thing to this happened at the end of the debate concerning the Arian controversy.  The Arian  document claiming Christ to be a created being, was abandoned by them because of the strong resistance to it and was torn to shreds in the sight of everyone present at the council.

If what you say is correct, the fact the Arian document was destroyed provides historical evidence there was an agenda at the Council and certain documents were not allowed to be passed on or published.  Thus the conclusion the Council hand picked what was and what wasn't going to be accepted as Christian truth, even if it was only a popularity thing.  Which, BTW, was stated in the program as being an agenda of Constantine's.  He wanted to present the most palatable versions for all Christians in hopes that would unite them (they would quit fighting about who's version is right) and subsequently place them under his power.

Also contrary to your assertion, Constantine, and the Council of Nicea, for that matter, had virtually nothing to do with the forming of the canon. It was not even discussed at Nicea. The council that formed an undisputed decision on the canon took place at Carthage in 397, sixty years after Constantine's death.

Okay, my assertion, stated as I understood things to be based on what I've heard and read, stands corrected.  However, if what you say is correct, there was a council that did indeed influence Christian belief (which most likely influenced the Council at Carthage in 397AD).  Some three hundred bishops said to be from around the world gathered under Constantine's behest. They developed the Creed of Nicea which expressed what the great majority of bishops at the council found to be traditional, Biblical, and orthodox of the Christian faith.

However, long before Constantine, 21 books were acknowledged by all Christians (the 4 Gospels, Acts, 13 Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John, Revelation). There were 10 disputed books (Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, Ps-Barnabas, Hermas, Didache, Gospel of Hebrews) and several that most all considered heretical—Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matthaias, Acts of Andrew, John, etc

Twenty one books that were acknowledged by all, ten that were disputed.  And the heretical consideration attached to some.  It seems that, just like today, you can't get everyone to agree on anything.  And that creates an element of doubt.  Who is really right and who is really wrong?  More precisely, what is factually correct and what isn't?  The fact is, you can gather scientists and religious scholars together, all very well educated in this area, and will you never get them all to agree on a single version, unless the group is very small or hand picked.  There are too many elements, too many questions that can't be definitively answered, too many possibilities.  And there's always the very strong likelihood more documents will be discovered.  There's just no way of knowing with absolute certainty.  That's why they call it faith.

Every writing has its own agenda.

And that, my dear friend, says it all.

[Suzy]

One thing about my dear Julie, she does love a good heated discussion.

As far as Constantine and his actual conversion or not, as I stated, that is my opinion.  It is based on his own words of what he actually came to believe and his motives for it.  I do not claim this to be fact and realize others disagree with me there.  I would love for you to read them and make up your own mind.  However, if you are looking for someone to defend Constantine, sorry but I am not your girl.

You are also correct that the particular date of any manuscript neither proves nor disproves its historical lineage.  The papyrus fragments and other parchments are in generally terrible shape.  Most were written on what amounts, in today's vernacular, to be similar to toilet paper.  It is no wonder many of them did not last, and as far as we know, the original autographs of all books were lost long ago.

That being said, my discussion above had nothing whatsoever to do with the dating of manuscripts.  It had everything to do with dating of authorship, which is the point here.  Please forgive me if I did not make that clear.  There are a number of ways this is done, as I mentioned.  If reference is made to the destruction or rebuilding of the temple, we know it had to be after 70 AD.  That is the easy one.  All of the books in question, apart from their internal stylistic and cultural hints they provide, also have quite a lineage of secondary evidence.  In essence, the early church fathers wrote often about the letters which were being passed around and gave opinions of them.  This evidence was very important at Nicea and especially at Carthage.  In fact, much of the books can be recreated from those sources.  So the mystery is not quite as great as you seem to think.

Now as to forgeries, I am still not sure what the show said, so it is hard to reply directly.  They may have been addressing what is commonly known as the "pseudepigrapha" which means false writings.  These would include all of the books mentioned above.  In some Christian scholarly circles, some of the canonical books are also included.  Primarily these are a few of the writings of Paul and a couple of other minor books.  To my knowledge, not even the most adamant supporters of alternative authorship include the gospels in their list, at least not as a whole.  This is my only guess as to what they were talking about.

You are right about the bishops at Nicea developing the creed.  Unlike you I do not see a problem with this.  In a confusing time, it was necessary to clarify what they did believe.  I have yet to see any organization, religious or otherwise, who thought it unfair to say what they are about.  And no, just because someone went off on a tangent does not mean that their opinion was as good as everyone else's.  Who is to decide?  The answer is fairly easy.  Let the church decide for itself.  And it did.  This was a complex issue dealing with the dual nature of Christ, not easily articulated.  And the main part of the debate was concerning two Latin words, homoousia vs. homoiousia.  The debate, in the main, was how to articulate what had by then become common understanding.  I never said that the Arian writings were destroyed.  Rather a statement given to the council by them was torn as a sign of claiming it heresy.   Of course, this is a long way from the earliest creed, which we think was "Jesus Is Lord."  And no, other than calling for the council, Constantine himself had almost no direct input into the workings of the council.  He was not a leader of the church.

Julie, every religious group has its sacred writings.  Do you think this is unfair only for the Christian church to develop?  Or do you hold that all sacred writings of all people should never have come to pass?  I am not sure where you are coming from.  The Christian canon was essentially developed by use and tradition.  It was ratified later at Carthage and some choices were made.  I do not personally have a problem with that, as there was over 300 years of Christian community involved in that process.  Are you saying that it should all be included simply because it existed?  If so, then I would have to disagree with you.

As for differences between scholars, you do have a point.  Read a Greek New Testament and you will see what is commonly known as the critical apparatus.  There you will see all of the known variant readings for different verses.  Virtually all of them are quite minor and have to do with things such as word order, word spelling, and which variant has the greatest claim to authenticity.  Moreover, as you alluded to, for documents passed down in what was essentially an oral culture, I am amazed that there are not many more than we find.  And yes, I agree that in the final analysis, this is a matter of faith.  However you decide about it, I like to see people base their faith upon informed opinions.

[Sarah Louise]

I have very little respect for "most" anything on the National Geographic channel, there "experts" are seldom experts in anything.

Sarah L.

[Tammy Hope]

a couple of side points...

1. a lot of the things Julie is touching on can be addressed by a working knowledge of textual criticism. those who study ancient manuscripts in an effort to pin down origin date and authorship have MANY tools in their drawer, among which are mentions of the work in other writings, the geographical distribution of extant fragments, the actual content (writing stile, language and dialect employed, and so forth) and many others.

There's not nearly so much guess-work and assumption involved as the typical layman might assume.

That said, as in any field you can find "exerts" that will support virtually anything. I've seen shows with "experts" giving credibility to the whole Mithraism claim which has been debunked more than the fake moon landing.

2. "life expectancy" - you must remember that "average life expectancy" includes a huge number of children who die in the first coupel of years of life (including those purposely left to die) - in any population, early American or in Roman times, a better measure is the life expectancy of those who live to reach adulthood....and even then that number is skewed lower because so many die young in warfare.

For a person who reached adulthood and didn't go to war - those folks did NOT typically die in their 40's

That said, the dates cited forthe authorship of the various Gospels don't require any of those people except John to have reached even as old as seventy.

But John is reported from quite a few sources living at Ephesus until the very end of the century (and being in his nineties at least) - in fact there's a school of thought that his gospel might have been written that late.

But there's credible historical sources in the field of textual criticism that fairly certainly establishes a first century authorship for every book in the NT canon.

Less so for almost all the non-canonical books.


By the way, some think that Mark was, in essence, the Gospel of Peter as told to Mark

[Julie Marie]

I thank you Kristi and Tammy for participating.  Your participation makes this discussion both stimulating and educational.

As for my motives, to me this is a mental exercise, brain calisthenics.  Just as the body does, the mind always feels good after a workout.  It is not intended to determine who is right or who is wrong or which religion is the best to follow, if there is one at all.  My hopes, in initiating this, were to get the more knowledgeable members here to engage in friendly discussion and maybe learn something along the way.  Please understand, I never intended this to be a heated discussion but I am learning things I never knew.

But I do want to understand how something that is so controversial, that brings about endless debate, even by the most learned scholars in the world, something that has so many variables, so many possibilities, can have so many passionate believers.  One of the possible answers I've come up with is our mortality scares the hell out of us (no pun intended) and we need to believe there is an afterlife so we pick whatever religious belief fits our personality and make that the right one.

Maybe the Catholic priests and nuns who taught me all through grade school and the Jesuit priests who had me through high school and college, didn't do a very good job getting me to click with the Bible.  I have a Bible in the drawer in the desk I am now sitting at.  It is more than 60 years old.  It is my family's Bible and in it is listed the births of me and each of my siblings and my children.  Growing up I referenced this Bible many times and each time it was to check on the birth information my mother added.  Reading anything else, for me, was boring.  So much for Catholic indoctrination! 

I have a scientific/mathematical mind.  It's the way I was born.  So facts and figures click with me.  I understand them.  And I'm able to utilize them when making my own conclusions.  Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but if that opinion comes from feelings, it loses a lot of its credibility as being a useful piece of information when compiling facts and figures.  So you have to be very careful when taking someone's opinion.  That's why I brought what I had gleaned from the NatGeo program here.  To further analyze it and discuss it as I interpreted it.  But for the most part, the authenticity of the Bible has no effect on who I am, on my spiritual beliefs or on my life.

But there is one exception.  I do have one big problem with the Bible.  But it's not with the Bible itself, it's with how people use it to justify their prejudice, their ignorance, their selfishness.  And by gaining knowledge about the Bible, it's origin, it's authors, etc, one can learn how to best combat the "Bible Abusers".  (I'll call them BABS  )

I, like many members here, like many people in the LGBT community, have seen and heard people justify their prejudices against us by saying, "It's God's will!" and following it with "The Bible says..." and extracting a quote from the Bible that, taken out of context, supports their prejudice.  And it is that, through educating myself, I'd like to be able to combat intelligently and knowledgeably.  And maybe someday I will be standing face to face with one of these misguided people and help them open their eyes and see we are all God's creations and we are all deserving of the best life we can make for ourselves, so long as we do not hurt one another.  Now on to the discussion...

Kristi, I misinterpreted your statement about the Temple.  I took it as the omission of that in writings meant the writings were dated before 70AD rather then the inclusion meant they were dated after 70AD.  Thank you for the clarification. 

Now, I'm coming from the standpoint that the really important part of the Bible has to do with what Christ stood for, what he said, what he did, what his beliefs were, the example he set.  After all, this is Christianity we are talking about and unless I'm mistaken, Christianity is all about following the example of Christ.  Right?

Christ is said to have died in 29AD.  So wouldn't it make sense to be looking at documents written about him that are closest to the time Christ walked this earth, before 29AD, as being the most reliable?  Remember, the older a man gets, the longer he walked to school.  So finding first hand accounts about Christ that were written when he was alive would be the ideal.  From what has been said here, it seems there are none.  Please correct me if I am wrong.

Next best would be anything written post-mortem that are first hand accounts.  The writings of the Apostles, Mary Magdalene and anyone else who knew Christ personally, especially those closest to him.

Of course the best information would be the personal writings of Christ himself but it appears there are none.  Masters before him, such as Lao Tzu, did their own writings and there is very little debate about what they stood for.  I guess it's possible Jesus, like many people of his time, could not read or write.

So first, take the writings of Jesus and make them most credible.  Since there are none we have to move to the first hand accounts, written while Christ was on this earth but it seems these too do not exist.  So we have to go to post-mortem accounts by those closest to Jesus which would mean the Apostles and Mary Magdalene.  Their accounts become the most credible.

After that, you would work your way down the degrees of separation beginning with people who actually heard Christ speak or watched him from a distance and on down.

That, to me makes most sense.  But apparently, that's not what happened.  At least not exactly.  It appears certain writings were hand picked, for whatever reason, and others were discarded.  I would think the writings of Mary would be front and center.  Even if she was painted as a whore (I don't buy that), she was still right there beside Jesus, until the very end.  And if my memory serves me correctly, the Bible says she repented and became a follower of Jesus so that should lend some credibility to her writings.

Even further, we should look at an alleged whore who could read and write!  How did she become so educated?  Why would someone so educated take to street walking?  That simply doesn't make sense.  And that lends even more credibility to Mary's gospels.

Okay, if I were to place importance on the information available at the time (and I'm sure there was a lot more than what's available today) I would rank them in importance like this:

During Christ's life:
It appears we have nothing

Post-mortem:
Mary Magdalene
The Apostles
Others close to Jesus
Those who heard him speak
Those who watched him from a distance
Those who heard about him
And so on...

Does that make sense?  Or am I just a silly girl?

[Suzy]

I never intended this to be a heated discussion but I am learning things I never knew.[/font]

I did not mean that is a bad way, silly girl.  I know you get passionate about your discussions and enjoy it.

I have a scientific/mathematical mind.  It's the way I was born.  So facts and figures click with me.  I understand them.  And I'm able to utilize them when making my own conclusions.  Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but if that opinion comes from feelings, it loses a lot of its credibility as being a useful piece of information when compiling facts and figures.  So you have to be very careful when taking someone's opinion.  That's why I brought what I had gleaned from the NatGeo program here.  To further analyze it and discuss it as I interpreted it.  But for the most part, the authenticity of the Bible has no effect on who I am, on my spiritual beliefs or on my life.[/font]

As do I, Julie.  My first degrees were in science.  NatGeo appears to have come a long way since the days of Jacques Cousteau.  Today you can find "experts" who will espouse anything you want to hear.

I, like many members here, like many people in the LGBT community, have seen and heard people justify their prejudices against us by saying, "It's God's will!" and following it with "The Bible says..." and extracting a quote from the Bible that, taken out of context, supports their prejudice.  ...[/font]

On this, of course, we are agreed.  I would only caution that repeating inaccurate information would be counterproductive both for your own though process, and for the point you are trying to make.  So be careful.  If you want to run anything by us, please do, as we would be happy to help.

   Christianity is all about following the example of Christ.  Right?

Technically, no.  It is about having a relationship with God.  But I will agree that this part of the deal.

Christ is said to have died in 29AD.  So wouldn't it make sense to be looking at documents written about him that are closest to the time Christ walked this earth, before 29AD, as being the most reliable?  Remember, the older a man gets, the longer he walked to school.  So finding first hand accounts about Christ that were written when he was alive would be the ideal.  From what has been said here, it seems there are none.  Please correct me if I am wrong.

Just a little clarification:  Christ was born in 4 B.C.   He was 30 years old when he started his public ministry, which lasted a little over 3 years.     Just so we are on the same page......

Now do we have firsthand accounts still existent from those who walked with him?  Contrary to what you might think, this is not an easy question to answer.   Mark, being the first gospel actually written, is very crude in its language and not meant to be a scholarly piece.  You may ask where Mark got his materials.  What is the source material?  Most postulate that much of it comes from the "Q" source, which you can research if you wish.  This is a set of writings very close to the time of Jesus, which must have been available in order for Matthew, Mark, and Luke to draw upon.  Sorry if this gets a bit confusing, but even the most liberal theologians assert that much of the source material comes from the time of Christ, or very shortly thereafter.  You may wish to search for The Jesus Seminar if you are interested for the most extreme view of non-inclusion of parts of the gospels.  But the main point is simply that trying to understand the origin of the scriptures from a distance of 2,000 years is anything but an exact science.  Which are the most credible?  Personally, I think those closest to the time of Jesus had a lot better chance of choosing than we do in this day and age.  Do remember that by the time even the earliest writing were appearing, there would have been literally many thousands of first-hand witnesses to Jesus.  The question is not whether or not some writings should have been picked, as that was bound to happen.  Rather, the question, is who is in the best position to choose them?  Also remember, in your historical situation you paint, that most women at that time did not read or write.  And it was quite illegal to be a Christian.  Little bits of knowledge were shared secretly from the apostles to groups of disciples, primarily through letters.  They were copied hastily on poor materials.  They had no phones to converse with, no CNN to record, no Youtube to post to.  I would be exceedingly suspicious if any firsthand eyewitness accounts did survive intact.

Even if she was painted as a whore (I don't buy that), she was still right there beside Jesus, until the very end.

No, I do not believe that Mary was a whore,  But I am just radical enough to wish that she had been.    She would have been in good company with Jesus' relative Rahab the harlot.  Moreover, Mary aside, Jesus was often criticized for eating and partying with outcasts and those outside the faith.  "Sinners" as they were called.  Look how far in the wrong direction the church has gone!

Does that make sense?  Or am I just a silly girl?

Yes it does make sense, and yes you are a silly girl.  That's why I love you so much!

And also, thanks, Tammy, for your comments on textual criticism and life expectancy.  They were right on the mark!

Kristi

[gennee]

The bible was written over a period of 1500 years by forty different authors. The authors were inspired by God to
write down what he revealed. I have read the gospel of Thomas and Judas Iscariot. From my understanding bible
scholars of that day determined that these writings were not divinely inspired or they may have been written by
someone else.

What Constantine did was institutionlize the church. This decision affects us even today. What I believe Constantine was
trying to do was bring all the factions together. Instead, he created a morass of hierarchal and patricarchal orthodoxy which
took away the spirit of the gospel. Instead there was legalism and fundamentalism. Note how people use the gospel to justify discrimination regarding slaves, African-Americans,
Native-Americans, women, and LGBT people. There was actually only one institutional church. Today, there are around 34,000
different denominations. THis isn't what God had in mind, that's for sure.

One of the hallmarks of the early Christian church was its inclusiveness. Women, the poor, lepers, slaves, and common people came
to this fledgling new church because the spirit of the law was in evidence in Jesus and later his apostles and those who followed.




I have read a little about the Gnostics and I will read more about them.

Gennee

[Julie Marie]

What Constantine did was institutionlize the church. This decision affects us even today. What I believe Constantine was trying to do was bring all the factions together. Instead, he created a morass of hierarchal and patricarchal orthodoxy which took away the spirit of the gospel. Instead there was legalism and fundamentalism.

And the church and Christianity became a business.  And like almost all businesses, it's operations are motivated by money and power... and run by men.

[rejennyrated]

There is a school of thought, to which I subscribe, which says that when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire the church died and the Roman Empire lived on in borrowed clothes.

For example look at the power structure: 
The Pope = Emperor
The cardinals = senators
The Bishops = Patricians
The Clergy = Freemen
The laity = Slaves

The whole way that the church began to run its affairs owed far more to the empire than to the original vision. I could go on but I won't because I don't want to be a bore.

[Alyssa M.]

As a scientist, I come across lots of lay-people (yes, that's really what we call non-scientists) who think "OMG! Einstein was wrong! And the scientific establishment refuses to accept that simple fact!" We call those people "crackpots." As a lay-person, myself, when it comes to religion, I try to avoid being a crackpot, whatever problems I might have with particular tenets of established Christian doctrine.

I know that I know far too little of the history of the Church to know all the reasons behind the issues I have, however "deeply" some TV show I might have seen delved into the subject. And whatever the question I might have about the tenets of Christianity, I'm fairly certain I'm not the first person to have asked it. That's not to say I have some kind of blind faith -- certainly not! But if I have a problem, I try talking to people who know more about it than I do, say, priests, deacons, people who went to a seminary where they actually studied the subject in some greater depth than I have anywhere near the time to do, including some who are quite close friends -- not random people on some unrelated Internet forum.

[spacial]

  He did, however, find a wonderful unifying force for his empire.  This is important to understand because it goes to his motives for calling the Council of Nicea in 325.

I sadly, can't contribute to any of the accademic questions on this matter. Like most people, I've heard so many different versions and am left feeling that any can be interperted to say whatever you want.

But I have read a number of accounts of early Christians being killed, being sent to lions, being covered in pitch and set on fire on street corners and such.

I wonder if anyone can suggest why this cult became so powerful that Constantine felt it would be a unifying force for the empire?

What exactly did Christianty teach that was able to unite the Roman empire, especially at that time?

What was so captivating that people were, apparently ready to reject their old gods and risk a pretty horrible death?