|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Canonization and the Lost Gospels - 4/12/2008 5:42:41 PM
|
|
|
DonnyPauling
Posts: 5
Joined: 10/10/2006
From: Chico, Ca
Status: offline
|
As I've mentioned on my blog, I'm working toward a Seminary degree. The Londen Institute For Evangelism (LIFE), with whom I'd originally enrolled, merged with Hope International University not long ago (the merger was announced in January). Just last week Hope International gave us a list of options that we can choose from based on our educational goals. As part of my studies I've discovered:
THE LOST GOSPELS
Built into me is this inner need to dig deeper into course materials than what is required. I don't want to be the type of person who blindly accepts the agenda of another person or group of people. What I mean by this is that I want to hear all sides of an argument and not be dismissive towards materials that others before me have decided to ignore. I want to know why decisions were made as they were, and then I still want to hear the thoughts of "the other side". For example, when learning about the canonization of scripture, I want to know why the books included in the Bible were chosen, but I also want to know why others were not. And I want to read those books that were not chosen.
This applies directly to the Church History course I began in October of last year. The two books that were assigned to me by LIFE were supplemented by several books I found on my own. Amongst other authors, I found it interesting and enlightening to read the work of Elaine Pagels. Ms. Pagels, who is a professor at Princeton University and received her PhD from Harvard, goes into depth on the Lost Gospels. I've read criticism of Ms. Pagels online, but it seems to me that such is unjustified. Where critics have said, "Ms. Pagels can't be a Christian because she believes x, y or z", I've found that she never actually tells us what she personally believes. Rather, she merely does her best to objectively present all sides. I appreciate this, and also enjoy her writing style. If you'd like to educate yourself on topics you'll likely never hear in church, head to your nearest Barnes and Noble and pick up any of Elaine's books. I'd suggest starting with Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas. Not only does it present the Gospel that is attributed to Thomas (and written a bit before the book of John) it also dives into a lot of church history. This may sound boring, but if you've an interest in the early days of Christianity this book is an easy , informative read.
I've also read most of the Nag Hammadi Library and will complete what I haven't read soon. These books are also referred to as Gnostic Scriptures and pre-date the canonization of scripture as we know it today.
PLEASE READ THIS DISCLAIMER
What is it about humans that causes many of us to so easily jump to conclusions? I've mentioned the things I've just written about to others and am usually cautioned about heading down the wrong path. What part of the paragraphs I've written above indicate that I'm ready to turn away from "traditional" Christianity and embrace gnosticism or some other form of religious belief? I'm simply the type of person who wants to know WHY I believe what I believe. I have to admit, I kind of look down on those who choose not to do so. I feel we owe it to the society in which we live to be educated Christians. Is it wrong of me to do look down on those who don't agree with that? Absolutely. I know it is. This is just an admission on my part.
I remember when I was in the midst of my rebellious years of porn production... I approached various Pastors and asked them a list of tough questions. I really wanted answers, but not a single one of them could assist with such answers, nor could they refer me to someone who could. In the year and a half since surrendering my life to God I've gone out and found the answers to nearly every question I used to ask. It appears to me that the Seminary training obtained by the ministers I approached didn't extend beyond the pre-determined agenda or yoke of teaching that their schools had established. In this time of questioning, I think it's a mistake not to prepare our religious leaders to address the questions the world asks of us. It's frustrating to those who don't believe when circular reasoning is used to answer their questions. If a person does not yet believe the Bible, the Bible can't be used to prove anything. That's like me writing a book declaring myself the Messiah, and when asked for proof, pointing to the book I've written. There is an enormous wealth of outside proof to the things we believe as Christians, and it's time more of us educate ourselves about such information.
And that, my friends, is what fuels my desire to hear all sides. Just a few days ago I had an all-day email conversation with a man who produces porn. He kept sending me messages about how I needed to educate and enlighten myself on certain aspects of Christianity. His attitude seemed to be that he had some "secret knowledge" that I as a Christian did not possess. I enjoyed receiving his challenges and kept asking for clarification as to what he wanted me to know about. All the while I had a pretty good idea of the direction he was headed. When he finally sent me the "killer" questions I referred him to names I'd mentioned earlier in our conversation... the names of authors I've read that discuss the very issues he thought would spiritually "slay" me. I then elaborated on the very points he made to me. In other words, I was prepared for his arguments. I've read and studied them. Recently. The questions he asked of me were the types of questions I used to ask of religious leaders and receive no answers.
I guess the "disclaimer" I'd like to put out is that those of you who read the things I write are likely going to witness controversial topics discussed in topics I post here as well as on my website. It may be easy to assume that I'm confusing myself and heading down a wrong spiritual path. Please, don't worry. Wouldn't you agree that a faith that can't stand up to questioning is not a very good faith at all? I'm in the process of learning, and that process is likely to take years. Or the rest of my life. Feel free to join in the discussion. The first thing I'd like to talk about is:
CANONIZATION OF SCRIPTURE
I was surprised at how many other gospels have been written and attributed to Jesus’ disciples. A man named Irenaeus (who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John) was very influential in deciding which Gospels are included in our New Testament. From the very beginning, Christians disagreed on which writings were and were not to be considered for inclusion in our scriptural readings.
In 313 when Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity, he was very disappointed that Christians were not in agreement. He thought all Christians would be unified. When he found that wasn’t the case, he decided to work to create unity. He agreed with the teachings passed down from Polycarp and Irenaeus. Those who chose to believe that way were granted political power and tax exemptions. When he called religious leaders together in an attempt to unify them that particular counsel forever influenced the shape of Christianity to this day. Opposing viewpoints were subdued. Many writings were destroyed. Some were hidden away to be discovered many many many years later.
I’d go more into this, but this is already a very long post. My thoughts on the matter can be summed up in a few sentences:
Today we listen to our Pastors teach their interpretation of scripture and how to apply it to our lives. We read the works of Christian authors. We eat the meat and spit out the bones. If something sounds off base, we dismiss it. If a message hits home we digest it. Why, then, are so many afraid to read the lost Gospels attributed to people who actually walked with Jesus? Nobody is asking that it be accepted as part of the canon of scripture we call our Bible. But I can tell you I have personally enjoyed reading some of this text, and think many others would too.
Feedback?
_____________________________
Can a former porn producer be forgiven? Read my story:
http://www.donnysramblings.com/about/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonization and the Lost Gospels - 4/12/2008 5:50:43 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1185
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
I think a lot of it has to do with uncertainty of authorship, and disagreement with the other scriptures. When you have the gospel of, say, Thomas, which has dubious authorship, being compared against the gospel of John which has pretty much no dispute, and they disagree, which gospel are you going to pick as the accurate one?
All the "lost gospels" I've heard of were never actually "lost" in any sense. They were merely dismissed as heresy over a thousand years ago. They were heresy then, they're still heresy now. As Solomon says, there is nothing new under the sun.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonization and the Lost Gospels - 4/12/2008 5:55:38 PM
|
|
|
DonnyPauling
Posts: 5
Joined: 10/10/2006
From: Chico, Ca
Status: offline
|
I think what you're missing is that the Christian population at the time was split almost 50/50 on what was heresy and what was not heresy. When Constantine offered political power and tax exemptions to those who believed the way HE believed (he agreed with Irenaeus' line of thought) that forever shaped the way we see things today.
Yet half the Christian population felt the "heresies" were not really heretical.
_____________________________
Can a former porn producer be forgiven? Read my story:
http://www.donnysramblings.com/about/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonization and the Lost Gospels - 4/12/2008 7:25:46 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1185
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: online
|
The population may have been split, but if you're taking the Gospel of Thomas as your example, that gospel directly contravenes the rest of the epistles and gospels by claiming, among other things, that Jesus was not actually divine, and that there is no bodily resurrection... things that Paul actually directly addresses in his letters. So, including the Gospel of Thomas would create a massive theological schism in the scriptures, which seems unwise, especially given the unconfirmable authorship of that particular document.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonization and the Lost Gospels - 4/13/2008 6:53:50 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 914
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
I believe that one can read any material they wish in order to enhance or develop understanding or different points of view. But the heart of it has to do with authority. Those that walked before us have laid down a basis for our faith, and this basis resides in 27 Books of the NT - it is what we have left of the Deposit of Faith possessed by the Apostles.
Jesus left no diary, wrote no words, and no transcript of proceedings was recorded. We have to take everything we know about Jesus off the lips of someone who witnessed Him and followed Him. So - it takes faith to accept Jesus. We cannot do so based on "fact' per se.
I believe this to be by design. If we are simply accepting or denying demonstrable fact, there is no conversion to the truth, only an acknowledgement of it. If we accept in spite of a lack of proof, we must do so by conversion to that unproven truth. This is an entirely different relationship to this truth.
Its what makes Christianity unique.
To me, the "lost" gospels are no different than reading the Church Fathers or participating in this forum. Beneficial for the development of comprehension, but not authoritative.
It amazes me sometimes that within the rebellious nature of some flavors of Protestant faith, only the Latter Day Saints have dared pen their own scriptures, or otherwise modify the canon of the New Testament. So - obviously the authoritative definition of this set of documents for the instruction of faith runs quite deeply throughout Christianity.
The only other difference from my perspective is that for Roman Catholics and Eastern orthodox, the New Testament bears witness to and demonstrates the Deposit of Faith that has been passed through the Magisterium within these Churches. For Protestant faiths, Scripture is a bit different kettle of fish in that the Deposit has been discarded in favor of "re-discerning" Scriptures 1,500 years from the Deposit in the Apostles.
Hence - one side tends to accuse the other of heresy - the guardians of the Deposit challenge the re-discernment; the re-discerners challenge the mutation of the Deposit.
_____________________________
...If Christian Doctrine were on trial, the Bible would be called as a witness. The Church serves as the judge...(Acts 15:28)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonization and the Lost Gospels - 4/26/2008 9:43:45 AM
|
|
|
facedown
Posts: 988
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: the urban desert
Status: offline
|
donnypauling
quote:
Why, then, are so many afraid to read the lost Gospels attributed to people who actually walked with Jesus? Nobody is asking that it be accepted as part of the canon of scripture we call our Bible. But I can tell you I have personally enjoyed reading some of this text, and think many others would too.
having read quite a few ancient writings, i - like you, have enjoyed them. and like you, i'm uncertain as to why there is a tendency towards keeping them at an arms length.
as far as pagels' goes, you can call her a "christian"; however, in her reviews of books such as thomas' gospel, she argues against the notion that christ was the unique god-man amongst other orthodox teachings. she also contends that this 'gospel' is authentic, written by thomas himself and records a valid historical view of jesus' life. this, and other writings were rejected, not out of institutional coercion, but a lack of credibiblity as an apostolic text.
interestingly, other new testament writings are not given the same level of historicity as pagels' gives to those found in the new testament.
the texts discovered at nag hammadi are gnostic in perspective. zostrianos is a sethian gnostic text, surviving at the nag hammadi library, the text concerns a vision by a man named zostrianos and goes into details of the things that are said to be produced by god, and develops monism and platonism. little is known about sethian gnosticism; which may have existed in a pre-christian form, but flouished in the 2nd century, but interestingly it is understood that zostrianos was a zorastrian.
other gnostic schools include that of cerinthus, an offshoot of the ebionites which emerged in the 2nd century. another was basilides (again, 2nd century). marcion is yet anohter (again, 2nd century). one might think of valentinus, who again is 2nd century. you could look at bardaisan or mani, but shoot, this is 3rd century. and of course into the 4th came the major point of demise.
quote:
the Christian population at the time was split almost 50/50 on what was heresy and what was not heresy. 50-50? i look forward to some factual information on this.
peace to you.
_____________________________
-| those who say, don't know. those who know, don't say |-
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Canonization and the Lost Gospels - 5/3/2008 6:16:19 PM
|
|
|
sagacity
Posts: 19
Joined: 4/12/2007
Status: offline
|
Donny,
You may find this interesting....
Behond the Himalayas
_____________________________
Rev. 19:10...For the substance (essence) of the truth revealed by Jesus is the spirit of all prophecy [the vital breath, the inspiration of all inspired preaching and interpretation of the divine will and purpose, including both mine and yours].
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
