Shop Products
Houzz Logo Print
gflynn_gw

Where is the Outrage

gflynn
17 years ago

I was lurking here and wondering were all of the posts had gone and I came up with two reasons why there are almost no post here presently.

1. Everyone has tomatoes growing at a crucial stage of development and could care less about off topics.

2. All of the warnings we got last year scared people from starting topics folks would actually be interested in.

Supposing that the second case is true I will start a controvertial topic and see if there is any interest.

The movie "The Divinci Code" has surpassed the movie "The Passion" in sales in Europe. Why is that?

Greg

Comments (34)

  • nctomatoman
    17 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Good points, Greg. I think that the powder keg that is current polarization in the country, combined with what can be gained from engagement in a gardening forum (with threats of pulled threads, but even worse, fragmented friendships) minimizes what ends up here.

    Can't really comment on your question - haven't seen either movie, thought that the DaVinci book was luke warm Robert Ludlum at best...

    What I will say is that we are at the point of cancelling our cable - Vast majority of what is on TV is garbage. Netflix is great....we are on a pace of 10-12 movies per month. Currently working our way thru Six Feet Under (brilliant series!).

    Craig

  • gflynn
    Original Author
    17 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Craig,

    Good point about TV vs Netflicks; I could feel almost feel some outrage there ;-) I have yet to see all of "24" so I am temped to get Netflix just so I can see that series.

    Greg

  • HoosierCheroKee
    17 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    "The movie 'The Divinci Code' has surpassed the movie 'The Passion' in sales in Europe. Why is that?" [Greg ]

    Okay, I'll take the bait ...

    1. Europeans like Tom Hanks/Forrest Gump better than Mel Gibson/Braveheart ... and I can't say I blame them.

    2. Europeans have better odds than Americans of having a little "Sang Real" coursing thru their veins.

    3. Europeans don't enjoy sado-masochism in films as much as Americans do.

    4. Europeans have a greater psuedo-intellectual interest in a fiction based on a myth than mental self-flagilation and sectarian polarization.

  • gflynn
    Original Author
    17 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Bill,

    Thats a mouthful,

    Honestly though I think that what you get out of the Passion is more determined by what you bring with it then the Divinci Code.

    I think that the reaction to Divinci Code can fall easily down political lines (atheist vs christian) but there is something deeper that can be drawn out of the Passion then just fact that Jesus gets hurt during the film.

    People have spent a lifetime meditating on why Jesus did what he did and what it means about who man is and why we are here. On the other hand the Divinic Code is simply another story quickly put together that hopes to accomplish a political goal. No one has spent a life time meditating on this story.

    Further I suppose Europe is more Jazzed about the Divinci Code because it has become more secular then the USA.

    Greg

  • HoosierCheroKee
    17 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Greg,

    One book that had a huge impact on me when I read it back about 1967 was The Last Temptation of Christ by Nikos Kazantzakis.

    But the movie hype ... was that back in the late 80s? I can't remember ... and especially all the media frenzy surrounding it, had no impact on me whatsoever. Typical post modern, commercially corrupted, devoluted cultural, knee jerk psuedo-intellectualism. The movie pretty much sucked too ... kinda like reading Dune then seeing the movie.

    And I disagree, respectfully, with you regarding "that what you get out of the Passion is more determined by what you bring with it" unless, by that, you mean whatever your particular sectarian orientation is will determine the degree of your positive or negative reaction. Then I agree that if you are dogma oriented similarly to Mel Gibson, you get more epiphanized by the point of view he's obviously expounding.

    Bill

  • gflynn
    Original Author
    17 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Bill,

    You said,

    ******
    And I disagree, respectfully, with you regarding "that what you get out of the Passion is more determined by what you bring with it"
    ******

    I figured that I might hear this line of reasoning.

    By "Dogma" oriented you assume that there is nothing to gain from a exposition of the Passion (as Mel presents it and as is generally accepted within Christianity) because it is a falsehood.

    But this is my very point. Lets present it another way. If it is TRUE and you are one of the hundereds of millions that belive that it is true and have meditated on the passion for a lifetime you will get more out of it then someone who has already disgarded it as nonsense.

    Of course, if it is FALSE then there is nothing to get out of it but good feelings and you are correct.

    This is the problem with the type of argument; the folks on either side have fundementally different beliefs, however, I think we can consider it from the wider view that takes that into account.

    Greg

  • HoosierCheroKee
    17 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    "This is the problem with (this) type of argument; the folks on either side have fundementally different beliefs, however, I think we can consider it from the wider view that takes that into account." [Greg]

    Greg, the first problem I see is that you assume there are only two sides ... either/or ... and that is not necessarily the case.

    Secondly, you seem to assume that one must believe a premise true and meditate on it for a lifetime in order to benefit more than one who considers the premise false (and whether or not the unbeliever meditates on his rejection of the premise).

    Actually, Mr. Gibson's dramatic presentation generated exteme emotions in many folks who doubt the premise. Maybe those doubters benefitted by their emotional reactions as much as believers benefitted by their emotional reiforcement. Could that be a possiblility?

    Some other questions:

    Are there no varying degrees of understanding?

    Are there no ascending levels of benefit from varying degrees of enlightenment?

    Is this a case of an "on/off" light switch epiphany, or can it be a rheostat dimmer switch deal ... you know ... juice me just a little at a time and let me tag along at my own pace?

    Can a common goal be reached via good deeds rather than blind faith?

    As you may detect ... I like your "wider veiw" possibilities.

    Bill

  • gflynn
    Original Author
    17 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Bill,

    "Greg, the first problem I see is that you assume there are only two sides ... either/or ... and that is not necessarily the case. "

    Sure there are people in the middle but they don't get involved in these type of arguments because they don't feel strongly about them.

    I think you can easily find two camps. One that dosn't believe the passion was as the four gospels claim and feels so strongly. Then you can easily find a second camp; those that feel it did happen that way and that Jesus is God.

    These are very real and easily identifiable groups. Sure there are others like agnostics or people who don't really care. There are folks of different religions who have no experience with this stuff at all. But why are they important to this conversation?

    In the second group you have people who have seen the last tempation of Christ and read the Celestine Prophesy and the Divinci Code. Some of these are atheist and some claim to believe in God but you can never seem to pin them down to any substantial statement of faith. These folks like to think of themselves as "Free thinkers" yet you merely need to read a few popular best sellers to understand their knowledge of religion completely.

    Then in the second group you have people that have dedicated their lives to the commandment of Jesus to Love one another and they did this with the example of Jesus' passion to inspire them.

    I wouldn't put these two groups in the same camp when it comes to viewing this movie. One will take away a message of hate and another will take away a message of love.

    Thats what I mean when I say that what you bring with you will determine what you take away.

    Also, if Jesus is God and what he did was as the Gospels say then there would be great and real benifits to a life long persuit consideration of that.

    This is a possiblity that you don't seem to be open too based on what you have said. Isn't this a possiblity?

    Greg

  • vaccinium_hound
    17 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I don't agree with your premise that The Divinci Code is primarily appealing to atheists. I think there are a lot of people who feel a huge disconnect with "the Church". They have religious and spiritual needs that aren't being satisfied, yet they do feel a connection to the teachings of Christ. Beyond the fiction and the errors, the book has a basis in some alternative early Christian philosophies that offer up a more spiritual, refreshing and relevant perspective to many people.

  • gflynn
    Original Author
    17 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    VH,

    "Beyond the fiction and the errors, the book has a basis in some alternative early Christian philosophies that offer up a more spiritual, refreshing and relevant perspective to many people."

    What are some examples of those "alternative early Christian philosophies"? Would you be refering to the Gnostics? If so they were a group that was entirely independent of the christians.

    The books they wrote and gave the name Gospels were written primarily in the second century and not by the original apostles or diciples who knew Jesus and were eye witnesses.

    As far as the books being Refreshing and relavent the Gnostics had a problem with the idea of the incarnation and instead of portraying Jesus as human they protray him as a sort of ghost that flits from place to place speaking the strange "Gnostic speak" that combines elements of christianity with greek philosophy. Its kind of like listening to Smith talk philosphy with Neo.

    Greg

  • hortist
    17 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Code vs Passion

    People would rather see someone else be convicted than themselves - it's not as uncomfortable.

  • vaccinium_hound
    17 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Well, The Matrix was heavily influenced by Gnosticism.

    In the early days, each Church had it's books it considered key. There are many books that didn't make the Canon. Many of those are older than what made it into the Bible.

    There were all sorts of political fights. Paul thought anyone should be able to easily convert to Christianity, while Mary and James (ie. Jesus' mother and brother) thought people should first convert to Judaism.

    Paul also didn't like the spirituality of Thomas and slandered him to marginalize his philosphies.

    Virgin birth was controversial.

    Jesus' divinity was controversial. iirc, the whole eastern church didn't believe he was the son of God.

    The Bible alludes to Magdaline as being special and Disciples being jealous. Other books elaborate. Women played a key role in the early Church. Before Father, Son and Holy Spirit it was Father, Son and Mother.

    In the Jesus flitting all over the place comment, are you talking about the Acts of Thomas? How odd that someone would say Jesus appeared to him. Didn't our current President even claim that?

  • gflynn
    Original Author
    17 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    VH

    You said:

    "Virgin birth was controversial." Of course because its hard to believe but the Catholic church as well as orthodox and most protestants) have one consistant stand on that question. Further its stated clearly in the new testement that was written from information taken from eyewitnesses. In this case Luke interviewed Mary.

    You said:

    "Jesus' divinity was controversial. iirc, the whole eastern church didn't believe he was the son of God."

    Yes the Arians in Syria and Egypt and Armenia and elsewhere all thought this for a few hunderd years and the muslims have all but eliminated them. This has been a controversy several times and as always the church has worked through it and come to the same consistant conclusion.

    When the pharisees ask Jesus if he thought he was greater then Abraham he said to them. Before Abraham "I AM". Very clear reference to what God called himself before Moses from the burning bush.

    You said:

    "The Bible alludes to Magdaline as being special and Disciples being jealous. Other books elaborate. Women played a key role in the early Church. Before Father, Son and Holy Spirit it was Father, Son and Mother."

    Again I am wondering if you aren't getting this from the Gnostic Gospels. Remember that these are not christians and were seperate from the christian community. These so-called Gospels were written in the second century by people who were not eyewitnesses.

    I was just telling my wife the other day that the way folks come up with this stuff is it starts with:

    "The Bible alludes to ....."

    And then finish with:

    "Other books elaborate" (code words for Gnostic Gospels)

    These are not reliable sources for information. The allusions to meanings of the biblical text are endless. Thats why, if Jesus is indeed God, then he would have made a way that people could stay on track so christianity wouldn't fall further and further into error. As a Catholic I believe that sin and controversy will continue to be present in the church but in the end God has given us the means to answer controversy so that even 10,000 years from now someone can still find the deposit of truth Jesus leaft.

    Before Jesus asended into heaven he said, "I must go so that the Holy Spirit can come". Was he anxious to go so that we could recieve a lesser deal? Does this sound like a worse deal was quickly approaching? Not at all! In fact it must be a better deal. We are not leaft orpaned.

    Sure controvery existed and if that is your only point it is well recieved by me. On the other hand if you are saying that since there was controvery we should accept the Gnostic Gospels to be on an equal level with the four biblical gospels I don't think you can say that.

    Greg

  • HoosierCheroKee
    17 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    "Further its stated clearly in the new testement that was written from information taken from eyewitnesses. In this case Luke interviewed Mary." [Greg]

    Greg,

    Documentation of Luke's interview with Mary, please ... with independent corroboration if available.

    Bill

  • gflynn
    Original Author
    17 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Bill;

    Good point,

    Lets consider then, that Luke's gospel is backed up by three other gospels. When I say that it is backed up I mean that the Gospel according to Luke has been accepted as equal to the Gospels of Mark, Mathew, and John since as long as a tradition of Jesus has existed.

    In other words three other eyewitnesses have not contradicted it and have been considered equal to it.

    Sure it may not be true but if you were to compare it to the Gnostic Gospels you have to say that writings that came 50 years later by folk that were not part of the christian community and were not eyewitnesses were somehow as adept at knowing the thoughts of Mary and Jesus as the apostles.

    The assumption is that the four gospels were written by the apostles shortly (within living memory) after the time after Jesus death. There are no other writtings that can compare with these in this sense.

    Greg

  • vaccinium_hound
    17 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Again, I was referring to there being hundreds of books in the early churches that weren't included in the Bible. Many of these books were older than much of what's in the NT and most of the NT was written in the second century.

    Since you bring up Luke and contrdictions... Luke is the oldest Gospel. It was a major source document for the other three, yet they do contradict it in that their authors were not aware of the cultural context of certain events (and the importance of the order in which they took place) and instead focus on the spiritual message they were intended to convey.

    Mark 16:20 "The disciples went and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and proved that their preaching was true by the miracles that were performed." Flitting about, I suppose...

  • HoosierCheroKee
    17 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Greg,

    You began this thread with the question, "the movie 'The Divinci Code' has surpassed the movie 'The Passion' in sales in Europe. Why is that?"

    Since then, you have taken every opportunity to guide this thread more into your own evangelizing than pursuing the original topic. Is that your standard operating procedure?

    Then in the course of your evangelizing, you made the statement that Luke interviewed Mary, but when asked for documentation of your claim, you veered off into more suppositions about the authorship and authority of the canonized Gospels, and continue your not exactly accurate depiction of Coptic Christianity as outside the Christian community or outside the Christian belief structure although it predates many sects of the faith that have evolved since the Coptics established their sect.

    But before responding to anything else I have said, I would really appreciate you documenting your claim that Luke actually personally interviewed Mary and maybe give us a guestimate as to the date of the interview.

    Regards, Bill

  • maryinpnw
    17 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Bill,

    How else would someone like Luke find out about the childhood of Jesus? How would I find out about yours for that matter? Probably ask your mom. Doesn't that make sense to you? Why wouldn't Luke get the pertinent facts from Mary?

    There are also ancient documents from the 1st century like the Didache and the Protoevangelium of James that offer much to anyone who cares to look.

    As for the Passion of the Christ, crucifixtion was a reality and it was brutal. I doubt what Mr. Gibson showed on screen was as brutal as that reality.

    And why would the New Testament writers create a fictional bio of someone named Jesus anyway? They didn't have the best seller list published by the New York Times. They weren't going to make money off it. Maybe some guys who were shocked, astounded and ultimately hopeful by what they saw wrote what we now call the New Testament..

    And what of the martyrs who died in the 1st century and for several centuries after for the Christian faith, butchered by the romans? Would you assume they were so dumb that they would die for a fictional character? Would you die for a fictional character?

    What fascinates me about the Da Vinci Code is that so many people from a variety of backgrounds agree on how badly it is written and how tiny a grasp of reality the author has. To each their own.

  • HoosierCheroKee
    17 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    "How else would someone like Luke find out about the childhood of Jesus?"

    From another earlier document. Some scholars have suggested "Q" as the source author. I'm not a scholar. I don't know or suppose that I know. I don't even know if Luke is the author of Luke, do you? It seems he is a likely candidate for authorship, but there isn't even contemporary documentation for that now is there since the first assignments of the work to Loukos were made in the second century. But that's not what I asking ... I'm willing to accept that assumption for now. I'm simply asking for substantiation of the claim that Luke personally interviewed Mary.

    "How would I find out about (your childhood) for that matter?"

    Well, since my mom is passed away now, I suppose you could ask my 86 year-old dad, one of my two brothers, some of my childhood teachers or chums if you could find one who remembers the details, a relative, etc.

    So, there is some speculation that Luke's source was James. Again, I'm not a scholar of the subject, and I'm still only asking for substantiation of the original claim by Greg (and others) of a first hand interview.

    "Doesn't that make sense to you? Why wouldn't Luke get the pertinent facts from Mary?"

    Yes, Mary (in PNW), it makes a great deal of sense that someone who is writing a document obviously intended to convince a group that the details of the focus of their faithful practice are indeed correct should attempt to get the pertinent facts from the mother of the faith's founder ... if the mother still is available to provide those details.

    That would bring up the question as to when Luke and Acts, which obviously is a sequel to Luke, were written. If the combined work were in fact written as the events of Acts unfolded ... say as Paul went through his travels and trials ... and were written by a contemporary travelling companion of Paul ... say Loukas the physician ... then it was written during the reign of Nero and likely before the destruction of the Temple since that event is strinkenly abstent from the story (so far as I know). If so, then Mary would've been say in the range of 80 - 86 years old if personally interviewed by a writer contemporary to those events and assuming she was 12 - 16 when she first gave birth.

    If the account were written much after the trial of Paul, then it draws into question the availability or memory capacities of the Mother. (Maybe not, but it would seem.) I also wonder why the someone who interviewed "eyewitnesses" to the events never himself tells us who one of those eyewitnesses are.

    I also wonder, as do many other readers, why the account of Paul's trial in Rome in front of Nero abruptly ends without conclusion. What happened to the author? What happened to his patron Theopolis? Why was such an important confirmation of facts abruptly terminated right at the climax of the story? But, again, that is another subject, isn't it?

    "There are also ancient documents from the 1st century like the Didache and the Protoevangelium of James that offer much to anyone who cares to look."

    Mary (from PNW), I do indeed care to look. Thank you for the leads. I will read what I can find regarding those two ancient documents as I'm very interested in such stuff.

    As to the rest of your post, especially as to what motivated ancient writers as to subject matter, style, presentation, mode of substantiating "facts," etc., I tend to steer clear of assuming and dispensing assumptions as I have read so much stuff written by "scholars" whose life work has been to research and analyze ancient writers and their works. I would rather pass on passing judgement.

    As regards Mel Gibson's motivations, presentation of his production, and it's accuracy in portrayal of "facts," I think we have a choice of his word or his previous actions in that regard. And I'll leave it at that.

    With regard to discussing faith, dogma, the Passion, motivation of martyrs of a particular faith, or the legends that have grown up around such stuff, I'll leave that at this time to those who wish to discuss religious matters.

    I was simply asking two things ... where's the substantiation that Luke personally interviewed Mary, and make it something concrete rather than something supposed ... and two, please don't ask a question seemingly posed to illicit a casual, secular response and then abruptly drop the evangelical bomb. Let's keep it light and historical.

    With kindest regards and wishes for Peace, Bill

  • gflynn
    Original Author
    17 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    VH,

    You said:

    "Again, I was referring to there being hundreds of books in the early churches that weren't included in the Bible. Many of these books were older than much of what's in the NT and most of the NT was written in the second century."

    This statement has been proposed by modernist but is simply untrue.

    You also said:

    "Luke is the oldest Gospel. It was a major source document for the other three"

    I was wondering why you would have picked Luke as the oldest but after some thought about it that answer seems obvious. The traditional belief about the authorship of the four gospels is as follows: Mathew and John were apostles and therefore eyewitnesses; Mark may have been an eyewitness to some things but he is more likely to have received the majority of his information from Peter of whom he was a disciple. Luke states plainly that he was not an eyewitness but instead he received his information from eyewitnesses with St. Paul being his primary source.

    So, if someone was to propose that Lukes gospel was the oldest and that it, in fact, was the source of all the others then that would make all the others 3rd hand information from a 2nd hand source. It just so happens that Luke is the least criticized of all the gospels, however, can you guess which is that most hated and criticized? That would be the gospel of John because, not only is it testimony from an eyewitness but he states more clearly than any author the answer to Jesus question, "Who do you say I am?"

    The traditional view of the authorship of the gospels, where it is not explicitly stated in the gospels themselves, comes from Papias, the bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor, writing about 125 A.D. This itself places the dates of the gospels earlier then this date. The traditional dates for the gospels are as follows: Mathew was a publican and therefore the most literate of the Apostles and probably wrote his gospel before the Apostles dispersed from Jerusalem in 42 A.D. so that they would have a record to keep with them in their travels. MarkÂs Gospel was likely written between 42 A.D. and 50 A.D. LukeÂs Gospel was probably written around 60 A.D. Traditionally, JohnÂs Gospel was written shortly before his death between 95 A.D. and 110 A.D.

    So what evidence, other then previously mentioned, supports these dates? For the sake of brevity lets consider the Gospel of John since it is the most offensive. St. Ignatius, the second bishop of Antioch, wrote 7 letters on his way to Rome and martyrdom; in those he mentions JohnÂs Gospel. He was tossed to the beasts in 116 A.D., which places JohnÂs Gospel before this date.

    In 1935 in a remote part of Upper Egypt, the Rylands Papyrus fragment was discovered. This is a copy of the gospel of John that was dated by paleographic analysis to have been written around 130 A.D. This copy of JohnÂs Gospel was found 2000 miles from Ephesus (where John lived), which suggests that it had to have had a wide dissemination at that date to be found so far from its origin. This would place the date of the original much earlier then 130 A.D.

    One of the criticisms of JohnÂs Gospel is to suggest that his followers wrote it some time after his death. John answers this criticism directly in the gospel itself. In his description of the Passion he states, "He who saw it has borne witness-his testimony is true, and he knows that he tells the truth-that you also may believe." It is clear that either the authors of this gospel are liars or the critics are wrong; there are only two choices. If you read the gospel itself you would have to believe that the authors would fear consequences from God if they were to have lied. If, on the other hand, this is some dishonest group that wrote a lying Gospel around 100 A.D. wouldnÂt we have heard the loud criticism at this outrage from the Christian community during that period? We should have but there is none because this was the book that Christians considered sacred.

    So is there any collaborating evidence from a disinterested source? Josephus Flavius was a Romanized Jewish historian who wrote in the 1st century A.D. and collaborates with the gospels on several key points. One of his principle works is an immense history of the Jews called "The Antiquities of the Jews". All extant manuscripts of the "Antiquities" contain a passage referring explicitly to the life, miracles, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus, along with the suggestion that these reports and their evident factual basis prove him to have been something more than a man.

    Clearly there is ample evidence that the Gospel of John was written by the Apostle John around 100 A.D. Composition arguments are very weak in comparison to the evidence I have presented. Furthermore, there have been scholars that have made these arguments over the last century and then have retracted them finding that their own methods only served to prove that the Gospels were written in the first century and that the apocryphal gospels were written later. The composition arguments used against the Gospels are very controversial (not everyone agrees) and very subjective. Some say it proves the earlier dating and some claim the opposite.

    So what are these other supposedly older books that may contradict the gospels?

    There are three sources of these books; the first source is from the members of the Catholic Church itself.

    The Catholic Apocrypha:

    After the church gained membership, people began to wonder about the parts of Jesus life that were missing from the four gospels. Enterprising Christians saw an opportunity to fill a need and wrote stories that would fill in the blanks. One example is the Apocryphal gospel of Mathew; it is a Latin composition of the fourth or fifth century that pretends to have been written by St. Matthew. In its telling, Dragons, Lions and other wild beasts of the desert adore the infant Jesus. At his word the palm-trees bow their heads that the holy family may pluck their fruit.

    The imaginative, fairy tale characteristics of the Pseudo-Gospel of Matthew are common to the apocryphal gospels. They are full of pointless yet astonishing miracles and yet lacking the emphasis on morals and ethics that are such a staple to the canonical gospels.

    The Ebionites:

    Other than the Catholics themselves, one of the most ancient groups that created pseudo-Christian literature (apocrypha) was the Ebionites. The oldest known contact with them and the Church was in 107 A.D. At that time there existed a community that contained former members of a Qumran-type Essene community broken up in the upheavals that followed the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. From this community would come the group later to be known as the Ebionites. Isolated, as Essene communities were, they would not have had clear information about the events of 30 A.D. (Jesus Death and Resurrection). Persons coming out of this kind of community, impressed by the teachings of Jesus but still devoted to Jewish tradition, would look upon Jesus as a great teacher but not as God incarnate.

    Simeon, Bishop of Jerusalem, who was likely an eyewitness himself to the events of 30 A.D., would have tried to correct them. As a result he was publicly denounced as a Christian by the pre-Ebionites and put to death (It was against the law to be a Christian in the Roman empire). Clearly this group was not part of the Church but was an isolated group, which partially accepted the gospel as, taught by the apostles. As the group later grew and expanded it became known as, the Ebionites and was criticized by most of the fathers of the Church. Three of the Church Fathers claim that they used the gospel of Mathew or some variant. It may be that the Nazarene sub-group used an orthodox version but the Ebionites used an altered version. In any case that itself places their source as the gospel of Mathew. This wouldnÂt come as a surprise since the gospel of Mathew is the most extensively quoted of any book in early Christian, noncanonical literature.

    Their oldest book was supposedly written in 100 A.D but it no longer exists. The majority of their literature was written in the 3rd century.

    The Gnostics:

    The ideas of Gnosticism pre-date Christianity, in fact they can be traced back to the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus the Persian. The key element of Gnosticism is that it is thinly veiled pantheism. Judaism was not a significant threat to the pantheistic ideas of Rome and Syria and Egypt because it wasnÂt evangelical but when Christianity came around it was a kick in the teeth to these ideals. Christian Gnosticism was an effort at a compromise.

    The fundamental idea of Gnosticism is that there is an ultimate God that created a group of demigods and that from those there was a sin committed that produced an inherently evil world. Since the world is evil, God couldnÂt have been incarnate because he couldnÂt associate with that which is evil, therefore, he only temporarily made contact with man. This means that God didnÂt die on the cross because the spirit of God had already left the human host (Jesus) and neither did he rise from the dead. So we are left with an evil world that God has abandoned and this is the pessimism of Gnosticism.

    Each different sect of Gnostics took the Jewish and Christian characters of the Old and New Testament and renamed their pantheon using these popular names. The systems they created were long and complicated; they may include 365 heavens with 30 demigods that created them and then many other characters and to boot. None of this was offered with any evidence or any collaboration. In fact each new group of Gnostics created a whole new pantheon that couldnÂt possibly be reconciled with the ones that came before them. Please donÂt make me quote these folks; there is nothing more pointless.

    The oldest of their gospels is the Gospel of Matthias (100 - 125 AD) and the Basilidean Gnostics that used this book claimed that it was from a "secret discourse" communicated to them by the apostle Matthias who had received instruction privately from the Lord. This also characterizes the Gnostics because the term Gnosis refers to secret knowledge that is only given to a select few and it is by this special knowledge that one is saved. Even a child can see the obvious problem with such a philosophy when it comes to asking for any sort of evidence or proof; it will not be forthcoming; Shhh it is a secret.

    Another characteristic of the Gnostics sects is that they were prolific writers. They produced four times the amount of literature that had been produced by the Catholic Church. Most of that is nonexistent, and what remains has often been Catholocized, in that it was purged of most of its Gnostic character but the neat stories of Jesus youth or PilateÂs secret conversations with Jesus and many other such stories were retained.

    So what did the Apostles and their successors think of the Gnostics?

    The ideas of Gnosticism predate Christianity; the apostles themselves had to contend with a form of Gnosticism (Col. 2:8, 18, 1 John 4:1-3, Rev. 2:6, 15). Paul said, "Avoid profane babbling and the absurdities of so-called knowledge [gnosis]. By professing it some people have deviated from the faith" (1 Tim. 6:20-21). So St. Paul of the Bible didnÂt like Gnosticism.

    Between 100 and 110 AD, Cerinthus, who claimed to be Christian, came to Ephesus and preached what is the first clear Gnosticism. His idea was that God was not the creator but it was some alien being and that the world was inherently evil as a result. Jesus was not the incarnate God but only possessed by the spirit of god during his preaching years.

    St. Polycarp who was John's disciple often would recall the story of how John came out of a bathhouse in Ephesus saying, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down because Cerinthus, the enemy of truth is within"; Here is the last living apostle condemning Gnosticism. St. John's Gospel was likely to have been published during this period, probably to combat this assault on the divinity of Jesus. St. Ignatius, the second bishop of Antioch, who was appointed by Peter himself, condemned the Gnostics and the Ebionites in his letters written about 116 A.D.

    Around 125 A.D. two contemporaries of Cerinthus, Satornil in Antioch and Basilides in Alexandria, preached that marriage and childbearing were bad. Matter itself was considered evil so why not believe this? St. Irenaeus, bishop of Gaul, and St. Hippolytus later condemned them in their writings.

    Around 140 A.D. Valentinius and Marcion, two proponents of Gnosticism, came to Rome. Valentinius wanted to be the Pope and conspired to win this position but in the end no one was willing to elect him. Here is a quote from Vatentinius "Gospel of Truth":

    "Since Oblivion [the lower world] came into existence because they [the Aeons] did not know the father, Oblivion becomes of that very instant non-existent. That, then, is the Gospel of Him whom they seek and which [Jesus] revealed to the Perfect."

    As you can see Valentinius ideas bear no resemblance to those of the Christian communities at the time. He tries his best to make them seem similar but they still remain obviously alien. We can see why no one, at the time, would have wanted this man to be the leader of the Catholic Church.

    Marcion was the son of a bishop and after his schooling came to Rome and gave a large sum of money to the Church. He wanted the Church to interpret several scriptures in favor of Gnostic ideology. When that didnÂt happen he became angry and started his own church. It is the first recorded case of a schismatic church and it occurred in 144 A.D. In 154 A.D., after the Death of Pope Pius I and the succession of Anicetus, St. Polycarp came to Rome. St. Polycarp was bishop of Smyrna and chosen and trained by John the apostle. He was very adamant about his distaste for Gnosticism and on one occasion called the Marcion "the first born of Satan".

    In both cases Marcion and Valentinius were people on the outside looking in. There was no Gnostic church for them to participate in. They were not as much interested in starting a new church, as they were interested in co-opting the Catholic Church. So what is my point? First that there was a church that was lead by the apostles and then their successors and second that the Gnostics were not among them but were on the outside looking in. Any Gospels or writings that came from them were not ones that were approved by the Apostles or their successors. Paul, John and his successors, PeterÂs successors in Rome and his appointed bishop in Antioch all condemned this heresy.

    Finally, what evidence other then I have already given is there that there was a succession of bishops and a Hierarchy of authority within the Church?

    Some time around 97 A.D. Pope Clement I wrote to the church in Corinth directing its members to end a revolt against their elders, and offering extensive guidance on living the Christian life through the imitation of Christ. His letter, commanding obedience, is the oldest document we possess outside of the New Testament. Its explicit assumption of authority over a distant church speaking another language (Greek), while the last of the apostles still lived, stated in a manner clearly indicating that no challenge to the authority of the writer would be expected or entertained, is the most striking of all historical proofs of the general acceptance by Christians, from the beginning of the Church, of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and the head of the whole Church.

    The most authoritive language in the letter is ClementÂs warning: "If some shall disobey the words which have been spoken by Him [Christ] through us, let them know they will involve themselves in no small transgression and danger." Almost as significant in the letter of Clement as this clear-cut assertion of the Roman primacy in the church is its statement about the apostolic succession of bishops:

    "The Apostles preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ. Christ, therefore, is from God, and the apostles are from Christ. Both things, accordingly, came in proper order by the will of GodÂThey [the apostles] went forth preaching the gospelÂ. As they preached, therefore, in the countryside and in the cities, they [regularly] appointed their first fruits-after having tested them through the Spirit-to be bishops and deacons of the future believersÂ"

    "Our apostles also knew that there would be strife for the name of bishop. For this cause, thereforeÂthey appointed those who have been already mentioned [bishops and deacons] and afterwards gave [it as a rule] that if they should fall asleep other approved men should succeed to their ministry."

    St. Ignatius and St. Irenaeus repeat the same theme you see here in 116 A.D. and in 170 A.D. Also an almost complete list of the books of the New Testament was found in the Rome that dates back to around 197 A.D. In that day people were clear about what books to read and what books not to read because they knew who wrote them. Later, when peopleÂs memories began to fade and there was room for speculation the Church convened the Council of Hippo in 393 A.D. where they stated clearly that only the books that the Fathers of the Church had always considered sacred would be considered as such and from this we get the list of books that make up the New Testament. Pope Innocent I ratified the findings of the Council of Hippo in 401 A.D.

    This is why the "Alternative" books you mentioned are not to be considered accurate representations of the teachings of Christ in the same sense as the New Testament books. Some may contain neat stories but they are likely false. Others may contain teachings that are Gnostic or Ebionite in character but donÂt reflect the teachings of Jesus accurately. As you said there may have been some "Alternative" books that were written in the first century but none of those exist any longer and if they did and were not found acceptable to the Apostles and their successor what would they be worth?

    Consider the NT story of Simon Magnus; he was baptized by Philip but then was disappointed that he was not able to produce the miracles that he had witnessed. He went to Peter and offered him a bag of Gold to which Peter told him that he was in danger of losing his soul. Lets suppose the Simon Magnus then went on to produce a Gospel of his own, some time around 35 A.D., which predated all of the NT Gospels. What would this Gospel of Simon Magnus be worth?

    If the Individuals that Jesus has chosen had rejected this Simon Magnus, I wouldnÂt expect that his gospel would be an accurate depiction of the teachings of Jesus

    Greg

  • MrsJustice
    17 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I will read what I can find regarding those two ancient documents as I'm very interested in such stuff. ((hoosiercherokee))

    Dear hoosiercherokee

    I am impressed with you passion of Fact finding on this subject. (Ron 1:16)

    I was reading last week in my Big Bible which was handed down to me, from my Husband mother, how King James seek out the Same facts and truth by summoning a conference at Hampton Court in 1604.

    I think I an going to see this Movie, if it is still available.

    mrsjustice

  • gflynn
    Original Author
    17 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Bill,

    I am sorry if I seem preachy. It seems that this is more a part of nature then anything else. Whatever we feel strongly about (Tomatoes, ect.) we tend to be strong advocates for those things.

    As far as your question goes, Mary is correct. It is only an assumption based on the fact that Luke has a Nativity narrative and it was one that was accepted by the Church from the begining. In other words, as Mary says, "Where else would he have gotten it from!"

    We only have what we have but the argument presented by VH is that Alternative early Christian literature should stand in an equal place of value as the New Testament literature. In light of that we have to consider what we have availble to us as proof and the NT documents are far more weighty in that contest.

    Greg

  • HoosierCheroKee
    17 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Whoooooooooooooooaaaaaaaaaaaah ...

    Information Overload ... Information Overload ... Circuits Shorting ...

    Sorry, Greg ... way too much information for a Sunday in July ... I got yard work to do ... tomatoes to tie up ... pepper bushes to prune ... blackberries to pick ... whatever ...

    Save this for winter and cabin fever times ...

    Bill

  • gflynn
    Original Author
    17 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Bill,

    Indeed it is a lot but the question, "what books represent the teachings of Christ best", is not answered in a paragraph. This is especially true when the antagonists are requiring rigorous proof of all details.

    I spent a week and a half doing research to come up with this. It will answer the question stated above in a reasonable way in 7 pages of 12 point New Times Roman font. I would call that a bargain

    Greg

  • gflynn
    Original Author
    17 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Bill, Let me add,

    The first third of my disertation gives evidence of the early date of the new testement gospels. If you would like just that then you can read only that far.

    The middle part explains who was responsible for writting the apocrypha. The last third tell what the apostles thought about the Gnostics and then gives evidence of an early church.

    Greg

  • vgkg Z-7 Va
    17 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    "what books represent the teachings of Christ best"?

    Don't need a book:
    ...Do onto others as you would have them do unto you...
    That sums it up pretty darn good, and if the world lived by just this one golden rule it would bring a big smile to his face...and pretty much peace on earth, finally.

  • gflynn
    Original Author
    17 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    vgkg,

    Good point; if everyone did what Christ said and loved one another that would be the total solution. At the same time you should'nt underestimate the power of ideas. They start out small and as the roll down hill they pick up steam.

    Case in point: if (as mentioned above) Valentinius or Marcion had succeed in changing and taking over the early church we would be reading Valentinius' "Gospel of Truth" instead of the "Gospel according to John". Then instead of reading "love one another" we would be reading (as described above):

    "Since Oblivion [the lower world] came into existence because they [the Aeons] did not know the father, Oblivion becomes of that very instant non-existent. That, then, is the Gospel of Him whom they seek and which [Jesus] revealed to the Perfect."

    See the difference? Yes we don't need a book but we do need the truth and it just so happens it comes in a book.

    Greg

  • HoosierCheroKee
    17 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Two points:

    1) When asked to reduce the entire Torah into a couple of short sentences, Rabbi Hillel said (over a decade before a nearly identical saying is attributed to Jesus of Nazareth), "That which is hurtful to you, do not do it to your neighbor. All the rest is commentary."

    2) Again, in reference to Luke, the richest narrative regarding this particular saying is found at Luke 10: 25 - 37; and to more fully appreciate the parable you should understand the relationship between Pharisees, Samaritans, Temple priests, Roman governors, appocolyptic revolutionaries, and the general population at the time described in the story.

  • gflynn
    Original Author
    17 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Bill,

    It your first point is that Jesus' teaching wasn't new but Jesus himself said "I didn't come to destroy the law but to fulfill it.

    The example of John the Baptist explains it best. Jesus went to John to be baptized to which John said, "Shouldn't you be baptizing me?" This shows that Jesus wanted to follow in the footsteps and in the traditions of those that had come before him even though he didnt need to.

    Later on, John the Baptist sent his disciples to Jesus to ask him, "are you the one or should we wait for another?" to which Jesus basically replied, "See what I am doing?" In other words, wasn't what Jesus was doing proof enough? Then Jesus turned to the crowd and explained that although John was the greatest man ever born the least of those born into the kingdom of God was greater then he.

    The kingdom of God was what Jesus was preaching about. That is a fulfillment of the law and profits and was a new concept of the love and mercy of God that not even John the Baptist was expecting. John was expecting Jesus to condem but this is not what he did.

    Jesus was a harbinger of new grace to be given to man that would help man to live to higher standards. These are especially outlined in the parables but a good non-parabolic example is Jesus' teaching of the permanence of marriage.

    Greg

  • HoosierCheroKee
    17 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Greg,

    I'm aware of the concepts you preach. Probably just like you, I've heard them repeated all my life, although in this case I was totally unaware that it was John the Baptist who was expecting Jesus to condemn rather than preach "render unto Caesar what is his and unto the Lord what is his ... etc." I was under the impression it was Judas who was disappointed that Jesus wasn't the sword-weilding messiah promised by the appocolyptic Prophets.

    Anyway, I really understand and agree with you regarding the Primary Law and the unnecessary heap of laws that've been piled on top only because so few people seem to be able to observe the most simple Primary Law ... I deal with it every day in my secular life when folks call me complaining about their neighbor dumping storm water and sediment on them without regard to whether it is hurtful to the neighbor or the neighboring property ... or harmful to Mother Nature for that matter.

    I've written two ordinances ... both huge volumes of verbage ... just to pile a lot of words on top of what could be said in one paragraph:

    "If the way you manage your property hurts your neighbor, hurts his property, diminishes his use of his property, or causes irreparable harm to Mother Nature, then clean up your act and do not do it that way any longer."

    Peace,

    Bill

  • gflynn
    Original Author
    17 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Bill,

    You said:

    "I was totally unaware that it was John the Baptist who was expecting Jesus to condemn "

    John the baptist said stuff like:

    "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near."

    He preached of a coming accountablity and a need to prepare. He was so suprised by Jesus' lack of making this happen that he sent his disciples to question if he was really the one.

    John was interested in the repentance of the Israelites but Judas was the type that saw the Messiah as a military leader that would break the yoke of Rome. Two very different visions.

    Greg

  • big_mike
    17 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    I just ran through this quickly, so if my opinion has already been expressed, I'm sorry. The Da Vinci Code out selling The Passion of the Christ in Europe could be that Europe has millions of people who claim to be Christian yet haven't set foot in a church in years, if ever. The Church in Europe is dwindling quickly. The mentality there is one of intellectuality rather than one of faith. The U.S. on the other hand, still has churches that are growing and thriving. A movie that tries to debunk the Bible would just naturally go over better in Europe than one that is as scripturally correct as Hollywierd would allow it to be. The Da Vinci Code was hardly even shown here in the sticks and where it was shown, it was as big a bust as Broke Back Mountain. The Passion, on the other hand, was sold out for over 2 weeks. Just my opinion and, as we all know, opinions are like belly-buttons; everybody's got one.

  • gflynn
    Original Author
    17 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Big Mike,

    I think your assessment is essentially correct except I have a problem with the characterization of the intellectuals VS. the faithful. I don't believe that the two terms are at odds. I think that the Europeans are not more intellectual but rather simply less faithful.

    Greg

  • gflynn
    Original Author
    14 years ago
    last modified: 9 years ago

    Good questions were asked folks replied with gusto. Just wondering if anyone every took the time to read and consider the ultimate answer to the argument within?

    Greg

Sponsored
Dream Design Construction LLC
Average rating: 5 out of 5 stars4 Reviews
Loudoun County's Innovative Design-Build Firms