Ian McKellen says Bible should have Fiction Disclaimer

[MRT144]

and its awesome!!!

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I don't see why people go on and on about gnostics.

The gnostics were obviously derivated from greek/other schools of thought. I don't really see why people are so interested in it when it is just an early mix of Christianity and other thought.

They are interesting because they give us a glimpse into the era where many different schools (or sects) were all whirling around and jousting for position and power.

This also confirms that Paul the Apostle is the single most important figure in the development of orthodox Christianity, for insisting spreading the faith to gentiles.

[Berzerker]

When it's first mentioned that there is no more wine left Jesus did respond with a "Why are you telling me?".

Thats true, damn, that throws a wrench in my theory. But why were they telling Jesus if he wasn't the bridegroom?

[Whaleboy]

Whaleboy's inanities about the Minoans aside, that is not and cannot be known; both feminine and "patriarchal" deities are known as far back as we have historical records, and of prehistoric religion we simply do not have sufficent knowledge to judge.

The question of which came first is perhaps less interesting than the question of which was most important; and it is for that question that the Minoans are a good place to look for an answer. Their tradition was very much matriarchal until the eruption at Santorini/Thera which f*cked up their agricultural economy, then trade, and led to the coming of the Mycenaeans and a relatively minor male God coming to the fore (presumably after the failure of female gods).

Yes, some of it was new.

No, much of it was derivative, but not solely of Jewish traditions. I would very much like someone to propose one element of early Christian thought which developed solely as a Christian phenomenon. This excepts the obvious of Christ of course (which presumes he ever existed in the Biblical capacity), but for the purposes of this we can consider Christianity as consequent of Christ, and so a necessary degree of separation between the two (i.e., actions of followers |= actions of followed).

So I am not interested in it for studing what is true Christianity, unless there is something there which is not in traditional Christianity and is not an obivious result of other thinking (and I haven't seen anything of this nature).

The problem is that your idea of "pure" Christianity is a fallacy. My whole point is that Christianity is at best a synthesis of different traditions and that is not meant in a derogatory way, it's simply the nature of the beast. I am struggling to think of a single "essence" of Christianity that can be placed in higher regard to other contributing concepts, such as Gnosticism.

I am not interested in greek religious thinking in my search for truth. (and neither should most people, greeks might have been good philosophers, but they had a ****ty religion)

I see... a polytheistic tradition that stretched for over four millenia summed up in one word; ****ty. You've pretty much crippled your "search for truth". It's rather like saying "I want to find out where my family came from but I'm going to purposely ignore my Grandfather".

[MMC]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Thats true, damn, that throws a wrench in my theory. But why were they telling Jesus if he wasn't the bridegroom?

Because his mother (Mary) was also there and told them to.

[MMC]

It has been well established that the first 3 Gospels were written by Matthew the tax collecter (also know as Levi); Mark, Peter's scribe and travelling companian; and Luke the physician. They were all written around roughly the same time, about AD 40 - 60. None of these Gospels exibit any knowledge of the destruction of Jeruselem in AD 70, with the exception of Jesus' prophecy to the fact, which none of the disciples understood at the time.
The Gospel of John (the fisherman) was written around AD 80 - 90 and the fact he was writing at this time was witnessed by his own disciples, who passed the information down, one more generation to the historians who are widely acknowledged for putting the bible together in the format we know of today (somewhen between AD 130 and AD 200). In his Gospel, and in his other writings, there are references that can only be made with the knowledge of the earlier 3 gospels.
After the Gospels there is the book of Acts, which was also written by Luke and follows on directly from where he left off in his Gospel (the Gospel of Luke is about the life and works of Jesus, the Acts of the Apostles is about the life and works of the apostles after Jesus had ascended into heaven). Even in Acts there is no mention of the destruction of Jeruselem by the Romans.
The rest of the New Testament is letters to majors churches, basically repeating what is said in the Gospels, in order to corrcet or encourage the actions of the relevant church. They are listed either by recipient, or by author, if they're meant for multiple recipients. The book of Revelation, is John's vision where God tells him what he [God] will do next. It begins by describing Jesus in all his glory (not what he looks like... it is not described anywhere in the bible other than a single mention in Isiah which says that he would look no different than an ordinary man. There is a mention that he didn't not look human after the Romans had finished beating him up before putting him on the cross, but that's a general description of standard Roman techniques, more than anything else), then it goes on to a set of instructions involving sending letter to 7 churches, praising one, and downright rebuking the other 6 (there is actually a phrase which amounts to God feeling ready to throw-up at the thought of one of the churches' actions/inactions). Then the vision basically moves onto the destruction and recreation of Heaven and Earth, and the Second coming of Christ.

As for the Gnostic Gospels, the entire Bible has been studied, and checked and double-checked for nearly 2000 years, and no inconsistances have been found (with the posible exception of certain translations, but they don't count). The Gnostic Gospels, on the other hand, are well known to be wildly contradictary with each other, let alone the True Gospels. And even if they were true, 90% of Dan Brown's claims (whilst he says the book [The Da Vinci Code] is fiction, he claims the 'facts' it's based on are true) are complete bunk and have been proven as such.
One example of this is the idea that Jesus was married. There is no mention anywhere in the Bible, the Gnostic Gospels, or any other work that he was married. The closest passage that comes to saying this would be in the so called 'Gospel of Philip'. This document was so badly damaged when it was found, that huge sections are missing. Dan Brown quotes the passge, but instead of showing the gaps, he adds his own words.
Original:

And the companion of the [...] Mary Magdalene. [...] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her on [...]. The rest of the disciples [...]. They said to him 'Why do you love her more than all of us?' The Saviour answered and said to them, 'Why do I not love you like her? When a blind man and one who sees are both together in darkness, they are no different from one another. When the light comes, then he who sees will see the light, and he who is blind will remain in darkness' (The Gospel of Philip 63:34).

Dan Brown added the words 'the mouth' in the third gap, and claimed this as evidence that they were married. Whilst standard custom of the time would suggest that the words 'the cheek' would be more accurate, as a kiss on the cheek was a common gesture of friendship at the time regardless of gender, even kissing on the mouth would not indicate marriage, except perhaps to a six year old.

If the 4th century Catholic church tried to downplay the role of women and promote the idea that holy men were not married (as Dan Brown claims), then why was Mary the first to see Jesus after his resurrection, and why was Peter's mother-in-law left in the Gospels if he was supposedly the first pope?

Concerning Christianity as a supposed derivation:
The reason the Jews had so many laws and traditions, was for the simple reason that no-one could keep them all. The whole point of the laws were to prove to the Jews that they had sinned and were not inherently worthy of God's love. Christianity basically starts by saying that most of the laws (especially the 10 commandments) are good ideas, but not necessary for salvation (which basically means you can still be saved if you've killed someone). Some (such as circumsision) are just downright pointless, as far as Christianity is concerned, because it's not a sign of your faith, it's a sign of your culture.
All religions throughout history insist that salvation comes through the works of the person, except Christianity. This basically means that if you do enough good deeds, you'll get into heaven (or the equivalent reward). This is true for Judaism, Islam, Buddism, Hinduism, Sikhism, etc... They may say that you're doing what God tell you to do, they may say that you're working towards a good Karma, or whatever, but it all boils down to your actions dictating whether or not you get your reward. This is not the case with true Christianity. All you need to do is admit that you're a sinner and that you're truly sorry for what you've done, and accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour (and truly believe it), and you're saved... simple, no fuss, no mess.
There are too schools of thought about what happens next: the Catholic view that you need to confess every sin, even after you've been saved; and the Biblical view (ie. what is said in the Bible) which is basically summed up in the statement 'Once saved, always saved', although this does state that someone who is truly saved will not commit sins willingly (ie. they will try their best to not sin, yet will almost certainly fail).

Also, 0 (that is zero, none, zip, nada, etc) of Dan Brown's ideas are original or revealing, except about Dan Brown himself. And don't forget that the Gnostic Gospels contain little to no history and are pretty much nothing more than collections of supposed sayings of Christ and the Apostles. Also, Gnosticism is not a contributing factor to Christianity, rather the other way around.

I am willing to discuss any points further, and answer any questions (or pass on such questions to people who would be able to answer), but please keep it civil. And please make sure your facts are straight.

(Disclaimer: Any inconsistances in this post are entirely my fault and not the fault of Christianity. That's what you get for finishing a 3hr post at 4am)

[Flip McWho]

Dan Brown added the words 'the mouth' in the third gap, and claimed this as evidence that they were married. Whilst standard custom of the time would suggest that the words 'the cheek' would be more accurate, as a kiss on the cheek was a common gesture of friendship at the time regardless of gender, even kissing on the mouth would not indicate marriage, except perhaps to a six year old.

Ummm no, he uses the use of the word companion which supposedly meant marriage in those days.\
Actually, outta that passage its fairly hard to not get the opinion that Jesus dug Mary something chronic.
I mean the disciples asked why he loves her most

'Why do I not love you like her?

That definitely implies that he loves mary in a different manner to the disciples.
I mean where the kiss landed doesn't even matter. The kiss is used for leading onto the disciples asking the question of why Jesus loves her more. Why would Jesus love Mary more? Especially considering this love would have to be professed (either through action or words) for the disciples to be aware about.

Also why mention a specific person Jesus kisses unless it is important? Why would they report on just a common greeting kiss?

[Ben Kenobi]

I agree, (and so did leading Christians 2nd Century AD) that all but Luke are likely not written by the people they are named for (and Mathew assuredly not)

Which leading Christians Jon?

They agreed that the books were written by their respective authors. Why else would they assign those names to the books rather then what they do for Hebrews where authorship is not known?

[Ben Kenobi]

There's nothing wrong with the Bible, just with the people who believe what it says.

We need to strip the vote from them. That'll sort out the world's problems.

Wow, I didn't know you liked the amish.

[Ben Kenobi]

The NT was not written by a single author. Rather, it's a collection of books picked from a much wider group available back then, in 392CE IIRC. There are a whole lot of gospels that were not included, including that latest discovery, the Gospel of Judas.

Not quite right.

Irenaeus in his work "Against Heresies" (A.D. 182-88), testifies to the existence of a Tetramorph, or Quadriform Gospel, given by the Word and unified by one Spirit; to repudiate this Gospel or any part of it, as did the Alogi and Marcionites, was to sin against revelation and the Spirit of God. The saintly Doctor of Lyons explicitly states the names of the four Elements of this Gospel, and repeatedly cites all the Evangelists in a manner parallel to his citations from the Old Testament. From the testimony of St. Irenæus alone there can be no reasonable doubt that the Canon of the Gospel was inalterably fixed in the Catholic Church by the last quarter of the second century

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

As for the remainder of the NT canon, which includes all the epistles of Paul, James, John and the book of Hebrews, and John's Apocalypse:

St. Jerome, a rising light in the Church, though but a simple priest, was summoned by Pope Damasus from the East, where he was pursuing sacred lore, to assist at an eclectic, but not ecumenical, synod at Rome in the year 382. Neither the general council at Constantinople of the preceding year nor that of Nice (365) had considered the question of the Canon. This Roman synod must have devoted itself specially to the matter. The result of its deliberations, presided over, no doubt, by the energetic Damasus himself, has been preserved in the document called "Decretum Gelasii de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris", a compilation partly of the sixth century, but containing much material dating from the two preceding ones. The Damasan catalogue presents the complete and perfect Canon which has been that of the Church Universal ever since.

[Flip McWho]

I'm guessing those quotes you provide are written by the victors (or from their point of view at least)?

[Ben Kenobi]

No, much of it was derivative, but not solely of Jewish traditions. I would very much like someone to propose one element of early Christian thought which developed solely as a Christian phenomenon.

Paul's mission to the Gentiles for one.

The problem is that your idea of "pure" Christianity is a fallacy. My whole point is that Christianity is at best a synthesis of different traditions and that is not meant in a derogatory way, it's simply the nature of the beast. I am struggling to think of a single "essence" of Christianity that can be placed in higher regard to other contributing concepts, such as Gnosticism.

The whole idea of an atonement that could be a perfect sacrifice for sins is a direct breach between Christianity and Judaism.

Another would be, as earlier mentioned, that it is through this sacrifice and not our own works we can be saved.

Finally you have the principle that we are to love thy neighbour. All the others espouse the principle that we are not to do harm to our neighbours, but Christ insists that not only are we to love them, we are to love our enemies too!

[MMC]

Why does John always refer to himself as 'The one whom Jesus loved'?

'Why do I not love you like her?' could easily mean 'Why do I not love you as much as her?'

Also early Greek was full of phrases like that. 'Used to kiss her often' could easily mean, met her often... OR another interpretation could be that these were all the claims of Mary... perhaps the passage is trying to say she was bragging about things, kind of like the way teenagers brag about their partners nowadays. Notice that there is a chunk missing from the start of the sentence.

[...] loved her more than all the disciples, and used to kiss her on [...]. The rest of the disciples [...].

I admit I'm not the best person to talk to on any of this, but I am passing on what I know, and I can also refer you to a useful booklet by someone who has done a lot of research on the subject: http://www.dayone.co.uk/products/boo...roken-code.htm
(This booklet was so popular it is now out of print. I have not yet read the updated version which replaces it: http://www.dayone.co.uk/products/boo...code-which.htm)

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm guessing those quotes you provide are written by the victors (or from their point of view at least)?

Who else would bother to record the history of the early church?

I'd love to quote protestants but they don't have nearly the breadth or depth of knowledge about the fathers of the church. I'm sorry if you don't like the source, but if you want to know about church history, it doesn't make sense to throw out the best sources.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I thought the Enlightenment was a result of turning away from the oppressiveness of the Catholic Church, and involved a lot of seperationist (between Church and State) rhetoric

The concept of the Seperation of Church and State is ultimately decended from St. Augustine's concept of the City of God vs. the City of Man, reinforced later on by power politics between the Pope and the Holy Roman Emperor, IIRC.