The 'Lost Years of Jesus'

[seekandlisten]

I was reading in the 'Christian Talk & Advice' forum a thread about the lost years of Jesus and it kind of peaked my interest as to what others thought of this time. I didn't comment there as it is a 'Christians Only' section so I decided to post it here. If this is not the appropriate section could a mod please move it.

Anyways, I was wondering if anyone has read the Lost Years of Jesus: The Life if Saint Issa or the Aquarian Gospel of Christ or know of any other writings of the timeframe missing in the Bible of Jesus life. I have read the Life of Saint Issa, although I'm going to go refresh my memory before making any comments on it as well as parts of the Aquarian Gospel. Does anybody have any points of interest on either of these books or thoughts about them? After I reread them I'll try and post a couple points of interest that I had with them.

Please keep this respectable as I'm not concerned with what 'authority' people want to attribute to them but more the content of them. If you don't accept them that is fine, it may be interesting as to what you disagree with but not simply the fact that it is not the Bible. I would like a civil conversation simply about the topic and what is presented in each writing not whether they are 'historically' or 'religiously' accurate, although if someone has reliable historical info in regards to where the writings came from it may be of interest.

cheers

 

[veteran]

I'm not concerned with what 'authority' people want to attribute to them but more the content of them.

So what you're really saying, is that you don't care about establishing 'authority' (authorship) of writtings you read? That's an absurd premise, for why don't we all just read everything written by man, including pagan witchcraft books too?

The Lost Years Of Jesus is a Gnostic work, and its authorship begins with the belief by the esoteric mystical societies that Jesus Himself was initiated into the 'mysteries' of pagan Egypt and the Far East during the 18 years of His early life that's not accounted for in The Bible.

If the Gnostics can get someone deceived to really believe that foolishness, of which there is not a shred of proof, then they will try and make a true Christian believe that Jesus is not "Immanuel" (God with us), but just a highly spiritually developed initiated mystic, even a student of the pagan priests of old, and not The Only Begotten Son of God. If one believed that, then it would mean Christ's Blood shed on the cross for the remission of sins of those who believe on Him means nothing!

The Gnostic premise about the 18 years of Christ's early life is a doctrine from the devil. Plain and simple. And such doctrines should NOT be allowed here on a Christian Forum, for the falsehood of that Gnostic idea has already been settled long ago by the early founders of Christ's Church.

 

[mondar]

I'm not concerned with what 'authority' people want to attribute to them but more the content of them.

Sorry, I do not know the content of the exact work you quote. Veteran suggests it is a gnostic work, I am not really read the gnostic works. I barely started to read one a long time ago and remember after a few pages I quit. I remember feeling it was too absurd.

So then, my question to you is have you read the work you quote? Or did you merely read some second had source quoting the work. I find one thing to be very true... there is nothing that compares to reading the original sources. I would suggest not swallowing any second hand comments until you read the original sources.

The Lost Years Of Jesus is a Gnostic work, and its authorship begins with the belief by the esoteric mystical societies that Jesus Himself was initiated into the 'mysteries' of pagan Egypt and the Far East during the 18 years of His early life that's not accounted for in The Bible.

Interesting. I agree that Gnostic works should be very very low on our list of historically valuable works. If the first Century direct disciples and apostles of Christ did not record the so called "lost years," why would we think the 2nd or 3ird century folk knew more about the so called "lost years." They never even knew Jesus when he walked the earth, they did not know the apostles, and had no connection to the 1st century Church.

Also, the very little I read of the gnostic works, I remember it seemed so far from Christianity and the 1st century biblical record. It seemed to me to reflect a totally different world view. When I hear of people that ask questions about why the pseudo apocraphal false gospels of the gnostics were not considered part of the canon, generally wonder if they read the gnostic gospels. How can one read the fanciful accounts of the gnostics and compare it with the studied research of Luke? So the first question is ----> Who has read the gnostic book being referred to. I have not... but if we are going to intelligently discuss it, where can it be found online?

 

[francisdesales]

I was reading in the 'Christian Talk & Advice' forum a thread about the lost years of Jesus and it kind of peaked my interest as to what others thought of this time. I didn't comment there as it is a 'Christians Only' section so I decided to post it here. If this is not the appropriate section could a mod please move it.

Anyways, I was wondering if anyone has read the Lost Years of Jesus: The Life if Saint Issa or the Aquarian Gospel of Christ or know of any other writings of the timeframe missing in the Bible of Jesus life. I have read the Life of Saint Issa, although I'm going to go refresh my memory before making any comments on it as well as parts of the Aquarian Gospel. Does anybody have any points of interest on either of these books or thoughts about them? After I reread them I'll try and post a couple points of interest that I had with them.

Please keep this respectable as I'm not concerned with what 'authority' people want to attribute to them but more the content of them. If you don't accept them that is fine, it may be interesting as to what you disagree with but not simply the fact that it is not the Bible. I would like a civil conversation simply about the topic and what is presented in each writing not whether they are 'historically' or 'religiously' accurate, although if someone has reliable historical info in regards to where the writings came from it may be of interest.

cheers

Seekandlisten,

Here is a site that will provide you with what you desire...

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Apocryphal works, while rejected as not being Scriptural, does not mean that they are full of false teachings or history. No doubt, there can be found some truth in these writings from some traditions that may have historical value, esp. when they are not relating a doctrinal issue, but merely relating history. Usually, such a work is rejected because of a doctrinal issue, not because it is giving us false history.

For example, the Protevangelium of James. No doubt, there is historical material, but there is also likely embellishment. Ron Cameron, in "The Other Lost Gospels", writes about the sources of such works:

"Cameron identifies three different sources for the Infancy Gospel of James: extracanonical traditions, the Old Testament, and the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The mythical element of birth in a cave, for example, is an extracanonical also known to Justin Martyr. Cameron states of the author's use of Jewish scriptures: "Not only are individual words, phrases, and even whole paragraphs reminiscent of the Septuagint; such discrete forms as the hymn and the lament of Anna also display conscious, direct 'remembrance' of the stories recorded in the scriptures." Concerning the use of the canonical gospels, Cameron observes, "Frequently the respective passages in Matthew and Luke are harmonized into a single story in the Protevangelium of James; in some instances the two texts are conflated. It is by combining composite traditions with a harmony of the synoptic infancy stories that the Protevangelium of James has constructed the dramatic scenes of its gospel."

Note, there does seem to be an extracanonical tradition, known to Justin, that Jesus was born in a cave. This certainly could have been passed by word of mouth from Mary herself, and seems to be in keeping with what we know about the birth of Jesus in general.

In other words, some useful information can be gleaned from some of these writings to build a more complete picture of Jesus, but as all ancient historical data related as such, cannot be known for certain.

Regards

 

[seekandlisten]

I'm not concerned with what 'authority' people want to attribute to them but more the content of them.

So what you're really saying, is that you don't care about establishing 'authority' (authorship) of writtings you read? That's an absurd premise, for why don't we all just read everything written by man, including pagan witchcraft books too?

No, I meant what I said. I don't give writing's 'authority', not the same as authorship. I do however look at the content and if their is something worth taking away from it then I apply it, if not it is discarded. As for being an absurd premise, I don't follow. If someone really wanted to learn what the what Wiccan's believed in, in order to get an accurate portrayal of their religion one would have to look at their books otherwise you're just taking someone else' word on what they believe, not the best method for learning. There are many creationist sites that claim things the theory of evolution says yet when you actually look at what the theory really says their claims are mistaken.

The Lost Years Of Jesus is a Gnostic work, and its authorship begins with the belief by the esoteric mystical societies that Jesus Himself was initiated into the 'mysteries' of pagan Egypt and the Far East during the 18 years of His early life that's not accounted for in The Bible.

Well that's an interesting point that I have not heard before. I'm not a gnostic though so just because some say it's true doesn't make it so. What does the writing in question have to say?

If the Gnostics can get someone deceived to really believe that foolishness, of which there is not a shred of proof, then they will try and make a true Christian believe that Jesus is not "Immanuel" (God with us), but just a highly spiritually developed initiated mystic, even a student of the pagan priests of old, and not The Only Begotten Son of God. If one believed that, then it would mean Christ's Blood shed on the cross for the remission of sins of those who believe on Him means nothing!

We could branch off into a whole bunch of areas in which groups disagree as to who and what Jesus was but that is not the topic of this thread. I am simply looking at writings claiming to be about Jesus during his 18 years that we have nothing spoken of in the bible. Have you read the 'Lost Years of Jesus'?

The Gnostic premise about the 18 years of Christ's early life is a doctrine from the devil. Plain and simple. And such doctrines should NOT be allowed here on a Christian Forum, for the falsehood of that Gnostic idea has already been settled long ago by the early founders of Christ's Church.

Well, I see you put a lot of faith in your early Church Fathers which is fine but you should still have some reasons as to why you agree with them. What is it exactly in the writings of the 'Lost Years of Jesus: the Story of Saint Issa' and the 'Aquarian Gospel of Christ' that you disagree with?

cheers

 

[seekandlisten]

So then, my question to you is have you read the work you quote? Or did you merely read some second had source quoting the work. I find one thing to be very true... there is nothing that compares to reading the original sources. I would suggest not swallowing any second hand comments until you read the original sources.

I read 2 versions of the 'Lost Years' but that was a few years ago. I'm going to reread it soon here so I can maybe address some points and get others opinions on them. I'll try and do that over the next couple of days.

So the first question is ----> Who has read the gnostic book being referred to. I have not... but if we are going to intelligently discuss it, where can it be found online?

Here is one version.

http://reluctant-messenger.com/issa1.htm

cheers

 

[seekandlisten]

Seekandlisten,

Here is a site that will provide you with what you desire...

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

Thank you for that link Francis. A lot of info there to go through.

Apocryphal works, while rejected as not being Scriptural, does not mean that they are full of false teachings or history. No doubt, there can be found some truth in these writings from some traditions that may have historical value, esp. when they are not relating a doctrinal issue, but merely relating history. Usually, such a work is rejected because of a doctrinal issue, not because it is giving us false history.

I totally agree and would like to point out that I'm not interested in getting into doctrinal issues in this thread but merely others thoughts, mostly Christians I'm assuming, in regard to these writings.

In other words, some useful information can be gleaned from some of these writings to build a more complete picture of Jesus, but as all ancient historical data related as such, cannot be known for certain.

Have you read the 'Lost Years of Jesus: the Story of Saint Issa' or the 'Aquarian Gospel of Christ' Francis? If so what is your take on them if you don't mind?

cheers

 

[francisdesales]

Thank you for that link Francis. A lot of info there to go through.

Yes, lots of information, I hope you enjoy it...

Apocryphal works, while rejected as not being Scriptural, does not mean that they are full of false teachings or history. No doubt, there can be found some truth in these writings from some traditions that may have historical value, esp. when they are not relating a doctrinal issue, but merely relating history. Usually, such a work is rejected because of a doctrinal issue, not because it is giving us false history.

I totally agree and would like to point out that I'm not interested in getting into doctrinal issues in this thread but merely others thoughts, mostly Christians I'm assuming, in regard to these writings.

Understood, which is why I was only speaking about historical information found within the Apocrypha. "Doctrinal issues" based on the Apocrypha would be questionable.

Have you read the 'Lost Years of Jesus: the Story of Saint Issa' or the 'Aquarian Gospel of Christ' Francis? If so what is your take on them if you don't mind?

Sorry, seekandlisten, I haven't read it.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Why do christians readily accept change and embellishment to gnostic docterines, but refuse that the accepted gospels were not changed or embellished?

I am not sensing that they do, Mujahid. At least those who populate this forum. The ones who apparently do are likely not practicing Christians, only in name, who are easily mis-led by hype and superstition in spiritual matters (like seeing a form of the Virgin Mary on toast... )

As in all religions, there are those who devoutly practice their faith, and others who do not and are members in name only, likely by birth.

Regards

 

[mondar]

Why do christians readily accept change and embellishment to gnostic docterines, but refuse that the accepted gospels were not changed or embellished?

Hello Mujahid,

I take it you are Muslim? If you have been reading the different threads in this forum, you will surely see a confusing array of people calling themselves Christians. I cannot promise you that many who write on these threads are any more then nominal Christians. If you took a cross sampling of some Muslim culture, would you not find many different opinions and many nominal Muslims? To a Christian, would it not appear a confusing array of ideas and beliefs?

Concerning the embellishment of the Gnostic gospels.... If you read my previous statement in this thread, I made the statement that the gnostic gospels are very different from Christianity in their world view. I challenged those in the thread to do original reading of the text, suspecting that anyone who actually reads some of the gnostic gospels will readily admit they are absurd. I think it is self evident.

Concerning the refusal to accept that the Christian New Testament is not changed, I think that will take a little bit of deep thinking. First, Christianity is far more open about the textual history of the Bible then Muslims are of the Koran. However, there are similarities and differences. The Bible has variants, as does the Koran. Both of us recognize that the variants have not destroyed the basic message of both the Koran and the NT.

Also, I would point out that the normal Muslim accusation that the NT has been corrupted is based upon a complete lack of evidence. Christians are in possession of about 10 papyri written in the 2nd century. One of them is a fragment that dates from 125AD. It is of the Gospel of John. Since we have such extremely early attestation of much of the New Testament, it is difficult to sustain the normal Muslim accusation that the Bible has been tampered with.

Let me ask a question of you. Which text would be more likely to be tampered with. A text in which very early manuscripts are still with us and still testify of the authenticity of what we have today. Compare that with the Koran. Have you heard of the Uthman revision of the Koran? The reason the Koran does not have the same early attestation that the New Testament does is because all early manuscripts of the koran were burned, and only the authorized manuscripts were allowed.

So I ask you, which of the two (Bible or Koran) is more likely to have been tampered with?

By the way, the Uthmanic revision of the Koran can be read in "Sahih Al-Bukhari, 6.507, 509-510"

The bottom line is this, we have very early manuscripts, I am willing to look at any manuscript. Where are these "changes" or "embellishments?" In fact, there are non. Show me one.

 

[francisdesales]

Interesting. I agree that Gnostic works should be very very low on our list of historically valuable works. If the first Century direct disciples and apostles of Christ did not record the so called "lost years," why would we think the 2nd or 3ird century folk knew more about the so called "lost years." They never even knew Jesus when he walked the earth, they did not know the apostles, and had no connection to the 1st century Church.

I think the premise is that the source data is supposedly from secret traditions passed down by an "apostle" to give it more serious consideration. Thus, it depends if one believes that the source was indeed legitimate. Not that "Thomas" wrote it, but that the oral tradition came from him in a secret form passed through several generations of followers (which the catholics absolutely refused to consider in the second century, arguing effectively that Christ wanted ALL His teachings to be taught to the community)

Also, the very little I read of the gnostic works, I remember it seemed so far from Christianity and the 1st century biblical record.

Mondar, from our point of view, that is anachronistic, as the paradigm that we "mainstream" Christians consider to be "Christian" is taken from the catholic point of view vis a vis the Gnostic point of view, who had their own set of "sacred" Scriptures. Gnosticism seems far removed from OUR idea of Christianity because we have been raised with a different brand of Christianity.

It does seem apparent, however, that Gnosticism was the outcast and heretical view, when gauging the various communities in existence in the first century. Common rule of thumb, the true version comes first, and then from there, false interpretations. (presuming that Jesus taught the true Gospel, correct?) There is no evidence whatsoever of Gnostic Christian communities until Marcion. Any Gnostics, such as those mentioned in the epistles of Paul, were considered to be false teachers that fell away from within the community and became "traveling snake oil salesmen", if you will... (such as 2 Peter/Jude describes)

It seemed to me to reflect a totally different world view. When I hear of people that ask questions about why the pseudo apocraphal false gospels of the gnostics were not considered part of the canon, generally wonder if they read the gnostic gospels. How can one read the fanciful accounts of the gnostics and compare it with the studied research of Luke? So the first question is ----> Who has read the gnostic book being referred to. I have not... but if we are going to intelligently discuss it, where can it be found online?

See the site I reference, which gives lots of data on the various writings, all of them, during the first few centuries.

Regards

 

[mondar]

@ mondar

I am actually a former christian. and I concluded the NT had been corrupted long before I became Muslim, I based this on actually studying the gnostic texts, studying the History of christiandom, and studying the personalities and politics of the individuals responsible for our modern notions of christianity.

None of the things mentioned above relate to the issue of the corruption of the transmission of the text of the Bible. There was no cover up, there was no time when a group tried to "edit" the bible.

Actually there about 107 papyri known to exist today of which 3 have been lost due to antiquities theft or damage. All but one date from between 3rd century and 10th century

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/text ... -list.html
This is a list of 127 papyri. Of course some date from the 2nd century, none of them date as late as the 8-10 centuries. Just look over the link provided. Your claim is not based in fact.

The earliest one is called Papyrus egerton What we have here is an uncanonical Gospel which tone is free from exaggeration. The whole impression produced is that of a comparatively early work. The relation to the canoncial gospels is very controversially discussed.

How would the existance of the egerton Gospel show corruption of the New Testament? You confuse the dating of manuscripts with the issue of corruption.

As an illustration, if I read the "Red Badge of Courage," a fictional story of a man in the civil war. The I find another novel that writes a different novel by a different writer, and he writes about the "private life of the guy in the red badge of courage," just because there is different information, it does not make it "contradictory."

To substantiate a claim of "corruption" you would would need two copies of the same book. You would have to show that there are two publishers that use two different stories of the same event in the red badge of courage, or change something that the original writer wrote. The egerton gospel provides no such evidence. It simply reflects different events then what is written by the apostles and disciples of Christ in the NT. Most likely the reason the egerton Gospel was never copied extensively as the other gospels were copied was because the early Christian community did not regard it as scripture.

The Rylands Papyrus, P 52, is the earliest known fragment of the NT and the latest possible date is 150AD. In fact, the generally accepted date is 125AD. If the Rylands fragment demonstrated that the John 18 was corrupted, then that would be an appropriate claim. But to compare egerton with John and claim corruption does not logically follow.

There are several verbal agreements, but they are very mixed up. We have parallels with John and with the Synoptics. But some parallels are given in a different context. For this reason some have proposed that the author knew the canonical Gospels from repeated hearing and used them from memory, but not in written form. Others proposed complete independence of the canonical Gospels and suggest, Egerton selected the elements shared with the Synoptics out of tradition. Parallels with John are explained by a "shared milieu", (similar style, language and theology).

It does not mirror the KJV gospel of John and speaks of a previously unknown miracle - that of turning a twig into fruit.

So, for 1,411 years (aprox), between the loss of this gospel and the creation of the KJV, the word of God was lost - or this is a forgery by some gnostic story teller. But theya re not direct matches.

LOL, I cannot put my finger on your thinking here and why you bring up the KJV. That seems totally bizarre to me. The KJV certainly has translation issues, but that has nothing to do with the issue of the textual transmission of the text. A bad translation does not mean the text has been corrupted.

Again, an illustration-- If I translate the writings of Machevelli into english, and someone claims I botched the translation, we would still have the Italian original and could show that it is a bad translation. Certainly the New World Translation is a corrupt translation, but it did not mar the greek texts. A translation does not corrupt texts.

This is also giving the Egerton Papyrus the benifit of the doubt seeing as most of it is in fragments and has been compiled using guess work. But for argument sake, we'll say the scientists who pieced them together were guided by the Holy Spirit and got it right.

We can actually see that from the collections of these payri which do not mirror the current NT, that what we have today is not what the gnostics were reading and writing.

Now I dont want to get into a debate about the Quran and The NT, but let me say this.

The oldest known fragment of the Quran is called the Samarqand Codex - and was recorded as being brought to Kufa by Ali ibn AbiTalib(KW) during his reign as Khalifa, it is in the Tashkent library in Uzbekistan. The second is the Uthamni Codex and it is held in Turkey - these two are identicle in wording, but differ in diacritical marks - marks used to denote vowle sounds - The Yemeni codex dates to around 100 years after Muhamed(SAW) and also is identicle to modern Arabic Qurans, with the exception of it not having any diacritical marks, which was the way Arabic was written at Muhameds(SAW) time. The Quran was comoiled into book form during the Khalifat of Uthman(RA), he sent 4 copies out 1 to mecca, 1 to medina, 1 to basra, and 1 to damascus - these, however were destriyed in fires. What early Qurans exist, match modern Qurans in every way wxcept diacritical mark locations. However, I will agree, preservation of the Quran is not the sole source of proof to its divinity, so lets not get into our book vs. your book, unless you want to start a new thread.

My new question is, which one of the NT's is the real Word of God? the gnostic payri (the unexagerated ones) or the current KJV?

By the way, the Egerton gospel is not a gnostic text. The Christian gnostics were 2nd century, and wrote books of a very different nature then either the NT, or the egerton gospel.

Concerning the Uthman revision, it is true that no copies of the Koran exist from before Uthman, why? Could it be Uthman burnt them all? The Koran has a state sponsored revision. Before Constantine, the scriptues was copied by non-professional scribes, in hidden places, on the cheapest of materials (papyri). Why? Because of state persecution. The NT was copied by individuals not even assocated with each other, who did not know each other, because Christianity was persecuted, and had no organization. The Muslim revision was done by the state. Who had the ability to purposely "corrupt" a text?

 

[mondar]

It seemed to me to reflect a totally different world view. When I hear of people that ask questions about why the pseudo apocraphal false gospels of the gnostics were not considered part of the canon, generally wonder if they read the gnostic gospels. How can one read the fanciful accounts of the gnostics and compare it with the studied research of Luke? So the first question is ----> Who has read the gnostic book being referred to. I have not... but if we are going to intelligently discuss it, where can it be found online?

See the site I reference, which gives lots of data on the various writings, all of them, during the first few centuries.

Regards

Francis, sheesh, I am beginning to feel like you are a stalker. You seem to follow me around commenting on what I write. Then you split hairs trying to find disagreement. Is there an issue here?

The point of what I wrote in your quotes of me simply ask if people who question the NT on the basis of gnostic writings have read those gnostic writings. If your point was to remind me that the gnositic gospels are on the link you mentioned, fine, just say so in a brief blurb. I do have that link bookmarked and it did slip my mind that the link has the gnostic gospels.

My point was that the gnostic writings are simply different in their world view, and thus very different. What is your point?

 

[francisdesales]

See the site I reference, which gives lots of data on the various writings, all of them, during the first few centuries.

Francis, sheesh, I am beginning to feel like you are a stalker. You seem to follow me around commenting on what I write. Then you split hairs trying to find disagreement. Is there an issue here?

Mondar,

I think you are acting a bit paranoid again. As you know, I have an interest in ancient Christian history, my responses here have nothing to do with you personally. In addition, my response : "See the site I reference..." is merely a helpful aid to others who want to know more. Nothing to do with "stalking you"...

The point of what I wrote in your quotes of me simply ask if people who question the NT on the basis of gnostic writings have read those gnostic writings. If your point was to remind me that the gnositic gospels are on the link you mentioned, fine, just say so in a brief blurb. I do have that link bookmarked and it did slip my mind that the link has the gnostic gospels.

My point was that the gnostic writings are simply different in their world view, and thus very different. What is your point?

My point is that "true" Christianity is dependent upon which set of Scriptures you take are inspired by God and which community a person learned it from. Those brought up in an orthodox background, Catholic or Calvinistic, will understand that the Catholic canon represents the revelation of God, while those brought up in a Gnostic background will see Gnostic writings as possessing God's revelation. Or, those who are raised Muslim will understand the Koran to be God's "true" revelation.

This is why the study of history is important.

Regards

 

[mondar]

I think you are acting a bit paranoid again. As you know, I have an interest in ancient Christian history, my responses here have nothing to do with you personally. In addition, my response : "See the site I reference..." is merely a helpful aid to others who want to know more. Nothing to do with "stalking you"...

Francis, dude, I am not the only one on the board that makes comments about "ancient Christian History." Yet I am the one you seem to follow and quote lately. Why?

You call me "paranoid" but some of your recent posts, I cannot even figure out your points. You seem like you want to disagree with me in the worse way, but are having difficulty finding something to correct me on. Why all the effort?

Above your present yourself as being emotionally detached, but something is going on in your head. I suspect you have some other motive for following me around and I dont know what it is. Do you consider yourself the king of "Ancient Christian History" and have selected me as the opponent that you feel you must win a debate against to keep the title? That of course sounds silly, but is that not a little bit how you are acting?

My point is that "true" Christianity is dependent upon which set of Scriptures you take are inspired by God and which community a person learned it from.

Are you saying you want another debate with me on sola scriptura? Of course I am wondering what that would have to do with the topic of this thread? If you wish, I am open to a debate on sola scriptura, but not in this thread.

Those brought up in an orthodox background, Catholic or Calvinistic, will understand that the Catholic canon represents the revelation of God,...

I am going to assume here that you are referring to the New Testament only, and not the entire canon. It is obvious that Calvinists and Catholics disagree on the apocrypha. We agree on the New Testament canon.

If you are looking to bring up the subject of the intertestamental literature called "apocrypha" or "deuterocanonical," it is not the same thing as talking about the gnostic literature of the 2nd and 3ird centuries. To do this would confuse issues.

while those brought up in a Gnostic background will see Gnostic writings as possessing God's revelation. Or, those who are raised Muslim will understand the Koran to be God's "true" revelation.

This is why the study of history is important.

Regards

Ohhh Kaaay... and where have I distorted history?

 

[seekandlisten]

Hey Mujahid Abdullah,

I have read a few threads that you have been involved in and find you quite informed on many different subjects. You have obviously come to your conclusions you hold through research. With you being a Muslim I was wondering what your opinion is on the gnostic writings such as those found in the Nag Hammadi library, those are the ones I'm most familiar with, as well as the two accounts I brought up in this thread, 'The Lost Years of Jesus:the Life of Saint Issa' and the 'Aquarian Gospel of Christ'. Have you read either account or heard of either before? If you have what are your thoughts on them?

cheers


On a side note if some wish to continue the discussion of the 'corruption' of the different Scriptures could you start another thread as that is a huge discussion on its own and we can keep this discussion more on the content and origins of writings in reference to the life of Jesus. Thanks

 

[francisdesales]

I think you are acting a bit paranoid again. As you know, I have an interest in ancient Christian history, my responses here have nothing to do with you personally. In addition, my response : "See the site I reference..." is merely a helpful aid to others who want to know more. Nothing to do with "stalking you"...

Francis, dude, I am not the only one on the board that makes comments about "ancient Christian History." Yet I am the one you seem to follow and quote lately. Why?

You call me "paranoid" but some of your recent posts, I cannot even figure out your points. You seem like you want to disagree with me in the worse way, but are having difficulty finding something to correct me on. Why all the effort?

You are paranoid, Mondar. There is no "man on the grassy-knoll" here...

I responded to this thread because of the topic. Not you. I then looked at the opening response from "seek". Noticed who I posted to first. I have numerous links to various Ancient Christian sites, and thought the one I posted might be helpful. I skimmed the remainder of the posts, and replied to yours next, not because you are Mondar and I am following you around, but that I was making a point regarding Gnostic literature and your idea of "normal views" on what Christianity was in the first century. You make an anachronistic argument - I pointed it out. THAT'S IT!!! You live within a particular paradigm and think that THAT is normal, historically speaking. It takes quite a bit more work then that to make such a claim effectively. A neo-Gnostic can make the exact same statement, so your argument is special pleading. Yes, I agree with your conclusion, but HOW you reach that conclusion?

Perhaps this most-recent bid of paranoia comes more from our last discussions on Matthew 7 and James 2. Trust me, I'm over them and have not attempted to re-start those conversations, whether by PM or highjacking other threads. Those discussions are done for me, I don't need to "convince" you to achieve closure. The arguments I made there stand upon their own merit, not your acceptance.

Or perhaps your paranoia stems from something deeper, I don't know. I have come to find that you require being handled with the softest of kid-gloves, so maybe this is part of the perception, that I am "chasing you around". Mondar, I could care less if you are posting here, I came here and posted because I have an interest in the topic. It has NOTHING to do with you. Your past knowledge of me should confirm that. You have posted in several other threads, which I have not even responded to (I know this based upon seeing where else you posted while compiling this reply). If I was following you around, I would have made mention in the several other threads you have posted. I would be bothering you by PM...

Mondar, I bear no ill-will towards you and am not "following you around".

If you have anything personal to say, PM me. This conversation really has no place here, but since you made it public, I'll respond and let it be. If you have anything to say about Ancient Christian writings and Gnosticism, then make comments. If I respond, please understand it has nothing to do with you personally.

Regards

 

[mondar]

Actualy There was an "edit" to what would be considered the bible, im sure you know of the council of nicea, This council originally sought to dispell the beleif of Arienism, which held Jesus Not to be God. It also wnted to unify the Alexandrian church (where p52 was accepted). They then decided for you and all christians of today which docterine was christian, without any imput from an apostle or Jesus. This is seperate from my personal and unprovable BELEIF that before even this council the Bible was corrupted by its followers immediatly following Jesus'(AS) ascend to heaven, but we need not get into this because its irrealavent and unprovable on my part.

Just a warning, I do not have the time to reply to your whole response. I will do the first few paragraphs.

Concerning Nicea, the Council of Nicea did not even address canonical issues and made no list of books. In fact it was not an issue at Nicea.

It is true that Nicea considered the Arian doctrines. It is also true that Arius had a different view of the complete deity of Jesus Christ. Neither did the council have anything to do with the "Acceptance" of P52.

Concerning your accusation of corruption before Nicea.... Since we have many manuscripts before Nicea, and they all (except for minor variants and scribal mistakes) reflect the same Jesus, the same apostles, and the same doctrine, is it not then pure fancy that there might possibly be some manuscript out there that will not match up?

Actually, the papyri have more scribal errors then the later vellum or parchments used in the Siniaticus or Alexandrian texts. Think about it a little. When the papyri were copied, Christianity was under persecution. Rome was burning all the scriptures they could find. The non-professional scribes that copied the papyri did it in peril of their lives. Naturally they would be a little less accurate then the post Nicean professional scribes who copied parchments in their scripturium offices.

The fact that the earlier papyri has slightly more errors and the later vellum parchments have more accuracy is natural. Also, consider that vellum parchments copied in Alexandria and those copied in Byzantium have differed from the beginning. This would also tend to demonstrate that no Nicean coverup happened. If there was an editing at Nicea, then why did the Byzantine and Alexandrian traditions of manuscripts occur?

But the bottom line is that no discussions on manuscripts were even discussed at Nicea.

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/text ... -list.html
This is a list of 127 papyri. Of course some date from the 2nd century, none of them date as late as the 8-10 centuries. Just look over the link provided. Your claim is not based in fact.

I like how you just dismiss my claim as factless without even looking at the facts
http://www.kchanson.com/papyri.html#Ryl
Here is a complete list of the most complete NT papyri - I know you did not look at the facts because the Egeerton Papyri and the Rylands papyrus are in fact one in the same, P52 as you correctly called it. So we are speaking of the same work.

Let me just double check what you are asserting here. Are you saying that another name for P52, commonly called the Rylands papyrus is the "Egerton Papyrus?" Really? Anyone can get a picture of the P52 and a pic of Egerton and see they are not the same thing. Why would you say this?

How would the existance of the egerton Gospel show corruption of the New Testament? You confuse the dating of manuscripts with the issue of corruption.

You asserted in your post that this P52 is an account of the gospel of John - however, the two are quite different.

I am guessing here you are claiming that P52 is not a fragment of the Gospel of John? On what basis do you make such a fantastic claim? If need be, we can get a copy and look at the koine greek (if you can read Greek?). In fact it is a copy of part of John 18.

But are also quite simmalar - however not copies of one another, and P52 has the account of the mirracle of the fruit which is not found in any modern bible.

No, the Egerton papyrus has accounts not found in John, P52 is strait out of John 18.

Now, maybe our definitions of "corrupted" are different. I would say that the word of God is unchangeable and unloseable, so it seems that the miracle of the fruit was lost for the last few centuries.

I dont believe Egerton's Gospel was ever considered Canonical by the early Church. Nevertheless, lets just assume that it is some sort of "lost gospel." How would the existance of new material not referred to in other gospels prove that later writers edited out certain truths? The synoptics have very different stories then the Gospel of John, yet people do not assert that this proves the bible is corrupt, or edited. Your comparing apples with oranges and getting grapes.

In addition, this gospel was most likely used by the Alexandrian Church, and thus declared, by the nicean council, to be hereticle or apochraphyl, and not included in the first codified christian bible.

What part of the Council of Nicea are you referring to? The records of Nicea make no such declaration. In fact no council ever referred to the Egerton fragments directly at all.

[quote="mondar']
As an illustration, if I read the "Red Badge of Courage," a fictional story of a man in the civil war. The I find another novel that writes a different novel by a different writer, and he writes about the "private life of the guy in the red badge of courage," just because there is different information, it does not make it "contradictory."

It would not make them contradictory.....(snip).....[/quote]
Good, that was my point. Then it is true that just because Egertons gospel was discovered, that does not prove that John or the Synoptics are "contradictory." They are just covering different events.


Gotta go.



[quote="Mujahid Abdullah":fmk6026h]

To substantiate a claim of "corruption" you would would need two copies of the same book. You would have to show that there are two publishers that use two different stories of the same event in the red badge of courage, or change something that the original writer wrote. The egerton gospel provides no such evidence. It simply reflects different events then what is written by the apostles and disciples of Christ in the NT. Most likely the reason the egerton Gospel was never copied extensively as the other gospels were copied was because the early Christian community did not regard it as scripture.

P52 shows that it was deleted from the "oficial" word of God by the nicean council, which is why we didnt know about it until '84.

LOL, I cannot put my finger on your thinking here and why you bring up the KJV. That seems totally bizarre to me. The KJV certainly has translation issues, but that has nothing to do with the issue of the textual transmission of the text. A bad translation does not mean the text has been corrupted.

Again, an illustration-- If I translate the writings of Machevelli into english, and someone claims I botched the translation, we would still have the Italian original and could show that it is a bad translation. Certainly the New World Translation is a corrupt translation, but it did not mar the greek texts. A translation does not corrupt texts.

A translation doesnt corrupt a text as long as you have the original translation, but greek is not the original translation of those gospels - in fact hebrew may not have been the original translation - Aramaic is most likely the language of the original words of Jesus(AS). We dont have this Aramaic, so we can compromise on Hebrew, which is what the original gnostic texts that were banned from the bible by the nicean council were written in. When you get to the greek gospels the originals date back to the 4th century to the 10th century - which are all most likely post-nicean council. So the greek texts have already gone through the corruption process, up until the 20th century, when we discover the existance of these pre-nicean accounts of the word of God.

By the way, the Egerton gospel is not a gnostic text. The Christian gnostics were 2nd century, and wrote books of a very different nature then either the NT, or the egerton gospel.

We can consider it apocharphyl then how bout that, apochraphyl or gnostic, it didnt pass the nicean creed, so it was ommitted.

Concerning the Uthman revision, it is true that no copies of the Koran exist from before Uthman, why? Could it be Uthman burnt them all? The Koran has a state sponsored revision.

There was one Quran written down on paper before Uthman)RA), ir was compiled by a woman named Umm Khalid(RA) and after her death was given to the governor of Medina, and for some unknown reason he had it destroyed. After that Uthmaan commisioned four HUGE copies to be made (58 cm tall).
One still exists in Cairo, you can go and see it today. The others were destroyed in accidental fires in Mecca, Medina, and Damscus. Before this the Quran was memorized by heart. We can see that this memorization was succeful from various ayats found on animal bones and rocks that completly match to the Cairo Uthmani Quran. I know you feel that i am attacking you book so you attack mine in response, but the Quran is not realy part of this discussion, so lets move away from the Quran and leave it for another thread.

Before Constantine, the scriptues was copied by non-professional scribes, in hidden places, on the cheapest of materials (papyri). Why? Because of state persecution. The NT was copied by individuals not even assocated with each other, who did not know each other, because Christianity was persecuted, and had no organization. The Muslim revision was done by the state. Who had the ability to purposely "corrupt" a text?

According to James Royce in his book 'Scribal habbits in Early Greek and New testament Papyri" P52 as well as many of the Nag Hamadi texts WERE penned by PROFFESIONAL SCRIBES. He bases this on the language used in the Papyri as well as the parrallels in the various gospels. In the second century Christians werent being Pesecuted Everywhere, and in these areas suchas palestine, syria, egypt - we see the majority of these ancient gnostic and apochraphyl texts being found.

Now you use the word "revision", I hope this isnt on purpose. The time when Uthamn(RA) put the Quran down in book form, and codified its chapter order is known as the Uthamani Recension, not revision. in addition, this was done by many different hafuz ul Quran (memorizer of Quran) who all agreed on the authenticity of what was written down. They all agreed what was written on those pages of date palm, was in fact what was memorized in their heads. Now Uthman (RA) was a companion of Muhamed(SAW) and a trusted individual amongst the Muslim populace, but he was not above criticism for his actions - in fact he was assasinated by one of his detractors. In addition, what would Uthma(RA)n gain from chaging the Quran? There are no mentions in the Quran itself regarding the Islamic state, and none of the other high ranking companions (Ali, Muawwiya, Hasan, Husein, Abdullah ibn Umar RA) expressed any concerns in regards to the Qurans Uthman(RA) produced, and these men had the religious authority to do so.[/quote][/quote:fmk6026h]

 

[francisdesales]

Actualy There was an "edit" to what would be considered the bible, im sure you know of the council of nicea, This council originally sought to dispell the beleif of Arienism, which held Jesus Not to be God. It also wnted to unify the Alexandrian church (where p52 was accepted). They then decided for you and all christians of today which docterine was christian, without any imput from an apostle or Jesus. This is seperate from my personal and unprovable BELEIF that before even this council the Bible was corrupted by its followers immediatly following Jesus'(AS) ascend to heaven, but we need not get into this because its irrealavent and unprovable on my part.

Are you saying the Council of Nicea edited the Scriptures? The Church Fathers cite New Testament works quite faithfully well before the Council of Nicea. In addition, the Church of the time (and continues to do) considers itself the guardian of the faith "once passed from the Apostles". There is plentiful evidence to point out how the Scriptures attest to "Jesus is God" and the traditional understanding of reading verses that are potential problems.

To accuse the second or third generation of Christians in changing the works of the Apostles, revered men even while alive, would be quite a feat - and all done without a wimper from the rest of orthodox Christianity. By the second century, it can be widely assumed that each community had AT LEAST several epistles of the New Testament, and would have been virtually impossible to "corrupt" without other communities noting that when the time came in the late second century to consider a Canon to compete with the Marcion Canon. The silence on this perceived "corruption" should be noted.

When I speak of "corruptions", I am not talking about additional stories added in, such as John's woman caught in adultery, but a change in the text that would effect doctrinal discussions. An example of a legitimate corruption or manipulation would be the Johannine Comma. Note carefully WHEN this "corruption" came into the text - much later in translating, not with the original (that we have) Greek manuscripts.

I would say that the word of God is unchangeable and unloseable, so it seems that the miracle of the fruit was lost for the last few centuries. In addition, this gospel was most likely used by the Alexandrian Church, and thus declared, by the nicean council, to be hereticle or apochraphyl, and not included in the first codified christian bible.

I would suggest that you consider reading more about Ancient Christianity and how the Christian canon came to be and why a Canon was found necessary in the first place. Note there was no need for a Canon among either Jews or Christians until an OUTSIDE force/influence forced them to do so.

In addition, Alexandria was one of the Sees of the Church, so where doe Nicea call something "heretical" based upon its useage in one of the 5 major Sees??? Something is heretical because it disagrees with what the rest of the Church knows and teaches, not because it is read in a particular locale.

It would not make them contradictory, but it would however demonstrate human authorship and different authors. Now one of those books is the true book and one is fan fiction. Just as there is an official Star Wars - and then there is fan fiction Star Wars - which is not authorized by Lucas, and false.
The problem we have though is that we have two different accounts of various books of the bibles, but we dont know which is fan fiction, and which is authorized by the author, God.

You are presuming that the manuscript WITHOUT said story is an original manuscript written by John. Cannot it ALSO be said that the manuscript missing a story is an incomplete copy? What matters to Christians is the final form, since no one has the original autographs. Thus, we rely on "whom we learned this teaching from".

P52 shows that it was deleted from the "oficial" word of God by the nicean council, which is why we didnt know about it until '84.

Again, you'll have to provide some support of that, because the canons of the Nicean Council doesn't deal with deleting manuscripts anywhere. Is there a canon I am not aware of that you could point out for me?

A translation doesnt corrupt a text as long as you have the original translation, but greek is not the original translation of those gospels - in fact hebrew may not have been the original translation - Aramaic is most likely the language of the original words of Jesus(AS).

That's not what Mondar is saying. The original WRITTEN text may be different from the original SPOKEN words of Jesus. So while the spoken words of Jesus may have been Aramaic or Hebrew, it has no bearing on whether the original translation was Greek or not.

We dont have this Aramaic, so we can compromise on Hebrew, which is what the original gnostic texts that were banned from the bible by the nicean council were written in.

Again, this Nicean Council... It apparently did a lot, in your mind! But where does it speak about texts being banned?

When you get to the greek gospels the originals date back to the 4th century to the 10th century - which are all most likely post-nicean council. So the greek texts have already gone through the corruption process, up until the 20th century, when we discover the existance of these pre-nicean accounts of the word of God.

WHAT??? Much of the New Testament can be found within the pages of the ANTE-NICENE Fathers!!! The comparison between what they cite and what we have (translated back to Greek) is pretty close.

Where are you getting your information from?

 

[seekandlisten]

I havent read all of them, but I have read alot - before I became Muslim I thought the Arian gospels were more in line with reality - I had a hard time reconcileing the trinity - but I still beleived Jesus(AS) was holy and there was one God. I ultimatley abandined the Arian route because they dont exist any more and I dont think I alone can revive a dead religion

befopre I became Muslim, I was obsessed with the gnostic and apochraphyl books, I saw them as evidence of a True christianity long destriyed by the catholic church starting with constantine.

Interesting. I'm finding from your posts that you have taken much the same route as myself in your conversion from Christianity. My 'journey' has lead me to being more Agnostic and rejecting the idea of a 'personal God'. I would be curious as to why you chose Islam with your studying of the Gnostic texts and early Christianity. I don't know if you studied much of other religions as well, but what made Islam seem more acceptable than Christianity. I found them to be quite similar aside from the believing Jesus is God and some rituals. I found that the 3 Abrahamic religions are mainly divided on who 'God' is and what rituals one must perform to be called one of 'His'. I'm not saying I'm right but that was what my perception led me too in my studies. If you wouldn't mind sharing with me your reasons for leaving Christianity and choosing Islam in the end I would be interested although that would be a better to pm me as it doesn't relate to this topic, but I'm definitely interested if you care to share.

Recently I read the Gospel of Judas which I was quite suprised on how it actually closly parallels the Islamic account of the crusifixtion.

There are two theories, neither concrete, on what happened that day - some scholars say that Judas betrayed Jesus(AS) and as a punishment , he was made to look like Jesus(AS) when the romans came for him, and Judas was crusified.

The other account says that Judas was the most dedicated apostle, and volunteered to allow the Angel Gabriel(AS) make him look like Jesus(AS) and he was crusified in Jesus's place.

Neither account is strong or widely accepted, these are speculations of the schoalrs, and thus usually not talked about much in Islam.

But in the Gospel of Judas, he is portrayed as a hero, the only apostle who knew what needed to be done. The reconstruction of the gospel paints a picture of Judas knowing Jesus needed to die on the cross for mans sin, so he played his role and accepted the fact that christians would hate him for eternity.

Now this obviously goes against my beleifs regarding Jesus, but I still find it interesting.

I find things like this interesting as well even though I may not agree with what some accept as absolute truth on such matters. I do find that the more sources you look into the bigger idea you get of what was going on though.

Many of the gnostic texts I saw as forgeries, I cant remember which one it is but one speaks of Jesus' lost years - and portrays hima s rebelious teen who actually kills a man with his divine power. It reminded me of the superman lost years, where hes coming into his powers. i saw this as a little far fetched.

I remember reading that one too once but I can't remember the name of it. Anyways, when it comes to supernatural events I tend to approach with a lot of skepticism. If I'll reject the same type of event coming from another source why would I accept it in regards to a different person given the same evidence is how I look at it.

The Gospel of st.Issa, I saw as potetial, it does not seem to go against any thing expected of Jesus, but we will never know.

It doesn't contradict what is accepted as being known about Jesus, although I shouldn't speak too hastily as I am rereading it to refresh my memory and am only halfway through it. I know there is some contradictions as to the authenticity of it but that is why I gather others opinions on it as well as my own that are formulated from my own studies.

The one book that really changed me was the Gospel of barnibus, one of the Gospels taken out by the nicean council. I always wondered why Barnibus never spoke, and just let Paul do all the talking, when Barnibus was actually ther with Jesus(AS), so I looked into the history and saw that after Barnibus and Paul had a falling out, and this falling out may have been because Paul called Jesus God, while Barnibus held a different oppinion. I felt like I had discovered some unknown fact, but my pastor just said yeah its was trrue and shrugged it off, prefering Pauls word over Barnibus.

That is one book I haven't read yet but have been meaning too. You've just made me interested in it again so I might have to give it a read when I get a chance.

Thanks for the input.

cheers