What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Gnosticism.

blessedsmithereens said:
I never made any mention of its inclusion in the KJV of 1611.
You do know that isn't the first bible produced, right?


The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle
by Karen L. King (Polebridge Press, Santa Rosa, California, 2003), pp. 3-12
Early Christianity & the Gospel of Mary http://www.gnosis.org/library/GMary-King-Intro.html
Click to expand...

The gospel of Mary STILL wasn't part of "the Apocrypha," as late as 1611.

There is an important distinction here! By saying the book is part of "the Apocrypha," it lends it undue weight.
 
Technically, books not in Protestant Bible but included in Catholic and Orthodox Bibles are known as "deuterocanonical".

Real "apocryphal" books are in no one's Bible (examples Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, Didache, Shephard of Hermes)
 
Razeontherock said:
Since Luther the deuterocanonical books have been called the apocrypha.
Click to expand...
Largely the opposition to the Gospel of Mary is due to the fact it bears the name of a woman after the term, Gospel. And therein implies Mary was an Apostle.
This was not permitted in the largely patriarchal controlled governance of texts and councils that convened to decide only male voices could deliver the official word of a male God.
None the less, despite the detractors, the Gospel of Mary endured. And is still by definition an Apocryphal work even though it was purposely left out of any male oriented header canon of books.
Other Apocrypha
These are other apocryphal texts which never made it into any official canon, which nevertheless shed light on the Bible and its history.
Excerpts from the Gospel of Mary
This fragment, of disputed authenticity, puts the relationship between Mary Magdalen, Jesus and the Apostles in a radically different perspective than traditional beliefs.
 
blessedsmithereens said:
Largely the opposition to the Gospel of Mary is due to the fact it bears the name of a woman after the term, Gospel. And therein implies Mary was an Apostle.
This was not permitted in the largely patriarchal controlled governance of texts and councils that convened to decide only male voices could deliver the official word of a male God.
None the less, despite the detractors, the Gospel of Mary endured. And is still by definition an Apocryphal work even though it was purposely left out of any male oriented header canon of books.
Other Apocrypha
These are other apocryphal texts which never made it into any official canon, which nevertheless shed light on the Bible and its history.
Excerpts from the Gospel of Mary
This fragment, of disputed authenticity, puts the relationship between Mary Magdalen, Jesus and the Apostles in a radically different perspective than traditional beliefs.
Click to expand...

No, the opposition to the gospel of Mary is that it is in opposition to the whole of Scripture, sacrilegious, and a fraud.
 
blessedsmithereens said:
Largely the opposition to the Gospel of Mary is due to the fact it bears the name of a woman after the term, Gospel. And therein implies Mary was an Apostle.
This was not permitted in the largely patriarchal controlled governance of texts and councils that convened to decide only male voices could deliver the official word of a male God.
None the less, despite the detractors, the Gospel of Mary endured. And is still by definition an Apocryphal work even though it was purposely left out of any male oriented header canon of books.
Other Apocrypha
These are other apocryphal texts which never made it into any official canon, which nevertheless shed light on the Bible and its history.
Excerpts from the Gospel of Mary
This fragment, of disputed authenticity, puts the relationship between Mary Magdalen, Jesus and the Apostles in a radically different perspective than traditional beliefs.
Click to expand...
The so-called Gospel of Mary is a work of Gnostic fiction that dates to the second century at the earliest. That is why it was not included in any canon, just like all the other Gnostic texts such as the Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Philip. And those latter two certainly weren't excluded due to patriarchy.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelmary.html
 
Jesus couldn't have wouldn't have married and had kids. He Himself taught celibacy and why would He have kids, knowing that they would be orphaned? It doesn't make sense. Plus, if He had really got married...they would not have left that out of our Bible! Do you realize how much people could take that and run with it, twisting it? No...it is so far fetched so as to be absurd.

Actually, Jesus was already married with children. The father...and all of us! He don't go whoring around.

However...His people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge...do you realize that around 50 books were deleted from the canon by Constantine? So...there are "scriptures" out there that are not recognized by the canon (or most of you all). Not all them are scripture but some are. They have to agree with the canon, and you can tell here and there when you come across truth (if you know Jesus in the slightest!)...does that sound like something Jesus would say?

I'm on the fence about the Gospel of Thomas. I haven't decided yet. I simply haven't read much of it yet, but so far so good...What do you all think about Thomas?

I do hold the book of Enoch to be scripture for us. It starts out saying that this book is for a distant generation...well we are in the last hour, our scripture even quotes from Enoch...that's a pretty big endorsement in my mind.
Enoch...the most righteous man that ever lived...so righteous that God took Him...but He wrote lies?! Oh come now my Brothers and Sisters!
 
Edward said:
However...His people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge...do you realize that around 50 books were deleted from the canon by Constantine?
Click to expand...
And your evidence for this is...? It might be a bit hard to prove since Constantine died in 337 and the canon we have today was first proposed in its entirety by Athanasius in 367 and fully accepted by the Council of Carthage in 397.

Edward said:
I'm on the fence about the Gospel of Thomas. I haven't decided yet. I simply haven't read much of it yet, but so far so good...What do you all think about Thomas?
Click to expand...
On the fence with it? It is thoroughly Gnostic and some contradicts Scripture.

Edward said:
I do hold the book of Enoch to be scripture for us. It starts out saying that this book is for a distant generation...well we are in the last hour, our scripture even quotes from Enoch...that's a pretty big endorsement in my mind.
Enoch...the most righteous man that ever lived...so righteous that God took Him...but He wrote lies?! Oh come now my Brothers and Sisters!
Click to expand...
You do realize that there are books written by those who use others' names so that they appear to be authentic, yes?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top