The Lost Gospels, presented by Anglican priest Pete Owen Jones, is a fascinating exploration into the huge number of ancient Christian texts that didn't make it into the New Testament. Shocking and challenging, these were works in that presented a Jesus who didn't die, who took revenge on his enemies and who kissed Mary Magdalene on the mouth. This Jesus is unrecognisable from that found in the traditional books of the New Testament. Pete travels through Egypt and the former Roman Empire ...
|
|
Lot of 21 Gospel Music LP Records Al Green SEE DISC US $.99 |
|
|
Mahalia Jackson Gospel Queen 3 Disc Set CD 2000 US $1.94 |
|
|
The Gospel Soul of Etta James by Etta James CD Jan US $2.99 |
|
|
1926 LDS Gospel Mans Relationship to Deity Mormon HB US $8.25 |
|
|
Elvis Presley I Believe 4 CD set 68 Gospel Recordings US $29.98 |
|
|
STRAIGHTFORWARD ANSWERS TO TOUGH GOSPEL QUESTIONS US $15.00 |
|
|
Vinyl LP Album The Johnson Brothers Gospel Favorites US $.99 |
|
|
TRANSFORMATION FOUND FREE GOSPEL RECORD US $2.99 |
|
|
3216 19 AMER MUSIC SERIES GOSPEL SINGERS MNH PB 32 ct US $1.99 |
|
|
TONY COMER CROSSWINDS MEGA RARE SOUL GOSPEL BOOGIE SS US $24.95 |
sure you could pin a delay on some dirt and illegible text, but the dead sea scrolls were found like 50 years ago and still haven’t been officially released… I’m pretty sure (feel free to correct me).
But i do agree with everything you’ve said, and regardless they are still worth a look
oh and something else!
if i do remember correctly, there was some contraversy regarding the original translator of the dead sea scrolls. Again suggests some cover up!
Yes indeed there were people believing them, gnosticism was one of the greater pains that the early church combated, the mere fact that the church combated them should be noticed that the Church did not view them as true.
“They might just have been regional interpretations of what happened written by someone who was there (and copied later) or who wasn’t.”
Gnostics as i understand it (at least some of them) took the historical facts and instead of [cont]
basing theyre worldview on that they changed history (in theyre eyes) to fit theyre philosophy on life.
Sheep is not a derogatory term for those who are unthinking, many people probably just use it that way because Jesus would illustrate his leadership and care for his followers as a shepherd to a sheep and people wanting to call Christians stupid just say that sheep (and so the symbolism is associated) are stupid, but theyre intelligence was never part of the symbolism.
Theres no ang priest
Antisyncretism
Maybe the Church just thought they didn’t fit their interpretation of the story, which doesn’t mean they’re wrong or hadn’t been there. I don’t say that some of them may be works of fiction, like Thomas’ Infancy, written because people wanted to know more about Jesus as a child.
I take your point about the sheep though as it’s true. But I still don’t like the Catholic thing of trying to tell people what to read or not, e.g. Harry Potter even if I can understand their motifs.
The Church definitely thought they didnt fit the right view but as i said its convenient that all the gnostic texts skew history to fit a pre-held worldview these people already held, in other words.
They shaped history for themselves by theyre worldview and philosopy instead of shaping theyre worldview by what happened. They put theyre philosophy before the facts. You do not find this in the gospels, you find a worldview being informed by events as opposed to events being informed by worldview
Antisyncretism
Maybe you’re right.
But I’ll check that for myself. Will borrow the translated Dead Sea Scrolls and the Gnostic Gospels from my library and see how it is. Have read a book about the Scrolls and the author says that the Gospels show different allegiances, e.g. through variant timings, so that argument of yours might go out of the window. So if they had a view of how things should be and interpreted what happened according to it, that’s the same as with the gnostics isn’t it?
I think that the idea that the gospels are combating each other is very much a strange and foreign theory which is often propounded by those who simply dont know much about the gospels and i am aware that John specifically gets targeted a lot for dissenting from the others and held gnostic overtones, but this simply isnt true as none of the specially gnostic ideas are given in it and it is not a mystical gospel but is often thought ‘mystical’ simply because people dont understand the language
that was just an example…just thought id give an example…
I dont understand what “variant timings” is…
“So if they had a view of how things should be and interpreted what happened according to it, that’s the same as with the gnostics isn’t it? ”
The Gospels actually are very antithetical to some commonly held beliefs of the Jews and Gentiles of the time.
For example Jews for the most part were expecting a war-hero messiah and indeed just by reading the Gospels you can see the [continue
disciples themselves expressing this idea. So what is written of Jesus as messiah is already in contradiction to theyre previous worldviews, so that theyre worldviews didnt shape the ‘apparent’ events but were shaped by actual events.
Jews becoming increasingly hellenized perhaps also picked up the idea from the Romans that the way someone died was an indicator of what that person was or is, if so again Jesus’ death would clash with such worldviews too and so cant be dictated by those views
(i didnt explain the Roman death view)
According to such a view Jesus’ death being a shameful and terrible death would produce a negative view of Jesus and the fact that his death and his life do not match according to this philosophy of: ‘if you are good your death will be good’. Indeed how Jesus died was one of the reasons many people thought his followers as suspicious and even evil.
So ive given two examples of how gospels not based on authors previously held worldview but on events.
sorry if u feel like i spammed you…dont at all feel obligated to reply to everything ive said if at all
Antisyncretism
What I mean by different timings is that the ones who followed Herod had a different calendar to some of those who didn’t (solar v lunar). They had different start times for Sabbath and timed their intercalations (like our 29 Feb every 4 yrs) differently so that one group could already have started Sabbath while the other still had a few hours to go. If you want I can send you a scan of the chapter from a book about this.
o yes the ‘when did Jesus die’ question……hey if it aint no trouble for either of us im fine with you scanning a chapter on it for me, that would be nice of you
.
When or if? Because if his followers wanted to get him down from the cross they wouldn’t be allowed to on the Sabbath. As for some it started about three hour earlier than for the others he might not have been up for that long. And he might have got something to make him seem dead (mandrake) so his legs wouldn’t be broken. That’s from a docu called Jesus: The Real Story which is up here.
Yes i am aware when Jesus was crucified is a disagreed on subject, and am not knowledgeable enough to commit a certain date or day.
However i do know i can commit to Jesus dying on the cross as there should not be any question on this, we shouldnt over a thousand years later assume a better stance on Jesus’ death then those who witnessed it themselves [cont]
Mark 15:44-45:”Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph.”
We can be sure that a centurion would know what death looks like and we must not assume other theories based on…no report whatsoever
I agree on that. But according to the Scrolls there is a hidden meaning in the Gospels that shows the real story to those in the know. It’s called pesher and is based on stuff from the O.T.
Your quote might relate to the fact that Jesus had ‘only’ been up for three hours and it usually took longer to die.
It’s a very interesting and controversial topic and doesn’t really belong here. It doesn’t have anything to do with the lost gospels…
yes you are right it doesnt..well sort of but i get what you mean…
Im certainly not a confident when it comes to Jewish literature ABOUT the OT but pesher is just a commentary or a word for Jewish commentary itself isnt it…if so i suppose in a sense they might help someone better understand the OT just as our modern commentaries can too..but hidden meaning…i doubt that, that sounds rather kabbalistic and mystical to me.
And yes im sure the three hours was why Pilate was surprised
The pesharist used an OT book, e.g. Habakkuk, and applied what happened to his won time, so equating the Babylonians to the Romans, or turning particulars into specifics. It also relies on using the original texts (Greek and Hebrew) to do this and not assume words but neither leave ones out. And things always have the same meaning.
“And things always have the same meaning. “????
Are you saying its a text that uses what its commentating on in a mystical ‘everything is always blatantly directly related to the time of the reader’ sort of reading?
It wasn’t only used for historical events but for persons, too. The word ‘loaves (of bread)’ meant Levites, the hereditary priests who distributed the bread from the table. But Jesus in the feeding of the 5000 gave the same rights to those who had eaten the bread. (I’ll scan that chapter for you as well.)
interesting.. thanks again
fuck u, anglican gay bastard….
Great playlist easeen 5* shared and subbed