The Bible - my thoughts...
By imsilver
@imsilver (1665)
Canada
April 5, 2008 4:29pm CST
I wrote this as a response to someones post but thought I'd reprint it as a whole article because I'm interested in what people think.
I want to hear from people who have actually looked into the story and background of the bible and the nag hammadi and whatnot and not just the ultra religious who are going to come and slam me with posts about how the bible is the be all and end all.
----------------------------------------------
The bible as we know it is a collection of quite a few different authors.
There is plenty of evidence and information available if you are willing to actually look into it.
I've read some really great books. I wish I was at home so that I could go and get you actual titles.
There's a really good one that compares bible stories to actuall archeological discoveries that either support or contradict the bible. There have been some wonderful discoveries in the world of archeology.
Technology has enabled people to be able to restore ancient papyrus documents that are often unearthed in Egypt and whatnot.
The offical "BIBLE" is only one view. I can actually quote from one book because I brought it here with me to look up some information online.
*from The Lost Gospel by Herbert Krosney published by National Geographic..
"The formation of the New Testament as the Christian Bible was a gradual process that took centuries to complete. Finally, at the Council of Trent in 1545, the Roman Catholic Church acted to recognize its list of biblical, canonical books as final, that is, closed to any additions or subtractions."
All I can say is what I understand that to mean: a group of individuals went through all the available information and decided what was and was not to be included in the "bible". Anything that they found odd or didn't like they just chose to ignore or lable "fake" or "heresy".
Do a Google search on "nag hammadi" and you'll find a whole bunch of information on some of the "extra books" that were decided to be not part of the "bible".
There was a further discovery concerning the "book of judas".
I think it's up to everyone to who wants answers to look at ALL the evidence before they try to shove their beliefs down someone elses throat.
1 person likes this
1 response
@rmuxagirl (7548)
• United States
19 May 08
I agree that it is up to everyone to research and think about different things before the make a decision about something, and it isn't right to shove our beliefs down someone's throat. I haven't done much research into the other "lost gospels" or anything, I'm not sure if I have the desire to, but that's my own thoughts.
@tigertang (1749)
• Singapore
1 Jun 08
Wow, I think your posting has to be one of the most interesting ones on the Bible and it makes me wish I had been closer to my high school theology lessons when I would probably have been able to write a more coherant and intelligent reply to what you have posted.
The Bible is facinating and I think it provides us with an insight into the way people in that era organised their thoughts. If history is any guide, most of the Old Testament was recorded down in its writen form much later than events that took place. The Hebrew culture was an Oral one, where traditions were passed down from word of mouth rather than through writen text, and as such, what we read in the Old Testament is probably subject to the way the story was told.
With regards to the New Testament, I do believe that the early Church was very selective into deciding which books should go into the New Testament as a testament to Jesus. Most of the book is filled with Paul's letters, so we get an idea of Paul's understanding of Christianity. We also get four Gospels on the Life of Jesus. The first three are fairly similar and so we have an idea of how events unfolded. I've read that John's Revalations are not the most fantastic but the Church Father's kept his revelations because they felt they were most manageable for the ordinary lay folks in understanding Christian thinking.
So, if you ask me, I don't doubt that there were other Gospels, and why shouldn't Judas have a gospel of his own. Perhaps its a herasy but then again, how do we know because, we were not there.
