Posted on 06/16/2006 6:26:23 PM PDT by restornu
BANNED FROM THE BIBLE
The Stories That Were Deleted From Biblical History
When Jesus was a boy, did he kill another child? Was Mary Magdalene a prostitute -- or an apostle? Did Cain commit incest? Will there be an apocalypse or is this God's trick to scare us? The answers to these questions aren't found in the Bible as we know it, but they exist in scriptures banned when powerful leaders deemed them unacceptable for reasons both political and religious. BANNED FROM THE BIBLE reveals some of these alternative tales and examines why they were "too hot for Christianity." The two-hour world premiere BANNED FROM THE BIBLE airs on Christmas, Thursday, December 25 at 9 pm ET/PT.
The Life of Adam and Eve, The Book of Enoch, The Book of Jubilees, The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, The Gospel of Mary, The Apocalypse of Peter...these are just a few of the books that were left out of the Bible. The reasons why they were excluded provide astonishing insight into the concerns of church leaders and scholars responsible for spreading the faith an illuminating look at early Christian and religious history.
One hundred and fifty years after the birth of Jesus, a man named Marcion decided that a Christian Bible was needed to replace the Hebrew Bible. Church leaders opposed Marcion's banning of the Hebrew books, but they did agree that Christians should have a Bible to call their own. After Constantine the Great converted to Christianity in the 4th century, a serious effort was made to compile a Christian Bible, one that included both the Hebrew scriptures (the Old Testament) and Christian manuscripts (the New Testament). It took another 40 years before a final list of New Testament books was officially canonized by the church. Many of the most popular were excluded. Upon examination today, many of these writings attempt to resolve inconsistencies and questions raised from reading the Bible.
BANNED FROM THE BIBLE examines the stories in some of these books, how they were rediscovered and what they might mean to us today. Included are:
* The Life of Adam and Eve: A more detailed story of creation than what is found in Genesis, this book includes jealous angels, a more devious serpent, and more information about Eve's fall from grace from her point of view.
* The Book of Jubilees: This obscure Hebrew text offers an answer to a question that has vexed Christians for centuries -- if Adam and Eve only had sons, and if no other humans existed, who gave birth to humanity? This text reveals that Adam and Eve had nine children and that Cain's younger sister Awan became his wife. The idea that humanity was born of incest would have been radical -- and heretical.
* The Book of Enoch: This scripture reads like a modern day action film, telling of fallen angels, bloodthirsty giants, an earth that had become home to an increasingly flawed humanity and a divine judgment to be rendered though denied a place in most Western Bibles; it has been used for centuries by Ethiopian Christians. Large portions of this book were found as part of the Dead Sea Scrolls.
* The Infancy Gospel of Thomas: The only book that deals with young Jesus, it indicates that Jesus was a strong-willed child who one historian describes as "Dennis the Menace as God." The book reveals that at age five, Jesus may have killed a boy by pushing push him off a roof and then resurrected him. Perhaps too disturbing for inclusion in the Bible, this book seems to contain traditions, also known to the Koran.
* The Protovangelion of James: This book offers details of the life of the Virgin Mary, her parents, her birth and her youth, stories not found in the New Testament Gospels but was beloved by many early Christians.
* The Gospel of Mary: This Gnostic Text reveals that Mary Magdalene may have been an apostle, perhaps even a leading apostle, not a prostitute. While some texts in the Bible seem to deny women a voice in the Christian community, this texts helps spark the debate about the role of women in the church.
* The Gospel of Nicodemus: This is the story of Jesus's trial and execution and his descent into hell. According to this gospel the Savior asserts his power over Satan by freeing patriarchs such as Adam, Isaiah and Abraham from Hell.
* The Apocalypse of Peter: Peter's apocalypse suggests that there is a way out of punishment for evildoers and implies that the threat of the apocalypse is a way for God to scare people into living a moral life, and committing fewer sins.
These books are just a sampling of the hundreds that were never included in the Holy Bible. Perhaps there are more to be found. Whether one believes these alternative stories or not, they do provide an interesting perspective of the religious culture and propensities of the time.
BANNED FROM THE BIBLE features commentary from Bible experts and historians including Marvin Meyer, PhD, Professor of Bible and Christian Studies, Chapman University; Daniel Smith-Christopher, Ph.D, Professor of Religious Studies, Bluffton College; Anthea Butler, Ph.D, Department of Theological Studies Loyola Marymount University; and John Dominic Crossan, Ph.D, Professor Emeritus, DePaul University.
Both incidents happened. One apostle remembered the order differently than the other...hardly a contradiction. More like a glitch in the reporter's memory. These were eyewitnesses, who remember WHAT they saw, not necessarily when. As if the NYT, Wall Street Journal and The Jerusalem Post always get the order correct.
Besides the fig tree/money changers is a BIG, IMPORTANT occurance in Biblical history. /sarc
With all due respect, you should investigate the Roman Catholic Church, which is simultaneously the most hard-headedly realistic AND the most mystical of the Christian Churches. I did, converted, and don't regret it for a second.
I have, and it doesn't work for me. But for the hundreds of millions who are happy with it, more power to them.
I don't view the various denominations of Christianity as competing teams where only one is the true Church. Finding one that is personally helpful to you in your search for truth is the important thing. That might be Catholic or it might be evangelical.
The various flavors of Christianity differ on the details.
In other words, it really isn't important whether Mark is right concerning the chronological order, or whether Matthew is.
I would have to agree.
The thing is, there seem to be quite a few people out there who believe, and insist, that the Bible is literally true, and every word came from God, and it's 100% consistent, and 100% inerrant.
And if it isn't so, then the Bible is a lie.
And if you don't believe things their way, then obviously you're "deceived."
These particular passages could cause some major indigestion for the Bibilical literalist point of view.
The History Channel's unending attempt to try and discredit Christianity and the Bible. They are up to it all the time. I learned long ago that if the History Channel is about to do a program on God, the Bible or Christianity..turn the idiot box off and go pray. You're better off. While they do show the positive side, they always play devil's advocate and try to cast doubt in each program.
If anyone doubts the Bible so much that they give credit to the mythical stories of the Gnostic "gospels" then they don't belong in traditional Christianity, IMO. Go join some New Age church.
Who would believe that Jesus would kill a boy by throwing him off a roof? Who would believe that the souls of Isaiah and Abraham were in Hell and that Jesus had to battle Satan over their souls? The men that canonized the Bible knew which books belonged in Scripture because the previoius fathers of the Church had handed it down to them.
There wasn't some big conspiracy to hide these gnostic books. Read the early Church Fathers and their reasons for abolishing them.
GENESIS
GOD: Write this down.
MAN: OK.
GOD: On the first epoch, God created ...
MAN: (interrupting) Pardon, sir; what's an epoch?
GOD: Hmm, do you know what a day is?
MAN: Sure.
GOD: Just put down "day." They'll figure it out later.
"You think because you make a blanket statement as being all gnostic that is the end of it! "
My, my touchy touchy or is it a confused and guilty conscience?
My statement is basically the end of it, these manuscripts have been throughly and competently debunked starting with the early Christian church fathers. Get over it.
These types of programs are done for one reason and one reason only, to discredit Christianity any way they can.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
There is nothing touchy here nor is this about discrediting Christianity.
if you had read my post #2 this is about learning. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1650870/posts?page=2#2
I am so grounded in my Lord I have no fear of sorting out things that are of the Lord and not!
The more one seeks, ponder and prays the closer one is to the Lord because you know the Lord better and form a deeper bond!
Learning what? That men from ages ago were as good at making things up then as they are now? No thanks.
INTREP
Actually, with the exception of the Infancy Narrative of Thomas and the Gospel of Mary, most of these books were thought highly of by Early Christians. (I am quite unfamiliar with the Book of Adam and Eve.) Some, such as the Book of Jubilees (also called the Revelations of Moses) and the [First] Book of Enoch are quoted by Jesus in the New Testament!
By the fourth century, however, they are largely ignored or rejected. It is these books which St. Jerome refers to when he slams the "apocrypha." The books which the Protestants call "apocrypha," Jerome defends bitterly, saying he separated them only because he had no Hebrew to work from, quite understandable, since his bible was a translation from Hebrew. Those who say he did not accept their authenticity, he calls "fools and slanderers."
It is hard to tell whether certain apocrypha are sources of Catholic tradition or not. They certainly include stories found in Catholic and Orthodox tradition, but they seem to represent each tradition separately a little too clearly to be sources, and not mimics, or tradition.
>> A committee decided that and if they had made different decisions the Bible would be different. <<
Yes, but if zebras flew...
The "committee," guaranteed within the gospels not to disseminate false doctrine, looked to very sound criteria. The "tough calls" (Apocalypse of St. Peter, the oddly omitted Didache, etc.) were also those which contained no false teaching. "The Gospel of Mary [Magdeline]," and the "Gospel of Thomas" (not the Infancy Narrative, which is merely wierd) are such outrageous howlers that it is disgusting and preposterous to mention them in the same context as biblical books.
>> I mean, honest to goodness, if the "gospel" proclaimed by Dan Brown is really the gospel, then who cares? "Sex is good." Wow, Newsflash! "It's nice to be nice to the nice." <<
Actually, the irony is that the gospel Brown quotes declares that all sex is evil, that YHWH is an evil demigod, and that creation itself was an evil act. Gnosticism is so patently Satanic that it is scarecely unrecognizable from the Vampires' view of the universe from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." And yes, some gnostics even worshipped those they believed to be vampires, such as Cain.
If you were to study ancient beliefs of Satan, and then create a "religion" from his point of view, it would be damned close to gnosticism.
>> There's no way to know objectively. I think they may have gotten most of it right. I have serious doubts about Revelation. It's goofy and it's caused major heartache among believers who think they've somehow unraveled veiled prophecies. <<
No, actually it IS possible to know objectively. The early Christians DID leave records as to believed what, why they left books out, etc. There were some cases where there was some confusion among the early Christians about what was authentic, true, or spirit-filled, and these ambiguities are also clearly recorded in history. But these "hard cases" would not have changed Catholicism that much. (Not sure what they would have done to Protestantism, given the Sola Scriptura doctrine... When you consider the weak grasps at straws which underlie modern, invented doctrines such as are found in Left Behind, zionks! What would they have done with "The Shepherd of Hermes"?!)
Song of Solomon is fantastically inspired! Perhaps you are reading it in a different light; it's almost pure metaphor. "He" is Christ; "She" is the Church.
>> The Bible is work of inspired men, but fallible men. If God wanted to shoot us a copy of His actual manual, I don't think that would be a problem for him. He hasn't done that. <<
Which means:
1. God is a failure, not onmipotent, not all-knowing, not and all-loving.
2. God gave us enough when he gave us the Church and the bible.
Actually, many chronological inconsistencies are the result simply of bad translation. Some passages which read, in English, as "Later," actually should be translated, "Another time." The ordering of events of the gospels was not based on chronological sequence, but a systematic explanation of themes.
I don't really want to argue, but if different books had been chosen for inclusion into the Bible, different "truths" would be Biblical.
I fail to see to see why only those in third and fourth centuries had the ability to decide what would be included in the Bible. And why their decisions can never be second-guessed.
Why can't more books be added to Bible today?
It's this weird reverence to history that is somewhat puzzling to me.
We agree it wasn't dictated by God. We agree that it was compiled by men.
We agree that there are translation errors.
Many people will argue that every single word is inspired and infallible. Their belief is okay with me, but I don't subscribe to it.
"I fail to see to see why only those in third and fourth centuries had the ability to decide what would be included in the Bible. And why their decisions can never be second-guessed.
Why can't more books be added to Bible today?
It's this weird reverence to history that is somewhat puzzling to me.
We agree it wasn't dictated by God. We agree that it was compiled by men.
We agree that there are translation errors.
Many people will argue that every single word is inspired and infallible. Their belief is okay with me, but I don't subscribe to it."
***
I think our common sence will help to see if what those other works are saying is it contrary to good, or is because it might be contrary to a set doctrine of men.
God had always reminded us His ways are not our ways nor our understanding!
Because we have a tendency to evaluate from Earth limintations the laws of physics etec. I believe many times the Lord trys to elevate our thougths, but it could be contrary to traditional religion of men?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.