Posted on 04/09/2018 2:54:53 PM PDT by pcottraux
Banned from the Bible? (Run time: about 1 hour 25 minutes).
This is the final class in a 12-part series on the archaeological evidence supporting the Bible.
This class is about the common idea that the New Testament is "incomplete," and that there are certain books telling us a different story about Jesus that were banned by the church.
I discuss in length many historical misconceptions from Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code" as well as other books that have misrepresented the birth of the Christian church.
I also go into the controversial idea that Christian story of Jesus is somehow "borrowed" from other ancient pagan religions from the time.
There, you can sign up for the weekly email list, or let me know if you want on or off the FR ping list.
Thanks for watching, and God bless!
UPC or AOG?
Ping.
bump
Personally, I’m Church of God although my wife grew up in the Assemblies. Although my blog started out as heavily Pentecostal-biased, now I tend to write on general Christian principles or apologetics. On Twitter I’ve got a pretty big and diverse following; Baptists, Catholics, and even a few Muslims enjoy reading it!
Thank you!
Not banned.
Simply found lacking.
We need a your opinion on this.
But I see your point.
Why, because humblegunner hates bloggers?
Which I totally understand. I realize that click-baiting can be a problem, but I make sure to post my entire blog and not just excerpts with links. Also, I don’t make any money from teaching or writing, I do it purely for the love of educating people about the Word of God or getting a lively theological discussion going.
...or, unless you think humblegunner has an opinion over whether the 2nd-century gnostic texts should have been included in the New Testament—in which case, I can’t speak for him.
I watched it or something very similar a year or two ago.
The title was misleading. They simply studied the documents and chose the ones they thought were genuine. That means the others were not so much banned as just not included.
The title was pure marketing! Get your ire you up & get you to watch.
Revelation was written before the 90’s according to you I guess?
I don’t think we should sic humblegunner on pcottraux. I appreciate his postings here. Good quality, and he appears to be looking to educate, not get clicks, IMO.
Okay - thanks. I’m a Messianic Jew myself.
‘But the 27 books were written before 70 AD’
that is up for debate...it’s entirely possible that none of the Gospels and Revelation predated 70 AD...
I acknowledge that Revelation (and Hebrews) not being part of the 4 gospels or Pauline epistles, there was some hesitancy in canonizing them, which just testifies to how careful the Early Church was in filtering out frauds. But yes, I do think they both pre-date the 90s and are rightfully included in the New Testament.
I just read a fascinating book entitled “Jesus and the Jewish Festivals”...it put all of Jesus’ sermons, claims, and debates with the Pharisees in proper historical context. Learned a lot about ancient early first-century Judaism that I didn’t know, and it’s amazing how much Jesus’ activities revolved around Jewish festivals, especially during harvest season.
This is true. What are clicks to me? An ego boost? :)
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.