For EE & Jersey Girl..Continued Conversation re. Gnostic Gospels

[_Jersey Girl]

Enuma Elish,

I have a few questions and will likely only be asking questions on this thread for as I stated at the beginning, I'm far out of my depth...yet I am teachable ;-)

1. In your post you refer to LDS scholars. What LDS scholars should I be looking for when I search for material regarding connections between LDS theology and Gnostiscm?

2. Vegas mentions FARMS. What is the relationship between Hugh Nibley and FARMS? Was he considered an LDS scholar?

3. In my opening comments, I mentioned seeing references to Gnosticsm by LDS online apologists. How much of an impact do you think LDS online apologists have on the LDS community as a group?

4. Do you think that the LDS community as a group, is influenced by LDS scholars and how so?

[_Jersey Girl]

My goodness, I just realized that I need to get my head back into the Gnostics for this and I am without resources since a computer crash. Not to worry!

If I am not mistaken, the LDS online Apologists (LOA-LOL) frequently use the Gospel of Thomas to support the idea that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, even though the treatment of Mary in the Gospel of Thomas does not appear to have much in common with the attitude towards women represented in the New Testament. On this count, I think there is some relationship between Vegas' assertions and the work of LOA's. (I just coined a new acronym which will sweep the web like nobody's business!) Some of the LOA's publish through FARMS do they not?

Vegas where are you?

Jersey Girl

[_harmony]

Okay, I'm trying... trying very hard, to be fair. But y'all are making some huge assumptions here.

1. We cannot say with any level of confidence that Jesus even lived, let alone what his childhood was like, if he was married, or if he was what the Bible claims he was. Until we have that fact established, we're not talking facts, history, or any combination thereof. We're talking faith, religion, myth... not facts.

2. We know that many stories pre-dated the Old Testament, stories of floods, stars, comets, etc. In other words, myths. Virtually every civilization since man began has their stories and myths. Why do we treat some myths as myth, yet our stories, our myths, are facts? Jehovah was one God in many, used by some ancients to give meaning to their lives. A myth created to explain the unexplainable. Just like the myth of Coyote or Bear.

3. Doctrines recur over and over throughout time. We cycle. Everything old is new again. Joseph didn't hit on anything new; he used other people's ideas old and new, his own fantasies, and ideas of his cohorts. He revised over and over again, added, adjusted, subtracted. He made adjustments up until he died. And lo and behold... we've had so few adjustments since then, a person would think the heavens had closed up. The idea that the LDS church is a restoration is just ludicrous, especially since the LDS church doesn't look anything like the ancient church. If Joseph was really restoring the ancient church, it would look like it!

4. I hope you're going to document that paragraph, Mak. You've got so many allegations and assumptions in there, surely you've got some documentation to show where you're getting this stuff. Surely you can show where you get the idea that Joseph knew about ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts, knew what was written in the Book of the Dead, knew the doctrines of ancient Egypt regarding marriage, etc. and he connected them to create LDS doctrine . I'd really like to see where you're getting that (outside of from thin air, of course).

[_maklelan]

So....in your view...are the gospels which are included in the New Testament fact or principled fiction?

As far as it is translated correctly and has survived intact, I believe they are as honest an account as a human being can recall. I believe that all transcription of scripture has to pass through an imperfect conduit that can sometimes interpret and forget and do other human things. I believe the events are real, but we don't have the resources to be able to figure out whether or not any of their memories or perceptions were perfectly accurate.

[_Jersey Girl]

So....in your view...are the gospels which are included in the New Testament fact or principled fiction?

As far as it is translated correctly and has survived intact, I believe they are as honest an account as a human being can recall. I believe that all transcription of scripture has to pass through an imperfect conduit that can sometimes interpret and forget and do other human things. I believe the events are real, but we don't have the resources to be able to figure out whether or not any of their memories or perceptions were perfectly accurate.

As a Latter-day Saint, how do you arrive at the correct translation of the New Testament?

Jersey Girl

(I realize that any number of these questions and comments could be deserving of their own thread)

[_Draig Goch]

As far as it is translated correctly and has survived intact, I believe they are as honest an account as a human being can recall. I believe that all transcription of scripture has to pass through an imperfect conduit that can sometimes interpret and forget and do other human things. I believe the events are real, but we don't have the resources to be able to figure out whether or not any of their memories or perceptions were perfectly accurate.

I was under the assumption that the gospels were not written by those who were actually present during christ's life, but were written years later. What were they "recalling" or "remembering"?

[_Jersey Girl]

As far as it is translated correctly and has survived intact, I believe they are as honest an account as a human being can recall. I believe that all transcription of scripture has to pass through an imperfect conduit that can sometimes interpret and forget and do other human things. I believe the events are real, but we don't have the resources to be able to figure out whether or not any of their memories or perceptions were perfectly accurate.

I was under the assumption that the gospels were not written by those who were actually present during christ's life, but were written years later. What were they "recalling" or "remembering"?

There is a thread in this forum about Dating the Gospels, perhaps you'd like to take a look? Feel free to resurrect it!

Jersey Girl

[_harmony]

As far as it is translated correctly and has survived intact, I believe they are as honest an account as a human being can recall. I believe that all transcription of scripture has to pass through an imperfect conduit that can sometimes interpret and forget and do other human things.

"imperfect conduit" = prophet. Prophets interpret, forget, and do other human things... like lie, be mistaken, be prejudiced, be unkind, misjudge, hurt, be influenced by the society and culture in which they live, and all in the name of God, while putting words in God's mouth. Men then vote on those words, decide what to keep and what to pitch out, and finally agree to accept what's left as scripture. So what we're left with is simply men, trying to make sense of their world, not necessarily God's words at all.

I believe the events are real, but we don't have the resources to be able to figure out whether or not any of their memories or perceptions were perfectly accurate.

On what do you base your belief that the events are real? Something scientific, I hope. And what events? The miracles? Raising the dead? Casting out devils? Do you even believe in devils?

If you say "feelings" or "my testimony" I cannot tell you how disappointed I'll be.

[_Jersey Girl]

harm: "imperfect conduit" = prophet. Prophets interpret, forget, and do other human things... like lie, be mistaken, be prejudiced, be unkind, misjudge, hurt, be influenced by the society and culture in which they live, and all in the name of God, while putting words in God's mouth. Men then vote on those words, decide what to keep and what to pitch out, and finally agree to accept what's left as scripture. So what we're left with is simply men, trying to make sense of their world, not necessarily God's words at all.

Jersey Girl: harm, the same could be said for the Council of Nicea regarding the Canon.

[_maklelan]

Okay, I'm trying... trying very hard, to be fair. But y'all are making some huge assumptions here.

1. We cannot say with any level of confidence that Jesus even lived, let alone what his childhood was like, if he was married, or if he was what the Bible claims he was. Until we have that fact established, we're not talking facts, history, or any combination thereof. We're talking faith, religion, myth... not facts.

Everything that we use to establish historicity testifies that Jesus existed. We have different texts from different faiths that affirm his existence. We have no text from anywhere near that time period that call him a myth. We have to go where the facts lead us (not our assumptions), and they lead us to the conclusion that he existed. What about archaeological evidence? What kind of archeological evidence do you think one man who was basically homeless left for us to find? I'm not aware of any scholars who seriously doubt that a man named Jesus of Nazareth lived.

2. We know that many stories pre-dated the Old Testament, stories of floods, stars, comets, etc. In other words, myths. Virtually every civilization since man began has their stories and myths. Why do we treat some myths as myth, yet our stories, our myths, are facts? Jehovah was one God in many, used by some ancients to give meaning to their lives. A myth created to explain the unexplainable. Just like the myth of Coyote or Bear.

We're not talking about the Old Testament, we're talking about New Testament Gospels.

3. Doctrines recur over and over throughout time. We cycle.

Please document this.

old is new again. Joseph didn't hit on anything new; he used other people's ideas old and new, his own fantasies, and ideas of his cohorts. He revised over and over again, added, adjusted, subtracted. He made adjustments up until he died. And lo and behold... we've had so few adjustments since then, a person would think the heavens had closed up. The idea that the LDS church is a restoration is just ludicrous, especially since the LDS church doesn't look anything like the ancient church. If Joseph was really restoring the ancient church, it would look like it!

And, miracle of miracles, harmony claims to actually know what the ancient CHurch looked like. Please share this documentation with us, because scholarship has been trying for literally a thousand years to figure out what the church actually looked like before the early Church Fathers got a hold of it. Please enlighten us and change the world of biblical scholarship.

Surely you can show where you get the idea that Joseph knew about ancient Egyptian Coffin Texts, knew what was written in the Book of the Dead, knew the doctrines of ancient Egypt regarding marriage, etc. and he connected them to create LDS doctrine . I'd really like to see where you're getting that (outside of from thin air, of course).

Actually the fact that he didn't know it is exactly my point, which seems to have flown a thousand miles over your head. He couldn't have known this stuff because no one on the planet knew this stuff when he was alive. If he can restore an ancient religion that was utterly unknown to everyone on the planet, what does that say about his inspiration?