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

[_Draig Goch]

Sorry, didn't mean to derail.

My badness.

[_harmony]

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.

My point exactly, Jersey Girl, which is why I worded it the way I did. What we call scripture is not necessarily God's words at all. It's traditions, stories passed from generation to generation until someone finally figured out how to write it down on a scroll, myths whose formulating event is obscured by the fog of time so that the event itself is questionable.

[_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.

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)

We can only do our best to understand as much as we can and pray that the important stuff that we miss the Spirit can help us with. Of course, that's not what our scholarship is about, which is why we've never claimed to know exactly what happened. In scholarship we just have the blessing of being able to bring a different perspective to the table.

[_Jersey Girl]

Sorry, didn't mean to derail.

My badness.

No! Not at all! If you'd like to resurrect the other thread though go ahead!

[_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.

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.

I can't believe you just said that. Maybe no scholars at BYU would doubt that, and maybe no Biblical scholars at other Christian institutes of higher education would doubt that, but "no" scholars? You're taking ethnocentricism to a new level, Mak. The debate about Jesus' existence ebbs and flows, but the hoopdedo about the supposed James estuary is just one manifestation of the lengths that supposedly sane individuals will go to, just to establish without a doubt that he did indeed live. If you don't know this, I'm seriously doubting the breadth of your education.

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.

The two are connected, Mak. And the same skeptisms apply to both: myths, not facts. My favorite scriptures are in the New Testament, but even I recognize that it's stories, myths, fables with lessons attached, not facts, not history. When people take it for truth, for facts, we end up with wars and crusades and equally foolish real history based on myths.

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

Please document this.

You just did. You said Egyptians believed in eternal marriage. Mormons believe in eternal marriage. CYCLES! (in case you missed the irony... it's just dripping from the screen right now)

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.

Well, we can be sure it didn't include Young Women's, Relief Society, deacons collecting Fast Offerings on Fast Sunday, the Word of Wisdom (especially the no alcohol part), mandatory missions, and buying shopping malls. You just made my point, Mak. IF Joseph really had restored the ancient church, the LDS church would look completely different than it does, instead of looking like a knockoff of the Protestant and Catholic churches down the road.

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?

He restored the ancient Egyptian church? Holy smokes. Somebody better tell the Jews they're off the hook.

[_richardMdBorn]

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.

The Council of Nicea did not discuss the canon. It discussed Arianism.

[_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.

The Council of Nicea did not discuss the canon. It discussed Arianism.

richard,

Are you saying that the decisions made at Nicea did not lead to selection of the canon?

[_maklelan]

I can't believe you just said that. Maybe no scholars at BYU would doubt that, and maybe no Biblical scholars at other Christian institutes of higher education would doubt that, but "no" scholars? You're taking ethnocentricism to a new level, Mak. The debate about Jesus' existence ebbs and flows, but the hoopdedo about the supposed James estuary is just one manifestation of the lengths that supposedly sane individuals will go to, just to establish without a doubt that he did indeed live. If you don't know this, I'm seriously doubting the breadth of your education.

1. Please provide the name and institution of one scholar who does not believe Jesus existed at all.

2. It's ossuary, not estuary, and it was made to make money, not to prove Jesus existed.

3. You can stop insinuating that you're more educated than me in regards to biblical studies.

The two are connected, Mak. And the same skeptisms apply to both: myths, not facts. My favorite scriptures are in the New Testament, but even I recognize that it's stories, myths, fables with lessons attached, not facts, not history. When people take it for truth, for facts, we end up with wars and crusades and equally foolish real history based on myths.

So please provide documentation that the pericopes in the New Testament are all myths.

You just did. You said Egyptians believed in eternal marriage. Mormons believe in eternal marriage. CYCLES! (in case you missed the irony... it's just dripping from the screen right now)

But that information was lost to the world until long after Joseph Smith recycled it. Explain that.

Well, we can be sure it didn't include Young Women's, Relief Society, deacons collecting Fast Offerings on Fast Sunday, the Word of Wisdom (especially the no alcohol part), mandatory missions, and buying shopping malls. You just made my point, Mak. IF Joseph really had restored the ancient church, the LDS church would look completely different than it does, instead of looking like a knockoff of the Protestant and Catholic churches down the road.

None of that has ever been purported to be a restoration of anything.

He restored the ancient Egyptian church? Holy smokes. Somebody better tell the Jews they're off the hook.

I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. It doesn't substantiate your initial claim or refute my evidence.

[_maklelan]

"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.

That's a good description of our beliefs concerning the apostasy.

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.

That Jesus was an individual that actually lived and actually performed miracles and actually shared the gospel. I believe this because all of the textual information available to us says that he did live and did do these things.

To deny the actuality of miracles on the grounds that they cannot be explained by science is to arrogate to the human mind omniscience by saying whatever cannot be understood by the human mind cannot be. That's a quote from James Talmage, by the way. To say miracles are impossible is to claim all knowledge for yourself. Do you wish to make that claim?

[_Gazelam]

Heres a great link to all sorts of religious writeings from around the world, includeing gnostic and apocryphal writeings:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/gno/index.htm

Also, heres how some of the gnostic/apocryphal gospels were voted on when the Bible was put together:

http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml

Sorry, but its late and I have to go to bed. Hopefuly I can add something to this thread soon. Thanks for starting it.

Gaz