You're right I do look silly. I should have said Dead Sea scrolls. But then again we are talking about actual historical evidence for someone who was born of a virgin mother, performed miracles, was tortured, crucified and then stabbed with a spear, entombed and then rose from the dead. Then forgave everybody for all the evil in the world and all the bad things that had been done to him. I would appear to be in good company Most people discussing religion are outside there comfort zone. It's a good place to learn. Staying comfortable just leads to stagnation. With that said, so far as I know at least 2 volumes of the scrolls were still to be scanned or photographed for analysis. I haven't seen anything that says that work is complete. The completed scrolls are still hotly debated and not without controversy. They were initially translated and deciphered under a "secrecy rule" with limited access even to the high resolution photographs. Some of the scrolls are now held by privet collectors in the USA. While others are held by various institutions in Israel. So what was it about Jesus and the early Christians we weren't allowed to know? Why the secrecy?
Well guys, I feel like I've upset some of you by asking questions even though I didn't mean to. I'll stop posting on this thread.
Red Sea, Dead Sea -- that wasn't confusing. The silly thing is you thinking those "gospels" have any bearing on Christianity. That's laughably ridiculous. They were written too late. They blatantly fail the test. We might as well take The Shack, written a few years back, and start printing the newspaper headline: "Breaking scientific news: God is a black woman!" and begin the body of the article with, "Anthropologists recently uncovered a shocking new writing that proves that some Christians thought God was a woman from the southeastern USA. The repercussions on the Roman Catholic Church have yet to be measured, but top Vatican officials are denying it as mere fiction. Meanwhile, scholars at ..." You know? Maybe it's just to keep tabloids from making up even more silliness. They go crazy as it is.
Of course I might be wrong. The best I can do is hitch onto the guesses of people who know more than me.
Of course it is. Silly me. Christianity arrived in the world fully formed. Although all three gospels, genuine or not are dated between the later half of the 1st century to the second century. Yes. These gospels were never used. Ever. They arrived in the world far to late to be relevant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_thomas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Peter
Well I did an A level in religious studies (and a huge amount of informal study - known your enemy and all) and I've never heard anyone say that John was the earliest Gospel. Indeed if you examine the language and typography etc (there's a word for what I mean but I;ve had a few beers and can't think of it) there are a lot of similarities between the Gospel of John and Revelations. It seems likely that both books were late additions.
You know the test, Wolfie: eye witnesses. It's an easy test. You're welcome to join the other religions, but you're being very rude and arrogant to insist that they can't impose an eye witness test for their own canon.
I had never heard that some of the scrolls were translated but the information on them was never released. Very interesting.
What? Where did that come from? Who said they couldn't impose an eye witness test? The gospels were originally transmitted orally as was the Jewish tradition at the time which the early Christians followed. Because the first Christians were simply another sect of the Jewish faith. The gospel of Mark is supposedly the teachings of Peter. Mark being Peters scribe. An eye witness account then. The gospel of Luke however is considered to have been based on the gospel of Mark and possibly the gospel of the Hebrews. With only the later portion being an eye witness account. Absolutely none of which detracts from the fact that there were other writings in use in early Christianity that were considered scripture. But were later banned as heretical. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_gospels I haven't been rude. Christianity simply wasn't born as perfectly formed as you seem to think it was.
Depends on whom you ask. I went through it all and joined the group saying there's way better evidence that Mark did not write first, but, whatever. No no no, that's not what I'm picking on you for. We all know there lots and lots of "epistles" and whatnot that did not make the canon. I have a book with some of them on my bedroom shelf even. I'm picking on you for this statement (post 57): "Sooner or later scholars are going to have to decide if these [non-canonical writings] are the real deal or not. Which if they are will change the Christian church forever." You're late. Been there, done that, read and discussed, failed the test, everyone got a t-shirt and went home basically 1600 years ago. How do you think I got to have a book on my shelf? Schools offer classes on these writings, both the "Church Fathers" and the "gnostics" alike. It's all been done already. That was my point.
Well what can I say. If they can't even agree on Mark, then why discount Mary or Peter or Thomas or anybody else? A book on your shelf doesn't mean the debate has been settled. It just means somebody wrote a book. Buying a book on these matters is like buy the complete box set of a series of movies. And then they go and make a new movie. The debate amongst the scholars clearly continues. If the gospel of Mary were to be accepted as a genuine gospel or an authoritative representation of Jesus, his life and the early Christians then it would change the church. The gospel of Mary challenges the assertion Mary was a prostitute, it makes the case for leadership by women, challenges the romantic view of the early Christians and calls into question the very basis of church authority. The gospel of Mary is a very powerful and potentially damaging document considering it's content. It's not hard to see why a patriarchal church would dismiss it and ban it's use.
Right -- because it was not written by Mary Magdalene, nor was it written in the right time period, nor was it written by anyone who knew Jesus. Sheesh. I'm waiting for you to promote The Shack as canonical.
The Gospel of Mary was discovered in 5th century codex. Given that the only way to preserve and distribute books at the time was to copy them over and over again by hand. I don't see how this discounts anything. One scholar believes the original to have been written at the time of Christ while most others believe it was written in the 2nd century. Considering a good number of the pages are missing and a lot of it is in fragments. To even get a date that close is pretty close. Now the gospel of Matthew is canonical. But today is considered by many to have been written by a non-eyewitness. Seems like double standards to me if the eyewitness test is so important.
Most biblical scholars believe the only firsthand documents in the Bible are Paul's letters and maybe the Gospel of John, so the fact that the Gospel of Mary almost certainly isn't a primary source isn't a problem for it. That said, it was almost certainly never part of the Christian mainstream in its own time (whatever time that was, probably several decades after the writing of the Canonic Gospels), so I don't see how the fact that some of it disagrees with modern mainstream Christianity presents a real problem for Christianity.
Because it adds weight to the arguments for greater and fairer roles for women in the Christian church. Which is dominated by men. So how many non-biblical sources are there for the existence of Jesus?
I'm not sure. From what I've heard, historians are fairly certain there was a man called jesus who gathered a large followin around 2 thousand years ago. This issue for, as it seems to be for most people, including scientists and the like, is how much evidence is there that he was the son of "god" or did half the things they say he did. Of that, there's been none.
Except most mainstream Protestant denominations already allow women to take on any role that can be taken on by a man. There's really no scandal here unless you're a Catholic or a fundamentalist (and in that case this hardly makes things any worse than they already are).
That's not the impression I have. So far as I know there are only a few vague references to Christus or Christ. Which is a title and not a name. But no actual reference to Jesus.
