|
28089. Wombat - 3/26/2006 5:08:42 AM Adam Selene: A real blast from the past. 28090. arkymalarky - 3/26/2006 5:12:05 AM Ain't it though.
But give up on refresh, Adam. The vcr buttons are your friends. 28091. judithathome - 3/26/2006 6:39:46 AM Adam, if you MUST refresh, go back to the front page and do it...don't do it on the thread you've just posted on...
It is not going to be fixed, trust me. You have to adjust. ;-)
And another thing, on weekends, this place is not busy at all. It is a rare thing to have your posts answered within an hour, much less within minutes. 28092. jexster - 3/26/2006 4:45:54 PM Last week's TPMC Book Club featured Kevin Phillips and his best-selling American Theocracy
There was a gaggle of various commentator/reviewers and load of comments on the comments all of which can be found starting here
Consensus: Just say no to snake chunkers (Earl Long's)
28093. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/26/2006 5:27:13 PM 
28094. Jenerator - 3/26/2006 5:42:55 PM Adam,
They're not new. Plus, they're required reading for us in school (at Christian universities and seminaries).
I find most of them to be rambling esoteric sayings that have no coherency and consistency. 28095. Adam Selene - 3/26/2006 7:33:36 PM Hi Jen,
Since this is Sunday, the day that St. Constantine decided that Christians should worship on instead of the Jewish Sabbath (Saturday) in order to coincide with "Sun"Day, the Roman day of worship for the Sun god... it's appropriate to talk a little heresay, eh? :)
I guess "new" is relative. The Nag Hammadi gospels were discovered in December 1945 and the English translation I'm reading, by Marvin Meyer, was first published last year (Harper Collins.)
What is the official stance of the Christion community on these writings? They're arguably older than the new testement gospels and have had no chance to be doctored or amended since they sat in that stone urn for 1900 years. There are definitely nuances and outright contradictions between these gospels and the canonical gospels (not that the canonical gospels are anything close to being internally consistent themselves.)
One Passage I found especially iconoclastic is in The Gospel of Philip:
The companion of the savior is Mary of Magdala.("Companion" was often a euphamism for wife, by the way.) The savior loved her more than all the disciples, and he kissed her often on the mouth.
The other disciples said to him, "why do you love her more than all of us?"
The savior answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her? If a blind person and one who can see are both in darkness, they are the same. The the light comes, one who can see will see the light, and the blind person will stay in darkness." 28096. Adam Selene - 3/26/2006 7:36:24 PM Ok, so his answer is a bit cryptic - but what else would befit a good parable? ;) 28097. judithathome - 3/26/2006 7:43:03 PM What does that cryptic answer mean, though? That he once liked the farm but after seeing the city, he'll never go back? 28098. Adam Selene - 3/26/2006 7:51:00 PM Your guess is as good as mine, since the Pope hasn't told us yet what it's supposed to mean. :) (Sorry.. feeling a bit of the mischievous iconoclast myself, today.) 28099. judithathome - 3/26/2006 8:11:58 PM No need to apologize to me...I'm an atheist! ;-) 28100. jexster - 3/26/2006 8:18:06 PM Is Jen a Baylor Bearette from Wacko Tejas??
Tom DeLay U 28101. jexster - 3/26/2006 8:20:04 PM God set fire to Tejas.
Wonder why?
Me ..when times comes that I am not in a mischievous mood, call first priest, the undertaker..I'm outta here 28102. anomie - 3/26/2006 8:50:00 PM "...and he kissed her often on the mouth."
Adam, according to an A&E show I watched recently, the quote above is conjecture. The text ends before the phrase "on the mouth". If that's true, then we can't be sure where he kissed her exactly.
28103. Adam Selene - 3/26/2006 9:11:59 PM From my new translation: square brackets indicate textual restorations.
Here's the way that section actually reads: The [savior loved] her more than [all] the disciples, [and he] kissed her often on her [mouth].
The translater, Marvin Meyer, is the Grisit Professor of Bible and Christion Studies and director of the Albert Schweitzer Institute at Chapmen University, Orange, California. (via the book jacket.) 28104. Adam Selene - 3/26/2006 9:18:41 PM BTW, I'm a babtist atheist, and my wife is a catholic athiest. There must be a specific god that you don't believe in, right? ;) 28105. SnowOwl - 3/26/2006 9:41:59 PM Not for me. I'm an any and all gods atheist. 28106. Jenerator - 3/26/2006 10:00:22 PM Hello to you Adam. It's been awhile since I have seen your moniker.
Since this is Sunday, the day that St. Constantine decided that Christians should worship on instead of the Jewish Sabbath (Saturday) in order to coincide with "Sun"Day, the Roman day of worship for the Sun god... it's appropriate to talk a little heresay, eh? :)
Actually, Christians decided to worship on Sunday before Constantine. He formally recognized what the early believers had practiced for 300 years prior. Of course this is being general, there were the Messianic Christians who still held to the Sabbath.
I guess "new" is relative. The Nag Hammadi gospels were discovered in December 1945 and the English translation I'm reading, by Marvin Meyer, was first published last year (Harper Collins.)
And there are the various writings that we have from the early church fathers defending the faith against the Gnostics...
What is the official stance of the Christion community on these writings?
That's they're Gnostic.
They're arguably older than the new testement gospels and have had no chance to be doctored or amended since they sat in that stone urn for 1900 years.
That's not true - the dates have been debated vigorously and from what I have seen and read most scholars believe that the texts are newer than the Gospels.
There are definitely nuances and outright contradictions between these gospels and the canonical gospels (not that the canonical gospels are anything close to being internally consistent themselves.)
Okay...?
One Passage I found especially iconoclastic is in The Gospel of Philip:
The companion of the savior is Mary of Magdala.("Companion" was often a euphamism for wife, by the way.) The savior loved her more than all the disciples, and he kissed her often on the mouth.
The other disciples said to him, "why do you love her more than all of us?"
The savior answered and said to them, "Why do I not love you like her? If a blind person and one who can see are both in darkness, they are the same. The the light comes, one who can see will see the light, and the blind person will stay in darkness."
Does that speak to you?
28107. judithathome - 3/26/2006 10:33:28 PM God set fire to Tejas
No, Jex, assholes burning trash illegally and people throwing cigarette butts from cars, all during an extended drought, have set fire to Texas. God had nothing to do with it and probably doesn't care one whit that it's happened. 28108. Jenerator - 3/26/2006 11:18:23 PM Judith,
Do you realize that by addressing Jexster you are encouraging spam!? Now we're going to hear about how Katrina was an act of God and how Saint So and So of Jexster's church was venerated today and the Latin mass!!
(again)
|
