|
28081. arkymalarky - 3/26/2006 12:33:41 AM That was not to Anomie's post, but to the italics issue. 28082. anomie - 3/26/2006 12:38:15 AM Sorry. Don't know how to play wth the "toys". 28083. arkymalarky - 3/26/2006 12:42:13 AM That's been up there several days, but hardly anyone posted since the open tag(s). 28084. Adam Selene - 3/26/2006 4:33:38 AM Anyone here read the gnostic gospels of Jesus? I've almost finished it... amazing.
If you dont' know - these are the "new" gospels discovered in 1945, written in coptic (nearly modern heiroglypics) and dated to be circa 100-200Ad. In other words, as old or older than the "true" gospels. These writings put christianity in a whole new light and really highlight how the catholic church cherry-picked the books they wanted to focus on their interpretation. The one by Mary Magdelen and another that mentions Jesus kissing Mary... wow.
Basically - gnostic versions of christianity focus on self-knowledge of god and do not require a priest to mediate. Much like the "modern" protestent movement, but even more radical if you can believe it.
Anyway - I'm really wondering how the new translations are playing with the religious conservatives? Are these new gospels even acknowledged? 28085. Adam Selene - 3/26/2006 4:35:57 AM Anyone here read the gnostic gospels of Jesus? I've almost finished it... amazing.
If you dont' know - these are the "new" gospels discovered in 1945, written in coptic (nearly modern heiroglypics) and dated to be circa 100-200Ad. In other words, as old or older than the "true" gospels. These writings put christianity in a whole new light and really highlight how the catholic church cherry-picked the books they wanted to focus on their interpretation. The one by Mary Magdelen and another that mentions Jesus kissing Mary... wow.
Basically - gnostic versions of christianity focus on self-knowledge of god and do not require a priest to mediate. Much like the "modern" protestent movement, but even more radical if you can believe it.
Anyway - I'm really wondering how the new translations are playing with the religious conservatives? Are these new gospels even acknowledged? 28086. Adam Selene - 3/26/2006 4:38:14 AM Anyone here read the gnostic gospels of Jesus? I've almost finished it... amazing.
If you dont' know - these are the "new" gospels discovered in 1945, written in coptic (nearly modern heiroglypics) and dated to be circa 100-200Ad. In other words, as old or older than the "true" gospels. These writings put christianity in a whole new light and really highlight how the catholic church cherry-picked the books they wanted to focus on their interpretation. The one by Mary Magdelen and another that mentions Jesus kissing Mary... wow.
Basically - gnostic versions of christianity focus on self-knowledge of god and do not require a priest to mediate. Much like the "modern" protestent movement, but even more radical if you can believe it.
Anyway - I'm really wondering how the new translations are playing with the religious conservatives? Are these new gospels even acknowledged? 28087. Adam Selene - 3/26/2006 4:39:40 AM Anyone here read the gnostic gospels of Jesus? I've almost finished it... amazing.
If you dont' know - these are the "new" gospels discovered in 1945, written in coptic (nearly modern heiroglypics) and dated to be circa 100-200Ad. In other words, as old or older than the "true" gospels. These writings put christianity in a whole new light and really highlight how the catholic church cherry-picked the books they wanted to focus on their interpretation. The one by Mary Magdelen and another that mentions Jesus kissing Mary... wow.
Basically - gnostic versions of christianity focus on self-knowledge of god and do not require a priest to mediate. Much like the "modern" protestent movement, but even more radical if you can believe it.
Anyway - I'm really wondering how the new translations are playing with the religious conservatives? Are these new gospels even acknowledged? 28088. Adam Selene - 3/26/2006 4:40:42 AM so I hit refresh to see if anyone's posted... and get duplicates of my last post. This sucks.
Fix please. 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
|
