Posted on 12/16/2006 5:18:34 AM PST by NYer
Last April, the National Geographic Society made headlines with a completed translation of the second century gnostic text known as the Gospel of Judas – financed by the society and heavily promoted with tie-in books and a TV documentary – that would challenge Christianity's traditional understanding of the relationship between Jesus and his betrayer.
Its new special, "The Secret Lives of Jesus," makes similar sensational claims, airing as part of the "Explorer" series Sunday, Dec. 17, 9-10 p.m. EST on cable's National Geographic Channel.
Despite its provocative title, however, the program – as with the Judas expose – provides no explosive revelations but merely rehashes the same old theological chestnuts refuted by the church over the centuries.
Examining the so-called "lost gospels" through re-enactments and interviews with scholars, the film asks if Matthew, Mark, Luke and John tell the "whole" Jesus story, suggesting that these alternative versions – which offer a radically different portrait of Christ -- may help "fill in the blanks." The idea that these ancient texts provide startling new information is a bit misleading. Church fathers such as St. Irenaeus, who wrote against the Gospel of Judas in 180 A.D., knew of many of these and rejected them as false.
Among the manuscripts considered is the apocryphal infancy Gospel of James, a second-century collection of miraculous tales about Jesus' youth that lacks the historical veracity of the canonical Gospels. (The book was regarded as spurious by Origen of Alexandria in the third century.) One episode dramatized involves Jesus bringing clay pigeons to life. Another has a young, rather malicious Jesus striking a boy dead for bumping into him.
Of equally dubious purview is "The Unknown Life of Jesus," a 19th-century translation of an ancient Tibetan scroll which allegedly chronicles Jesus' travels through India during his "hidden years" (between the ages 12 and 30) to learn from Hindu mystics.
Given the popularity of "The Da Vinci Code," it's not unexpected that the survey includes discussion of gnostic texts such as the Gospels of Mary and Philip that allude to Mary Magdalene's special, possibly intimate, relationship with Jesus. But unlike Dan Brown, this program does not attribute any conspiratorial villainy to the church, and even counters many of Brown's bogus assertions: One expert, for instance, stresses that there's no credible evidence to support the Jesus-Mary Magdalene theory.
It is, however, suggested that these alternative versions constituted a pluralism of valid competing forms of Christianity vying for dominance in the first centuries after Christ. While doctrinal questions continued to be refined among the early Christian communities, this image hardly does justice to the capacity of those communities to sort out and affirm the essentials of the faith authoritatively taught from the beginning.
Even more disputable is the contention forwarded that the gnostic texts, though written much later than the canonical gospels, have something of equal value to say about Jesus. While these texts are of certain historical interest, they tell us more about the people who wrote them than about Jesus.
**************
That's an excellent point. I would never have thought of it, but it makes sense.
--There is a small, but concerted and well organized, well financed, persistent and aggressive cabal of influential organizations and individuals (Soros, Elaine Pagels & al, etc.) which have unceasingly been on the forefront of Christ-bashing through books, and especially several TV channels (Discovery, National Geographic, History, etc.), that can be commonly called the Satanic Network, with Lucifer at its undisputed CEO.
/place tongue in cheek
Someone needs to update the bio of Lucifer on Wikipedia. Absolutely NOTHING there on this...
/remove tongue from cheek
:o)
--"The desire to rule is the mother of heresies." +John Chrysostomos
/replaces tongue in cheek
Now then! I didn't think you would ever quote the great Reformer J. Chrysotomos! Now the RCCers are going to start calling you an Anti-Catholic.
/again removes tongue from cheek
:o)
Yes, I recall this faux Gospel story first appeared like a week before Easter. Withoubt doubt, it's calculated.
There are folks who beleive Jesus was a cool Hippy who profess to be Christian.
Just last night I saw a Jesus program on the Biography channel. In it was a "scholar" who said that Jesus must have been married because it would have been His duty as a good Jew, and since the Bible didn't specifically say He wasn't married, then He must have been. He said that the wedding at Cana was Christ's own. Just unbelievable.
Scriputre quotes Him as calling a young woman DAUGHTER
Besides a Father, who calls a young woman "Daughter?
Nobody.
OBVIOUSLY, Jesus has a Daughter. He identifed her as such.
And Jesus said: Somebody hath touched me; for I know that virtue is gone out from me. And the woman seeing that she was not hid, came trembling, and fell down before his feet, and declared before all the people for what cause she had touched him, and how she was immediately healed. But he said to her: Daughter, thy faith hath made thee whole; go thy way in peace
* Daughter Scriputre doesn't lie
Sola Scriptura, baby (so to speak)
Sola Scriptura. The Sole Rule of Faith tells us Jesus fathered a Daughter and that virtue went out of Him...
Any yet how many Christians say "Jesus did not lack virtue" or "Jesus was not married" or "Jesus had no children" when we can see the plain words of Scripture telling us otherwise...
************
LOL!
I know this is not your argument, nor that of the Church. But neither is it an argument supported by Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura does NOT say to take every single word in the Bible only in its most literal sense. If it did, then the Bible would contradict itself all over the place. Rather, it says to evaluate every teaching in light of the Spirit's leading, other relevant scripture, and the reason God gave us. Those all work together. Having a secret daughter of Jesus pop up in that one verse and then go away forever defies both other relevant scripture and all reason. Therefore, Sola Scriptura rejects that idea.
That sounds reasonable (no pun intended), but Christ stated that the Church, not Scripture should be the final authority: "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the Church: but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." (Matthew 18:17 ) Christ did not state to refer to or consult Scripture for disputes and correction. He said to go to the Church as It is the final authority in Christianity. In addition, St. Paul states that the Church, not Scripture is "THE pillar and ground of the truth." (1 Timothy 3:15) Since the Church alone is mentioned as the pillar of truth, then It alone has the right to discern the truth and interpret Scripture. Scripture is pretty straightforward about the Church's role in salvation, Its authority and Its organization. It's all a matter of deductive reasoning, correct interpretation and pure logic.
ones own spirit is prone to sin in need of saving and incapable of unbiased discernment. that's why StPaul insists folks should not prophesize in a vacum but with others evaluating them.
indeed. christ gave the apostles the ability to bind and loose NOT a handful of letters and books rolled together with personal discernment
according to your own definition of sola scriptura one person can interpret that as no evidence for a daughter and the other as perfect evidence as each of their personal spirits (which are prone to sin and need Christ to be saved) and each are 100percent valid.
The definition of "church" is in question here as well.
I've read some of this
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/infancyjames-mrjames.html
I don't see much on Jesus youth at all, let alone him killing boys, or turning toys into creatures.
And then, cite where it appears in Scripture
That sounds reasonable (no pun intended), but Christ stated that the Church, not Scripture should be the final authority: "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the Church: but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." (Matthew 18:17 )
Your quote doesn't say anything about the scripture as authority (or not), it only mentions the Church. "The Church" means different things to different people. :) IMO, 2 Tim. 3:16-17 talks about scripture as final authority. If the Church is following the scripture, then the results should be the same. In the OT, the equivalent of "the Church" frequently did not follow the scripture.
Christ did not state to refer to or consult Scripture for disputes and correction. He said to go to the Church as It is the final authority in Christianity.
What? :) In the same book of Matthew you quote from Jesus says this:
Matt. 5:18 : I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
"The Law" was written down, it was scripture. In addition, Jesus quoted from other scripture as AUTHORITY all the time, even to satan's face. In fact, that's all He said to satan. It sounds to me that Jesus thought scripture was pretty authoritative. Why else would He quote from it instead of using His own words as often as He did?
Also note that in the Matthew passage you cite, it says that THE LAST PLACE YOU SHOULD GO WITH A DISPUTE IS THE CHURCH. If one faithful man could point out a scriptural teaching, oral or written, if he had it, to another faithful man, then that was the preferred way of handling it. That tells me that the appeal was to the wisdom of local clerics. In many cases I'm sure that worked fine, but not in all cases, since there have been unworthy clergy from all time. I can't believe Christ meant for us to follow unfaithful clergy if their views contradicted scripture. That is what would result if Christ meant: "just do whatever your local priest says, under any circumstances".
Since the Church alone is mentioned as the pillar of truth [per 1 Tim. 3:15], then It alone has the right to discern the truth and interpret Scripture.
Again, it depends on who "the Church" is. But even if it was the RCC, then that puts your hierarchs ahead of scripture itself, because they would not allow scripture to interpret itself, as we contend. However, no RC has ever admitted to me to holding this view. I do not understand how a hierarchy of men can say they have 100% power over the meaning of every verse in a book, and then say that their authority is no higher than the book. That seems very contradictory to me.
Scripture is pretty straightforward about the Church's role in salvation, Its authority and Its organization. It's all a matter of deductive reasoning, correct interpretation and pure logic.
I couldn't agree more. :) When we add in the entirety of scripture, this describes Sola Scriptura.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.