The council of Nicaea 325

Wondered where you were mate, you're late!

Actually, Jesus is reported to have claimed divinity in the NT, but there is certainly room for speculation as to what he actually said, since no writing of his has of yet been uncovered. She would certainly not be the first who believes that such a claim would have been against Jewish tradition of the time, as would have been letting an unmarried man teach at Temple.

The Gospel of Thomas is interesting in the fact that he wrote in terms of a good ole boy. Not like a english major.

haha, yes, I seem to be late to this thread. Actually, I think kalypigian has the floor in this thread. Very interesting stuff.

And yes, I suppose if you rule out the entire New Testament as bunk, then you would certainly have trouble with the notion of Jesus' divinity.

As for the claim going against Jewish tradition... ummm.... hello!, he goes against Jewish tradition in almost every other chapter of the Gospels. this might have something to do with why he was nailed to a tree.

Anyway, I understand your point about there being no writings of Jesus himself.

By the way, I am currently reading The God Delusion. I wish I could write like Dawkins does. He could convince anyone of anything.

Aww no, don't put me in the category of calling the whole NT bunk, that's not where I am! On this point I must be very clear. I spent enough years in traditional Christiandom to understand that people are taught to have an all-or-nothing view of the books and even phrases in the Bible, but it is my personal opinion that THAT is bunk.

I am perfectly free to separate books from the Bible based on who wrote them, and investigate what their personal intentions might have been. I am free to consider what was going on in the world at that time, which was very unlike our time now, when trying to recreate why things were said as they were. I am free to consider the amount of time the gospels spent as oral traditions before they were written down, and to remember that there was NO mass communication at all back then, so even though they were written down within the first hundred years following his death, there were over 300 versions of the story of Jesus' life being debated at the council of Nicaea in 325.

Bunk? Hardly. The NT is a love story between a people and their God, hardly bunk. Hardly factual history either though. It just is what it is.

Oh HELL yeah, Jesus was a rebel! I just find it hard to believe he would have been allowed to teach at Temple for three years without the shock of his being single, or claiming divinity at Temple ever coming up. This was a guy who was well-received for those three years, and I just don't see that being the case had he been making those sorts of claims. We're not alone, Arius and many of his contemporaries thought so too. That side just lost the election. The side one is voting for doesn't always win, but that has nothing to do with what the truth is or was.

As I recall, when brought before Herod, he was asked if he was the son of God and he replied, "It's you who say I am". I also realise he's quoted as saying "I am the way, the truth and the light, no one gets to the Father but through me". It's a personal opinion, but I find the style of that sentiment to be very Paulian, and not much like the more humble man I am inclined to believe Jesus would have been. As I said, just opinion.

edit- If I could write like you, I wouldn't envy Dawkins.

LPD, I did read the whole wiki page, and found a decent site for the Gospel of Thomas itself.

Gospel of Thomas (Lambdin Translation) -- The Nag Hammadi Library

Danny is on a business trip or I'd call him to confirm what I think he's told me, but here it is- in the days Jesus lived, and for some time thereafter, there was a serious need for secrecy to avoid persecution. Any time a phrase like "He who has ears to hear, let him hear" is interjected, is it rather like an indication that what he is saying is in a sort of "code" or parable written in ways to avoid detection by potential persecutors. It was like saying "read between the lines".

Another thing that became apparent to me reading this was the comparisons. I think it was early Greek that did not offer good words for comparisons, like "more". In order to make the point that you were to value something "more" than something else, the language itself was limiting in the sense that the only good way to convey this idea was to say that you had to "love" one thing and "hate" the other. It didn't mean love and hate in the sense that we use them today, it was understood by the people of that time that one thing was just more important than the other.

I especially liked #50-
(50) Jesus said, "If they say to you, 'Where did you come from?', say to them, 'We came from the light, the place where the light came into being on its own accord and established itself and became manifest through their image.' If they say to you, 'Is it you?', say, 'We are its children, we are the elect of the living father.' If they ask you, 'What is the sign of your father in you?', say to them, 'It is movement and repose.'"

Sure sounds like something a messiah would say, alright.

This is a first read, so those are just some early thoughts on it. Thanks again.

Here you go MZ

Biblical canon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gnostic Society Library: Sources on Gnosticism and Gnosis

See you next month.

I agree that many of the excluded texts read very credibly both in terms of style and content.

By the time of Nicea, the church was already powerful and those running the show were enjoying that power. Nicea cemented their position and power at the cost perhaps of the true message of Christ. A gnostic approach does not lend itself to organised religion, organised to shore up a leaky empire. Ironically, Peter was also pushed to one side in terms of theology.

Glad to yield the floor, I don't believe that there is such a thing as divinely inspired literature, so the discussion is academic to me. Certainly not a biblical scholar, lives of saints were studied in parochial elementary school, a copy of the vulgate resided on the altar, but was not read by the laiety.

The point about Constantine was that the behavior of a christian emperor was no better than that of any other, a ruthless pursuit of power. He divided the empire between his three younger sons, who soon eliminated one another, the sole survivor Constantius II. He actively promoted arianism, persucuted Athanasius and his adherants. The Goths were converted at this time and remained arians for many generations.

Isaac Newton came around to that view, he had a special dispensation from Charles II to remain on the cambridge faculty, which then amounted to being in holy orders, (they were not allowed to marry) and not have to swear to belief in the trinity.

Enjoyed Dawkins book, something similar from an earlier generation, H. L. Mencken's 'Treatise on the Gods'(1930). Of interest to Gay people, 'Jesus Acted Up', a gay and lesbian manifesto, by Robert Goss(1993).

What is wrong with oral tradition, its accuracy? I believe oral tradition can be very steady over the course of time. I'm thinking Greek myths/stories among a few other cultures.

I'm also thinking that the oral complaint would be against the OT and not so much the NT. Other than Paul what other books in the new testament weren't penned by the author who was (allegedly) present during Christ's lifetime?

What books other than Matthew, Mark and Luke WERE penned by an author who was present during the life of Christ? John who penned the book of John was not John the apostle.

You have great "faith" if you believe oral traditions are relaible conveyances of historical accuracy over seventy or eighty years. We can't agree on what our leaders said last week, and we have television, the internet, newspapers, radio, libraries and a host of communication tools.

The obvious point though is that it doesn't matter what ANY of us "thinks" or "feels", the fact remains that there were some three HUNDRED versions of the Bible, the New Testament, in 325ad. Doesn't sound at all like the oral traditions were in any sort of agreement, does it?

You are right Dostoy. The oral tradition is very powerful. The Iliad and Odyssey were transmitted orally for maybe 500 years before they were written down.

The works of Aristotle were penned by his students.

The Gospels of Mathew and Mark (and Thomas) read as the notes of a student/disciple noting the teachings of a master/guru.

John probably was written by John, just not John the disciple loved of Jesus.

Every early christian community pretty much developed it's own canon and tradition based upon preference and what was available, hence the number of Bibles as MZ states. Nicea enforced orthodoxy on all the communities - only they didn't quite as heresy still exists and the interpretation of christ is still so varied as can be seen by the thousands of denominations today.

You suck.

Well, I'm coming to understand that, and I have to admit that it's still hard for me to view these things dispassionately. There IS a sense of loss one experiences when one grows old enough to learn the secret of Santa Clause. Even Jesus himself extols childhood innocence, but I doubt he was predicting what would be done to his own words in the future.

I prefer to think of him more like Kahlil Gibran, and I'm sure old Kahlil would enjoy the comparison. I see some similarites to the verse I posted before and this:

Reason and Passion

And the priestess spoke again and said:
“Speak to us of Reason and Passion.”
And he answered saying:
Your soul is oftentimes a battlefield, upon which your reason and your judgment wage war against passion and your appetite.
Would that I could be the peacemaker in your soul, that I might turn the discord and the rivalry of your elements into oneness and melody.
But how shall I, unless you yourselves be also the peacemakers, nay, the lovers of all your elements?

Your reason and your passion are the rudder and the sails of your seafaring soul.
If either your sails or your rudder be broken, you can but toss and drift, or else be held at a standstill in mid-seas.
For reason, ruling alone, is a force confining; and passion, unattended, is a flame that burns to its own destruction.

Therefore let your soul exalt your reason to the height of passion; that it may sing;
And let it direct your passion with reason, that your passion may live through its own daily resurrection, and like the phoenix rise above its own ashes.

I would have you consider your judgment and your appetite even as you would two loved guests in your house.
Surely you would not honor one guest above the other; for he who is more mindful of one loses the love and the faith of both.

Among the hills, when you sit in the cool shade of the white poplars, sharing the peace and serenity of distant fields and meadows - then let your heart say in silence, “God rests in reason.”

And when the storm comes, and the mighty wind shakes the forest, and thunder and lightning proclaim the majesty of the sky, - then let your heart say in awe, “God moves in passion.”

And since you are a breath In God's sphere, and a leaf in God's forest, you too should rest in reason and move in passion.

Try this one MZ - I haven't read it as I am on dial up at the moment and a near 9 meg file probably isn't a good idea.

Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D., with an Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies. | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Okay, it's bookmarked, but now you swallow too!

I watched The God Delusion documentary with fascination. And cheered the reasonable Anglican! Dawkins seemed to find a modicum of sense in his philosophy.

This thread sent me pages deep in Wikipedia more than a few times.

Madame Zora: You're right, Biblical interpertation does not have to be an all-or-nothing proposition. If you're ever interested in a practical approach, check out The Good Book by Peter Gomes.

I'm a gay Episcopalian. Please indulge me an off-topic moment to mention the openess of my church being challenged in the news again. Sigh.

Yes, I can see that. It sounds rather cut-and-dry, like he is reporting rather than telling a story. I wonder if he was a younger writer? The terms "student" and "scribe" have been bandied about.