The Daily Mail
Parts of the Bible were written by people who lied about their identity, an author has claimed. Bart D Ehrman claims many books of the New Testament were forged by people pretending to be the apostles Peter, Paul or James.
Writing in the Huffington Post, Professor Ehrman, best selling author of Misquoting Jesus and Jesus, Interrupted, said religious scholars were well aware of the 'lies' of the Bible. While some were happy to acknowledge them others refer to them as pseudepigrapha - meaning a falsely attributed work -, he wrote.
In his new book , Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are, Professor Ehrman claims The Second Epistle of Peter - or 2 Peter - was forged. Read more...
Â
© Alamy
Agenda: Professor Erhman claims whoever wrote 1 Timothy was trying to put women in their place by citing the garden of Eden as an example of what can happen when women are in charge
Agenda: Professor Erhman claims whoever wrote 1 Timothy was trying to put women in their place by citing the garden of Eden as an example of what can happen when women are in charge
______________________________________________________
COMMENT
See also :
Who Wrote the Bible
and The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins by Burton L. Mack
and The Most Dangerous Cult in The World
and Gnosticism and the Christian Myth
Â
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 196
August publications like the frickin' Daily Mail soak this stuff up, of course.
Notice how they come out of the woodwork "just in time for Easter."
Dave A.,
I think there is a lot of personal jealousy among academics because Bart Ehrman can write books that appeal to a wider audience. There are many of his lectures available on his website which seem to me to demonstrate that he makes serious scholarly contributions in his field. He has had a lot of "peer review" and I question whether he is "selling sensationalized but tenuous conspiracy theories". He seems to have covered early as well as later commentary on the Gospels very well - many contemporary scholars neglect the early sources. He suggests six of Paul's letters are frauds as I recall, and I think he makes a reasonable case (and a stronger case with others as 2 Peter, 1 Timothy, Jude et al.) We know the Church "edited" Paul - as changing the names of women members to masculine ones . I think Ehrman is fairly conservative in his views. There is no comparison between him and the wild Cassiopean stuff that has an agenda and is not based on serious scholarship.
"There is no comparison between him and the wild Cassiopean stuff that has an agenda and is not based on serious scholarship. "
What's to stop a person also with an agenda, from basing their stuff on "serious scholarship"?
If you have an opinion on Ehrman why don't you simply express it?
My answer would be; Nothing at all.
What's to stop a person also with an agenda, from basing their stuff on "serious scholarship"?
I'm asking a question in response to something you said. I'm trying to make sense of it. I find it very ambiguous in terms of the conflation of agenda and "serious scholarship, and very puzzling in terms of the four links in the article, to people you say are not comparable, and ostensibly you feel have an agenda, and don't engage in what you call "serious scholarship". And you are avoiding that question.
There is a "shell game" quality to my experience here. And a strong pressure to engage in crystal ball reading sorts of silliness with you. I'm not a big fan of crystal ball reading, or shell games. And I sure as hell am not intimidated by your designated "scholars", or the fact that they did some "serious scholarship". The sock puppet authority routine bores the hell out of me. I'm a grownup.
In the exchange you weren't part of I expressed the view that Ehrman did good work in his field, recognized by his peers for years, and his book didn't warrant being called "sensational" and so on. My view was not shared by others . The Cassiopean material , on the other hand, seemed to me to be based on personal views that interpreted texts from preconceived notions of their own to a large degree - which is not the way serious scholarship should be conducted.
I referred to his fine website as a source for considering his work.
Anyone who puts the God of Love above all other concerns is an apostle.
I read this post yesterday. I got a kick out of it until I saw Ehrman's picture. That kind of sobered me up.
I'll take him at his word, the Bible's authors are not who he thinks they are ; )
I have met Dr. Tznucq, at a poker game. He is quite a character, as one might expect from an animal dentist with a law degree. Very knowledgable fellow indeed. But there are rumors that he is not really the author of his books. Some have it that the real writer is a macabre person of uncertain gender named Fay Gala McSugar.
should be HE was
Please be serious. This is a serious discussion. Everyone knows that Canadians dont have PhDs, because there is no word for it in Spanish. I think you meant to say Hungarians, who all have PhDs, and are extremely conscientious (and even know what the word means) but dont work cheap. They work for free.
I havent heard of that book either, but I have heard of the research associate Mr. Sualc. A jolly rotund fellow, who has a lot of time on his hands, (except for late December) and is known for getting everything backwards.
How meaningless.
Einstein and the mysterious "Lorentz" outside the Bern coffeeshop/brothel. Note the suspicious bulges in Einstein's jacket pockets.
"In 1899, and again in his paper "Electromagnetic phenomena in a system moving with any velocity smaller than that of light" (1904), Lorentz added time dilation to his transformations and published . . named Lorentz transformations. It was apparently unknown to Lorentz that Joseph Larmor had used identical transformations to describe orbiting electrons in 1897 . . . but they are algebraically equivalent to those presented by Poincaré and Einstein in 1905. Lorentz's 1904 paper includes . . . identical equations with well defined transformation properties . . . The 1904 paper includes a detailed discussion of the increase of the inertial mass of rapidly moving objects. In 1905, Einstein would use many of the concepts, mathematical tools and results discussed to write his paper entitled "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", known today as the theory of special relativity. Because Lorentz laid the fundamentals for the work by Einstein, this theory was called the Lorentz-Einstein theory originally."
We don't hear this "Lorentz-Einstein theory" talk anymore . . but I can't help but see the irony of of Mr. Apparently Unknown ending up snookered by the cleverest of them all, Mr. Relativity. And the whole moral relativity thing taking off among the other brothel patrons as a result . .
GI GO (translation: garbage in, garbage out!)
Clarke, I refer, with my comment, to the intent of the heart of the writer, not the historical or literal differences..
Any apparent "contraditions" may be a reflection of an individual soul's
assessment in value when perceiving events in the world.
Let me know if you think I have misunderstood your explanation.
In addition to Clarke's point about emphasizing different aspects of Jesus' ministry (and different time periods in many cases), the texts rely in part on other writings and in part on oral tradition, which results in distinctives.
Until a person has experienced the Love of God, there shall always be contention in the heart, instead of Peace.
You say , in part, "Clarke, I refer, with my comment, to the intent of the heart of the writer, not the historical or literal differences..
Any apparent "contraditions" may be a reflection of an individual soul's
assessment in value when perceiving events in the world."
In the case of the four gospels I think there was a conscious intention by elders to present the teaching to different types and/ or those with different cultural backgrounds Much of the teaching was not written down by intention although transmitted orally among members of their communities. They likely would not speak of Sophia, for example, to strangers. The intention of the elders was to not transmit parts of the teaching to those who were not prepared to receive it and might dilute it. Also, there were those outside the community who were potentially hostile to the believers and perceive them as a threat.
The whole of the Book is "of an "esoteric" flavor". Anyone can write things "of an esoteric flavor", and anyone can claim any of it belongs in the Book. Such vague assertions are meaningless to me. It would most certainly be a corrupted thing, if all such candidates were just tossed in because this or that person or group felt they ought to be.
"In the case of the four gospels I think there was a conscious intention by elders to present the teaching to different types"
Don't matter in the slightest what any elders intended, if the God that Book reveals is real. They would have no choice but to present what He intended to be presented. If you don't believe that God is real, say so please, and let the readers know, so they may rightly place your words and actions in that context. I don't believe you do, but rather believe He is a fabrication or conglomeration of human thoughts . . .
Eventually, any liberated or redeemed Soul's Gospel shall be written upon God's Heart.
What has been canonized is sufficient . Any of the Lord's words can be elevated to esoteric meanings.
"I merely convey to you and the others why it has not been included."
What I tried to say is that a great many things "of an esoteric flavor" were included, and are accepted by Christians, so the conclusion that the "esoteric flavor" of a particular text "is precisely the reason that non-cannonical gospels are not recognized as 'legit' by many Christians", lacks a logical basis.
And, I don't see other portions "of an esoteric flavor" not being "recognized as 'legit' by many Christians", so I see no reason to think they would be treating the one you mentioned as illegitimate if it had been included . .
Dave, the Bible, although needing no revision, could have been revised and edited, at a later date. Although, this is quite a 'stretch' of imagination, we have all seen the alteration of historical record by the tides of temporal power and influence.....censorship being the flipside...
I am grateful is has not been revised. Is it not complete? (smiling)
Your words to me are pretty much meaningless to me. Human logic is the only kind I will accept from human speakers . .
The list of 114 disjointed sayings in the Gospel of Thomas largely duplicate and abbreviate more developed and extended narratives in the four gospels in the canon. Where it departs, it departs in the direction of late second century thinking and simultaneously fails the criterion of multiple attestations. I think that ancient texts can offer interesting insights whether or not they belong in the canon.
Your mention of 'insights' (or, as our friend Jerry might say: INsights) is crucial to me and many others who have a mystical way of navigating through the universe....
"It is the divine in you, John, and the divine that you see in others, which allows us to enter the kingdom... "
. . . You're just not saying anything meaningful to me. It's like saying that the key to a healthy diet is eating healthy food . . Can't argue with such vacuous statements, but I will mention that not eating strychnine would prolly be be a good idea too . .
Or as my Lord put it, I feel;
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat
Yes, the Gate is narrow, it is Wisdom, the Logos. As you say, anything wide of that, leads to destruction of the soul.
When I refer to the divine in you, I am referring to that which is implanted in your being, the spark of Wisdom. If we are made in the God's image, the kingdom is immanent within us, through God's Wisdom, and becomes manifest when that spark turns into a flame for the love of Our Lord.
This is what I hear you saying, in a sense;
Whatever strikes your fancy, is good to accept as wisdom. God don't care in the slightest if it's nonsense, He just wants us all real excited about being able to get excited . .
You say "God's Wisdom", but you don't tell us the difference between Joe Blow's wisdom, and God's. It's like you're thinking we all have wisdometers that we can just glance at when hearing something, and people are just not paying attention to, and getting all excited about, the flashing lights on their wisdometers . .
People get all excited about their own sense of what is wise, obviously, but that cannot mean that everything that excites a person is "divine", or indicative of it being God's Wisdom . .
Many of the Israelites tried that "whatever gets me excited" route . . and it didn't work out so good for them, ya know?
If I go to the tree of human wisdom, my soul languishes and suffers.
By the fruit we know the tree.
Does this help?
You're still not telling us how one could tell "divine" wisdom, from any old thing that strikes one as wise.
"How are you to know if you are living according to the will of God? Here is a sign: If you are distressed over anything it means that you have not fully surrendered to God's will, although it may seem to you that you live according to His will." (Fr. Alexander Men)
Through Divine Wisdom, the soul is redeemed, and has the Peace which 'passeth all understanding.'
Perhaps someone else can help you where I have failed.
I wish you well and out of harm's way....
Vickey, actually, they do know. Try F.F. Bruce's The Books and The Parchments. It's a history of how the Bible came to be. Pretty cool stuff.
Dave A.,
The accounts of Jesus in the 70 little sealed lead books from the cave in Jordan, which may be authentic and 1st century, are close those in the four gospels. The proto-Hebrew writing shown below the face of Jesus uses symbols and apparently a code similar to that in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Perhaps half the books remain sealed .
The process known as ‘peer review’ is a time-honored approach used by almost all theological journals (and certainly by the better ones): An article is submitted to the editor, and the editor sends the manuscript to one or two scholars who are intimately acquainted with the subdiscipline to which the manuscript belongs.They are the author’s peers. They have the power to reject a piece that is flawed in its methods, resources, attitude, format, use of secondary literature, coherence of argumentation, logic, analysis, use of ancient languages, etc. When a scholar takes ideas that have not been peer-reviewed directly to the public, what he publishes is without peer review. Scholars for the most part have submitted their views to each other at academic conferences and in academic journals before they ever launch them on an unsuspecting public. What marks Ehrman’s popular writings is that he has to a large degree bypassed the peer-review stage and has appealed right to hoi polloi. But what most layfolks don’t realize is that many of his arguments have been responded to—some more adequately than others—in a healthy academic environment. Yet Ehrman’s style of argument in Jesus, Interrupted hardly mentions opposing viewpoints, and when it does it’s usually a straw-man argument or one that has long since been relegated to the round file.
Timothy Paul Jones, at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary is author of the book, Misquoting Truth, a relatively empathetic debunking of Ehrman's fallacies and misrepresentations. (The linked site offers a number of resources that respond to a variety of specific flaws in Ehrman's claims.)
One of Ehrman's techniques is to attempt to elevate purported inaccuracies transmittal of texts either through the oral tradition of the first century, or the copying of texts later, into either a hopelessly flawed process or even a conspiracy to alter meanings. In order to play up skepticism over the reliability of ancient texts, Ehrman resorts to exaggerations and mischaracterizations. For example, Ehrman compares oral tradition to the schoolchild's game of "telephone," where a message serially deteriorates as it is passed from child to child. (Blomberg, Historical Reliability of the Gospels, p. 61) The work on first century oral tradition offers insight into a reliable form of oral transmission in the hinterlands, where scrolls were rare, sometimes referred to as "oral performances," where the community provided a collective memory of critical features of the text. Or as Rafael RodrÃguez at Johnson Bible College wrote, "Whereas form critics assumed evolutionary dynamics, media critics bring multiforms of the tradition in line with one another in order to get a sense of the plot-as-space bounded by the social conventions, rhetorical structures, and traditional patterns that constrained and enabled meaningful expressions of the stories about Jesus." ("Speaking of Jesus: 'Oral Tradition
beyond the form Critics," SECSOR paper, 3/2011)
I appreciate the references and I will look into them. I gather you are on side of those who consider Ehrman a lone wolf who has offended their canon (as well as calling himself an "agnostic" who was once more of a fundamentalist).
The plethora of different writings related to Jesus is one aspect and oral transmission is a subsidiary aspect. I have worked with a number of ancient texts in different languages. I have great respect for the accuracy of much oral transmission.There are other problems when texts are copied ,which scholars know well. I have gathered oral literature in various dialects in the Middle East and discovered words that helped explain the meaning of words in ancient texts. In the case of the Quran the text is reliable because his Companions knew it from memory. Muhammad could not read or write and a number of them compiled it by comparing their memories after his passing. I think it was in 1974 that a Buddhist was able to recite 16,000 pages of texts from memory.
I have high regard for the field of Biblical studies, although chiefly concerning pre-Christian texts. There is a lot of poltics among academics when it comes to Jesus and sects that preceded him. The translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Qumran materials, for example, are not very good. Perhaps it would be fair to say mediocre.
I first encountered Ehrman when reading about critiques of ancient oral traditions. He seems to come up in discussions of misapprehensions of historical research. I don't think he presents so much a threat to the scholarly work as to public understanding of the state of knowledge of the reliability and authenticity of ancient texts. In general, those researchers who are Christian seem to take pains to be conservative in their approach, both because the field (like most in academia) is competitive to the extent that there are costs for being wrong...and because most scholars worth their salt are anxious to avoid findings that have the appearance of bias based on their personal beliefs.
I have read deeply into this subject myself over the years and the alternative views offered by Ehrman, and believe it or not, especially by Laura Knight-Jadczyk and her linked Cassiopaean site (which I have read into quite a bit over the years) ... the latter of course being completely "foreign" for the "literalists" who will insist upon the typical peer review scholarship where all they can "handle" is the mundane and objective exotericism.
Those of the latter, show their true ignorance by making crude "jokes" about the things that do not "fit" within their very "limited reality" ... no problem though, their choice and their loss.
Gratefully, the Highest Love endures all things! (smiling)
In the presence of such a Being, all of that stuff becomes immaterial. Whatever He wished to be generated and retained at any point in the process of oral transmission, writing, transcribing, translating, editing, and selection for inclusion, could be easily accomplished by the sort of God the Book relates to. This is not a sort-of God we are discussing, that could not intervene at any point, in any way He chose to, including the mind of any person involved in that Book's existence. We are discussing the potential for a Being with unlimited power to generate, preserve, and assist in comprehending, this extensive, and extraordinarily complex Letter to each of us, not any other kind.
The existence of any other kind, renders the Book a pack of lies, beginning to end. Those who believe there is no such God "behind" the words we can read in reality-land, naturally and quite logically conclude it is the work of fallible, self interested, presumptuous humans. It simply has to be, if the God it "reveals" is not in reality just what it reveals that God to be.
If He exists, He can respond to any person that seeks His help with this question of Authenticity, or any other. No amount of speculation or "serious scholarship" can answer the question. The opportunities for inauthenticity of all sorts are blatant and easily understood. But so are such a Being's opportunities to overcome them all.
Ask of Him, I suggest, not other people. (He's got you right where He wants you, I say, and without Him, you ain't goin' nowhere ; )
I hope the world will heed it.
In reply to two of yours, the last and the long one previous to it .
I think that Jesus' mission and teaching was real, "serving God's will", if you wish. What the various Bible texts say are edited and also do not reveal all the teaching. Similarly, Muhammad's mission and teaching were real , and "serving God's will." Had it not been for Islam, which reformed the corrupt empires of the time , which had many faiths, and advanced our knowledge of science, philosophy and government, the Christian church might have withered and died. As it was, thanks to the knowledge brought by Islamic thinkers, which they gathered and compiled from ancient Greece, advanced and made available to the the West, Christian Europe was able to move on , centuries after Muhammad, out of its Dark Ages and did not descend further into barbarism. Jesus' teaching would been have lost, at least in Europe, without the mission of Muhammad.
But the Christian churches today, and through much of their history, have unfortunately been addicted to stressing "creeds" and failed to include practical experience of the spirit . All religious teachings become dogmatic if they do include and foster personal experience. The violence and madness in England in the reign of Henry VIII resembles the situation in America today, and contrasting "creeds" was a chief feature of the discord. The Orthodox church, as the others, has lost much of the teaching, but it has preserved more of those elements of the teaching that assist people to have spiritual experience of it.
My history of the world offers a preponderance of mayhem, death and destruction out of secular tyrannies and not religious institutions, despite their well-publicized failures. It does not arise from Jesus' two great commandments. I don't feel as though my local church is "stressing creeds" over spiritual life. But I'm an n of 1. The presence of a massive majority of US Christians, and therefore a diverse group in terms of education, politics, and probably spiritual development (I say again, where is your measuring stick for that), cannot mask the overwhelming edge of those most connected with church institutions in their support of non-religious humanitarian causes.
"John,
In reply to two of yours, the last and the long one previous to it"
I see no response to anything I wrote here.
Dave A.,
The Bible is a source for many spiritual movements and great art over time, whether on the scale of Luther's Reformation, Frances and Clare, The Rule of Benedict, the Jesuits, the Cathars, Notre Dame , J S Bach , many painters and so on or many smaller-scale ones such as Ephrata Cloister in pre- Revolutionary Pennsylvania. As an Episcopalian, I have no problem with the Nicene Creed (A.D. 381 revision) and the Apostles Creed (probably not written 10 days after Christ's return to Heaven, maybe as late as the 9th century) although I may interpret them in an individual way. There are many levels of meaning in the Lord's Prayer. Just as we live in a multiverse, there are many levels of meaning in the Bible. but there errors in translation and some things are left out. Jesus often spoke in parables. In the history of the church there have been many "corrections" in the doctrines stressed by the church: when it became too mystical, a different practice might be introduced.
Islamic influence came not only from the Moors. For example , there were Islamic cultural centers in the Italian city states. ( Sicily was Arab.) Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Ibn Rushd (Averroes) and other Islamic scholars produced the most read books by the Christian monks after the Bible.
An excellent portrait of the Mediterranean culture prior to the Crusades: S D Goitein : A Mediterranean Society: The Jewish Communities of the Arab World as Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza (6 vol.)
"Although the documents were written by Jews, they reflect the surrounding Moslem and Christian environments not only in countries bordering the Mediterranean but all the way to India. This has thrown new light on the whole study of the Middle Ages."
I'm aware of the advanced position of Islam in ancient times as well as its steady decline since the end of the "dark ages." How that relates to Christian spiritual development or supports the idea of "edited" understandings is unclear to me.
As long as differing establishments of religion see each other as competitors for souls and worldly jurisdiction, we will continue to witness the 'decline' and 'advances' reflecting only the activity of human politics---antithetical to true spirituality...
All you got to do is get rid of a few billion people, and your happily ever after will be within your grasp . . . No more political discord!! No more Hitlers or Stalins or Maos, no more mafias, military juntas, or greed driven cartels to worry about . . Political nirvana is just a few billion intimidations or eliminations away ; )
The property the Cathers lived upon was valuable. The Cathers were considered 'heretics' by the Catholic Church at that time.
The Cathers chose that area in order to be left alone---they wanted nothing but to live in peace.
Another, example: In the Great Salt Lake Valley of Deseret (now Utah) it is well known, by the behaviour and rhetoric of each party, that the Mormons and Catholics were competing for souls. Each thought the other, the church of the devil.
No, Dave, I do not believe that religious belief should be competitive. It should be cooperative. A truly religious person is selfless and gives freely. He does not wish his neighbor bad-will, no matter what his neighbor believes concerning the God.
The attempt to convert people to a certain 'brand' of religion is competition. God wants the conversion of souls and hearts to love not to a 'brand' of religion!
My view is ecumenical to the maximum degree which includes not only Christians but a unity of all faiths, creeds and dogmas. I know in my heart, as we are told, that God loves people of all religions. And although all religions may not be equal, all men are equal before God, and so should be free to practice as each chooses---in good conscience.
Competition looms in the presence of jealousy and covetness, emotions emmanating from unhealthy ego-vanity, not the spirit, and if not quelled, becomes uncontrollable hatred and war.
Look at the condition of our present world of ideological warefare, "religious" and non-religious. If that is not enough evidence for the existence of the competition for souls---by the 'devil' ( Ego-craving), I fail to understand what it is.
Until the one's who preach this, are living examples of this, how can they judge others and their beliefs?
Everything you're telling me here is an attempt on your part to convert me (and others) to your views. It is quite clear that you're saying what you're saying because you believe it's the truth and because you believe I would benefit from understanding and accepting that truth. I am, however, perfectly free not to be converted to your views if I'm not convinced by what you're telling me. Your attempt to convince me is not jealousy and covetness or ego-vanity on your part, but the very essence of two humans relating to each other and communicating.
If the attempt to lead humanity to learn to love and respect each other is wrong, then I am surely guilty of that....
To elaborate, the question that I recognize in your remarks is whether religious establishments of necessity, and inherently, work for the annihilation of other faith traditions (and, perhaps, even their members). Is an individual's identification with a recognizable faith tradition a sign of childishness or foolishness? If you don't recognize this question stalking your comments then you may wish to reflect on it. You claim ecumenism (or its extension to world religions) only for yourself, ben. If you have the sense that your meandering explanations are not being well-received, it may have something to do with that fact.
In the meantime, here are a few non-examples of religious "competition."
Religions for Peace
The International Association for Religious Freedom
International Committee for the Peace Council
Interfaith Alliance
The Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice
Arms Down! Religions for Peace
The Elijah Interfaith Institute
International Interfaith Centre
Interfaith Encounter Association
United Communities of Spirit
Interfaith International
Interfaith Youth Core
Minorities of Europe
Council for a Parliament of the World's Religions
North American Interfaith Network
The Temple of Understanding
Three Faiths Forum
United Religions Initiative
International Interfaith Organisations Network
World Congress of Faiths
Inter Faith Network for the UK
Global Peace Works
Thus it becomes a case of "by their fruit they shall be known" ... and unfortunately also, too many by far are not yet able to discern one fruit from another, let alone the rotten from the healthy ... IMnsHO
Many of the seeming 'lost lambs' will enter the kingdom before the 'pious.'
"The wise do not generalize.... Each of our religions has various expressions, faces and ideologies. With some we identify, others we reject. No religion is a monolith. Therefore, do not make claims about all members of a religion - Jews, Muslins, Hindus, or of an entire religion as such - Islam, Buddhism. Speak of an individual person, a specific teaching, the problem at hand. Do not use specific incidents involving practitioners of a religion to condemn the tradition in its entirety. Condemn the evil acts, not all members of the faith. Again, think of the diversity of views within your own faith tradition, and how unfair it would be for you to be held responsible for the attitudes and actions of others in your tradition who do not represent your perspective at all."
I addressed the concern in your Apr 1, 2011, 1:52pm EDT comment in mine at Mar 31, 2011, 11:39am EDT.
This is why, for example, we should not condemn Christianity, per se, for the slaughter of Muslims, and, vice versa. Rather, we bring individuals to account for their actions, and, then forgive them.
Iit is the people who make up the 'church.' They are either the 'body' of the God of Love or not, to a greater or lesser degree....
I use the names 'Catholic' etc. because this is the label many offenders identify themselves as. How else can I relate the story of martyrdom without mentioning the supposed tradition to which a body of people are attached?
Dave, it is the responsibility of each individual to search his own heart concerning his true identity in life as it relates to the Ineffable. If we do not do this in full consciousness, we are bereft of Wisdom.
May we be of benefit to those around us and give consent to Love and Wisdom.
Self worship at its finest. The speaker themselves does not believe that God generated a specific, discrete "message", expressing His actual nature and the situation He has placed humans in, and what He is up to . . so any who believe He did, must be ignorant. Why God could not have done that, is a complete mystery, other than the speaker feels He wouldn't. Just wouldn't.
The speaker places himself "above" God, so to speak, and essentially is telling God that if He did such a thing, He is a very bad God . . For He ought to have "generated" all the things the speaker might see as "divine wisdom", or He has placed the speaker in a position where his personal taste is not a valid way to approach Him. If He allowed humans to generate things that might trick him, the God has wronged the speaker.
The speaker's personal taste in Gods, is the "measuring rod" any real God is held up to, and if the real God does not conform to what the speaker finds pleasing in a God, they cannot exist. Only, exclusively, a God that reflects the personal desires of the speaker, can be a Wise and Just God. Anyone that worships any other sort of Being, must therefore be worshiping a false God, and deserves to be slandered and accused of causing strife and division, for not believing in the God the speaker feels would be the ONLY sort that could be a good God.
Self worship, with a vague idea of a God the self has generated, excluding any real God that does not conform to that vague idea, from the person's acceptance.
Let the offenders reveal themselves by their words and actions.
I have answered your questions with as much discretion as I can muster.
Now I rest.
Am I trying to convince you ("convert you to my view") that this applies to everyone, not just ourselves (who we're of course convinced possess the truth)? Am I trying to have you see all of us as from a distance - little dots of equal size, all with the same right to transmit our hearts' content to others? Yes, of course, I am. It's what it means to communicate. And you remain free not to be accept what I'm saying - not to be "converted". (As you obviously knew.)
No, clearly you have typed those particular characters because they look neat next to each other on the page, and when pronounced create sound waves that sound harmonious (at least to a speaker of English). There is no content here that you're trying to communicate to me. Right?
(If anyone is short a "be", kindly borrow the superfluous one from my comment above.)
Dave A.,
When we speak of "spiritual development" in relation to communities then we see from history that there are no borders . Groups have always exchanged and worked with each other, whatever their religions were. And then there were groups that had no affiliations to religions. There were many monasteries in the Middle East and Asia in the 9th century that were Christian or Buddhist or Muslim or other - a monastery might have 100,000 people established around it - the majority of the people served a monastery as lay people. Pupils traveled to study with teachers at the different monasteries, some of which specialized in different fields ( as medicine, sacred art etc.) In Rumi's school in the 13th century there were Jews, Christians, Muslims and others. In Cairo in the 10th century one would find Buddhist missionaries.
In medieval times, a specific topic would be set for scholars and philosophers that would be discussed in one year in Cairo. Papers would be sent from as far away as China and India within the year. There was a flow of ideas and arts into Europe over the years. The waltz came from Islamic Sufi music and dance, and, of course, musical instruments. The Cathars seem to have come from a large center in the Balkans that came from a sect in the Middle East (that still exists there).
In the history of Christian churches in the West there have been many communities and sects which have had little or no relation to Islamic ones. It was sad to hear Pope Benedict lecture Islamic scholars on faith and reason. He was drawing from 14th century Christian sources. Al-Ghazzali (d.1111) had presented the same ideas. The Islamic scholars were shocked at his ignorance. Benedict is a brilliant scholar and he knows his Karl Marx very well, but he doesn't know about other faiths. Yet he cares about the world and his church.
It is interesting to consider that China may have a larger Christian population than any other nation in this century. It may have the largest Muslim population, too. Both populations are growing - some groups are officially recognized by the state, some groups are supported by the people. With 38 or so ethnic minorities and many languages, it's a big country.
I am not clear how you define "Christian spiritual development". In can be described from many points of view, if we consider only Western history. There are still many simple people who see the flames above the altar and the forms it makes as it circulates during the Mass. They don't think about it, they humbly accept it. For others, there are keys to reading the Bible by which they are able to relate to their experience of different energies of various qualities received in their bodies and minds. This is not mystical or visionary. There some who have those experiences, and they come in various flavors.
Practically speaking, it is similar with the practice of prayer. It is an art and a science that can be learned.
It takes conscious and intelligent effort and practice to find , for example, the keys to reading the Bible. They can't be learned by "reading a book". They may be learned and verified by individual work and experience. All spiritual seekers face the same challenge. Whatever faith one was raised in, those who have learned "something" for themselves recognize one another. They can communicate in a common language, perhaps without using any words.
I would most simply define spiritual development as the progress of an individual's relationship with God. It is not always a simple matter to recognize the transformation taking place in an individual, but in Christian terms it will become manifest in their relationships with others. It is not the same as wisdom, not the same as mysticism, not the same as vision. An essential feature of Christianity is its grounding in God's work in the world through His people. As N. T. Wright puts it, whereas the OT identified the place where heaven and earth meet as the Temple in Jerusalem, the NT locates it in the body of the follower of Christ. (Simply Christian, p. 217)
The progress of one's relationship with God is influenced by prayer, study, community, and service. The church is the community of believers; the body. As Paul puts it (in somewhat scolding tones), "Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it. And God has placed in the church first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, of helping, of guidance, and of different kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in other languages? Do all interpret? Now eagerly desire the greater gifts." (1 Cor. 12:27-31 NIV)
Your mention of "the church" as the "body of the faith" surely applies to your religion and it's God ... but that can be enlarged considerably to INclude ALL of Humanity to belong Spiritually to the ONE GOD ... a concept that also considerably transcends the relatively "closed" group of "your church" ... the one idea is the transcendent wisdom of the UNIverse, the other is a very "limited" idea of a particular "group" ... IMnsHO
Gosh that sounds great . . All of humanity! So INclusive. Surely anyone that generates such an INclusive GOD idea, would feel a great love and appreciation for all of humanity . . .
Guess again ; )
"Time again (remember Atlantis) to flush the whole bunch of us and start again, humanity has just been a cancer on the earth, better to do it before we take our ways into space and contaminate it also." (Jerry Kays)
Plus equals minus? You do the math.
Thanks for that comment. Very profound. I have read a little of NT Wright, and he is to my mind very clear and inspiring. I should get that book.
All a person can speak about comes either from their own personal experience or what others have said.
When I speak to Christians, I use their jargon and vocabulary. When I speak to Buddhists, I speak their 'language.' But because I often speak to a wide audience at Gather, I choose to use my own 'Mother' tongue.
Truth is what a person experiences. I can only share mine. But I respect yours. The one thing that connects us is Love. I am not attempting to convert anyone to my 'tongue'--only to Love.
If that is not of any value to some readers here, you are free to not indulge. You are free to continue fighting amongst yourselves like little brats.
Happy April Fools Day from the biggest Fool of all!
Villages used to prize their village idiot because he didn't tell lies and often told the truth.
Any doctrines that taught some folks would be edited out of the ongoing stream of living consciousness eventually, I saw as quite reasonable, for I saw people that really seemed genuinely dangerous, and bigoted, and cruel, etc., whom I would hope a loving God would not burden all of humanity with for all of eternity . . That seemed like an incredibly unkind and unloving burden for a Being that had the insight to actually detect rightly the truly dangerous, intractably egocentric ones, as well as the power to get them away from the peaceful folks, to put on those peaceful folks . . Like a parent leaving poisonous snakes around, for their kids to be tormented by . .
And, if such a Being found me chronically dangerous or "poisonous", I would certainly hope He would get me away from truly good folks, and not burden them with me, just 'cause I had a hankerin' to stay in the game, so to speak.
Claims of a specific "path" to God, or a specific "text" that God inspired people to write, didn't bother me one bit. If they were right, they were right, and if they were wrong, I wasn't any worse off than before I heard of those doctrines. A non-real God couldn't put me in any hell, or eliminate my soul from the universe. A real one surely could, and had every right to. If there was a real God, the whole thing was up to Him, and whatever He wished to be, would be. It sure as hell ain't my universe . . as it would be a real God's. I got to live, gratus, and experience this incredible adventure for many years . . . He wouldn't owe me anything.
If some believe the only way to God or enlightenment is through a feeling that occurs in them, so be it, no skin off my nose. If some believe they have the right to condemn and accuse and belittle those who do not feel there is a special feeing that occurs in them, which constitutes the only way to stay on the right path to enlightenment, God, spiritual truth or growth, wisdom, love, etc etc . . you've got me to contend with, at least, assholes ; )
Cheer up! Let us be friends!
Pre-adults don't care. It's all about them : their self-image is "king".
A wise saying: "The capacity for joy is equal to the capacity for suffering."
But there may be some here who are fighting with themselves....to a good end, I am hoping.
(I still don't know who was fighting, but that's just me--never getting the intricacies of any social situation.)
I agree. Communities in which young and old, experienced and less experienced can work together with a common aim, with each having equal rights, including responsibility, are certainly right. "Now eagerly desire the greater gifts." (1 Cor. 12:27-31 NIV) are the words of a good teacher. The aim for all members is to serve Christ and his Church .
Gurdjieff, who was a rebel-type yet profoundly Christian, spoke of three lines of work - work for oneself , work with others, and work for the Work - as being required for any teaching to be a complete teaching. Service in the world is part of Christ's teaching and of all true teachings. This is true of the Sufi brotherhoods. The traditionally defended the people from the excesses of tyrants. This is why they were banned by governments in Egypt and Turkey in the 19th and 20th centuries and are persecuted in Pakistan, Iraq and Iran. There are some groups in the former Soviet states who are militant and include jihadis, who come from many nations, to fight Russia. This is not typical of the Sufi brotherhoods.
You wrote,
the Bible, although needing no revision, could have been revised and edited, at a later date. Although, this is quite a 'stretch' of imagination, we have all seen the alteration of historical record by the tides of temporal power and influence.....censorship being the flipside...
I am grateful it has not been revised. Is it not complete? (smiling)
How can you suggest "the Bible is complete"? It was composed of selected parts from different traditions over time by different people, as you have agreed. The ideas incorporated into the Hebrew religion from Zoroastrianism and Magian teachings during the Babylonian captivity are a striking example.
The composers didn't include knowledge that they didn't wish the masses to have access to. Most could not read : they had to hear the Bible read to them by priests. It wasn't until Luther that the Bible was accessible in the common language of the people.
The Bible was written in a form and language understandable to many people at a certain time in history. Contemporary people don't think in pictorial and metaphorical language today. The multiple associations even single words had for people in the past are only partly known to scholars today who spend their lives in Biblical studies.
Many translations of the Bible vary for political reasons. King James saw to it that the KJV was translated to support his right of kingship. Modern authorized translations by scholars fail to evoke the imagery and spirit of the texts and sometimes contain ridiculous gaffes. 'Don't feed pearls to pigs'! Pigs aren't interested in eating pearls. 'Casting pearls before swine' conveys a different meaning.
Every age "revises" the Bible, whether this is consciously admitted or not. This does not remove the original texts as a source. But how they were understood at various times is only partly known. The best and most accessible interpreters over the ages and no less so today perhaps have been artists.
We do have the possibility of interpreting the Bible in the words, language and knowledge we have today. For one thing, we need to free our minds from the many unconscious associations that Biblical words have in our minds. Biblical words have vague meanings to most and carry little force.
I say that the Bible is complete in the sense that its value is universal if elevated above the literal and historical levels of consciousness. The Cosmic level is desireable.
The symbolism and metaphor of the Bible offers a map of the soul as she journeys toward her ultimate lover, the God. One need not go elsewhere for this message or map.
I would personally recommend, however, that all children of God become familiar with the many sacred works outside of the Bible in order to either validate, or, find, their 'cup of tea.'
We can study all religions and spiritual paths, but is best to practice the one closest to our own hearts.
The book will be peer-reviewed.
Dr. Grizbor Tznucq, JD, DDS, DVM, is an Episcopalian?
I say that the Bible is complete in the sense that its value is universal if elevated above the literal and historical levels of consciousness. The Cosmic level is desireable....We can study all religions and spiritual paths, but is best to practice the one closest to our own hearts.
ben,
The religion and culture one was born and raised in is generally right for most for various reasons. But I have to teach groups who have many faiths who are seeking to know themselves and I think it is wise to avoid speaking of religion and or mystical language ; rather, that it is more practical to use a language in which terms are defined in a scientific way and have that language guide the thought and exchange. Mixing religious words with this language leads to all kinds of habitual associations that weaken and distract the attention and destroys the possibility of
communication about ideas and practices in a clear and precise way. Individuals have their own experiences and characteristics which they may relate to their religious faiths, if they follow ones. But the methods and ideas we work with and the language used are "self-standing."
I research ancient texts In the case of the Bible there are many manuscripts with more being discovered. The "70 little plates" discovered in Jordan 5 years ago (no one seems to know who has them now - a mystery), if authentic and do date from the 1st century, may prove to be a more important find than the Dead Sea Scrolls and Qumran. There is no "original Bible" except theoretically, (which is likely not the case with the Quran) but many versions of different books of it (unless one takes it as an article of faith that there is).
People are seeking the spiritual although many, especially in the West and the developed nations, are turned off by religions. Educated Americans learn to think in the language of reason and science. Even the language and thought of Shakespeare's time, which embodied a different worldview is not understood. Man's place and destiny in the order of the cosmos is lost to most moderns.
Consider many Americans' selfishness, narcissism, greed , how many are spoiled consumers who are over- medicated, depressed and not caring about their neighbors and the environment. Many don't feel their lives have any meaning and are afraid to see it.
How good a job are many traditional churches doing in helping their people? How many priests and ministers are able to contain the energy that is given during the sacraments so that it is made available to the members? To be ordained in England a few years ago I recall this was one requirement and there were those who tested candidates. I don't think this is the general rule today. We see how many are drawn to fundamentalist churches, Megachurches, New Age experiments and diluted "Eastern" religions which don't help people grow as individuals or take them very far.
Yet there are good and sometimes exceptional pastors of many faiths, teachers and guides of many traditions and professionals in the healing and energy arts.
It is noteworthy that a small group, the Quakers, who have never numbered more than 200,000, have been a leading force in the passing of most progressive legislation in America for the past two centuries, supported the rights of Native Americans in the courts since before the Revolution, which only recently proved successful, and were awarded the Nobel Prize for spearheading arms reduction (and refused to accept it unless no individuals were named in the presentation.) They practice personal tranquility and the cultivation of the inner light and committed engagement to public welfare ,without seeking personal reward or expecting results. Their principals and methods are simple, practical and comprehensive.
I don't understand what you mean "in deference to"! I think we would enjoy discussing many teachings and the mystics like Meister Eckhart and Rumi any day in the week and our feelings, thoughts and impressions about them. Do you take personally or as a put down any of my comments relating to the Bible? If the Bible provides 'a map for the soul' for you , I can concur with that . It does for me, too.
I return in a guarded way, in order to make certain I do not speak to people whose sensibilities I may offend. You have not offended me; I thought I offended you...
Now I can answer this way: The only way a person can truly know himself is by looking inward. The most effective way to self-knowledge is through imagery and metaphor. Our Truth comes to us in this way.
So, if you wish to avoid religion and, or, mystical language when speaking with groups of many faiths (or none), I can suggest you use either some art form, or, dream analysis, using depth psychology, as a 'map' for either or, both.
The reason for this suggestion is that anything on the psyche (soul) level of understanding and experience can be elevated in meaning for the purposes of Spirit. The psyche is the bridge to the Eternal, the Ineffable.
A person of any faith can enjoy it and get much insight into his own life from it, if he is open to the lessons of Mythology.
The reason for this suggestion is that anything on the psyche (soul) level of understanding and experience can be elevated in meaning for the purposes of Spirit. The psyche is the bridge to the Eternal, the Ineffable.
Ben,
Within all the major traditions there are practices for relating the mind and the body so that one can ascess the feelings and psyche and relate to a higher level of consciousness . Some refer to it as becoming present to one's state and turning the attention inward to cultivate an inner lfe . For we live most of the time identified with our reactions to external forces which we register as thoughts, feelings and sensations that are all on the same level. There is no one there to observe "me" reacting to them . Being present and attentive to this situation , I can begin to separate from this identification that takes all my energy and believing I am my thoughts, feelings, sensations through the attention and sensation " or feeling/sensation. This is like the practice of meditation or prayer or energy work - all the same thing really, described in different words in various traditions. We all have the same body to work with and the mind and the breath and the capacity to feel/ sense ( both the physical and etheric body or psyche) . One can do this alone or with others (which brings more energy to work with). We live between two levels of energy all the time. When we are aware of this and can bear it , we can be "in-between" and related to both levels and do "alchemical work" . It takes some many years to to begin to practice well . It all depends on the individual.
Sure, it is nice stuff. Intellectual stuff basically. Perhaps you like Mircea Eliade? He gives very authentic descriptions.
I thank you once again for your post and your indulgence!
Are you familiar with the Philokalia ? Also I think you might like the book Lost Christianity.
Clarke, no, I have not read any of the readings you mention. When I was reading alot, some years ago, I was immersed in anything by Carl Jung and what his students wrote. This led me to a desire to know God in an experiential way, rather than in the typical intellectual sense... As a result, I began a dream life preparing me for my own initiation into the Mysteries.....
My interior life is so rich as present, that I no longer have the desire to read much. I have found my Rest.
Most of what I write in comments on Gather are a reflection of my own experiences of the Divine, using the vocabulary of the Gnostic tradition.
Then the Gnostikos (Philokalia in English, in Greek Ελληνικά) texts use your vocabulary.
Evagrius of Pontus: The Gnostikos (CPG 2431)
Ο ΓΝΟΣΤΙΚΟΣ Η ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΝ ΚΑΤΑΞΙΘΕΝΤΑ
ΓΝΣΕΣ
ed. A. & C. Guillaumont, Évagre le Pontique, Le Gnostique ou A celui qui est devenudigne de la science
3. But the knower [gnostikos] has
the significance [logos] of salt for
the impure and light for the pure.
4. The knowledge that reaches us
from external [things] tries by means
of the logoi to indirectly teach material
[things]. However the [knowledge]
which by God’s grace is innate [within
us] directly presents matters to the
mind; and in beholding them, the
nous welcomes their logoi.
And opposing the first is < error;
against the second is > anger and
indignation < and what flows from
them >
Hermes, and many other ancient works are available at this website:
gnosis.org
Their archive is huge.
You have to 'dig deeply' to avoid the 'mediocre' stuff at gnosis.org archive, I admit readily. But I think that may be a sly way of keeping those who are not really serious, ironically, away. One must put a leash on one's ego-vanity before one can move forward.
Long ago I had a very vivid dream where I was in an "eastern" setting inside a religious enclosure that had draperies on the walls and many large pillows all around, the color scheme was "bright" and flashy with reds and yellows (as I recall), I remember in the dream that I asked the question as to just what religion was involved, and the answer came back "Coptic" ... it struck me at the time that I had never heard (at least not to my recollection) of that religion before and I then and there, realizing that this was all a dream, that the next day I would research the word Coptic to find out what it was all about ...
I did that at first opportunity and in putting it all together I have since wondered if maybe I have had a close relationship to that faith in some past life or something ???
Like you, I have had dreams in which a word (or instructions) were given to me---just when I needed them....
These messages come from, what I like to call, the reservoir of Absolute Knowledge, residing in each human being. We could simply call it the "Christ within" or "Indwelling Lord."
Summer Harvest: A Psalm By Valentinus
This hymn was written by Valentinus
during his time in Rome (139-160AD). In it Valentinus offers a brief summary of his vision of the universe, beginning from below and ending with the Aeons being produced by Depth and Silence in the Fullness. The title of the hymn uses the type of agricultural metaphor typical of Valentinian thought. A commentary by a later Roman Valentinian is appended to the hymn.
In the spirit I see all suspended,
In the spirit I know everything held:
The flesh hanging from the soul
The soul held aloft by the air
The air suspended from the ether
Fruits manifest themselves out of the Depth
A child emerges from the womb
Explanation By a Later Teacher
He means this: "flesh" is matter which is "hanging" from the "soul" of the Craftsman. "The soul held aloft by the air" means the Craftsman held aloft by the Spirit that comes from the Fullness (i.e. Achamoth). And "the air suspended from the ether" means that the exterior Wisdom (Achamoth) is suspended from the inner Limit and the entire Fullness. "Fruits manifest themselves out of the Depth" having become the complete emanation of the Aeons from the Father.
(Many "Gnostics" hold to Valentinus' teachings)
...so I looked him up. His ideas concerning the sacred and profane resonate with my own experience and gnosis.
I hope his soul finds rest, because it appears that he may not have found his Liberation while he was here, in the flesh.
Count me in as a 'believer.' I have been following this phenomenon for years and it was integral to my own conversion of heart. This event is not an attempt to convert anyone to a particular religion----but an event needed in order to convert the world to love.