Originally Posted by mal4mac
The above, however, is made up. The sole extant manuscript (third century papyrus) of Philip's 'gospel' doesn't include this description; the addition is a modern gnostic idea, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the scroll fragment discovered at Nàg Hàmmadi in the 1940s.
Later today, I'll "find" a portion of the General Theory which says that all matter is composed of green cheese.
oh no. how am I supposed to reproduce and keep the human race going if any worship is going to be possible.
abstinence means not enough people to go around by the time we finished and god will have no worshipers believers left to revere him.
how shall he do?
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
Surely it has *something* to do with the fragment? Here is, supposedly, a translation of the fragment:
"[Christ loved] M[ary] more than [all] the disci[ples, and used to] kiss her [softly] on her [hand].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_...rning_the_text
Guesses are in the square brackets.
Last edited by mal4mac; 10-23-2013 at 12:36 PM.
what is this? a clean up operation? get married or don't have sex. yeah right, try and stop me.
what you are saying is wrong. either punish one or the other and even so do not. punishing in the two is taking the piss.2) I know sex and sin aren't the same thing. Otherwise, no one should be having sex and we wouldn't be here, which is silly. What I said was that sex for homosexuals is always wrong, whether they're "married" or not.
if the script talks about gay the script is by order of logical saying it recognises them. anything after that is silly behaviour.
what? he did not? really. you need to check again. he is a man and that is what men do have sex.3) Christ didn't have sex with Mary Magdalene. What are you talking about?
ok. I know when I am ready. the bible does not have a time table has it?4) It is knowing WHEN to abstain for sex. Sex isn't synonymous with sin.
I do not have morality. I have opinions and guess what? it does not come from a bible. I have better things to do then read something that makes no sense whatsoever.So then your morality is all made up. What's so special about it, then? That means your morality is no better than my morality and we shouldn't even be arguing.
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
The gospel of Philip is not in the Bible, and is a gnostic gospel written much too late.
And my morality is reasoned out, too. :/
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
1) I'm not married and I don't have sex. Lots of people are the same way. It can be done.
2) Men do a lot more things than have sex. Believe it or not, there are men out there whose lives don't revolve around humping a leg.
3) If you don't have morality, how can you say what I am saying is wrong? If you have no morality, my beliefs are neither good or bad.
You're just talking out of bitterness, now...
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
LOL bitterness not at all. I can tell wrong from right with m y eyes closed. I do not need to consult a dictionary to know. it is instinct. you should try it.
morality is a title. I have opinions. that is a thought formulated when thinking on your feet and measuring to what I think is me in response to others. I see be then I learn. I can only formulate when I postulate and that means it involves another human contact not a book.
I talk to a person i consequently think. I can't do it with a book. thinking/ opinions is a two way mechanism which involves speech and listening. then an opinion triggers. no impediments there just words. i do not do silent learning it is one way traffic and it usually ends up in a cul de sac. ever been in one?
it may never try
but when it does it sigh
it is just that
good
it fly
Yep. Beyond the "gap-filling" the membranes between Thomas and Philip are also separate as well - "bound together" doesn't always mean on the same signatures. Not unlike the Vinland Map, the whole is a little suspect. Most latter Post-Ptolemaic period Acacia-carbon inks on Coptic papyri have a faint "bluish glow" in natural light; this manuscript gives the impression of having been archaised, and (strictly personal opinion here) might date as late as the sixth century in any case. Since a large number of modern papyrologists have intentionally been "kept away from" the manuscript, there are lots of hunches brewing. I don't know if Dirk Obbink at Christchurch has handled it personally, but if he has, nothing's been said of it formally. I think it's safe to put aside Philip as being sufficiently questionable that it doesn't figure into the equasion. The usual caveat - "dumber than a milk jug fulla rusty nails" - applies here.
According to Elaine Pagels in "The Gnostic Gospels", the sayings of the Gospel of Thomas, compiled circa 140, may include some traditions even older than the gospels of the New Testament, possibly as early as the second half of the first century. The gospels themselves are rather late, c. AD 60-110, according to Pagels.
How did these gospels survive? The Bishops tried their best to destroy them:
"By the time of the Emperor Constantine's conversion, when Christianity became an officially approved religion in the fourth century, Christian bishops, previously victimized by the police, now commanded them. Possession of books denounced as heretical was made a criminal offense. Copies of such books were burned and destroyed. But in Upper Egypt, someone; possibly a monk from a nearby monastery of St. Pachomius, took the banned books and hid them from destruction--in the jar where they remained buried for almost 1,600 years." - Pagels
"A heretic may be anyone whose outlook someone else dislikes or denounces. According to tradition, a heretic is one who deviates from the true faith. But what defines that "true faith"? Who calls it that, and for what reasons?" - Pagels
By A. D. 200, "Christianity had become an institution headed by a three-rank hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons, who understood themselves to be the guardians of the only "true faith." The majority of churches, among which the church of Rome took a leading role, rejected all other viewpoints as heresy. Deploring the diversity of the earlier movement, Bishop Irenaeus and his followers insisted that there could be only one church, and outside of that church, he declared, "there is no salvation." Members of this church alone are orthodox (literally, "straight-thinking") Christians. And, he claimed, this church must be catholic-- that is, universal. Whoever challenged that consensus, arguing instead for other forms of Christian teaching, was declared to be a heretic, and expelled. When the orthodox gained military support, sometime after the Emperor Constantine became Christian in the fourth century, the penalty for heresy escalated." - Pagels
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ry/pagels.html
Last edited by mal4mac; 10-23-2013 at 01:00 PM.
I don't think you want to depend on instinct to tell you what's right and wrong. We are more than just animals. It's good to think things through. And I don't know why you think if someone adheres to Christianity he suddenly stops thinking. It's quite the contrary. It is easy to base morality off feelings, about what we like and don't like. You don't have to think much to do that. It's not like someone put a bible in front of me and said, "believe in it," and I said, "okay," without batting an eye. I think about my faith extensively every day. Christianity has made me think more than ever before.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
See Eleanor Rigby's facial storage for comparison.
There's very little (professed) doubt regarding Thomas (no pun untended).
I think it's instinctual in the way that driving a car is instinctual. Some of us may not have become instinctual drivers yet, and need to read the driving manuals, or talk to better drivers, and think things through. Unfortunately the Bible is a driving manual for a chariot.
Yeah, and what if people's instincts all say different things?
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
Father Mckenzie writing the words of a sermon that no one will hear
No one comes near.
Look at him working, darning his socks in the night when there's nobody there...
Father Mckenzie wiping the dirt from his hands as he walks from the grave
No one was saved
Good God, I have never seen a more ironic post in my life.
Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abideth alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much fruit.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote