I have a question

[biblemommy]

I hope this is the right board to post this, if not Admin please help me find the right place...
I recently finished a very contriversal book, The Di Vinchi codes.
noe before everyone freaks out, this is not a debate on if Jesus had a wife ect ect ect, I read the book as fiction, as that it what I see it as, I am an art historian, majored in art history, so I do know a great deal of what the author claimed to be true with regards to the ART only, but this thing about mary magdalene has me curious. My sister in seminary,( a place we have differences of opinion on ofter.) but I asked her is there really documents such as the gospel according to Mary Magdalene, and a few others like thomas and philip. Anyway I am just curios if any of you know about such things and what is any credit and time should we spend reserching it?
I love to study and I must admitt if there are more accounts of Christ's life I would be interested in reading them, should they be real. So like I said I am not seeking a debate on if she was his wife, had his kids or anyother of that stuff that is to me not relavent to worship and believe Jesus is my savoir and my salvation...I just what to know if any of these things are really, if any one has read them what they say and what you think about it....
Thank you...:confused

[roadrunner570]

Hi Biblemommy :):

There are such gospels, Infancy gospel of James, Apocalypse of Peter, Gospel of Thomas, and a ton of others.

First problem with them is dating. Most are dated like AD 150 or later, so that makes it highly unlikely it was written by anyone who actually knew Jesus.

You can find most of these on the web to read, especiall Thomas. The thing is, all of these contain some or several contradictions to scripture, which is why they were never included in the canon.

The gospels you mentioned are also called Gnostic Gospels. Gnosticism was a popular, sort of "alternate" Christianity during the early church, and made a resurgence when many of these gospels were found at Nag Hammadi in Egypt.

Gnosticism was an elitist sort of religion. They believed that the gospels weren't the real story of Jesus, but that they possessed some special, secret knowledge. So only THEY knew the key to eternal life based on the secret information that only they knew.

The most popular form of Gnostism was the group that believed the spirit and flesh were seperate, therefore, it doesn't matter what the flesh does. So basically, you can do whatever you want with this body because the flesh is corrupt and is separate from the spirit...as long as your spirit has this secret knowledge, the flesh is free to please itself in any way.

Anyways, I hope that all makes sense. :):

[RhondaH]

Some of the books you spoke of are called the apochrypha (sp?). They are included in the Catholic bible. They were not found to be authentic by protestants, I guess. They are interesting reads, but be vigilant and ask for discernment when reading them. You could google them and probably find them on the web.:):

[70thWeek]

There are the so-called gnostic gospels and pseudopigriphical gospels, but these were not included in the canon for a reason, they were not inspired at best and herectical at worst. This does not mean that all early writings are bad. I Clement and the Didache are very early Christian writings and are excellent (they were almost included in the canon), but they are not Scripture.

You can read the gospel of Thomas and such as literature, but not as a basis for faith.

[Paul]

Some of the books you spoke of are called the apochrypha (sp?). They are included in the Catholic bible. None of those books are included in the Catholic canon.

Like roadrunner said they date well after the time of Christ and are not Christianity but a different religion.

[70thWeek]

Some of the books you spoke of are called the apochrypha (sp?). They are included in the Catholic bible. They were not found to be authentic by protestants, I guess. They are interesting reads, but be vigilant and ask for discernment when reading them. You could google them and probably find them on the web.:):

The catholics include the Ot apocrypha. The NT apocrypha contains mostly heretical books.

[biblemommy]

Thank you for the information I apperciate the suggestions, and hopefully won't have a hard time finding them.
Why are there certian books in the catholic bible and not the king james?

[roadrunner570]

Thank you for the information I apperciate the suggestions, and hopefully won't have a hard time finding them.
Why are there certian books in the catholic bible and not the king james?

Well, actually, the original King James in 1611 had the apocryphal books, theres like 5 of them I think, they were in the OT. The Catholic Church has long kept them in.

When a guy named Jerome was doing a translation, instead of using the old OT greek manuscripts, he decided to go to the original Hebrew since that was what the OT was in originally. In doing so, the apocryphal books were no where to be found in Hebrew. So it was apparent that the Jews from the beginning never considered those books to be inspired. So during the Reformation, they were taken out by the Protestants...as any Catholic will quickly point out :lol

[hopper]

Thank you for the information I apperciate the suggestions, and hopefully won't have a hard time finding them.
Why are there certian books in the catholic bible and not the king james?
I'm a little unsure too, if this topic can be discussed here, but there are differences in the Christian Bibles of Roman Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Armenian, Coptic, and other Christian groups. The Protestant OT Canon is fairly accepted by most, while there are additions in the others. Some NT Canons are different as well.
Basically, this has to do with what books each of the church groups have recognized for various reasons as being inspired of God.

Most of the gospel narratives accepted as Scripture are the same collection in all of the major Christian groups. All other gospel narratives are considered pseudepigraphal (or false writings).

RCC's sometimes refer to the Protestant OT Apocrypha as Deuterocanonical (or of a Secondary Canonical status, that is, accepted later than the other books).

Protestant tradition relies on what has been termed a Palestinian (or Jewish) Canon for their OT, whereas the RCC has relied on what has been termed a Greek or Alexadrian Canon for their OT. Likewise, other Christian groups rely on their regional traditions for what they accept or recognize as Scripture.

[biblemommy]

Ok I am trying to wrap my mind around this, the RCC uses greek translation for there bible, and the the king james uses a jewish translation, I understand that for the OT, but what of the gospels? Rome was established long before Christ lived, so once the RCC came into itself it would have had authors writing in latin, rather than greek, so translation wouldn't be a problem, but why would the protestant faith come out of a bible tranlated into german? isn't that what Luther did? aside from stand up to the RCC in many of its beliefs like relics and pergatory ect...
was it Luther that left out these gospels to begin with?
And if so when did these 'other' gospels come to light? where they always apart of the RCC translation?
And did the RCC really smear mary magdalene so as to taint her presence in the gospels? I still haven't been able to find anything by philip, but I have read some theologians believe that many of the gospels left out all had refference to mary being Jesus's companion which translated from greek supposedly means literally spouse, but if the RCC uses greek translation and protestant uses jewish/hebrew text and there isn't a reference then it would stand to reason that this is false information correct?
I hope I am not frustrating anyone, I am just curious my sister whom I mentioned likes to debate stuff like this and many times she sounds like a horses you know what, but I want to be able to contibute to the conversation with more than my own convictions, but facts as well...
again thanks all

[His Bride]

A couple of years ago I met a Catholic who was trying to entice me to read the Da Vinci Codes. Then some time later a Christian friend of mine read it for the purpose of knowing why her family members, Nonchristians, had read it. Anyway, I know that people found it fascinating and the art history appealed to the more academic readers. However, I could not bring myself to read something that I considered irreverent toward my Lord.

The Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost. He came to die. All through the Gospels he stated that He came not to do His will, but the will of the One who sent Him, the Father. His sole purpose was to reconcile a sinful people to God. It would seem to me that anything that tries to shift His divine purpose from the will of the Father to the will of man, any man, is apostacy. If, and I say If, Jesus had a family it would only make sense that He devote His whole energy to His family. That is what husbands and fathers are called to do. But that would have distracted Him from the cross and would have been utter disobedience, therefore, He would have sinned. And we all know that Jesus was sinless.

It bothers me so much when we try to bring Jesus down to our level. Yes, He was fully human, but don't forget that He was fully Divine.

No matter what so called extra gospels there are God chose not to have them be a part of His Word, the Bible. We need not read anything else into the picture. Satan would just love us to question God's wisdom.

[roadrunner570]

Ok I am trying to wrap my mind around this, the RCC uses greek translation for there bible, and the the king james uses a jewish translation, I understand that for the OT, but what of the gospels? Rome was established long before Christ lived, so once the RCC came into itself it would have had authors writing in latin, rather than greek, so translation wouldn't be a problem, but why would the protestant faith come out of a bible tranlated into german? isn't that what Luther did? aside from stand up to the RCC in many of its beliefs like relics and pergatory ect...
was it Luther that left out these gospels to begin with?
And if so when did these 'other' gospels come to light? where they always apart of the RCC translation?
And did the RCC really smear mary magdalene so as to taint her presence in the gospels? I still haven't been able to find anything by philip, but I have read some theologians believe that many of the gospels left out all had refference to mary being Jesus's companion which translated from greek supposedly means literally spouse, but if the RCC uses greek translation and protestant uses jewish/hebrew text and there isn't a reference then it would stand to reason that this is false information correct?
I hope I am not frustrating anyone, I am just curious my sister whom I mentioned likes to debate stuff like this and many times she sounds like a horses you know what, but I want to be able to contibute to the conversation with more than my own convictions, but facts as well...
again thanks all

The RCC goes from the Latin Vulgate, which was translated from the Septagint, which is an all greek translation of the OT and NT.

Protestants go from the Hebrew texts of OT, but Koine Greek is what the NT appeared in. At least in the earliest manuscripts.

A lot of the stuff about Mary Magdaline is tradition and speculation. Scripture never says she was a prostitute, or that she was the woman caught in adultery in John, or whatever. Its a lot of connecting the dots and speculation without any real support.

But there are no known NT manuscripts in Hebrew. During NT times, most Jews didnt' even speak Hebrew, most spoke Aramaic, but the "business" language was Greek.

So I hope that helps. The BIGGEST Problem with these other gospels is the dating....the earliest dates of any of them are way after any apostles would have been alive. The 4 gospels that we have now have never been questioned throughout church history.

[hopper]

We don't have original writings of any Bible text. A Bible called a translation almost always references old copies of the Bible and parts of the Bible written in the original languages of the Bible - Hebrew for the OT and Greek for the NT - called manuscripts, and then translates those into the desired language (for us, this is English).

One of the first translations of the Scriptures was the Septuagint (LXX), meaning seventy (for the 70 Jewish scholars thought to have done the work), which was only a translation of the Hebrew OT into Greek. We don't have an original copy of this either, but it is thought that perhaps it contained some of the additional books now found in Catholic Bibles. This is perhaps where there was an initial distinction made between those OT books the Palestinian Jews accepted as the OT (that is, the Palestinian Canon, which the Reformers relied upon for what they considered Scripture), and what is thought to have been an Alexandrian Canon, or Greek Jewish Canon of the OT, that contained some additional books. (Remember, writings were much less prevalent back then, and the Jewish people had a habit of collecting all their sacred writings together, sort of like our study Bibles today, where you've got Scripture itself, and commentary and other helps all bound together.)

The oldest copies of the Bible (OT & NT) that we have contain additional OT books not found in Protestant Bibles, and sometimes some of these additions, as well as NT additions, are not found in Roman Catholic Bibles either. And these additions are not always the same in these old copies of the Bible. Most of these old copies of the Bible have been found written in Greek and from an Alexandrian (rather than Palestinian) tradition where there are additions to both the OT & NT.

When the Church (long before the Protestant Reformation and the KJV) finally got around to what it officially accepted as Scripture, it decided on the exact Bible that Protestants use today. However, there were these extra OT type of books around that had been used as helpful additions. For example, they were written between the OT & NT when there was a 400 year gap where no Scripture was written, and they help tell the story of the Jewish people during those years. Because they were found useful, these extra books were included in many translations, primarily in a separate section between the OT & NT (as in the KJV), or at the end of the Bible (as an appendix). At the time of the Protestant Reformation the RCC officially adopted these books as Scripture and the Protestant Church rejected them as Scripture.

Perhaps of most interest to biblemommy, is that none of these Scriptures ever contained these 'extra' gospels referred to in the Davinci Code. These other gospels were always considered false writings by a vast majority of the Church, both Catholic and Protestant. They were generally written much later than the NT Gospels, written to fill in gaps found in the NT Gospels, not written by the person whose name it bears (Thomas, Mary Magdalene, Peter, Barnabus, etc.), and written to support some teaching that was contrary to the NT Gospels, and thus false.

[S Spade]

Here's a nice debunking of the Code book.

http://www.tektonics.org/davincicrude.htm

[biblemommy]

A couple of years ago I met a Catholic who was trying to entice me to read the Da Vinci Codes. Then some time later a Christian friend of mine read it for the purpose of knowing why her family members, Nonchristians, had read it. Anyway, I know that people found it fascinating and the art history appealed to the more academic readers. However, I could not bring myself to read something that I considered irreverent toward my Lord.

The Son of Man came to seek and to save that which was lost. He came to die. All through the Gospels he stated that He came not to do His will, but the will of the One who sent Him, the Father. His sole purpose was to reconcile a sinful people to God. It would seem to me that anything that tries to shift His divine purpose from the will of the Father to the will of man, any man, is apostacy. If, and I say If, Jesus had a family it would only make sense that He devote His whole energy to His family. That is what husbands and fathers are called to do. But that would have distracted Him from the cross and would have been utter disobedience, therefore, He would have sinned. And we all know that Jesus was sinless.

It bothers me so much when we try to bring Jesus down to our level. Yes, He was fully human, but don't forget that He was fully Divine.

No matter what so called extra gospels there are God chose not to have them be a part of His Word, the Bible. We need not read anything else into the picture. Satan would just love us to question God's wisdom.




I agree with you, and in large I did read it to see what the fuss was all about, and as an art historian I honestly can say it did appeal to me on that level, I did however; find inacruracy's, and the Holy Spirit was with me the whole way. Again I am only curious because it is an honest lack of knowledge for me and you are absolutley right that Jesus came to do the will of God, I don't question that.
I will say that it has always been something I wanted to know what Jesus did from the age 13 to the time He entered into His public ministry. The story we aren't told.
I am only trying to further my knowledge more for the purpose of being able to back up what I already am convicted of. I don't fall into the group of people who feels the bible is outdated and irrelavent to today, I believe it IS THEE infalable word of God divinely inspired to those whom God alone Chose to record His words.
That said, I also think its ok to ask questions.
When I went back to school to finish my degree I took a refresher coarse in Art History, just to get my feet wet again, this time though I had given my life to Christ. Back in my college years though I had been saved I was still very niave. When I started my class the 2nd time all kinds of bells and whistles were going off, what I had blindly accepted as fact before I knew now was lies, and because we can see and feel and smell art and historical artifacts I knew they were real also, SO if these things were real and Gods word IS real then man had the information ALL wrong, God put the desire into my heart to ask the questions and seek the answers and with my bible and my art history books, I began a years worth of intense studing, God realved His truths to me and I became even closer to Him through that, and this is what I am doing know, seeking His truth even if it means looking in some of mans writings. I am not however trying to bring Jesus down to anyones level.
I am also very aware that da vinci was not a Godly man and in fact rather off his rocker, he was intelligent beyond his time, but his intelect denied him the most important element in a realtionship with God= faith. The book trys to create doubt by making da vinci appear to have had true knowledge of what happened in a time he wasn't apart of. So while there are many theories and much speculation surrounding Da Vinci's works the world is trying to 'understand' the mind of this master inventor/painter one fact remains
He did what he did because he wanted to create controversy. amazingly he still is.
SO basicly going back to my question those writings that may or may not be genuine they couldn't have been writen in Christs time or even soon after, so they are not first hand accounts, and we all know what happens when the truth becomes more of a story or tall tale. I am grateful for the nudge in the right direction. and apperciate your paitence with my questions.
peace...

[biblemommy]

We don't have original writings of any Bible text. A Bible called a translation almost always references old copies of the Bible and parts of the Bible written in the original languages of the Bible - Hebrew for the OT and Greek for the NT - called manuscripts, and then translates those into the desired language (for us, this is English).

One of the first translations of the Scriptures was the Septuagint (LXX), meaning seventy (for the 70 Jewish scholars thought to have done the work), which was only a translation of the Hebrew OT into Greek. We don't have an original copy of this either, but it is thought that perhaps it contained some of the additional books now found in Catholic Bibles. This is perhaps where there was an initial distinction made between those OT books the Palestinian Jews accepted as the OT (that is, the Palestinian Canon, which the Reformers relied upon for what they considered Scripture), and what is thought to have been an Alexandrian Canon, or Greek Jewish Canon of the OT, that contained some additional books. (Remember, writings were much less prevalent back then, and the Jewish people had a habit of collecting all their sacred writings together, sort of like our study Bibles today, where you've got Scripture itself, and commentary and other helps all bound together.)

The oldest copies of the Bible (OT & NT) that we have contain additional OT books not found in Protestant Bibles, and sometimes some of these additions, as well as NT additions, are not found in Roman Catholic Bibles either. And these additions are not always the same in these old copies of the Bible. Most of these old copies of the Bible have been found written in Greek and from an Alexandrian (rather than Palestinian) tradition where there are additions to both the OT & NT.

When the Church (long before the Protestant Reformation and the KJV) finally got around to what it officially accepted as Scripture, it decided on the exact Bible that Protestants use today. However, there were these extra OT type of books around that had been used as helpful additions. For example, they were written between the OT & NT when there was a 400 year gap where no Scripture was written, and they help tell the story of the Jewish people during those years. Because they were found useful, these extra books were included in many translations, primarily in a separate section between the OT & NT (as in the KJV), or at the end of the Bible (as an appendix). At the time of the Protestant Reformation the RCC officially adopted these books as Scripture and the Protestant Church rejected them as Scripture.

Perhaps of most interest to biblemommy, is that none of these Scriptures ever contained these 'extra' gospels referred to in the Davinci Code. These other gospels were always considered false writings by a vast majority of the Church, both Catholic and Protestant. They were generally written much later than the NT Gospels, written to fill in gaps found in the NT Gospels, not written by the person whose name it bears (Thomas, Mary Magdalene, Peter, Barnabus, etc.), and written to support some teaching that was contrary to the NT Gospels, and thus false.


Thank you that is very useful information....

[My Abba's Child]

I've looked briefly into the Gospel of Thomas... the way I read it, it boils down to this... if you're a woman, you can't get into heaven unless... at the point of death, you choose to be a man. Some kinda wierd junk like that...

It did have SOME truth (such as the church is not a building of wood or stone), but when DOESN'T Satan use that little bit of truth to sweeten the lie?

In His love,

[biblemommy]

I've looked briefly into the Gospel of Thomas... the way I read it, it boils down to this... if you're a woman, you can't get into heaven unless... at the point of death, you choose to be a man. Some kinda wierd junk like that...

It did have SOME truth (such as the church is not a building of wood or stone), but when DOESN'T Satan use that little bit of truth to sweeten the lie?

In His love,

Rutt Roe !!
well I guess that means heaven won't be perfect , cuz men alone...welll I won't say it....:angel

[countmeworthy]

I will say that it has always been something I wanted to know what Jesus did from the age 13 to the time He entered into His public ministry. The story we aren't told.

Very True. But during His teenage years, Jesus was most likely living under His human parents roof. Therefore, He was submitting to their authority, obeying them. He had siblings (though obviously not divine in nature) so He mingled with them, His neighbors, relatives. I'm sure He laughed and kidded around as well as had a compassionate heart. I'm sure He touched the hearts of kids He was around with...especially those who might have been troublemakers.

We know as an adult as He was going about His Father's business, He slept and ate. I'm sure He bathed and changed His clothes. He was HUMAN but DIVINE in nature without sin. :):

We know from the scriptures Jesus was a carpenter, as was Joseph, so He probably spent alot of time learning that trade from His earthly father.

AND I'm CERTAIN, Jesus spent a lot of time reading the Old Testament & praying to the Father as He prepared for His ministry.

[biblemommy]

interestingly enough we know that from prophesy He would be rejected by His own, nazereth would turns its back on Him.
Now a days when someone becomes 'famous' everyone who knew that person is on the today show telling all about them back when....
With as many that wrote about Him from His ministry, its a wonder no one from His back when days wrote something also...
I realize that there are just somethings we won't get answers to in this life time, thats ok, thats the faith part.
I have one of those brains that doesn't shut off, even when you lie down to sleep, its just keeps going on and on thinking . So I wake up with some intesne questions sometimes. It's too bad that I can't figure out how to spell correctly !! :B:

[DCShell]

Very True. But during His teenage years, Jesus was most likely living under His human parents roof. Therefore, He was submitting to their authority, obeying them. He had siblings (though obviously not divine in nature) so He mingled with them, His neighbors, relatives. I'm sure He laughed and kidded around as well as had a compassionate heart. I'm sure He touched the hearts of kids He was around with...especially those who might have been troublemakers.

We know as an adult as He was going about His Father's business, He slept and ate. I'm sure He bathed and changed His clothes. He was HUMAN but DIVINE in nature without sin. :):

We know from the scriptures Jesus was a carpenter, as was Joseph, so He probably spent alot of time learning that trade from His earthly father.

AND I'm CERTAIN, Jesus spent a lot of time reading the Old Testament & praying to the Father as He prepared for His ministry.

I would have to agree with you except for the last part. I'm not so sure that Jesus spent much time reading the Torah other than what was required of Him by His family. After all, since He wrote the book I can't see Him having to go back and reread what He had written down before. Me, sure, I have to reread what I wrote down five minutes ago but this is God we're talking about here. He created us out of nothing and knows the very hairs of our heads. I don't see Him forgetting what He wrote. :lol