Orangeslice13, a blessing to those around him…..Again

#7,426
#7,426
Weezer said:
Slice, does your knowledge of Biblical history extend past the Bible and the Torah and such? Do you have opinions on the Apocryphal books? Or on the stories of Mary Magdalene?
Click to expand...

Actually yes. I’ve spent a huge amount of time on it. I have a different approach to “scripture” than most though. Just because it’s in the Bible doesn’t make it scripture in my opinion. And same things left out shouldn’t be. 2 in particular should be in and one should be out. “Hebrews” shouldn’t be in. “The book of Enoch” and “the apocalypse of Peter “ should be in. I also lean towards “Maccabees” being inspired.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Weezer and vol445
#7,427
#7,427
Orangeslice13 said:
Actually yes. I’ve spent a huge amount of time on it. I have a different approach to “scripture” than most though. Just because it’s in the Bible doesn’t make it scripture in my opinion. And same things left out shouldn’t be. 2 in particular should be in and one should be out. “Hebrews” shouldn’t be in. “The book of Enoch” and “the apocalypse of Peter “ should be in. I also lean towards “Maccabees” being inspired.
Click to expand...

I was watching some show the other day that said after the Crucifixion, Mary Magdalene went to France. They mentioned something about her writing her own gospel, and of course they mentioned some of the more salacious rumors as well. Have you ever read up on that? I just had never put much thought into her myself, so I found it kind of interesting. It got me wondering more about what really happened to her.
 
#7,430
#7,430
vol445 said:
Yeah I’ve seen that. To me it makes since they would have all wrote something.
Click to expand...
A female perspective from that period could be interesting. And the fact she was a woman has created so many historical rumors. Just seems like an interesting subject IMO.
 
#7,432
#7,432
Weezer said:
A female perspective from that period could be interesting. And the fact she was a woman has created so many historical rumors. Just seems like an interesting subject IMO.
Click to expand...
Not to take anything away from a female perspective....as the first witnesses of the risen Messiah were women by all accounts....but the gospel of Mary is a very late work. The earliest copy we have is from 500 CE (ish) and there are very few copies. We don’t have a complete copy that I’m aware of. It’s also gnostic in nature and teaches in opposition to the other gospels. It contains obvious errors and things that would disqualify Jesus as Messiah so I don’t give it much thought. Much like the gospel of Thomas it was worth an investigation but it’s not even close to anything I’d consider inspired.

It does create some fun alternatives for history if you’re into that sort of “what if” game.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Weezer
#7,433
#7,433
The most glaring problem with it is not only was it not discovered till sometime in the 1800s, it was unknown before that. We know of other ancient books that have never been found as they’re referenced in other ancient literature so we know they were widely considered and discussed in ancient times
 
#7,437
#7,437
Orangeslice13 said:
Not to take anything away from a female perspective....as the first witnesses of the risen Messiah were women by all accounts....but the gospel of Mary is a very late work. The earliest copy we have is from 500 CE (ish) and there are very few copies. We don’t have a complete copy that I’m aware of. It’s also gnostic in nature and teaches in opposition to the other gospels. It contains obvious errors and things that would disqualify Jesus as Messiah so I don’t give it much thought. Much like the gospel of Thomas it was worth an investigation but it’s not even close to anything I’d consider inspired.

It does create some fun alternatives for history if you’re into that sort of “what if” game.
Click to expand...
Not really arguing for you to take it as gospel, but just a question of curiosity, if she did go to France after the Crucifixion, could that explain some of the things you bring up about it not being mentioned, or when it was discovered?
 
#7,438
#7,438
Weezer said:
Not really arguing for you to take it as gospel, but just a question of curiosity, if she did go to France after the Crucifixion, could that explain some of the things you bring up about it not being mentioned, or when it was discovered?
Click to expand...
No.
It would be referenced somewhere anywhere if it were available. More than likely it originated with the other gnostic writings of the 5-6th centuries. You’re welcome to believe what you want but if you’re asking me does it stand up to any sort of scrutiny then my answer is it doesn’t. There’s no outside proof that anything contained in the partial copies of this book that are verifiable. In fact the opposite is true. The gospel of Mary gets things wrong that Mary would have know, and have been proven true by the writings of Josephus, but someone writing a fake in her name 500 years later would not. There’s a reason this stuff is on the history channel but not taken seriously by any form of scholarship
 
  • Like
Reactions: VolNExile
#7,440
#7,440
Orangeslice13 said:
No.
It would be referenced somewhere anywhere if it were available. More than likely it originated with the other gnostic writings of the 5-6th centuries. You’re welcome to believe what you want but if you’re asking me does it stand up to any sort of scrutiny then my answer is it doesn’t. There’s no outside proof that anything contained in the partial copies of this book that are verifiable. In fact the opposite is true. The gospel of Mary gets things wrong that Mary would have know, and have been proven true by the writings of Josephus, but someone writing a fake in her name 500 years later would not. There’s a reason this stuff is on the history channel but not taken seriously by any form of scholarship
Click to expand...
That's cool. I wasn't trying to argue for its veracity, I was just curious about it. Do you know if it's true that Mary Magdalene went to France after the Crucifixion? Supposedly some church there claims to have her bones as relics according to the show I saw.

I'm not trying to argue religion or convince you of anything. I just find the history part of it fascinating. History has always been my favorite subject. I figured if anyone could tell me about this stuff, it would probably be you.
 
#7,441
#7,441
Orangeslice13 said:
The DaVinci code is also pure fiction
Click to expand...
Yeah, I know. Man, I'm not dumb. I was just curious about something I'd never heard before that I thought you might have insight to. Honestly, if asking some how offended you, I apologize.
 
#7,442
#7,442
Weezer said:
Yeah, I know. Man, I'm not dumb. I was just curious about something I'd never heard before that I thought you might have insight to. Honestly, if asking some how offended you, I apologize.
Click to expand...
I pretty much know slice isn’t offended. We have had the same conversation. The Gnostics are interesting but if you really want something to read that will blow your mind the book of Enoch is awesome. Funny enough it’s not in most bibles yet in the Bible Yeshua -Jesus quotes it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Weezer
#7,443
#7,443
Weezer said:
Yeah, I know. Man, I'm not dumb. I was just curious about something I'd never heard before that I thought you might have insight to. Honestly, if asking some how offended you, I apologize.
Click to expand...
I know you’re not.
The Mary Magdalene thing is all highly speculative. Most historians side with the tradition that Mary went to Ephesus with John where she stayed till she died. That makes the most sense to me as at that time women were little more that property. She had the respect of the 12 and was treated well by them to me that tradition liens up best with how I think things would have been. I’ve read all the arguments for France but there’s no real reason for her to have gone there. All of it’s highly speculative as we just don’t know the actual history of it.
If you want to look at some interesting history, look into Simon Magus. The Catholic Church claims Peter as the first pope but that doesn’t really fly either. Peter went to Rome 2 times (I think) and wasn’t there long enough to establish anything. Even Paul, who wrote to and instructed the Romans didn’t spend any real time there. Simon Magus, on the other hand did. You may remember Simon Magis as the guy in the Bible who tries to buy the power of the Spirit from the apostles and is rebuked. He was described as a “magician” but was also a priest of the Babylon mysterious religion also know as the mother/son cult. (See where I’m going with this) we know from history that he did go to Rome. He changed his name to Simon Peter and started his own version of religion. Interesting that there’s a statue of him there also that gives him credit as the first pope rather than Simon Peter the apostle. It’s amazing to me how many people just accept the things they’re told and never look into it to see if it actually matches history. Case and point is the discussion of the chart in the Bible thread. That Rex guy just can’t let go of dogma when the truth is pretty obvious.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grey_pilgrim and Weezer
#7,444
#7,444
@Weezer
Absolutely not offended and you never need apologize to me. We’re just having a friendly conversation. You’re coming from a place of honesty so we completely disagree (not saying we do) and still be friends I figure you’ll be judged for you and I’ll be judged for me. So I’ll listen to your thoughts and beliefs respectfully and even Talk with you about them. There’s no need for anyone to get angry as we’re doing exactly what the Messiah said when he said we should worry about the plank in our own eye and let our brother worry about the speck in theirs.

I do prefer to have these types of conversations here to avoid the liars
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grey_pilgrim and Weezer
#7,445
#7,445
@Rasputin_Vol
I’ve tied at length to explain to Rex that the women could not be both at the cross and getting supplies on Friday. Maybe you will have better luck but I don’t think he’s interested in the truth
 
#7,447
#7,447
Orangeslice13 said:
@Weezer
Absolutely not offended and you never need apologize to me. We’re just having a friendly conversation. You’re coming from a place of honesty so we completely disagree (not saying we do) and still be friends I figure you’ll be judged for you and I’ll be judged for me. So I’ll listen to your thoughts and beliefs respectfully and even Talk with you about them. There’s no need for anyone to get angry as we’re doing exactly what the Messiah said when he said we should worry about the plank in our own eye and let our brother worry about the speck in theirs.

I do prefer to have these types of conversations here to avoid the liars
Click to expand...
My beliefs are constantly evolving and are far from set in stone. But I enjoy history, and when I hear things I've never heard before, my curiosity is naturally piqued. And Biblical history is far from my strongest of knowledgeable areas. I know the basics, but that's about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grey_pilgrim, Orangeslice13 and 82_VOL_83
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top