|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Aug 24, 2019 2:59:15 GMT
Besides the fact that they contradict themselves and the inspired text and are not historically consistent, they were written long after those who’s names they are attributed to died, i.e. gospel of Peter, gospel of Mary, gospel of Barnabus, etc., while the 4 gospels, the books of Paul, and Acts were written while Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, and Paul were alive.  |
|
|
|
Post by Elizabeth on Aug 24, 2019 3:15:19 GMT
I don't know why anyone would think using fake texts (or ones where people try to make them true) is a good idea. Unless they want to be tricked into believing lies. So sad. But I haven't read all the weird ones. The ones I did read for fun were mental enough. It's like some were written by a mental patient or a witch/wizard. Creepy stuff...
Burn these witchcraft books!
|
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2019 5:00:24 GMT
One shouldn't be so hasty to dismiss apocryphal literature. There are often periodical attempts at reform in Church history. While the Gospel of Peter and Mary are typical mythical narratives, the Gospel of Philip seems to have been an attempt to address previous mistakes. Is this not how he originally taught, by adapting his message to the people he preached to? To the non-Jews, he spoke very little, but meaningfully, such as with the Roman centurion.
Is this not the method outlined in 1 Corinthians 9:19-22? Is it not said somewhere that he ministered to the spirits/angels?
If he had appealed to his disciples as he actually was, surely they wouldn't be able to identify with him. He had to first raise them to his stage of development before manifesting his glory.
Of course, not to take the whole gospel in it's entirety as authentic. Some parts are typical gnostic rubbish.
|
|
|
|
Post by DKTrav88 on Aug 24, 2019 6:36:35 GMT
One shouldn't be so hasty to dismiss apocryphal literature. There are often periodical attempts at reform in Church history. While the Gospel of Peter and Mary are typical mythical narratives, the Gospel of Philip seems to have been an attempt to address previous mistakes. Is this not how he originally taught, by adapting his message to the people he preached to? To the non-Jews, he spoke very little, but meaningfully, such as with the Roman centurion.
Is this not the method outlined in 1 Corinthians 9:19-22? Is it not said somewhere that he ministered to the spirits/angels? If he had appealed to his disciples as he actually was, surely they wouldn't be able to identify with him. He had to first raise them to his stage of development before manifesting his glory. Of course, not to take the whole gospel in it's entirety as authentic. Some parts are typical gnostic rubbish.
A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 26, 2019 19:20:19 GMT
Apocrypha books can't be the source of God's will, I think it should be obvious for Christians.
But, historians can use them for their own sake. Whatever sources of history could be useful, because they could give us more complete picture. That's all.
|
|
