Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Do the books of the Apocrypha contradict the teachings of Jesus?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Apocrypha contradict Jesus's teachings?
- Thread starter Desert Snake
- Start date
te_lanus
Alien Hybrid
To say that all apocrypha contradict the bible is a bit narrowminded, it's like saying that any bible without chapter and verse isn't a bible.
Yes there are those text who did contradict each other, but one have to remeber that the bible we have today is based on the catholic bible . And catholism was just one of the streams early christianity.
roger1440
I do stuff
In order to answer the question one must know and understand the teachings of Jesus. Then work from there. Most people would answer your question from an orthodox Christian perspective. Is that view the correct one? How is anyone to know? There are a few things all the known Gospels have in common. He was an extra ordinary very wise teacher, someone to emulate. His life was the lesson taught. He had followers, but these people couldnt grasp the full message. I find the title of the Gospel of Thomas very creative. The word Thomas means twin. The message of the Gospel is that when the reader fully understands the text, he becomes not a Christian but a Christ, hence twin.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Hmm I have heard irl this idea, and here & there have read verses that to me, fall under this idea. I do think it's a 'valid' Xian idea, personally, though not something I would really 'try' I suppose.
/edit/ I may have misunderstood the post, I am referring to where one emulates Jesus to become..like.. Jesus, as opposed to worshipping Him..
Last edited:
roger1440
I do stuff
Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me.
roger1440
I do stuff
I think all the known Gospels are built on the foundation of the cliché “What would Jesus do?”
What would Jesus do? - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What would Jesus do? - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
If that is so then it would seem they don't contradict the rest of the bible then.
roger1440
I do stuff
You would think so, but some people just arent cut out for creative writing. If I would have met some of these Gospel writers I would have advised them not to give up there day job just yet. The Gospel of Peter has a walking talking cross at the resurrection. In the Infancy Gospel of Thomas the author has Jesus kill a child then brings him back to life. In order for these Gospels to be accepted they cannot go against the grain that is commonly accepted. They must go with the flow.
Deadtroopers
Member
Hello all, forgive me for butting in.
The teaching of Jesus is hardly coherent within particular texts, never mind across texts. He wants you to turn the other cheek one moment and buy a sword the next. How do you come by the image of gentle Jesus, meek and mild, when the man says you can't be his follower unless you hate your family and brings not peace but a sword? We would not have 40 odd gospels and counting if a particular brand of Jesus had been agreeable to everyone. So I think the answer is yes and no; the Apocrypha might agree with a particular Jesus and contradict another.
te_lanus, conflating the Bible with the teachings of Jesus is even more narrow minded. Most of it was written centuries before him, even in the New Testament his teaching is largely confined to 'Matthew' and 'Luke'. Paul quite often writes that he teaches off his own bat and the other epistles hardly; if at all; teach with reference to Jesus. They proclaim him but they do not attribute their teaching to him.
roger1440, wise men do not blast out of season fig trees for not bearing fruit; neither do they think they can be found inside timber. They do ask you to take the timber out of your own eye though and, if you have ears, to listen. What on earth is going on in and across these writings? We shouldn't be introducing 21st century anachronisms or accepting the anachronisms introduced in earlier centuries. The contradictions are intrinsic to the writings; in smoothing over the cracks and harmonising the stories you will misunderstand them. You will create your own 21st century Personal Jesus; unrecognisable by the Gospel writers, nevermind Cephas or Paul.
Blasted fig trees and giant walking, talking crosses; Adult Jesuses who want you to hate your family and child Jesuses who murder. Your eyes slide past the fig tree and family hating but you pull up at walking crosses and murder. Be it 'Mark', 'Peter' or 'Thomas; these writers were not trying to be James Joyce or even Mickey Spillane. They were not writing for you; Martin Luther; or Augustine of Hippo. Whatever you might think of their abilities, they were not writing to your purpose but their own and that of their first to third century audiences. Who obviously appreciated and cherished them as writers and thinkers. Think about it: these writings were preserved and survived; 99.999% of everything else written then didn't. It was neither appreciated or cherished.
Apologies if this comes over a bit harsh:sorry1:, I am rather passionate about books and these books in particular; and tone is rather difficult to convey in typing.
Interesting community you have here; I've only just now come across it but I shall certainly be popping back in now and again.
Ta tah for now.
The teaching of Jesus is hardly coherent within particular texts, never mind across texts. He wants you to turn the other cheek one moment and buy a sword the next. How do you come by the image of gentle Jesus, meek and mild, when the man says you can't be his follower unless you hate your family and brings not peace but a sword? We would not have 40 odd gospels and counting if a particular brand of Jesus had been agreeable to everyone. So I think the answer is yes and no; the Apocrypha might agree with a particular Jesus and contradict another.
te_lanus, conflating the Bible with the teachings of Jesus is even more narrow minded. Most of it was written centuries before him, even in the New Testament his teaching is largely confined to 'Matthew' and 'Luke'. Paul quite often writes that he teaches off his own bat and the other epistles hardly; if at all; teach with reference to Jesus. They proclaim him but they do not attribute their teaching to him.
roger1440, wise men do not blast out of season fig trees for not bearing fruit; neither do they think they can be found inside timber. They do ask you to take the timber out of your own eye though and, if you have ears, to listen. What on earth is going on in and across these writings? We shouldn't be introducing 21st century anachronisms or accepting the anachronisms introduced in earlier centuries. The contradictions are intrinsic to the writings; in smoothing over the cracks and harmonising the stories you will misunderstand them. You will create your own 21st century Personal Jesus; unrecognisable by the Gospel writers, nevermind Cephas or Paul.
Blasted fig trees and giant walking, talking crosses; Adult Jesuses who want you to hate your family and child Jesuses who murder. Your eyes slide past the fig tree and family hating but you pull up at walking crosses and murder. Be it 'Mark', 'Peter' or 'Thomas; these writers were not trying to be James Joyce or even Mickey Spillane. They were not writing for you; Martin Luther; or Augustine of Hippo. Whatever you might think of their abilities, they were not writing to your purpose but their own and that of their first to third century audiences. Who obviously appreciated and cherished them as writers and thinkers. Think about it: these writings were preserved and survived; 99.999% of everything else written then didn't. It was neither appreciated or cherished.
Apologies if this comes over a bit harsh:sorry1:, I am rather passionate about books and these books in particular; and tone is rather difficult to convey in typing.
Interesting community you have here; I've only just now come across it but I shall certainly be popping back in now and again.
Ta tah for now.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
there's nothing like comparing... its the only way to find out. So lets start with a list of apochrypal writings and see if we can find contradictions in them.
Gospel of Marcion (mid 2nd century)
Gospel of Mani (3rd century)
Gospel of Apelles (mid-late 2nd century)
Gospel of Bardesanes (late 2nd - early 3rd century)
Gospel of Basilides (mid 2nd century)
Gospel of Thomas
Gospel of Peter
Gospel of Nicodemus (also called the "Acts of Pilate")
Pseudo-Cyril of Jerusalem on the Life and the Passion of Christ
Gospel of Bartholomew
Questions of Bartholomew
Resurrection of Jesus Christ (which claims to be according to Bartholomew)
Apocryphon of James (also called the "Secret Book of James")
Book of Thomas the Contender
Dialogue of the Saviour
Gospel of Judas (also called the "Gospel of Judas Iscariot")
Gospel of Mary (also called the "Gospel of Mary Magdalene")
Gospel of Philip
Greek Gospel of the Egyptians (distinct from the Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians)
The Sophia of Jesus Christ
Coptic Apocalypse of Paul (distinct from the Apocalypse of Paul)
Gospel of Truth
Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter (distinct from the Apocalypse of Peter)
Pistis Sophia
Second Treatise of the Great Seth
Apocryphon of John (also called the "Secret Gospel of John")
Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians (distinct from the Greek Gospel of the Egyptians)
Trimorphic Protennoia
Ophite Diagrams
Books of Jeu
Acts of Andrew
Acts of Barnabas
Acts of John
Acts of the Martyrs
Acts of Paul
Acts of Paul and Thecla
Acts of Peter
Acts of Peter and Andrew
Acts of Peter and Paul
Acts of Peter and the Twelve
Acts of Philip
Acts of Pilate
Acts of Thomas
Acts of Timothy
Acts of Xanthippe, Polyxena, and Rebecca
Epistle of Barnabas
Epistles of Clement
Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul
Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans
Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians
Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians
Epistle to Diognetus
Epistle to the Laodiceans (an epistle in the name of Paul)
Epistle to Seneca the Younger (an epistle in the name of Paul)
Third Epistle to the Corinthians - accepted in the past by some in the Armenian Orthodox church.
Apocalypse of Paul (distinct from the Coptic Apocalypse of Paul)
Apocalypse of Peter (distinct from the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter)
Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius
Apocalypse of Thomas (also called the Revelation of Thomas)
Apocalypse of Stephen (also called the Revelation of Stephen)
First Apocalypse of James (also called the First Revelation of James)
Second Apocalypse of James (also called the Second Revelation of James)
The Shepherd of Hermas
The Home Going of Mary
The Falling asleep of the Mother of God
The Descent of Mary
Apostolic Constitutions (church regulations supposedly asserted by the apostles)
Book of Nepos
Canons of the Apostles
Cave of Treasures (also called The Treasure)
Clementine literature
Didache (possibly the first written catechism)
Liturgy of St James
Penitence of Origen
Prayer of Paul
Sentences of Sextus
Physiologus
Book of the Bee
The Unknown Berlin Gospel (also called the Gospel of the Saviour)
The Naassene Fragment
The Fayyum Fragment
The Secret Gospel of Mark
The Oxyrhynchus Gospels
The Egerton Gospel
The Gospel of Jesus' Wife (hhaha got a laugh out of that one)
Gospel of Eve (a quotation from this gospel is given by Epiphanius (Haer. xxvi. 2, 3). It is possible that this is the Gospel of Perfection he alludes to in xxvi. 2. The quotation shows that this gospel was the expression of complete pantheism)
Gospel of the Four Heavenly Realms
Gospel of Matthias (probably different from the Gospel of Matthew)
Gospel of Perfection (used by the followers of Basilides and other Gnostics. See Epiphanius, Haer. xxvi. 2)
Gospel of the Seventy
Gospel of Thaddaeus (this may be a synonym for the Gospel of Judas, confusing Judas Iscariot for Judas Thaddaeus)
Gospel of the Twelve
Memoria Apostolorum
1 and 2 Clement
Shepherd of Hermas
Didache
Epistle of Barnabas
Apocalypse of Peter
The Protevangelium of James
Third Epistle to the Corinthians
Source
wow, thats a lot of extra biblical writings.... i never knew there were so many. Is it any wonder the church needed to get together and confirm the original writings of the Apostles?
Where to start?
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
I'll pick out a few to get started:
Gospel of Marcion - Marcion publicly asserted that the Old Testament should be rejected by Christians. According to English historian Robin Lane Fox, Marcion argued that “‘God’ in the Old Testament was a ‘committed barbarian’ who favoured bandits and such terrorists as Israel’s King David. Christ, by contrast, was the new and separate revelation of an altogether higher God.”
“Acts of Paul” and the “Acts of Peter,” stress complete abstinence from sexual relations and even depict the apostles as urging women to separate from their husbands which contradicts Paul’s authentic counsel at 1*Corinthians 7.
The Gospel of James claims Joseph had children from a prior marriage...obviously written to perpetuate the idea that Mary remained a virgin all her life. The Gospels do not make that claim, they name Mary as having several children which is far more realistic.
Epistle to Diognetus 6:4 The soul which is invisible is guarded in the body which is visible:...6:8 The soul though itself immortal
The bible says the body is the soul...the living person. It also says that man is 'mortal' not 'immortal'. Immortal means that one can never die... but we know that this is not true hence this is a false statement.
Gospel of Marcion - Marcion publicly asserted that the Old Testament should be rejected by Christians. According to English historian Robin Lane Fox, Marcion argued that “‘God’ in the Old Testament was a ‘committed barbarian’ who favoured bandits and such terrorists as Israel’s King David. Christ, by contrast, was the new and separate revelation of an altogether higher God.”
“Acts of Paul” and the “Acts of Peter,” stress complete abstinence from sexual relations and even depict the apostles as urging women to separate from their husbands which contradicts Paul’s authentic counsel at 1*Corinthians 7.
The Gospel of James claims Joseph had children from a prior marriage...obviously written to perpetuate the idea that Mary remained a virgin all her life. The Gospels do not make that claim, they name Mary as having several children which is far more realistic.
Epistle to Diognetus 6:4 The soul which is invisible is guarded in the body which is visible:...6:8 The soul though itself immortal
The bible says the body is the soul...the living person. It also says that man is 'mortal' not 'immortal'. Immortal means that one can never die... but we know that this is not true hence this is a false statement.
Sariel
Heretic
I would actually recommend reading the Jewish apocrypha to get a better grasp of the apocalyptic mindset and concepts of the Messianic movement of Jesus since a lot of them are referenced in the Apostolic scriptures. Just to name a few:
-Enoch 1
-Enoch 2
-Martyrdom of Isaiah
-Life of Adam and Eve
-Apocalypse of Abraham
-The Dead Sea Scrolls
-Book of Jubilees
-Ladder of Jacob
-Enoch 1
-Enoch 2
-Martyrdom of Isaiah
-Life of Adam and Eve
-Apocalypse of Abraham
-The Dead Sea Scrolls
-Book of Jubilees
-Ladder of Jacob
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
That makes sense.
Jeremy Taylor
Active Member
Your view of the Christian scriptures is quite simplistic. You seem to act as if they must be read simply in a literal and didactic fashion, as if they might not present multiple layers of teaching as well as complex and many-sided truths in non-discursive form.
O my God. again. The fact that Joseph had children from the previous marriage has nothing to do with insisting on Mary's virginity.
Mary's virginity is not something crucial in Christianity. And the fact that Jeoseph had children from the previous marriage, doesn't exclude that he and Mary had sex. But the fact that they had sex doesn't imply that they had children.
When I analyze a historical source, I use the scientific method, that forces me to distinguish between "probable"\"possible" and "certain".
You claim that it is impossible that Mary had no children with Joseph. This is weird, because Joseph may have been impotent because of his old age.
I say that it is possible, but not highly probable that they conceived children.
Last edited:
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
Of course its not. But it is crucial to the catholic church doctrine of the 'perpetual virgin'
and that doctrines accuracy is detrimental to the infallibility of the pope doctrine.
If Mary had other children then the doctrine of the 'perpetual virgin' is false, and thus so is the Popes infallibility.
that is not a fact... its speculation based on an apocryphal gospel.
What usually happens when a man and woman have sexual intercourse?
the testimony of the the people of the day say otherwise. Jesus disciples wrote that Mary had several children. If they knew those children belonged to another woman, they would not be called her children.
That's what I don't agree on. We both agree that Mary and Joseph could have had a sex life. But I don't understand why you insist on saying that James wrote a gospel just to underline Mary's virginity. It is not true, because James never said in this gospel that Mary remained a virgin all life long. He just said that Joseph had children from the previous marriage.
and this gospel was written before that the Catholic Church became obsessed with Mary's virginity
Even in the ancient age there was coitus interruptus.
all right. let's say she had 2 children (more than two sounds absurd, given that Joseph was already old).
It doesn't exclude that Joseph had children from a previous marriage, as James said
Last edited:
Then what about the Assyrian Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Eastern Orthodox Churches who never accepted the infallibility of the Pope, yet all hold that Mary is Ever-Virgin? Papal Infallibility has absolutely nothing to do with this.
And that apocryphal writing is a derivation of the oral tradition of the Church--i.e. the memories, experiences and teachings of the Apostles which were never written down. It adds a lot of dramatic fluff, of course, and that alone shoots its credibility. But you cannot write off the oral tradition.
It depends. How old are the two in question? At what point in a woman's cycle are they in?
The evidence shows that Mary had no other children of her own. Why else would she be entrusted to John's care, and not to James', for instance? If James really was Mary's son, then the duty would fall to him to care for his mother. Or if any of the brothers and sisters of Jesus mentioned were Mary's children, any one of them would have stepped up to take care of their own mother.
te_lanus
Alien Hybrid
Some think Jesus asked John to take care of Mary since Jesus & John was in a gay relationship
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
James, whoever he was, was not the same James who wrote the 'Letter of James' in the Christian scriptures.
Do you realise that?
What proof is there that Joseph was old and already married? None. The bible writers do not say that is so.