Is ‘The Lost Gospel’ Book a Fraud?

[cbayer]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/12/is-the-lost-gospel-book-a-fraud.html



Nico Hines

11.12.14


The author of a new book claiming to have found a ‘hidden gospel’ about Jesus and Mary Magdalene’s sex life defends his research to The Daily Beast.

LONDON — Mary Magdalene was a “co-Messiah” whose marriage and vigorous sex life with Jesus should be celebrated at the heart of Christianity, according to the authors of a new book who claim to have discovered a lost gospel.

A sixth-century manuscript translated from the ancient language of Syriac for the first time is credited with finally explaining what Jesus was up to in the decades before he appeared in the Bible as an adult. The book claims that Jesus’s sexuality was whitewashed from history by prudish early Christians, who also downplayed the importance of Mary Magdelene, his wife and the mother of his two children.

“She’s not just Mrs. Jesus, she is a co-deity, a co-redeemer, she’s called ‘Daughter of God’ as he’s called ‘Son of God,’” said Simcha Jacobovici, one of the authors of Lost Gospel, which was launched at the British Library in London on Wednesday. “We think of Christianity as sexless, this [Gospel] says that sex is sacred.”

Biblical scholars, religious groups and the Church of England were among those lining up to dismiss the book as the fantastical result of an over-active imagination, but the writers insist that they expected their historic discovery to be greeted with skepticism. They claim “theological protectionism” accounts for the hostile reception as well as a narrow-minded desire to maintain the traditional depiction of a celibate, divine Christ, rather than a man whose flesh and blood appears far more human.

more at link

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. No, it is an actual ancient document. Now, does it actually reveal an historica fact?

Remember, in ancient times there were a lot more gospels than the four that were ultimately accepted by the church at the First Council of Nicea. The Byzantine Emperor convened the councils to set up a bible that would form a state approved religion. They rejected everything that did not fit what the Council thought was gospel.

Rumors that Jesus married go back to the earliest history of the Church.

[Leontius]

18. wrong.

[Agnosticsherbet]

19. Nice word, but zero to back it up?

[Leontius]

21. History of Bible Canon backs it up.

Look it up you'll learn something.

[Agnosticsherbet]

24. I have studied some of the history.

Against, post something that shows your point.

The manuscript is a real ancient manuscript, one of many that were never included in the bible as put together.

[Leontius]

41. Nicaea had nothing to with Bible canon. Constantine had nothing to do with Bible canon.

Other than your two main points being false what else needs to be said about your post. Nicaea was about the nature of Christ no mention of canon at all.

[Agnosticsherbet]

48. Among its accomplisments, The Council of Nicea formed the beginning of Canon Law.

Are you coming at this from the POV of someone who wants to discuss a very interesting historical document or from a defender of the Faith? Your dogmatic approach to discussion appears to champion the Defender of the Faith approach, which would indicate you have no real interest in discussing this discovery.

What I have asserted is accurate.

[Leontius]

54. Canon law and the Canon of the Bible are to entirely different subjects.

If dogmatic is knowing the facts yes I am being dogmatic. I will repeat the First Council of Nicaea had nothing to do with setting or influencing the Canon of the Bible.

[enki23]

124. You're right in spirit, biblical canon was something that was selected by the victors.

From among many competing bullshit stories. It just wasn't done at a single council, much less the council of Nicea.

[Exultant Democracy]

28. What is wrong, we know there were multiple before the Romans Gospels

that the Roman picked from then they mercilessly went about destroying the rest and the people who believed in them with extreme prejudice.

This isn't something that can be argued against in good faith. So what is your point?

[Goblinmonger]

2. So fan fiction dates back nearly 2000 years?

I would be shocked if somebody didn't write about the sex life of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. And if the did, it would not change my thoughts about the existence of a historical Jesus.

[gcomeau]

117. Would it change your thoughts...

....about whether anything else written *about* said historical Jesus was quite possibly also said "fan fiction"?

If not, why not?

[hrmjustin]

3. I don't know if it is z fraud or not but I don't believe it.

[TexasProgresive]

4. Neither know nor care much

According to some I am a descendant of Jesus and Mary Madeline through the line of the Merovingians. Our family is of that line but as to being Jesus' descendant I am a skeptic.

[cbayer]

8. That's really interesting.

Where did you get that information?

[TexasProgresive]

9. I think the first time I ran across it was "Holy Blood, Holy Grail"

But there is an old tradition in Frances that Mary spent the rest of her life after Jesus died in Frances. The theme of Holy Blood Holy Grail is that Mary Magdalene is the Holy Grail and her child by Jesus is the Holy Blood or something like that.

[cbayer]

10. I'm not at all knowledgable about this story, though I have heard it murmured.

Mostly in fiction, though.

Who knows, really.

I tend to think the JC was very human but very special. I am more comfortable picturing him as someone who had a real life, including sexual relationships.

[notrightatall]

5. No more, or less than the rest of the gospels.

But the answer , of course is yes.

[stopbush]

6. The entire Bible is a fraud. Nothing new here. Move along.

[cbayer]

7. Well, stop bush, I did not know that you were a scholar

in the area of ancient texts?

Or is that just your belief?

BTW, I think the bible is a collection of books, some of which are more true than others. But taking that position about the entire bible is a bit extreme, don't you think?

[stopbush]

15. Not at all extreme.

First off, we can discount all of the supernatural bullshit as being pure fantasy. Miracles, virgin births, the resurrection of zombies. All of it pure bullshit.

Then, there's the "historical" element of the Bible...which is historical in the same way that Gone With the Wind is an historical recollection of the Civil War. Just because one mentions the burning of Atlanta doesn't mean that Scarlett and Rhett were real people who escaped through the fires, anymore than citing the historic power of Egypt and the Pharaohs proves that the Jews were held as slaves by Egypt, or that the Exodus ever occurred.

So what are we left with but a bunch of mythical stories and moralisms that circulated in all of the religions that held court during the time the Bible was imagined? Nothing special there, Just the usual collection of fear and fantasy that is the hallmark of religion in general. At best, some sections of some books of the Bible may be less fanciful than others. To aver that some books are "more true than others" has got the argument backwards.

BTW - as far as scholars are concerned, most credible Jewish Biblical scholars admit that David and Moses never existed. Apparently, people like you didn't get the memo.

[cbayer]

16. You can discount all the supernatural bullshit as being pure fantasy?

Really? That is your belief. It is based on faith. You have no factual data to support it.

There are debates about the authenticity of the bible going on at academic levels far above our reach. You represent one viewpoint, but it is not the only viewpoint. Anyone who says they are gnostic about this are only expressing their beliefs, which are based on faith.

There is not doubt that many credible scholars will dismiss parts of the bible as pure allegory and not representative of actual events.

And then you make it personal. I didn't get the memo? There was a memo about this highly complex academic debate? Perhaps you didn't get the memo that you don't have the answer.

Just belief…. based on faith that you are correct.

[trotsky]

17. Do you honestly think it takes the same amount of faith to NOT believe in leprechauns...

that it does to believe in them? Because that's what you're saying. Someone could come up with the most fantastic, ridiculous, weird idea and we'd instantly have to respect it because if we can't prove it's false, well then, we have just as much faith as the person who concocted it.

There are no words to describe how absurd that line of thinking is... and yet it's the standard you want to force on everyone.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

22. And, of course, you have to trot out your meme about there being no difference

Between believing in God and believing in leprechauns.

Well, I am going to restate my meme that your belief that God does not exist is just as much based on faith as my belief that God does exist. You, of course, are going to deny it, because you don't want to admit I'm right.

[trotsky]

23. I'll admit you're right when you say something that is.

And I don't have a "belief" that your god doesn't exist. I simply don't think that anyone has presented enough evidence for me to believe it does.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=143606
Welcome back.

[Exultant Democracy]

30. What is the difference between believing in god and believing leprechauns?

Or from the matter the Christian god and say Odin or Kali?

It would go without saying that someone who believed in Leprechauns would probably also consider Oberon or some other lord of the Fey to be real, and the leprechauns to be his servants. So Leprechauns would be to Oberon what the various angels are to the christian god. In that case how is believing in a fairy lord like Oberon different from believing in the christian god? Leprechauns are no less absurd then a talking snake that is for sure.

[Warren Stupidity]

25. What the flying fuck?

You can discount all the supernatural bullshit as being pure fantasy?
Really? That is your belief. It is based on faith. You have no factual data to support it.

Words fail. Actually your words fail. One cannot seriously read those two sentences you wrote without laughing.

There are debates about the authenticity of the bible going on at academic levels far above our reach.

No there is no debate at academic levels other than within the odd academic niche of "biblical studies", a field populated with people dishonestly determined to find justification for their religious beliefs. The rest of academia is not debating the historicity of the bible because outside of a list of some kings, and an actual enslavement in babylon, there basically isn't any. The rest of the OT and NT are pretty much nonsense without even a faint whiff of historicity, a fact that given your astounding utterance quoted above, will not deter you from demanding proof that nonsense is false in some misbegotten belief that your alleged agnosticism is validated by claiming that utter bullshit needs to be proven false before it is disbelieved.

There is archeological evidence for the history of the region, and then there is the bible, and the intersection of the two is nearly non-existent.

[okasha]

32. One of your sillier tirades.

There is currently very spirited debate among archaeologists, palaeographers, linguists and historians about the historicity of the parts of the Bible that their authors present as history. You need to catch up on work in the field before you come into the conversation spinning like a windmill yet again.

[stopbush]

51. Of course I can discount it because I don't have the mind of a child.

"Debates far above our reach." Yes - does the Emperor have new clothes or not? That's the level of the debate you're talking about. "Highly complex academic debate." Yes - the actual length of a fairy's wings is still a matter of great debate among your academics. Next year there's a whole symposium on how we find a way to weigh fairies. Metric or no? Ounces or milligrams? It will take a ton of brain power to decide THAT debate, for sure.

BTW - labeling non-belief as belief is just another tired defense mechanism of the religious. Do you have a belief that werewolves don't exist? How about the real Santa Claus? Do you BELIEVE he doesn't exist? Is that disbelief "just a belief," like a religious belief?

Or do you not concern yourself with whether werewolves exist because the very idea is so far flung that any normal adult would discount the belief in werewolves as being the stuff of an addled mind? Oh, wait - your non-belief in werewolves is based on faith, not any kind of fact or reason.

Pathetic.

[cbayer]

53. You know, I'm sure that you are actually a nice person

But your attitude towards religious believers is pretty despicable. I would hope that you don't hold the same kinds of beliefs towards any other groups that may be different than you.

People don't believe in gods or religious stories because they have the mind of a child. You are by no means more mature or smarter than most of the people on earth.

I don't know where this attitude came from, and I don't really care. But it's really, really ugly. I think you are probably better than this. In fact, I know you are because I have seen how you behave in other situations on this site.

It is only here that you express such hateful thoughts towards others.

When you hold something to be true despite there being no solid evidence to support it, that is a belief. I'm not calling your atheism a belief at all. I am calling your completely unsubstantiated claims about religious people beliefs.

I hope that someday you will grow and be able to see that religious people are just like you, just with a different perspective on the world. I hope that someday you will be able to see that religion has both good and bad points.

I'm not optimistic, but I sincerely hope that happens.

Because I truly believe that you are better than this. Otherwise I wouldn't bother with you at all.

[stopbush]

58. Here's how a typical cbayer post reads to me:

You can discount all the supernatural bullshit as being pure fantasy?

Really? That is your belief. It is based on faith. You have no factual data to support it.

There are debates about the authenticity of the Greek gods going on at academic levels far above our reach. You represent one viewpoint, but it is not the only viewpoint. Anyone who says they are gnostic about this are only expressing their beliefs, which are based on faith.

There is not doubt that many credible scholars will dismiss parts of the Greek god myths as pure allegory and not representative of actual events.

And then you make it personal. I didn't get the memo? There was a memo about this highly complex academic debate about whether the Greek gods exist? Perhaps you didn't get the memo that you don't have the answer.

Just belief…. based on faith that you are correct.

[cbayer]

59. Well, I guess that is because you can't distinguish between

the concept of gods that people believed in in the past and the concept of god's that people believe in now.

Otherwise, that is exactly how my post read.

If the only problem you have with me is that when I talk about people's religious beliefs you hear something about Greek gods, why be hostile about it? Why make it personal?

I am just expressing my POV just as you have. You make definitive statements about things being entirely bullshit and pure fantasy and I challenge you on that.

That's all.

Please tell me if I am missing something here, because I don't see the big problem you have with me explained in this reply.

[stopbush]

60. Why should there be a distinction between gods that people believed in in the past

and gods people believe in today?

What is the distinction?

Apparently, you believe that the gods people believe in today are "real" gods, and the gods the Greeks believed in were "pretend" gods. Is that about right?

[cbayer]

77. Because they are different.

They may all be gods, but the way they are conceived are different.

Why should there be a difference between horse drawn carriages and cars? They are both forms of transportation, but one has been mostly abandoned for the other.

I don't think the the Greek and Roman gods were "pretend". They were concepts of god that have been abandoned.

I don't know whether the gods that people believe in now are "real" or not, and I don't care. But I respect their right to believe that and will do so until someone provides evidence that their beliefs are false.

You have any such evidence? I doubt it.

So no, that is not just about right.

If you want to know what I believe, just ask me, because when you come up with assumptions that you think are "apparent" you are generally wrong.

[stopbush]

78. Quite a lame answer, even from you.

"They are conceived different." Bull. Especially bull when the gods people worship today have many of the same characteristics of the ancient gods.

You tend to look at things backward. The reality is that over the centuries people have defined what gods are so we can recognize them when the new gods make their way into the human mindset. We "know" Jesus was a god because he had the characteristics of the old gods - superhuman powers, even the ability to conquer death. The gods through the ages have been little more than versions of humans on steroids. They even have all the shortcomings and foibles of humans. But we know them because they are all superhuman - working miracles, etc. You'll notice that it isn't a characteristic of gods that they can morph from a spiritual state into liquid hydrogen. Why? Because nobody knew about liquid hydrogen back when man was deciding what characteristics gods had.

Old gods have been abandoned for the new gods? Doesn't make either real in any sense of the word, save for the fact that humans are prone to deluding themselves and practicing self aggrandizement. People love to create their own reality.

And AGAIN with the demands to prove a negative. What is this, third grade? How about you prove that werewolves don't exist? You can't, so we must grant that they very well might exist, just like your lame argument about gods existing.

BTW - I think I know what you believe.

Here's a site that pretty much encapsulates what I believe when it comes to the gods, ancient or modern: http://www.pocm.info/

[cbayer]

79. Lame answer, even from me? Third grade?

How insulting. Why do you go there?

So tell me what I believe?

No, don't bother. I was wrong. You aren't better than this and I am done with you.

[stopbush]

80. I think this is the second or third time you've been "done with me." You'll be back.

The conceit you hold in carving out a special pleading for religion is an obsession on your part, and you can't stay away from the verbal wars for very long.

Just because you post many responses doesn't mean you're making cogent or convincing arguments. The conceit lies in your believing that religion is some special case that doesn't need to abide by the reality that any other subject would require during a debate. Ergo, your constant demands that people prove a negative.

If you feel insulted it's because you deserve to be insulted for such lame tactics.

[cbayer]

81. Conceit? Obsession? Not cogent? Deserve to be insulted? Lame Tactics?

When you resort to ad homs, you have completely lost the debate. I don't make it personal with you because I don't have to, but you have to resort to that because you don't have anything else. So when you go there, the discussion is over and I am, indeed done with you.

I will be back, I'm just done with you for now. But next time you post some prejudiced, ugly attack on religious people just for being religious, I will be right back in your face.

Have a nice Sunday.

[stopbush]

98. Declaring victory and heading home, are we?

BTW - I don't think you know what an ad hominem attack is. Let me help: "An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person&quot , short for argumentum ad hominem, is a form of criticism directed at something about the person one is criticizing, rather than something (potentially, at least) independent of that person."

Any criticism of religion that I make is totally independent of you as a person. That doesn't mean that I can't criticize you for holding certain conceits or making non-cogent arguments when it comes to your defense of religion on this board.

I have give chapter and verse as to why I find your pro-religion arguments to not be compelling. None of them have attacked you as a person.

BTW - why "have a nice Sunday?" Why not just "have a nice day?" Your religiosity shows through even when you try to exit the room while attempting to take a parting shot.

[Lordquinton]

100. You made it personal

Your first responce in number 6 was a straight up ad hom,

Well, stop bush, I did not know that you were a scholar in the area of ancient texts?
Or is that just your belief?

You made a direct attack at his credibility and character, rather than engage him, which is pretty much the text book example of an ad hom.

then again in number 53, you made a long, several paragraph post that was one ad hom after another, no factual information to back up your position, just directly attacking his character again and again.

Don't accuse someone of making it personal when you jumped on that button right out of the starting gate.

[trotsky]

108. I have thoroughly enjoyed this thread. n/t

[cbayer]

110. Sorry about your alert not working out.

Maybe you should try one on stopbush's personal attacks.

Might be more successful.

[Douglas Carpenter]

105. FYI

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message



On Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:01 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Conceit? Obsession? Not cogent? Deserve to be insulted? Lame Tactics?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=162969

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Accusing stopbush of posting prejudiced attack on religious people when all he said was that the bible was a fraud:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=162526

The poster then tried to impune his integrity leading to a nasty exchange by both parties ending here.

This is rude and over the top comment.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Mon Nov 17, 2014, 03:21 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The level of discourse is comparable between both parties. The post alone does not stand out as trollish as much as an honest assessment of the 'debate'. No hide.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not quite hide-worthy.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: WTF? If anything, stopbush is being insulting in this conversation. There is absolutely nothing even minorly objectionable about this post and it seems like an attempt to win a debate by jury alert
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: this alert is an abuse of the system
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[cbayer]

111. Thanks for the info and thanks for the thoughtful responses from jury members.

[Warren Stupidity]

68. Just to get this straight, the plausibility

of the existence of gods is determined by the number of people wh express a belief in those gods. It is an interesting view on reality. We should vote on the correct value of pi too.

[Lordquinton]

99. In case anyone was wondering what an ad hominem looked like

This entire post is a very long one. Note how there is no substance that isn't a direct attack against Stopbush. no facts backing up what is said, just more and more baseless comments going against them.

[cbayer]

109. You are correct. Post #80 is a very long ad hominem - zero substance just a litany of personal

attacks.

Thanks for pointing that out.

[trotsky]

112. LOL

Really?

[LTX]

67. Is incuriosity coupled with derisive dismissal

a cardinal attribute of an "adult mind"?

You seem to suggesting that the puzzle of effective immaterialities has been resolved, or perhaps that it is a puzzle one simply sets aside as the "mind of a child" becomes ossified into the "mind of an adult."

[Warren Stupidity]

69. Yes, at about the same time tha santa

is understood to be make believe, and the developing mind learns the distinction between reality and fantasy.

[LTX]

70. So you have solved the puzzle of effective immaterialities?

I presume you will be sharing your insight.

On a related note, have you also solved the puzzle of why religious thinking is so prevalent in our species? (On that question, if your answer is something along the lines of "because people are stupid" or "because the rubes aren't as smart as me" or "because an enormous percentage of the human population is mentally ill," you need'nt really post it.)

[Warren Stupidity]

71. There is no such thing. Please proceed.

[LTX]

72. There is no such thing as an effective immateriality?

Is that your contention? (I'm simply trying to clarify your comment.)

[Warren Stupidity]

73. I was clear. Please proceed.

[LTX]

74. Well, actually, you weren't clear.

I'm trying not to be opaque myself. My post addressed two issues. Resolution of the puzzle of effective immaterialities, and resolution of the question of why humans have a prounounced proclivity for religious thinking. "There is no such thing" could mean "there is no such thing as effective immaterialities," or "there is no such thing as religious thinking."

I guess I'm not sure why you feel the need to entertain an avoidance tactic rather than to simply clarify.

[Warren Stupidity]

75. You can't seem to proceed. Perhaps some immateriality is effectively blocking you?

[LTX]

76. Ok, so assuming you are, in fact, contending that there is no such thing

as an effective immateriality, how would you classify mathematics; how would you classify the method of inquiry we call science; how would you classify the universal construction methodology we employ called engineering; how would you classify the perception of an arrow of time; how would you classify the emotional impact of color (or for that matter, the subjectively differing perceptions of light waves); how would you classify law, philosophy, ethics, etc.

The list could be extended to a rather enormous catalog, but you get the point. In your words, please proceed . . .

[edhopper]

83. Are you equating mathematics

With gods and supernatural phenomina?

[Warren Stupidity]

84. Apparently.

[edhopper]

91. You seem to have a simplistic notion of materialists

And are trying to make concepts and human experience more than what they are.
Sounds to much like panexperientialism.

[LTX]

93. And conversely, you seem to view "concepts and human experience"

as either capable of simplistic explanation, or dissmissable as irrelevant if not. I cannot agree that "concepts and human experience" are silly past times. Experience at the side of someone dying will generally disabuse one of that notion.

[edhopper]

96. No one said they

Last edited Sun Nov 16, 2014, 11:21 PM - Edit history (1)

are irrelevant to people. They are a big part of life.
As I said simplistic view of materialists.

[Lordquinton]

101. You claim that they have "Simplistic explaination"

You are asking complex questions that don't have easy answers, but they do have answers. For example, yes we do all perceive color differently for a wide variety of reasons, genetic mutation, head trauma, etc. but we all agree that a fire engine is "red" It's far more complex than that but the point is that it does have an answer.

You are also completely misrepresenting what people are saying and avoiding questions.

What does any of this have to do with god(s)?

[Warren Stupidity]

85. Absent squishy wet gray matter where are

Ideas or experience? I reject your claim that ideas and experience are immaterial entities somehow existing separate from and somehow having an effect on a material physical reality.

[LTX]

87. Reject it all you want. In the meantime, please point me to the mathematics particle.

And the Brooklyn Bridge started with an idea, made its way through the engineering and drawing process, and ended up having a pretty large "effect" on "material physical reality."

[Warren Stupidity]

97. "the mathematics particle" - ideas about mathematics exist in our heads.

Imagine their are no sentient beings. Where are the ideas about mathematics? Where are the immaterial effects without those pesky material agents?

[Lordquinton]

102. Mathamatecs particle, real specific demand

He's going to ask for evidence of a Crockoduck next.

[Warren Stupidity]

107. It seems we won't get that demand due to a ridiculous jury decision.

Too bad, I thought perhaps some evidence of these immaterial entities that have effects would be forthcoming. Alas, the puzzle remains unexamined.

[edhopper]

82. There seems to be a strong genetic predisposition to religion

As well as other inherited factors in the way we think that leads to a religious view of things.
Some interesting genetisist writings on this.

[LTX]

88. Indeed there are. But there is also a correlation between "religious"

thinking and problem solving (or, if you wish, problem resolution) in general.

[edhopper]

89. Yes

One of the existing factored that lead people to answers to that made sense but were in error. Patterns in the stars and so on.

[LTX]

90. But we cannot assume that we have answers to those things that people most

struggle to cope with. We don't. And for those issues, people still turn to religion, and will for a long time to come.

[edhopper]

92. Maybe we don't

But that doesn't make any religion true.
This is two discussions, the function religion might play in society, and the veracity of any of it's claims.
They are different things.

[LTX]

94. The veracity of its claims are judged by those who take solace

from its presence.

[edhopper]

95. Nah

Either there is a God, or there isn't.
Feeling good about believing in him doesn't make him real.
That just works for Tinkerbell.

[Humanist_Activist]

116. Its because those whose brains make assumptions and attribute agency to random events are more...

likely to survive over those who are more skeptical. So natural selection selected for at least some level of gullibility and/or faith, whatever you want to call it. This only points out a predisposition, actual beliefs are learned.

[gcomeau]

118. Umm...

"Really? That is your belief. It is based on faith. You have no factual data to support it. "

Every verifiable observation of the natural world and how it operates that has ever been conducted in recorded human history supports it. Supernatural, BY DEFINITION, meaning in defiance of the observed natural laws that govern the way the world operates and tus contradicting every single piece of data that has ever been collected that established the accuracy of those laws.

You mean no factual data besides that?

[pinto]

20. Yeah, they are all stories yet have historical and personal elements in context of the time written

In context of the time written... Many have something to say about the "human condition", often powerfully.

I re-watched Moby Dick the other night. Was Ahab a factual person? Probably not, who knows. Yet the story framed an intense portrayal of a human in an historical context - whalers did go down to the sea. Took that framework to a larger picture - the obsessive challenge of Ahab's focus on his personal demon, the white whale.

The same with Gone With Wind, imo. Set in an historical background the players portrayed many aspects of the human character. Romanticized? Certainly, but it was the genre of the time.

I see the stories and recounts of Jesus' life in a somewhat similar vein. I think he was an actual person who spoke to a larger picture of the "human condition" and advocated that point of view. Subsequent recounting likely molded the history in its own time's context. Yet, he obviously had a powerful impact. And has to this day.

I don't "believe" in Jesus in the usual religious way, but his story resonates for me as do many stories, factual or not.

Take from that what you will. Leave the rest. Yet I think you're missing something in the overall picture.

[okasha]

33. So much ignorance in so few words. Bravo!

Just to start off with, there are two inscriptional attestations to David as the founder of the royal house of Judah/Israel. And now that the James ossuary inscription has been shown to date in its entirety to the first century CE, it's quite likely that there's inscriptional attestation to Jesus as well.

You need to catch up on the subject before you take to your keyboard to pontificate again.

[Warren Stupidity]

36. The james ossuary is bullshit outside of biblical studies nutjobs, the list of kings included david

and was in the short list of shit I noted above that the ot didn't make up, and there is no "inscriptional attestation to jesus" other than in the minds of people who are desperately searching for what they know has to be true. Josephus remains the only remotely documentary evidence and it is dubious at best. There might very well have been an historic person "Jesus", there is just no evidence establishing that to be the case.

[okasha]

37. Still whirling, I see.

The comments you're responding to were directed to stop bush, who did indeed make a false claim about the historical status of David. As for the James ossuary, whose view am I to accept--the opinions of palaeographers, archaeologists, linguists, statisticians, or Warren Stupidity's?

Oooooh, that's a tough one

[Warren Stupidity]

43. I'll go with the Israeli Antiquities Authority: a fake. nt.

[Goblinmonger]

45. James ossuary?

Ok, you got me. That's all the proof one needs for a historical Jesus.

[stopbush]

50. You call my post ignorant, then cite the James ossuary as a counter?

I'm going to assume that your post is meant as transparent sarcasm.

The James ossuary. Really?

As far as keeping up with current research - yeah, for thousands of years no objective evidence has been presented to add verisimilitude to any Biblical story. YET according to you, there's a bunch of recent research that does just that! It's just that the general population doesn't know about it! I mean, really, we all know that our media would totally ignore any objective research that proved the veracity of the Bible. They're more interested in giving 24/7 coverage to stories of Jesus appearing on a piece of toast.

[trotsky]

52. You see, it's like the Emperor's New Clothes.

We (and the rest of the population) just aren't smart enough to see the evidence.

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. "It’s not Lost, it’s not a Gospel, it’s a very naughty marketing campaign"

With that, the Church of England has won this debate, and an internet or two.

It does sound like a silly book - "if we take this sixth century story about Joseph and Aseneth, and change the names to Jesus and Mary Magdalene, then it reveals startling new claims about Jesus and Mary Magdalene!!!"

[cbayer]

13. Lol, that's what I thought as well.

It might be naughty, but they are getting plenty of attention and will likely sell many books.

I won't be buying one, though.

[pinto]

12. It's fascinating to me that books (gospels) were written about Jesus, et al for hundreds of years.

An historical view of the New Testament, or the Bible for that matter, would be a neat course to sit in on. Same with other religious texts as well. There are histories there. A literary archeology.

[cbayer]

14. Agree, I would be most interested in a course.

Maybe I will look for one on-line.

Right now, I am studying Spanish like crazy, but could use some diversion in the learning area.

[Warren Stupidity]

26. Um they are still being written.

See for example more recent works of fiction such as the Book of Mormon or The Da Vinci Code.

[pinto]

31. Yeah, they are in some way shape or form. I get that. My point was the genesis of the originals,

or what we see as the originals, the history as far as we know it. Who were these people? Why these books? What was the context of their time and place? I'm interested in it.

Despite your snarky quip, I see your point. It may all be fiction.

[Warren Stupidity]

35. "why these books" was settled by decree and the power of the Roman State.

Objectors to "these books" were eliminated. Starting with First Council of Nicaea, 325 CE, the power of the Roman State became entwined with the factional disputes within the growing Christian religion. Establishing the canonical gospels was part of that process.

[okasha]

39. The canon of the gospels was established

well before the Council of Nicea. You have obviously mistaken Dan Brown for a historian.

[Warren Stupidity]

42. I guess Dan is editing wikipedia too.

By the turn of the 5th century, the Catholic Church in the west, under Pope Innocent I, recognized a biblical canon including the four gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which had been previously established at a number of regional Synods, namely the Council of Rome (382), the Synod of Hippo (393), and two Synods of Carthage (397 and 419).[19] This canon, which corresponds to the modern Catholic canon, was used in the Vulgate, an early 5th-century translation of the Bible made by Jerome[20] under the commission of Pope Damasus I in 382.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel#Canonical_gospels

Next?

[okasha]

44. Previous.

Nicaea took place well before any of those meetings you list, and the canon was already in place at that time--sufficiently so that the Emperor had commissioned 50 Bibles for the churches in Constantinople prior to the Council.

[Warren Stupidity]

46. Here is what you said:

The canon of the gospels was established well before the Council of Nicea.

Well no it wasn't, as documented in the link I provided. But feel free to provide some actual evidence for your assertions, as so far you have provided *nothing*.

[trotsky]

47. Well, she hasn't provided "nothing."

She's slathered on lots of snark and attitude, which apparently counts as solid argumentation for her.

[flyingfysh]

27. there used to be lots of "gospels" floating around

Various Christian groups would use the ones they liked. Do these prove anything historical? No.

[Exultant Democracy]

29. It proves a lot about the contruction of the christian mythos.

Specifically how it was constructed by male members of the Roman elite as a method of control. Anything that did not serve in the greater interest of the empire was left out, and everything about obedience was left in. As it is in heaven so shall it be on earth and since there is one god in charge up there all you little worms better listen to the guy in charge down here.

They even turned Prometheus, the mythological being that had been man greatest benefactor, into the devil because he represented rebellion.

[okasha]

34. Am I the only person here

who thinks it's desirable to read a book before issuing an opinion on it?

[unrepentant progress]

38. The two people involved are serial hoaxers

For the same reason as I won't give Jonah Lehrer's new book ("Seriously, third time's a charm. This one has 100% less plagiarism!&quot the time of day, I don't need to read this one to know it's full of it. Life is too short for bad books.

[okasha]

40. I'm not familir with Wilson

except as the author of How Jesus Became Christan, and as a proponent of the academically quite respectable view that Paul, not Jesus, founded Christianity as we know it. What hoaxes has he been involved with?

[cbayer]

49. In this case, I think I'm going to skip the read and go with the legitimate reviews.

In general, I would agree.

[struggle4progress]

66. These authors have located an old Syriac translation of a popular much older Jewish short story

about how the Old Testament's Joseph and his Egyptian wife Aseneth met; the story is well-known from many manuscripts; and it has already been (and continues to be) extensively studied. Based on the fact that a nearby page by an early medieval writer begins with an apparent promise to provide a secret meaning of the text -- with the critical portion of the page missing-- these authors conclude that the medieval author intended to divulge that "Joseph" means "Jesus" and "Aseneth" means "Mary Magadelene," so replace "Joseph"by "Jesus" and "Aseneth" by "Mary Magadelene" throughout the text and reinterpret the rest of the story accordingly so as to be able to read it as a gospel

Here's a translation of the story: Joseph & Aseneth

It's like finding an old translation of Marlowe's Tamburlaine the Great into Danish, with a note on a blank endpage promising to interpret the work, but with the rest of the page missing, and concluding the note intended to reveal that "Tamburlaine" is secret code for "Cao Cao" and deducing hitherto unknown biographical facts about the man who reunified northern China in the third centuery

[2naSalit]

55. Hey...

isn't that what The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown concluded somewhere in that story?

[Gore1FL]

56. No more a fraud than the famous four. n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

57. If it's a fraud, staple it to the bible. It'll be in good company.

[struggle4progress]

61. "... The text has been previously been seen as a Jewish exploration of the Biblical story of Joseph

The text has been previously been seen as a Jewish exploration of the Biblical story of Joseph (he of the Technicolor Dreamcoat), who married an Egyptian woman. By translating a 1,500-year-old version of the tale and a letter that accompanied it, the authors claim to have uncovered an encoded fifth gospel. They say Jesus and Mary Magdalene were given false names so as not to attract the attention of those upholding the strict doctrines of Paul the Apostle ..."
from the link in the OP

So two dudes take a known ancient text, claim to find hidden meanings in it, and thus proclaim they have discovered a new gospel

It's a game anybody can play: I've just discovered, for example, that Moby Dick is a compilation of the lost prophecies of Robert Nixon, the Cheshire idiot, most cleverly disguised by changing various names, places, and events; these prophecies were not widely known at the time of John Oldmixon's publication but eventually came into Melville's hands, and he, fearing the clamor of the Boetians, resolved to publish them only in an encoded form

[struggle4progress]

62. "... Purporting to describe the marriage of Joseph – the Old Testament Joseph,

not Jesus’s earthly dad – “Joseph and Aseneth” .. features a handsome, lusty Joseph, his beautiful Egyptian bride and a lot of mysterious numbers ... Jacobovici and Wilson are confident that .. Joseph and Aseneth are code words for Jesus and Mary Magdalene – she who pops up in the New Testament at various points as one of Jesus’s handful of female hangers-on. Following on from the startling revelation that Jesus tied the knot with one of his female disciples, the authors go on to insist that his whole message centred on the redemptive power of sex. At the Last Supper, he was not anticipating his own crucifixion with the bread and the wine: he was passing round a symbolic cup of his wife’s menstrual blood ... There may be a lost gospel out there, but I don’t think these two have found it."

The Lost Gospel by Simcha Javobovici and Barrie Wilson

[struggle4progress]

63. "... We're basically looking at a sensationalist money-making scheme here, and there's nothing else

to say about it ... "The Lost Gospel" suggests the discovery of a new literary source, one that is either recently discovered or has been largely neglected. Instead, the "lost gospel" is actually an ancient Jewish (perhaps Christian) novel we call "Joseph and Aseneth." It's well known, and it's received quite a bit of scholarly attention. Joseph and Aseneth is included in the standard collections of ancient Jewish literature that all biblical scholars consult. This month's Society of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, the most significant gathering of biblical scholars in the world, will include two papers devoted to the story. Just type "Aseneth" into your Amazon search window, and you'll find quite a few books devoted to the story, including monographs by leading scholars ... Jacobovici and Wilson describe the text as "Gathering dust in the British Library" and suggest they have "uncovered" it. Unfortunately, the media has bought into that narrative. A Washington Post story claims that scholars previously reviewed the document and considered it insignificant. Hardly. Online databases reveal over three hundred scholarly books and articles devoted to this text, not counting book reviews. Over twenty manuscripts of Joseph and Aseneth have survived. If you're curious, you can consult a modern translation online. In fact, Duke University professor Mark Goodacre created his Joseph and Aseneth home page in 1999 -- quite a bit before its recent "uncovering." The new book's subtitle reveals a second problem: "decoding." The authors claim this ancient novel carries a secret meaning. Joseph and Aseneth makes perfect sense without decoding. It's the story of how Joseph meets his wife Aseneth, who is Egyptian and a pagan ... It is always bad form to attack a theory by condemning its proponents, but Simcha Jacobovichi is a notorious peddler of misleading theories. He promoted an ossuary as containing the bones of Jesus' brother James, a theory that has been disconfirmed. He also developed a documentary that claimed to unveil the Jesus family tomb, also refuted by experts, and even claims to have uncovered the nails used in Jesus' crucifixion. It's a shame that the media ever pays attention to him ..."

Another Jesus and Mary Magdalene Hoax

[struggle4progress]

64. ... Oxford University professor Diarmaid MacCulloch told Britain's Sunday Times that the book

"sounds like the deepest bilge" ...

'Lost Gospel' books claims Jesus was married, had 2 children

[struggle4progress]

65. "... Mr. Jacobovici’s new book essentially claims that the 6th century CE Syriac language version

of a Greek pseudepigraphical story entitled Joseph and Aseneth (which I discuss in my class “Banned from the Bible: Intro to Pseudepigrapha and Apocrypha” course at Iowa) is a “gospel”, and should be read allegorically, but only after replacing every mention of Joseph with the name “Jesus”, and every mention of Aseneth with “Mary Magdalene”. Now, if your first thought is, “WTF? This is just as problematic as the Bible Code dude, who attempts to read every passage in the Bible as an allegory for every modern event, from the Invasion of Iraq, to the Wall Street Crash, to President Obama’s election, etc.”, then you’re right on the money. It is precisely that silly – same interpretative technique, same lack of evidence, same wishful speculation. The same guy who claims to have discovered the route of the Exodus, Atlantis, the nails of the cross, the tomb of Jesus (with Jesus still in it!), and another tomb of people celebrating Jesus’ resurrection (with Jesus still in the other tomb), has now written a book claiming “evidence” that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, by swapping out the names of Joseph and Aseneth and replacing them with the names of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. By that same allegorical logic, you could swap out the names of Samson and Delilah and claim that Mary Magdalene cut Jesus’ hair. Or swap out Adam and Eve and conclude that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were the primordial couple. Or read David and Bathsheba allegorically and end up with Jesus having a son named Solomon, who is guarded by the Priory of Sion ... There is a reason that the scholars of the world are not paying any attention to this latest so-called “discovery”: there’s nothing there ..."

Review of “The Lost Gospel” by Jacobovici and Wilson

[MFM008]

103. Bunk

This guy is always behind these "discoveries", not long ago he found the tomb and bones of not just 'Jesus, but his whole family'.
Maybe he can find Amelia Earhart, B.D.Cooper and Jimmy Hoffa.

[Notafraidtoo]

104. You are a member of an early tribe just getting by.

People for the first time are cooperating and living in caves bringing food back to share for their family's, suddenly their is a tornado, earth quake, hurricane, tidal wave, large meteor, comet, lightning... you have no idea how these things happen, there is no science, you don't know what weather is or how it happens, but you do know it is stronger than you,it happens on rare occasions which means it isn't the natural order of things ( basically how humans think when something unusual happens) it must be a being like you after all as a naturally narcissistic human this "invisible god like being" must look and think the way you and your leaders do. Being naturally narcissistic you assume it is angry with you why else would it strike at you with such force, obviously it needs you to submit to it just like your leaders expect of you.

Why is a super powerful god that can make a billion galaxy's with trillions of stars in them jealous when he isn't worshiped by a ant he created and is angry when you have sex with an ant that isn't your wife ( the amount of narcissism in religion is unreal!). If you could create 6 billion ants would you expect them to worship you or be upset with them if they don't? no because they are meaningless ants compared to you and that would give you the worse case of insecurity ever recorded which just so happens to be the same character flaws of iron age men who treated women and children as property. Weird that god has the same character they do and they just so happen to be the ones who wrote the books.. and why does god want some ants he created to kill different tribes of ants by throwing their baby ants against rocks? HOW CAN ANYONE TAKE THIS TRASH LEGITIMATELY! It is soo obvious it is narcissistic power hungry men writing this stuff, how can people not see this!

I actually read the bible, it is a book full of rape,genocide,racism,slavery, women and children are property (Gods ok with all this by the way) and a little bit about helping the poor and sick. It takes a lot of cherry picking to find good things for humanity in that book, why are people so willing to ignore the 80% evil the bible is?

Unexplained powerful weather and events are likely why religions existed in every culture in the world long before they ever met to compare and combine their stories into books. The reason religion continues to thrive today is young children do not have the capacity to separate fact from fiction when told stories their parents believe, it is also why marketing should be banned on children's shows and why Mc Donalds the worse quality fast food chain of any major brand is able to succeed, indoctrination of children that permeates into adult hood.

[mr blur]

106. Trouble is, you know this and we know this, but -

the millions of people who need to acknowledge this will never do it and are capable of the most astonishing feats of self-delusion and cognitive dissonance.

[Humanist_Activist]

115. Uhm, is anyone not going to mention the fact that this is a 6th century document?

Is there any evidence it was written earlier than that?

Most of the Gospels were written anywhere from 70 CE to about 120-180 CE, a manuscript, written centuries later, would be interesting in analyzing the religious beliefs of various early Christian sects, but would reveal nothing about the "true Jesus", if such a character even existed.

[Warren Stupidity]

120. I just want to know who resurrected this zombie op and why. nt.

[muriel_volestrangler]

121. Post #113

and that got hidden.

[hrmjustin]

122. Aparantly Skepticscott felt the need to insult okasha.

http://election.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=186104

Curious why he chose this thread to do it in. The only reason I can think of he felt an old thread might not be seen on the religion page. Sometimes when older threads are kicked they don't show up on the room's front page.

It looks like he was trying to avoid a jury and he failed.

Just foolish on his part.

Btw not my alert but great result.

[enki23]

125. It's an interesting story, I guess.

But in a reasonable world, it would be about as momentous as arguing over fan theories about Star Wars on the internet.

[Half-Century Man]

126. I will wade into this morass to my probable regret.

European royalty had an immense vested interest in Jesus procreating. They had to have a method to legitimize the 'Divine Right of Kings".

If Jesus had existed; his surviving family would have most likely been part of the Diaspora. If they had, at the time. been recognized as Judaic royalty, they would have ended up in what would become Spain and been part of the Sephardic community. If they had not been seen as anything special would have most likely moved north through Asia and then east into Europe to later become a part of the Ashkenazi Jews.

There was a remarkable lack of Jews in eastern Europe and England until the Early Middle Ages. There was a remarkable urgency for a clean claim to absolute rule. So...first rule of Kingship as practiced by the Babylonians, Egyptians, Greek Kings, Roman Emperors, Mayan Dynasties, Aztec Kings, Incan royalty, Chinese Emperors, to name a few....God is part of my family, so fuck off and obey.