What if there actually was a church council that set the canon? Now there is.

Tomorrow is publication day for Hal Taussig's proposed new version of the New Testament, with ten "new" books, mostly found among the Nag Hammadi cache, and so mostly "Gnostic."

www.hmhbooks.com...

These books were selected by way of a kind of resurrection of the controversial Jesus Seminar, this time consciously conceived of as the Church Council that never happened in real life, a meeting of religious professionals in New Orleans to "decide" the canon. (None of the existing canon was dropped at the "Council of New Orleans.") Taussig, a pastor and New Testament scholar, thinks that these now 37 books should be the canon.

One prepublication blogger looks at the choices, provides free sources for each of the new ones, and invites readers to follow Taussig's lead and roll their own canon:

uncertaintist.wordpress.com...

Is Taussig right, that in its Twenty-first century Christianity needs a new canon, particularly one consciously selected by an open process which officially includes people of color and women?

An ATS-type concern is what are Taussig and friends' goals here? Yes, I got the part where they'd like a lot of people to buy the book so they make a lot of money. Is that their entire agenda? Clearly, no conservative Christian is going to have anything to do with this. No Catholics are going to be on board. Forget the other Orthodoxies.

Any thoughts about what is really going on?
-

reply to post by eight bits


My thoughts are that orthodoxy needs to yield to mysticism every once in a while. That's how religion evolves over time. Religion must evolve as culture evolves... mysticism is the mechanism for that evolution. It's a give-and-take.

Has anything good ever come out of the land of American voodoo?

catholicism and it's trinitarin doctrine have fullfilled their purposes and are now to be replaced.

the observations of the gnostics have, for good reason, persisted to this day, as is shown in op's link.
currently, the U.S. military is investigating the emergence of a new group of (negative) beings that are similar in description to the archons/ aeons of the gnostics.
they are, although invisible, like a ball of energy that infect the human mind/ soul. especialy vulnerable are soldiers, and it is possible that the wars we are fighting in are being used to prepare host for these entities.

it is likely that they have come to our dimension through the portal created by L.Ron Hubbard and Jack Parsons in their moonchild project, or one of the portals that have extended from that.

with that in mind, it may happen that scientology will be the religion to replace christianity.
one might want to study these religions (instead of ridiculing them) to see what we may be up against.

Originally posted by tinhattribunal

the observations of the gnostics have, for good reason, persisted to this day, as is shown in op's link.

The gnostics are just one of many mystical traditions. Don't make the mistake of clinging too tightly to a single mystical model with its forms and symbols and terms and disposition. Instead, study comparative mysticism, comparative mythology, comparative religion. Comparativists have a much easier time transcending cultural and temporal concepts and forms and ideas and metaphors, instead of getting stuck in them, as you seem to be.

reply to post by tinhattribunal

the U.S. military is investigating the emergence of a new group of (negative) beings that are similar in description to the archons/ aeons of the gnostics.

The US intel agencies, through the Collins Elite, have already investigated these areas and the sexual witchcraft rituals Jack Parsons performed. They came to the conclusion after several decades of investigation of these things that they were just the fallen angels

with that in mind, it may happen that scientology will be the religion to replace christianity.

When the archons/ETs run for their life when a person calls on the name of Jesus (a literal being...not an archetype) I don't think Christianity will be replaced with this counterfeit drivel any time soon. The latest ploys of Lucifer down the drain hole.

CE4 testimonies

Originally posted by BlueMule
reply to post by eight bits

 

My thoughts are that orthodoxy needs to yield to mysticism every once in a while. That's how religion evolves over time. Religion must evolve as culture evolves... mysticism is the mechanism for that evolution. It's a give-and-take.

For a person who offers prayers to dead humans he calls holy, prayers to false gods that desired human sacrifice and turn out to be Lucifer in disguise, then I think your idea of truth and Christianity is fully warped and no authority to judge which direction it should go.

Galations 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

Any Christians supporting any new contradictory canon will be separating themselves from God...

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic

For a person who offers prayers to dead humans he calls holy, prayers to false gods that desired human sacrifice and turn out to be Lucifer in disguise, then I think your idea of truth and Christianity is fully warped and no authority to judge which direction it should go.

My authority to offer an opinion about which way Christianity should go comes from years of studying comparative religion, comparative mythology, comparative mysticism... and of course my mystical experiences seen in light of that tri-angulated, panoramic, cross-cultural view, and of course from being raised Catholic.

As opposed to the myopic, local, tiny view of ignorant uninitiated dogmatic fundamentalist fools.

"The Christian of the future will be a mystic, or he will not exist at all" -Karl Rahner

reply to post by eight bits


Though I'm a fan of The Acts of Paul and Thecla, I think the intent and bias of this book is pretty obvious -- if Liberal Theology and the Jesus Seminar couldn't disprove the claims of orthodox Christianity, perhaps including known forgeries in the Bible will give future generations new targets to attack?

When I read something as ridiculous as this:

Wait a minute! Wasn't the New Testament written, selected, and collected very soon after Jesus?

No. The New Testament did not exist for at least the first three hundred, if not five hundred, years after Jesus. Some of its books appear to have been written some twenty to thirty years after his death, but others probably not for at least 140 years after Jesus. (Source)

I can't help but roll my eyes. The New Testament didn't exist until 530AD? And some of the books weren't written until 170AD? Sorry, but we have historical evidence of a mostly complete canon in the late Second Century, and a complete one in the 367AD Easter letter of Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, and almost every New Testament scholar dates the writing of all the books of the NT to the First Century.

Since Karen L. King was one of the members of the panel, I wonder if she's included a complete copy of The Gospel of Jesus' Wife? No one else seems to want to publish it, lol.

Religion and the Biblical texts we have today is from a very long process of discussion, prayer, meditation...and council...

The First council of Nicea 325 CE

The First Council of Constantinople 381 CE

The second Council of Constantinople 553 CE

The third Council of Constantinople 680-681 CE

The second Council Of Nicea 787 CE

I won't spoil the fun so you can look up each council and their goals and purposes at the time.

If you are interested in gnosticism, look into the Rosicrucians...

The Rosicrucian Order

reply to post by BlueMule

unthinking orthodoxy and judge things they don't understand.

Of course because Jesus wanted to keep the Truth hidden from people, so that only the special initiated ones would be worthy.

I know perfectly well who Isis, Astarte, Mary, Tannit, Inanna, ect are. I have read what the Satanists say they are.

All your comparisons have clouded your mind, when you can't pick truth from error you know your supposed superior knowledge is actually worth less than zero.

reply to post by eight bits

That's not a "church council", any more than you and me meeting at home would be a church council.
A church council has been commissioned to represent the church at large.
A small minority of "we don't want the traditional church teaching any more" people does not match the definition.

reply to post by JesuitGarlic

Galations 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.

ha ha!
apparently you are not aware that when the 'piso's' wrote the new testament
for julius ceasar in and around the 1st century that they put that very verse in it to help show you that their's was a 'replacement' for the real one's that have survived...
gnostics and essenes.

Originally posted by JesuitGarlic
reply to post by BlueMule

 

unthinking orthodoxy and judge things they don't understand.

Of course because Jesus wanted to keep the Truth hidden from people, so that only the special initiated ones would be worthy.

No, we speak of God's secret wisdom, a wisdom that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.

1 Corinthians 2:7

There is exoteric baby food for babies like yourself. For fundamentalist children.

And there is esoteric solid food for adults who need more.

That's the dual-structure of world religion and myth. Exoteric and esoteric.

I know perfectly well who Isis, Astarte, Mary, Tannit, Inanna, ect are. I have read what the Satanists say they are.

You don't know squat. You know names and forms and dogma. That's it. That's nothing.

The Infinite Diety is behind all numinous forms of all cultures. That's what God is One means. The cultural form is secondary and local, the essence is primary and universal. The comparative fields show how to see past the form to the essence.

When somone thinks that their cultural forms are the thing itself, that's idolatry.

You are an idolator. You think that your local concept, your symbolic Father-image, is the Infinite Diety itself. You can't see past the symbolic forms of your own culture, much less the forms of other cultures. You are blind. You don't have 'eyes to see'.

All your comparisons have clouded your mind, when you can't pick truth from error you know your supposed superior knowledge is actually worth less than zero.

You would sing a different tune after studying the comparative fields for a few years. That's why you'll rationalize reasons to remain willfully ignorant. Your dogmatic certitude and arrogance feels too good. You take the cowards way out.

Now I'm done bantering with children. They drain my patience. Go suck on your milk bottle, you judgmental coward. You aren't ready for anything else.

I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready.

1 Corinthians 3:2

Thanks to all who've posted so far. Some points arising.

adj

Since Karen L. King was one of the members of the panel, I wonder if she's included a complete copy of The Gospel of Jesus' Wife? No one else seems to want to publish it, lol.

Tsk, tsk. That's unkind. Anybody could have made that mistake .

I was very surprised that the panel went 8/10 Gnostic texts for their new material. Of the non-Gnostic amterial, Paul and Thecla is a great read, and the Odes of Solomon are beautiful. Taussig stretched the Odes into four "books," placing each of the four adjacent to a different set of other books.

DISRAELI

That's not a "church council", any more than you and me meeting at home would be a church council.
A church council has been commissioned to represent the church at large.
A small minority of "we don't want the traditional church teaching any more" people does not match the definition.

Of course, I wasn't part of their project. I can only pass along what they seem to be saying about what their intent was. I suppose (just my personal take) that part of their point was to question the legitimacy of the existing canon, even though they didn't remove anything from it, and to give a "worked example" of how a canon-setting group would acquire legitimacy, in their view. For example, open process, inclusiveness, and that the selections "complement" each other.

It is interesting, I think, that they are careful to bound their "legitimacy" in both time and space. Their choices are for this century, rather than for all time, and for North America, not the world. I think those bounds are significant.

BlueMule

Do you think that this group is devoted to mysticism? I'm not so sure that's how they ended up with so many Gnostic pieces. It sounds as if The Thunder: Perfect Mind made it in because the narrator of the poem is a woman (or at least a female spirit). The rap about the Thanksgiving Prayer and Prayer of the Apostle Paul seems to be that the existing New Testament didn't have many prayers in it.

I am not complaining, because I know it is often hard to answer "why?" questions about the actions of a committee. Still, it's hard to believe that the only place they could find ancient Christian prayers was in the Nag Hammadi cache.

Most of the Apostlic letters that make up the last half of the New Testament were written with the intent to refute the increasing heresies of Gnosticism.
The Nicene Creed was also written as a statement of faith based on the true Gospel Message as given by Jesus to the Apostles which was recorded for mankind in the 4 synoptic accounts that begin the New Testament.

Many new believers were led astray by the Gnostic perversions of Jesus' message. That is why Jesus said to seek first the Kingdom. Men have the inherent desire to seek wisdom & knowledge first, which is the modus operandi of Gnosticism in & of itself.

So in essence, Gnostic beliefs are based on the opposite of what Jesus instructed those who follow Him to do. Gnostic beliefs go against the Truths revealed to us by Christ Himself through His Apostles. Thus His Apostles referred to Gnostic teachings as 'anti Christ'.

Read the First Epistle of John (1 John, not the Gospel of John). The entire purpose of that Letter is centered on the subtle lies of Gnostic teachings. When he refers to 'anti Christs' in his letter, he is referring to Gnostic beliefs.

The New Age movement & those promulgated by the UFO contactee phenomenon are largely based on Gnosticism. All types of mysticism are respectively based on various mixtures of Kabbalah, Gnosticism & Eastern Philosophies. Which in turn, are all basically based on each other.

We are not gods. And we are only one in Christ- not in Gaia, or Christ consciousness, or universal consciousness, or karma kundalini or the galactic federation of light, or Chaka Khan Shamalama Ding Dong. We are all unique and individual and we are each accountable for the choices we make during our lifetime here on earth.

That is the Truth.

reply to post by stupid girl


interesting that you know so much about gnostic scripture... Yet you didn't know theres only three synoptic gospels...

Sorry to say this but I believe you're just regurgitating what you've been taught or read on Christian websites

We are not gods

your saviour said otherwise...

So much for truth eh

Originally posted by eight bits
I was very surprised that the panel went 8/10 Gnostic texts for their new material.

I think that is fairly well telling as to their motivation, which is the same as the Jesus Seminar -- discrediting orthodox Christianity. Paul and Thecla, I think, is a choice of King's, from the standpoint of a strong female lead character (King has written extensively on the role of women in Christianity,) but apart from that, the choices of texts seems intended to confuse, rather than clarify, the early Christian landscape.

No Shepherd of Hermas? No Apocalypse of Peter? Both were canonical for the early church, so their absence here is odd. Gospel of Thomas is a no-brainer for the Jesus Seminar crowd, but Valentinus' Gospel of Truth? That is a completely different mythos, and I can't imagine what someone who chances upon this book is going to think when they go from Gospel of John to that text.

If this book was being touted as a "survey of early Christian and pseudo-Christian writings," I don't think that I would have an issue with it -- I've personally read most of these books in my study of the early church, but presenting it as a "New New Testament", a "better" perspective on the teachings of Christ, is both ludicrous and contemptible.

reply to post by adjensen


Here we agree...

I don't think the NT is going to get better, unless of course the Vatican has hidden texts not made available...

Im sure they do, though im also sure we'll never see them if they do

reply to post by stupid girl


Excellent post...someone who has knowledge of what is being propagated in the world, can understand its links and origins, has not been overcome by their supposed knowledge and sticks too Truth. A great example of true wisdom.