Re: Vatican

From: <>
Date: Tue Nov 15 2005 - 20:15:13 EST

In a message dated 11/15/2005 2:36:24 PM Eastern Standard Time, writes:
his book Hidden Gospels, Jenkins explodes the myth of the Gospel of Philip as
a reliable or contemporary source for the life of Jesus:

· Not a first century document at all, scholars date the Gospel of
Philip to the third century, about 200 years after Jesus lived, and therefore no
product of the disciple named Philip in Acts, unless he lived to be at least
310! This would be as far removed from us as the American Revolution, and
certainly not to be preferred over the canonical Gospels, which even by later dates
assigned by some scholars (80-100 AD) are far closer to their source.[30] The
Nag Hammadi document was penned no earlier than 350 AD.[31]

· The Gospel of Philip is a Gnostic text, and Gnostic thought would
have no place in first century Palestinian Judaism. A Jesus teaching Gnosticism
in this setting would not have been Teabing’s influential person – he would
have been ignored and shunned.
 ....." Much more here:

The Nag Hammadi texts are dated to the late fourth century. See here:

~ Janice

You're all going to have to get out of the box and it hasn't hit you yet. You
see, if the creation was not 6 days, then it is myth/allegory. If it is
myth/allegory, your religion, your world, no longer has a definite beginning (the
creation in genesis) and you will have to get to the bottom of all the things
you believe and where they originated and what they mean because the Hebrew
bible did not suddenly appear without any prior influences. The religion evolved
out of religions that were already in existence. With the end of the 6 day
creation you can no longer hide under the status of canonicity. What is important
about the nag hamadi texts and Scholem's quoting of the Zohar's description
of the divided Adam and the Nag Hamadi texts' description of Jesus as the
undivided is that the Zohar and Nag Hamadi texts support the theology of Adam, and
Jesus as a return to the pre-fall Adam which is allegorically described in
Genesis and the NT. The concept is not only supported, it is fleshed out by
examining the theology as it appears in genesis, in 6th century Jewish texts and
4th century gnostic texts in addition to the NT. What I am doing is what you all
will have to do if you are religionists who stand on the side of evolution
and science, but you're not doing it yet.
It is not the dating based on distance from the historical Jesus or
canonicity that is paramount because once you abandon the 6 day creation you have to
revisit everything in the texts and interpret it correctly since you have
admitted that you did not interpret the creation of the world correctly, the very
beginning of the Hebrew bible. In the future you will be forced to ask youself :
what is it that this concept in genesis and the zohar and the nag hamadi
texts is telling me to do? What are its components? What is the will of God here?
Once the concept only barely covered in genesis is fleshed out by examining
its strains throughout history as maintained in various texts and by various
groups, what *exactly* does it mean? What is its relevance to humanity which is
expected to base its personal and communal behaviors on it?
You can't discover that by resorting to canonicity or dating. You have to
argue the concept and resorting to dating and canonicity to dismiss a text out of
hand does not argue the concept under discussion, a religious concept that
would presume to govern your behavior and that of your communities in a
particular way.

I gave you examples demonstrating that the ontology of the pre-fall Adam
before Eve was of an undivided self without desire, what the gnostic gospels call
an "androgyne." I found references to the concept in the kabbalistic Zohar and
a few of the nag hamadi texts. I did not mention that Jesus did the will of
the Father and not his own. It was too obvious that one without a will of his
own would be without a desire of his own, but nobody saw that most obvious and
unquestioned fact at the core of the NT but when I quoted these non-canonical
texts saying precisely the same thing but in different ways, and showing
agreement with the same concept expressed in the canonical texts, OT and NT, the
non-canonical and Jewish texts were summarily dismissed (one because the
scholar's brother was a communist).

Let me give you another example of comparing non-canonical texts and
canonical texts to flesh out a theological concept from my paper, involving the
mechanics, not of Adam's pre-fall state but the nature of the fall itself.

Here's the description of the fall from the NT:

When Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the “tree of the knowledge of good and
evil” the “eyes of both of them were opened and they discovered that they were
naked; so they stitched fig-leaves together and made loincloths… and hid from
the Lord God.”1

eyes open=knowledge of good and evil
discovered that they were naked=-ashamed because they are self conscious
hid from God=fear

After the fall, man is intelligent, ashamed of his nakedness, and fearful.

. In the Gospel of Thomas, Jesus says,
             “When you disrobe without being ashamed… you will not be afraid.
Jesus’ words in this Nag Hammadi text from 1st century Egypt dovetail
remarkably with the nature of the fall in Genesis, note that Jesus is describing not
the fall but the return, the reverse. The fall brought shame and fear
(self-consciousness and ontological anxiety). Returning to God (by abandoning
self-consciousness, eliminating shame and fear) would remove them.

Here Jesus says if you're naked and your nakedness does NOT make you ashamed,
you won't be afraid either! Look in genesis and you see, if you're not
ashamed, or afraid, you're in the pre-fall state of Adam.

That is a confirmation in this nag hamadi text that your understanding of the
fall in genesis is correct and it is a sign that the same theology exists in
both, and developed among Coptic Christians without losing its essential
meaning from genesis. Jesus has not simply regurgitated the fall in the nag hamadi
text. He has taken the components of the fall, reversed them and described the
return. It is the strengthening of the concept that is important if religion
is something you guide your life with. All of the texts I quoted agree on the
ontology of the pre-fall Adam and Jesus.

Now, don't get me wrong. I believe if you allow the literal interpretation of
the scriptures to guide your behavior you will live just as perfectly as the
guy who knows the Biblical concepts intellectually, but this is a group of
scientists who care about religion, and I thought that if I could engage you on
these basic concepts from the correct scientific point of view, I'd be able to
broach more important subjects, but unfortunately my writing does not get my
ideas across and I apologize for that.

You can begin intellectually pursuing the non-literal reading of the bible
and get into its provenance now, or you can do it after you accept the end of
the 6 day creation because you'll have to do it eventually and its better sooner
than later because the churches are liberalizing and emptying.

Another example:
When someone posted that Adam had decided to choose a mate for himself among
the animals, which would defeat my argument that the pre-fall Adam had no
desire, I didn't know the passage, but I knew the poster had recalled the passage
incorrectly. I'd found the concept of the undivided self so well developed by
examining the evidence for it as it permeated the OT, the NT, the Zohar and
the Nag Hamadi texts, that I knew Adam simply could not have had desire at that
point in Genesis. The poster was mistaken and the passage supported my
argument. It was God who decided Adam needed a mate, not Adam's desire. I knew the
text because I knew the concept.

Canonicity will not help as the 6 day creation falls, nor will dating (except
relative dating of texts to determine the historical development of
theological concepts) or standing back and calling what is new and unexpected: bizarre.

I was accused of being a liberal leftie because I quoted a Jewish scholar
whose brother was a communist, but a scientific reading of the torah provides an
unsurpassed argument validating a deeply conservative Christianity. I prove it
in my essay coming out in January. It's one of the arguments you'll need to
justify Biblical morality as the literal reading collapses. It's the argument
Ken Ham is looking for.

 “If Christian leaders have told the next generation that one can accept the
world’s teachings in geology, biology, astronomy, etc., and use these to
(re)interpret God’s Word, then the door has been opened for this to happen in every
area, including morality.”32

The torah, read from a scientific point of view, justifies the maintenance of
the Levitical prohibitions, that is: biblical morality. There is no need to
reinterpret God's word. Ham's concern is unwarranted regarding biblical
morality. God's word is scientifically sound in that regard.

rich faussette
Received on Tue Nov 15 20:16:42 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Nov 15 2005 - 20:16:42 EST