Parables Vs. Narrative

[elinz]

These quotes from Jesus come from Gnostic writings.

This sect, and their writings, were persecuted and destroyed

by the church during the fourth century. Miraculously, these

writings were accidentally rediscovered in the 1940's by a

peasant in Egypt who was digging for fertilizer. Preserved in

clay jars for 15 centuries, these documents only reappeared

at a time when they could never be destroyed again.

Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds.

When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes

troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All."

(The Gospel of Thomas Vs:2)

...and then it goes on to list the other parables.

The point here is that it very well might have been true that

the predominant style of public speech for Jesus was the

parable.

But the New Testament was assembled with most of the

parables thrown away. This appears to have been a choice

so that the readers could enjoy a narrative story much like

today we enjoy movies.

People love movies because you can sit back at let your

semi-sleep brainwaves transport you away to a happy

place. (or a horror film)

But Jesus seemed to like these non-narrative parables.

The parable is intellectually challenging. It forces the

brain to struggle to comprehend it's meaning. Of course,

if your goal in creating a bible is to extend Roman rule

it makes sense to make it a blockbuster.

Oh, by the way, "The Passion of Christ" looks to be

quite a thriller. I plan to see it.

Does anyone make parables anymore?

Can anyone think of a modern day parable?

Since I never went to BYU I wouldn't know, but do

they teach parable writing anywhere?

Or maybe a parable creation game?

(a new party sensation! )

[Snow]

Originally posted by elinz@Feb 16 2004, 02:39 PM

These quotes from Jesus come from Gnostic writings.

Alledged quotes you mean...

But the New Testament was assembled with most of the parables thrown away.

Source please.

[elinz]

Portions of Greek versions of the Gospel of Thomas were found in Oxyrhynchus Egypt about one hundred years ago and these can be dated to about 140 A.D. or somewhat before. A complete version in Coptic (the native Egyptian language written in an alphabet derived from the Greek alphabet) was found in Nag Hammadi Egypt in 1945. That version can be dated to about 340 A.D. The Coptic version is a translation of the Greek version. Thus most, if not all, of the Gospel of Thomas was written prior to 140 A. D.

Have you heard of these texts before?

"Nag Hammadi"

[elinz]

Try looking here:

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html

[elinz]

Correct me if I wrong here, but since the LDS Church believes that

new Revelation is expected over time, this simply confirms the

conviction.

Something that had been hidden becomes revealed.

Is there something wrong with new Revelation?

(I'm not saying the texts were perfect either, they might

have left them out because they were simply not considered

very good for what was desired)

[elinz]

And don't worry.

If you're afraid it will show up on an exam

somewhere I doubt it.

This is what you call "Extra Credit" knowledge

[Snow]

Originally posted by elinz@Feb 16 2004, 03:44 PM

Try looking here:

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html

That's a website with hundreds of links.

I am asking you for evidence to support your assertion that there were a bunch parables (from Christ) and that the assemblers of the NT discarded the majority of them.

Correct me if I wrong here, but since the LDS Church believes that

new Revelation is expected over time, this simply confirms the

conviction.

Something that had been hidden becomes revealed.

Is there something wrong with new Revelation?

Not only is it not "new revelation," I doubt it is even old revelation. What is it that makes you think that it is revelation?

[elinz]

They did find some old texts that are pretty reliably

dated to near the age of Jesus.

I'm not saying that they are 100% correct transcriptions.

But it does seem interesting.

Either way, parables were used in that era.

The issue is primarily the use of parables as an

art form to communicate and teach.

After that era the shift was toward the narratiive.

I'm just saying parables are cool too.

(and the bible does have parables)

[Snow]

Originally posted by elinz@Feb 16 2004, 05:41 PM

They did find some old texts that are pretty reliably

dated to near the age of Jesus.

I'm not saying that they are 100% correct transcriptions.

Who cares if they are reliably dated [century(s) after Christ] or correct transcriptions. The question is, are they true. Don't thing so.

[elinz]

True in what sense?

True in that they educate?

True that they stretch your understanding?

Just like all things you need to ask yourself

if they are true. I can't tell you what to know.

Would you want me to restrict you in any

type of knowledge?

No.

You must sift through all knowledge and learn

what is true.

You are a free person...

[Snow]

Yeah,

Earth to elinz... true in the sense that they accurately convey the gospel of Jesus Christ and were legitimately authored by those in authority and in a position to know the correct teaching of Christ and or the apostles.

Are they?

No.

[elinz]

Don't the apostles qualify?

You don't think they are consistent with

the teachings of Jesus?

Hmmmm. I just don't see it.

Why do you think they differ?

[Snow]

Originally posted by elinz@Feb 16 2004, 06:00 PM

Don't the apostles qualify?

You don't think they are consistent with

the teachings of Jesus?

Hmmmm. I just don't see it.

Why do you think they differ?

-See my post above.

-No.

-Have you read them?

[elinz]

Are suggesting they are forgeries or that they

are politically motivated slander directed toward

Jesus?

Forgeries maybe. Technically difficult.

The political motivation seems odd because

the Jesus movement hadn't gained that much

strength yet and it seems strange that such

a radical fraud would be pulled off.

What exactly are you opposing?

Their information or their association with Jesus?

Again, in my mind knowledge is good if it's good.

Are you sure you're just not afraid to read

something outside of the standard doctrines?

[elinz]

Gnosticism seems to have been derived from ideas that

were common in the eastern religions like buddhism.

The big change in Juhaism and Christianity was the idea of

bringing the "kingdom of God" to the earth rather than simply

allowing the knowledge to be wasted.

I don't agree with the old Gnosticism irresponsibility.

But as a historical part of the story of religious history

it seems that this was in existence during the time of

Jesus.

If you're Mormon you're supposed to be smarter and

wiser. More knowledge, even if it's historical, is never

a bad thing.

I'm not "selling" Gnosticism. It's primative.

But the LDS Church claims to being sensitive to the

issues of the early church.

You should be responisble for at least knowing what

the view was by the Gnostics.

[elinz]

This site compares LDS with Gnosticism:

http://www.geocities.com/rameumptom/bom/naghamm.html

[elinz]

An LDS scholar:

http://www.einarerickson.com/

Scroll down to find:

Gnostic Gospels

http://www.the-book-of-mormon.com/ldsbooks.html

It's pretty much accepted as a source of study...

[Guest Starsky]

elinz,

I happen to share your opinion that knowledge is a good thing, regardless of it's apparent application, or present lack of it, because the more you have, the better your perspective and the more available answers for future questions. More to bring to the table and the greater the understanding of all things.

[Snow]

Originally posted by elinz@Feb 16 2004, 06:55 PM

It's pretty much accepted as a source of study...

So is cannibalism in the aboriginies of Borneo.

I fail to see your point.

[elinz]

You can study something without choosing to

agree with it.

By your logic you would NEVER want to learn

because it might threaten the status quo.

In fact, even in warfare you want to study your

enemy so that you know them better than they

know themselves. Then you might have to

destroy them. Afterwards do you ask yourself

whether that knowledge is useless?

What about evil people?

Wouldn't you want to understand how their minds

worked so that you could be wise to them?

Ignorance may be bliss, but you can get in some

serious trouble if danger comes along...

[Guest curvette]

I haven't studied the Nag Hammadi texts in detail, but I've skimmed over some of them. Sheesh Snow, what are you so sensitive about? I do know that the Gnostics were considered heretic very early on because their teachings were so fluid and were revelations received by individual people, not by a recognized "agent' of the early church. You know the church can't deal with revelations they can't control!

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

There are still parables in the New Testament. Jesus specifically explains in the NT that parables are important. Maybe some were left out, and found in the Gospel of Thomas.

I haven't read the Gospel of Thomas, so I don't understand why Snow is getting all freaked out. Is there something in the Gospel of Thomas that contradicts LDS doctrine?

[elinz]

The Gospel of Thomas:

http://amminadab.com/temple/gnosis/thomas1.htm

My understanding is that the Nag Hammadi does more to

affirm the ideas of the LDS Church than go against them.

It adds proof to the idea that the primative church was

destroyed so that the Roman church could dominate.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Thanks...

After skimming over that I don't see anything that could be anti-LDS in there.

So what's the big controversy?

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by elinz@Feb 17 2004, 04:45 PM

The Gospel of Thomas:

http://amminadab.com/temple/gnosis/thomas1.htm

My understanding is that the Nag Hammadi does more to

affirm the ideas of the LDS Church than go against them.

It adds proof to the idea that the primative church was

destroyed so that the Roman church could dominate.

I notice that this website leaves out all of the really weird gnostic stuff that completely contradicts LDS doctrine though.