Early Christian Writings
- Thread starter pixiegirl
- Start date
I've read a lot of them. I'd say that the Didache (also known as the Teachings of the Twelve Apostles) and the Shepherd of Hermas were widely used in the early church, although they didn't make the final canon. I often refer to the Didache when discussing the early church online, because, while NOT the New Testament, it's fairly valuable in giving a general idea what New Testament times, and what the early church was like.pixiegirl said:
(Some of the writings listed are NOT Christian - like Suetonius and Tacitus, who were Roman writers of that era. Neither one of them ever wrote anything about Christianity, although insertions were put into their writings later. Ditto Flavius Josephus, who wrote the history of the Jews, and of the Wars of the Jews. He was a personal eyewitness to the siege at Masada, which they made a mini-series about some years back).
If you want to actually read some of these, you can at:
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/
I was surprised to find, about twenty years ago, that there was SO MUCH to read about Christianity of that era. Just like any time period, there's also a lot of crap. (Ironically, Suetonius and Tacitus - just about the only 'historians' whose writings have survived from that time - were widely regarded in their time as basically gossip-mongers - the ancient equivalent of the Enquirer).
pixiegirl
Cleopatra Jones
I'll have to read all of the gospel of Mary..
Chapter 4, vs 36-39
36) Those who seek Him will find Him.
37) Go then and preach the gospel of the Kingdom.
38) Do not lay down any rules beyond what I appointed you, and do not give a law like the lawgiver lest you be constrained by it.
39) When He said this He departed.
Chapter 4, vs 36-39
36) Those who seek Him will find Him.
37) Go then and preach the gospel of the Kingdom.
38) Do not lay down any rules beyond what I appointed you, and do not give a law like the lawgiver lest you be constrained by it.
39) When He said this He departed.
And Satan probably resembles the sock puppet from your avatar, and his voice probably sounds like Wayne Newton's.dazed&fallen
fine artist
Much of the Christian church believes strongly in the sole authority and inerrancy of the Bible, but what of these other books? Nag hammadhi texts like the gospel of thomas and mary magdalene are rejected because they are said to be influenced by gnosticism. I would argue that this exclusion was made by men for reasons that are more political than spiritual. Others are sure to disagree.
pixiegirl
Cleopatra Jones
dazed&fallen said:
Actually I agree with you. I've never been a firm subscriber in the bible as it was created by man and thus is falable. The more I learn about the politics of Christianity the more I rely on myself to discover what I think the truth is opposed to traditional teachings.
Sigh.
People and their own wisdom. Lost leading the lost.
People and their own wisdom. Lost leading the lost.
pixiegirl
Cleopatra Jones
2ndAmendment said:
Nobody is leading me that is the point. I am coming to my own conclusions after doing my own research. To me there is one thing that is undeniable and that is my feelings. I never said I wasn't Christian because I am. I chose to form my own opinions as oposed to just accepting someone else's or following the interpretation of one piece of literature.
Chasey_Lane
Salt Life
elaine said:
Pixie posts some "interesting" finds and 2A is still trying to convince others they're wrong. 
Agreed. They're BOOKS. You can read them just the same as reading any other book in the universe - like the dictionary. If nothing else, it will give you insight into how people thought and felt in that time. It will make you ask other questions about Christianity. They don't have to be "God-breathed" to have value - we already value LOTS of books and references for that.Chasey_Lane said:
And they are OPINION, many of them. The same goes for a good lesson in church, or a good Sunday school class. It doesn't have to be a prophet approved by God and validated by miracles to be of value. Just read and learn.
The lost leading the lost? Heck, you can get all messed up just listening to someone who *isn't* "lost*, unless they're some kind of PROPHET.
The only time I ever get any kind of 'tude about this stuff, is when someone wants to believe it supercedes the Bible itself. Like you might read Tertullian - well, Tertullian eventually became an out and out heretic, writing or not writing. (He did after all, write some outstanding Christian apologies). It's always smart to weigh everything you read with a little skepticism. Origen was a brilliant and dedicated apologist - who cut his own nuts off. Some of these guys had moments of brilliance, but some of them were loons.
ceo_pte
New Member
pixiegirl said:
I wouldn't trust my feelings b/c many times they are driven by emotions. Just like we sometimes fear change, but change is normally what we need to move forward. I'm not condeming your postings(b/c I didn't read them yet), just sharing my experiences and maybe another angle on feelings. Have a good day.
dazed&fallen
fine artist
you assume much2ndAmendment said:
gumbo
FIGHT CLUB !
Anytime someone reads literary works of non fictional authors it helps to know what the authors intentions where and what inspired the authors writing's
With out a prologue or at least doing research on the authors intentions of his or her writings , especially when it comes to religious literature one is generally doing some assuming.
This is where and how most debates start when it comes to the Bible and the books that where not included.
I Agree that the very political Roman Catholic Church has laid a very dark cloud of doubt over allot of Christians heads and I for one was in dire straights for a very long time.
A Muslim pointed out to me Psalms 46 in the new King James version and told me to count 46 words from the beginning then count 46 words from the end.
You will be surprised at what you come up with when you put these two words together.
This is why I read the non Catholic NIV Bible.
With out a prologue or at least doing research on the authors intentions of his or her writings , especially when it comes to religious literature one is generally doing some assuming.
This is where and how most debates start when it comes to the Bible and the books that where not included.
I Agree that the very political Roman Catholic Church has laid a very dark cloud of doubt over allot of Christians heads and I for one was in dire straights for a very long time.
A Muslim pointed out to me Psalms 46 in the new King James version and told me to count 46 words from the beginning then count 46 words from the end.
You will be surprised at what you come up with when you put these two words together.
This is why I read the non Catholic NIV Bible.
That one probably is no accident; he would have been *46* in the year of translation, 1610 - and it's highly possible that he assisted with then the best piece of English literature in existence.gumbo said:
It doesn't detract from its *accuracy* - just that English is pliable as a language, to do that sort of thing.
When it comes to the Bible, part of my concern for what I'm reading is - how precise is the *meaning* coming across - not, how literal is the translation. An accurate word-for-word translation can be confusing, because it would include references and idioms that are 2,000 years out of date. A sentence for sentence translation suffers the same kind of restriction. A good paraphrase is open to subjective insertions, of which I think the Living Bible is by far the worst - parts of John 1 are complete insertions and editorial comment by the translator.
You can't avoid this when dealing with a book that was written in another culture, in another language and was written two millenia ago - you can get a really good translation, but you must remember that it is a translation. It's like translating a moving poem from say, Japanese - when translated, the whole sound, pace and rhythm are lost, not to mention the power of the words in their native language. Translated, it may sound trite and stupid, but to a native speaker, it might be a masterpiece. But if all you need is the *meaning*, you can get along with that just fine.
I tend to go with a handful of translations. The NIV, mainly because it is easy to read, widely used, and easy to get a copy of; the RSV, because I just plain like it; and either the American Standard or the New American Standard, because it's usually the most literally accurate. I refrain from the Authorized Version (also known as the King James) because while the words may reflect the meaning accurately, the *ENGLISH LANGUAGE* has changed since 1611, and it makes reading needlessly cumbersome. Jesus did not speak Elizabethan English any more than he spoke Chinese or the Vulgate Latin, and it's perfectly reasonable to prefer a modern translation. However, when I do use the Authorized, I use my Scofield, because it updates archaic words.