Is Mary Magdalene's gosple real?

[Zundrah]

I totally agree with you, and I get tired of some Catholics here who are so dogmatic, and close-minded. I have read a lot of the Gnostic Gospels, and while I don’t think all are divinely inspired, I do think they are very interesting and worth thinking about. Gospel of Thomas is quite good - it’s sayings of Jesus without the story line.

.

Good times,CHRISTINE77 the gnostic gosples are really interesting! Okay so they were ignored by the official church - they did this for our own spiritual safety and that is good for us, but surly we can explore these things, to be able to know what is in the spirit and what is not…right? We are not so weak in faith that we would be lead astray are we?

xxx zundrah xxx

 

[GodIsGracious]

This is good for you! But wait a mo…

Don’t say that, it sounds like you’ve given up on me!

I’ve left my church and have no advice or ministers to talk to. The only guidence I have is here on this site with you guys ( catholics )! And you certainly are great at helping me!

I have not given up on you.

It is true, though, that we are all free to believe what we wish. Remember that God has given us free will. He wants us to chose Him. Would you rather a mate that was forced to be with you? Or one that chooses to be with you? I’d prefer the latter, myself. And this is how our relationship with God is, we are free to choose Him, or not.

I’m glad this site is helping you. This site is helping me too in many ways.

 

[Zundrah]

I have not given up on you.

It is true, though, that we are all free to believe what we wish. Remember that God has given us free will. He wants us to chose Him. Would you rather a mate that was forced to be with you? Or one that chooses to be with you? I’d prefer the latter, myself. And this is how our relationship with God is, we are free to choose Him, or not.

I’m glad this site is helping you. This site is helping me too in many ways.

Amen, thank you for helping me! But back to the main point, did you read all of the gnostic gospels?

What did the pope say about them!? I’d like to know what he thinks about it!

 

[GodIsGracious]

Amen, thank you for helping me! But back to the main point, did you read all of the gnostic gospels?

What did the pope say about them!? I’d like to know what he thinks about it!

I have not read all of the gnostic gospels. As I’ve mentioned earlier, I read the Book of Origen, it’s interesting, and I started reading the Pistis Sophia but got bored with it so I stopped.

I don’t know what the current pope has said, if anything, about them. I’m sure a prior pope has said something, but what, I don’t know. To be honest, I’m not really interested in looking that information up right now.

 

[Zundrah]

I have not read all of the gnostic gospels. As I’ve mentioned earlier, I read the Book of Origen, it’s interesting, and I started reading the Pistis Sophia but got bored with it so I stopped.

I don’t know what the current pope has said, if anything, about them. I’m sure a prior pope has said something, but what, I don’t know. To be honest, I’m not really interested in looking that information up right now.

Okay, never mind!
Good night GodIsGracious, until tomorrow when I spread more annoying post and much, much more! Mwa ha, ha, ha ,ha!

It is 12:00 am over here in Britain / London! Gotta go to sleep now!

xxx zundrah xxx

…try to find out what the pope thinks of this…please… God Bless!

 

[daeve]

…you know very well for a fact that those books **are not **in my bible! I am **protestant **after all! Gosh, what a dig at me! Tch… lol

What is the Apocrypha???

What do you mean by “”?
I would rather ask catholics these questions rather than other protestants!

That’s not a dig, it’s a valid comment.

What’s in the Bible is what’s supposed to be in the Bible. Do you think the Holy Spirit would have allowed them to leave something out? If you can’t trust the Holy Spirit, who can you trust? Real or not doesn’t matter. It’s not in there, so it’s not part of the Bible.

 

[Erich]

Peter had nothing to do with compiling it, as the Gospels were written after he died, one of them possibly at the very end of his life.

Actually, at least three of the gospels were written well before he died (Matthew, Luke, and Mark, in that order).

From The Gospels are Historical:

Every early historian states that Matthew wrote the first Gospel. …

Clement of Alexandria lived 200 years nearer to the events than did Jerome. Basing his remarks on the earliest sources he taught that: “the first written were those having the genealogies”, and “John, last of all”. Other Fathers of the Church - Ireneaus - Tertullian - Jerome, Augustine of Hippo (in his later years), - and the authors of the Muratorian Fragment and the Ambrosiaster document all used Clement’s order.

Those who held the view that Mark wrote third persevered in their research. From Literary analysis and the ancient historians they developed the scenario of Peter giving a series of talks. In these he quoted alternatively from Matthew and Luke and thereby blended them together like two streams conflating into one. Peter’s secretary Mark, in response to repeated requests, issued copies of his unedited verbatim shorthand transcript. This is what we now know as Mark’s Gospel. According to Clement of Alexander, Peter was indifferent to its distribution until he saw its beneficial effects.

From Clement we know that Mark issued his transcript to meet an urgent demand. We can see how Luke’s Gospel could have been written pre-Mark but published after it. When Jerome wrote his: ‘Prologus Quattuor Evangeliorum’, he records that the Gospels were published in the Matthew, Mark, Luke order. But, when writing his history: ‘Of Illustrious Men’, Jerome places them in the Matthew, Luke, Mark order (i.e. in order of writing). It should also be remembered that in Jerome’s covering letter to the Pope, regarding his vulgate version, he had to explain why he had placed the Gospels in an unfamiliar order.

The last twelve verses of Mark’s gospel do not appear in some of the oldest surviving copies and they are written in a different style. This has been a source of puzzlement. Now if we accept the accounts of the historians and the above scenario, there are good grounds on which to solve the puzzle. These last verses look like the answers to questions asked following Peter’s talks. From Clement of Alexandia’s description of the production of Mark’s gospel, we know that Mark issued a second edition after Peter gave his approval. If the answers were included in one edition only, this would provide a reason why two versions, one with and one without the final verses/ answers, have
been found.

The booklet “The Authors of the Gospels” sets out the evidence for this in much more detail.

 

[Erich]

But you are missing the main point! Books were left out of the bible!

Your main point is that books were left out of the BIble.

But, the main point is that no books were left out (although, almost 500 years ago, 7 books were taken out, but not by Catholics – and not from the Catholic Bible).

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Good times,CHRISTINE77 the gnostic gosples are really interesting! Okay so they were ignored by the official church - they did this for our own spiritual safety and that is good for us, but surly we can explore these things, to be able to know what is in the spirit and what is not…right? We are not so weak in faith that we would be lead astray are we?

xxx zundrah xxx

Zundrah you are a breath of fresh air around here!

Yes, I think they are interesting too and I think we can read what we like. There is a lot of truth in all kinds of religions, and the Gnostic gospels aren’t even from a different religion, they are a historical look at what original Christians were thinking, before the Church accepted or rejected certain writings and ideas.

 

[Zundrah]

Zundrah you are a breath of fresh air around here!

Yes, I think they are interesting too and I think we can read what we like. There is a lot of truth in all kinds of religions, and the Gnostic gospels aren’t even from a different religion, they are a historical look at what original Christians were thinking, before the Church accepted or rejected certain writings and ideas.

I like your thinking CHRISTINE77! That’s right I think it is a great thing to be able to look at how lost our ancesters were in their beliefs! Because now we can see what salvation we have inherited thanks to christ, peter and all his fathful followers! Amen.

xxx zundrah xxx

 

[Zundrah]

Your main point is that books were left out of the BIble.

But, the main point is that no books were left out (although, almost 500 years ago, 7 books were taken out, but not by Catholics – and not from the Catholic Bible).

I didn’t take them out though did I? - noob! LOL

 

[Zundrah]

That’s not a dig, it’s a valid comment.

What’s in the Bible is what’s supposed to be in the Bible. Do you think the Holy Spirit would have allowed them to leave something out? If you can’t trust the Holy Spirit, who can you trust? Real or not doesn’t matter. It’s not in there, so it’s not part of the Bible.

The holy spirit!? God controls everything, right? So he obviously controlled the accorance of the gnostic gosples?

 

[GodIsGracious]

Okay, never mind!
Good night GodIsGracious, until tomorrow when I spread more annoying post and much, much more! Mwa ha, ha, ha ,ha!

It is 12:00 am over here in Britain / London! Gotta go to sleep now!

xxx zundrah xxx

…try to find out what the pope thinks of this…please… God Bless!

Well, if you’re really interested, you could use this as an opportunity to learn to do research. However, it seems like you may be interested in the Catholic church. If that is the case, I would strong suggest that rather than concern yourself with what any particular pope said about any particular apocrypha, it would best serve your time to learn what Catholics believe, study up on why, and pray about it. Consider what the Church teaches about apocrypha as “advanced courses” in Catholicism right now.

Good night and pleasant dreams.

 

[Zundrah]

Well, if you’re really interested, you could use this as an opportunity to learn to do research. However, it seems like you may be interested in the Catholic church. If that is the case, I would strong suggest that rather than concern yourself with what any particular pope said about any particular apocrypha, it would best serve your time to learn what Catholics believe, study up on why, and pray about it. Consider what the Church teaches about apocrypha as “advanced courses” in Catholicism right now.

Good night and pleasant dreams.

Advice taken! Thank you!!! Sweet dreams to you too! …so tired now…

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Some of the stuff could be made up, some of it not but is probably based off of the perception of the writer, which most likely was not inspired by the Holy Spirit.

There are modern day religions that have the same issue. (Mormonism being one of them.) Just because some believe in the writings and it makes sense to them, does not make it true. (Dianetics being another philosopy/religion.)

Zundrah, you are free to believe what you wish, but as a Catholic I put my faith and trust in the Holy Spirit and I know that He teaches me through the teachings of the Catholic Church.

And let’s not forget that Dianetics was made up by a science fiction writer on a bet. I’m sure wherever he is now, he’s laughing.

 

[juliamajor]

You can investigate and Study them until pigs begin to fly- but that still doesnt make it canon.
biblical scholars study them all the time, I’ve read most of them. They have some import as commentaries and histories of the beginning of Christianity and of the intellectual and spiritual infighting that came in the forming of Christianity.But as far as what we consider canon or scripture that has been measured by certain standards these documents do not fill the bill.from www.catholic-resources.org
Four-Fold Role of the Evangelists as Authors (what they contributed, even if “God is the Author” of all scripture):
Selectors - from among the many things Jesus said and did, they chose which stories they wanted to include and which to omit.
Arrangers - they organized the materials in a particular sequence, not necessarily chronologically but often in thematic blocks.
Shapers - they adapted and edited the individual stories from their sources so as to emphasize the themes they wanted to stress.
Proclaimers - they were not objective historians, but preached the “good news” about Jesus in ways appropriate to their audiences.

Ten Stages of NT Formation and Transmission (with considerable chronological overlap, continuing down to today):
Some scholars propose only 3 stages (Historical Events, Oral Tradition, Written Texts), others 5 stages (Historical Events, Oral Tradition, Written Tradition, Editing, Canonization); the following schema more comprehensively lists 10 stages, many of which overlap:
The Historical Jesus - words are spoken and deeds are performed by Jesus himself during his lifetime on earth.
Oral Tradition - traditions and beliefs about Jesus are developed and passed on by early Christian communities.
Written Sources - some of the miracles and/or sayings of Jesus are compiled and recorded in early written documents.
Written Texts - individual letters, full Gospels, etc., are written with particular messages for particular situations.
Distribution - some writings are copied and shared with other Christian communities throughout the Mediterranean.
Collection - certain Christians begin collecting the letters of Paul and gathering together several different Gospels.
Canonization - four Gospels, several collections of letters, and a few other texts are accepted as authoritative scriptures.
Translation - biblical texts are translated into ever more ancient and modern languages: Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, etc.
Interpretation - the meaning of the scriptures is investigated on various levels: literal, spiritual, historical, social, etc.
Application - communities and individuals use the NT for practical purposes: liturgical, moral, sacramental, theological, etc.
Four Criteria for Canonicity (why certain books were eventually accepted into the NT Canon, while others were rejected):
Apostolic Origin - attributed to and/or based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their closest companions).
Universal Acceptance - acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the Mediterranean world (by the end of the fourth century).
Liturgical Use - read publicly along with the OT when early Christians gathered for the Lord’s Supper (their weekly worship services).
Consistent Message - containing theological ideas compatible with other accepted Christian writings (incl. the divinity and humanity Jesus).

 

[bpbasilphx]

Calm down…
I can sense your anger, but seriously…

What is usless about the word of christ, if you don’t mind me asking you bpbasilphx?

The Gospel of Mary Magdalene is simply not the word of Christ. Period.

Well God obviously plans everything that happens in this world! So my guess is that it can’t be usless and perhaps Peter should have done a better job at disposing of it!

**St. Vincent of Lerins said the standard of faith is whatever has been received in all places, at all times, and by all the faithful. Not: “Whatever was believed sometime, somewhere, by somebody.”

Please produce one ancient list of canonical books–and many councils had them–that accept this purported Gospel.

Please provide ONE ancient Church that does so.**

So what about songs of solomon?
If the bible needs nothing else then why does the book of cannons exist and the cathecism?

**What does a canonical book (Song of Solomon) have to do with a non-canonical book (GMM)?

What is your point? Do you have one?

BTW–the word is “canon”. No one ever said that canon law was inspired by God. It can be changed and frequently is changed. They exist simply for good order.

I’ve noticed that if a person can’t spell a word, generally he doesn’t know the meaning of it, either.

Catechisms are useful guides for instruction, but likewise have never been considered inspired in the sense of the Bible.

Would you like to try again?**

The “we” in this sentence stands for any one who knows the truth obviously! Not all the books that were meant to be in the bible are actually there! It would be too big!
Surely you know this?

Then “we” obviously excludes you, because you don’t know the truth in this matter.

 

[bpbasilphx]

Originally Posted by Zundrah View Post
…you know very well for a fact that those books are not in my bible! I am protestant after all! Gosh, what a dig at me! Tch… lol

---

**Did you know that the KJV was originally published WITH the Apocrypha?

Did you know that EVERY major English version contained them UNTIL the New American Standard of 1961 (or so)?

Think about it.

If the books called Apocrypha are not in your Bible, then you don’t have the whole Bible, but a Bible full of holes!**

 

[Digitonomy]

Good comeback, but not a very strong argument. A more reasonable explanation may be that Rome didn’t want to put another obstacle in the way of reunion with Orthodox, who use a larger OT canon.

I assume you can prove this.

Depends on what the definition of “this” is.

If you mean why the Church hasn’t ruled out additional books, I can’t prove why. I simply gave a reasonable suggestion that relations with the Orthodox, or with Eastern Catholics, might be a reason.

If you are questioning the fact that that the Orthodox have a larger canon, here’s a good chart:
catholic-resources.org/Bible/Heb-Xn-Bibles.htm

 

[Digitonomy]

Did you know that EVERY major English version contained them UNTIL the New American Standard of 1961 (or so)?

I think you may have your years confused.

In 1826, the British and Foreign Bible Society decided that no BFBS funds were to pay for printing any Apocryphal books anywhere. Since then most modern editions of the Bible and re-printings of the King James Bible omit the Apocrypha section.
Source