The resurrection

Just watched it Galen. Very interesting.

It seems the post-resurrection sightings of Jesus were not included in the first and second oldest manuscripts, but were there in the third.

Like the man said, if you need an indisputable record of those happenings, you are not going to get it. If you can accept the bible as being the means to put you in touch with the Christian religion and its doctrines, then the bible will do you nicely.

So. Up to individuals.

Thank you for the recommendation.

Must confess, I thought of you and one or two others when I posted it!

I watched the first two minutes then fell asleep!! Woke up at the end. Might watch it on I-player. If I can stay awake.

Yes Galen. I thought so.

B A G S !!!!!

Very interesting programme but nothing new said overall.The Bible, like all documents of a historical nature have been added to, altered and bits made up. It doesn't stop Christianity being an excellent religion if practised properly and without extremism.

Have not seen it yet, but recorded it. What I would like to read are the Missing Gospels

I've read a transcript of the gospel of Judas (apart from the vital interesting bits. 'He kissed her on the ?')

Missed put, missing bits he kissed eyc

Has Mary Magdalene's gospel been translated?

I have feeling it's been discredited as having been written too late to be authentic

There are some complete translations available on line. Just google gospel of Mary Magdalene. It's one of the gnostic gospels.
I'm afraid it's the English version. If you're looking for the original, sorry, can't help!

English will be fine, will read the original later!!
I will have a look, thankyou Galen.
I just think she has been maligned by mysoginists with their own agenda, would like to find out more.

I would agree. But I don't think that gospel is helpful as it's almost certainly a very late invention. The gospel of judas is probably more authentic, but still doubtful, like Thomas!
I don't think there is any doubt that the male followers were jealous of the relationship between Jesus and Mary!
There was also a BIG split in the early years between the church as run by James (reputed brother of Jesus ,) and Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles.
We are Pauline Christians and therefore follow his misonogystiic beliefs ( women! Be obedient to your husbands!!!!!!!!!)

If you wonder why I'm interested in all this stuff. I always have been.
In fact my headmistress wanted me to study theology at oxford

No way!

interesting, thanks!

Re:- the late addition to Mark - I seem to remember reading that some time ago, not sure where.

So much of the bible has to be read with the logical part of the brain switched on. Then you can come up with explanations about why things were written, instead of believing the patently untrue. Some of the stuff is good, such as the parable of the Good Samaritan, or the widow's mite. The 10 commandments are a decent guide to living. But the resurrection: either Jesus didn't die on the cross, or he did die and someone moved his body.

I believe the people who wrote the gospels just made it all up, with a few kernels of exaggerated truth.

As for the old testament: violent, judgmental, murderous, misogynist nonsense.

Interesting though, as it was written by lots of people and homogenised.
For example, in genesis there are three stories mixed up together.
Apparently Adam had a wife prior to Eve, Lilith:- a very nasty little madam.
God also had a wife, I think called Astarte.
The Jews appear to have become monotheist much later in their history than is commonly recognised.
I now wish I could follow my old headmistresses wishes and study theology

I think a lot of the gospels were written in retrospect. The first followers thought that the second coming would be soon, in their lifetime, and were too busy proselytising and converting as many people as they could to spend time getting it all down on paper. Paul wrote reams of letters to the branch offices, about administrative details and Company Policy and exhorting everyone to work hard, but the stories were largely by word of mouth. Then as the years went by, they started to record Jesus' life and sayings. Perhaps they realised that it was going to be a long haul.

Inevitably different people wrote differing accounts, and fact merged with legend. There was a big logistical tidy-up a couple of Centuries on, when accounts which did not tally with the current viewpoint were edited out.

Council of Nicea?

The genesis of the bible is a very interesting saga; and I am puzzled as to how, in church after a reading, people say "This is the word of God" when they know it is the word(s) of people.

It was people who proclaimed it and people who repeated what they had heard, people who wrote it down, people who have added commentaries and "explanations" for twenty centuries. It was all filtered through human brains and prejudices, and influenced by the theories that humans had postulated before and since to explain natural phenomena.

And that is just the New Testament. The Old Testament had undergone the same process for centuries before that.

I missed that; I'll watch it on iplayer. I did enjoy the Waldemar Januszczak seres about the Dark Ages, the first one of which featured artistic portrayals of Jesus and showed how they had changed over the years.

I hate Waldemar Januszczak and do not watch if he is in a programme. He is totally self-serving, to the detriment of his subject matter.