Did Christianity find a shocking Biblical text—and keep it quiet?
The article below is another "lost gospel" article. From time to time some document that circulated in the early church is proclaimed as a "gospel" that should be treated with the sort of reverence that is accorded to the accepted books of the New Testament.
I have looked at several of these "lost" gospels and have noted a common feature in them. They are all "mystical" in some way. They have obscure messages that are quite unlike the unvarnished history and plain teachings of the synoptic gospels and the epistles.
It might be objected that the work of St John is an exception to that. The allegorical nature of the introduction to his gospel is well known. But his message there is quite straightforward. He is saying that Christ transmits God's wisdom ("logos"). But most translations make the text more mystical than it originally was. The original text of verse 1 was:
ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος.
Which is generally translated rather carelessly as "the word was God". But the second mention of "theos" is quite different from the first mention of "theos", in that it is anarthrous. A better and much less mystical translation would be "The Word was divine". Divine wisdom was being referred to.
And in chapter 14 of his gospel, John has Jesus talking in a rather mystical way about his relationship with the Father. But he goes on to erase any confusion by having Jesus then say plainly "My father is greater than I". No confusion there.
Then there is the book of Revelations. It certainly has a large allegorical element but it is presented as being a dream. It makes no pretence to being a mysterious description of reality. Christians often have interpretations of some passages in it but it is at all times clear that, like all dreams, it is interpretable as foreshadowing some reality rather than being a straightforward description of reality.
So I am satisfied that the debates in the early church over the amount of respect that should be given to the various available texts did end up zeroing in on quite plain teachings. There are no forgotten or missed parts of what is canonical
Jonathan Poletti
The “Luke” of the New Testament wrote two books: the gospel, and Acts of the Apostles. But early on, Luke was said to have written one more.
I didn’t learn this in church, but in a 2021 paper in the Harvard Theological Review. It discusses a text called The Dispute of Jason and Papiscus About Christ, said to be authored by Luke the Evangelist.
It was lost—until 2004, when a fragment was found in Egypt.
I look around for news of this incredible find. But I find nothing in Vatican News, or Christianity Today, or anywhere—in any religious outlet, or any popular outlet at all.
Only academic notices exist—and these are mostly in a non-Christian journal, the Harvard Theological Review.
I write to the author of the paper, Harry Tolley, asking if the discovery of what he calls the ‘Sinaiticus fragment’ should be bigger news.
He agrees. He replies: “Why is the Sinaiticus fragment not in National Geographic or mentioned in many other non-scholarly media? Maybe it is because not enough people know about it. Hopefully, you can help change this situation.”
Well, here are the facts.
The find took place at Saint Catherine’s Monastery.
An Eastern Orthodox monastery in Egypt, on the Sinai Peninsula, Saint Catherine’s sits in the shadow of what is often called the ‘Mount Sinai’ of the book of Exodus — where God met Moses. God and Moses have left, but the monastery has remained since 565 A.D.
The monastery library is an archive of the Christian past.
Many key Christian texts have been found here—like the Didache, and Codex Sinaiticus, the earliest copy of the New Testament.
John M. Duffy, a professor at Harvard University, did not imagine he had found anything like that. But visiting the monastery in 2004, he was tracking down the sermons of Sophronius of Jerusalem, a saint in the Orthodox and Catholic traditions, and made a nice find. A sermon delivered in 635 A.D. hadn’t been noticed before.
Sophronius’ subject that day was a difficult one: Why do Christians worship on Sunday?
The easy answer is that Sunday is the day that Jesus was resurrected. But some deeper theological issues are at work. For his text, Sophronius reached for a book outside of the usual ‘canon’.
He assures:
“Luke certainly and clearly initiates us into this illuminating and lovely knowledge…not in the divine Gospel, nor is it in what he wrote about the Acts of the Apostles, but it is recorded in another work of his…”
Then, Sophronius quoted from it.
In early Christianity there were many references to Jason and Papiscus. It was a conversation between two Jews, one a Christian convert. They spoke about whether the Old Testament had referred to Jesus.
The Papiscus character was traditionally Jewish. ‘Jason’ is probably the Jason of Acts 17. This was a Christian man who’d been close to Paul, and may have been a follower of Jesus.
The way he explained the Bible was remarkable. Jason saw the stories, not as ‘real’, but as figurative or symbolic—as theological ‘allegories’.
This was noted in the first surviving reference to Jason and Papiscus, around 170 A.D. The anti-Christian writer Celsus said he felt the author was “more reasonable” than most Christians, but he found the effort to “allegorize” the Hebrew Bible to be laughable.
Many Christians discussed “Jason and Papiscus.”
Origen, the 3rd century scholar, had a treatment that seemed to indicate the book was broadly read and accepted.
In the 4th century, Jerome mentioned it a few times—puzzled by the Bible quotations. He notes that Jason had quoted Genesis 1:1 saying:
“In the son, God made heaven and earth.”
Jerome found it mystifying, as Genesis 1:1 seemed to clearly say:
“In the beginning, God made heaven and earth.”
But this “In the son” verse had been quoted by several early Christian writers, from Tertullian to Ireneaeus.
A ‘church father’ identified Luke as the author.
Clement of Alexandria, who lived from about 150 to 215 A.D., is also a canonized saint in the Orthodox and Catholic traditions. He seems to have discussed Jason and Papiscus in a volume of his Hypotyposes series.
All seven books of the series are “lost,” which might mean “thrown away.” The last known reference to the Hypotyposes, in the 9th century, had seemed positively horrified:
“Although in some cases what he says appears orthodox, in others he indulges in impious and legendary fables. For he is of opinion that matter is eternal and that ideas are introduced by certain fixed conditions; he also reduces the Son to something created. He talks prodigious nonsense about the transmigration of souls and the existence of a number of worlds before Adam.”
An early 6th century writer named John of Scythopolis also mentioned Jason and Papiscus, which, he adds, “Clement of Alexandria in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes states St. Luke recorded.”
But John of Scythopolis adds that he supposed the actual author to have been Ariston of Pella.
************************************************
'Why are we only applauding masculinity in women and villainizing it in men?'
Ant-Man and The Wasp actress Evangeline Lilly has launched a scathing attack on the subversion of traditional gender roles and says manly men should be celebrated.
In a post shared to her Instagram, the actress spoke of her frustration over people who applauded masculinity in women, and villainized it in men.
The 43-year-old said: 'Why are we only applauding masculinity in women and villainizing it in men?
'And why are we only applauding femininity in men and debasing it in women? Why can't we just allow for all of it?
'Why do we feel the need to vilify a man wearing s***-kicker boots, driving a pick-up truck who's not afraid to punch someone in the face, but if they were a woman, they would be the epitome of cool?
'Why is a man who loves make-up, cries easily and stays at home to tend to the domestic responsibilities valiant, but a woman who does the same is pathetic?'
Lilly, who is Canadian, also urged members of the public to stop 'trying to juggle the minutia of judgement' and bring 'grace and charity' back into their lives.
*******************************************
Wide Majorities of Americans See Their Nation in Decline
A new set of polls shows American citizens gazing toward the future with pessimism about everything from the economy and politics to wealth and their standing in the world.
Released by Pew Research Center, the polling asked more than 5,000 American adults about their opinion of the country and what they forecast for the next 25 years. Large margins see a weaker economy, a diminished nation, and political tribalism only becoming more entrenched.
Two out of three Americans see a weaker economy by 2050. By a margin of 71 percent to 27 percent, they said America will be “less important in the world.” When asked if they think the country will be more politically divided in 2050 than today, 77 percent answered in the affirmative. Of all respondents, 81 percent feel that the already wide chasm of wealth inequality will grow even larger.
Beyond their grim predictions for the future, Americans also hold some reverence for past prosperity. According to the poll, 58 percent said that life is better “for people like them” today than it was 50 years ago.
Pew has conducted research like this in the past that yielded pessimistic answers from respondents, but it has never been quite so extreme. When the firm conducted a similar poll in 2018, just 60 percent of Americans said their country would be less important in the world, 73 percent said wealth inequality would grow, and 65 percent said the country would be more divided by 2050. It is a marked rise in negative outlooks in five years.
In the 2018 survey, researchers found that white Americans were more pessimistic than Hispanic and Black respondents. Five years ago, just 51 percent of white Americans said they were somewhat or very optimistic about the country’s future, compared to 67 percent of Hispanics and 70 percent of Blacks.
The research shows that there is bipartisan agreement on the dim future for America. Just 10 percent of Republicans and 15 percent of Democrats say they have “quite a lot” of confidence about the country’s future. Just 12 percent of independent voters feel that way.
Overall, 66 percent of Democrats have at least some confidence, compared to 56 percent of Republicans and 60 percent of independents. In the last year, Americans of all political parties have lost some degree of confidence in the nation’s future, with Republican hopes for a better world by 2050 dropping by six points in the last year and Democrats’ hopes dropping by eight points.
Depending on when they were born, Democrats are starkly divided on their level of confidence in the United States. For registered Democrats over the age of 50, 80 percent have at least some confidence in the future, but just 53 percent of Democrats between the ages of 18 and 35 feel the same.
Education and wealth also play an important role in one’s level of confidence, with college graduates being much more optimistic than those with a high school degree or less. Three in four Americans from wealthier households feel at least somewhat confident, compared with 60 percent of those in the middle class and 53 percent of low-income respondents.
https://www.nysun.com/article/wide-majorities-of-americans-see-their-nation-in-decline-poll
*******************************************Who's really to Blame for the Death of Jordan Neely
On Monday afternoon, a 30-year-old mentally ill vagrant named Jordan Neely, who also happens to be black, boarded a subway train in New York City and began harassing the passengers. Witnesses described Neely as “hostile and erratic.” Witnesses say he was yelling and carrying on, screaming that he's “ready to die” and “doesn't mind going to jail.” This was not Neely's first foray into this territory. He was a man with 44 prior arrests, with charges ranging from assault to drug-related offenses. He also had an open warrant for felony assault dating back to 2021. Multiple people on social media have since reported their own alleged run-ins with Neely, who according to these reports, was known to harass and threaten passengers.
In other words, Neely was yet another violent repeat criminal who had been essentially granted free rein over the subway system, where crime has skyrocketed over the last few years, as commuters are frequently accosted, mugged, assaulted — even raped and killed. This is not just the case in the subway system, but in the city as a whole, and in major cities all across the country. But on the F train on Monday afternoon, some of the passengers decided that they had enough. Rather than sitting there and waiting for Neely to lash out violently — hoping that if he starts physically attacking people, they'll be able to intervene before anyone is seriously hurt or killed — instead a few passengers stepped up to do what was necessary. At least three good samaritans restrained Neely. One man — a white man and former Marine — had Neely in a chokehold. Another, a black man, was holding down his arms. They held him down for several minutes, because there was no law enforcement immediately on the scene. Eventually, Neely lost consciousness and died. Police took at least one of the passengers who restrained him, the white man, into custody for questioning. They released him sometime later without pressing charges. The medical examiner has since ruled the death a homicide.
There were over ten people killed on the New York City subway last year, along with many more accosted and assaulted. You do not know any of their names. Many more fell victim to violent crime all over the city. Over 400 were murdered just in 2022 alone. You do not know any of their names, either. The problem for those victims is that, in a great many of those cases, the perpetrators were black. But violence carried out by black people — no matter the race of the victim — is not at all useful to the media or the Democrat Party, which means that those victims must remain nameless and faceless. But in this case, the man who had Jordan Neely in a headlock was white, and that's the only detail the Left needs. Hundreds of black people are killed every year, year after year, a trail of violence and death and misery that is only getting worse over time. Victim after victim, day after day, and the Left says nothing, does not care, does not make martyrs or heroes out of any of them, does not demand that we “say their names.” They wait, and wait, and wait, until the extremely rare occurrence where a black man dies allegedly at the hands of a white man, and that is when they leap into action, taking full advantage. Which is what has happened here.
Protesters swarmed the subway, demanding justice for Jordan Neely. The media went into full George Floyd mode, blatantly racializing the incident, while, in real time, reshaping Jordan Neely into something other than the violent career criminal that he actually was. In this case, it appears that Neely sometimes dressed like Michael Jackson and performed unsolicited dance routines on the train. A fact that if anything makes him even less sympathetic as far as I'm concerned, but which the media is using to paint him as some sort of struggling artist and kind soul who wished only to bring people joy and happiness. Many headlines have been published claiming that a white man killed a black Michael Jackson impersonator, as if they tackled him to the ground and choked him out FOR being a Michael Jackson impersonator.
Democrat politicians have also been activated. AOC, Ayanna Presley, and the Squad have been leading the lynch mob as usual. AOC has been making frantic public statements, demanding an arrest and criminal charges, though she doesn't need to wait for any of those things, least of all a conviction, to pass down her own verdict. The mayor of New York City has been, to this point, slightly more cautious in his public response. But this isn't good enough for AOC, who demands that the mayor publicly accuse the Marine of murder. To be clear, this is an elected official demanding that a citizen who hasn't even been arrested be pronounced guilty of murder without trial or criminal charge. She, along with many others on the Left, are openly calling for a public lynching of a man who hasn't even been officially accused of committing any crime. It remains to be seen whether they will be able to fully repeat their George Floyd trick with Jordan Neely — riots, looting, another “racial awakening,” an unjust and politically motivated trial and conviction, etc — but that is clearly their goal, and they are on their way towards it right now.
But as these deeply evil forces set to work to make full use of this incident, and to make another white man into a sacrificial victim on the altar of “racial justice,” what is the actual truth? What is the correct response? Who is really at fault? Well the answer to the last question will give us the answer to the others. There are two parties responsible for the death of Jordan Neely. The first is Jordan Neely himself. He may have been mentally ill, but he is also the only person on the planet who can directly decide how he behaves. He is the one who harassed a train full of passengers who were just trying to get to or from work. He is the one who has lived a life of crime for at least the past decade. It is his actions that precipitated the events that led to his death. If he had not chosen to announce himself as a potential threat to those around him, he would still be alive today. He put the other passengers in a position of having to choose whether to gamble with their safety by allowing him to run around screaming, waiting for him to do something violent, or step in and subdue him. He put them in that position.
But it wasn't just him. The other party responsible is the Democrat Party, the political leadership of the city, the justice system, DAs like Alvin Bragg, who have made the conscious decision to keep men like Jordan Neely on the street, to continually release them back into the public no matter how many dozens of crimes they commit, until they are either killed or they kill someone else. And in the latter case, they might still stay on the streets even after that. Jordan Neely belonged in prison or a mental asylum. He had long ago made it clear that he had no interest in being a civil member of society. He was a danger to his community, and to himself, and this had been demonstrated time and time again. If the system had done what it is supposed to do, gotten him off the street and locked away somewhere, he would be alive today. The Left does not want to prosecute crime because crime is committed in a racially disproportionate way, which means that prosecutions and convictions and incarcerations will be naturally disproportionate. But the Left would rather let criminals terrorize you and your family than allow that.
In fact it's a win/win for them. If they refuse to prosecute criminals, they can enact their perverse idea of racial justice by keeping black criminals on the street. And at the same time they can put honest citizens in a position of having to make very difficult decisions, with their lives potentially on the line. Then they can exploit those situations, send the mob after another scapegoat, and use the chaos they've created to advance their racial narrative.
Which is why the one man I will not blame is the man who is getting all the blame right now. You can argue that it is not wise, from a self-preservation standpoint, for anyone — especially any white man — to intervene in these kinds of situations anymore. While the Left has engineered a win/win for themselves, for you it is a lose/lose. Either you get hurt in your attempt to protect yourself and others, or you prevail in the struggle and then find yourself pursued by a crazed leftist mob calling for your head. If you're arrested and charged, you'll find yourself standing before a New York City jury, where your conviction will have already been decided before the jury was even selected. This makes it extremely dicey, to say the least, to play the good samaritan role. But it also makes it all the more heroic. The marine — who, at this point but likely for not much longer, remains nameless — is not only NOT at fault, not only in the right, but is in fact a hero. He did what the leaders of his city would not do, what the system refuses to do, what the police are not allowed to do anymore. He was under no moral obligation — nor any legal obligation — to sit silently, obediently, while a psychotic criminal vagrant ran wild, threatening and harassing innocent people. This is an obligation that the Left wants to impose on us. They want us to believe that it is our responsibility to helplessly submit ourselves to the whims of every violent scumbag we come across. But it is not so. And so this man took action. He deserves a medal for his actions. Yet I'm afraid, in this depraved culture, that his reward will be quite different.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.tv.pol-incorrect/c/dblPzz8aqNM?pli=1
****************************************My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
*****************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See
No comments:
Post a Comment