The idea that "you send yourself to hell"

[Gerard]

No. Maybe Wikipedia is:

Among the generally recognized genres and categorizations of the Bible are the following (note that other systems and classifications have also been advanced):

Historical narrative/epic: Genesis and the first half of Exodus, Numbers, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Jonah, and possibly Acts
The Law: the last half of Exodus; also Leviticus, Deuteronomy
Wisdom: Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes
Psalms: Psalms, Song of Solomon, Lamentations
Prophecy: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi
Apocalyptic: Daniel, Revelation
Gospel: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and possibly Acts
Epistle (letter): Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James, 1 and 2 Peter, 1, 2, and 3 John, Jude

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_genre

Whatever genre is categorized just means that it's a genre. For instance much of the books that are listed under Historical narrative/epic are not all therefore historical, although some (partially) are. That probably goes for the gospels as well. That as such doesn't however get you very far in making any claims about how some of the Bible is somehow more religiously authoritative than other parts.

Gerard

[Randy Carson]

Whatever genre is categorized just means that it's a genre. For instance much of the books that are listed under Historical narrative/epic are not all therefore historical, although some (partially) are. That probably goes for the gospels as well. That as such doesn't however get you very far in making any claims about how some of the Bible is somehow more religiously authoritative than other parts.

Gerard

Agreed. And thanks for what I think is your first post to me, Girard.

The point I wish to make is that when the Psalmist writes something like, "The heavens declare your glory, O Lord", he doesn't actually mean that the universe is speaking with a voice like you and I have for speaking. It's poetry.

But when Luke writes that "Mary treasured all these things in her heart" it's not unreasonable for us to consider that Luke knows this because he actually spoke to Mary.

Knowing the genre tells us how to approach and interpret the text.

[Baruch]

"why did god let Adams seed multiply?" ... because Adam wasn't ready for logarithms yet ;-)

[Gerard]

Agreed. And thanks for what I think is your first post to me, Girard.

The point I wish to make is that when the Psalmist writes something like, "The heavens declare your glory, O Lord", he doesn't actually mean that the universe is speaking with a voice like you and I have for speaking. It's poetry.

But when Luke writes that "Mary treasured all these things in her heart" it's not unreasonable for us to consider that Luke knows this because he actually spoke to Mary.

Knowing the genre tells us how to approach and interpret the text.

Thank you for your reply. I'm not a very prolific poster and it's not getting any better. Of course you are right when you say it's poetry, because that's what it demonstrably is! You also say that knowing the genre tells us how to approach and interpret the text. A sensible remark that I have no problems with either. Fundamentalists may have problems with that however. About Mary and Luke? From what I've learned from New Testament scholars it's rather unlikely that Luke (or the person who wrote the Gospel of Luke) knew Mary or was even an eye witness to the events in her life. Luke never claims to be.

Gerard

[Baruch]

If you study the Gospel of Mary ... it is clear that the disciples, including Mary Magdalene, were having seances with an other-worldly Jesus.  With or without drug inducement.  Ancients knew all about drugs, about trances, about shamanism (and in rabbinic Judaism it was a capital crime ... except for maybe the High Priest) ... and about scrying.  Nostradamus scried into a bowl of water, and claimed it was a technique he learned from Jews.

The ideas behind the NT, show all the signs of being early Kabbalah ... specifically of the Maaseh Bereshit variety ... contemplation on Genesis.  The other kind was Maaseh Merkavah ... which was contemplation on Ezekiel ... which is what the John of Revelation was doing.  But the Gentiles always ignore the real psychological aspects of these revelations, what was good or bad psychologically for believers, and that it was Jewish, and syncretistic with multiple sources from Kashmir to Egypt.  Without study of Kabbalah ... there is no way to understand the NT.  Also you have to know a lot of Buddhism too.

[Gerard]

If you study the Gospel of Mary ... it is clear that the disciples, including Mary Magdalene, were having seances with an other-worldly Jesus.  With or without drug inducement.  Ancients knew all about drugs, about trances, about shamanism (and in rabbinic Judaism it was a capital crime ... except for maybe the High Priest) ... and about scrying.  Nostradamus scried into a bowl of water, and claimed it was a technique he learned from Jews.

The Gospel of..... What exactly?

Gerard

[Baruch]

The Gospel of..... What exactly?

Gerard

Don't know if you caught my second paragraph.  I have studied Kabbalah and Buddhism.  Circular study of the NT without context ... is like trying to understand Tom Sawyer without knowing anything about 19th century America or that Mark Twain was a pseudonym.

The Gospel of Mary (Magdala) was found in fragments in the Nag Hammadhi manuscripts.  It records the sequel to a group acid trip.

[Randy Carson]

"why did god let Adams seed multiply?" ... because Adam wasn't ready for logarithms yet ;-)

[Randy Carson]

Thank you for your reply. I'm not a very prolific poster and it's not getting any better. Of course you are right when you say it's poetry, because that's what it demonstrably is! You also say that knowing the genre tells us how to approach and interpret the text. A sensible remark that I have no problems with either. Fundamentalists may have problems with that however. About Mary and Luke? From what I've learned from New Testament scholars it's rather unlikely that Luke (or the person who wrote the Gospel of Luke) knew Mary or was even an eye witness to the events in her life. Luke never claims to be.

Gerard

Indeed, Luke does not tell us this. Of course he does tell us this:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

So, from this we learn of previous accounts of Jesus that are now lost to us but which were known to Luke and the other gospel writers presumably. Additionally, he tells us that he personally investigated the whole story "from the beginning". How would he do that? And does that mean from the annunciation which would have been "the beginning" of the story?

But consider this point (which is my original with me as far as I know):

In chapter 2, Luke tells us this:

36 There was also a prophet, Anna, the daughter of Penuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was very old; she had lived with her husband seven years after her marriage, 37 and then was a widow until she was eighty-four. She never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying. 38 Coming up to them at that very moment, she gave thanks to God and spoke about the child to all who were looking forward to the redemption of Jerusalem.

This is from the account of Jesus' presentation in the temple, and the event it records, the meeting with Anna, would have occurred 50 years earlier. Anna would have been long dead at the time that Luke wrote. And Jesus would have been too young to have remembered this story at all. Joseph, Jesus' adoptive father was dead. Who does that leave to tell the tale and why?

Only a mother would remember a moment like this from her son's presentation. And how did Mary know all the details of Anna's life? She has no other mention in the gospels, and even though she is a "prophetess" she gives no prophecy here. Only Simeon does. So, why does this woman appear at all in Luke?

It is my belief that Mary consecrated herself to God from a very early age. She took a vow of perpetual virginity, and she lived in the Temple until she reached the age of menstruation. Then, because this made her ceremonially unclean, it became necessary for her to be married to someone who would honor her vow; Joseph was a widower chosen for this purpose. This is why he disappears from the gospels after Jesus is found in the Temple at age twelve.

Now, if Mary was consecrated to God, did she live in the Temple? And if she did, who cared for this young girl all those years? Could it have been Anna, herself a widow who "never left the temple but worshiped night and day, fasting and praying"? I think so.

Sure, Jesus could have learned of this from His mom and later told it to the disciples, but is this the most likely source of the material? Jesus had other things on his mind besides telling stories about his childhood to the apostles.

I think Mary lived with Anna, a woman whom she undoubtedly loved like a mother, for many years in the Temple, and she mentioned Anna to Luke in the course of her recounting of the earliest events of Jesus' life to him during the course of his investigations.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

The Gospel of..... What exactly?

Gerard

One of the non-canonical Gospels.

[Baruch]

One of the non-canonical Gospels.

All the good stuff was thrown out by the Church Fathers of course, especially if it featured the Church Mothers.

[Gerard]

All the good stuff was thrown out by the Church Fathers of course, especially if it featured the Church Mothers.

This one you mention is also from about the 3d century. The only really good thing that came from the Nag Hamadi finds is the gospel of Thomas. A clearly gnostic manuscript that might have been from the early second century. Not that the other stuff isn't any good mind you. It clearly has something to say about early Christianity and it probably influenced (or disgusted) the early fathers.... Who didn't need to disparage the mothers. The pseudo letters of Paul took care of that. (in marking contrast to his real letters) Making the Roman Empire (a rather misogynic society...  ready for Christianity!

Gerard

[Baruch]

This one you mention is also from about the 3d century. The only really good thing that came from the Nag Hamadi finds is the gospel of Thomas. A clearly gnostic manuscript that might have been from the early second century. Not that the other stuff isn't any good mind you. It clearly has something to say about early Christianity and it probably influenced (or disgusted) the early fathers.... Who didn't need to disparage the mothers. The pseudo letters of Paul took care of that. (in marking contrast to his real letters) Making the Roman Empire (a rather misogynic society...  ready for Christianity!

Gerard

Yes the Gospel of Thomas is revelatory for people with eyes to see.  But I think the Gospel of Mary is even more important, because it shows technique of composition for stuff like the Gospel of Thomas.  I would contend that in content, they are both early.  But then so is The Didache.

[Randy Carson]

Yes the Gospel of Thomas is revelatory for people with eyes to see.  But I think the Gospel of Mary is even more important, because it shows technique of composition for stuff like the Gospel of Thomas.  I would contend that in content, they are both early.  But then so is The Didache.

The Gospel of Thomas was rejected for a number of reasons including obviously false ideas such as:

(114) Simon Peter said to them, "Mary should leave us, for females are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "See, I am going to attract her to make her male so that she too might become a living spirit that resembles you males. For every female (element) that makes itself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

[Hijiri Byakuren]

The Gospel of Thomas was rejected for a number of reasons including obviously false ideas such as:

(114) Simon Peter said to them, "Mary should leave us, for females are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "See, I am going to attract her to make her male so that she too might become a living spirit that resembles you males. For every female (element) that makes itself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."