Toto

It turns out this manuscript probably does not refer to a cross walking out of the tomb, but the "crucified one."

To kiss someone on the lips was a figure of speech for transmitting wisdom.

This manuscript is a bit dubious.

So? this is a typical attitude.

Jesus is turned into a Hellenistic god type person.

What's the problem with this?

Fanciful - but hardly a parody.

So? Christian tradition tended to turn Pilate into a secret Christian. It starts in the gospels, and after a few centuries he becomes a saint.

Yes, everyone imitated each other. Why does this make it a parody?

A lot of the Apocryphal Acts are fan fiction. They have elements of entertainment (as does canonical Acts).

But many of the elements that you seem to find hilarious are based on either mistranslations or misunderstandings.

Chili

Mary is the woman who presides over the TOL and really is the womb of God in person (sic) without subtance except in the truth that God made manifest. So in essence the woman is the manifestion of the word among men as in each man is she the collective wisdom retained and so the gate of heaven to us.

sotto voce

More than we often think, it does. At Sinai, God was taking the piss out of the Israelites. Moses had had the greatest difficulty in persuading him to stick with this appalling bunch of mavericks. But God said, "Ok, ok. I'll go along with you. But we'll play a trick on them. And you must keep schtum."

Moses made no reply, but merely looked up at God through one eye, tongue in cheek, unconvinced.

"I know what you're thinking. But just you wait and see, sonny. This will sort the sheep from the goats, as they say. One day, some guy will say, "God sends a powerful lie, to deceive those who ain't no damn use."

Ole Mose nodded, slowly, thinking this deity was not quite the chump some of his pals took him for.

"So take down some commandments, ferchrissakes."

What makes sense is that "You shall not commit adultery" is a lot easier than:

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart."

This is why Americans and others make a god out of Moses rather than that piss-taker.

Duvduv

In other words, Mountainman, it would have to be argued that the imperial authorities imposed their set of invented texts (the Fifty Bibles of Constantine) and THEN other groups voluntarily accepted them - or at least the underlying teachings - and proceeded to create their own alternative gnostic or other texts/gospels, including what you argue would be parodies.

Since there are no apologetics written by the authors of the non-canonical literature, we really don't know what their intentions were in writing them, i.e. whether they were intended to be taken seriously or not, and what their intentions were for them in relation to the canonical texts, i.e. as parody or satire, even in texts such as the Gospel of Thomas. Or the laughing Jesus.

However, this would still not explain the conspiracy to offer very distinctive theologies, language and style in the canonical texts. Of course it is true that the apologists did a very poor job of trying to explain where their canonical NT texts each came from originally and who exactly decided to put them all together in a set.

mountainman

The evidence indicates there was a massive controversy, the historical reality of which has been purposefully and systematically concealed by the 5th century imperially sponsored heresiologists who's "Ecclesiastical Histories" are still being accepted as political histories of the 4th century.

The evidence indicates that although there was acceptance of these texts by those who selected to jump aboard Bullneck's Bandwaggon, the conversion to the imperial state christian religion and its canonical writ was characterized by the conversion by the sword, and coercion by imperial legislation such as "Religious privileges are reserved for Chrestians or Christians" (Surviving evidence mitigates that Bullneck could have brought in the Good Religion, not the Christian religion - it was later made Christian by changing CHRESTOS to CHRISTOS)



Toto appears comfortable in calling the non canonical Acts of the Apostolic Boneheads "Pulp Fiction". These alternative gnostic texts were authored by Greek literate academics who had before them the canonical texts.

Supposing Mitt Romney became president and US Army Chief and decided to forcibly convert the world to Mormonism. Would you not expect a massive literary reaction that featured parodies and satires of the Angel Moroni? Besides the cartoon Jesus and Mo, we might then expect the cartoon Jesus and Mor. Etc.




The Greek intellectual tradition was being forcibly suppressed. See Charles Freeman's thesis about AD 381. I see in the Nag Hammadi codices the equivalent of propaganda (apologetics) on behalf of the traditional Graeco-Egypto-Roman traditions, such as the discussions between Hermes and Asclepius.

The character of Jesus received its majesty directly from Bullneck. People had to deal with this situation, and the evidence indicates a massive controversy which has been purposefully concealed by the eventual victors.



Precisely. That's where Eusebius fits in. They needed a history of this utterly NEW and STRANGE belief, and so they simply fabricated one.

Duvduv

But how do you account for the distinctive theologies, doctrines, styles, language, stories that appear in each of the canonical gospels?
We know that GMark is very different, very simplistic, as compared with the other gospels. We know the Jewish style in GMatt, the "revolutionary" style of the GLuke Messiah, and the godman style of GJohn.
Is it possible to trace a development in the four versions which may have in fact originally been much more similar to one another than the final versions we know about that seem to suggest different "sects" and geographical locations?
And has any detailed study of the alternative or gnostic texts been able to uncover an attempt at mockery, lampooning, etc. of the canonical texts?
Is it possible also that any epistles could have actually been written lampooning the pauline epistles?

I can just imagine that it would shake up alot of academia if it could be shown or argued that the alternative Jesus texts were not originally even intended to be taken seriously, but were merely creative attempts at lampooning the official religion who were then subject to persecution.

A Jesus with a wife.......a Jesus who laughed.....a Jesus whose statements in GThomas make no sense at all.....etc. etc. all of which are taken so seriously by even the most secular of scholars. Gnostics who were not really gnostics at all, but merely authors of lampoons of the new state religion.

And it would have an effect on what people think about the actual existence of the named heretical sects, stories of which could very well have been invented by heresiologists (i.e. "Eusebius") as part of the process to shore up the commitment to the church.

sotto voce

The reason they are canonical is that the theology is all the same.

The reason people still talk about them is that the theology is all the same.

And impossible to get out of one's mind.

mountainman

My own study here suggests this.


The Letter of Peter to Philip (NHC 8.2) - In fine Homerian melodrama Jesus asks the apostles "Why [TF] are you asking me"?


The Prayer of the Apostle Paul: NHC 1.1 - consists of 11 sentences containing a total of 19 abrupt demands.....



I argue the case for this, but AFAIK I am alone in this atm.


A scholars summaries of the non canonical texts is here

For example ....


Epiphanius provides the classic example with his 80 heresies ...

Heresy 1 of 80 - Against Barbarism
Heresy 2 of 80 - Against Scythianism
Heresy 3 of 80 - Against Hellenism
Heresy 4 of 80 - Against Judaism
Heresy 5 of 80 - Against Stoics
Heresy 6 of 80 - Against Platonists
Heresy 7 of 80 - Against Pythagoreans

Duvduv

Mountainman, would you also consider texts such as the Clementine Homilies, the Didache written or employed as material written for entertainment purposes lampooning the official religion, especially in terms of all the interaction related to Simon Magus etc.?

In line with this approach, one might wonder whether claims against alleged "heretics' such as "Marcion" may simply have been an attack against those belittling and intentionally distorting the official religion rather than offering what people consider to be an alternative one.

In any event, it would also merit elaboration as to how widespread this lampooning was, where it originated, and whether the production of those texts was as centralized as the canonical productions. This might shed some light on why and whether writers of whatever stripe chose to produce texts that appeared to originate from different theologies and locations, and contradict each other.

Duvduv

.....and how is it that the following apologists held of the idea of the "Logos" (which also appears in Creeds citing GJohn) that appears nowhere in the Pauline epistles or the synoptics as products of the same scriptorium?

http://www.holytrinitymission.org/bo...an_fathers.htm

Ignatius
Justin
Tertullian
Clement Alexandria
Irenaeus
Celestius