The Secret Gospel of Mark is simply a fraud or hoax. Morton Smith, a professor of Judeo-Christian orgins at Columbia University, announced at a meeting in 1960 that he had made a historic discovery at the Mar Saba Monastery in the Judean wilderness. So he didn't tell anyone about this for two years after the discovery. This book describes Jesus raising a young man from the dead, and the later the youth comes to him "wearing a linen cloth over his naked body" and "remained with him that night" so that he could be taught "the mystery of the kingdom of God." While some people take this as meaning a homosexual relationship, in actuality, all it means is that they slept in the same bed based on the way people wrote back then.
Supposedly, this was an earlier version of Mark than we have in the New Testament, and Smith wrote two books analyzing this new document. Smith claims he left the document in a monastery, but today, nobody can find it, so it cannot be subject to ink tests or other analysis. He did photograph it, however, and these photographs have been studied by Stephen Carlson.
People who knew Smith said he was fully capable of pulliing off a hoax of this kind. Furthermore, he was gay, which as I am sure you know, was a closely guarded secret in the 1950's. He also had been denied tenure at Brown University and perhaps wanted to show his intellectual superiority by pulling off something like this.
When evidenced, Smith has what is called a "forger's tremor", where there are shaky lines, pen lifts in the middle of stroke - all kinds of indications that this was forged. Photos also indicated presence of mildew on the book - something that would not occur on a book in a dry desert climate - the book was likely from Europe or North America. The book also had "Smith 65" written on it.
Another particularily damaging clue is that before he announced the existance of the Secret Gospel of Mark, Smith had earlier written about Mark's mystery of the kingdom of God and forbidden sexual practices - themes that he also finds in Secret Mark, which he supposedly just discovered.
Smith was an Episcopalian priest turned atheist, who was described as someone who liked enraging the establisment and provoking the faithful. What better way to do this than to make Jesus into a homosexual magician.
It really is an embarrassment that any scholar would accept the Secret Gospel of Mark as genuine.
Hi Ace,
I am not commenting on the subject of this thread one way or another (I have no knowledge and very little interest in it) and besides, I’m sure that some individuals have made forgeries. Some of the ancient gospels that have been quoted here on HP simply don't ring true with me, but some that I've read portions of do.
However, I did pick up on this:
The Gospel of Mary is simply a fraud or hoax.
Hey, that seems like a bit of a Freudian slip to me! :rolleyes: How have you gone from the Secret Gospel of Mark to the Gospel of Mary????? :p
Parts of the Gospel of Mary were found in the [url]The Nag Hammadi Library[/url] as well as other locations, so it does sound genuine to me.
Papyrus Berolinensis 8502 was acquired by a German scholar, Dr. Carl Reinhardt, in Cairo in 1896 (the codex is variably referenced in scholarly writings as the "Berlin Gnostic Codex", the "Akhmim Codex", PB 8502, and BG 8502). It contains Coptic editions of three very important Gnostic texts: the Apocryphon of John, the Sophia of Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of Mary. Despite the importance of the find, several misfortunes (including two world wars) delayed its publication until 1955. By then the Nag Hammadi collection had also been recovered, and two of the texts in the PB 8502 codex -- the Apocryphon of John, and the Sophia of Jesus Christ -- were also found included there. The PB 8502 versions of these two texts were used to augment translations of the Apocryphon of John and the Sophia of Jesus Christ as they now appear in the Nag Hammadi Library.
Importantly, the codex preserves the most complete surviving copy of the Gospel of Mary (as the text is named in the manuscript, though it is clear this named Mary is the person we call Mary of Magdala). Two other small fragments of the Gospel of Mary from separate Greek editions were later also unearthed in archaelogical excavations at Oxyrhynchus in Northern Egypt. (Fragments of the Gospel of Thomas were also found at this ancient library site, see the Gospel of Thomas page for more information about Oxyrhyncus.) Unfortunately, the extant manuscript of the Gospel of Mary is missing pages 1 to 6 and pages 11 to 14 -- pages that included sections of the text up to chapter 4, and portions of chapter 5 to 8.
Love and peace,
Judy
Hi Judy,
Yes, the Gospel of Mary was a slip, but I would like to say something about the Gospel of Mary, which was popularized by the Da Vinci Code. It is especially popular among women who seek to validate female leadership in the church. Like any other gnostic gospel, the name was attached to it to try to give it legitimacy, like any second century work. (Thomas, Peter, Philip, etc.) Few think Mary Magdalene actually wrote it. It's not very controversial to most scholars that this gospel was written between 150AD and 200AD, well after Jesus lived and died and long after any eyewitnesses to the events had been gone. Also well after the other four gospels, and being written so late, that is why it lacks credibility. There is nothing we can trace back to the historical Jesus or the historical Mary. This book appears to be a reaction to the kind of rules laid down in the pastoral letters. So there appears to be motive behind what was written.
The Gospel also does not actually support the idea that Jesus was married to Mary. No legitimate scholar believes this, but some gullible people have bought into it.
Yes, the Gospel of Mary was a slip, but I would like to say something about the Gospel of Mary, which was popularized by the Da Vinci Code.
I must admit the Da Vinci Code has done a lot of damage. So many people I know find it hard to accept that it's purely a work of fiction.
I find the subject this subject fascinating but I do feel sometimes there are many that have an agenda when it comes to textual analysis. Perhaps it's because I come from a Calvinist background that I think you should either agree or disagree with the Bible not reinterpret it. As there are no contradictions in the Bible (No I don't want to get into that debate). But I've chosen to disagree, oops that's not very Calvinist!
BTW, if you're interested in the joke of the 2 Calvinists on a bridge, I might tell you one day.
Myarka.
I must admit the Da Vinci Code has done a lot of damage. So many people I know find it hard to accept that it's purely a work of fiction.
I find the subject this subject fascinating but I do feel sometimes there are many that have an agenda when it comes to textual analysis. Perhaps it's because I come from a Calvinist background that I think you should either agree or disagree with the Bible not reinterpret it. As there are no contradictions in the Bible (No I don't want to get into that debate). But I've chosen to disagree, oops that's not very Calvinist!
BTW, if you're interested in the joke of the 2 Calvinists on a bridge, I might tell you one day.
Myarka.
What you have is people reading a Greek influence into Jesus and pursuing bizarre Greco-Roman understandings. Those who make comparisons don't deal with Hebrew, Syriac, Aramaic, rabinic literature, or the Dead Sea Scrolls. Some of these scholars can read the Greek in which the New Testament is written, but Jesus didn't speak Greek - most of his teaching was Aramaic, and his Scriptures in Aramaic or Hebrew paraphrases. These scholars lack training in the languages and literatures used by Jesus and in His world. They move Jesus from a Jewish world to a Greco-Roman world, turning Him into a western academic on an ivory tower smoking His pipe, just like them....
We see people modifying their evidence to fit a theory, rather than modifying their theory to fit the evidence, which is the wrong way to do things. These lost gospels are attractive because of their decreased emphasis on organized religion and increased emphasis on spirituality. That doesn't make them true or historically reliable...
We see people modifying their evidence to fit a theory, rather than modifying their theory to fit the evidence, which is the wrong way to do things. These lost gospels are attractive because of their decreased emphasis on organized religion and increased emphasis on spirituality. That doesn't make them true or historically reliable...
I'd probably go a bit further than you and put these extra texts in the same category as indulgences that were floating around in the early centuries, i.e. there's probably enough fragments of the cross to build another ark, or all the fingers of the Apostles. In those centuries mysticism ruled and people were making it up as they went along. It's no wonder really why so many Pagan festivals became Christianised.
So I think the real question is, what is there that remains in the Church today that was there in Paul's day when he was try to organise this fledgling Church?
Myarka.
The Gospel also does not actually support the idea that Jesus was married to Mary. No legitimate scholar believes this, but some gullible people have bought into it.
I couldn't agree with you more Ace! That theory drives me potty! It seems that people have to drag everything down to their level. To me, Jesus could not have had the spiritual authority and power and done his great works and healings had his thought been distracted with sex.
I know on a pathetically small level how important it is to keep my thought clear and close to God all the time - that's why students of CS do not drink alcohol or take any recreational stimulants. I remember once, when I was cabin crew, getting back from a there-and-back Istanbul - an over 12 hour day, breathing in those strong Turkish cigarrettes. I was exhaused. My husband handed me my dinner in front of the television and I sunk down in front of (of all things) that dreadful but hilarious spoof 'Airplane' (the one with the blow-up doll.) Well, nothing could have been further from a spiritual consciousness in tune with God!
Then the phone rang and it was a friend with a very ill son. She gave a pathetic excuse for phoning me but I could hear the fear in her voice and asked if she'd like me to pray for him and you could hear her relief over the phone. Well, I felt like I had to pull my mental socks up from around my ankles to right up over my head. I went straight up to my room, opened my Bible and started knowing that his eternal perfection as the image and likeness of God could not be invaded or corrupted. By the time she returned to the flat (this was in the days before mobile phones and she'd had to go to a call box) he was sitting up in bed, singing Beatle songs, all fever and weakness gone. That experience taught me so much. As I said to a friend though, I was able to immediately clear my thought and turn to God, but what if I'd been beffudled in an alcoholic daze?
So the hugely long missive is really to say that to me, Jesus was far far above desires of the flesh or needing to get married. It couldn't have been part of his mental vocabulary as it were.
Thanks for the date of the Gospel of Mary too - I hadn't realised it was so late. I know that Thomas was a lot earlier and had just assumed it was from the same time.
Love and peace,
Judy
Perhaps it's because I come from a Calvinist background that I think you should either agree or disagree with the Bible not reinterpret it.
Myarka.
But Myarka, that's a daft thing to say for someone as intelligent as you! Every single time anyone reads anything, they are interpreting it in their own way! This is all the more so from a book like the Bible which is on so many levels, the historical, the moral and the spiritual.
Think about a majestic oak tree standing in the grounds of a large house. A biologist looked at it and said "A superb specimen of Quercus ---"; a little boy looks at it and says "Wow! What a great tree for a tree-house!"; a landscape gardener would say "That oak will make the perfect focal point for the whole garden" a lumberjack would say "That's X metres of wood'; an artist would say "dappled shade, beauty, grandeur, majesty"; a poet may wax lyrical about the spreading branches, the protection, the shade, the peace; a squirrel might think "Food!" and a pair of birds "Home, sweet home!"
The same tree, but viewed in totally different ways. It doesn't mean that one person's perception is wrong just because it's different - each person appreciates the tree in different ways and from different views and that's how I think of studying the Bible from different perspectives.
To illustrate: The most significant healing experience I ever had came after I had been sent home from school as I'd passed out in assembly due to terrible period pains. I had turned, as usual to my Bible and Mary Baker Eddy's Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. As I read Paul's words, “Be willing rather to be absent from the body and present with the Lord.” I realised all the pain was gone and I was healed (permanently it turned out). Then WHOOSH and I was up on the ceiling, looking down at my body lying on the bed, a blinding white light shining, with no shadows. A feeling of awe, joy, peace, bliss - words cannot convey the experience. I came back down, but for a couple of hours had no sensation whatsoever in my body - no weight, no feeling. Then, I was walking on air for a couple of days after that. I felt this experience was a gift - a glimpse to show me reality, which is spiritual, not material. It wasn’t until some years later, when I read a near-death experience, that I realised that it was very similar to what I experienced that day.
A few years ago, I was chatting with a neighbour who is a Baptist lay minister. Those words came up and he informed me that Paul was saying that we should wish for death - that he was only talking about life after death. Well, I told this dear friend that he could interpret the words however he wanted to, but that God had given me an experience that proved to me that what Paul was talking about could be experienced here and now.
So I think the real question is, what is there that remains in the Church today that was there in Paul's day when he was try to organise this fledgling Church?
You might find these interesting:
How do today's Christians' values compare with the values of the earliest Christians?
when Christian teachings and practices began to change drastically
BTW, if you're interested in the joke of the 2 Calvinists on a bridge, I might tell you one day.
Yes pease! 😉
By the way, Mary Baker Eddy’s father was a Calvanist, and she rebelled against the doctrine of predestination and the idea of a punishing God. This is a link about it from her autobiography:
[url]Theological Reminiscence[/url]
Love and peace,
Judy
But Myarka, that's a daft thing to say for someone as intelligent as you! Every single time anyone reads anything, they are interpreting it in their own way! This is all the more so from a book like the Bible which is on so many levels, the historical, the moral and the spiritual.
Ah Judy,
Perhaps I was a bit sloppy with my choice of words to allow you to interpret a different meaning to what I intended?
I think we've all experienced things we see as clear as black and white and others have taken a different meaning? So what I'm trying to express is that each background applies a different methodology to their interpretation. Hence the Calvinist will always see a consistent thread of predestination throughout the Bible, and I'm sure from your background there are certain things that you hold dear to that others can't see.
Now some would say it's because their flavour of Christianity has greater enlightenment that others. You have Mary Baker Eddy, the Calvinists have John Calvin and so on. But all these people have drawn standards by which the Bible should be interpreted. Like me, you've heard hours of sermons explaining that nothing has be added or taken away from the word of God. So that is what I meant by the Calvist attitude that a person can either agree or disagree with what the Bible says.
Now these other texts are something completely different because they came from a different age where different churches were going off in different directions and trying to justify and claim authority. Remember the Bible wasn't in the state it is today. The churches just had fragments or individual texts of the New Testament, therefore it ws so much easier to fake a gospel or a letter, and mix it in with the existing texts.
Now many have tried to draw links between the early Christians and the Essenes, the people of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and at a superficial level it's probably easy. But if you look in to the Great War scroll for example, you'll get a very different picture of these people. The Essenes were essentially another pholosophical school of jews at the time. The thing that maked them out was that they were more extreme in their teaching.
Myarka
Ah Judy,
Perhaps I was a bit sloppy with my choice of words to allow you to interpret a different meaning to what I intended?
I think we've all experienced things we see as clear as black and white and others have taken a different meaning?
Absolutely, just what I was trying to say! 🙂
So what I'm trying to express is that each background applies a different methodology to their interpretation. Hence the Calvinist will always see a consistent thread of predestination throughout the Bible, and I'm sure from your background there are certain things that you hold dear to that others can't see.
Yup, you're right - we see love, healing and divine law and principle undergirding what others call "miracles" and the need to understand the Bible spiritually. Some observations from Eddy:
[COLOR="Navy"] The Bible contains the recipe for all healing.
The central fact of the Bible is the superiority of spiritual over physical power.
From beginning to end, the Scriptures are full of accounts of the triumph of Spirit, Mind, over matter.
The material record of the Bible,.... is no more important to our well-being than the history of Europe and America; but the spiritual application bears upon our eternal life.
The Bible teaches transformation of the body by the renewal of Spirit. Take away the spiritual signification of Scripture, and that compilation can do no more for mortals than can moonbeams to melt a river of ice.
Our thoughts of the Bible utter our lives.
Not a word about predestination though! :p
Like me, you've heard hours of sermons explaining that nothing has be added or taken away from the word of God.
Nope! We don't have personal sermons thankfully. Our 24/7 pastor is the Bible and Science and Health and we all study the same weekly Bible Lesson every day which then is the sermon on Sundays (so our church services are basically identical all over the world, apart from hymns and Scriptural readings and the Benediction). I write on CS discussion forums too and we often discuss the weekly Lesson and it's fascinating how others see different aspects, but basically, on the first page of S&H is "The time for thinker has come." and we think and reason for ourselves and to turn to God for the answers. Above all, we don't take anything on blind faith or because someone else has told us to - we can all PROVE if what has been written is true or not.
Now these other texts are something completely different because they came from a different age where different churches were going off in different directions and trying to justify and claim authority. Remember the Bible wasn't in the state it is today. The churches just had fragments or individual texts of the New Testament, therefore it ws so much easier to fake a gospel or a letter, and mix it in with the existing texts.
Of course, the good news about Jesus was initially just passed around by word of mouth and it was not until several decades later that his disciples and other followers' memories started to be written down and compiled. I think it's quite an eye opener to realise that Irenaeus, the main compiler of what is our Bible today insisted that there could only be 4 gospels because there were only 4 main winds and 4 points of the compass. :confused: There's a terrific little book by Bible scholar Elaine Pagels that I encourage all Christians to read in order to learn more about original Christianity. "Beyond Belief" From the blurb on the cover:
"This luminous and accessible history of early Christian thought offers profound and crucial insights on the nature of God, revelation, and what we mean by religious truth." "Elaine Pagels ....looks at faith before there was doctrine and discovers that Christianity could have been radically different."
Now many have tried to draw links between the early Christians and the Essenes, the people of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and at a superficial level it's probably easy. But if you look in to the Great War scroll for example, you'll get a very different picture of these people. The Essenes were essentially another pholosophical school of jews at the time. The thing that maked them out was that they were more extreme in their teaching.
I agree - I think this was mentioned on the "Jesus was a vegan" thread. It's possible that John the Baptist was an Essene, but as you say, it's a completely different philosophy.
Good to chat!
Love and peace,
Judy
Not a word about predestination though! :p
No, I'm not going to raise to the bait. 😎
Myarka.
I'll be honest, principled, most New Testament historians are not a big fan of feminist author Elaine Pagels. They accuse her of being "very loose with the facts" and leaving crucial historical evidence out of her books. She tried to claim the Gospel of John was written from the Gospel of Thomas, but it was actually earlier in this thread where I explained how the Gospel of Thomas was not written until at least 175 AD, longer after Jesus died and all eyewitnesses and people that lived during that time period had died also. Her books are amazingly popular as far as sales, but they are not very popular or well thought of among most New Testament historians. Here is a text I found about her below":
"Pagels' work has been the subject of a good deal of controversy. With regard to Pagels' conclusions about the Gospel of Thomas, the most frequent and fundamental criticism comes from scholars of the New Testament and first century (such as [url]Richard B. Hays[/url] and [url]N.T. Wright[/url] ) who conclude that the Gospel of Thomas is, in fact, a second century Gnostic text which uses the already extant tradition of the synoptic, canonical Gospels. <a class="go2wpf-bbcode" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[2]">[2] Key to this critique are the observations that the Gospel of Thomas is unlike the other texts with which Pagels wishes to consider it and that its symbols and worldview are radically different from contemporary Jewish and Christian accounts; hence, critics of Pagels argue that the Gospel of Thomas is most likely a significant "translation" or "subversion" of typical first century Christianity rather than an accurate representation of it. Thus, these scholars challenge Pagels' claim that the Gospel of Thomas deserves equal value to the canonical Gospels as a historical document about the development of Christianity during its earliest years.<a class="go2wpf-bbcode" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[3]">[3] In so doing, they also question Pagels' argument that the Gospel of John was written in response to the Gospel of Thomas.
Recently, Anglican Rector [url]Bruce Chilton[/url] wrote an article critiquing Pagels' work on The Gnostic Gospels for [url]The New York Sun[/url].<a class="go2wpf-bbcode" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[4]">[4] In this article, Chilton argues that Pagels' conclusions are flawed because she "does not mention crucial evidence concerning Gnostics and Catholics, and distorts what she does mention."<a class="go2wpf-bbcode" rel="nofollow" target="_blank" href="[5]">[5] Moreover, he decries Pagels' heavy-handed attempts to make Gnosticism relevant for the contemporary world, writing that Pagels' "anachronisms have undermined public understanding of early Christianity."
Hi Ace,
There will always be debate about such important topics. I have to say though, that because of the fraudulent way Christian Science has been treated by most “Christian” commentators, I have very little faith that “facts” are not being twisted to suit the writers’ prejudices. (And yes, I admit fully that that works both ways – I try to keep an open mind) To me, the Bible as it is, is more than enough to meet our every need. As I posted in the other thread, our first tenet is:
[COLOR="Blue"]
As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life. (Science and Health p 496)
However, as our Church is “designed to commemorate the word and works of our Master, which should reinstate primitive Christianity and its lost element of healing” that makes me personally very interested in primitive Christianity.
I Googled Thomas and found this Christian website which seems to be balanced and compares the sayings with the 4 gospels, which is interesting. This is what he has to say about the date:
here are various opinions about the date of the writing. The manuscript itself dates to about the fourth century AD. However, some scholars place the actual date of composition of Thomas somewhere between AD 70 and 150, which would make it nearly contemporary with the canonical Gospels. In this case, the sayings of Jesus could be from the same tradition that was used to compile the Gospels. Because of the close relationship between the Gospels, especially the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) many New Testament scholars have posited some common sources for the materials that are shared among the gospels (see The Synoptic Problem). If accurate, this suggests that there was a Jesus tradition in either oral or written form, or perhaps both, that circulated among followers of Jesus before the Gospels were actually written in the last half of the first century. Among these sources, scholars supposed that there was a collection of sayings of Jesus preserved from which the New Testament writers drew in writing the Gospels. They gave this posited "sayings source" the designation Q, an abbreviation for the German word Quelle, "source" (see A Proposed Reconstruction of "Q").
Because of the close parallel between many of the sayings in Thomas and the Gospels, some scholars have suggested that Thomas is also based on the Q source or is actually Q itself. Of course, these remain only hypotheses since there is no conclusive proof that a Q source ever existed. Still, the existence of a collection of sayings of Jesus as early as the dates proposed for Thomas suggests that there did exist such a collection in the early church. That gives the hypotheses more credibility
However, other scholars date Thomas much later, as late as the fourth century. This would mean that composition of the work dates very close to the time the manuscript was written. They point to the similarities between Thomas and the Gospels as evidence that Thomas was built from the Gospel narratives themselves with other material added from that later time period. The similarity of Thomas to some of the unique material that only appears in either Matthew or Luke suggests that either Thomas was composed from those Gospels, or had access to some of the same traditions that were used by the Gospel writers (see Synoptic Problem). If this later date is accurate, then Thomas is little more than a rewriting and reinterpretation of the earlier Gospel accounts.
We simply do not know the answers to these questions of date and origin. It is entirely possible that Thomas represents a very early authentic tradition of the sayings of Jesus, although processed through the concerns of a particular community.
What puzzles me though that if it is simply copied from Matt and Luke, then where did the extra 53 sayings come from? Some of them are very strange indeed, but others to me (like these below) certainly sound like our Lord:
[COLOR="Indigo"]
2 Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will be disturbed. When he is disturbed, he will marvel, and will reign over all.
24 His disciples said, "Show us the place where you are, for we must seek it."
He said to them, "Whoever has ears. let him hear! There is light within a person of light, and it shines on the whole world. If it does not shine, it is dark."
82 Jesus said, "Whoever is near me is near the fire, and whoever is far from me is far from the kingdom."
83 Jesus said, "Images are visible to men, but the light within them is hidden in the image of the Father's light. He will be disclosed, but his image is hidden by his light."
I rather love this one:
[COLOR="Indigo"]
22 Jesus said to them, "When you make the two into one, and when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner, and the upper like the lower, and when you make male and female into a single one, so that the male will not be male nor the female be female, when you make eyes in place of an eye, a hand in place of a hand, a foot in place of a foot, an image in place of an image, then you will enter [the kingdom]."
To me it can only be understood metaphysically as Mary Baker Eddy explains (not that she would have known anything of the Gospel of Thomas!)
[COLOR="Blue"]
Metaphysics resolves things into thoughts, and exchanges the objects of sense for the ideas of Soul.
These ideas are perfectly real and tangible to spiritual consciousness, and they have this advantage over the objects and thoughts of material sense,--they are good and eternal.
The testimony of the material senses is neither absolute nor divine. I therefore plant myself unreservedly on the teachings of Jesus, of his apostles, of the prophets, and on the testimony of the Science of Mind. Other foundations there are none. All other systems--systems based wholly or partly on knowledge gained through the material senses--are reeds shaken by the wind, not houses built on the rock. (Science and Health 269)
Look high enough, and you see the heart of humanity warming and winning. Look long enough, and you see male and female one--sex or gender eliminated; you see the designation man meaning woman as well, and you see the whole universe included in one infinite Mind and reflected in the intelligent compound idea, image or likeness, called man, showing forth the infinite divine Principle, Love, called God,--man wedded to the Lamb, pledged to innocence, purity, perfection. (Miscellany 268)
One thing that is certain though is that the apostle Thomas went to India. There have been Thomas Christians since the 1st century there and I watched a documentary recently that actually showed many links back to that time. Here is something else I found today:
One of the first episodes concerning Thomas was that Jesus put him in the charge of a sea captain for a voyage to north India. It is known that at 46 a.d. King Gundaphoros ruled in the Indus valley, and Thomas became attached to his court as architect and carpenter to build a palace for the king. Thomas continued to spread the Teaching he had been given, and there are references to occasions when Jesus met up with him there. A very strong tradition, still strongly held today, in the south of India is that Thomas came there in 52 a.d. At that time trade winds had been recently discovered which expedited voyages between the Euphrates valley and the Malabar Coast of south-west India, now Kerala. He landed at the city of Cochin, where there had been for more than a century a Jewish community who built the largest and oldest synagogue still existing. Over several years he set up churches in seven towns that can still be identified and located. Later he travelled over the mountains to the south-east of India, where he continued to widen his community of the Thomas People. He was ultimately martyred at Madras, where great gatherings are still held each year to honour him. Thomas's work there led to the establishment of the Orthodox Church of Thomas. This is to be distinguished from the Catholic and Protestant Churches in Kerala, all of much more recent date. That Thomas Church in the early centuries allied itself with the Syrian Church.
I think it’s fascinating that these discoveries of ancient texts that the Catholic Church had thought they had destroyed are all coming to light in these recent centuries. I for one won’t bury my head in the sand, but neither will it change what I have discovered in my own relationship with God and Jesus and what I have proved in my own life.
What strikes me is that many Christians are afraid of these writings, so they feel they have to condemn them. Well, if that is so, then their faith can’t be that secure.
Love and peace,
Judy
PS Sorry this is so long, but it's been ages since I've had a really good discussion on Christianity on HP!