/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.1632644]

ITT: Shit the church doesn't want you to read

[Anonymous No.1632652]

[Anonymous No.1632655]

There's plenty of uncanonized stuff the Church wants you to read. This thread is dumb.

[Anonymous No.1632657]

The bible

[Anonymous No.1632659]

How about, "ITT: The Gospels Irenaeus didn't want you to read."

[Anonymous No.1632660]

the church can suck my cock. i'm irish and i'm into sodomy so get the fuck off with your puerile pissing contest with the church. too bad this crap will not get you burnt any longer.
what makes our canonised scriptures valueble is not the fact that they are holier than any other kind of scripture, tv pulp or cubist oil paintings in the museums; it was the basis for all philosophy for the last 20 century. it was enriched with meaning and reflections by every grand and estimated mind we had.

[Anonymous No.1632669]

>>1632660

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.1632679]

>>1632655
/thread

[Anonymous No.1632689]

>>1632655

I said "shit", not "uncanonized scriptures"


dick weasel

[Anonymous No.1632701]

book of mormon
watchtower

[Anonymous No.1632710]

>Be assured, you have been reading the real word of God this whole time
>you have been reading the real word of God this whole time
>the real word of God
>real
>God
>mfw

[Anonymous No.1633696]

AMIDOINITRITE.JPG

[Anonymous No.1633705]

>>1632644
OP, add the complete The Nag Hammadi Scriptures to that.

[Anonymous No.1633706]

The Church is actively involved in researching the noncanonical gospels. They're as curious about the early history of their religion as anybody else.

As for books the Church doesn't/didn't want you to read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum

Though it hasn't been updated since the late 60s IIRC.

[Anonymous No.1633710]

Harry Potter

[Anonymous No.1633715]

>>1633705
wishlisted

[Anonymous No.1633725]

>>1633706
hmm, which church

[Anonymous No.1633732]

i know this is easy, but richard dawkins

[Anonymous No.1633753]

...
Crowley
....

[Anonymous No.1633776]

Alan Watts!

[Anonymous No.1633791]

So much shit it would make your head spin, but if the church banned everything that they saw as morally corruptive, nobody would follow them. Really, you probably don't even realize how much they condemn modern music. Don't give me your "BUT IN SUNDAY SCHOOL THEY SAID" bullshit. I've gone to catholic school my entire life and I abandoned the faith because it's the most ignorant and self centered organization on the face of the planet. I don't hate the beliefs or the follower, but I hate the bureaucratic mess that is the Church and the Vatican.

[Anonymous No.1633806]

>The Gnostic Bible
Great book and all, but a universe where the church has canonized Herakleon's exegesis, some Quranic suras, a ton of mutually contradictory genesis stories (inb4 they do already, I mean more so), etc. would be a pretty weird one.

[Anonymous No.1633813]

>>1633791
>I hate the bureaucratic mess that is the Church and the Vatican
>The Church and the Vatican
>implying Catholics are Christians

The line between the two is growing vaster every day. I'd suggest you find an actual church to criticize.

[Anonymous No.1633820]

>>1633791
>Really, you probably don't even realize how much they condemn modern music

define "modern music". Because if you mean top 40 bullshit that I guess I'm with the church on that one. Besides, where the hell did you go to Sunday school as a kid? My father's a pastor and he couldn't care less about what I listen to because I actually listen to good music.

[Anonymous No.1633822]

>>1633813
What do you mean? I'm criticizing the Vatican. Nothing else.

[Anonymous No.1633825]

>>1633820
As in The Beatles and onwards. They equate anything not attributed to God as being attributed to Satan.

[Anonymous No.1633871]

>>1633813

WTF are you going on about?

Christianity = adherence to the life and teachings of Jesus Christ as the true son of God.

That's all a Christian is. Whether or not all the denominations behave the same thing is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.1633902]

bump

[Anonymous No.1633907]

how shitty does your writing have to be to not be accepted in the Bible?

[Anonymous No.1633919]

There's also the entire Nag Hammadi library (unless I missed it in the pic). What's the translator called? Bentley something. Laymon? Limon? I can't remember. Mind-blowing stuff though.

I can never remember which of the forbidden gospels I read this in, but it affected me greatly.

"And Jesus said unto us, beware of those who will come after me, for they will build churches."

Maybe it was the Gospel of Philip, I dunno.

Pretty clear why the organisers of faith would try to suppress that bitch, anyway. The struggle of humanity has always been between the forces of enlightenment, and the forces of benightment. Everyone says "what has religion ever done for humanity" and the answere remains "nothing", with the coda "because you have been misled, and tricked into using your spirituality to negative ends".

The "uncanonised scriptures" tend to be the ones that emphasise this factor - that you cannot take a spiritual journey on a person (or a church). You cannot ride on the back of another.

See also Tom Robbins; "Skinny Legs and All".

Thanks for your attention.

tl;dr Everything you think you know is wrong, no matter which side of this argument you're on.

[Anonymous No.1633924]

>>1633825

You clearly don't know that many Christians. I'm in the thick of Christian country (i.e. churches every two blocks) and the only people I know who don't like the Beatles only think so because they think they're terrible musicians.

[Anonymous No.1633927]

>>1633919

Can I get some estimated time of writing on these documents?

[Anonymous No.1633929]

>>1633919
Well. Matthew 6:6. But yeah, very interesting.

[Anonymous No.1633939]

>>1633927
Manuscripts were from the 4th, originals are estimated at 2nd or 1st century depending on who you're talking to.

[Anonymous No.1633943]

>>1633927

For Nag Hammadi, it's generally considered to be 1st-2nd century BCE. The provenance is older than a lot of the "established" christian books.

Asa side note, it's postulated that these works may have had an influence on the Christ during his "wilderness years". There are a lot of correlations to the gospels of Matthew, Mark, John and Ringo, for example - the style is too similar for there to be no connection between Nag Hammadi and christianity.

The parts that describe God as a blind, screaming idiot devoid of wisdom were considered a bit 'challenging' for the populace (although one god who is also Dad, Jr., and the Spook was pretty much considered normal, so you can imagine how fucked the shit they cut out is)

[Anonymous No.1633945]

>>1633943

I'm an idiot - for BCE, please read CE/AD.

Cheers,

Anon.

[Anonymous No.1633948]

>>1633943

What do you mean to say their similar? That they're all the same genre of literature or what?

[Anonymous No.1633962]

>>1632644
>picture

The Gospel of Thomas is maybe 2-3 pages when printed out, yet it's represented in that stack by a book that's probably close to 100 pages long.

If you prune out the commentary by scholars and other bullshit, remove duplicated documents, and adjust the font size to match the size of the text in the bible pictured (which is probably much smaller than the other books), you'll be left with a pile of paper that won't be any thicker than the bible.

tl;dr: OP'S pic is highly misleading atheist propoganda

[Anonymous No.1633973]

>>1633943
>>1633945

Wait a moment, you're placing it at around late 1st century to early 2nd century and maintaining it's written before the established cannon? Where do you place the gospels?

[Quentin !!p3mpBqBwOeY No.1633979]

>people still, even in our day in age modern 2011, not believing in the Bible

[Anonymous No.1633986]

that one apocryphal gospel where jesus withers a kid for killing one of the clay pigeons he brought to life owns

[Anonymous No.1634029]

>>1633979
"day AND age"

>Implies the bible has been unknown to most for centuries and is only too slowly finding followers.
Boooo. Weak. 0/10

[Anonymous No.1634033]

>>1633979

Dammit, who let Quentin back on /lit/? I thought we flooded m00t's inbox to get rid of him.

Didn't he kill himself?

[Quentin !!p3mpBqBwOeY No.1634035]

>>1634029
that's not what i implied at all
that is not it at all!!!!

[Anonymous No.1634044]

>>1634035
No? Than you didn't spell it right. Delete and start over.

[Quentin !!p3mpBqBwOeY No.1634047]

>>1634044
hey dude if you have a point to make then you should make it with your next post because it seems to me like you're going nowhere man
but that's because you are going nowhere

[Anonymous No.1634053]

>>1633973

The Gospels are genuinely accepted to have been written between the 2nd-4th centuries AD/CE.

A lot of the stuff that was contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls was from far before this period, which is the main reason why the Catholic church seized upon the Dead Sea Scrolls and shut them down (other than to 'approved' investigators [the ones who won't kick up shit and say things like "Hey, hang on a moment. My research says that this relic dates from 700 years after the death of Christ..."

My jesus will have a hammer in either hand, the ability to teleport, and a kick-ass mentality. You're all fucked. This time it's PERSONAL, turnaway BIYATCHES.

[Anonymous No.1634059]

>HEY GUYS YOU'VE BEEN DUPED,HERE'S THE REAL SCRIPTURE

Oh, sure I'll take a--

>GNOSTIC GNOSTIC GNOSTIC

there's a reason why that stuff was discredited in the early church

because it's not in line with christian theology

[Anonymous No.1634068]

>>1634059
The reason is kind of complex

[Anonymous No.1634087]

>>1634059
>>1634059

>because it's not in line with christian theology

Please stay out of this argument, as much for your own good as anything. You have neither the skill nor the resilience for this rough-and-tumble, and you are guaranteed to end up dead, and fucked with your own cock.

Godspeed, my warrior.

An.

[Anonymous No.1634097]

>>1633962
>MFW this faggot things im an atheist

[Anonymous No.1634102]

>>1634097
>lol typos for everyone!
*thinks

[Anonymous No.1634109]

On the Genealogy of Morality and The Antichrist by Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.1634113]

I guess it doesn't matter that a lot of those "gospels" don't agree with the canon, or were written years later. Like hundreds. I guess I'll write a few more books to the Koran right now, and in 300 years, people will wonder why they weren't included with the originals.

[Anonymous No.1634127]

>>1634059
>GNOSTIC GNOSTIC GNOSTIC
well, your a faggot, because most of the works in there are not gnostic

>>1633962
>The Gospel of Thomas is maybe 2-3 pages when printed out, yet it's represented in that stack by a book that's probably close to 100 pages long.

Please, the copy i have pf the gospel of thomas is barely 60 pages; with no commentary, i might add. the english translation is mirrored by its original Hebrew on every page.

pic related, its my face when i am trolling all of you butthurt pseudo-apologists

[Anonymous No.1634141]

>>1634127
Yeah, Thomas is 26 pages in The Gnostic Bible. 1.5 space with footnotes, mind.

Of course, this raises the problem of duplication, but fuck that picture anyway.

[Anonymous No.1634142]

>>1634113
>I guess it doesn't matter that a lot of those "gospels" were written years later.
on opposite day

[Anonymous No.1634148]

>>1634142
Romans 1:22

[Anonymous No.1634151]

>>1634113
>>I guess it doesn't matter that a lot of those "gospels" were written years later.
right, the only book in there that was written 'years later' was the essential writings of christian mysticism, because it was written by sages rather then prophets or apostles- and even that contains writings prior to the formation of the bible. A lot of those scriptures predate the nicean creed's canon by an embarrassing amount of time.

[Anonymous No.1634152]

>>1634141
Thomas is 113 verses. Matthew is 1071 verses.

[Anonymous No.1634154]

>>1634152
...and roughly 1000 in each of the other 3 "standard" gospels as well.

[Anonymous No.1634157]

>>1634152
my dick is 1071 verses

[Anonymous No.1634166]

stop being so meticulous... you fool

[Anonymous No.1634167]

>>1634152
I was just responding to the 2 pages comment. If I really wanted to make some smartass comment about how Catholicism is keeping all the cool people down I'd image-ify the Index Librorum Prohibitorum or some shit.

[Anonymous No.1634171]

>>1634166
meant to refer to
>>1634035

[Anonymous No.1634185]

anyone ever read Diarmaid MacCulloch's "Christainity the first three thousand years?"

[Quentin !!p3mpBqBwOeY No.1634191]

>>1634171
sorry i actually pay attention to the arguments i get involved in

[Anonymous No.1634219]

>>1634191
reference to prufrock.
was trying to play along....
but oh never mind
let us go and make our visit

[Anonymous No.1634280]

>>1634185

Yeah, I have it. It's great actually. Haven't finished it. But I love it. Wonderfully detailed, well written, and very comprehensive.

[Anonymous No.1634334]

Could someone explain to me why gnostic stuff is deemed unimportant or irrelevant? Why isn't it as widely publicized as the bible?

[Anonymous No.1634406]

>>1634334
Cuz thought police.

The argument that usually gets put forward is some half baked stuff about it being a selective knowledge cult or something.

[Anonymous No.1634421]

The Hebrew translated Torah and Tanakh with the Rabbinical notation

[redcom !!+Kgteyi5ULQ No.1634422]

I'm catholic, and I can't wait to dive into that stuff. It'll read like a complex mythological literary puzzle, and give me spiritual guidance to help me live a better life alongside my fellow man.

[Anonymous No.1634423]

>>1634148

>Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools

Here's a hint: if you want people to read your fucking mumbo-jumbo hocus-pocus bullshit, then why not actually quote the chapter and verse, rather than your frankly cowardly assertions chapter and verse.

Have ye not the courage of your convictions? Are you afraid to bear the stigma of the Christ?

[Anonymous No.1634426]

>>1634423
The the astigmatism of christ, pebble Ian.

[Anonymous No.1634431]

>>1634426

If jeebers looked like that, and I put my willy in his mouth repeatedly until ejaculation, then would I be saved from oiriginal sin? If not then how about if Jesus was begging me to finish him off and fuck him in the shitter? I'm not gay, but my christian teachings say that I should help my fellow man, and my doctrine says that I must obey all the comandments of our lort Jesus Christ. This is sometimes a little difficult when he's screaming at the barmaid for more cheeky vimtos and denying on his mother's life that we've ever been in here before.

[Anonymous No.1634434]

>>1634431
>If jeebers looked like that, and I put my willy in his mouth repeatedly until ejaculation, then would I be saved from oiriginal sin?
No, cuz second Adam. Second Adam can't be a woman.

[Anonymous No.1634584]

i love you guys

[Anonymous No.1634597]

>>1634151
>>1634151

That depends whether you're talking about the old testament or the new testament; however, most scholars agree that even the earliest new testament apocryphal documents you have in that stack (Complete Dead Sea Scrolls) weren't composed until more than a hundred years after the last canonical gospel. That's not just based on carbon dating, but on syntactical analysis, etc. Also, the Essential Writings of Christian Mysticism is not something the Church "doesn't want you to read."

Want my sources? Lambert, Delehaye, Summers, Moorman & Vermes.

[Truman Capote !!cO9KVBDtkqQ No.1634598]

My old catholic school head teacher was seriously jellymad when the God Delusion was the #1 best seller in the UK.

Later that day, there was a queue outside waterstones of people from my school trying to buy Dawkin's book.

[Anonymous No.1634600]

>>1634597
There are portions of the gospel of mark (at the end) that aren't included until 200 years after Mark was written, and are an important part in church theology. They're still considered canonical though.

[Anonymous No.1634602]

>>1634600
>>1634600

I'd be interested to read about that. Got a book or article?

[Anonymous No.1634604]

>>1634600
Here included means written btw. It's the whole seeing Jesus again and ascending into heaven thing.

[Anonymous No.1634607]

>>1634602
There are footnotes pointing this out in any decent Bible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark#Ending

I've apparently misremembered the length of time though; only 100 years. I won't buy the somewhat flagrant claim that "It was composed 50-80 years before its earliest quote" as stated in the wikipedia page. I also take the view it was meant to end on a somewhat depressed note.

[Anonymous No.1634648]

>>1632644

The standard scholarly translation of the major body of "Gnostic" texts is now this. ISBN 9780061626005 (paperback), 9780060523787 (hardback)