This morning [on Elaine Pagel's Birthday] I am thinking about the varied alternative gospels that have been unearthed, and how people often react to their existence...my main question is, what do you think the value of these is, if any? From where I stand, if the people who are the founding members of a religion exclude alternative writings, and have detailed in their own works what the tenets of the religion are to be, I cannot see how it becomes allowable for ANY alternative document to supplant the "authorized" works...for example, "Jesus died and rose from the dead" is a primary belief of the original Christian church...should an alternative view [Jesus was only a man...alternative gospels suggest this is true]be allowed to be called "Christian?"
This morning [on Elaine Pagel's Birthday] I am thinking about the varied alternative gospels that have been unearthed, and how people often react to their existence...my main question is, what do you think the value of these is, if any? From where I stand, if the people who are the founding members of a religion exclude alternative writings, and have detailed in their own works what the tenets of the religion are to be, I cannot see how it becomes allowable for ANY alternative document to supplant the "authorized" works...for example, "Jesus died and rose from the dead" is a primary belief of the original Christian church...should an alternative view [Jesus was only a man...alternative gospels suggest this is true]be allowed to be called "Christian?"
Comments
I think it goes back to the question of what one finds valuable in the faith - what one finds to be "true." I think it is possible to find much of what Christ says to be quite compelling, but much of what the Church holds about his divinity to be quite unhelpful. To paraphrase Ghandi "Christ I like. Christians... no so much."