Original Greek Gnostic Text Found

[Philip]

Every time I see these articles, I get a little ill at what they contain: http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/12/ ... found.html So misleading about why it was not accepted into the canon.

[PaulSacramento]

The First Apocalypse of James, like the other books in the Nag Hammadi library, was deemed heretical or forbidden by the church because it fell outside of the fourth-century religious boundaries that defined the 27-book New Testament.

And they keep propagating that BS over and over and over.

Gnostic crap was deemed heretical because it taught things that were contrary to Jesus DIRECT teachings.

[Philip]

Paul: Gnostic crap was deemed heretical because it taught things that were contrary to Jesus DIRECT teachings.

Absolutely! But perhaps what bothers me most about such articles, is that they always tend to assert a bunch of church insiders went off in a smoke-filled room and politically bargained which books they put their official stamp on. Or that Constantine orchestrated it. The reality is that there was not only the test of non-contradiction of Jesus words written down by whatever apostles, but there was a strict test with very specific criteria. Bottom line is, these and other books did not meet that criteria - OR they were just obviously heretical from what they had already authenticated (per the criteria - was it written by an apostle, close associate of one, etc.).

[PaulSacramento]

Paul: Gnostic crap was deemed heretical because it taught things that were contrary to Jesus DIRECT teachings.

Absolutely! But perhaps what bothers me most about such articles, is that they always tend to assert a bunch of church insiders went off in a smoke-filled room and politically bargained which books they put their official stamp on. Or that Constantine orchestrated it. The reality is that there was not only the test of non-contradiction of Jesus words written down by whatever apostles, but there was a strict test with very specific criteria. Bottom line is, these and other books did not meet that criteria - OR they were just obviously heretical from what they had already authenticated (per the criteria - was it written by an apostle, close associate of one, etc.).

Add to that how they come up with this crap as if it was something new.
These books have been discredited by scholars for decades.
That these books are dated to centuries AFTER the establishment of Christianity goes to show they are aberrations to orthodoxy.
I mean, the writings closest to Christ timeline and that of his apostles are quite different and even opposite of these writings so why would anyone believe these over the ACTUAL works of 1st and 2nd generation apostles?

[Philip]

Unfortunately, media isn't just sources of information, or even/often deliberate Disinformation. It's a mega-billion-dollar BUSINESSS that is in constant search of optimum $$$. So, anything that seems newsworthy that fills space, in print or online, gets used - often without context, nuance, or the understandings necessary to properly presenting them. And a lot of people gathering news are simply either lazy and/or merely recycling common popular assertions or beliefs - and they don't have or seek qualified sources. And a lot of people assembling media now are very young and naive, just out of school - but nonetheless, they also function as gatekeepers - as it's not just the information media presents, but what news it ignores or fails to seek out.

And a lot of news is merely gathered online or in proximity to cities with news bureaus - in other words, in a lazy, no-sweat or required shoe leather manner. And then we have the problem of media applying marketing, focus group, and branding techniques in building their readership built around certain demographics - all, mostly, in pursuit of the corporate bottom line: $$$. It's also very advertising-driven - as no media would exist merely upon circulation sales or free content being put out. Pages in newspapers, magazines and online - they have a specific amount of space for info built around, mostly, the amount of ads and cost of acquiring their "news" and content.

One last point - a FREE, mostly unregulated internet is a great equalizer of what individuals have the ability to report and comment on. This is really important as media outlets have greatly shrunken due to a long-poor economy and the decline of traditional media outlets. Less media: Less info, diversity and trustworthiness!

I say the above as a person with a journalism degree who has dealt with quite a lot of media types - it's an often-dirty business!