Christians

What do you think of the Gospel of Eve (or Gospel of Perfection)
I just learned of it today, and I'm curious as to it's status to a believer. If it's known and disregarded, erased from history, etc.

It's odd, really, to imagine that your religious beliefs could be based off of the picking and choosing of an ancient church.

It's something that has always stuck in the back of my head. I've read most of the apocrypha, and really I'm none the wiser for it, but I can see the contradictions it provides.

I'm kind of unfamiliar with the process that was used to determine Inspired Canon and disregarded text, but had said books been included the Bible would have been a much different subject.

I'll go back and read up on the book you're talking about whenever I'm not on
my iPhone, and give more opinion afterward.

Choop, been reading some Cracked.com top-ten lists have we?

Seriously though, the sexual interpretation of a lost book with only a few passages known through quotation by early religious scholars is highly dicey at best. If you read those passages from the gnostic gospel of Eve as a stand-alone text, then yes, they could be interpreted to promote free love and other acts forbade by the RCC, but when you read those same passages with similar passages from the gnostic gospels of Thomas, Judas, and Mary Magdalene, you see a common thread of the texts referring rather to the existence of God everywhere which is a revelation in and of itself given that the Jews believed that God literally lived within the Temple on the Mount. It also correlates with the other gnostic gospels on the subject of God being in man, a sense that the "divine spark" which we tend to refer to as the soul is a part of God. With that in mind, if you read one of the most prominent and often quoted passages of Eve, you can see that it falls in line with the tenants of Gnosticism and the belief of an omnipresent God through his presence in all that is around us including ourselves.

I stood on a lofty mountain and saw a gigantic man, and another, a dwarf; and I heard as it were a voice of thunder, and drew nigh for to hear; and He spake unto me and said: I am thou, and thou art I; and wheresoever thou mayest be I am there. In all am I scattered, and whencesoever thou willest, thou gatherest Me; and gathering Me, thou gatherest Thyself.

Again, this very much speaks to the concept of of Psalm 82 which states that "Ye are Gods." Even the extremely conservative KJV Bible states in John Chapter 10:

10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Furthermore, Gnostic Christians were extremely ascetic in their moralistic practices. They ate what amounted to gruel and abstained from sex in an almost Buddhist attempt to reach a higher plain of existence and communion with God. In fact, the modern day forced abstinence of RCC priests is not a product of the RCC but rather a product of early Gnostic Christian morals intermingling with the then weak and poorly organized church. To think that a Gnostic text such as the Gospel of Eve would have sexual connotations when the authors were clearly attempting to purify the flesh is a far-flung theory at best.

Now, what does this mean to me as a well-read christian? For one, it simply reaffirms the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth that not only is God all around us, but within each and every one of us as well. If you want to take the sexual stance that some early "scholars" attribute to the Gospel of Eve, then I can tell you that I've never believed in the RCC's dogma. I was raised outside of the RCC as a Presbyterian in a society of no-nonsense people. To me, the very idea that sex is sin is repugnant. Almost all references to sexual sin in religion either fall under Leviticus and thus, are not covered under the new covenant of Christ, or are non canonical dogmatic decrees which, to me, have about as much worth when it comes to the teachings of Christ and the wishes of God as some whack-job standing on the capitol steps screaming that Obama is Kenyan by birth and not an American born citizen. My problem with the RCC is, and has always been, that they, more than any other organized Christian faith, have strayed from the core teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

Edited by tallen702 - 14 January 2010 at 12:16pm

stratoaxe wrote: It's odd, really, to imagine that your religious beliefs could be based off of the picking and choosing of an ancient church. It's something that has always stuck in the back of my head. I've read most of the apocrypha, and really I'm none the wiser for it, but I can see the contradictions it provides. I'm kind of unfamiliar with the process that was used to determine Inspired Canon and disregarded text, but had said books been included the Bible would have been a much different subject. I'll go back and read up on the book you're talking about whenever I'm not on my iPhone, and give more opinion afterward.

Hades wrote: Sure, that would be okay if the followers of a religion didnt make claims that the information that is directly from a higher power that is perfect. If god was perfect, the information provided by god must also be perfect and not ever adapting or changing. Religon should be based on what the higher power wants, not what society wants (unless we are talking about a religion that didnt come from a higher power and was created by society).

Alrighty then, so whats the answer?

Darur wrote: Alrighty then, so whats the answer?

What is the question? :P

The bible is said to be the word of god, despite it being written by men, it is supposedly inspired by god. If that is true, why exactly did the catholic church find it necissary to have their little editing commitee?

stratoaxe wrote: Well, the Catholic Church endorses alot of ideas that are fairly contradictory to the even the most basic ideas in the Bible.   Bear in mind the old Church didn't allow their people to actually read the Bible.

the modern bible is based of that edited version whether you are catholic or not. I would see that to be a bit of a problem personally. But that's just me.

Edit: but I do agree with you on your above statement

Edited by __sneaky__ - 14 January 2010 at 7:01pm

I've alawys took issue with the editing of the Bible, to be honest. It's at least always been in the back of my mind as a Christian, but I find the current condition of the Word to be consistent, and I choose to follow the values. I tend not to take everything literally, but instead use it as a Guide for right and wrong, not so much as a textbook to Who or What God is; or even His character for that matter.

There are lots of Christians that would take huge issue with this, and I've gotten alot of flak for my beliefs.