The Gnostic Gospels

Originally posted by generalissimo
I dont believe my "gospel" should have the same importance as the gnostic gospels considering:

a- I wasn't around when Jesus did his stuff.
b- My account wouldn't be based on anything.
c- did I mention i wasn't around milennia ago?

So since you were not around when it happened, it would then behoove you to get as close to that time as possible, right? So here is a run down of the four gospels in the Bible as to when they were written.

Mark: 50's to 70's AD
Matthew: 50's-70's AD
Luke: 60's to 80's AD
John: 80's to 100's or 50's to 70's

Such early dates are not limited to conservative scholars. In "Redating the New Testament", John A Robinson, a prominant liberal theologian and bishop, makes a case for composition dates before the fall of Jerusalem.

I defy you to show me a "gnostic gospel" written before these dates. In addtion, it would behoove us to find people who wrote these things who were as close to the original disciples who and Chirst as we can find. Mark, for example was written by St Mark who recorded the Apostle Peters discourses and was his interpretor. St Peter was the man from which Christ said he would build his church. And so it goes, it appears that all the gospels draw off of the book of Mark except maybe John.

Of course, there is also St Paul who walked with the disciples and ministered in conjunction with them. In this regard, he was one of them so it would behoove us to take careful consideration of the theology of both the four gospels and St. Paul and compare them with any other teachings to see if they are heretical.

the gnostic gospels and other testerments are for the serious study. if you have studyed the books in the bible and seek more then there is a whole load of reading. but to include them may cause a over load.... but they are there for you

Originally posted by whodey
In addtion, it would behoove us to find people who wrote these things who were as close to the original disciples who and Chirst as we can find.

That may be an argument for greater accuracy of earlier works - if you choose to assume that they are not inspired by God, yet that is not an argument for excluding later works. You give no cut-off date, nor any reason why such a date should exist.
If the Bible is inspired by God, then the dates of the writings should be practically irrelevant since actual firsthand or passed down knowledge is not considered to be the key source of information.
You probably accept much of the old Testament even when there is no evidence that it was written within 100 years of events being described.

Originally posted by whodey
So since you were not around when it happened, it would then behoove you to get as close to that time as possible, right? So here is a run down of the four gospels in the Bible as to when they were written.

Mark: 50's to 70's AD
Matthew: 50's-70's AD
Luke: 60's to 80's AD
John: 80's to 100's or 50's to 70's

Such early dates are not limited to co ...[text shortened]... d St. Paul and compare them with any other teachings to see if they are heretical.

I defy you to show me a "gnostic gospel" written before these dates

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

"Assigning a date to the Gospel of Thomas is very complex because it is difficult to know precisely to what a date is being assigned. Scholars have proposed a date as early as AD 60 or as late as AD 140, depending upon whether the Gospel of Thomas is identified with the original core of sayings, or with the author's published text, or with the Greek or Coptic texts, or with parallels in other literature.[27]"

Originally posted by generalissimo
[b]I defy you to show me a "gnostic gospel" written before these dates

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

"Assigning a date to the Gospel of Thomas is very complex because it is difficult to know precisely to what a date is being assigned. Scholars have proposed a date as early as AD 60 or as late as AD 140, depending upon whether ...[text shortened]... lished text, or with the Greek or Coptic texts, or with parallels in other literature.[27]"[/b]

Very well, any others? Perahps it should be looked at more in depth.. From what I know about it I don't believe it to be heretical to any other works in the Bible.

Originally posted by twhitehead
That may be an argument for greater accuracy of earlier works - if you choose to assume that they are not inspired by God, yet that is not an argument for excluding later works. You give no cut-off date, nor any reason why such a date should exist.
If the Bible is inspired by God, then the dates of the writings should be practically irrelevant since actu ...[text shortened]... t even when there is no evidence that it was written within 100 years of events being described.

I am a follower of Christ. Christ pointed to those who wrote in the Torah as those inspired by God, so I accept them. As for Christ, he chose the 12 to be his witnesses instead of writing about himself. For me, this adds to his credibility. Anyone can sit down and write wonderful things about themselves. Add to that the prophecies written about him that have come true that point to him and what you come up with is an overwhelming compilation of witnesses pointing to him as Messiah.

As for other books that Christ did not point to, I don't discount the fact that they may be inspired by God as well, even if they were written todeay. However, I would have to compare them to the texts that Christ has pointed to as being inspired by God to see if they are heretical.

Originally posted by whodey
I am a follower of Christ. Christ pointed to those who wrote in the Torah as those inspired by God, so I accept them. As for Christ, he chose the 12 to be his witnesses instead of writing about himself. For me, this adds to his credibility. Anyone can sit down and write wonderful things about themselves. Add to that the prophecies written about him that ...[text shortened]... to the texts that Christ has pointed to as being inspired by God to see if they are heretical.

Thats all a bit vague. You don't address my points at all, and you imply but don't actually say so, that Christ mentioned the current New Testament books specifically.
Could you address my points and clarify your own?

Originally posted by whodey
Very well, any others? Perahps it should be looked at more in depth.. From what I know about it I don't believe it to be heretical to any other works in the Bible.

so you agree with me that at least the gospel of thomas should be included?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Thats all a bit vague. You don't address my points at all, and you imply but don't actually say so, that Christ mentioned the current New Testament books specifically.
Could you address my points and clarify your own?

Christ was a student of the Torah and said that he had not come to dismantle the law, but to fulfill it as those who came before him pointed to his coming.

Having said that, there were not NT books during the life of Christ. In fact, he did not write about himself. All we are left with are the books that seem to have been produced from the 12 he selected to carry out his message.

Originally posted by generalissimo
so you agree with me that at least the gospel of thomas should be included?

I have read bits a peices of it and from what I have read I have no problems with it. In fact, if I remember correctly I liked on particular passage that said something to the effect that what we don't seek to find in terms of truth cannot be revealed to us. In other words, I could tell you the meaning of life but unless you were actually in pursuit of such knowledge it would not register as the truth and be disregarded. Having said that, I have not read the whole thing, therefore, I will refrain from declaring it valid. Just realize that during the time of the apostles, there were those imitating things like casting out demons, only, they were not of the faith. Such people could easily produce a counterfit theology.

I was reading the book of Enoch it seems interesting. Nothing so far out that I would say this is evil or something. It appears to just be the visions that Enoch had. Talks about the fallen angels and their Judgement. I guess there could be argument on did angels really procreate with humans? I know some within say this could not have happened. However that was the reason this judgement went against them apparently.



Manny

Originally posted by menace71
I was reading the book of Enoch it seems interesting. Nothing so far out that I would say this is evil or something. It appears to just be the visions that Enoch had. Talks about the fallen angels and their Judgement. I guess there could be argument on did angels really procreate with humans? I know some within say this could not have happened. However that was the reason this judgement went against them apparently.



Manny

I have read Enoch and it is a fascinating book. What prompted me was a reference to it in the book of Jude.

Originally posted by whodey
I have read bits a peices of it and from what I have read I have no problems with it. In fact, if I remember correctly I liked on particular passage that said something to the effect that what we don't seek to find in terms of truth cannot be revealed to us. In other words, I could tell you the meaning of life but unless you were actually in pursuit of such ...[text shortened]... ons, only, they were not of the faith. Such people could easily produce a counterfit theology.

I see.

What about the gospel of mary? any thoughts?

Originally posted by whodey
I have read Enoch and it is a fascinating book. What prompted me was a reference to it in the book of Jude.

That right.



Manny

Originally posted by generalissimo
I see.

What about the gospel of mary? any thoughts?

From what I could gather, it was written around 120-180 AD. Therefore it is much older than any of the four gospels. In addition, according to the sources I read, it refutes the notion that Christ's sacrifice on the cross is the source of our salvation as well as disputing that Mary of Magnoline was even a prostitute. Therefore, I don't see how it could even be considered a Christian gospel.