The Gnostic gospels

wayseer · #41 6th August 2008, 11:38 PM

Originally Posted by lilpixieofterror

Well, with the Bible, no problem really, but with your silly argument, plenty.

It is apparent you do not understand my argument. Calling it silly indicates you do not. Focus on the debate and not on your emotions.

So please if you'd like to scare me away, you're not going to do it here, but you're welcome to try.

I'm not attempting to 'scare you away'. I'm simply pointing out there is more going on than what you suggest. You can ready all the theological debates as you wish but that will only narrow your perspective.

Even atheist say that the Orthdox Gospels were written in the First Century.

I have not indicated otherwise.

Depends on who we are talking about. Matthew, Mark, and Luke were most like a bit older then my parents (about 40 or 50, depending on when you think they were born or when their gospels were written).

Life was short and bitter in those days. No pensions or super funds to draw on - and hospitals non-existent. How long do you think people actually lived for?

The Gospel of John is still dated to the first century and within the lifetime of the people in question.

It is generally accepted that John was written in the 2nd C.

Now do you have a real argument yet or will you just hope that your little distraction game will take away from your poor argument?

I posed a legitimate question. If the Gospels were written as early as you are claiming then it could reasonably be expected that the Apostles knew of these writing - clearly they didn't - which indicates the Gospels were written some time later.

The only people who take the Christ myth seriously are those who have alot to loose from Christianity being true, so they find excuses like the Christ myth to hold onto their doubt.

The 'Christ myth' is just that - a myth about the Christ. There is no reliable independent evidence to suggest Jesus lived or died in the manner recorded in the Gospels. You are confusing history with myth.

To show others that there is little to fear from the 'Gnostic Gospels'

No. To demonstrate that the Gnostic Gospels are just as mythological as the Canonical Gospels.

The reality is that the Gnostic's were never based in historical tradition and there is a very specific reason why these Gospels disappeared, because they were not truth to start with, the preached a false doctrine and a false Christ that was different then the true Christ and the only thing they did was lead a few people away from Christ.

That's exactly what the institutionalised Church teaches - which does not it any 'truer'.

You are welcome to show there was any kind of systematic eradication though any kind of violence from the first century clear to the fourth century of the Gnostic's and others if you'd like. Sure, there were excommunications of Heretics, but that is a bit different then killing them, for now I'll call this an assertion without evidence until you can produce the required evidence.

I won't go into the history - it's there if you wish to read it. But I wonder how come the Nag Hammandi codexes were buried - perhaps it was to protect them from being burnt. People don't hid things if they were acceptable to the power-that-be.

Tacitus is one classic example, in fact one Christian apologist had quite a debate going with a Roman Pagan in about the second century (but I'll leave that to you to find who they are). Also, let us not forget Justin Mayer's writing to the Emperor, why was he writing to the Emperor? There is also the issue with inscriptions throughout Rome and the Roman Empire that make illusions to Christianity (some of them even designed to mock Christianity). If you do not believe me, you are more then welcome to go take a class on the NT and ask the teacher if these things are true, bet he or she will say yes in fact... I doubt they would even take the Christ Myth seriously, those who are worth the degree they have don't.

I do believe - that's my worry. The theological schools are hardly going to teach anything contrary to doctrine and dogma.

Thanks for re-confirming my faith in the one true Lord.

My point is that discussing such issue should not indeed shake your faith. Rather than becoming someone hostile towards me you perhaps might learn the lesson. If you have to cling to doctrine and dogma then that is what you are clinging to - doctrine and dogma - not faith. I really find it difficult to understand the venom directed at the suggestions that there are other realities beyond the constructed ones established by the Church. My focus is on God - not on what those who tell me how to think. God operates beyond the Church.

wayseer · #42 7th August 2008, 12:01 AM

Originally Posted by ebia

He must have had some knowledge - he was already persecuting Jesus' followers.

Point taken. I meant 'personal' knowledge. I often think what would have happened if Saul hand met Jesus.

Maybe he did.

Well, think about it. Paul was an argumentative crusty character and you could have expect some comments, if not some fireworks, if he had come across any writings pertaining to Jesus. Yet, he made no mention in his letters to the existence of any early writings. My only assumption could be that no such writings existed at the time of Paul's ministry

There's nothing magic about writting something down.

That is 21st Century speak. We might take it for granting that 'writing things down' is anything but 'magic' - rather ordinary really. 2000 years ago very few could read and write. Fishermen in those days would not be able to read and write. Matthew probably could as might Luke - the others, probably not. There were very few scribes and the cost of writing material all but prohibitive. Writing was, back then, 'magic'.

The "Gospel of Thomas" and the synoptic's share too much common material for them to have developed independently - one must borrow from the other, and the only way around that makes any sense is for the sayings gospel (Thomas) to have borrowed from the narrative (synoptic) tradition.

Why the preference? The Gospels of Matthew and Luke can be traced by to Mark, rather than Thomas - Mark being recognised as the earliest of the Canonical Gospels.

Calling it ridicule is emotive.

Very emotive - it was an emotional time.

Orthodox Christianity has to say "gnostism is wrong" because they can't both right.

Exactly. But that is poor grounds for establishing Truth.

Both of them hold to a set of objective truths and those truths aren't compatible.

I don't think the writers of the Gnostic Gospels would claim any objective true - subjective more likely.

Bringing in motives about power is unnecessary

I think it is necessary. The Church is about 'power' - power over what is 'Christianity'

.... if the early Christians believed what they believed to be true they had not choice but to say "this is not true".

I agree - choices had to be made. And what we are left with is the long time effects of those choices.

ebia · #43 7th August 2008, 12:50 AM

Originally Posted by wayseer

Point taken. I meant 'personal' knowledge. I often think what would have happened if Saul hand met Jesus.

Well, think about it. Paul was an argumentative crusty character and you could have expect some comments, if not some fireworks, if he had come across any writings pertaining to Jesus.

Sorry - I don't see any reason to assume that.

That is 21st Century speak. We might take it for granting that 'writing things down' is anything but 'magic' - rather ordinary really. 2000 years ago very few could read and write. Fishermen in those days would not be able to read and write. Matthew probably could as might Luke - the others, probably not. There were very few scribes and the cost of writing material all but prohibitive. Writing was, back then, 'magic'.

Not in the terms I meant by the word 'magic' - which was about fixing stories to be unchangable. Oral cultures can and do fix stories as unchangeable without writing them down.

Why the preference? The Gospels of Matthew and Luke can be traced by to Mark, rather than Thomas - Mark being recognised as the earliest of the Canonical Gospels.

You seem to be missing my point - either Thomas borrows from somewhere in the synoptic tradition or the synoptic tradition borrows from Thomas. The later is utterly implausable and the former perfectly plausable. That puts the tradition that leads to Thomas as a latter development from the narrative tradition in which the synoptics stand.

Exactly. But that is poor grounds for establishing Truth.

Sorry - what would you have them do? Orthodox Christianity has been around for a while, a new teaching springs up calling itself Christian and quoting some books it has that claim to be quotes from Jesus but which teaches something fundamentally incompatible with said orthodox christianity. Rubber stamp those books as "true" despite the fact that they teach something new that contradicts the books they have already rubberstamped as true? Declare two mutually incompatible things to be true (even though they are convinced one is not)?

You are equivocating the process of deciding what is true and the pronouncement of the conclusion of that process. The church had a process for deciding what was an was not authentic - at the end of that process it could not canonise Luke and Thomas because they were incompatible. Whether it got that right or wrong is a separate issue - to say deciding is about power is to ignore the need for truth to sometimes demand a decision. Deciding 'x is true and y is not' can be about power, but it isn't always about power - it can be genuinely about attempting to determine truth - so one cannot say "So and so decided this and therefore their motivation for doing so was about power and not truth".

I don't think the writers of the Gnostic Gospels would claim any objective true - subjective more likely.

They would object to either of those terms - or rather they would not recognise either. My statement was decidely shorthand. But there is a claim to a truth that overrides other truths in gnostism, just as there is in post-modernism ("All truth is relative" is a self-negating statement)

I think it is necessary. The Church is about 'power' - power over what is 'Christianity'

Your argument seems to be circular. The church, if it is true to what it is supposed to be, has to be true to a truth. Sometimes that might look like power. Sometimes that gets taken over by a struggle for power. But the wish to be true to truth is not the same thing as the wish to exercise power. Not all declarations of truth are exercises in power.

And I'm still left wondering the question I hinted at earlier - if you love gnostism so much why do you carry the icon of a church that teaches a faith incompatible with gnostism. That's meant to be a genuine question - please do not read into it a demand that I am not making.

lilpixieofterror · #44 7th August 2008, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by wayseer

It is apparent you do not understand my argument. Calling it silly indicates you do not. Focus on the debate and not on your emotions.

That's funny, since emotions tend to take a back seat in my thinking. Did you stop to think that it is because your arguments are silly and not becomes of some emotions on my part?

I'm not attempting to 'scare you away'. I'm simply pointing out there is more going on than what you suggest. You can ready all the theological debates as you wish but that will only narrow your perspective.

You are more then welcome to point them out at any time you want, but I gave you a pretty solid argument for why it is unlikely these names were chosen at random and you have yet to refute it. Why is that?

I have not indicated otherwise.

Why are you arguing that the Gnostic Gospels hold any truth?

Life was short and bitter in those days. No pensions or super funds to draw on - and hospitals non-existent. How long do you think people actually lived for?

There are records of people living as much as 80 years in those days. You really have not read much on the period, have you? Yes, there were doctors and yes, there were hospitals, Paul even makes mention of Luke being a doctor and helping him when he was sick. They were not living in the stone age, they knew how to set bones, they knew how to perform surgery, they had medical tools that look almost like our own (the only major difference being the material they were made out of), the had hospitals and doctor offices, and there is even evidence that they may of performed brain surgery and people lived after. You are more then welcome to keep thinking that ancient people were stupid, but the evidence seems to say otherwise.

It is generally accepted that John was written in the 2nd C.

No it isn't, even my liberal text book says around 90 AD and makes mention of the other theories i presented forward.

I posed a legitimate question. If the Gospels were written as early as you are claiming then it could reasonably be expected that the Apostles knew of these writing - clearly they didn't - which indicates the Gospels were written some time later.

And what evidence do you have to bring forward that they didn't? Because they didn't make specific references? Hardly surprising since citing sources like we do today wasn't common back then at all. You are also forgetting, they were a high context culture, meaning that they didn't say anymore then was required. In other words, if they didn't think there was a need to mention a writing, they didn't (but they do make references to the scriptures, which does hint that some form of a gospel was around even in the early church). So no, it doesn't indicate it at all, simply shows you don't know as much about the topic as you think.

The 'Christ myth' is just that - a myth about the Christ. There is no reliable independent evidence to suggest Jesus lived or died in the manner recorded in the Gospels. You are confusing history with myth.

Yes there is, Tacitus specifically makes mention to Jesus being put to death by Piliate and mentions roomers that he rose again (although he calls them evil). There is even drawings making fun of Christianity where they have a man hanging on a cross, hummm I wonder where they got that from? So yet again, you're wrong, there is plenty of evidence outside the Gospels that record Jesus death just as described. However; there is a very specific reason they didn't believe the resurrection and you'll find hints of this in Acts with Paul's conversation in Athens with the Philosophers. You'll also find hints to the answer in Paul's writing (1 Corth 1:23 for example).

No. To demonstrate that the Gnostic Gospels are just as mythological as the Canonical Gospels.

The Canonical Gospels are far from mythical and your failure to answer any of my specific arguments shows itself again and again. Now please answer me and show a single word I said as false, I shall be waiting.

That's exactly what the institutionalised Church teaches - which does not it any 'truer'.

You have still failed to show that.

I won't go into the history - it's there if you wish to read it. But I wonder how come the Nag Hammandi codexes were buried - perhaps it was to protect them from being burnt. People don't hid things if they were acceptable to the power-that-be.

I've read the history and have even read the books themselves. You are more then welcome to prove that there was any mass effort to burn books. Sure, books were burned, but it wasn't like you see during the Inquisition where piles of books were burned. People put things away for same keeping all the time, safety deposit boxes are one common example of this in our society, as well as lock boxes, time capsules, etc. Yet again, you are welcome to present evidence anytime you wish of your mass conspiracy theories, for now I'll just call this another assertion without evidence.

I do believe - that's my worry. The theological schools are hardly going to teach anything contrary to doctrine and dogma.

My class was at a secular school and wasn't even taught by a Christian, but he called himself an agnostic. You're more then welcome to keep pretending that there is some kind of conspiracy theory to 'hide the truth' if you want, but sorry... but even atheist like Michael Grant and Agnostics like Robin Lane Fox do not take the Christ Myth theory seriously. Hummm... I wonder why...

My point is that discussing such issue should not indeed shake your faith. Rather than becoming someone hostile towards me you perhaps might learn the lesson. If you have to cling to doctrine and dogma then that is what you are clinging to - doctrine and dogma - not faith. I really find it difficult to understand the venom directed at the suggestions that there are other realities beyond the constructed ones established by the Church.

I'm a non-denominational Christian and I do not hold to the doctrines of most churchs, so again you are more then welcome to keep making assertions about people you do not know. Many of my sources are not even Christians, but agnostics and even atheist and they will tell you the same thing I'm telling you. My liberal college with an agnostic professor didn't think the Christ Myth was worth discussing, you know why? He told me himself that it was a waste of time to even bother with because no sane person would deny that Jesus existed. I do not cling to doctrine or dogma, but to Christ and so far guess what that has shown me? You haven't got the slightest clue what you're talking about and your inability to prove a word I said as wrong keeps showing itself, again and again.

My focus is on God - not on what those who tell me how to think. God operates beyond the Church.

My focus is on the truth and what it says about the Lord. Not some conspiracy theories that don't have any facts to back them up and if the facts back up what the church says all the long, who cares? If it is true, follow it.

Gremlins · #45 7th August 2008, 05:41 PM

This does raise an interesting question. If the Gnostic Gospels weren't included because they 'didn't fit in with the other Gospels', who's to know if it was actually the Gospels that got included which were wrong? Those who decide what the canon was were, afterall, men and therefore fallable.

wayseer · #46 8th August 2008, 02:22 AM

Originally Posted by ebia

And I'm still left wondering the question I hinted at earlier - if you love gnostism so much why do you carry the icon of a church that teaches a faith incompatible with gnostism.

... which is an illustration of your fallible brand of logic.

That's meant to be a genuine question - please do not read into it a demand that I am not making.

Please try some point scoring with someone else.

wayseer · #47 8th August 2008, 02:26 AM

Originally Posted by lilpixieofterror

That's funny, since emotions tend to take a back seat in my thinking. Did you stop to think that it is because your arguments are silly and not becomes of some emotions on my part?

And of course your arguments are not silly. I hope you feel better.

lilpixieofterror · #48 8th August 2008, 07:37 AM

Originally Posted by wayseer

And of course your arguments are not silly. I hope you feel better.

You are more then welcome to prove they are at any time you want. So going to do that yet?

ebia · #49 8th August 2008, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by wayseer

... which is an illustration of your fallible brand of logic.

Please try some point scoring with someone else.

It's not meant to be an argument nor point scoring - simply genunie interest. Don't answer it if you don't want to, but don't read into that which was never intended.