Gnostics

[Confused]

I have read many threads now that posts questions such as "If Jesus was an ordinary man, would you still follow Him?" and "Was Jesus just a great teacher?" Most responses are that He wasn't just a man or just a great teacher, etc....... But most agree that some of what he taught were some good moral values. I question the validity of this thought.

Gnosticism comes from the Greek word gnosis which means knowledge. Gnostics are "those in the know". What they historically claimed to know was the secrets that could bring salvation. For the gnostic, a person isn't saved by having faith in Christ or doing good deeds, rather a person is saved by knowing the truth-the truth about the world we live in, the true God, but most importantly about who we ourselves are.

According to them, the Ultimate Divine Being is completely removed from this world, He is absolute spirit with no material aspects or qualities. He has many offsprings known as "aeons who are spiritual beings. During a catrasophe one of these aeons somehow fell from the divine realm leading to lesser divine beings being created. These lesser divine beings created our material world.

I could go forever about what they think and why, but their overriding point is blatant: The god who made this world, the one of the OT, is a secondary and inferior deity. We won't gain freedom to eternity by worshipping him, but instead, we will be trapped here. We can only gain true eternity through knowledge and wisdom bestowed upon us by divine beings. In Christian gnostic religions, the one who bestows this knowledge was Christ. But Christ wasn't the son of God as the church would have you believe, which is why there are so many holes in the account of His life. Instead, he was an aeon temporarily housed in Jesus to impart the knowledge one needed if they could hear. Of his 12 disciples, only Judas could hear so after Jesus imparted his knowledge, and was on the cross, the aeon left (hence the final words "My God, my God, why have you abandoned me?").

Considering that gnostics actually use less elaborate miracles and supernatural events in their beliefs and rather than stifle man but forcing him to adhere to strict commandments, why is it that Christians find it so much easier to believe in Christianity and disbelieve gnosticism.

Why, if Christ was such a good teacher, did He not impart wisdom upon His flock and why did He not encourage them to seek truth and greater knowledge? Instead, he taught that one shouldn't seek outside Him. One shouldn't question why He does what He does, but just accept it and go on? This doesn't seem to be such a good teacher. Would not a great teacher encourage His students to search all avenues to find the truth.

Why do we accept Christ as the absolute truth when we know no truths associated with him as opposed to gnostics who at least attempt to seek out the truth?

[Jester]

Missed you Jester, where you been?

China (internet is not really available to starving travelers there)
Glad I was missed, though. I can definitely say the same for you.

Ok, what is your take on the Gospel of Judas?

The only thing I’ve read on it thus far it the National Geographic report, as well as reading the translation once. If memory serves (and it is very possible that it does not) it dates to about the middle of the third century, is that right?
My thoughts on its historical context is that it really seems to be a later spin based on the other existing Catholic and Gnostic gospels. Obviously, I’m going say that it is not really of much use in terms of the events that it describes. Other than my belief in the claims of the canonized texts, I’d refer to the later date, as well as the lack of any verifying sources (It seems to be the one detractor. As far as I know, the Catholic and other Gnostic texts paint Judas as a betrayer).
Beyond that, I did find it fascinating on a few points.
First, it clearly seemed to be Grecian philosophy told with a variation on the Christian narrative. In that sense, it could be described as an attempt to revive the traditional philosophy by appealing to the growing acceptance of the Christian historical claims. That can be said for any Gnostic gospels (or, at least the later ones); the interesting thing about the Gospel of Judas is that it is such a slap to the face of traditional Christianity. It’s almost as if it is an early form of political protest against this new trendy religion of the Jews. It seems to be trying to paint Grecian philosophy as directly opposed to Christianity: ie claiming that Judas was the greatest disciple in that he helps to free Christ from his physical form and reach the greater world of pure spirit, whereas Christianity not only paints Judas as having done evil (though not really an evil man), but considers the physical world as a good thing that should be redeemed along with the spiritual (all apologies for the length of that sentence).
Putting myself in the shoes of the writer, I’d say that it is something I would have done if I were a follower of Grecian ideas and felt burned by the Christians. Probably, it is also a reaction to the fact that some Grecian concepts were borrowed on by Paul. This would be a “he twisted our teachings, we’ll twist his” mentality.
I can’t really imagine Judas being inspired in a person not already angry at the church, in that the basic ideas seem to have already existed in the other Gnostic texts and there would be little reason to write it other than to attack the Christian truth claims. That said, there is only one other motivation (which has occurred to me) that I would consider to be reasonable. That is that the Gnostics were absorbed in the concept of secret knowledge. The idea, then, of the disciple who hatched a secret plot under the noses of the other eleven might have been very enticing for some Gnostics. Again, Judas seemed to be a good example of how they saw things differently from the Christians, and a little add in and rewrite would highlight the point beautifully.
For the record, I find it hard to believe that people would present this, or any other holy book as a hoaxes if they were actually trying to practice/promote its teachings. I’d say that such a book was (unlikely) written purely to attack Christians or (far more likely), the motivations I’ve been discussing were semi-conscious at best, and the writer had convinced himself that he was portraying an accurate truth. How else would one sleep at night?
Wow, I didn’t realize I was going to babble so much; I hope that was along the lines you were looking for.

[Confused]

Jester,

Let me give you an update on the Gospel of Judas. The earliest copy was dated around 270's. However, Erenaeus mentions in his volumes of Heretical Writings, the Gospel of Judas as one, which predates our oldest copy by 100 years. So we can know that a copy existed at least as early as 170 AD. Given the importance Irenaeus gave to destroying this book and the fact that it survived, I think there has to be a bit more importance to it than you are giving it credit for. But in the Gospel of Judas, the gnostic doctrine is heavily cited. It refers to Christ sharing only the truth of knowledge with Judas and asking Judas to aid him in shedding the skin of this world so that he might move back to his divinity. But he claims that Jesus said the creator of this world was actually a lesser God which is why He laughs when He sees His disciples praying thanks to God before eating in the NT and the fact that He tells His disciples flat out that they will not know who He is "in this generation".
The fact that the copy we have is obvioulsy not the oldest copy, we can't really say when the original first copy was written. We can include in this the Gospel of Thomas, the Secret Gospel of Mark, and several others.

[Jester]

Jester,

Let me give you an update on the Gospel of Judas. The earliest copy was dated around 270's. However, Erenaeus mentions in his volumes of Heretical Writings, the Gospel of Judas as one, which predates our oldest copy by 100 years. So we can know that a copy existed at least as early as 170 AD. Given the importance Irenaeus gave to destroying this book and the fact that it survived, I think there has to be a bit more importance to it than you are giving it credit for. But in the Gospel of Judas, the gnostic doctrine is heavily cited. It refers to Christ sharing only the truth of knowledge with Judas and asking Judas to aid him in shedding the skin of this world so that he might move back to his divinity. But he claims that Jesus said the creator of this world was actually a lesser God which is why He laughs when He sees His disciples praying thanks to God before eating in the NT and the fact that He tells His disciples flat out that they will not know who He is "in this generation".
The fact that the copy we have is obvioulsy not the oldest copy, we can't really say when the original first copy was written. We can include in this the Gospel of Thomas, the Secret Gospel of Mark, and several others.

Thanks, that’s almost entirely new information to me. I hadn't realized that it was that old at all. In that case, it almost certainly would have influenced other Gnostic writings and Catholic theology (in the form of reactivity if nothing else: this could account for part of the painting of Judas as such a villain in spite of the fact that he’s more morally ambiguous in the Catholic scripture.
The issues of it as a literary work are fun do discuss, but I assume we’re really talking more about its historical accuracy. I don’t think I’d be really harbor much suspicion that it has real validity as a historical document unless I believed that it was a peer of the earliest writings about Christ (mid to late first century) or it had more sources that agreed with it. Is that the case, by the way? I haven’t read most of the Gnostic gospels, but was under the impression that the Gospel of Judas was the only one that portrayed Judas as heroic for liberating Christ from the mortal world. Is that correct? Also, is there any consensus on where these ideas were centered? Is it Greece? I seem to remember that the copy of Judas’ Gospel is in Coptic (an Egyptian language, right?). My opinions of its historical value might be altered by learning of the area from which it sprung.
What do you think of the argument that the existence of the Gnostic texts lend at least one point to apologists? Namely, the fact that they survived seems to be a big difficulty for those trying to claim that the church eliminated all records of opposed versions of the events.

[Confused]

Jester,

Let me give you an update on the Gospel of Judas. The earliest copy was dated around 270's. However, Erenaeus mentions in his volumes of Heretical Writings, the Gospel of Judas as one, which predates our oldest copy by 100 years. So we can know that a copy existed at least as early as 170 AD. Given the importance Irenaeus gave to destroying this book and the fact that it survived, I think there has to be a bit more importance to it than you are giving it credit for. But in the Gospel of Judas, the gnostic doctrine is heavily cited. It refers to Christ sharing only the truth of knowledge with Judas and asking Judas to aid him in shedding the skin of this world so that he might move back to his divinity. But he claims that Jesus said the creator of this world was actually a lesser God which is why He laughs when He sees His disciples praying thanks to God before eating in the NT and the fact that He tells His disciples flat out that they will not know who He is "in this generation".
The fact that the copy we have is obvioulsy not the oldest copy, we can't really say when the original first copy was written. We can include in this the Gospel of Thomas, the Secret Gospel of Mark, and several others.

Thanks, that’s almost entirely new information to me. I hadn't realized that it was that old at all. In that case, it almost certainly would have influenced other Gnostic writings and Catholic theology (in the form of reactivity if nothing else: this could account for part of the painting of Judas as such a villain in spite of the fact that he’s more morally ambiguous in the Catholic scripture.
The issues of it as a literary work are fun do discuss, but I assume we’re really talking more about its historical accuracy. I don’t think I’d be really harbor much suspicion that it has real validity as a historical document unless I believed that it was a peer of the earliest writings about Christ (mid to late first century) or it had more sources that agreed with it. Is that the case, by the way? I haven’t read most of the Gnostic gospels, but was under the impression that the Gospel of Judas was the only one that portrayed Judas as heroic for liberating Christ from the mortal world. Is that correct? Also, is there any consensus on where these ideas were centered? Is it Greece? I seem to remember that the copy of Judas’ Gospel is in Coptic (an Egyptian language, right?). My opinions of its historical value might be altered by learning of the area from which it sprung.
What do you think of the argument that the existence of the Gnostic texts lend at least one point to apologists? Namely, the fact that they survived seems to be a big difficulty for those trying to claim that the church eliminated all records of opposed versions of the events.

Just as there is no proof that Judas wrote The Gospel of Judas, there lacks proof of Luke writing the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts. Goat made a good reference to this in a page or so ago in response to Easyrider, who it appears has no desire to participate in this thread any longer. To answer you questions, read The Gospel of Judas. I tells you its history and content in an academic setting only. But it is Coptic, yes. That however only leads some credence to previous copies existing considering the Egyptians were long overruled by the time of Christ. No,its ideas weren't centered around Greece but did in fact portray Judas in a positive image, him being the one to help Christ return to His divinity.

Now, a copy survived yes. As did other gnostic copies. Despite the early churches attempts to destroy all of them, it stands to reason some would survive and those that did, that would warrant copying to preserve the writings against time, would be considered important enough to risk ones life. The Gospel of Judas is only one of the gnostic writings that all seem to follow a central doctrine that doesn't deny the quest of Jesus to return to His divine realm. The spin is quite different in His reasons as well.

Please understand, the point of this thread isn't so much to compare gnostics with Christians, it my attempt to understand why we place so much emphasis on only those books in the bible. Easyrider started to give reasons, then quit when I challenged his sources. I need to reconcile why these texts are so wrong and those in the bible are so right before I can move on. To understand history and make a dicision about the present and future based on history, you must have the knowledge and understanding to do so.

[Easyrider]

Just as there is no proof that Judas wrote The Gospel of Judas, there lacks proof of Luke writing the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts. Goat made a good reference to this in a page or so ago in response to Easyrider, who it appears has no desire to participate in this thread any longer. Easyrider started to give reasons, then quit when I challenged his sources.

Hardly.

There is substantial evidence to indicate that the author of Luke also wrote the book of Acts. The most direct evidence comes from the prefaces of each book. Both prefaces are addressed to Theophilus, the author's patron, and the preface of Acts explicitly references "my former book" about the life of Jesus. Furthermore, there are linguistic and theological similarities between the two works, suggesting that they have a common author. With the agreement of nearly all scholars, Udo Schnelle writes, "the extensive linguistic and theological agreements and cross-references between the Gospel of Luke and the Acts indicate that both works derive from the same author" (The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings, p. 259). See also Acts of the Apostles - Authorship.

Nowhere in Luke or Acts does it explicitly say that the author is Luke, the companion of Paul; this ascription is late second century, first by Marcion (c. 160), the Muratorian Canon (c. 170), and Irenaeus (c. 180) According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the evidence in favor of Lucan authorship is based on two things: first, the use of "we" in Acts chapters 16, 20, 21 and 27 suggests the writer traveled with Paul; second, the "medical language" employed by the writer is, in the opinion of the Roman Catholic writers of the encyclopedia, "identical with those employed by such medical writers as Hippocrates, Arctæus, Galen, and Dioscorides"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_ ... d_audience

(1) The Author of Acts was a companion of Saint Paul, namely, Saint Luke

There is nothing more certain in Biblical criticism than this proposition. The writer of the "we" sections claims to be a companion of St. Paul. The "we" begins at Acts, xvi, 10, and continues to xvi, 17 (the action is at Philippi). It reappears at xx, 5 (Philippi), and continues to xxi, 18 (Jerusalem). It reappears again at the departure for Rome, xxvii, 1 (Gr. text), and continues to the end of the book.

Plummer argues that these sections are by the same author as the rest of the Acts:
 from the natural way in which they fit in;
 from references to them in other parts; and
 from the identity of style.

The change of person seems natural and true to the narrative, but there is no change of language. The characteristic expressions of the writer run through the whole book, and are as frequent in the "we" as in the other sections. There is no change of style perceptible. Harnack (Luke the Physician, 40) makes an exhaustive examination of every word and phrase in the first of the "we" sections (xvi, 10-17), and shows how frequent they are in the rest of the Acts and the Gospel, when compared with the other Gospels. His manner of dealing with the first word (hos) will indicate his method: "This temporal hos is never found in St. Matthew and St. Mark, but it occurs forty-eight times in St. Luke (Gospels and Acts), and that in all parts of the work." When he comes to the end of his study of this section he is able to write: "After this demonstration those who declare that this passage was derived from a source, and so was not composed by the author of the whole work, take up a most difficult position. What may we suppose the author to have left unaltered in the source? Only the 'we'. For, in fact, nothing else remains. In regard to vocabulary, syntax, and style, he must have transformed everything else into his own language. As such a procedure is absolutely unimaginable, we are simply left to infer that the author is here himself speaking." He even thinks it improbable, on account of the uniformity of style, that the author was copying from a diary of his own, made at an earlier period. After this, Harnack proceeds to deal with the remaining "we" sections, with like results. But it is not alone in vocabulary, syntax and style, that this uniformity is manifest. In "The Acts of the Apostles", Harnack devotes many pages to a detailed consideration of the manner in which chronological data, and terms dealing with lands, nations, cities, and houses, are employed throughout the Acts, as well as the mode of dealing with persons and miracles, and he everywhere shows that the unity of authorship cannot be denied except by those who ignore the facts. This same conclusion is corroborated by the recurrence of medical language in all parts of the Acts and the Gospel.

That the companion of St. Paul who wrote the Acts was St. Luke is the unanimous voice of antiquity. His choice of medical language proves that the author was a physician. Westein, in his preface to the Gospel ("Novum Test. Græcum", Amsterdam, 1741, 643), states that there are clear indications of his medical profession throughout St. Luke's writings; and in the course of his commentary he points out several technical expressions common to the Evangelist and the medical writings of Galen. These were brought together by the Bollandists ("Acta SS.", 18 Oct.). In the "Gentleman's Magazine" for June, 1841, a paper appeared on the medical language of St. Luke. To the instances given in that article, Plummer and Harnack add several others; but the great book on the subject is Hobart "The Medical Language of St. Luke" (Dublin, 1882). Hobart works right through the Gospel and Acts and points out numerous words and phrases identical with those employed by such medical writers as Hippocrates, Arctæus, Galen, and Dioscorides. A few are found in Aristotle, but he was a doctor's son. The words and phrases cited are either peculiar to the Third Gospel and Acts, or are more frequent than in other New Testament writings. The argument is cumulative, and does not give way with its weakest strands. When doubtful cases and expressions common to the Septuagint, are set aside, a large number remain that seem quite unassailable. Harnack (Luke the Physician! 13) says: "It is as good as certain from the subject-matter, and more especially from the style, of this great work that the author was a physician by profession. Of course, in making such a statement one still exposes oneself to the scorn of the critics, and yet the arguments which are alleged in its support are simply convincing. . . . Those, however, who have studied it [Hobart's book] carefully, will, I think, find it impossible to escape the conclusion that the question here is not one of merely accidental linguistic coloring, but that this great historical work was composed by a writer who was either a physician or was quite intimately acquainted with medical language and science. And, indeed, this conclusion holds good not only for the 'we' sections, but for the whole book." Harnack gives the subject special treatment in an appendix of twenty-two pages. Hawkins and Zahn come to the same conclusion. The latter observes (Einl., II, 427): "Hobart has proved for everyone who can appreciate proof that the author of the Lucan work was a man practised in the scientific language of Greek medicine--in short, a Greek physician" (quoted by Harnack, op. cit.).

External Evidence

The proof in favour of the unity of authorship, derived from the internal character of the two books, is strengthened when taken in connection with the external evidence. Every ancient testimony for the authenticity of Acts tells equally in favour of the Gospel; and every passage for the Lucan authorship of the Gospel gives a like support to the authenticity of Acts. Besides, in many places of the early Fathers both books are ascribed to St. Luke. The external evidence can be touched upon here only in the briefest manner. For external evidence in favour of Acts, see ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.

The many passages in St. Jerome, Eusebius, and Origen, ascribing the books to St. Luke, are important not only as testifying to the belief of their own, but also of earlier times. St. Jerome and Origen were great travellers, and all three were omniverous readers. They had access to practically the whole Christian literature of preceding centuries; but they nowhere hint that the authorship of the Gospel (and Acts) was ever called in question. This, taken by itself, would be a stronger argument than can be adduced for the majority of classical works. But we have much earlier testimony. Clement of Alexandria was probably born at Athens about A.D. 150. He travelled much and had for instructors in the Faith an Ionian, an Italian, a Syrian, an Egyptian, an Assyrian, and a Hebrew in Palestine. "And these men, preserving the true tradition of the blessed teaching directly from Peter and James, John and Paul, the holy Apostles, son receiving it from father, came by God's providence even unto us, to deposit among us those seeds [of truth] which were derived from their ancestors and the Apostles". (Strom., I, i, 11: cf. Euseb., "Hist. Eccl.", V, xi). He holds that St. Luke's Gospel was written before that of St. Mark, and he uses the four Gospels just as any modern Catholic writer. Tertullian was born at Carthage, lived some time in Rome, and then returned to Carthage. His quotations from the Gospels, when brought together by Rönsch, cover two hundred pages. He attacks Marcion for mutilating St. Luke's Gospel. and writes: " I say then that among them, and not only among the Apostolic Churches, but among all the Churches which are united with them in Christian fellowship, the Gospel of Luke, which we earnestly defend, has been maintained from its first publication" (Adv. Marc., IV, v).


The testimony of St. Irenæus is of special importance. He was born in Asia Minor, where he heard St. Polycarp give his reminiscences of St. John the Apostle, and in his numerous writings he frequently mentions other disciples of the Apostles. He was priest in Lyons during the persecution in 177, and was the bearer of the letter of the confessors to Rome. His bishop, Pothinus, whom be succeeded, was ninety years of age when he gained the crown of martyrdom in 177, and must have been born while some of the Apostles and very many of their hearers were still living. St. Irenæus, who was born about A.D. 130 (some say much earlier), is, therefore, a witness for the early tradition of Asia Minor, Rome, and Gaul. He quotes the Gospels just as any modern bishop would do, he calls them Scripture, believes even in their verbal inspiration; shows how congruous it is that there are four and only four Gospels; and says that Luke, who begins with the priesthood and sacrifice of Zachary, is the calf. When we compare his quotations with those of Clement of Alexandria, variant readings of text present themselves. There was already established an Alexandrian type of text different from that used in the West. The Gospels had been copied and recopied so often, that, through errors of copying, etc., distinct families of text had time to establish themselves. The Gospels were so widespread that they became known to pagans. Celsus in his attack on the Christian religion was acquainted with the genealogy in St. Luke's Gospel, and his quotations show the same phenomena of variant readings.

The next witness, St. Justin Martyr, shows the position of honour the Gospels held in the Church, in the early portion of the century. Justin was born in Palestine about A.D. 105, and converted in 132-135. In his "Apology" he speaks of the memoirs of the Lord which are called Gospels, and which were written by Apostles (Matthew, John) and disciples of the Apostles (Mark, Luke). In connection with the disciples of the Apostles he cites the verses of St. Luke on the Sweat of Blood, and he has numerous quotations from all four. Westcott shows that there is no trace in Justin of the use of any written document on the life of Christ except our Gospels. "He [Justin] tells us that Christ was descended from Abraham through Jacob, Judah, Phares, Jesse, David--that the Angel Gabriel was sent to announce His birth to the Virgin Mary--that it was in fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah . . . that His parents went thither [to Bethlehem] in consequence of an enrolment under Cyrinius--that as they could not find a lodging in the village they lodged in a cave close by it, where Christ was born, and laid by Mary in a manger", etc. (Westcott, "Canon", 104). There is a constant intermixture in Justin's quotations of the narratives of St. Matthew and St. Luke. As usual in apologetical works, such as the apologies of Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, and Eusebius, he does not name his sources because he was addressing outsiders. He states, however, that the memoirs which were called Gospels were read in the churches on Sunday along with the writings of the Prophets, in other words, they were placed on an equal rank with the Old Testament. In the "Dialogue", cv, we have a passage peculiar to St. Luke. "Jesus as He gave up His Spirit upon the Cross said, Father, into thy hands I commend my Spirit' [Luke, xxiii. 46], even as I learned from the Memoirs of this fact also." These Gospels which were read every Sunday must be the same as our four, which soon after, in the time of Irenæus, were in such long established honour, and regarded by him as inspired by the Holy Ghost. We never hear, says Salmon, of any revolution dethroning one set of Gospels and replacing them by another; so we may be sure that the Gospels honoured by the Church in Justin's day were the same as those to which the same respect was paid in the days of Irenæus, not many years after. This conclusion is strengthened not only by the nature of Justin's quotations, but by the evidence afforded by his pupil Tatian, the Assyrian, who lived a long time with him in Rome, and afterwards compiled his harmony of the Gospels, his famous "Diatessaron", in Syriac, from our four Gospels. He had travelled a great deal, and the fact that he uses only those shows that they alone were recognized by St. Justin and the Catholic Church between 130-150. This takes us back to the time when many of the hearers of the Apostles and Evangelists were still alive; for it is held by many scholars that St. Luke lived till towards the end of the first century.

Irenæus, Clement, Tatian, Justin, etc., were in as good a position for forming a judgment on the authenticity of the Gospels as we are of knowing who were the authors of Scott's novels, Macaulay's essays, Dickens's early novels, Longfellow's poems, no. xc of "Tracts for the Times" etc. But the argument does not end here. Many of the heretics who flourished from the beginning of the second century till A.D. 150 admitted St. Luke's Gospel as authoritative. This proves that it had acquired an unassailable position long before these heretics broke away from the Church. The Apocryphal Gospel of Peter, about A.D. 150, makes use of our Gospels. About the same time the Gospels, together with their titles, were translated into Latin; and here, again, we meet the phenomena of variant readings, to be found in Clement, Irenæus, Old Syriac, Justin, and Celsus, pointing to a long period of previous copying. Finally, we may ask, if the author of the two books were not St. Luke, who was he?

Harnack (Luke the Physician, 2) holds that as the Gospel begins with a prologue addressed to an individual (Theophilus) it must, of necessity, have contained in its title the name of its author. How can we explain, if St. Luke were not the author, that the name of the real, and truly great, writer came to be completely buried in oblivion, to make room for the name of such a comparatively obscure disciple as St. Luke? Apart from his connection, as supposed author, with the Third Gospel and Acts, was no more prominent than Aristarchus and Epaphras; and he is mentioned only in three places in the whole of the New Testament. If a false name were substituted for the true author, some more prominent individual would have been selected.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09420a.htm

[Jester]

Just as there is no proof that Judas wrote The Gospel of Judas, there lacks proof of Luke writing the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts.

That’s absolutely fair. Please accept my apologies; I didn’t mean to imply otherwise.

Goat made a good reference to this in a page or so ago in response to Easyrider, who it appears has no desire to participate in this thread any longer. To answer you questions, read The Gospel of Judas. I tells you its history and content in an academic setting only. But it is Coptic, yes. That however only leads some credence to previous copies existing considering the Egyptians were long overruled by the time of Christ. No,its ideas weren't centered around Greece but did in fact portray Judas in a positive image, him being the one to help Christ return to His divinity.

Thanks, that really clears a lot up, and I will read it again. The missing sections made it very hard for me to follow the first time.

Now, a copy survived yes. As did other gnostic copies. Despite the early churches attempts to destroy all of them, it stands to reason some would survive and those that did, that would warrant copying to preserve the writings against time, would be considered important enough to risk ones life. The Gospel of Judas is only one of the gnostic writings that all seem to follow a central doctrine that doesn't deny the quest of Jesus to return to His divine realm. The spin is quite different in His reasons as well.

Again, thanks. I thought I remembered it basically that way.

Please understand, the point of this thread isn't so much to compare gnostics with Christians, it my attempt to understand why we place so much emphasis on only those books in the bible. Easyrider started to give reasons, then quit when I challenged his sources. I need to reconcile why these texts are so wrong and those in the bible are so right before I can move on. To understand history and make a dicision about the present and future based on history, you must have the knowledge and understanding to do so.

I definitely agree with your philosophy here. Given that, let me attempt giving an answer to your actual question (that is, as good an answer as I am able).
I believe that every Christian has to deal with the fact that the Gnostic gospels exist. Mostly, they are simply ignored, and this is foolish in my view. Were I speaking to a Christian group, I’d try to find a tactful way of saying that a refusal to look at the evidence shows a lack of faith.
So, how do we deal with Gnosticism? My answer, honestly, is not likely to leave you very satisfied (sorry about that). It seems so far that the Gnostic doctrines are generally less reliable than the Catholic gospels (even those outside the canon) for two reasons:
First, they seem to be just a bit behind the Catholic writings on the timeline (a few decades, it seems). I am forced to admit that it is not conclusive, but, given the choice between the two, it seems that it is the Catholics that are writing the original story and the Gnostics who are writing in response. A few decades would seem to be a significant difference with such a current event (at that time) as the life of Christ.
Second, my impression is (though I will quickly admit that I am no expert) that the Gnostic gospels have less consistency of theme teaching with one another. My basic reaction is, if they do not agree even with one another, I find it hard to trust them. I realize that there are certain consistencies, but with much more variation from one piece to the next. With the canonized scripture, there is relatively very little that leaves one feeling like a decision must be made between this writer or that. With the Gnostic gospels, I’m left with the impression that one, more or less, has to accept one or two of them to the exclusion of the others. As such, they can never be used as a support to one another in the way that the Catholic gospels are.
I hope that spoke more to your actual question than my previous postings.

[Confused]

Easyrider:

Irenæus, Clement, Tatian, Justin, etc., were in as good a position for forming a judgment on the authenticity of the Gospels as we are of knowing who were the authors of Scott's novels, Macaulay's essays, Dickens's early novels, Longfellow's poems, no. xc of "Tracts for the Times" etc. But the argument does not end here. Many of the heretics who flourished from the beginning of the second century till A.D. 150 admitted St. Luke's Gospel as authoritative. This proves that it had acquired an unassailable position long before these heretics broke away from the Church. The Apocryphal Gospel of Peter, about A.D. 150, makes use of our Gospels. About the same time the Gospels, together with their titles, were translated into Latin; and here, again, we meet the phenomena of variant readings, to be found in Clement, Irenæus, Old Syriac, Justin, and Celsus, pointing to a long period of previous copying.

When considering the validity of a written document, one must first and foremost consider the source. Of all the sources you have listed here, I can't find one not associated with the corrupted, power hungry church of the time.

[Confused]

Jester:

I definitely agree with your philosophy here. Given that, let me attempt giving an answer to your actual question (that is, as good an answer as I am able).
I believe that every Christian has to deal with the fact that the Gnostic gospels exist. Mostly, they are simply ignored, and this is foolish in my view. Were I speaking to a Christian group, I’d try to find a tactful way of saying that a refusal to look at the evidence shows a lack of faith.
So, how do we deal with Gnosticism? My answer, honestly, is not likely to leave you very satisfied (sorry about that). It seems so far that the Gnostic doctrines are generally less reliable than the Catholic gospels (even those outside the canon) for two reasons:
First, they seem to be just a bit behind the Catholic writings on the timeline (a few decades, it seems). I am forced to admit that it is not conclusive, but, given the choice between the two, it seems that it is the Catholics that are writing the original story and the Gnostics who are writing in response. A few decades would seem to be a significant difference with such a current event (at that time) as the life of Christ.
Second, my impression is (though I will quickly admit that I am no expert) that the Gnostic gospels have less consistency of theme teaching with one another. My basic reaction is, if they do not agree even with one another, I find it hard to trust them. I realize that there are certain consistencies, but with much more variation from one piece to the next. With the canonized scripture, there is relatively very little that leaves one feeling like a decision must be made between this writer or that. With the Gnostic gospels, I’m left with the impression that one, more or less, has to accept one or two of them to the exclusion of the others. As such, they can never be used as a support to one another in the way that the Catholic gospels are.
I hope that spoke more to your actual question than my previous postings.

Fair enough. But though you present a good rebuttal, I am still left with the question of why were some of these considered important enough to preserve with the constant threat of the "heresy hunters" and the catholic church. Not only were they acknowledged in Irenaeus's book as existing during his time line to validate their existence but also the importance in obtaining them and destroying them, but people risked their lives and that of their families to prevent the destruction of them. It seems to me that if they were that insignificant, they wouldn't even be wothy of mentioning let alone searching for to destroy them.

But I accept the fact that it may be just as you say. I just don't accept it willingly.

[zoro]

I apologize for interrupting, but I'd like to ask for opinions from the experts present. The background for my question is this.

The Gospel of Thomas states:

100. “They showed Jesus a gold coin and said to him, ‘The Roman emperor’s people demand taxes from us.’

"He [Jesus] said to them, ‘Give the emperor what belongs to the emperor, give God what belongs to God, and give me what is mine’.”

In the N.T. (at Matthew 22, 21, Mark 12, 17, and Luke 20, 25), Jesus reportedly states (responding to a similar question about paying taxes):

“Render therefore unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God, the things that are God’s.”

My question is: Do you think that there's any significance to the shift in the word from "emperor" to "Caesar"? That is, could that shift be used to help date the original manuscripts?

For your convenience, I add the following from my dictionary and from Wikipedia:

Caesar, Gaius Julius(100–44 bc), Roman general and statesman. He established the First Triumvirate with Pompey and Crassus in 60 and became consul in 59… After civil war with Pompey, which ended in Pompey's defeat at Pharsalus in 48, Caesar became dictator of the Roman Empire…

Augustus (63 bc – ad 14), the first Roman emperor; born Gaius Octavianus; also called Octavian. He was adopted in the will of his great-uncle Julius Caesar and gained supreme power by his defeat of Antony in 31 bc. In 27 bc he was given the title Augustus ("venerable”) and became in effect emperor.

Wikipedia:

As adopted heir of Caesar, Augustus preferred to be called by this name. This usage was different from later usages of the word. "Caesar" was a component of his family name. Julio-Claudian rule lasted for almost a century (from Julius Caesar in the mid 1st century BC to the emperor Nero in the mid 1st century AD). By the time of the Flavian Dynasty, and the reign of Vespasian [9 - 79], and that of his two sons, Titus [39 - 81] and Domitian [51 -96], the term "Caesar" evolved, almost de facto, from a family name into a formal title.

Perhaps my question would be better phrased in a manner such as the following: On a scale of 0 to 10 (with 0 being "no help" and 10 being "very useful evidence"), what value would you give to the claim that Thomas' use of "emperor" suggests that the Gospel of Thomas predates the Synoptic gospels?

[Confused]

I apologize for interrupting, but I'd like to ask for opinions from the experts present. The background for my question is this.

The Gospel of Thomas states:

100. “They showed Jesus a gold coin and said to him, ‘The Roman emperor’s people demand taxes from us.’

"He [Jesus] said to them, ‘Give the emperor what belongs to the emperor, give God what belongs to God, and give me what is mine’.”

In the N.T. (at Matthew 22, 21, Mark 12, 17, and Luke 20, 25), Jesus reportedly states (responding to a similar question about paying taxes):

“Render therefore unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God, the things that are God’s.”

My question is: Do you think that there's any significance to the shift in the word from "emperor" to "Caesar"? That is, could that shift be used to help date the original manuscripts?

For your convenience, I add the following from my dictionary and from Wikipedia:

Caesar, Gaius Julius(100–44 bc), Roman general and statesman. He established the First Triumvirate with Pompey and Crassus in 60 and became consul in 59… After civil war with Pompey, which ended in Pompey's defeat at Pharsalus in 48, Caesar became dictator of the Roman Empire…

Augustus (63 bc – ad 14), the first Roman emperor; born Gaius Octavianus; also called Octavian. He was adopted in the will of his great-uncle Julius Caesar and gained supreme power by his defeat of Antony in 31 bc. In 27 bc he was given the title Augustus ("venerable”) and became in effect emperor.

Wikipedia:

As adopted heir of Caesar, Augustus preferred to be called by this name. This usage was different from later usages of the word. "Caesar" was a component of his family name. Julio-Claudian rule lasted for almost a century (from Julius Caesar in the mid 1st century BC to the emperor Nero in the mid 1st century AD). By the time of the Flavian Dynasty, and the reign of Vespasian [9 - 79], and that of his two sons, Titus [39 - 81] and Domitian [51 -96], the term "Caesar" evolved, almost de facto, from a family name into a formal title.

Perhaps my question would be better phrased in a manner such as the following: On a scale of 0 to 10 (with 0 being "no help" and 10 being "very useful evidence"), what value would you give to the claim that Thomas' use of "emperor" suggests that the Gospel of Thomas predates the Synoptic gospels?

Interesting detail I never would have noted. While I know that many theists are going to argue mistranslations etc.... It would appear emperor would have been the correct usage for the title during the time of Christ as Caesar actually predates it. I have to review the passage to see if the book I have is translated the same. But I never would have picked up on that. If so, I would say it would be about an 8 of 10 only to leave room for the possiblity of a mistranslation.