Gnostic Scriptures.

[TSD]

What are some christians opinions on the gnostic scriptures? (not trying to make this a is God real thread).



I just want to know if some christians are willing to accept the gnostic scriptures or if you think they are hog wash.



As far as dating the earliest fragment of the new testament dates to around 70 CE.



The earliest gnostic Gospel fragment dates to the 3rd century CE.



So the earliest gnostic scripture is younger than any of the gospels in the new testament.



Link to gnostic texts: http://www.gnosis.org/library/gs.htm



The early chruch dismissed the gnostic gospel's because of some of what was viewed as heretical writing. i.e. The idea there was no need for a church, priests, authorities etc. and all can have a direct phone line to God without the need for any sort of organized religion. Furthermore the idea that everyone is like Jesus a child of God, and there was nothing particularly special about him. Aside from the ressurection, the common theme among the gnostic scriptures is there are no mention of miracles, simply the teachings of jesus, scholars commonly agree because of this, the ressurection story may have been added into the Gospel of Peter at a later date (as in the gospel, it points out that Roman soldiers, were also witness to the ressurection, but have no idependent roman texts attesting to this.) Furthermore, it was common practice, for scholors to write in the name of of predacessors, to lend weight to the documents, in early christian writings, as at the time, dating the stuff was impossible. i.e. the Roman Historian Josephus, wrote about christians alot and many of his writings directly referencing Jesus have been found to be later forgeries.



There was a documentary on the history channel about this yesterday, and got me thinking of how christians on this board view the gnostic scriptures. (I have no intention of countering anybodies beliefs, i simply want to see what you think).

 

[canucklehead]

never heard of them.

 

[Ymono37]

I'm not well-versed in the Gnostic texts, but from what I understand... there just another point-of-view from a group of guys/girls that didn't have a good enough PR firm to overcome Catholic dogma.



I hold them with the same amount of skeptical reserve I hold any other religious document.



Not trying to bring down it's historical influence or the comfort it bring some people. Just that as (I guess what you'd call) a "Christian" I see it being a tome written by men and therefore fallible... subject to the same "errors" humans are capable of.

 

[TSD]

[quote name="canucklehead"]never heard of them.[/quote]



I believe the Gospel of peter was the first one found, in the grave of an 8th century monk.



Basically they are additional gospels written in the the name of other apostles, most notably Mary Magdeline that are not included in the Bible.

 

[mikita]

[quote name="TSD"]I just want to know if some christians are willing to except the gnostic scriptures or if you think they are hog wash.

[/quote]



Since the gnostics did not have a messianic understanding of Jesus, I cannot accept these texts as scripture. However, they are quite interesting, especially the Gospel of Thomas. There are many sayings attributed to Jesus that are nowhere to be found in the Bible. Some of them even reference biblical teachings. Might at least some of them have been passed down from early Christians? It's worth considering. I would encourage anyone to read these texts and draw your own conclusions.

 

[puckjim]

The Divinci Code is what really shed light on the Gnostic Gospels, as elements from the books partly inspired Dan Brown to write his fictional text. He took a certain amount of creative license with what they actually contained, but it's all pretty interesting stuff.

 

[supraman]

As a non religious person I do feel this way about any religions texts. You have to accept all of them. Kinda like our Constitution it is an all or nothing situation. What makes one text right compared to the other, both are the words on the religion in question

 

[TSD]

[quote name="supraman"]As a non religious person I do feel this way about any religions texts. You have to accept all of them. Kinda like our Constitution it is an all or nothing situation. What makes one text right compared to the other, both are the words on the religion in question[/quote]



Unfortunately there is no solid evidence on when/how the "definitive" content of the bible was determined. More likely it was a progression, the bible "as we know it" for the most part has existed at least since the latter portion of the 4th century CE.



Even then how much of that is accurate in today's bible is up for debate, as even different versions of the bible today (of which there are at least 23 translations) differ on details. (while some my find the details to be irrelevant) there are certain passages, such as one in the King James bible that asserts unicorns to be real. The same passage in other modern bibles replaces unicorn with Ox or Rhino.



Job 39:9



King James Bible

Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?



Douay-Rheims Bible

Shall the rhinoceros be willing to serve thee, or will he stay at thy crib?



Darby Bible Translation

Will the buffalo be willing to serve thee, or will he lodge by thy crib?



English Revised Version

Will the wild-ox be content to serve thee? or will he abide by thy crib?





http://bible.cc/job/39-9.htm

 

[supraman]

[quote name="TSD"]



Unfortunately there is no solid evidence on when/how the "definitive" content of the bible was determined. More likely it was a progression, the bible "as we know it" for the most part has existed at least since the latter portion of the 4th century CE.



Even then how much of that is accurate in today's bible is up for debate, as even different versions of the bible today (of which there are at least 23 translations) differ on details. (while some my find the details to be irrelevant) there are certain passages, such as one in the King James bible that asserts unicorns to be real. The same passage in other modern bibles replaces unicorn with Ox or Rhino.[/quote]



see for me that kind of stuff alone is enough to make me Atheist. They can't even get their own scriptures straight. I try to give any religion a chance and I will hear their arguments but for me in the end they always end up shooting themselves in the foot.

 

[canucklehead]

[quote name="supraman"]



see for me that kind of stuff alone is enough to make me Atheist. They can't even get their own scriptures straight. I try to give any religion a chance and I will hear their arguments but for me in the end they always end up shooting themselves in the foot.[/quote]

That stuff happens whenever you translate a dead language. Especially when there are agenda's behind the translation. older languages tended to have multiple meanings for the same words, and just have descriptors instead of pronouns. the original text most likely said a horse with a horn, which could be interpreted as unicorns, or rinos or oxen. Heck it could be interpreted as moose, deer, antelope, etc.

 

[mikita]

[quote name="canucklehead"] That stuff happens whenever you translate a dead language. [/quote]



The difficulty of which is apparent when the arguments over translation are still brewing centuries later.

 

[TSD]

I suppose christians accepting Gnostic scriptures would be tantamount to accepting the Quaran when you think about it or the jews accepting All of the New testament.

 

[winos5]

I'd bet most christians today have no clue what the gnostic scriptures are to begin with.

 

[ginnie]

[quote name="TSD"]What are some christians opinions on the gnostic scriptures? (not trying to make this a is God real thread).



I just want to know if some christians are willing to accept the gnostic scriptures or if you think they are hog wash.[/quote]

Well, I'm not a Christian anymore... but I've read lots of history.

Most of the gnostic "scripture" was written hundreds of years after the fact, and some are quite different from the accepted New Testament scriptures. Some are quite outlandish, others, like The Gospel of Thomas, is more conventional, although its language is quite different from the "real" Gospels. There's a good reason that they were never accepted as genuine Scripture - even though the "Bible" wasn't really assembled till after 300 A.D., most parts had a long history by the time the earliest Gnostic gospel arrived on the seen.

As far as dating the earliest fragment of the new testament dates to around 70 CE.

I think the earliest physical fragment existing today is from around 120 A.D, but the Gospels generally date from around 70 A.D.

Other parts, such as Paul's epistles could be as early as 55 A.D.

The earliest gnostic Gospel fragment dates to the 3rd century CE.

Thus, they arrive on the scene at least 100 years later than the four Gospels now in the New Testament. A lot happened to Christianity during that period. There was already a hierarchy , many churches had been built and commentary written both by anti-Christian writers and Christian apologetics. The Gnostic Gospels would have been looked upon as false writings.



I have a book, "The Other Bible" which has most of the Gnostic writings that have been found. I thought it would be more interesting than they turned out to be.

 

[ginnie]

[quote name="winos5"]I'd bet most christians today have no clue what the gnostic scriptures are to begin with.[/quote]

And why would they? They're surely not going to be told about them in church. They would either have an interest on their own and do research, or else study it in theology school or Bible college.