Is there an accepted, gold standard translation of the Gnostic texts? :shrug:

Perhaps this is helpful for you

http://www.sacred-texts.com/gno/index.htm

The history of Gnosticism is subject to a great deal of debate and interpretation. The complex nature of Gnostic teaching and the fact that much of the material relating to the schools comprising Gnosticism has traditionally come from critiques by orthodox Christians make it difficult to be precise about early sectarian gnostic systems, although Neoplatonists like Plotinus also criticized "Gnostics."

Irenaeus in his Adversus Haereses described several different schools of 2nd century gnosticism in disparaging and often sarcastic detail while contrasting them with Christianity to their detriment. Despite these problems, scholarly discussion of Gnosticism at first relied heavily on Irenaeus and other heresiologists, which arguably has led to an 'infiltration' of heresiological agendas into modern scholarship; in fairness to the first investigators this was not by choice, but because of a simple lack of alternative sources.

This state of affairs continued through to modern times; in 1945, however, there was a chance discovery of a cache of 4th century Gnostic manuscripts near Nag Hammadi, Egypt. The texts, which had been sealed inside earthen jars, were discovered by a local man called Mohammed Ali, and now this collection of texts is known as the Nag Hammadi library; this allowed for the modern study of undiluted 'Gnostic scripture' for the first time. The translation of the texts from Coptic, their language of composition, into English and other modern languages took place in the years approaching 1977, when the full Nag Hammadi library was published in English translation. This has clarified recent discussions of gnosticism, though many would agree that the topic still remains fraught with difficulties.

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

Yes, there is, The Nag Hammadi Library, revised edition, The definitive new translation of the Gnostic scriptures, complete in one volume, James M. Robinson- General Editor. Translated and introduced by the members of the coptic gnostic library project of the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity, Claremont, California.


or:

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl.html

How do Christians view Gnosticism?

As blasphemy.

Even though their texts predate the Nicean Bible?

What is the difference between the two? Gnosticism and Christianity?

Don't confuse them with truth.

The Gnostics viewed the nature of Jesus not as divine, but one in which a spiritual Christ dwelt. By following the spiritual path of Gnosticism, one could experience the same knowledge or "gnosis", as Jesus.

In one gnostic text the Goddess Sophia cuts off God's balls. Not too many Xians thought that was all that funny, I guess they didn't get the joke :)

Sounds like Saraswati/Durga/Kali

Even though their texts predate the Nicean Bible? Especially because their texts predated the Nicean Bible - the rejection of them, in the compilation of that Bible, was definitive in establishing their blasphemous nature.

Its all very confusing. Surely the closer the date to the Gospels the more likely they are to be similar to the original?

What is the yardstick for measuring the veracity of the apostle's writings? Where does gnosticism come in ?

He he, Yep. These were the 2 main Christian sects that were battling it out in the first 200 years AD. The anti Gnosticsm groundswell started with St Justin Martyr around 165 AD. It was proclaimed a heresy by the Catholic Church soon after. Sad that...

Hi all,

Even though their texts predate the Nicean Bible?

What on earth is the "Nicean Bible" ?

The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with creating the Bible. The Council did not choose the books of the Bible.

It's just an Urban Myth, endlessly repeated on the 'net.

Here you can actually check the decisions talen by the council :
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm

Note that not one of the canons concerns the books of the Bible.

Iasion

What on earth is the "Nicean Bible" ?

Sorry about that - I did not know taht anyone was actually proposing that the Council of Nicea wrote or physically compiled the book.

It seems to me like a reasonable name for the Bible as compiled, which was indeed in accordance with the regularization of the Faith by the Council of Nicea, and its rejection of balsphemy.

But if you have another, that would be good too.

Hiya,


It seems to me like a reasonable name for the Bible as compiled, which was indeed in accordance with the regularization of the Faith by the Council of Nicea, and its rejection of balsphemy.

But if you have another, that would be good too.

Well,
why do you have to give it a new name?


Iasion

So, when, where and how was the Catholic canonized?

So, when, where and how was the Catholic canonized?

There was no single ecumenical discussion of canon. Issues of canon begin in the early second century with Marcion who is the first known person to attempt to compile a canon list. However, the heretical nature of his canon created a backlash that brought canon issues to the forefront of Christian thought. Justin Martyr and his disciple Tatian are the first to make an apologetic for the four gospels which are rejected by Marcionites, Ebionites, and Valentinian Gnostics. The four-fold gospel tradition is universal from that point on.

All of the New Testaments books are used and most are recognized as canonical in the second century. Some dispute existed even within what is termed "orthodox" or "pre-Catholic" Christianity, but it was over the least significant books such as Jude, Philemon, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and some others which have little unique theological value. There is no indication that there is ever reasonable dispute after the mid second century about the four gospels, Acts, the non-pastoral epistles of Paul, and 1 Peter.

The Murtorian canon at the end of the second century has an almost complete list of the modern New Testament and most scholars assume that Origen is using a complete copy of today's New Testament.

As a previous poster said, that Nicaea dealt at all with the canon is utterly fallacious, a myth that needs to stop being perpetuated by ignorant people.

The Gnostics viewed the nature of Jesus not as divine, but one in which a spiritual Christ dwelt. By following the spiritual path of Gnosticism, one could experience the same knowledge or "gnosis", as Jesus.

That would put it in conflict with the work of Jesus on the Cross. The idea that man could save himself ultimately conflicts with the God of perfect justice, since all who sin must pay the price, and all are guilty of sin.

When the subject came up in my church, they also focused on two or three additional points of conflict... The Gnostic belief that the world 'as created' is flawed, not as a result of man's fall, but by the very nature of it's creation from the Divine. The very fall of man was not through man's choice but through God's agency.

Hi all,

The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with creating the Bible. The Council did not choose the books of the Bible.

It's just an Urban Myth, endlessly repeated on the 'net.

Here you can actually check the decisions talen by the council :
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm

Note that not one of the canons concerns the books of the Bible.

Iasion

Iasion, It is true that the New Testiment was not cannonized at the Council of Nicea. However, the Council of Nicea did lay the foundations for the creation of the New Testiment, as the Council of Nicea defined what it was to be a Christian. And it was the same pagan emperor who conviened the Council of Nicea who commisioned the creation of the New Testiment six years later.

As for the Gnostics, the Catholic Church was successful in exterminating that heresy. So there are no Gnostics today.

Iasion, It is true that the New Testiment was not cannonized at the Council of Nicea. However, the Council of Nicea did lay the foundations for the creation of the New Testiment, as the Council of Nicea defined what it was to be a Christian. And it was the same pagan emperor who conviened the Council of Nicea who commisioned the creation of the New Testiment six years later.

As for the Gnostics, the Catholic Church was successful in exterminating that heresy. So there are no Gnostics today.

Wrong. The New Testament was already in use almost a century and a half before the time of Nicaea. Furthermore, I'd challenge you to substantiate the claim that Constantine was a "pagan" emperor. Additionally, what even do you presume "created" the New Testament?

Oh Great Prince, perhaps I was not clear. I said cannonization. I did not say that there were not previous texts floating around. In fact there were a lot of Christian texts in circulation...not all of which were deemed valid by mainline church members. Not all of the texts have survived. In the early years of the church there was no clear definition of Christianity...wittness the Gnostics, and the other heressies. Some Christians did not beleive in the divinity of Christ. It was no consistent understanding of what it was to be Christian.
The Emperor Constintine commissioned 50 bibles six years after the Council of Nicea. These texts became the basis for the New Testiment. As you probably know, the New Testiment was an accumulation of earlier texts. As you may also know, the New Testiment has evolved over time...that means changed. The text most protestants use is the King James Version. King James made some alterations to the text to express his views better.
Constantine was certianly a pagan emperor. He was the high priest of the Sol Invictus Cult which is a derivitive of the Mythiras cult. The Sol Invictus and Christian religions had many similar beliefs. Before Constintine the Cross we associate with Christianity was not a Christian symbol. The Fish was symbolic of Christianity. The Cross we associate with Christ and the Cross is not the kind of cross the Romans used in crucifictions. The cross is however, a symbol of the Sol Invictus and Mythric cults. We celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday not Saturaday because of Constintine. Sunday is the day devoted to the Sun God, Sol Invictus.
There is no public independent record of a conversion by Constintine to Christianity. Thre is a record of his association with Sol Invictus...its symbols are on his coins.

Oh Great Prince, perhaps I was not clear. I said cannonization. I did not say that there were not previous texts floating around. In fact there were a lot of Christian texts in circulation...not all of which were deemed valid by mainline church members. Not all of the texts have survived. In the early years of the church there was no clear definition of Christianity...wittness the Gnostics, and the other heressies. Some Christians did not beleive in the divinity of Christ. It was no consistent understanding of what it was to be Christian.

You need to update your scholarship. First of all the Gnostics were not a Christian sect. They predate Christianity and are the product of a synchronistic view of Jewish apocalypticism and a Platonic anthropology. That they later adopted Christian characters into their texts does not make them Christian, simply one of many absorbent religions of the period. (see B. Pearson)

Further what you are describing are fringe groups that enjoyed neither popular nor geographically diverse support. While orthodox writers and communities exist from Persia to Gaul in the first two centuries of Christianity, such groups as the Ebionites, Marcionites, Montansists, and others are regionally centered and only marginally populated. Your Bauerian pluralistic view is a product of a post-modern historiography that is fundamentally ahistorical as it makes an argument from the absence of certain theorized documents.

The Emperor Constintine commissioned 50 bibles six years after the Council of Nicea. These texts became the basis for the New Testiment. As you probably know, the New Testiment was an accumulation of earlier texts. As you may also know, the New Testiment has evolved over time...that means changed.

Constantine commissioned Bibles and that there was no debate over the contents speaks for, not against, the preexistant consensus on its contents. You could try, like so many failed popular historians, to argue that Constantine's overarching power prevented dissent, but even Eusebius, the most staunch of Constantine's supporters records instances, such as the deposition of Eustantius which caused riots in spite of the emperor's endorsement. Furthermore, though Constantine tried, he could not get the people of Alexandria to even admit Arius into their city. His power over the church was minimal.

Furthermore, you cannot argue that his publishing of those texts was the "basis" of the New Testament, rather it is necessarily the culmination as it is the final step in the what you consider the formalization of the canon (though no formal act exists).

And yes, the New Testament did evolve over time. However, strangely that evolution was not toward limiting the canon, excluding heterodoxical documents as you suggest. The evolution allowed into the canon what had previously been questionable books like 2 and 3 John, Jude, Philemon, and 2 Peter. That the evolution of the canon restricted other "Christian" literature from being accepted is not only fallacious, but the exact opposite of what is historically known about the development of the canon.

The text most protestants use is the King James Version. King James made some alterations to the text to express his views better.

Which is idiotic. The current trend both in scholarship and in popular use is the adoption of the Hortian 1881 edition of the New Testament which is based off of the oldest, most reliable texts as opposed to the 14th century texts of the Textus Receptus.

We celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday not Saturaday because of Constintine.

The Christians don't celebrate the Sabbath at all. For pre-Constantinian proofs of this, see Tertullian's Answer to the Jews, the Epistle of Barnabas, Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, Cyprian's Three Books of Testimony Against the Jews, Hippolytus, and so many more. For non-Christian sources, see Pliny.

Christians celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday because it is the day of the resurrection. This is based on the biblical example of Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2. Here it says "κατα μιαν σαββατου" that is the distributive use of κατα indicating the first after the Sabbath, Sunday.

There is no public independent record of a conversion by Constintine to Christianity. Thre is a record of his association with Sol Invictus...its symbols are on his coins.

The only thing known to be kept by Constantine is the title of supreme priest. However, this does not negate his favoring, participation in, and endorsement of Christianity, and certainly does not negate his baptism.

I suggest you read a church history by someone who isn't a pop-culture historian. Try not buying books based on their shiny cover at Books-a-Million.

Oh Great Prince, your insecurities are showing again. First you twist my words so that you can knock them down...an illogical arguement called a strawman. I never said or inferred that Constantine limited disent. But he did put together the basis of an organized church...a church that later became known as the Catholic Church. Second, there were very clearly gnostic groups that labeled themselves Christian, and belived that "Jesus of Jesus of Nazareth was an embodiment of the supreme being who became incarnate to bring gnosis to the Earth. In others he was thought to be a gnosis teacher, and yet others, nothing more than a man. (See, for instance, the writings of Valentinus)." Now if that does not qualify as Christian, I don't know what does. To the Catholic Church, everything non Catholic was a fringe group and worse, a heresy which justified murder of the heritic. There is a reason why most folks were non-fringe Catholics, as it was quite unhealthy to be anything other than a non-fringe Catholic in post Constantine periods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism
Further I did not suggest that the evolution of the New Testiment was towards limitation. I suggested it grew and changed...see reference to King James Bible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Bible
The King James Bible has been the gold standard Bible Version used by protestants for the last three hundred years:
http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/p/kingjamesvers.htm
In recent years, there has been a great number of common language versions of King James. But I fail to see the point of pursuing this furhter as I only mentioned it to show that the text has changed over time. And you seem to be in agreement that it has.
Now on to the Sabbath, in typical fashion when confronted withi truth you like to change the defination of words. The Sabbath is defined as a day of rest, and is so stated in the Bible. Christians honor the Sabbath too. It is a requirement of the faith. It is one of the Ten Comandments given to Moses. Jesus said he came to fullfil the law not to change it. And some Christians, (Seventh Day Adventist) celebrate the Sabbath on Friday as do the Jews and as Christ did. They refused to move the Sabbath to Sunday. They believe no man, especially a pagan, has the right to change the day that God commanded be honored as the Sabbath.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbath_in_Christianity
The Eucharist is a Christian Sacrament....holy communion not the Sabbath, not a day of the week. The Eucharist is often celebrated on the Sabbath. But please do not confuse the two. They are not the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communion
You are confusing the sacrament with the biblically requried day of rest. Honoring the Sabbath is one of the ten commandments my dear Prince. So are you telling me that Christians do not adhere to the ten commandments? I think even the Pope would be suprised to hear that bit of news.
Finally on to your last arguement. Constantine certianly did favor Christianity. He probably did more than any person besides Christ, and Paul for Christianity than any other historical figure. But that does not mean he was a Christian. In fact he clearly was not. He was by all accounts a ruthless ruler who killed members of his own family and very intent on acquiring and maintaining political and military power. He was very intent on consolidating a very fractured Roman Empire, and using this new religion to help him consolidate his power was a temptation he could not resist. And it worked.
This brings me back to my point and original question to you, which you have not answered. Can you show me independent proof of his baptism? And of course you cannot. It is alledged to have been a death bed baptism. And my other question to you which again you have not answered, can you show proof the Christian Cross was used by Christians prior to Constatine? And of course the answer again is no. Can you show me where the orb was used as a Christian symbol before Constantine, and again the answer is no. You cannot. Prior to Constantine, the fish was the recognized symbol of Christ.
My dear Prince, I do not know what kind of books you have been reading if any. But I suggest you get thee to the nearest Books-a-Million and buy thee some nice glossy books with pictures. Maybe then you will be able to know the difference between the Eucharist and the Sabbath and the revelance of each to the religion. Heck a good dictionary would do the trick as well.

As blasphemy.
Technically, it's heresy.

Teehee. Merriam Webster and Wikipedia. I didn't even bother to read whatever you substantiated with those sources.

Originally Posted by stretched
The Gnostics viewed the nature of Jesus not as divine, but one in which a spiritual Christ dwelt. By following the spiritual path of Gnosticism, one could experience the same knowledge or "gnosis", as Jesus.

Tarduckin
That would put it in conflict with the work of Jesus on the Cross. The idea that man could save himself ultimately conflicts with the God of perfect justice, since all who sin must pay the price, and all are guilty of sin.

When the subject came up in my church, they also focused on two or three additional points of conflict... The Gnostic belief that the world 'as created' is flawed, not as a result of man's fall, but by the very nature of it's creation from the Divine. The very fall of man was not through man's choice but through God's agency.

Yep, that is all part of it, quite a radical break from what we call Christianity today. But in the early years it could have swung either way. What we call Christianity today could have been the heresy...;)

"In the first century of the Christian era the term “Gnostic” came to denote a heterodox segment of the diverse new Christian community. Among early followers of Christ it appears there were groups who delineated themselves from the greater household of the Church by claiming not simply a belief in Christ and his message, but a "special witness" or revelatory experience of the divine. It was this experience or gnosis that set the true follower of Christ apart, so they asserted. Stephan Hoeller explains that these Christians held a "conviction that direct, personal and absolute knowledge of the authentic truths of existence is accessible to human beings, and, moreover, that the attainment of such knowledge must always constitute the supreme achievement of human life."

"That Gnosticism was, at least briefly, in the mainstream of Christianity is witnessed by the fact that one of its most influential teachers, Valentinus, may have been in consideration during the mid-second century for election as the Bishop of Rome"

"Orthodoxy Christianity was deeply and profoundly influenced by its struggles with Gnosticism in the second and third centuries. Formulations of many central traditions in Christian theology came as reflections and shadows of this confrontation with the Gnosis"

Gnosticism in a nutshell...

"In his study, The American Religion, noted literary critic Harold Bloom suggests a second characteristic of Gnosticism that might help us conceptually circumscribe its mysterious heart. Gnosticism, says Bloom, "is a knowing, by and of an uncreated self, or self-within-the self, and [this] knowledge leads to freedom...."

(http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhlintro.html)

Hiya,


I said cannonization.

Joe, a "cannon" is a big gun.
You mean "canon".


The Emperor Constintine commissioned 50 bibles six years after the Council of Nicea. These texts became the basis for the New Testiment.

Pardon me Joe, I think you should check your spelling more carefully :-)

Sure, the Constantine Bible was important, but it was just one stage in a long process.

This bible was NOT exactly like our modern versions - it included Hermas and Barnabas.

The first canon to match our modern list was from Athanasius in 367CE.


Iasion

Hi all,


The King James Bible has been the gold standard Bible Version used by protestants for the last three hundred years:

Joe, the KJV is one of the very worst translations of all - it was based on a few late MSS and has many problems.


Iasion

Iasion, there is nothing you said I disagree with...I kind of like big guns. After all, I am an old sailor after all.

How do Christians view Gnosticism?

As a Christian, I will say not much.

The Gnostic text were written over a hundred years after Christ's death. The canonized gospels, on the other hand, were written, at the earliest, around 20 years after Christ's death; big difference.

Now there will be many that will say that even the canonized gospels can't be trusted either; that's it's all "fiction". If you feel this way, then you need to look at just how the texts were written. They are far too detailed for first century writing. For example, if you look at certain texts, you see descriptions like "Jesus wrote in the sand", and "Peter was 100 yards from the beach". First century fiction writers simply did not include these detailed descriptions in their narratives unless they were recording an eye-witness account... which is exactly what Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were doing.

As well, the Gnostic texts were written so far after the death of Christ, that anyone who would have eye witnessed it would have been long dead, and therefore being unable to vouch for the writers. The canonized gospels were written when many of the people who were around to listen to Jesus preach were still alive. Plus, many of those people are listed by name as eye witnesses in the Bible. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did this so if anyone questioned what they were writing, they appealed to the skeptics to seek out the eye witnesses.

As a Christian, I will say not much.

The Gnostic text were written over a hundred years after Christ's death. The canonized gospels, on the other hand, were written, at the earliest, around 20 years after Christ's death; big difference.

Now there will be many that will say that even the canonized gospels can't be trusted either; that's it's all "fiction". If you feel this way, then you need to look at just how the texts were written. They are far too detailed for first century writing. For example, if you look at certain texts, you see descriptions like "Jesus wrote in the sand", and "Peter was 100 yards from the beach". First century fiction writers simply did not include these detailed descriptions in their narratives unless they were recording an eye-witness account... which is exactly what Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were doing.

As well, the Gnostic texts were written so far after the death of Christ, that anyone who would have eye witnessed it would have been long dead, and therefore being unable to vouch for the writers. The canonized gospels were written when many of the people who were around to listen to Jesus preach were still alive. Plus, many of those people are listed by name as eye witnesses in the Bible. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did this so if anyone questioned what they were writing, they appealed to the skeptics to seek out the eye witnesses.

With all due respect GGAzoo, I think you need to recheck your statements and back them up with legitmate proofs.

With all due respect GGAzoo, I think you need to recheck your statements and back them up with legitmate proofs.

What "proofs" do you require?

It's literary history in how fiction writers of the first century wrote their stories. Details of what each character did were left out unless they promoted character development or drove the plot. That's why if you read Beowulf or The Illiad, you don't see the characters noticing the rain, falling asleep with a sigh... early fiction writers simply did not include that in their narratives.

C.S. Lewis discussed this as well in Christian Reflections, as does Richard Baukham in Eyewitnesses, if you care to recheck my statements on your own.

What "proofs" do you require?

It's literary history in how fiction writers of the first century wrote their stories. Details of what each character did were left out unless they promoted character development or drove the plot. That's why if you read Beowulf or The Illiad, you don't see the characters noticing the rain, falling asleep with a sigh... early fiction writers simply did not include that in their narratives.

C.S. Lewis discussed this as well in Christian Reflections, as does Richard Baukham in Eyewitnesses, if you care to recheck my statements on your own.

Well any reasonable proof would be accepted. But your reluctance to show proof is evidence that you have no such proof. Your original post was totally without merrit. You cannot prove it because there is no such proof. No where is there any evidence that the texts of the bible were composed during the lifetime of Jesus.

In fact there is wide agreement to the contrary. The earliest dating of the texts of the Bible is 70AD...about thirty years after he death of Christ.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelpeter.html

I too am a Christian, but you do not need to falsify history to justify your faith.

You cannot prove it because there is no such proof. No where is there any evidence that the texts of the bible were composed during the lifetime of Jesus.

I never said they written during his lifetime. I said that the writers wrote the texts after his death (as yous did). My original post stated that many people who were around when Jesus was preaching was were still alive to verify the stories; Jesus himself was already gone.

As a Christian, I will say not much.

The Gnostic text were written over a hundred years after Christ's death. The canonized gospels, on the other hand, were written, at the earliest, around 20 years after Christ's death; big difference.

Now there will be many that will say that even the canonized gospels can't be trusted either; that's it's all "fiction". If you feel this way, then you need to look at just how the texts were written. They are far too detailed for first century writing. For example, if you look at certain texts, you see descriptions like "Jesus wrote in the sand", and "Peter was 100 yards from the beach". First century fiction writers simply did not include these detailed descriptions in their narratives unless they were recording an eye-witness account... which is exactly what Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were doing.

As well, the Gnostic texts were written so far after the death of Christ, that anyone who would have eye witnessed it would have been long dead, and therefore being unable to vouch for the writers. The canonized gospels were written when many of the people who were around to listen to Jesus preach were still alive. Plus, many of those people are listed by name as eye witnesses in the Bible. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did this so if anyone questioned what they were writing, they appealed to the skeptics to seek out the eye witnesses.

Firstly, it was not 20 years. Try at least 40. You will probably mention Paul as his writings were earlier than the gospels, but he doesn't even mention Jesus in any historical human context. Only when the gospels come do we actually get any information on the actual life of Jesus. Paul was merely going around spreading word of salvation with this character that apparently came to him in a vision.

So is this not very revealing? Nobody had ever heard of Jesus prior to Paul because he simply didn't exist. Instead, Paul gained a large following and over many years a cleverly designed story evolved. How do we know it's just a story and not historical? Well if you really need me to explain... The bullet points of the life of Jesus resemble almost exactly the bullet points of other popular mythical characters gone before. Then you have the countless unbelievable miracles. You believe that stuff happened, then you are a disgrace.

According to you, the story was based on credible eyewitness testimony? That just makes me laugh so much.

I can imagine it now: "So you say he came back from the dead and you actually saw him fly off into the sky to heaven"?

Really... how much of a complete moron do you have to be?

P.S. please tell me how 'eye witnesses' were used when it would be just Jesus or Moses alone with no observers present, yet the writers could somehow quote what was said? Has the penny dropped yet in that brain of yours?

You will probably mention Paul as his writings were earlier than the gospels, but he doesn't even mention Jesus in any historical human context. Only when the gospels come do we actually get any information on the actual life of Jesus. Paul was merely going around spreading word of salvation with this character that apparently came to him in a vision.

So is this not very revealing? Nobody had ever heard of Jesus prior to Paul because he simply didn't exist. Instead, Paul gained a large following and over many years a cleverly designed story evolved. How do we know it's just a story and not historical?


Sounds to me like a conspiracy theory to try and prove that Jesus didn't exist. I'm sorry that you're so jaded.

According to you, the story was based on credible eyewitness testimony? That just makes me laugh so much.


I find it very convenient how you glazed over my entire reasoning for the historical vs fictional writings for that time period:



Now there will be many that will say that even the canonized gospels can't be trusted either; that's it's all "fiction". If you feel this way, then you need to look at just how the texts were written. They are far too detailed for first century writing. For example, if you look at certain texts, you see descriptions like "Jesus wrote in the sand", and "Peter was 100 yards from the beach". First century fiction writers simply did not include these detailed descriptions in their narratives unless they were recording an eye-witness account...

... It's literary history in how fiction writers of the first century wrote their stories. Details of what each character did were left out unless they promoted character development or drove the plot. That's why if you read Beowulf or The Illiad, you don't see the characters noticing the rain, falling asleep with a sigh... early fiction writers simply did not include that in their narratives.

Sounds to me like a conspiracy theory to try and prove that Jesus didn't exist. I'm sorry that you're so jaded.

No, the conspiracy theory is that a person existed who did the following:

Stilling the Storm, Feeding the 5000, Walking on the Water, Feeding the 4000,Temple Tax in the Fish's Mouth, Withering the Fig Tree, Draught of Fish, Turning Water into Wine, Second Draught of Fish, Cleansing of a Leper, Healing a Centurion's Servant, Healing Peter's Mother-in-law, Healing the Sick at evening, Healing a paralytic, Healing the Hemorrhaging woman, Healing Two Blind Men, Healing a Man's Withered Hand, Healing the Gentile Woman's Daughter, Healing the Epileptic Boy, Healing a Blind Men, Healing a Deaf Mute, Healing a Blind Man at Bethsaida, Healing the Infirm, Bent Woman, Healing the Man with Dropsy, Cleansing the Ten Lepers, Restoring a Servant's Ear, Healing the Nobleman's Son (of fever), Healing an Infirm Man at Bethesda, Healing the Man born blind, Raising the Ruler's Daughter, Raising of a Widow's Son at Nain, Raising of Lazarus, Demons entering a herd of swine, Curing a Demon-possessed Mute, Casting Out an Unclean Spirit, Curing a Demon-possessed, Blind and Mute man.

I don't even think that's all of them since the virgin birth and Jesus turning into a flying zombie are not mentioned there.

Now since you are pretending to be such a rational person right now (which is really funny by the way), why do you choose to believe all of the above are factual and reliable eye witness testimony rather than a story that was cleverly evolved by preachers?

I find it very convenient how you glazed over my entire reasoning for the historical vs fictional writings for that time period:

Your reasoning? Haha!

Your reasoning is that because writers said words to the effect of "he was 100 yards from xxx" is proof of flying zombies. Get a brain.

I wanted to come back and give a more thorough response to this thread.

Firstly, it was not 20 years. Try at least 40. You will probably mention Paul as his writings were earlier than the gospels, but he doesn't even mention Jesus in any historical human context. Only when the gospels come do we actually get any information on the actual life of Jesus. Paul was merely going around spreading word of salvation with this character that apparently came to him in a vision.


The first accounts of the empty tomb and the eyewitnesses are not found in the gospels, you're right - but they are found in Paul's letters, which every historian agrees were written just 15-20 years after the death of Jesus.

So is this not very revealing? Nobody had ever heard of Jesus prior to Paul because he simply didn't exist. Instead, Paul gained a large following and over many years a cleverly designed story evolved.


You're ignoring the historical and cultural context. Read on.

SAccording to you, the story was based on credible eyewitness testimony? That just makes me laugh so much.


Paul indicates that Jesus appeared to 500 people at once, most of whom were still alive and could be consulted for corroboration. Paul's letter was to a church, and therefore it was a public document, written to be read aloud. He was inviting anyone who doubted to talk to the eyewitnesses if they wished, which was a bold challenge since during the pax Romana , travel around the Mediterranean was safe and easy. Paul simply would not have made that challenge if those eyewitnesses did not exist.

In addition, the first eyewitnesses were women. Women's low social status at that time meant that their testimony was not admissible evidence in court. There was no possible advantage to the church that the first women were witnesses. It could have only undermined the credibility of the testimony.

While I'm sure that the preceding is going to fall on deaf ears, and you're going to dismiss the gospels as pure fabrication, then please answer the following historical questions:

• Why did Christianity emerge so rapidly, and with such power?

• No other band of messianic followers in that era concluded their leader was raised from the dead - why did this group do so?

• No group of Jews ever worshipped a human being as God. What led them to do it? Jews did not believe in divine men or individual resurrections. What changed their worldview overnight?

• And how do you account for the hundreds of eyewitnesses to the resurrection who lived on for decades and publicly maintained their testimony, eventually giving their lives for their beliefs?

I wanted to come back and give a more thorough response to this thread.

Well I had been hoping you would respond to my last post, but never mind.

The first accounts of the empty tomb and the eyewitnesses are not found in the gospels, you're right - but they are found in Paul's letters, which every historian agrees were written just 15-20 years after the death of Jesus.

Just 15-20 years? A lot of chinese whispers can happen in 15-20 years, especially in ancient times with no reliable historical record. Oh, and the claims were of a religious nature - we know how much we should not trust religious literature as a source of history (see mormonism and scientology). And those writings of Paul are really sparse when it comes to Jesus. If Jesus really did do all those things we read about in the later gospels, then why did Paul not think to write about that instead of being so vague? Strong evidence that the finer details of the story of Jesus merely assembled themselves throughout years of preaching. Nothing to do with eye witnesses. If however, eye witness statements were used, then claims of flying zombies should be dismissed out of hand.

Paul indicates that Jesus appeared to 500 people at once, most of whom were still alive and could be consulted for corroboration. Paul's letter was to a church, and therefore it was a public document, written to be read aloud. He was inviting anyone who doubted to talk to the eyewitnesses if they wished, which was a bold challenge since during the pax Romana , travel around the Mediterranean was safe and easy. Paul simply would not have made that challenge if those eyewitnesses did not exist.

Or else they were simply people who had known Paul and to some extent were influenced by his message: "Ah yes, the flying zombie went that-a-way".

• Why did Christianity emerge so rapidly, and with such power?

They did a lot of traveling and preaching and came up with a new twist on old ideas as well as borrowing from tried and tested myths of other religions.

• No other band of messianic followers in that era concluded their leader was raised from the dead - why did this group do so?

Because they may have been the first to see a niche in the idea? If not for the zombie aspect to christianity, it would have probably not been successful.

• No group of Jews ever worshipped a human being as God. What led them to do it? Jews did not believe in divine men or individual resurrections. What changed their worldview overnight?

Well who knows if it was overnight or not. And if it's true that no jew believed in the divinity of men, then perhaps the new promise of accepting a zombie as their salvation proved too tempting? The people who converted much later to christianity would not have witnessed any resurrection or even had a clue who the historical Jesus was. All they knew about from Jesus was what they heard from preachers. And we all know that preachers should not be trusted.

• And how do you account for the hundreds of eyewitnesses to the resurrection who lived on for decades and publicly maintained their testimony, eventually giving their lives for their beliefs?

Firstly, you have no proof that people actually saw a flying zombie just as we have no proof that the many residents (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nda_OSWeyn8) of Mobile, Alabama saw a leprechaun.

why do you choose to believe all of the above are factual and reliable eye witness testimony rather than a story that was cleverly evolved by preachers?

Well I had been hoping you would respond to my last post, but never mind.

I didn't respond because I though I had covered it. I understand the Christian faith requires belief in the Bible. This is a big stumbling block for many. There are several reasons why the Bible is factual, however. The timing is far too early for the gospels to be legends for one. As well, the content is far too counterproductive. And, the literary form of the gospels is too detailed to be legend, just to name a few.

ggazoo there were a lot of different versions of Christianity in the first century. And there a lots of works fiction with detail. So detail is not proof of legitimacy.

• No other band of messianic followers in that era concluded their leader was raised from the dead

You're forgetting mithraism.

And there a lots of works fiction with detail. So detail is not proof of legitimacy.

As I already said:


It's literary history in how fiction writers of the first century wrote their stories. Details of what each character did were left out unless they promoted character development or drove the plot. That's why if you read Beowulf or The Illiad, you don't see the characters noticing the rain, falling asleep with a sigh... early fiction writers simply did not include that in their narratives.

Is there an accepted, gold standard translation of the Gnostic texts? :shrug:

Yes, I specially like the Albanian version...

I didn't respond because I though I had covered it. I understand the Christian faith requires belief in the Bible. This is a big stumbling block for many. There are several reasons why the Bible is factual, however. The timing is far too early for the gospels to be legends for one. As well, the content is far too counterproductive. And, the literary form of the gospels is too detailed to be legend, just to name a few.

This weak reasoning leads you to a belief in flying zombies?

http://marketingthechurch.terapad.com/resources/6249/assets/images/good_job_blue_ribbon.png

How did you know that blue was my favourite colour?

As for my "weak reasoning", allow me to elaborate (which I probably should have done with my last post).

The timing is far too early for the gospels to be legends for one.

In Jesus and the Eyewitness, Richard Baukham marshals much historical evidence to demonstrate that at the time of the gospels were written, many well-known eyewitness who could attest to Jesus' teaching and life events. For a highly altered, fictionalized account of an event to take place, all the eyewitness had to be long dead. The gospels were written far too soon for this to occur, making it impossible for the faith to spread as rapidly as it did. The people of Jerusalm had been there. The NT documents could not say Jesus was crucified when thousands of people were still alive who knew whether he was or not. If he had not made these claims, and these public documents claimed they happened, Christianty would have never gotten off the ground. The hearers simply would have laughed at the accounts.

As well, the content is far too counterproductive.

Many people today think that the gospels were written by leaders of the early church to promote their polices, consolidate their power, and build their movement. If that's true, then Jesus would have taken sides in early church debates. This did not happen.

And why would the leaders of the early Christian movement have mad up the story of the crucifixion if it didn't happen? Anyone who was crucified was labeled a criminal, whatever the speaker said to the contrary. Why would any Christian make up the account of Jesus asking God in the garden of Gethsemane to get out of his mission? Or why ever make up the part on the cross when Jesus cries out that God abandoned him? These things would have only offended or deeply confused fist century prospective converts. They would have concluded that Jesus was weak, and failing his god.

And again, why were women the first witnesses to the resurrection? Back then they had no social status. It would have made more sense if the first witnesses were men. Still, the word spread.

And finally, why constantly depict the apostles - the eventual leaders of the early church - as petty and jealous (ie Peter)?

And, the literary form of the gospels is too detailed to be legend, just to name a few.

I already addressed this.

How did you know that blue was my favourite colour?

As for my "weak reasoning", allow me to elaborate (which I probably should have done with my last post).



In Jesus and the Eyewitness, Richard Baukham marshals much historical evidence to demonstrate that at the time of the gospels were written, many well-known eyewitness who could attest to Jesus' teaching and life events. For a highly altered, fictionalized account of an event to take place, all the eyewitness had to be long dead. The gospels were written far too soon for this to occur, making it impossible for the faith to spread as rapidly as it did. The people of Jerusalm had been there. The NT documents could not say Jesus was crucified when thousands of people were still alive who knew whether he was or not. If he had not made these claims, and these public documents claimed they happened, Christianty would have never gotten off the ground. The hearers simply would have laughed at the accounts.

Well to this I'm just going to repeat what I said in a previously ignored post:

Firstly, you have no proof that people actually saw a flying zombie just as we have no proof that the many residents (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nda_OSWeyn8) of Mobile, Alabama saw a leprechaun.

And why would the leaders of the early Christian movement have mad up the story of the crucifixion if it didn't happen?

I remember a BBC documentary that had an indian teenager who meditated under a tree and did not move or eat or drink for days. Anyway, at some point during the meditation, the cameras went away for a few hours. When the cameras returned, the onlookers said they saw the boy become immolated in flame. Conveniently, these miracles were always anecdotal and cameras were never there to record any of them.

Simply put... people lie. People exaggerate when they know an audience is listening. What do you think Paul was doing when he was going around preaching? You don't think he had to exaggerate even just a little?

Anyone who was crucified was labeled a criminal, whatever the speaker said to the contrary.

In the same way a suicide bomber is not committing suicide, he is becoming a martyr. As was Jesus becoming a martyr by being crucified. He was not a criminal as the christian doctrine eagerly tries to get across.

Why would any Christian make up the account of Jesus asking God in the garden of Gethsemane to get out of his mission? Or why ever make up the part on the cross when Jesus cries out that God abandoned him?

Theists get off on the fact they have a crisis of faith. They think it only makes their faith stronger when they get over this 'crisis'. Jesus having doubts only conveys the difficulty he had to endure to show that he could understand and empathize with the difficulties everyone goes through with faith. Just as he is shown in the bible to lose his tempter - it is an important part of the story that Jesus is somewhat like us.

And again, why were women the first witnesses to the resurrection? Back then they had no social status. It would have made more sense if the first witnesses were men. Still, the word spread.

I could make the same point about my video in Mobile, Alabama. Why are the witnesses to the leprechaun mostly black people in ghettos? It would have made more sense if they had been upper class white men, yet the word spread.

And finally, why constantly depict the apostles - the eventual leaders of the early church - as petty and jealous (ie Peter)?

Same thing. Every story must have morals, right? The bible gives moral lessons behind what happened with the likes of Judas and Peter.

You're forgetting mithraism.

Is this the same "mithraism" where some believe it was combined with Judaism to "create" Christianity? :rolleyes: