Is the Vatican Jesus different from the Gnostic Jesus?

[VinDino11]

I don't believe so.

But the Vatican's meddling in removing much of what Jesus said leads one to wonder why? If the Catholic Church is of the Christian faith, then Jesus is their cornerstone of that faith, and everything Jesus said must be presented as faith.

But look at how many Bible revisions. How many councils!

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Nicene Creed
http://www.nbufront.org/html/MastersMuseums/DocBen/BibleChrono.html

The lost books. How many have been removed. "WHY?"

The Lost Books of the Bible - Hidden Truth - The List A - B
Lost, Forgotten Books and Ancient Sacred Texts

 

[Breathe]

Hi again.

I'm not the most knowledgable of people, but I'll have a quick go.

Sadly the whole idea of an evil Vatican hiding the truth and covering things up just really have as much weight as opponents of Christianity would like to claim it has. In fact, Catholicism didn't really exist until the Great Schism of 1054 - ironically this was a split caused over a creed. (The Filioque - "and the son". According to my Christianity teacher in university, this was added to keep the rhythym of the music or something like that. It's been a while, I can't remember too clearly.)

Why did the Nicene Creed appear? Simple, because this is what a significant number of people believed. Would people have not protested much more fiercly if they suddenly brought this minor or non-existent concept out of the air? Of course they would, and none of the scholars would have accepted it.

The Nicene Creed was basically a fancy way of saying "We don't believe what Arius taught", and in keeping with the Trinity that many probably already subscribed to anyway.

Why those books of the Bible and not the gnostic ones? Simple, they didn't see the other texts as divinely inspired. Why? Because there were things that went against what they thought, for example, in many gnostic sects, matter itself, that is, anything physical, was evil. So, how was Jesus God's son and begotten by Him and a human woman? The woman would have been evil because she was flesh. That didn't make sense to many.

Some gnostic groups, if I recall correctly, had practices that would have gone against the Hebrew "Old Testament", such as starving themselves to death and self mortification (though ironically, this crept into Catholicism much later on. heh) which would have been horrendous.

Other books of the Bible would have been simply lost (nobody printed them again), or deemed not to have been divinely inspired, sometimes because of contradictions with scriptures they had already decided were inspired. I suspect that the number of books burned for "HERESY!" is a lot lower than opponents make out.

Link #2 doesn't work by the way, so I can't answer that yet.

I may have some, a lot, or all of this wrong D) but hopefully someone with more knowledge of Christian History will correct any errors I have made.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

But the Vatican's meddling in removing much of what Jesus said leads one to wonder why?

You haven't a clue what Jesus said or didn't say and appear far too focused on dangling your ignorance in the public square to be aware of this fact. Unfortunately for you, making excessively stupid claims does little for your credibility.

But I'm more than willing to give you the opportunity to demonstrate that you're somewhat more than a tattered bag of adolescent ridicule ...

Show us a single confirmed Jesus quote removed by Vatican meddling.​

We'll wait ... :yes:

 

[S-word]

I don't believe so.

But the Vatican's meddling in removing much of what Jesus said leads one to wonder why? If the Catholic Church is of the Christian faith, then Jesus is their cornerstone of that faith, and everything Jesus said must be presented as faith.

But look at how many Bible revisions. How many councils!

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Nicene Creed
http://www.nbufront.org/html/MastersMuseums/DocBen/BibleChrono.html

The lost books. How many have been removed. "WHY?"

The Lost Books of the Bible - Hidden Truth - The List A - B
Lost, Forgotten Books and Ancient Sacred Texts

I have just within the last few minutes posted this in another thread, and as it seem appropriate to this thread, here it is.

I am unsure as to whether you have grasped the message that my post is meant to convey, I believe that the only source to our father and saviour, is the Jesus as preached by the Apostles, who was a human being born of the flesh as all mankind are born, and was later born of God’s spirit, which descended upon him in the form of a dove, and the voice from heaven was heard to say, “You are my beloved in whom I am pleased, This day I have begotten you.” See the more ancient authorities of Luke 3: 23. Significance

The other Jesus who was not preached by the Apostle, is that false Jesus which the deceivers, spoken of in 1st John 4: 1-3; and 2nd John, verse 7, who were they who refused to acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being, and had spread the false belief which is uncorroborated by scripture, that he was an eternal spirit who was a co-creator with God from the very beginning and who entered the womb of a virgin and created for himself a human body in which he existed for a nano-second relative to his supposed eternal existence and that he took that body to the cross, (which I believe would have been an exciting experience to one who had lived for all eternity.) knowing full well that he could in no way be harmed.

This false mother and child, was but a new dressing for the Romans old heavenly goddess Isis and the child Horus who was sired by the God Osiris, and I defy anyone other than an expert to distinguish between to the old Icons of Isis with the child Horus on her lap, and the earliest Icons of the Romans mother of God, heavenly goddess and co-redeemer with Christ, and her half man half god child Jesus on her lap. This is the falsehood that was introduced by the church whose ridiculous teachings has spawned so many daughters which are all the different denomination that have come out of her: that woman who we are told in the book of Revelation depicts that great city that sits on the seven hills.

 

[logician]

"Is the Vatican Jesus different from the Gnostic Jesus? "

Of course, it's literalism vs spritualism, the former won out in the early battles over which direction Xianty would take.

 

[Soldano16]

Show us a single confirmed Jesus quote removed by Vatican meddling.

There are no quotes, only translations. He spoke Aramaic.

 

[Mister Emu]

There are no quotes, only translations. He spoke Aramaic.

A translated quote is still a quote...

 

[logician]

"confirmed Jesus quote"

Does this mean it is on a DVD? LOL

 

[HouseofIsrael]

Show us a single confirmed Jesus quote removed by Vatican meddling.​

How could he, he hadn't any affairs in the printing and editorial process, does that justify what he said about the meddling was wrong?

 

[Oberon]

How could he, he hadn't any affairs in the printing and editorial process, does that justify what he said about the meddling was wrong?

What he said was totally inaccurate.

 

[Oberon]

But the Vatican's meddling in removing much of what Jesus said leads one to wonder why?

The only source excluded from the NT that might be useful in determining what Jesus said and taught is the gospel of thomas. However, most scholars date it to after john, and there is evidence of much proto-gnostic redaction. Furthermore, there isn't anything in Thomas which is likely historical and which is not recorded in the canonical gospels. In fact, if they had excluded John from the canon, I don't think we'd be missing much from what Jesus actually said and did.

But look at how many Bible revisions. How many councils!

Your conception of the development of canon is woefully inaccurate. Councils like the council of nicaea had nothing to do with either the formation of canon or editing the bible. It concerned centrally the Arian controversy. The formation of canon began before and ended long after the council of nicaea.

The lost books. How many have been removed. "WHY?"

Because the vast majority of apocryphal gospels are very late. They show little to know interest in the "historical" Jesus (the Jesus the "messiah" who preached in first century palestine and was believed to have resurrected). The are mostly gnostic treatises, and none of them have anything which would aid a historical (or christian) understanding of Jesus.

 

[Caladan]

Because the vast majority of apocryphal gospels are very late. They show little to know interest in the "historical" Jesus (the Jesus the "messiah" who preached in first century palestine and was believed to have resurrected). The are mostly gnostic treatises, and none of them have anything which would aid a historical (or christian) understanding of Jesus.

Good point. we can take the Gospel of Judas and shed completely new light on the entire episode of the betrayal of Jesus, or we can take the Gospel of Mary, and fashion a completely new image of Mary Magdalene and her stature in the life of Jesus, and among the disciples.
we need to value the ideological and philosophical weight of the texts, even many of the most prized works of historians of antiquity contain many ideological anomalies, more so with texts such as gospels.

Just stating the obvious!

 

[sojourner]

I don't believe so.

But the Vatican's meddling in removing much of what Jesus said leads one to wonder why? If the Catholic Church is of the Christian faith, then Jesus is their cornerstone of that faith, and everything Jesus said must be presented as faith.

But look at how many Bible revisions. How many councils!

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Nicene Creed
http://www.nbufront.org/html/MastersMuseums/DocBen/BibleChrono.html

The lost books. How many have been removed. "WHY?"

The Lost Books of the Bible - Hidden Truth - The List A - B
Lost, Forgotten Books and Ancient Sacred Texts

You've been reading too much Dan Brown again.

However, the Vatican Jesus, I believe, has blond, curly hair. The Gnostic Jesus is bald.

 

[HouseofIsrael]

What he said was totally inaccurate.

Totally? I caution not to use that word "totally." The bible as you know it was modified many times over. While some religion states the reason for this was to make the readings and understanding clearer, some see it in a very different and systematic approach. All in all, modifications were made that may render contents inaccurate.

 

[Humanistheart]

I don't believe so.

But the Vatican's meddling in removing much of what Jesus said leads one to wonder why? If the Catholic Church is of the Christian faith, then Jesus is their cornerstone of that faith, and everything Jesus said must be presented as faith.

But look at how many Bible revisions. How many councils!

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Nicene Creed
http://www.nbufront.org/html/MastersMuseums/DocBen/BibleChrono.html

The lost books. How many have been removed. "WHY?"

The Lost Books of the Bible - Hidden Truth - The List A - B
Lost, Forgotten Books and Ancient Sacred Texts

I would say that the gnostic gospels do depict jesus in a different light than the 'vatican' version. There is for example a notable difference between Mark, the earliest of the synoptic gospels, and John. John certianly has gnostic influence in it, and it's a little surprising it was even included in biblical cannon.

The gnostic gospels were not the only ones left out, like the apocrypha and the epigraphai. But the gnostic gospels are dated from the 2nd to early 4th century. Some contained material that had no refernce to earlier written texts. The longer after an events occurance the less likely the texts were to be accurate, so they were left out.

 

[VinDino11]

The only source excluded from the NT that might be useful in determining what Jesus said and taught is the gospel of thomas. However, most scholars date it to after john, and there is evidence of much proto-gnostic redaction. Furthermore, there isn't anything in Thomas which is likely historical and which is not recorded in the canonical gospels. In fact, if they had excluded John from the canon, I don't think we'd be missing much from what Jesus actually said and did.

Well I beg to differ, the link below excludes many many Christian manuscripts!
The Lost Books of the Bible - Hidden Truth - The List A - B

Your conception of the development of canon is woefully inaccurate. Councils like the council of nicaea had nothing to do with either the formation of canon or editing the bible. It concerned centrally the Arian controversy. The formation of canon began before and ended long after the council of nicaea.

Can you provide any proof for your statement?

Because this link clearly agrees with me.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Nicene Creed

Because the vast majority of apocryphal gospels are very late. They show little to know interest in the "historical" Jesus (the Jesus the "messiah" who preached in first century palestine and was believed to have resurrected). The are mostly gnostic treatises, and none of them have anything which would aid a historical (or christian) understanding of Jesus.

Very late? What does this mean?

Historical? Not everything Jesus said was of the physical realm, I would imagine him speaking about the spiritual realm as well, and the latter could never have been historically accounted.

 

[VinDino11]

You've been reading too much Dan Brown again.

However, the Vatican Jesus, I believe, has blond, curly hair. The Gnostic Jesus is bald.

Bald is beautiful!

 

[sojourner]

Totally? I caution not to use that word "totally." The bible as you know it was modified many times over. While some religion states the reason for this was to make the readings and understanding clearer, some see it in a very different and systematic approach. All in all, modifications were made that may render contents inaccurate.

Inaccurate in what way? Historically inaccurate? Theologically inaccurate? The texts should be fluid and modifiable, so that they remain fresh and relevant.

 

[sojourner]

Furthermore, there isn't anything in Thomas which is likely historical and which is not recorded in the canonical gospels. In fact, if they had excluded John from the canon, I don't think we'd be missing much from what Jesus actually said and did.

Oberon, I have to disagree. The communities that produced Q and Thomas separated very early -- probably prior to 40 c.e. It is precisely multiple attestation of quotes in both Thomas and Q that get us very quickly to the bottom of the historical "tel" in determining what is or is not an authentic quotation. Thomas has much to teach us historically, precisely in the ways it agrees and disagrees with Q.

 

[VinDino11]

Totally? I caution not to use that word "totally." The bible as you know it was modified many times over. While some religion states the reason for this was to make the readings and understanding clearer, some see it in a very different and systematic approach. All in all, modifications were made that may render contents inaccurate.

I agree with you, in fact I would caution to say that the manuscripts that were removed remained untouched by the hands of those trying to make their understanding clearer of the manuscripts that were compiled as the Bible. The purest of all Christian beliefs and faith is best read from Gnostic books. They are untouched by the hands of those who persecuted the Christians.