Is the Vatican Jesus different from the Gnostic Jesus?

[HouseofIsrael]

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.

Ok. I am not familiar with the Gnostic books, but i would do a lil research on it.

 

[VinDino11]

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.

True, because the Gnostic books remained untouched and have a clearer spiritual message.

The longer after an events occurance the less likely the texts were to be accurate, so they were left out.

What? What's this?

Why are books like Revelation dated written in 95AD and Matthew in 35AD?

Do you even know who wrote the New Testament/Bible?

The Temple burned down in 70AD surely surely such a spectacular event would have been recorded in Revelation! But it wasn't, although there is a very logical explanation for this which we will discuss at a later time.

 

[Humanistheart]

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.

While I agree with you that Q and Thomous are far removed, and that things can be learned from their contrast, I think Oberon has a good point. If we're looking at the text from more of a historical perspective John was written fairly late and does have gnostic influence, thus why it's not one of the synoptic gospels. It probably should not have been included anymore than The gospel of Thomous was.

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

So, are you saying people should make up stories about jesus that would apply to today and expect them to carry weight? What's your basis for your usage of 'should' here?

 

[VinDino11]

30 A.D. : Jesus is Crucified, Dies and is Resurrected
When were the Books of the New Testament Written?


35 A.D. : Gospel of Matthew

40 to 41 A.D. : Book of James
42 A.D. : Gospel of Mark
42 A.D. : Gospel of John

50 A.D. : Book of 1Thessalonians
51 A.D. : Book of 2Thessalonians
53 A.D. (Spring) : Book of Galatians
56 A.D. (Late Winter) : Book of 1Corinthians
57 A.D. (Late Summer) : Book of 2Corinthians
57 A.D. (Winter) : Book of Romans
59 A.D. : Gospel of Luke​

64 to 65 A.D. :Book of 1Peter
65 to 66 A.D. : Book of 2Peter
66 to 67 A.D . : Book of Jude
67 A.D. : Book of 2Timothy​

THESE DATES ARE TOO FAR BETWEEN​

Luke wouldn't have waited that long to write his Gospel knowing Matthew wrote it 20+yrs before. Peter wouldn't have reason to write his Gospel so late after James + Mark.​

THERE IS A LOGICAL EXPLANATION FOR THE ABOVE NOT DOCUMENTED IN THE LIBRARY OF HISTORY WRITTEN BY MEN.​

 

[Humanistheart]

Do you even know who wrote the New Testament/Bible?

The Temple burned down in 70AD surely surely such a spectacular event would have been recorded in Revelation! But it wasn't, although there is a very logical explanation for this which we will discuss at a later time.

Do you? No, technically no one does. The books of the bible do not come with an author to them. We can surmise certian things about the writers from the books themselves, by their context and estimated date, but we do not know who authored the books that make up the cannon.

 

[sojourner]

While I agree with you that Q and Thomous are far removed, and that things can be learned from their contrast, I think Oberon has a good point. If we're looking at the text from more of a historical perspective John was written fairly late and does have gnostic influence, thus why it's not one of the synoptic gospels. It probably should not have been included anymore than The gospel of Thomous was.

The title of "synoptic" has nothing to do with the date. it has everything to do with the content. "Synoptic" means, seen together, and refers to the parallels between the first three gospels, in terms of content. John is not synoptic, because its source material differs from the first three. In fact, John is very useful in determining history, although not so much as Thomas. discovering Thomas was a boon to the historical-criticism community.

 

[sojourner]

So, are you saying people should make up stories about jesus that would apply to today and expect them to carry weight? What's your basis for your usage of 'should' here?

That's what the early Church did -- make up stories about Jesus. They either heard stories told, or heard quotations of Jesus. Mark was the first to place the quotations in the context of a narrative. But those stories and their details were orally transmitted, in their best form, and heard by the people. The texts, themselves, remained fairly fluid, being subjected to much editing and redaction up until they were canonized. So the texts we have today are uncharacteristically rigid.

so let's go back to my question: In what way are the texts "innacurate?" Historically? Theologically? How? It makes a difference.

 

[sojourner]

30 A.D. : Jesus is Crucified, Dies and is Resurrected
When were the Books of the New Testament Written?


35 A.D. : Gospel of Matthew

40 to 41 A.D. : Book of James
42 A.D. : Gospel of Mark
42 A.D. : Gospel of John

50 A.D. : Book of 1Thessalonians
51 A.D. : Book of 2Thessalonians
53 A.D. (Spring) : Book of Galatians
56 A.D. (Late Winter) : Book of 1Corinthians
57 A.D. (Late Summer) : Book of 2Corinthians
57 A.D. (Winter) : Book of Romans
59 A.D. : Gospel of Luke​

64 to 65 A.D. :Book of 1Peter
65 to 66 A.D. : Book of 2Peter
66 to 67 A.D . : Book of Jude
67 A.D. : Book of 2Timothy​

THESE DATES ARE TOO FAR BETWEEN​

Luke wouldn't have waited that long to write his Gospel knowing Matthew wrote it 20+yrs before. Peter wouldn't have reason to write his Gospel so late after James + Mark.​

THERE IS A LOGICAL EXPLANATION FOR THE ABOVE NOT DOCUMENTED IN THE LIBRARY OF HISTORY WRITTEN BY MEN.​

Your dates are waaaay off.
Jesus was crucified in 33 c.e.
Mark was written just post-70 c.e.
Matthew about 80, and Luke about 85 or so.
John about mid-90's.

I don't know where you got your information, but it's not a very reliable source.

 

[VinDino11]

Do you? No, technically no one does.

Please, do not be so quick to judge!

The books of the bible do not come with an author to them. We can surmise certian things about the writers from the books themselves, by their context and estimated date, but we do not know who authored the books that make up the cannon.

Incorrect -- The Gospels of the New Testament were written originally by the Apostles and all around the same time.

 

[VinDino11]

Your dates are waaaay off.
Jesus was crucified in 33 c.e.
Mark was written just post-70 c.e.
Matthew about 80, and Luke about 85 or so.
John about mid-90's.

I don't know where you got your information, but it's not a very reliable source.

From Bible study dot org.
When were the Books of the New Testament Written?

Where did you get yours?

 

[logician]

Your dates are waaaay off.
Jesus was crucified in 33 c.e.

I don't know where you got your information, but it's not a very reliable source.

Please provide proof of this dubious claim.

 

[Oberon]

From Bible study dot org.
When were the Books of the New Testament Written?Where did you get yours?

Any number of sources of scholarship. There has been a single NT scholar within the past 60 years or more who has argued for Matthean priority. It is generally accepted that Mark wrote first, C. 69-75.

 

[Oberon]

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

These are not "lost books." In fact, some of them were written by the very people influencing canon. They are all late, most have nothing to do with Jesus, and none are better sources for Jesus than what we possess.

Can you provide any proof for your statement?

Sure. Try reading actual scholarship, for example The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance by Bruce M. Metzger, perhaps the foremost textual critic of the 20th century

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

No it doesn't. It says nothing about canonical books.

Very late? What does this mean?

It means that by the time they were written, any reliable information about the life of Jesus was absent from oral tradition, and present only in early records, mainly the canonical gospels.

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.

Your missing the point. What Jesus said, spiritual or no, is a matter of history. Texts which aren't trying to actually reproduce what Jesus said (like the gnostic texts) are worthless when it comes to determining what Jesus said.

 

[Oberon]

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.

I agree with Christopher Tuckett, J. P. Meier, and others that Thomas was not completely independent from the synoptics, but used them.

However, I do agree that we can use Thomas for multiple attestation. My point was that thomas is too late and to heavily redacted to ADD to out knowledge of the historical Jesus, and to proto-gnostic to be of much use for the orthodox church.

 

[Oberon]

Incorrect -- The Gospels of the New Testament were written originally by the Apostles and all around the same time.

The gospels were all written anonymously, and are seperated by decades.

 

[VinDino11]

Any number of sources of scholarship. There has been a single NT scholar within the past 60 years or more who has argued for Matthean priority. It is generally accepted that Mark wrote first, C. 69-75.

Can you substantiate this with more then your personal opinion?

A link from a credible source will suffice!

Here's the one I used!

When were the Books of the New Testament Written?

 

[Buttons*]

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 Yeshua is more in line with the Orthodox version of Yeshua than the Catholic. But that's just me. Orthodoxy has a sacred feminine. You don't find that in Catholicism unless you're discussing the Virgin Mary, and even then... it tends to be a less advertised aspect of the Church these days.

 

[VinDino11]

The gospels were all written anonymously, and are seperated by decades.

No, this is false.

The New Testament was originally written by the Apostles of Jesus. And all around the same time-frame.

 

[Buttons*]

No, this is false.

The New Testament was originally written by the Apostles of Jesus. And all around the same time-frame.

lol, looked up many scholarly resources on the subject?

 

[Oberon]

Can you substantiate this with more then your personal opinion?

A link from a credible source will suffice!

Here's the one I used!

I don't provide internet links, as I never use them for this subject. I use books published by an academic press or peer-reviewed articles. Most of the sources I know would be too advanced for you (not because you aren't smart enough, just that they expect the reader to be very familiar with the topic, and you aren't). However, I know of a few that I have recommended to students or used in class which go over dates:

1. There is an excellent textbook for introducing students to historical Jesus research, which goes over the sources. The book isDer historische Jesus: Ein Lehrbuch. It is german, but I know there is an english translation, and I'm sure a google search could find it for you

2. J. P. Meier, in his four volume work (A Marginal Jew) on the historical Jesus, spends half of the first volume dealing with the sources.

3. L. Michael White has an introduction to the historical Jesus and the early church which gives the commonly agreed dates of the books of the NT: From Jesus to Christianity: How Four Generations of Visionaries & Storytellers Created the New Testament and Christian Faith