Is the Vatican Jesus different from the Gnostic Jesus?

[VinDino11]

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.

You are obviously wrong. Allow me to correct you!

You said; "some of them were written by the very people influencing canon."

This makes no sense what-so-ever. The same people who influenced the Canon? That would make the books of the bible as irrelevant as the Gnostic ones.

Friend I suggest you begin to read all manuscripts before venturing off to teach what you have yet to learn.

Epistle of the apostles
epistle of the apostles - apocrypha (New Testament) - christianity -

2 We, John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Nathanael, Judas Zelotes, and Cephas, write unto the churches of the east and the west, of the north and the south declaring and imparting unto you that which concerneth our Lord Jesus Christ: we do write according as we have seen and heard and touched him, after that he was risen from the dead: and how that he revealed unto us things mighty and wonderful and true.

NO CANON IS AS CLEAR AS TO WHO WROTE ANY OF THE BOOKS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT AS THE ABOVE QUOTED!

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

HUH? I'm taliking about the books that were removed by the Roman Empire who complied the canonical books of the Bible. The link agrees with me.

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.

Look to my first reply where the Apostles make it clear they wrote the Epistle.

 

[VinDino11]

I don't provide internet links, as I never use them for this subject.

Well then you're just not credible!

Don't use internet, ha,ha,ha, that was funny!

 

[Oberon]

You are obviously wrong. Allow me to correct you!

Very amusing.

You said; "some of them were written by the very people influencing canon."

This makes no sense what-so-ever. The same people who influenced the Canon? That would make the books of the bible as irrelevant as the Gnostic ones.

Your list of "lost works" (very few of which were ever lost) contains books like Tertullian's Against Heresies. This wasn't a book FOR the canon, more ABOUT the canon. Nor does it concern what Jesus said and taught (outside what is copied from the gospels). It is a work by a later christian bishop addressing particular forms of "heretical" thought.

Friend I suggest you begin to read all manuscripts before venturing off to teach what you have yet to learn.

I seriously doubt you have read virtually any of that list, as you are clearly unaware of what they are. You started this thread on whether the presentation of Jesus by the "vatican" is accurate, but the vast majority of your list of "lost books" contains nothing about Jesus, or they are quoting from the gospel texts we have. Very few are about Jesus and independent of the gospels, but these are all too late to have been any use when determining what Jesus said and did. See my post on the basis for studying the historical research here

Epistle of the apostles
epistle of the apostles - apocrypha (New Testament) - christianity -

2 We, John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Nathanael, Judas Zelotes, and Cephas, write unto the churches of the east and the west, of the north and the south declaring and imparting unto you that which concerneth our Lord Jesus Christ: we do write according as we have seen and heard and touched him, after that he was risen from the dead: and how that he revealed unto us things mighty and wonderful and true.

NO CANON IS AS CLEAR AS TO WHO WROTE ANY OF THE BOOKS IN THE NEW TESTAMENT AS THE ABOVE QUOTED!

Did you even read your own source?

"As to the date and character of the book, Schmidt's verdict is that it was written in Asia Minor about AD 160 by an orthodox Catholic. "

This is a late second century work. All of the apostles were dead LONG before it was written.

HUH? I'm taliking about the books that were removed by the Roman Empire who complied the canonical books of the Bible. The link agrees with me.

Quote me from your source where it states gospels was removed. The formation took place over a long period of time, but priority was ALWAYS given to the canonical four gospels (outside of small gnostic circles in the later 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, century who wrote their own gospels, but these are too late to be of any use).

 

[Oberon]

Well then you're just not credible!

Don't use internet, ha,ha,ha, that was funny!

Right. The internet is the most reliable source, because nothing on the internet could be written by people who have NO CLUE WHATSOEVER about what they are writing. READ A BOOK or something. There are plenty of introductory books written by actual experts. I can just about any information on the internet, and the bulk of it is sure to be wrong.

Did you go to college? Ever have to turn in an important paper to your professor? If you did, and it was full of links to websites rather than authoritative sources, any professor worth her or his salt would have marked you way down.

 

[VinDino11]

Very amusing.

I seriously doubt you have read virtually any of that list, as you are clearly unaware of what they are. You started this thread on whether the presentation of Jesus by the "vatican" is accurate, but the vast majority of your list of "lost books" contains nothing about Jesus, or they are quoting from the gospel texts we have.

Very few are about Jesus and independent of the gospels, but these are all too late to have been any use when determining what Jesus said and did. See my post on the basis for studying the historical research here

Ha,Ha,Ha, thanks that was indeed funny!

Gnostic scriptures don't talk about Jesus, ha,ha,ha, I like to know why a title like this didn't make it in the NewTestement.

The Dialogue of the Savior

"The Savior said to his disciples, "Already the time has come, brothers, for us to abandon our labor and stand at rest. For whoever stands at rest will rest forever."
The Dialogue of the Savior -- The Nag Hammadi Library

For whoever stands at rest will rest forever
For whoever stands at rest will rest forever

Here Jesus is agreeing with Newtonian first law. LOL

Did you even read your own source?

"As to the date and character of the book, Schmidt's verdict is that it was written in Asia Minor about AD 160 by an orthodox Catholic. "

No Carbon-14 testing, then anyone can say whatever they like, its just their opinion.

 

[VinDino11]

Right. The internet is the most reliable source, because nothing on the internet could be written by people who have NO CLUE WHATSOEVER about what they are writing. READ A BOOK or something. There are plenty of introductory books written by actual experts. I can just about any information on the internet, and the bulk of it is sure to be wrong.

Right. Books are the most reliable source, because nothing in Books could be written by people who have NO CLUE WHATSOEVER about what they are writing.

This is how ridiculous you sound!!

 

[Oberon]

Right. Books are the most reliable source, because nothing in Books could be written by people who have NO CLUE WHATSOEVER about what they are writing.

This is how ridiculous you sound!!

Not just any books. You appear to have missed the "academic press" part. Books by professors in the field submitted to academic publishers and peer-review journals are subject to intense scrutiny. Nothing on the web is.

However, for a good faith effort, here is a quotation on the question of dates from a recent publication from a well-known publisher by Professor J. D. G. Dunn (University of Durham) on of the great scholars of the present day. The book is Volume 1 of his on-going work Christianity in The Making and is titled Jesus Remembered.

"A very large consensus of contemporary scholarship dates Mark somewhere between the period 65-75 CE." p. 146

He also states that Matthew and Luke are "usually dated in the period 80-95." p. 160

 

[Oberon]

Ha,Ha,Ha, thanks that was indeed funny!

Gnostic scriptures don't talk about Jesus, ha,ha,ha, I like to know why a title like this didn't make it in the NewTestement.

Most of your list aren't gnostic texts on Jesus. And again, all the gnostic sources are late.

No Carbon-14 test, anyone can say whatever they like, its just their opinion.

So you use a source, and then disagree with it? Why use it?

And how would you know anything about what goes into dating a particular text? What scholarship have you read on dating of particular sources? In fact, what scholarship have you read AT ALL on any subject of the formation of canon, the historical Jesus, or NT studies? Because apparently all you can do is go to google and find whatever pops up. Not the best way to get reliable information.

 

[VinDino11]

Not just any books. You appear to have missed the "academic press" part. Books by professors in the field submitted to academic publishers and peer-review journals are subject to intense scrutiny. Nothing on the web is.

I post from manuscripts, most of which were not carbon-14 tested making their assessments of dates inaccurate and invalid from academic professors and are only offering their opinions which is more then I can say for you!

 

[VinDino11]

In fact, what scholarship have you read AT ALL on any subject of the formation of canon, the historical Jesus, or NT studies? Because apparently all you can do is go to google and find whatever pops up. Not the best way to get reliable information.

After I Google I read the scriptures for myself.

Take for instance the following where Jesus himself tells you how to translate into Heaven. No professor can or will teach you this better then the Master. LOL

The Dialogue of the Savior.
The Dialogue of the Savior -- The Nag Hammadi Library

"I will teach you. When the time of dissolution arrives, the first power of darkness will come upon you. Do not be afraid and say "Behold! The time has come!" But when you see a single staff ... (3 lines indecipherable) ... understand [...] the work [...] and the governors [...] come upon you [...]. Truly, fear is the power [...]. So if you are going to be afraid of what is about to come upon you, it will engulf you. For there is not one among them who will spare you or show you mercy. But in this way, look at the [...] in it, since you have mastered every word on earth. It [...] take you up to the [...] place where there is no rule [...] tyrant.

When the time of dissolution arrives, the first power of darkness will come upon you.
When the time of dissolution arrives, the first power of darkness will come upon you.

since you have mastered every word on earth. It [...] take you up to the [...] place where there is no rule [...] tyrant.

The act of dissolution is the undoing or breaking of a bond, tie, union with the Power of Darkness. To have mastered every word, is to have been able to translate them with yourself into Heaven. Read from the Master and translate into Heaven.

The Master = The Son of Man

 

[Breathe]

The Master = The Son of Man

Where did you pull that from?

 

[Humanistheart]

John is not synoptic, because its source material differs from the first three.\

Yes, this is why it's not synoptic. And it's difference is owed to it's gnostic influence.

 

[Humanistheart]

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.​

I've never seen dates so inaccurate before.

 

[Humanistheart]

No, this is false.

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

No. The gospels were not written by eyewittnesses, and as the 'apostles' of jesus were eyewitnesses they couldn't have written them. They are dated long after any disciples would have died. And there is evidence of this fact in the scriptures themselves. Look at the synoptic gospels. Not one is written with language that indicated the authors were in the presence of jesus. Not one used the word "I" saw jesus, or I heard jesus, etc. Luke even states flat out the author is not a witness at the beggining of the gospel.

" Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been fulfilled among us,
2 just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and ministers of the word have handed them down to us, 3 I too have decided, after investigating everything accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for you, most excellent Theophilus,"
If the author of Luke was an apostle he would not need the accounts of eyewittnesses to be handed down to him to write his gospel, nor would he need to investigate what's said of jesus as he would know it from memory.

 

[Oberon]

I post from manuscripts, most of which were not carbon-14 tested making their assessments of dates inaccurate and invalid from academic professors and are only offering their opinions which is more then I can say for you!

That is far from the only way to date manuscripts. You simply have no idea what you are talking about. First of all, the manuscripts ARE carbon dated. The problem is that they are copied, not the originals. So, for example, if p66 dates from c.200, that doesn't mean John does. A great deal of work and experties goes into determining dates, and although there is always a range (e.g. with Mark, c. 65-75) that doesn't mean that so many experts dating gnostic texts to the late 2nd and third centuries are wrong.

 

[Oberon]

After I Google I read the scriptures for myself.

So if I created a website and posted a scripture in the name of Jesus, how would you know it wasn't written by him, because apparently you are taking every document which claims to record the words of Jesus as authentic. I have never seen a more naive or ill-informed approach.

Take for instance the following where Jesus himself tells you how to translate into Heaven. No professor can or will teach you this better then the Master. LOL

Only this was written LONG after Jesus was dead.

 

[Oberon]

No. The gospels were not written by eyewittnesses, and as the 'apostles' of jesus were eyewitnesses they couldn't have written them. They are dated long after any disciples would have died.

This is not true for Mark.

And there is evidence of this fact in the scriptures themselves. Look at the synoptic gospels. Not one is written with language that indicated the authors were in the presence of jesus. Not one used the word "I" saw jesus, or I heard jesus, etc. Luke even states flat out the author is not a witness at the beggining of the gospel.

However, John does state that an eyewitness was used as his source.

 

[VinDino11]

I've never seen dates so inaccurate before.

No. The gospels were not written by eyewittnesses, and as the 'apostles' of jesus were eyewitnesses they couldn't have written them.
They are dated long after any disciples would have died.

And there is evidence of this fact in the scriptures themselves. Look at the synoptic gospels. Not one is written with language that indicated the authors were in the presence of jesus. Not one used the word "I" saw jesus, or I heard jesus, etc.

The third person, there is a reason for that, but for now read this verse from the Gnostic epistles of the apostles.

2 We, John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Nathanael, Judas Zelotes, and Cephas, write unto the churches of the east and the west, of the north and the south declaring and imparting unto you that which concerneth our Lord Jesus Christ: we do write according as we have seen and heard and touched him, after that he was risen from the dead: and how that he revealed unto us things mighty and wonderful and true.

epistle of the apostles - apocrypha (New Testament) - christianity -

 

[VinDino11]

That is far from the only way to date manuscripts. You simply have no idea what you are talking about. First of all, the manuscripts ARE carbon dated. The problem is that they are copied, not the originals. So, for example, if p66 dates from c.200, that doesn't mean John does. A great deal of work and experties goes into determining dates, and although there is always a range (e.g. with Mark, c. 65-75) that doesn't mean that so many experts dating gnostic texts to the late 2nd and third centuries are wrong.

"The problem is that they are copied, not the originals."

VERY GOOD!!! VERY, VERY GOOD!!!

And do you know why they were copied?

 

[VinDino11]

So if I created a website and posted a scripture in the name of Jesus, how would you know it wasn't written by him, because apparently you are taking every document which claims to record the words of Jesus as authentic. I have never seen a more naive or ill-informed approach.

Stop it, this only makes you sound retarded.

Are you trying to bad mouth and belittle Societies such as the Nag Hammadi library?
And that only in their written books do they publish the facts?
Nag Hammadi Library

Can you not see how retarded you're sounding?

I suggest you disembark from your comatose ramble trying to diminish your credibility and resume cognative behavior.