Is the Vatican Jesus different from the Gnostic Jesus?

[Breathe]

VinDino, you'll end up getting banned if you keep up the personal attacks.
Saying someone "sounds retarded" is considered abusive and a personal attack and is not permissible on this forum.

If you disagree with what Oberon has said, then fight his point, not him. Prove him wrong if you believe he is.

 

[VinDino11]

Just giving him constructive criticism. I didn't think he'd mind, only now I'm beginning to believe you mind about other peoples discussions.

If I substituted it to "sounds naive & ill-informed" would that have made a difference?

Let us debate, there was no personnel attack. If you have something to say about the OP say it.

 

[Breathe]

Just giving him constructive criticism.

By saying he sounds retarded? Constructive crticism would be more like, "Yet with the current archaeological evidence we can see that..." - not "You sound retarded".

I didn't think he'd mind, only now I'm beginning to believe you mind about our peoples discussions.

I do mind when you start calling someone names on a forum that I enjoy coming. I don't go around calling people "retarded" and stuff just because I disagree with what they say. I try to empathize with them, learn why they believe that, and discuss it whilst still being respectful. Sometimes I fail, but I don't try to go into personal attacks.

If I substituted it to "sounds naive & ill-informed" would that have made a difference?

Yes, it would have been better.

Let us debate, there was no personnel attack. If you have something to say about the OP say it.

I already did. Post 2. Right below yours.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/1593113-post2.html

You never responded to it.

 

[Oberon]

Are you trying to bad mouth and belittle Societies such as the Nag Hammadi library?

That isn't a society. It is a collection of various texts representing various currents of thought. It isn't the product of any single group, nor representative of any single philosophy.

And with the possible exception of the Gospel of Thomas, nothing in there is useful when it comes to deciding what Jesus actually said.

And that only in their written books do they publish the facts?
Nag Hammadi Library

Can you not see how retarded you're sounding?

Gee, well considering that you just search through google finding texts and then asking why they aren't considered good sources for what Jesus said and did without ever looking into even a small section of the vast amount of scholarship in this field, while I have... no I can't see how I sound retarded. But then, maybe that's because I actually know what I'm talking about.

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

Cognitive behavior? Even had you spelt it correctly it would not make sense.

 

[VinDino11]

By saying he sounds retarded? Constructive crticism would be more like, "Yet with the current archaeological evidence we can see that..." - not "You sound retarded".

What are you talking about?

I do mind when you start calling someone names on a forum that I enjoy coming. I don't go around calling people "retarded" and stuff just because I disagree with what they say. I try to empathize with them, learn why they believe that, and discuss it whilst still being respectful. Sometimes I fail, but I don't try to go into personal attacks.

If I would have said "You simply have no idea what you are talking about" wouldn't that be WORSE then saying "You sound retarded?" Because the former makes you a retard for not understanding what you're writing, worse then me saying; "cut it out you're sounding dumb!"

We are getting off topic!!!

I already did. Post 2. Right below yours.

You never responded to it.

Because I didn't respond, you stalked and stir up ****!!!

 

[dogsgod]

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.

.




Pot, meet kettle.

Talk about naive and ill-informed approaches, Oberon does precisely the same thing when it comes to an "authentic" and "historical" Jesus.

 

[Oberon]

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 -

Have you ever studied ancient history AT ALL? Plenty of texts were written and falsely ascribed to various authors. The text you cite was not written by the apostles, just because the author said it was.

And I like that you give us a source, and then disagree with its content (because it dates the document you cite as being from the latter half of the second century).

 

[Oberon]

.
Talk about naive and ill-informed approaches, Oberon does precisely the same thing when it comes to an "authentic" and "historical" Jesus.

Right. You do what VinDino does: you find a bunch of websites which agree with you, or have parts which do, or support some point, and ignore a century of critical scholarship.

 

[Breathe]

What are you talking about?

You know full well.

If I would have said "You simply have no idea what you are talking about" wouldn't that be WORSE then saying "You sound retarded?" Because the former makes you a retard for not understanding what you're writing, worse then me saying; "cut it out you're sounding dumb!"

The word retarded is not only very inflammatory and ridiculing - and you didn't say "cut it out, you're sounding dumb".

We are getting off topic!!!

I feel as though this happens a lot within your threads. If you want to bring it back on topic, then how about you offer some proof for your assertation?

Because I didn't respond, you stalked and stir up ****!!!

Nope, because I check on threads that I've posted on or subscribe because they're things that I'm interested in and I saw you were acting dangerously close to forum rules by being impolite to someone who knows more about this subject than you instead of discussing with them.

 

[VinDino11]

That isn't a society. It is a collection of various texts representing various currents of thought. It isn't the product of any single group, nor representative of any single philosophy.

What? What's this?

It is a society according to the English language!

so⋅ci⋅e⋅ty 1. an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes.

And with the possible exception of the Gospel of Thomas, nothing in there is useful when it comes to deciding what Jesus actually said.

What? What's this?

Anything and everything Jesus said constitutes the Christian faith! All that Jesus spoke must be presented if Christian beliefs are to be consider whole.

Gee, well considering that you just search through google finding texts and then asking why they aren't considered good sources for what Jesus said and did without ever looking into even a small section of the vast amount of scholarship in this field, while I have... no I can't see how I sound retarded. But then, maybe that's because I actually know what I'm talking about.

More rant!

Cognitive behavior? Even had you spelt it correctly it would not make sense.

It is spelled correctly.

 

[VinDino11]

Have you ever studied ancient history AT ALL? Plenty of texts were written and falsely ascribed to various authors. The text you cite was not written by the apostles, just because the author said it was.

And I like that you give us a source, and then disagree with its content (because it dates the document you cite as being from the latter half of the second century).

You are anti-Jesus. Quite simply you have shown that through-out this thread.

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

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.

First you say that the New Testament was written by anonymous authors therefore not the Apostles. Then you make claim that those anonymous authors wrote both the Canon and the Gnostic and you calling either one "worthless" is like calling Jesus worthless!

 

[VinDino11]

Case-closed!

 

[Oberon]

What? What's this?

It is a society according to the English language!

so⋅ci⋅e⋅ty 1. an organized group of persons associated together for religious, benevolent, cultural, scientific, political, patriotic, or other purposes.

The nag hammadi library does not fit that description. It was a series of copies of various books/tracts/etc written by various authors collected at one point, and then buried. The books were most likely part of a larger library, and were buried to keep the monks out of trouble once the books were deemed heretical.

What? What's this?

Anything and everything Jesus said constitutes the Christian faith! All that Jesus spoke must be presented if Christian beliefs are to be consider whole.

Only the gnostic gospels don't actually record his sayings. They speak in his name, but they are not reproducing his words, only the ideas of the authors. They are written well over a century after after Jesus died. I suggest that rather than just read the texts, you read critical commentary on the texts. You will look a great deal more informed.

It is spelled correctly.

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

Cognitive, not cognative.

 

[sojourner]

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

I don't know where you're getting your information, but you need to choose a different source. There is no reason to believe that any of the gospels were written by apostles, and there is approximately a 30 year span before all four gospels were written. More, if you include Q.

 

[dogsgod]

So, some gospels are considered more "authentic" than others. I guess that's why it's called religion.

 

[sojourner]

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

Where did you get yours?

The Anchor Bible Commentary, Sacra Pagina commentary, the Interpreter's Bible commentary, plus several NT textbooks and seminary professors.

 

[Oberon]

You are anti-Jesus. Quite simply you have shown that through-out this thread.

Interesting. It was only a few days ago I was accused of being a closet christian.

First you say that the New Testament was written by anonymous authors therefore not the Apostles. Then you make claim that those anonymous authors wrote both the Canon and the Gnostic and you calling either one "worthless" is like calling Jesus worthless!

We have some early texts which recorded oral traditions circling by disciples of Jesus, and then by their disciples. Eventually, these written texts made the oral tradition obsolete. Then, years and years later, we have a bunch of gnostic treatises, written to promote gnostic ideology. They used Jesus' name to do this. Various groups frequently produced works in the name of people with authority (gospel of philip, peter, mary, etc).

 

[Oberon]

So, some gospels are considered more "authentic" than others. I guess that's why it's called religion.

"Authentic" in a religious sense depends on what religion. As for historical, yes some gospels are clearly more historical.

 

[VinDino11]

The nag hammadi library does not fit that description.

It does.

Cognitive, not cognative.

Troll!

 

[sojourner]

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.

Since there are several cases of mulitple attestation, I agree with those who claim that Thomas and Q shared common, oral source material.

All of the gospels are redacted. That was very common practice, as you are well aware. Redaction is part and parcel of gospel writing. Thomas doesn't add anything about Jesus -- it does corroborate some important things; Thomas is important because it adds to our knowledge base of early Xian communities and how they thought.