Is the Vatican Jesus different from the Gnostic Jesus?

[Mr Cheese]

It isn't "just" an opinion. It is an informed opinion based on an ongoing interaction between people who have devoted their careers to studying particular parts of it.

It is my opinion that reality exists, and I'm not just dreaming all of what I see and hear and so on. However, it is an opinion formed by sensory data which I happen to trust. History is not as precise as science (good science, anyway). However, it also adheres to methodology, and utilizes particular tools in order to discern the most likely scenerio given the evidence. The historical Jesus is not Jesus as he lived. It is a reconstruction based on examining the evidence and determining what is most likely. How this evidence is judged differs from scholar to scholar, but it is the ongoing interaction that enables progress. And it certainly isn't "just" opinion.

Well yes it is....

observer and observed....

inseperable are they

addendum:

history is great, and is valid, but its not Theosis or the application of the texts...

both have their place though

 

[sojourner]

I'm aware of what the church is...

the key is in exotercism priests are given positions of key holders

In what I am proposing they do not hold keys, for example not letting the masses read the bible..... only perfoming eucharist themselves, not the masses by themselves

etc.

Gnosticism differs in that it allows the lay people to be priests

As we must gain Gnosis for ourselves, not through another

It sounds as though the main difference is that gnosticism is highly individualistic. Orthodoxy is highly communal.

 

[Breathe]

It sounds as though the main difference is that gnosticism is highly individualistic. Orthodoxy is highly communal.

Why not combine them?

 

[sojourner]

Why not combine them?

From what I can tell, the means of salvation are mutually exclusive.

 

[Mr Cheese]

It sounds as though the main difference is that gnosticism is highly individualistic. Orthodoxy is highly communal.

thats not fully true..there are many groups that are Gnostic

actually orthodoxy is closer to Gnosticism than any other form of christianity

Arguably the actual application of Theosis is practically the same as Gnosis...

Gnosticism is in effect more akin to eastern orthodoxy than occidental christianity

of course one could mention the manichaeans that were highly organised...for a 1000 years

My pint was however, Gnosticism posits that theosis is something you must do..a priest cannot do it for you

 

[Mr Cheese]

From what I can tell, the means of salvation are mutually exclusive.

not really ,

its just you and God, or Just God...

 

[HouseofIsrael]

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.​

What might that be?

 

[Humanistheart]

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

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

And this reason is?

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 -

The book of mormon calls joseph smith a prophet. Do you believe this too? Writing names in the text doesn't make it true.The gnostic gospels were written long after jesus' death, and the death of his disciples.

 

[VinDino11]

The book of mormon calls joseph smith a prophet. Do you believe this too? Writing names in the text doesn't make it true.The gnostic gospels were written long after jesus' death, and the death of his disciples.

So is the Book of Revelation, "what's your point?"

 

[Humanistheart]

So is the Book of Revelation, "what's your point?"

Funny how you don't remmember your own point. You were claiming the gospels authors were known, and were jesus' apostles wrote the gospels. I was pointing out your error.

 

[VinDino11]

What are you talking about?

 

[VinDino11]

You didn't answer my question!

 

[Mr Cheese]

So is the Book of Revelation, "what's your point?"

Thats actually not true, not all the Gnostic Gospel were written long after Jesus' death....

some think Thomas for instance is "Q" or a large part of Q, which would mean Thomas was actually what the canonicals came from, not vice versa
....

Stevan L. Davies argues that the apparent independence of the ordering of sayings in Thomas from that of their parallels in the synoptics shows that Thomas was most likely not reliant upon the canonical Gospels and probably predated them.[20] A number of authors argue that when the logia in Thomas do have parallels in the synoptics the version in Thomas often seems closer to the source. Theissen and Merz give sayings 31 and 65 as examples of this.[19] Similarly Earl Doherty argues that when the Gospel of Thomas does parallel Q or the New Testament, it shows a less developed, more "primitive" or "original" form than the latter. [1] Koester agrees, citing especially the parables contained in sayings 8, 9, 57, 63, 64 and 65.[4] In the few instances where the version in Thomas seems to be dependent on the Synoptics, Koester suggests, this may be due to the influence of the person who translated the text from Greek into Coptic.[4]
Koester also argues that the absence of narrative materials (such as those found in the canonical gospels) in Thomas makes it unlikely that the gospel is "an eclectic excerpt from the gospels of the New Testament". [4] He also cites the absence of the eschatological sayings characteristic of Q to show the independence of Thomas from that source.[4] On the other hand, many other scholars have argued for a direct or indirect dependence on the Synoptics, or on a harmony of Luke and Matthew.

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

 

[Buttons*]

It sounds as though the main difference is that gnosticism is highly individualistic. Orthodoxy is highly communal.

That would make sense... though Gnostics would probably be somewhat communal today if we could actually find each other I know there are some Gnostic churches out there. While individuality is important, there is a sense that we are all of the same source, and thus a community of others like us wouldn't be such a bad thing. To me anyway.

 

[VinDino11]

Thats actually not true, not all the Gnostic Gospel were written long after Jesus' death....

Elaborate this please Mr Cheese.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Elaborate this please Mr Cheese.

dude, I did , follow the wiki quote...

 

[Oberon]

some think Thomas for instance is "Q" or a large part of Q, which would mean Thomas was actually what the canonicals came from, not vice versa

Who thinks that Thomas is Q?
....

Stevan L. Davies argues that the apparent independence of the ordering of sayings in Thomas from that of their parallels in the synoptics shows that Thomas was most likely not reliant upon the canonical Gospels and probably predated them.[20] A number of authors argue that when the logia in Thomas do have parallels in the synoptics the version in Thomas often seems closer to the source.

And Christopher Tuckett, J.P. Meier, and a number of others argue for dependency. More significantly, even the vast majority of those who argue that Thomas is wholly independent from the synoptics (e.g. B. Ehrman) agree that it was written early second century.

Theissen and Merz give sayings 31 and 65 as examples of this.

Your citation is a translation of Theissen and Merz's book Der Historische Jesus: Ein Lehrbuch. And they expressly argue that Thomas is later than all four canonical gospels.

Similarly Earl Doherty argues

Who cares what Doherty argues? He isn't a scholar, nor an expert in this area. You might as well cite Freke and Gandy.

Koester agrees

Koester, his student Crossan, and a number of others do argue that Thomas is early. However, they are the minority. No doubt parts of thomas, just like parts of John, matthew luke, and mark, go back to an early stage. However, the work itself is early second century.

 

[VinDino11]

dude, I did , follow the wiki quote...

In your own thoughts and words.

A persons thoughts enlighten another.

 

[VinDino11]

When were the Books of the New Testament Written?

30 A.D. : Jesus is Crucified, Dies and is Resurrected

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​

Yet the Apostles Gospels are pretty much similar. So why are their dates so far between? Because these are the surviving copies. All Christian scriptures (Canon/Gnostic) were written by the Apostles in the same time-frame. The birth of Christianity conflicted with the Roman worship and as Christians went underground many copies were made to ensure that it would survive the persecution.​

Christianity was illegal under Roman law. Christians were persecuted and their manuscripts confiscated this how the Empire later was able to compile the New Testament. And at first when Christianity was legalised the many Roman councils removed Gnostic text that conflicted with Roman Worship, decades later however, the Empire abandoned their pagan faith and accepted Jesus (Christianity) but the lost Books were never put back.​

This validates that Gnostic literature's must be accepted in order to complete the faith called Christianity. Everything about the Christian faith is based on what Jesus said, everything, because Jesus is the cornerstone of that faith!​

And another note: This is also why there are many copies found of the same text of the dead sea scrolls and codex. Many copies were made, some survived better then others explaining the multiple copies. The Dialogue of the Savior is single surviving copy. Written for Jesus as he spoke to his Apostles. What a treat!

 

[Mr Cheese]

In your own thoughts and words.

A persons thoughts enlighten another.

well the wiki article says it all...

my own thoughts?

Thomas is clearly an early oral teaching text, a mystical one...
full of essentially zen koan like sayings
one that makes the person think, and leads them to inner spiritual truths...

Thomas is less concerned with recordign history or recording who said what, who has the biggest cheesecake or whatever. Of course peopel like Oberon are stuck in history....

thats fine. The Gnostics sought Gnosis first, history last...

Here is a comparison of Thomas to the canonicals:

After a long period of study by myself and others it has been discovered that the entire Gospel of Thomas can be imbedded into certain strings of verses from other Gospels and
Epistles, using the Gospel of Matthew as the main guide.
This provides Thomas with a timeline it does not have by itself.
I am one of the people who love the Gospel of Thomas of and by itself. It is my desire to discover by combining these texts, rather than create from or of them.
The following is the combination of the Gospel of Thomas, into the Gospel of Matthew, with insertions from the Gospel of Mary, the Epistle of James, Peter, and the Gospels of
Luke, Phillip, John and Mark. Insertions occur in different ways. This has been done with care as not to distort from the intended obvious meanings, and central themes of the
combinations of strings, all from Apostles...
“These are the words that Jesus said...”
Jesus, His Disciples, and John The Baptist

extract from: secret jesus 1

chart comparing Thomas to canonicals, beware it is a huge diagram, that can be viewed at any size in PDF version

http://magdelene.wordpress.com/files/2009/07/synopticrainbowfor1280x1024screens.jpg

http://magdelene.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/rainbow19.pdf

Thomas spreadsheet, note must use internet explorer not firefox
thom spread