First Baseman
Retired athlete
The Gnostic "Gospels" were not inspired by the Holy Spirit and therefore are not gospels at all.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Mary Magdalene, “Apostle to the Apostles,” Given Equal Dignity to Apostles in Feast
- Thread starter Vouthon
- Start date
Gday First Baseman and all 
Yes, that is the faithful belief of faithful believers.
But the firm consensus of modern NT scholars is that not one of the NT books was written by anyone who ever met a historical Jesus. In fact none of the authors of the NT books are known at all. The Gospels were anonymous until c.185. Someone wrote Paul's letters, but we have no historical information on Paul either.
BTW -
According to Christian beliefs -
Mark was not an eye-witness, he was merely Peter's later secretary in Rome who wrote down Peter's recollection.
Luke was not an eye-witness either, he was merely a later travelling companion of Paul.
Kapyong
Yes, that is the faithful belief of faithful believers.
But the firm consensus of modern NT scholars is that not one of the NT books was written by anyone who ever met a historical Jesus. In fact none of the authors of the NT books are known at all. The Gospels were anonymous until c.185. Someone wrote Paul's letters, but we have no historical information on Paul either.
BTW -
According to Christian beliefs -
Mark was not an eye-witness, he was merely Peter's later secretary in Rome who wrote down Peter's recollection.
Luke was not an eye-witness either, he was merely a later travelling companion of Paul.
Kapyong
Luciferi Baphomet
Lucifer, is my Liberator
How do you know it really was eye witnessed by those who were really there? Did you see them write it?
Gday First Baseman and all
Do you think that's an effective approach to discussion and debate ?
To personally abuse those who disagree with you as liars ?
Do you think you can win a debate that way ?
Anyone who researches the facts will find that modern NT scholars agree :
according to Christian doctrine, neither Mark nor Luke were eye-witnesses.
Why do YOU disagree with Christian doctrine ?
Who do YOU think Mark and Luke were ?
Kapyong
Do you think that's an effective approach to discussion and debate ?
To personally abuse those who disagree with you as liars ?
Do you think you can win a debate that way ?
Anyone who researches the facts will find that modern NT scholars agree :
- None of the NT books were written by anyone who ever met the alleged historical Jesus
- The Gospels were all written by unknown persons, and only named around c.185 with Irenaeus
- There is no contemporary historical evidence for Jesus at all
according to Christian doctrine, neither Mark nor Luke were eye-witnesses.
Why do YOU disagree with Christian doctrine ?
Who do YOU think Mark and Luke were ?
Kapyong
Last edited by a moderator:
Luciferi Baphomet
Lucifer, is my Liberator
Basically anonymous people who wrote it? Am I right? Btw First Baseman is just going to disagree with the both of us. But that is ok.Gday First Baseman and all
Do you think that's an effective approach to discussion and debate ?
To personally abuse those who disagree with you as liars ?
Do you think you can win a debate that way ?
Anyone who researches the facts will find that modern NT scholars agree :
Also,
- None of the NT books were written by anyone who ever met the alleged historical Jesus
- The Gospels were all written by unknown persons, and only named around c.185 with Irenaeus
- There is no contemporary historical evidence for Jesus at all
according to Christian doctrine, neither Mark nor Luke were eye-witnesses.
Why do YOU disagree with Christian doctrine ?
Who do YOU think Mark and Luke were ?
Kapyong
Gday Priestess of Lucifer and all
Yes.
The authors of all the NT books are unknown.
(Someone called 'Paul' wrote letters, but we know nothing about Paul.)
The Gospels were all anonymous until c.185, when they were named by Irenaeus.
G.Mark was first, around 70 AD.
G.Luke and G.Matthew copied much text from G.Mark, in the 80s probably.
G.John tells a wildly different story, from about c.100.
All the historical information about the alleged Jesus comes FROM the Gospels, thus from G.Mark.
But G.Mark is religious literature based on :
Instead,
a set of BOOKS were handed down through history from totally UNKNOWN sources.
Kapyong
Yes.
The authors of all the NT books are unknown.
(Someone called 'Paul' wrote letters, but we know nothing about Paul.)
The Gospels were all anonymous until c.185, when they were named by Irenaeus.
G.Mark was first, around 70 AD.
G.Luke and G.Matthew copied much text from G.Mark, in the 80s probably.
G.John tells a wildly different story, from about c.100.
All the historical information about the alleged Jesus comes FROM the Gospels, thus from G.Mark.
But G.Mark is religious literature based on :
- the Jewish scriptures (the Tanakh in Greek called the LXX, or The Seventy.)
- Paul's writings
- Greek mysteries
Instead,
a set of BOOKS were handed down through history from totally UNKNOWN sources.
Kapyong
First Baseman
Retired athlete
Gday First Baseman and all
Do you think that's an effective approach to discussion and debate ?
To personally abuse those who disagree with you as liars ?
Do you think you can win a debate that way ?
Anyone who researches the facts will find that modern NT scholars agree :
Also,
- None of the NT books were written by anyone who ever met the alleged historical Jesus
- The Gospels were all written by unknown persons, and only named around c.185 with Irenaeus
- There is no contemporary historical evidence for Jesus at all
according to Christian doctrine, neither Mark nor Luke were eye-witnesses.
Why do YOU disagree with Christian doctrine ?
Who do YOU think Mark and Luke were ?
Kapyong
1. Yes.
2. Liars are liars. Satan has been a liar from the beginning. That those dispute the Gospel are those that wish to deceive.
3. I'm not looking to win anything. I simply speak the truth and expose Satan for the liar he is.
First Baseman
Retired athlete
Gday Priestess of Lucifer and all
Yes.
The authors of all the NT books are unknown.
(Someone called 'Paul' wrote letters, but we know nothing about Paul.)
The Gospels were all anonymous until c.185, when they were named by Irenaeus.
G.Mark was first, around 70 AD.
G.Luke and G.Matthew copied much text from G.Mark, in the 80s probably.
G.John tells a wildly different story, from about c.100.
All the historical information about the alleged Jesus comes FROM the Gospels, thus from G.Mark.
But G.Mark is religious literature based on :
There is no connection from any of the NT books to any historical Jesus at all.
- the Jewish scriptures (the Tanakh in Greek called the LXX, or The Seventy.)
- Paul's writings
- Greek mysteries
Instead,
a set of BOOKS were handed down through history from totally UNKNOWN sources.
Kapyong
The authors of scripture are all well known except for the author of Hebrews. Sir, you have been badly misled by those that wish to deceive you.
Luciferi Baphomet
Lucifer, is my Liberator
So some of the stories they wrote about jesus are not really accurate then?Gday Priestess of Lucifer and all
Yes.
The authors of all the NT books are unknown.
(Someone called 'Paul' wrote letters, but we know nothing about Paul.)
The Gospels were all anonymous until c.185, when they were named by Irenaeus.
G.Mark was first, around 70 AD.
G.Luke and G.Matthew copied much text from G.Mark, in the 80s probably.
G.John tells a wildly different story, from about c.100.
All the historical information about the alleged Jesus comes FROM the Gospels, thus from G.Mark.
But G.Mark is religious literature based on :
There is no connection from any of the NT books to any historical Jesus at all.
- the Jewish scriptures (the Tanakh in Greek called the LXX, or The Seventy.)
- Paul's writings
- Greek mysteries
Instead,
a set of BOOKS were handed down through history from totally UNKNOWN sources.
Kapyong
Luciferi Baphomet
Lucifer, is my Liberator
Oh like me deceiving him because I am a Satanist? Sorry but you are wrong.
Luciferi Baphomet
Lucifer, is my Liberator
Actually Lucifer is not a liar. Btw do you use Lucifer an a scapegoat for all your problems in life?
First Baseman
Retired athlete
Lucifer was only Lucifer before he sinned. After that he is now known as Satan, the accuser. He accuses you before God night and day. Did you not know that?
You have been deceived in a major way. Satan is your enemy, he is not your friend.
You have been deceived in a major way. Satan is your enemy, he is not your friend.
Luciferi Baphomet
Lucifer, is my Liberator
You did not answer my question, do you use Lucifer as a scapegoat for your problems?
You do realize a tiny fragment of a text written 500 years after Jesus' death, and whose fragmentary nature makes the actual meaning of the text ambiguous at best, makes it effectively worthless as evidence for anything, right?
Besides, if Jesus had a wife and kids, the Church would have been parading that fact up and down to prove to the Docetists and proto-Gnostics that Jesus was in fact human. The Church would have literally zero reason to deny Mary Magdalene being Jesus' wife.
Luciferi Baphomet
Lucifer, is my Liberator
That is what I heard. I am not sure if it was entirely true but it might be. Who knows.
Gday Priestess of Lucifer and all
They are certainly not history.
The Gospels are religious literature.
Kapyong
They are certainly not history.
The Gospels are religious literature.
Kapyong
Luciferi Baphomet
Lucifer, is my Liberator
Hm I see then.Gday Priestess of Lucifer and all
They are certainly not history.
The Gospels are religious literature.
Kapyong
Gday First Baseman and all
Ah, so Hebrews is not by an eye-witness.
That's brings it down to 26 eye witness books does it ?
According to Catholic doctrine Mark was the secretary of Peter in Rome - not an eye-witness.
So only 25 eye witness books ?
And according to Catholic doctrine Luke was the companion of Paul - not an eye-witness either.
24 eye witness books ?
Revelation is a bizarre fantasy including a woman who gives birth among the stars, pursued by a dragon - hardly an eye-witness account.
Maybe 23 eye witness books ?
Of course Paul was only an eye-witness to a vision of Christ, not to any historical Jesus. And several books were not by Paul anyway.
Call it 12 eye witness books then ?
The Gospel of Luke admits he copied from previous stories, which his text clearly shows - obviously not an eye-witness.
Is that now 11 eye witness books ?
And the Gospel of Matthew also copied in bulk from the text of G.Mark - so he wasn't an eye-witness.
Would you believe 10 eye witness books ?
The Gospel of John is so late and so different and so supernatural and so full of otherwise unknown miracles - obviously not by an eye-witness.
Perhaps 9 eye witness books ?
Consider the epistle of James (allegedly the brother of Jesus) and what it says about a historical Jesus - nothing. Obviously not by an eye-witness.
Shall we hope for 8 eye witness books ?
The two alleged books of Peter 1,2 are the latest and most obvious forgeries in the entire NT, probably by two different persons who obviously never met any historical Jesus (the supernatural transfiguration scene kind-of gives it away). Not by any eye-witness.
Let's call it a round 6 eye witness books ?
Jude ?
Disputed even among the church, authorship uncertain, connected to Enoch and apocrypha and 2 Peter, nothing historical about Jesus - obviously not an eye-witness.
5 eye witness books ?
How about 1,2,3 John ?
Read the opening to 1 John and what he has to say. It's a spiritual vision, they are almost gnostic - nothing historical. Not an eye-witness.
Maybe 2 eye witness books ?
Surely the Acts of the Apostles was by an eye-witness ?
Well, the book of Acts appeared very late, it has numerous historical errors, it has huge variations in the early manuscripts (it is the most variant of all NT books) and it never indicates it is by Luke, or by an eye-witness.
Whoops - I've counted wrong by one somewhere haven't I ?
Anyway -
there are two quite different views on the authorship of the NT books :
The Traditional Catholic View.
27 eye-witnesses (don't mention Hebrews or Mark or Luke or raise quibbles about Paul or pseudo-Paul, or the Pastorals either, nor Revelation; nor Jude or James - in fact, best to just not ask questions at all, OK ?)
First Baseman takes this position.
The consensus of Modern NT scholars
Not one of the NT books was written by anyone who ever met a historical Jesus.
This is the position I take.
Readers who are interested in good information on the early Christian writings should check out this highly regarded site, which oddly enough is called Early Christian Writings :
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
It's an up-to-date, mainstream, scholarly reference work. Recommended.
Kapyong
Ah, so Hebrews is not by an eye-witness.
That's brings it down to 26 eye witness books does it ?
According to Catholic doctrine Mark was the secretary of Peter in Rome - not an eye-witness.
So only 25 eye witness books ?
And according to Catholic doctrine Luke was the companion of Paul - not an eye-witness either.
24 eye witness books ?
Revelation is a bizarre fantasy including a woman who gives birth among the stars, pursued by a dragon - hardly an eye-witness account.
Maybe 23 eye witness books ?
Of course Paul was only an eye-witness to a vision of Christ, not to any historical Jesus. And several books were not by Paul anyway.
Call it 12 eye witness books then ?
The Gospel of Luke admits he copied from previous stories, which his text clearly shows - obviously not an eye-witness.
Is that now 11 eye witness books ?
And the Gospel of Matthew also copied in bulk from the text of G.Mark - so he wasn't an eye-witness.
Would you believe 10 eye witness books ?
The Gospel of John is so late and so different and so supernatural and so full of otherwise unknown miracles - obviously not by an eye-witness.
Perhaps 9 eye witness books ?
Consider the epistle of James (allegedly the brother of Jesus) and what it says about a historical Jesus - nothing. Obviously not by an eye-witness.
Shall we hope for 8 eye witness books ?
The two alleged books of Peter 1,2 are the latest and most obvious forgeries in the entire NT, probably by two different persons who obviously never met any historical Jesus (the supernatural transfiguration scene kind-of gives it away). Not by any eye-witness.
Let's call it a round 6 eye witness books ?
Jude ?
Disputed even among the church, authorship uncertain, connected to Enoch and apocrypha and 2 Peter, nothing historical about Jesus - obviously not an eye-witness.
5 eye witness books ?
How about 1,2,3 John ?
Read the opening to 1 John and what he has to say. It's a spiritual vision, they are almost gnostic - nothing historical. Not an eye-witness.
Maybe 2 eye witness books ?
Surely the Acts of the Apostles was by an eye-witness ?
Well, the book of Acts appeared very late, it has numerous historical errors, it has huge variations in the early manuscripts (it is the most variant of all NT books) and it never indicates it is by Luke, or by an eye-witness.
Whoops - I've counted wrong by one somewhere haven't I ?
Anyway -
there are two quite different views on the authorship of the NT books :
The Traditional Catholic View.
27 eye-witnesses (don't mention Hebrews or Mark or Luke or raise quibbles about Paul or pseudo-Paul, or the Pastorals either, nor Revelation; nor Jude or James - in fact, best to just not ask questions at all, OK ?)
First Baseman takes this position.
The consensus of Modern NT scholars
Not one of the NT books was written by anyone who ever met a historical Jesus.
This is the position I take.
Readers who are interested in good information on the early Christian writings should check out this highly regarded site, which oddly enough is called Early Christian Writings :
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
It's an up-to-date, mainstream, scholarly reference work. Recommended.
Kapyong
Aiviu
Active Member
Thanks. http://gnosis.org/naghamm/gop.html ... Are the [ ... ] parts physically missing or unreadable?
EDIT: oh, i found two other translators on the same site who filled the gaps.
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
From a Christian point of view this Elevation or Mary Magdalene's celebration to that of a Feast Is a far reaching recognition of her true status.
It is true that such Gnostic texts, that remain, have always held here in high esteem, but this in no way tarnishes her position as Apostle to the Apostles.
It is unfortunate that the Roman church for so long confused her amongst the other Marys, to the detriment to her reputation.
This latest statement and elevation fully corrects our perception of Mary, and confirms her status as the prime Apostle, and her unsullied sainthood.
It is true that such Gnostic texts, that remain, have always held here in high esteem, but this in no way tarnishes her position as Apostle to the Apostles.
It is unfortunate that the Roman church for so long confused her amongst the other Marys, to the detriment to her reputation.
This latest statement and elevation fully corrects our perception of Mary, and confirms her status as the prime Apostle, and her unsullied sainthood.