The gnostic heresy did not exist “from the beginning” at all. That’s precisely one of the incorrect beliefs that I was fed as a youngster, but which I later learned to be incorrect. We have not evidence that gnostic Christianity existed before the later second century A.D., perhaps beginning around 170 A.D., perhaps later. The Gospel of Thomas, which is probably the earliest gnostic writing, has been dated by some with honest intentions to the first century A.D. However, there is not evidence to support this. Nicholas Perrin in his book Thomas and Tatian: The Relationship Between the Gospel of Thomas and the Diatessaron, shows that the Gospel of Thomas depends on the Diatessaron, a compilation of the four canonical gospels written around 175 A.D. This puts a lower limit on when the Gospel of Thomas could have been written, and the other Gnostic gospels were likely written much later than that. As for the charge that I haven’t read them, I have read the Gospel of Thomas and pieces of some of the others, so I know what’s in them. Sure, it’s different from what’s in the canonical gospels, but different in a bad way, not a good one. For example, in the Gospel of Thomas, Saint Peter says “women don’t deserve life”, and Jesus appears to agree with him. Which raises the question of why groups such as the Jesus Seminar would so badly want this text to be viewed as mainstream and trustworthy by Christians?
But regardless, the point is that the early Christian church did not separate the four canonical gospels from the others arbitrarily, as some claim. Rather they were separated based on reliability, with Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John becoming canonical because they were the reliable ones.
I think that would constitute “from the beginning”.
The fact that Thomas is so much more primitive than even Mark as it has not even a semblance of a narrative I think guarantees that it is at least older than Mark which IIRC has been dated to possibly as early as the destruction of the temple.
And while some may think the gnostic texts paint Christianity in a bad light, I think it offers us many new insights that are obscured by the traditionally monolithic view of church history.
edit - oh, and you still haven’t made even an attempt at a case for the validity of Christianity over any other religion. I was hoping that would be the main course and not these exegetical tangents.
Let’s be fair, here: that is an example of begging the question.
You’ve seen his previous posts, so my guess is that you can recall several examples of what he believes to be actually miracles. (I’ll give you a start: Fatima; Medjugorje.)
Now that is a genuine question (if snidely worded).
Incorrect. While “gnosticism” is a broad category with obscure origins, there is evidence it may have predated Christianity as a Jewish, mystic sect. In any case, there were bickering and diverse Christian groups from the very beginning. Try reading Bart Ehrman’s Lost Christianities.
You should expand your “study” beyond only the apologists you so dearly want to believe. GThomas is not even a Gnostic gospel, although it appears to have been used by Gnostics later on. It’s earliest layers are likely contemporary with Q, in that it is a sayings gospel (and it is not dependent on the canoicals) which which lacks the later theological accretions of the resurrection, virgin birth, Jesus as divine, as a miracle worker or even as the Messiah. This is stronmg evidence that it’s a very early work. You need to do a better job of educating yourself.
What does “mainstream and trusty” mean? The Jesus Seminar is not concerned with the religious authorirty of these writings. It doesn’t recognize any of them as having any religious authority. The JS is concerned with what is likely to be earlier and more authentic. The philsophical implications to believers are irrelevant to their work.
Having said that, Jesus does not “agree” that women don’t deserve life. He makes an obscure mustical statement about women having to “become as men.” Don’t try to comment on the book if you aren’t familiar with it.
They chose them because they were popular, the best written and in the most accord with their own theological bent.
I don’t know what you mean by “reliable,” but if you think they represent any kind of accurate, “reliable” history, you couldn’t be farther from the truth. We simply don’t possess any reliable information at all about Jesus or what he taught, but the sayings gospels Q and Thomas have the best shot at capturing something authentic about him. Note that neither of these gospels – likely the very earliest we have, (aside from Paul, who tells us nothing useful and who admits he was at odds with Jesus’ actual disciples) claims he did miracles or was resurrected from the dead). Actually, Paul doesn’t say anything about miracles, a virgin birth or a physical resurrection either. He just said Jesus “appeared” to people after he was dead. He does not say the appearances were physical and does not distingusih between the nature of these appearances to the apostles and to himself. In addition, Paul denies that physical resurrections are possible and calls people “idiots” for believing they can happen.
Maybe the specific Gnostic “heresy” (I put that word in quotes because I think it’s ALL bullshit) didn’t in fact exist “from the beginning”.
But certain “heresies” clearly DID. Read Luke 1: 1-4. Luke himself admits that there were competing “gospels” out there, at the time he sat down to write. And this was in the very earliest days of the post-Resurrection church: between 50 and 80 AD.
I believe that my faith is correct, but I do not claim to know if other paths are also a safe way to enlightenment and Heaven. There might be other ways into His Father’s House and all of those rooms, but I am going to stick with the way that I believe in.
Being Jewish, and having had my ancestors tormented for nearly 2,000 years thanks to this little detail, I think your idea of the history or religious thought is a bit fuzzy. How many people got forcibly converted, for their own good of course, due to this little detail?
Aren’t there Christian articles of faith about this?
This is actually kind of like an anthropic argument - religions that die out don’t have believers doing justification, so any religion around these days, pretty much, can use this argument. Besides Christianity, Judaism can, as can Islam, and even the Mormons can. The Scientologists should be trotting it out any week now, if they haven’t already. So it isn’t a winner.
I’m Jewish because I was born Jewish from two Jewish parents. I don’t know if it’s correct; I don’t even care if it’s correct. The rituals and rites of Judaism are the ones I’m comfortable with. Belief has not much to do with it. Most of the time the prayers are in a language I don’t understand anyway. I could be reciting total gibberish. But it’s the gibberish I’ve been brought up on.
You won’t get any argument for me. The parameters that need to be satisfied for it to be used to any practical effect are admittedly pretty damn narrow. I think there is something to those I can pick out of the J-C tradition, but I have already admitted that personal bias probably plays a role even if subjectively I can’t see it.