dado

nice...

Indeed, by his acts and his knowledge, each person will make his (own) nature known.

i wish i had time to read them all more closely, but i am so far behind on my reading it's ridiculous. and with #2 due on october there's no relief in sight! argh!

Magdlyn

Oh, that's what you always say!

:boohoo:

Crisor

My question is a little bit different than dado's. I am wondering, given the vast majority of gnostic texts available, are there any that would have been better suited to be chosen to replace or compliment the canonical text? My reading time is limited by other personal matters so for me to investigate this would be a long drawn out process, but I have wondered if there were any that maybe bridged the gap between the Christology of the Synoptics and that of Paul/John that would have been a better choice than the present ones. This is just out of pure curiosity

Magdlyn

A "better choice" by whose reckoning? The Nicaean council had motives that did not neccessarily include poetry or beauty in its parameters, but political expediency.

They did not want people thinking for themselves, to put it bluntly.

Gnostic texts encourage individuality in unity, and direct communion with God. The "Christ in you" concept of Paul was clumsily diluted by the Pastorals. The Church "Fathers" would not want to emphasize this idea, but downplay it.

Nevertheless, The Shepherd of Hermas was extremely popular for centuries, before and after the council rejected it.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.co.../shepherd.html

Being raised a Protestant, I did not get much education about Catholicism, but now know it includes in it doctrines the canon, as well as other writings called "traditions." Of course, all are considered "orthodox," but at least the list of approved writing is longer!

Speaking of the canon, I vote to have The Revelation of John stricken. After all, it was not approved til the 5th century, and depicts an outmoded wrathful YHWH type god. It's teachings have caused much more harm (ie: Left Behind ) than good.

itsdatruth

The details of the cononical Gospels do match up if you actually consider them. Problems in timing acually reconcile themselves when one considers that there were two timing systems in place in the area. The Romans used there own system, the Jews another. The writers or the Gospels wrote differantly, as they had differant cultural, educational (i.e. John had only a "grade school" mastery of Greek) and exact purposes for writing the Gospels. As for the specific "contraditiction" of the geneology, you need to consider that Matthew traced the Jewish legal linage through Joseph, the assumed father. Luke, who may not have even been Jewish, desired to show that the Messiah was the Savior of all humanity. He used Jesus's biological linage, from Mary, his mother. The mother and father, as the linages show, were actually distantly related to each other. Note that Matthew traces Jesus's linage back to Abraham, the pariarch of all Jews and many other Semites as well. Luke traced the ancestory back to Adam, the father of mankind. When one realizes the built-in differances of view points of the Gospel writers, the apparent contradictions are apparent no longer.

The Gnostic gospels were written considerable later to gain popualrity for certain people. They were not written by eye-wittnesses or those in close contact of eye wittnesses, thats for sure. A good analogy can be drawn from the Gnostic gospels and the books of the mormons, whose faith feeds for members especialy from ignorant Christains. In the same way, ignorant and or less cautious Christains were drawn into Gnosticism. Both faiths pretend to have close conections with Christ. The conections of the early Church and the Power of God became well known. If you are doubtful of this, read the book of Acts. Those who heard the gnostics probably were thinking they could have access to the power and wisdom as well. Here malicious leaders fed them garbage and gained power.

itsdatruth

For one thing, it was written by John the apostle. That was one requirment. The popular view of Revelation occuring to a John the Elder was NOT the consensus in the early Church. Later, some people with an ax to grind against Rev. made up the stuff that is now often cited. If you want proof of what I say, read the Concordia Commentary on John. It is heavy reading, but contains the most indepth examination of the author question I have ever seen. Every early or even not so early written of the "Church fathers" is mentioned.

God is Just. Can't deny that. Wrath is deserved. Grace is not. When Grace is rejected, God doesn't have to offer it again. If people don't want grace, God doesn't force it. Sometimes I say something like this: "God allows for freedom of religion, why do you think there a hell?" "God doesn't force anyone to believe in him"

Remember that some of the vivid imagry is actually kind of an apoptilyptic code. Read Christ's message to the seven churches in the begining, and the peaceful river of life in the end, and you will know it isn't all fire and brimstone. The last three chapters bear an resembance to Genesis 1 through three, giving the Bible a close fit for the begining.

All those theries about the millenium are misguided. The reign of Christ is taking place right now in heaven, along with the saints. 1000 is a figuartive #, 10 squared. Complete times complete, that is. Christ will reign for a complete amount of time.

Keep in mind the Hebrew meanings for the numbers... for example, when the grapes of wrath are pressed, the blood runs out for 1600 stadia. that is 4 squared times ten squared. 4 is the # for earth and 10 is the # for wholeness, so what it is really saying is that God's wrath will be delivered on the entire earth, for its rebellion against God.

Magdlyn

Nice fundie tract!

Toto

Oh, where to begin. Can you give a source for this different timng system and explain why it reconciles anything?

Do you mean John or Mark?

For sure, the canonical gospels were not written by eyewitnesses either.

It appears that the Gnostics were more highly educated that the orthodox church fathers. Why do you call them ignorant?

Not exactly. The orthodox church built up a bogus "apostolic succession" to claim priority over the Gnostics

I have read the book of Acts. It is an interesting historical novel. I have no reason to think that what it describes actually happened, nor do you.

Are you sure that you are not describing the orthodox Christians? The Gnostics thought that truth lay inside, that Christianity should be s spiritual and individual discipline. You can't run an army on that basis. It was the orthodox Christians who laid the foundations for the power of the Christian church by establishing hierarchies and claiming authority for their hierarchies based on a claimed grant of power from Jesus himself.

Toto

Is this what you mean?

Concordia Commentary on Revelation

Oh yes I can.

10 squared is 100, not 1000.

See this previous thread on Revelation

itsdatruth: this forum is for discussion of the Bible as history or literature, but it is not for preaching.

And I am not sure what this post has to do with Gnostic gospels.

Magdlyn

Thanks Toto, I didn't have the energy.