As of late I have found that there has been more and more skepticism regarding the four cannonized Gospels. And, I am sure that there is some need for
this. However, I have also found that more and more people are reading "The Da Vinci Code" and because of this they have become "experts" on the
fact that Jesus was just a normal human. I have one thing to say to you: WRONG!
I am going to show you that not only were the Gospels quoted in "The Da Vinci Code," (Mary Magdelene, Philip) were very much used to propel an
Agenda, but also, another popular Gospel, St. Thomas', was not of true origin as well. I hope to also shed some
light on the whole 80+ gospels
being submitted and only 4 chosen. I also plan to show you that the 4 gospels shown are not only authentic, in regards to the time period written as
there is no total proof it was written by the four, but also that Jesus was in fact devine. Are you ready? Here I go:
I am going to start off with the Gospel of Philip. The first reason that we can look at the Gospel of Philip and say this is questionable is that it
was written atleast 150 years AFTER Jesus' death. So, had Philip been a mere 15 years old at the time of Jesus he would have been at least 165 years
old. We know this because the Gospel of Philip is estimated to be written between 180-350 A.D. Remarkable fact. Than, we add in the fact that,
"Benton Layton, identified it as a Valentinian anthology of excerpts." Valentinus was a very well known Gnostic Christian thinker. In fact, they go
as far as to say that this is a work that was meant to be read as "fantasy" as opposed to the Disciple Philip's true words.
Moving on now, we are going to take a look at the Gospel of Mary Magdelene. This one is tough. It was found that this Gospel could not be dated any
later than the 2nd Century, meaning it was probably written around the time that the others were written or a little later. It really depends on when
this was written, essentially somewhere between 30 AD and 199 AD. However, it makes absolutely NO CLAIM that Jesus and Mary were, in fact, married.
However, there is something far more interesting within the Mary Magdalene-Jesus Realm. It is that she is the true author of the Gospel of John. Now,
all of this is speculation, and none can be proven. For that reason I am only going to give you the Wikipedia source for this one. However, in the
Wikipedia source it makes a fascinating claim I think I should put in quotes.
An argument for support of this speculation is that bachelorhood was very rare for Jewish males of Jesus' time, being generally regarded as a
transgression of the first mitzvah (divine commandment)— "Be fruitful and multiply". It would have been unthinkable for an adult, unmarried Jew to
travel about teaching as a rabbi, as Jesus certainly did.
A counter-argument to this is that the Judaism of Jesus' time was very diverse and the role of the rabbi was not yet well defined. Celibate teachers
like John the Baptist were known in the communities of the Essenes, and Paul of Tarsus was an example of an unmarried itinerant teacher among the
Christians, at a time when most Christians were still practicing Jews. It was really not until after the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in
A.D. 70 that Rabbinic Judaism became dominant and the role of the rabbi made uniform in Jewish communities.
Mary Magdalene appears with more frequency than other women in the canonical Gospels and is shown as being a close follower of Jesus. Mary's presence
at the Crucifixion and Jesus's tomb, while hardly conclusive, is at least consonant with the role of grieving wife and widow, although if that were
the case Jesus might have been expected to make provision for her care as well as for his mother Mary. Given the lack of contemporary documentation,
this scenario cannot be proven, and although some consider the idea desirable to believe, most scholars do not take it seriously.
Now, moving on to the Gospel of St. Thomas. This one is a bit shady. Scholars date this one as early as 70 AD and as late as the 4th Century. However,
no one knows the true author of the Gospel of St. Thomas, and it is very widely doubted that it was anyone who had any contact with Jesus at all.
Because of this, you can see many things that are hypocrisies of the other four cannonized gospels AND of its own self.
14 Jesus said to them, "If you fast, you will bring sin upon yourselves, and if you pray, you will be condemned, and if you give alms, you
will harm your spirits.
When you go into any region and walk about in the countryside, when people take you in, eat what they serve you and heal the sick among
Well according to the other Gospels you must pray to further your chances in heaven, yet it claims don't... Now hypocrisies against itself:
104 They said to Jesus, "Come, let us pray today, and let us fast." Jesus said, "What sin have I committed, or how have I been undone?
Rather, when the groom leaves the bridal suite, then let people fast and pray."
Now, read the first sentence in Thomas 14, and read the first line in Thomas 104. So, Jesus knowingly sins? Would that not make everything else he did
a moot point? You can tell that this wasn't a very well written Gospel.
BTW... Wikipedia dates this Gospel to the year 200. Oh yeah, and it was written in Egypt.
Okay, now that I have covered the 3 main controversial Gospels, I can say to you that none of these really fit into the historical time period and/or
doesn't have a credible author. Except, of course, Mary's. Which states nothing aside from Jesus was divine. Now, lets move onto a quick history of
the 4 Cannonized Gospels and wrap up with some "Proof" of Jesus' divinity.
The Gospel of Matthew was written in AD 60-65. So, it was written when it should have been written, and it is actually supposedly written by Matthew
himself. Although, Scholars prefer to say it is by anonymous because of the lack of evidence.
The Gospel of Mark was written somewhere between AD 65-80 and, although anonymous by scholars, is believed to be written by St. Mark, a disciple of
Peter! He gained knowledge of these stories through Peter and wrote them down.
The Gospel of Luke was written between AD 80-130, which puts it a little further out of range, but they are very unsure about the dates. However, it
is written by The Greeks for the Gentiles. Although this one is a little shady, it is still falling in the correct time frame.
The Gospel of John is said to have been written in stages, starting in AD 50 and ending in AD 100. Although that is just a guess. Other Scholars claim
it was written between AD 70-100, which very much so puts it in the correct range. Some believe that this Gospel was written by Mary Magdalene and
placed under the name John because a womans words back than may have led to it being less credible. However, others maintain it was written by the
Apostle John. I kind of believe it was Mary myself. Makes sense with the "beloved disciple." I say this not because she and Jesus were married, but
because she would have to be considered Beloved because she was the lone female in the clan.
Okay, sorry about the lack of sources there, but I do know that many people here already know the history behind the Gospels and those who don't can
trust that site.
Moving on to the final subject, Jesus' divinity. I will have no other source but the Gospels themselves to prove my point here.
Thomas, called Didymus, one of the Twelve, was not with them when Jesus came. So the other disciples said to him, "We have seen the Lord." But he
said to them, "Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and put my finger into his nailmarks and put my hand into his side, I will not
believe." Now a week later his disciples were again inside and Thomas was with them. Jesus came, although the doors were locked, and stood in their
midst and said, "Peace be with you." Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here and see my hands, and bring your hand and put it into my side,
and do not be unbelieving, but believe." Thomas answered and said to him, "my Lord and my God!" Jesus said to him, "Have you
come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed."
He clearly calls Jesus God, yet Jesus does NOTHING to change what he believes of him. If you believe that the Gospel of Thomas is in fact true, than
you may want to believe that Jesus took him aside when he claims to tell Thomas something that he cannot tell the others. This is very much evidence
of his divinity, but wait I still have 4 more examples for you; and trust me there is a lot more than that!
The Father and I are one.
simple quote there, he and his father are one and the same.
Thomas said to him, "master, we do not know where you are going; how can we know the way?" Jesus said to him, "I am the way and the truth and the
life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you know me, then you will also know my Father. From now on you do know him and have seen
him." Philip said to him, "Master, show us the Father, andt hat will be enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you for so long a
time and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?
So if you have seen Jesus you have seen the father. Kind of lends some support to the whole 'Trinity' view of God, doesn't it?
After six days Jesus took Peter, James, and John his brother, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. And hew as transfigured before them; his
face shone like the sun and his clothes became white as light. And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, conversing with him. Then Peter said to
Jesus in reply, "Lord, it is good that we are here. If you wish, I will make three tents here, one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah."
While he was still speaking, behold, a bright cloud cast a shadow over them, then from the cloud came a voice that said, "This is my beloved Son,
with whom I am well pleased; listen to him." When the disciples heard this, they fell prostrate and were very much afraid. But Jesus came and touched
them, saying, "Rise, and do not be afraid." And when the disciples raised their eyes, they saw no one else but Jesus alone.
A longer quote from the bible, but it shows the Father calling out to them calling Jesus his beloved son. Sounds pretty clear to me, he is divine, but
there is 1 more I would like to share with you.
While the Parisees were gathered together, Jesus questioned them, saying, "What is your opinion about the Messiah? Whose son is he?" They replied,
"David's." He said to them, "How, then, does David, inspired by the Spirit, call him 'lord,' saying:
"The Lord said to my lord,
"Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies under your feet""?
If avid calls him 'lord,' how can he be his son?" No one was able to answer him a word, nor from that day on did anyone dare to ask him any more
Shows that the Messiah must be Lord, and to consider Jesus the Messiah and not the Lord is a very bad choise here.
They brought charges against him, saying, "We found this man misleading your people; he opposes the payment of taxes to Caesar, and maintains that he
is the Messiah, a King."
Note his claim of being a Messiah. Apply that to the above. I Just have one more line to share with you regarding this.
Jesus said to them, "Did you never read in the scriptures:
'The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone; by the Lord has this been done, and it is wonderful in our eyes"?
This is just a metaphor for Jesus and what he stands for, the corner stone.
I believe I have shown you that Jesus was in fact divine and that "The Da Vinci Code," is a load of crap in terms of differentiating between fact
and fiction. People it is a fictional novel. I have presented Facts. The Gospels were all written in the correct time period and place as opposed to
the others that people want to believe. The vote at Nicea was to determine if he was God, not divine. Isaiah stated the Messiah had to be Divine, and
Jesus was already the Messiah.