It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by adjensen
Contrary to what Ehman implies, there wasn't a cornucopia of differing views in existence in the First Century -- there was the developing orthodox church, comprised of the churches founded by the apostles (including Paul) and a series of heresies that arose as differences came about in the different churches.
Originally posted by adjensen
That's my point in saying that I think he started his offshoot church as a result of losing that vote.
Originally posted by adjensen
No, I think that the timeline regarding the establishment of Christian Gnostics has been pretty well nailed down, so even if one accepts very late dating of the Gospels, one is still left with those texts, along with Paul's letters, as preceding the GCs by 30-90 years….
Originally posted by adjensen
I have never been impressed with Pagels' work, and I have never seen a reputable NT scholar who said that the first Christians were Gnostics. We don't need to get into details as to why I think that impossible, but you're going to need to cite a source that says that.
Gnosticism was primarily defined in a Christian context.[1][2] Some scholars have claimed that gnosticism pre-dated Christianity.
Although some scholars still postulate pre-Christian gnosticism, no evidence has been found to date. It is now generally accepted that gnosticism developed into a coherent movement only in the second century CE
Originally posted by adjensen
The problem with Thomas is that it is a forgery, and is written intentionally to make it impossible to determine what Christ actually might have said, because real sayings are jumbled up with things he could not have said, because they are derived from Valentinus beliefs.
I don’t believe that Gnostic Christianity, just suddenly sprouted up, sometime around the 2nd century. It seems more likely that it would have had a much earlier oral tradition and possible texts. I say possible texts, because most of the Gnostic texts were destroyed
According to Catholic Encyclopedia: Caius: "Additional light has been thrown on the character of Caius's dialogue against Proclus by Gwynne's publication of some fragments from the work of Hippolytus "Contra Caium" (Hermathena, VI, p. 397 sq.); from these it seems clear that Caius maintained that the Apocalypse of John was a work of the Gnostic Cerinthus."
Cerinthus
And speaking of surviving texts, we don’t have any originals of Paul Letters, to verify if any editing has taken place. In most cases, all we have is the surviving copies, most of which date to around the 2nd and 3rd centuries.
Galatians 2:19 For I, through the law, died to the law, that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me. That life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me. 21 I don’t make void the grace of God. For if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nothing!”
Chapter 3
1 Foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you not to obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth among you as crucified? 2 I just want to learn this from you. Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now completed in the flesh?
Do you mean it’s a Gnostic work, therefore it’s a forgery. Or do you mean its too old to be an authentic piece of work, therefore it’s a forgery?
You say it is “written intentionally to make it impossible to determine what Christ actually might have said”. But I really don’t think it was written back then, with any kind of hidden agenda attached to it. And it’s not as if there existed this standard “orthodoxy”, with which it was competing with.
Originally posted by pthena
…
According to Catholic Encyclopedia: Caius: "Additional light has been thrown on the character of Caius's dialogue against Proclus by Gwynne's publication of some fragments from the work of Hippolytus "Contra Caium" (Hermathena, VI, p. 397 sq.); from these it seems clear that Caius maintained that the Apocalypse of John was a work of the Gnostic Cerinthus."
Cerinthus
Originally posted by pthena
I think that there is evidence of redaction in 1 Corinthians, and possibly Romans. Personally, I reject anything purporting to be from Paul, as from Paul, if it contradicts Galatians. Speaking of Galatians, another note about Cerinthus, his main area of influence was Galatea.
Originally posted by pthena
Paul implies that OT Yahweh is not God, without actually saying it. After all, the OT Yahweh is defined by the Law (Torah). Logical step, as in Hebrews "if there is a change in priesthood, there must be a change of the Law", I say, that if you leave the Law (Torah) which defines who Yahweh is, then you of necessity have left Yahweh.
…
The Law was ordained through Moses, my dear sister Flora, has not been understood by many persons, who have accurate knowledge neither of him who ordained it nor of its commandments. I think that this will be perfectly clear to you when you have learned the contradictory opinions about it.
…
On the other hand, one cannot impute the Law to the injustice of the opposite, God, for it is opposed to injustice. Such persons do not comprehend what was said by the Savior. For a house or city divided against itself cannot stand [Matt 12:25], declared our Savior....
...
First, you must learn that the entire Law contained in the Pentateuch of Moses was not ordained by one legislator - I mean, not by God alone, some commandments are Moses', and some were given by other men. The words of the Savior teach us this triple division. The first part must be attributed to God alone, and his legislation; the second to Moses...
Getting back to the Book of the Revelations, I’ve always believed it was written by a Gnostic that was Jewish, who believed in Jesus, and was loyal to the Old Testament. This would roughly seem to fit the description of Cerinthus.
Although oddly enough, I’m having trouble getting my head around his (Cerinthus) actual beliefs, because on the one hand he believed in the demiurge, but on the other, he taught that it was good, which is completely opposite to what most other Gnostics believed in…So how his belief in Jesus, and God the Father, fits into all that… I have absolutely no idea!!!
Originally posted by adjensen
Paul, a Gnostic? That's simply a foolish notion, and it is based on the paltry evidence of a few passages here and there that might be seen as being dualistic.
Originally posted by adjensen
Forgery, when applied to ancient documents, has a very specific meaning -- it was written by someone other than the stated author. If you read the OP in the thread that I posted, you'll see what I mean -- in this case, the text was claimed to have been written by a fictional person, Jesus' twin brother, Judas.
Originally posted by Akragon
He means its a forgery because "thomas" didn't actually write it... Which is likely true
Originally posted by Akragon
However it is possible that the contents of said gospel consists of sayings handed down though an oral tradition, from followers of Thomas
Originally posted by Joecroft
If Theudus was a disciple of Paul, and Velantinus was a disciple of Theudus, then this is evidence, which adds weight to Paul either being a Gnostic Christian himself, or at least accepting certain elements, of Christian Gnosticism.
Although in passing, we know Jesus had brothers, so I don’t think it’s beyond the realms of possibility that he had a twin brother.
All early Christians were Orthodox Jews, and they had no interest in incorporating Greek philosophy in their religion.
Orthodox Judaism is the approach to religious Judaism which adheres to the interpretation and application of the laws and ethics of the Torah as legislated in the Talmudic texts by the Sanhedrin ("Oral Torah") and subsequently developed and applied by the later authorities known as the Gaonim, Rishonim, and Acharonim.
en.wikipedia.org...
The Talmud has two components: the Mishnah (Hebrew: משנה, c. 200 CE), the first written compendium of Judaism's Oral Law, and the Gemara (c. 500 CE), en.wikipedia.org...
I’m curious though…what makes you trust Galatians, over the others?
My own view is that the God that Jesus represents gave us the Ten Commandments, and that many of the other evil atrocities, committed in Gods name in OT, did not come from God/Father, but from imperfect men, or from another evil source.
Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by adjensen
All early Christians were Orthodox Jews, and they had no interest in incorporating Greek philosophy in their religion.
How do you define early? Pre-Pentecost? Then Paul wasn't an Early Christian,
How do you define Orthodox Jew?
What makes you think that…?
And, if Thomas is a forgery, because Thomas didn’t write it, then I guess, Mathew, Mark, Luke and John could be forgeries too! because no one knows who wrote them either…
Originally posted by Angle
reply to post by Akragon
Now that you have seen me, will you do that ever again? Thus, the Lord.
Originally posted by Akragon
Well thats really up for debate... Many scholars believe Thomas to be dated in the 3rd or 4th century... On the other hand i've also heard some say it was written in the 1st century, perhaps even before the gospels in the bible...
He believes there was malicious intentions in calling the text "Thomas"... Basically trying to give the gospel more weight then it should have... i don't believe that though
There is little doubt in my mind that some of the text in Thomas stems from the First Century, though almost assuredly from a source that was not called "The Gospel of Thomas". The original source appears to be a "sayings list" that was likely also used by Luke, and possibly Mark and Matthew.
I don't know that I'd use the word "malicious" (and it's spelled adjensEn )
but the text claims to have been written by Didymos Judas Thomas (who is not the Apostle Thomas, hence the little regard I have for Pagels' claim that John was written to dispute Thomas,) who, according to Syriac Christianity (and no other) is the twin brother of Jesus, wholly human, while Jesus was wholly divine.
Compare and contrast the Hercules/Iphicles myth and tell me that Thomas isn't a forgery.
Originally posted by Akragon
Compare and contrast the Hercules/Iphicles myth and tell me that Thomas isn't a forgery.
I don't think forgery is the correct word though...
passed down to his followers through several generations... which were eventually written down,
i draw attention to the seperation between said voice and the "God man" on earth
Matthew 23:20 He therefore who swears by the altar, swears by it, and by everything on it. 21 He who swears by the temple, swears by it, and by him who was living in it. 22 He who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God, and by him who sits on it.
John 5:16 For this cause the Jews persecuted Jesus, and sought to kill him, because he did these things on the Sabbath. 17 But Jesus answered them, "“My Father is still working, so I am working, too.”"