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 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I'm beginning to think that your facts might be made up.
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen
So why not put it to rest once and for all?
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
His opinion is that the Gnostic texts are not legitimate. His opinion does not equal truth, neither does mine nor yours. Opinions are opinions, not truths.
But I haven't run across anyone on ATS who has whizzed away as much of their lives on the Gnostics as I have,
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
Do you even know why some scholars believe it could have been written as early as 40 CE, at least 20 years before the earliest canonical gospel?
I'm not even getting into this business of assessing the worth of these, since it is up to the reader if they get anything out of it or not.
I find his presentation, especially about Thomas . . .
I found that book rather uncompelling.
. . . compelling in chapter 1 of "The Case for the Real Jesus".
Okay, I will give this another try. It might help to also read my response to eight bits if you did not already. It might have been too long-winded though.
Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by bb23108
Sorry, I've read through your post several times and I can't make heads or tails of it. I have little to no interest in eastern philosophy, which is what you seem to be equating that passage to, so maybe you want to "dumb it down" a little for the likes of me.
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
I don't feel the need to answer the question, both sides (early and late) have compelling arguments that support their cases.
To say one is absolutely right and the other absolutely wrong shows confirmation bias on your part. I don't claim to know when it was written, but I do think it's possible that it was written before any of the other gospels. There is evidence that supports that, just as their is evidence that supports it being written in the second century.
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
It was more of a rhetorical question anyway. I only asked it to bring up a point, and that is that no one can agree on when it was written.