"A one-sentence description of Gnostcism: a religion that differentiates the evil god of this world (who is identified with the god of the Old Testament) from a higher more abstract God revealed by Jesus Christ, a ...[text shortened]... siton remains, who wrote the second epistle of Peter as well as the gnostic account of Peter?
That is not the my point, my point is that the idea of Jesus was not on the cross was there before Islam.
Originally posted by twhitehead What do you require as 'verification' for the manuscripts? Are your sources similarly 'verifiable manuscripts' written by one of the 12 appostles?
This is a very good question. Unfortunatly, you have various sources claiming various things depending on what one might be trying to prove. That is why I have chosen Wiki as a source for all. Therefore, based on the most objective source that I know to use in terms of historical accuracy, you be the judge as to what is true.
Originally posted by scottishinnz Why didn't God just zap the knowledge directly into every brain instead of going along such an easily corruptible road. Doesn't make sense.
That would spoil the fun as well as violating our free will. No sane person who was genuinely sure that God existed would ever knowingly not be saved. Heaven would experience mass overcrowding and God would have to use some sort of lottery system to get rid of the extras. But wait a moment, maybe our life on earth is the lottery system!
Originally posted by whodey This is a very good question. Unfortunatly, you have various sources claiming various things depending on what one might be trying to prove. That is why I have chosen Wiki as a source for all. Therefore, based on the most objective source that I know to use in terms of historical accuracy, you be the judge as to what is true.
So Wiki tells us that "Second Treatise of the Great Seth" which claims that Jesus did not die on the cross is genuine early Christian writing.
So since it is on Wiki, do you now accept that it is an original verifiable manuscript?
I guess it all boils down to what you call "Christian". That is why I have tried to focus on the teachings of Christ. However, due to the fact that Christ did not write about himself we are left with his disciples to talk for him. Thus I am looking for sources closest to the 12. I don't think the gnostic gospels fit the bill.
Originally posted by whodey I guess it all boils down to what you call "Christian". That is why I have tried to focus on the teachings of Christ. However, due to the fact that Christ did not write about himself we are left with his disciples to talk for him. Thus I am looking for sources closest to the 12. I don't think the gnostic gospels fit the bill.
OK.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_St._Matthew
"The Christian community traditionally ascribes authorship to Matthew the Evangelist, one of Jesus's twelve disciples, while secular scholarship generally agrees it was written by an anonymous non-eyewitness to Jesus's ministry."
So clearly Wiki says that the Gospel of Matthew was not written by one of the disciples, that is mere tradition.
So do you accept this since you take Wiki as your source?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_St._Matthew
"The Christian community traditionally ascribes authorship to Matthew the Evangelist, one of Jesus's twelve disciples, while secular scholarship generally agrees it was written by an anonymous non-eyewitness to Jesus's ministry."
So clearly Wiki says that the Gospel of Matthew was not written b ...[text shortened]... ciples, that is mere tradition.
So do you accept this since you take Wiki as your source?
Actually you can say the same about every book of the NT.
Originally posted by Nemesio It would be trivial to prove me wrong, since a single example would suffice.
Find me just one Scripture scholar who is not a conservative Christian apologist who thinks that
Revelation was written by the same person as the author of the Gospel of Saint John. Like I said,
Biblical literalists need not apply.
Sure, someone who says 'It says "John," th k that Jesus
is the Christ.
Just one, and you've proven me wrong.
Nemesio
Nemesio, surely you realize the inherent bias in your argument. You are asking for a source by someone who doesn't believe, that implies they believe. That's just silly. All you've done is to limit the discussion to one side of argument, and say that proves the argument!
Also, to say that someone who isn't a Christian doesn't have preconceived conclusions is a self-evident fallacy. No-one believes that. We all have biases, Christian or otherwise. There is no such thing as true objectivity. The idea is to acknowledge the bias as honestly as possible and work around it.
The assertion that someone who holds a particular position can't approach the discussion honestly is also rather arrogant. If that's true, you need to stop discussing anything, because you have excluded yourself from meaningful discussion by virtue of holding an opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_St._Matthew
"The Christian community traditionally ascribes authorship to Matthew the Evangelist, one of Jesus's twelve disciples, while secular scholarship generally agrees it was written by an anonymous non-eyewitness to Jesus's ministry."
So clearly Wiki says that the Gospel of Matthew was not written b ...[text shortened]... ciples, that is mere tradition.
So do you accept this since you take Wiki as your source?
Ok then. So the author of Matthew is in question. Too bad he did not leave a fingerprint as evidence, no?
Going back to Wiki, it appears that Mark was the first gospel written. Also according to Wiki, it appears that the authors from both Matthew and Luke drew from the gospel of Mark Interestingly enough, Wiki conceeds that the author of the gospel of Mark was a disciple of Peter and that Peter must have influenced its contents. So it appears that Mark and Mark alone, according to Wiki, appears to have the advantage over any other written work in term of accuracy related to the eye witness accounts of the 12 disciples.
Originally posted by ahosyney Actually you can say the same about every book of the NT.
If every book in the NT is not an accurate indication that Christ has been resurrected, why is it that we find in the NT the first documents relating to Christ and his ministry within Christiandom? As I said before, the first heretical works such as the gnostic apocalypse of Peter was written well after most of the books written in the NT. Can you find any earlier works that claim that Christ was not resurrected?
We are both in agreement that there are inaccurate accounts of the life of Chirst. You hold to a later versions in whose theology you do not support and I hold to an earlier versions in whose theiology I do support. Who then is leaning towards the side of truth? One is right and the other is wrong. Either Christ was resurrected or he was not. There is no middle ground.
Originally posted by whodey If every book in the NT is not an accurate indication that Christ has been resurrected, why is it that we find in the NT the first documents relating to Christ and his ministry within Christiandom? As I said before, the first heretical works such as the gnostic apocalypse of Peter was written well after most of the books written in the NT. Can you find any ...[text shortened]... nd the other is wrong. Either Christ was resurrected or he was not. There is no middle ground.
As I said before, the first heretical works such as the gnostic apocalypse of Peter was written well after most of the books written in the NT.
I don't agree,
Here is what wiki say about the Apocalypse of Peter
"It was probably written around 100-200 A.D. Since the surviving text, although not the text it is likely to have been copied from, is in Coptic, it is also known as the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter."
So what they found is a copy from an original one, which makes the original existing in the first century. Almost the same period when all the other books of the NT were written.
Originally posted by ahosyney [b]As I said before, the first heretical works such as the gnostic apocalypse of Peter was written well after most of the books written in the NT.
I don't agree,
Here is what wiki say about the Apocalypse of Peter
"It was probably written around 100-200 A.D. Since the surviving text, although not the text it is likely to have been copied from, ...[text shortened]... in the first century. Almost the same period when all the other books of the NT were written.[/b]
So I suppose you could assume that the apocalypse of Peter was written earlier despite there not being proof of an earlier text. Could you not do so with any of the rest of the books in the NT?
Also, the fact remains that we have an abundance of texts that say one thing, and only one or two gnostic texts saying the opposite. In fact, you do not even agree with the intergrity of the theology of the gnostics who have supplied us with this heretical work. Who then am I to believe? I must believe on or the other. Who would you believe?
The 12 apostles
05 Jul '07 13:24
Back to Top