The Gnostic Texts

[joepistole]

Hi all,

The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with creating the Bible. The Council did not choose the books of the Bible.

It's just an Urban Myth, endlessly repeated on the 'net.

Here you can actually check the decisions talen by the council :
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3801.htm

Note that not one of the canons concerns the books of the Bible.

Iasion

Iasion, It is true that the New Testiment was not cannonized at the Council of Nicea. However, the Council of Nicea did lay the foundations for the creation of the New Testiment, as the Council of Nicea defined what it was to be a Christian. And it was the same pagan emperor who conviened the Council of Nicea who commisioned the creation of the New Testiment six years later.

As for the Gnostics, the Catholic Church was successful in exterminating that heresy. So there are no Gnostics today.

 

[Prince o palities]

Iasion, It is true that the New Testiment was not cannonized at the Council of Nicea. However, the Council of Nicea did lay the foundations for the creation of the New Testiment, as the Council of Nicea defined what it was to be a Christian. And it was the same pagan emperor who conviened the Council of Nicea who commisioned the creation of the New Testiment six years later.

As for the Gnostics, the Catholic Church was successful in exterminating that heresy. So there are no Gnostics today.

Wrong. The New Testament was already in use almost a century and a half before the time of Nicaea. Furthermore, I'd challenge you to substantiate the claim that Constantine was a "pagan" emperor. Additionally, what even do you presume "created" the New Testament?

 

[joepistole]

Oh Great Prince, perhaps I was not clear. I said cannonization. I did not say that there were not previous texts floating around. In fact there were a lot of Christian texts in circulation...not all of which were deemed valid by mainline church members. Not all of the texts have survived. In the early years of the church there was no clear definition of Christianity...wittness the Gnostics, and the other heressies. Some Christians did not beleive in the divinity of Christ. It was no consistent understanding of what it was to be Christian.
The Emperor Constintine commissioned 50 bibles six years after the Council of Nicea. These texts became the basis for the New Testiment. As you probably know, the New Testiment was an accumulation of earlier texts. As you may also know, the New Testiment has evolved over time...that means changed. The text most protestants use is the King James Version. King James made some alterations to the text to express his views better.
Constantine was certianly a pagan emperor. He was the high priest of the Sol Invictus Cult which is a derivitive of the Mythiras cult. The Sol Invictus and Christian religions had many similar beliefs. Before Constintine the Cross we associate with Christianity was not a Christian symbol. The Fish was symbolic of Christianity. The Cross we associate with Christ and the Cross is not the kind of cross the Romans used in crucifictions. The cross is however, a symbol of the Sol Invictus and Mythric cults. We celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday not Saturaday because of Constintine. Sunday is the day devoted to the Sun God, Sol Invictus.
There is no public independent record of a conversion by Constintine to Christianity. Thre is a record of his association with Sol Invictus...its symbols are on his coins.

 

[Prince o palities]

Oh Great Prince, perhaps I was not clear. I said cannonization. I did not say that there were not previous texts floating around. In fact there were a lot of Christian texts in circulation...not all of which were deemed valid by mainline church members. Not all of the texts have survived. In the early years of the church there was no clear definition of Christianity...wittness the Gnostics, and the other heressies. Some Christians did not beleive in the divinity of Christ. It was no consistent understanding of what it was to be Christian.

You need to update your scholarship. First of all the Gnostics were not a Christian sect. They predate Christianity and are the product of a synchronistic view of Jewish apocalypticism and a Platonic anthropology. That they later adopted Christian characters into their texts does not make them Christian, simply one of many absorbent religions of the period. (see B. Pearson)

Further what you are describing are fringe groups that enjoyed neither popular nor geographically diverse support. While orthodox writers and communities exist from Persia to Gaul in the first two centuries of Christianity, such groups as the Ebionites, Marcionites, Montansists, and others are regionally centered and only marginally populated. Your Bauerian pluralistic view is a product of a post-modern historiography that is fundamentally ahistorical as it makes an argument from the absence of certain theorized documents.

The Emperor Constintine commissioned 50 bibles six years after the Council of Nicea. These texts became the basis for the New Testiment. As you probably know, the New Testiment was an accumulation of earlier texts. As you may also know, the New Testiment has evolved over time...that means changed.

Constantine commissioned Bibles and that there was no debate over the contents speaks for, not against, the preexistant consensus on its contents. You could try, like so many failed popular historians, to argue that Constantine's overarching power prevented dissent, but even Eusebius, the most staunch of Constantine's supporters records instances, such as the deposition of Eustantius which caused riots in spite of the emperor's endorsement. Furthermore, though Constantine tried, he could not get the people of Alexandria to even admit Arius into their city. His power over the church was minimal.

Furthermore, you cannot argue that his publishing of those texts was the "basis" of the New Testament, rather it is necessarily the culmination as it is the final step in the what you consider the formalization of the canon (though no formal act exists).

And yes, the New Testament did evolve over time. However, strangely that evolution was not toward limiting the canon, excluding heterodoxical documents as you suggest. The evolution allowed into the canon what had previously been questionable books like 2 and 3 John, Jude, Philemon, and 2 Peter. That the evolution of the canon restricted other "Christian" literature from being accepted is not only fallacious, but the exact opposite of what is historically known about the development of the canon.

The text most protestants use is the King James Version. King James made some alterations to the text to express his views better.

Which is idiotic. The current trend both in scholarship and in popular use is the adoption of the Hortian 1881 edition of the New Testament which is based off of the oldest, most reliable texts as opposed to the 14th century texts of the Textus Receptus.

We celebrate the Sabbath on Sunday not Saturaday because of Constintine.

The Christians don't celebrate the Sabbath at all. For pre-Constantinian proofs of this, see Tertullian's Answer to the Jews, the Epistle of Barnabas, Justin's Dialogue with Trypho, Cyprian's Three Books of Testimony Against the Jews, Hippolytus, and so many more. For non-Christian sources, see Pliny.

Christians celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday because it is the day of the resurrection. This is based on the biblical example of Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2. Here it says "κατα μιαν σαββατου" that is the distributive use of κατα indicating the first after the Sabbath, Sunday.

There is no public independent record of a conversion by Constintine to Christianity. Thre is a record of his association with Sol Invictus...its symbols are on his coins.

The only thing known to be kept by Constantine is the title of supreme priest. However, this does not negate his favoring, participation in, and endorsement of Christianity, and certainly does not negate his baptism.

I suggest you read a church history by someone who isn't a pop-culture historian. Try not buying books based on their shiny cover at Books-a-Million.

 

[joepistole]

Oh Great Prince, your insecurities are showing again. First you twist my words so that you can knock them down...an illogical arguement called a strawman. I never said or inferred that Constantine limited disent. But he did put together the basis of an organized church...a church that later became known as the Catholic Church. Second, there were very clearly gnostic groups that labeled themselves Christian, and belived that "Jesus of Jesus of Nazareth was an embodiment of the supreme being who became incarnate to bring gnosis to the Earth. In others he was thought to be a gnosis teacher, and yet others, nothing more than a man. (See, for instance, the writings of Valentinus)." Now if that does not qualify as Christian, I don't know what does. To the Catholic Church, everything non Catholic was a fringe group and worse, a heresy which justified murder of the heritic. There is a reason why most folks were non-fringe Catholics, as it was quite unhealthy to be anything other than a non-fringe Catholic in post Constantine periods.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism
Further I did not suggest that the evolution of the New Testiment was towards limitation. I suggested it grew and changed...see reference to King James Bible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Bible
The King James Bible has been the gold standard Bible Version used by protestants for the last three hundred years:
http://christianity.about.com/od/faqhelpdesk/p/kingjamesvers.htm
In recent years, there has been a great number of common language versions of King James. But I fail to see the point of pursuing this furhter as I only mentioned it to show that the text has changed over time. And you seem to be in agreement that it has.
Now on to the Sabbath, in typical fashion when confronted withi truth you like to change the defination of words. The Sabbath is defined as a day of rest, and is so stated in the Bible. Christians honor the Sabbath too. It is a requirement of the faith. It is one of the Ten Comandments given to Moses. Jesus said he came to fullfil the law not to change it. And some Christians, (Seventh Day Adventist) celebrate the Sabbath on Friday as do the Jews and as Christ did. They refused to move the Sabbath to Sunday. They believe no man, especially a pagan, has the right to change the day that God commanded be honored as the Sabbath.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabbath_in_Christianity
The Eucharist is a Christian Sacrament....holy communion not the Sabbath, not a day of the week. The Eucharist is often celebrated on the Sabbath. But please do not confuse the two. They are not the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharist
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communion
You are confusing the sacrament with the biblically requried day of rest. Honoring the Sabbath is one of the ten commandments my dear Prince. So are you telling me that Christians do not adhere to the ten commandments? I think even the Pope would be suprised to hear that bit of news.
Finally on to your last arguement. Constantine certianly did favor Christianity. He probably did more than any person besides Christ, and Paul for Christianity than any other historical figure. But that does not mean he was a Christian. In fact he clearly was not. He was by all accounts a ruthless ruler who killed members of his own family and very intent on acquiring and maintaining political and military power. He was very intent on consolidating a very fractured Roman Empire, and using this new religion to help him consolidate his power was a temptation he could not resist. And it worked.
This brings me back to my point and original question to you, which you have not answered. Can you show me independent proof of his baptism? And of course you cannot. It is alledged to have been a death bed baptism. And my other question to you which again you have not answered, can you show proof the Christian Cross was used by Christians prior to Constatine? And of course the answer again is no. Can you show me where the orb was used as a Christian symbol before Constantine, and again the answer is no. You cannot. Prior to Constantine, the fish was the recognized symbol of Christ.
My dear Prince, I do not know what kind of books you have been reading if any. But I suggest you get thee to the nearest Books-a-Million and buy thee some nice glossy books with pictures. Maybe then you will be able to know the difference between the Eucharist and the Sabbath and the revelance of each to the religion. Heck a good dictionary would do the trick as well.

 

[Turduckin]

As blasphemy.

Technically, it's heresy.

 

[Prince o palities]

Teehee. Merriam Webster and Wikipedia. I didn't even bother to read whatever you substantiated with those sources.

 

[stretched]

Originally Posted by stretched
The Gnostics viewed the nature of Jesus not as divine, but one in which a spiritual Christ dwelt. By following the spiritual path of Gnosticism, one could experience the same knowledge or "gnosis", as Jesus.

Tarduckin
That would put it in conflict with the work of Jesus on the Cross. The idea that man could save himself ultimately conflicts with the God of perfect justice, since all who sin must pay the price, and all are guilty of sin.

When the subject came up in my church, they also focused on two or three additional points of conflict... The Gnostic belief that the world 'as created' is flawed, not as a result of man's fall, but by the very nature of it's creation from the Divine. The very fall of man was not through man's choice but through God's agency.

Yep, that is all part of it, quite a radical break from what we call Christianity today. But in the early years it could have swung either way. What we call Christianity today could have been the heresy...

"In the first century of the Christian era the term “Gnostic” came to denote a heterodox segment of the diverse new Christian community. Among early followers of Christ it appears there were groups who delineated themselves from the greater household of the Church by claiming not simply a belief in Christ and his message, but a "special witness" or revelatory experience of the divine. It was this experience or gnosis that set the true follower of Christ apart, so they asserted. Stephan Hoeller explains that these Christians held a "conviction that direct, personal and absolute knowledge of the authentic truths of existence is accessible to human beings, and, moreover, that the attainment of such knowledge must always constitute the supreme achievement of human life."

"That Gnosticism was, at least briefly, in the mainstream of Christianity is witnessed by the fact that one of its most influential teachers, Valentinus, may have been in consideration during the mid-second century for election as the Bishop of Rome"

"Orthodoxy Christianity was deeply and profoundly influenced by its struggles with Gnosticism in the second and third centuries. Formulations of many central traditions in Christian theology came as reflections and shadows of this confrontation with the Gnosis"

Gnosticism in a nutshell...

"In his study, The American Religion, noted literary critic Harold Bloom suggests a second characteristic of Gnosticism that might help us conceptually circumscribe its mysterious heart. Gnosticism, says Bloom, "is a knowing, by and of an uncreated self, or self-within-the self, and [this] knowledge leads to freedom...."

(http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhlintro.html)

 

[Iasion]

Hiya,

I said cannonization.

Joe, a "cannon" is a big gun.
You mean "canon".

The Emperor Constintine commissioned 50 bibles six years after the Council of Nicea. These texts became the basis for the New Testiment.

Pardon me Joe, I think you should check your spelling more carefully

Sure, the Constantine Bible was important, but it was just one stage in a long process.

This bible was NOT exactly like our modern versions - it included Hermas and Barnabas.

The first canon to match our modern list was from Athanasius in 367CE.


Iasion

 

[Iasion]

Hi all,

The King James Bible has been the gold standard Bible Version used by protestants for the last three hundred years:

Joe, the KJV is one of the very worst translations of all - it was based on a few late MSS and has many problems.


Iasion

 

[joepistole]

Iasion, there is nothing you said I disagree with...I kind of like big guns. After all, I am an old sailor after all.

 

[ggazoo]

How do Christians view Gnosticism?

As a Christian, I will say not much.

The Gnostic text were written over a hundred years after Christ's death. The canonized gospels, on the other hand, were written, at the earliest, around 20 years after Christ's death; big difference.

Now there will be many that will say that even the canonized gospels can't be trusted either; that's it's all "fiction". If you feel this way, then you need to look at just how the texts were written. They are far too detailed for first century writing. For example, if you look at certain texts, you see descriptions like "Jesus wrote in the sand", and "Peter was 100 yards from the beach". First century fiction writers simply did not include these detailed descriptions in their narratives unless they were recording an eye-witness account... which is exactly what Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were doing.

As well, the Gnostic texts were written so far after the death of Christ, that anyone who would have eye witnessed it would have been long dead, and therefore being unable to vouch for the writers. The canonized gospels were written when many of the people who were around to listen to Jesus preach were still alive. Plus, many of those people are listed by name as eye witnesses in the Bible. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did this so if anyone questioned what they were writing, they appealed to the skeptics to seek out the eye witnesses.

 

[joepistole]

As a Christian, I will say not much.

The Gnostic text were written over a hundred years after Christ's death. The canonized gospels, on the other hand, were written, at the earliest, around 20 years after Christ's death; big difference.

Now there will be many that will say that even the canonized gospels can't be trusted either; that's it's all "fiction". If you feel this way, then you need to look at just how the texts were written. They are far too detailed for first century writing. For example, if you look at certain texts, you see descriptions like "Jesus wrote in the sand", and "Peter was 100 yards from the beach". First century fiction writers simply did not include these detailed descriptions in their narratives unless they were recording an eye-witness account... which is exactly what Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were doing.

As well, the Gnostic texts were written so far after the death of Christ, that anyone who would have eye witnessed it would have been long dead, and therefore being unable to vouch for the writers. The canonized gospels were written when many of the people who were around to listen to Jesus preach were still alive. Plus, many of those people are listed by name as eye witnesses in the Bible. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did this so if anyone questioned what they were writing, they appealed to the skeptics to seek out the eye witnesses.

With all due respect GGAzoo, I think you need to recheck your statements and back them up with legitmate proofs.

 

[ggazoo]

With all due respect GGAzoo, I think you need to recheck your statements and back them up with legitmate proofs.

What "proofs" do you require?

It's literary history in how fiction writers of the first century wrote their stories. Details of what each character did were left out unless they promoted character development or drove the plot. That's why if you read Beowulf or The Illiad, you don't see the characters noticing the rain, falling asleep with a sigh... early fiction writers simply did not include that in their narratives.

C.S. Lewis discussed this as well in Christian Reflections, as does Richard Baukham in Eyewitnesses, if you care to recheck my statements on your own.

 

[joepistole]

What "proofs" do you require?

It's literary history in how fiction writers of the first century wrote their stories. Details of what each character did were left out unless they promoted character development or drove the plot. That's why if you read Beowulf or The Illiad, you don't see the characters noticing the rain, falling asleep with a sigh... early fiction writers simply did not include that in their narratives.

C.S. Lewis discussed this as well in Christian Reflections, as does Richard Baukham in Eyewitnesses, if you care to recheck my statements on your own.

Well any reasonable proof would be accepted. But your reluctance to show proof is evidence that you have no such proof. Your original post was totally without merrit. You cannot prove it because there is no such proof. No where is there any evidence that the texts of the bible were composed during the lifetime of Jesus.

In fact there is wide agreement to the contrary. The earliest dating of the texts of the Bible is 70AD...about thirty years after he death of Christ.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gospelpeter.html

I too am a Christian, but you do not need to falsify history to justify your faith.

 

[ggazoo]

You cannot prove it because there is no such proof. No where is there any evidence that the texts of the bible were composed during the lifetime of Jesus.

I never said they written during his lifetime. I said that the writers wrote the texts after his death (as yous did). My original post stated that many people who were around when Jesus was preaching was were still alive to verify the stories; Jesus himself was already gone.

 

[KennyJC]

As a Christian, I will say not much.

The Gnostic text were written over a hundred years after Christ's death. The canonized gospels, on the other hand, were written, at the earliest, around 20 years after Christ's death; big difference.

Now there will be many that will say that even the canonized gospels can't be trusted either; that's it's all "fiction". If you feel this way, then you need to look at just how the texts were written. They are far too detailed for first century writing. For example, if you look at certain texts, you see descriptions like "Jesus wrote in the sand", and "Peter was 100 yards from the beach". First century fiction writers simply did not include these detailed descriptions in their narratives unless they were recording an eye-witness account... which is exactly what Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were doing.

As well, the Gnostic texts were written so far after the death of Christ, that anyone who would have eye witnessed it would have been long dead, and therefore being unable to vouch for the writers. The canonized gospels were written when many of the people who were around to listen to Jesus preach were still alive. Plus, many of those people are listed by name as eye witnesses in the Bible. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John did this so if anyone questioned what they were writing, they appealed to the skeptics to seek out the eye witnesses.

Firstly, it was not 20 years. Try at least 40. You will probably mention Paul as his writings were earlier than the gospels, but he doesn't even mention Jesus in any historical human context. Only when the gospels come do we actually get any information on the actual life of Jesus. Paul was merely going around spreading word of salvation with this character that apparently came to him in a vision.

So is this not very revealing? Nobody had ever heard of Jesus prior to Paul because he simply didn't exist. Instead, Paul gained a large following and over many years a cleverly designed story evolved. How do we know it's just a story and not historical? Well if you really need me to explain... The bullet points of the life of Jesus resemble almost exactly the bullet points of other popular mythical characters gone before. Then you have the countless unbelievable miracles. You believe that stuff happened, then you are a disgrace.

According to you, the story was based on credible eyewitness testimony? That just makes me laugh so much.

I can imagine it now: "So you say he came back from the dead and you actually saw him fly off into the sky to heaven"?

Really... how much of a complete moron do you have to be?

P.S. please tell me how 'eye witnesses' were used when it would be just Jesus or Moses alone with no observers present, yet the writers could somehow quote what was said? Has the penny dropped yet in that brain of yours?

 

[ggazoo]

You will probably mention Paul as his writings were earlier than the gospels, but he doesn't even mention Jesus in any historical human context. Only when the gospels come do we actually get any information on the actual life of Jesus. Paul was merely going around spreading word of salvation with this character that apparently came to him in a vision.

So is this not very revealing? Nobody had ever heard of Jesus prior to Paul because he simply didn't exist. Instead, Paul gained a large following and over many years a cleverly designed story evolved. How do we know it's just a story and not historical?

Sounds to me like a conspiracy theory to try and prove that Jesus didn't exist. I'm sorry that you're so jaded.

According to you, the story was based on credible eyewitness testimony? That just makes me laugh so much.

I find it very convenient how you glazed over my entire reasoning for the historical vs fictional writings for that time period:

Now there will be many that will say that even the canonized gospels can't be trusted either; that's it's all "fiction". If you feel this way, then you need to look at just how the texts were written. They are far too detailed for first century writing. For example, if you look at certain texts, you see descriptions like "Jesus wrote in the sand", and "Peter was 100 yards from the beach". First century fiction writers simply did not include these detailed descriptions in their narratives unless they were recording an eye-witness account...

... It's literary history in how fiction writers of the first century wrote their stories. Details of what each character did were left out unless they promoted character development or drove the plot. That's why if you read Beowulf or The Illiad, you don't see the characters noticing the rain, falling asleep with a sigh... early fiction writers simply did not include that in their narratives.

 

[KennyJC]

Sounds to me like a conspiracy theory to try and prove that Jesus didn't exist. I'm sorry that you're so jaded.

No, the conspiracy theory is that a person existed who did the following:

Stilling the Storm, Feeding the 5000, Walking on the Water, Feeding the 4000,Temple Tax in the Fish's Mouth, Withering the Fig Tree, Draught of Fish, Turning Water into Wine, Second Draught of Fish, Cleansing of a Leper, Healing a Centurion's Servant, Healing Peter's Mother-in-law, Healing the Sick at evening, Healing a paralytic, Healing the Hemorrhaging woman, Healing Two Blind Men, Healing a Man's Withered Hand, Healing the Gentile Woman's Daughter, Healing the Epileptic Boy, Healing a Blind Men, Healing a Deaf Mute, Healing a Blind Man at Bethsaida, Healing the Infirm, Bent Woman, Healing the Man with Dropsy, Cleansing the Ten Lepers, Restoring a Servant's Ear, Healing the Nobleman's Son (of fever), Healing an Infirm Man at Bethesda, Healing the Man born blind, Raising the Ruler's Daughter, Raising of a Widow's Son at Nain, Raising of Lazarus, Demons entering a herd of swine, Curing a Demon-possessed Mute, Casting Out an Unclean Spirit, Curing a Demon-possessed, Blind and Mute man.

I don't even think that's all of them since the virgin birth and Jesus turning into a flying zombie are not mentioned there.

Now since you are pretending to be such a rational person right now (which is really funny by the way), why do you choose to believe all of the above are factual and reliable eye witness testimony rather than a story that was cleverly evolved by preachers?

I find it very convenient how you glazed over my entire reasoning for the historical vs fictional writings for that time period:

Your reasoning? Haha!

Your reasoning is that because writers said words to the effect of "he was 100 yards from xxx" is proof of flying zombies. Get a brain.

 

[ggazoo]

I wanted to come back and give a more thorough response to this thread.

Firstly, it was not 20 years. Try at least 40. You will probably mention Paul as his writings were earlier than the gospels, but he doesn't even mention Jesus in any historical human context. Only when the gospels come do we actually get any information on the actual life of Jesus. Paul was merely going around spreading word of salvation with this character that apparently came to him in a vision.

The first accounts of the empty tomb and the eyewitnesses are not found in the gospels, you're right - but they are found in Paul's letters, which every historian agrees were written just 15-20 years after the death of Jesus.

So is this not very revealing? Nobody had ever heard of Jesus prior to Paul because he simply didn't exist. Instead, Paul gained a large following and over many years a cleverly designed story evolved.

You're ignoring the historical and cultural context. Read on.

SAccording to you, the story was based on credible eyewitness testimony? That just makes me laugh so much.

Paul indicates that Jesus appeared to 500 people at once, most of whom were still alive and could be consulted for corroboration. Paul's letter was to a church, and therefore it was a public document, written to be read aloud. He was inviting anyone who doubted to talk to the eyewitnesses if they wished, which was a bold challenge since during the pax Romana , travel around the Mediterranean was safe and easy. Paul simply would not have made that challenge if those eyewitnesses did not exist.

In addition, the first eyewitnesses were women. Women's low social status at that time meant that their testimony was not admissible evidence in court. There was no possible advantage to the church that the first women were witnesses. It could have only undermined the credibility of the testimony.

While I'm sure that the preceding is going to fall on deaf ears, and you're going to dismiss the gospels as pure fabrication, then please answer the following historical questions:

• Why did Christianity emerge so rapidly, and with such power?

• No other band of messianic followers in that era concluded their leader was raised from the dead - why did this group do so?

• No group of Jews ever worshipped a human being as God. What led them to do it? Jews did not believe in divine men or individual resurrections. What changed their worldview overnight?

• And how do you account for the hundreds of eyewitnesses to the resurrection who lived on for decades and publicly maintained their testimony, eventually giving their lives for their beliefs?