Case for Christ: Gnostic Gospels vs Synoptic Gospels

[Vincentaneous]

I have noticed that people who trust the gospels are completely ignorant of the entire body of literature from the ancient world. Has Lee Strobel read Homer, Hesiod, Sappho, Thucydides, Herodotus, Plato, Aristotle, Livy, Virgil, Horace, Caesar, Plutarch, Xenophon, etc.? Clearly he hasn't. Josephus is the only extra-biblical writer these people ever talk about.

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

@Vincentaneous Hey, sounds an awful lot like you completely made that up and couldn't back it up even if you tried. ;)

[Vincentaneous]

@OnlineBibleMinistry OK let's gather more evidence, how much of Homer, Hesiod, Sappho, Thucydides, Herodotus, Plato, Aristotle, Livy, Virgil, Horace, Caesar, Plutarch, or Xenophon have you read? Let's go ahead and throw in the Analects of Confucius, the Bhagavad Gita, and the Dao de Jing (Tao te Ching). Prove me wrong here.

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

@Vincentaneous Ah, so you made the empty and erroneous claim before you gathered evidence. That totally wasn't already obvious. I am actually working on my dissertation in an ancient history department in addition to my undergrad honours in ancient history. From your list I have done a lot more than simply read Homer, Thucydides, Herodotus, Plato, Aristotle, Livy, Virgil, Caesar, Plutarch, etc.Graeco-Roman histories and biographies are immensely important for those studying the gospels and Acts

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

You may actually benefit from reading some academic work on the New Testament, as opposed to making up obviously false claims. Take the issue of gospel genre, where NT historians study ancient histories and biographies to determine genre, authorial intent and reception. Today, most scholars would place the genre of the synoptic gospels as Graeco-Roman bios/biographies. (See the influential work of Richard Burridge, for example).

[Vincentaneous]

@OnlineBibleMinistry So you know that the census under Quirinius that supposedly happened at the time of Jesus' birth is much more likely to be a mistake or fabrication than a real event. Also, you know that it is not at all certain that Pilate posted Roman guards at Jesus' (Joseph of Arimathea's) tomb to ensure that his body wasn't stolen. Pilate had to deal with many rebellious rabbis. You know that holy men who performed miracles were a dime a dozen in the 1st century Levant.

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

@Vincentaneous I am more than well aware of the academic issues surrounding the Lucan census, Matthew's account of the guards at the tomb, and the state of Galilean preachers at the time (which you are most likely wrong on in your exaggeration). How exactly is this proving your baseless and demonstrably wrong case that "people who trust the gospels are completely ignorant of the entire body of literature from the ancient world". It isn't - as I first stated, you are just making things up.

[Vincentaneous]

@OnlineBibleMinistry 1) pewforum[dot]org/other-beliefs­-and-practices/u-s-religious-k­nowledge-survey[dot]aspx 2) education level correlates negatively with professing Christian beliefs. Combine that with #1 and that is evidence in my favor. 3) personal knowledge of professors of classical civ and ancient history - yes, this is anecdotal...... Where are the statistics on your side - that show that knowledge of ancient history leads to higher likelihood of being a believer?

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

@Vincentaneous What has that post got to do with your false statement that "people who trust the gospels are completely ignorant of the entire body of literature from the ancient world." As a historian I trust the gospels, and I am quite confident I know ancient literature better than you. And I have been taught, worked with and supervised by Christian historians. The burden was on you to prove your obviously false claim and you repeatedly failed, seeking every opportunity to divert attention

[DrStevenz]

The New Testament was completed by 95 AD while eyewitnesses were still walking, whereas the Gnostic gospels and things like "the gosepl of Thomas" are much later.

[Jman3000]

The gnostic teachings scare me

[PoliticalFrustration]

So, how can you tell the book of revelations was written by John the baptist? First, of all the gospel of John and revelations are two books with completely different writing styles, how could they be written by the same person? Also, at the time the book was written John the baptist would at least 100 years old. Also, the writer of revelations never says he is John the baptist, he just says his name is John.

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

John the Baptist was killed by Herodians before Jesus' death. This is recorded in the Gospels and in Josephus. I have never heard anyone in my life claim that John the Baptist wrote either the Gospel or Revelation.

[Bosingr]

@OnlineBibleMinistry True. John the Apostle wrote 1-3rd John & Revelation. Not to be confused with John the Baptist. Two godly men, but different men.

[reborninsalvation]

it is john the disciple not john the baptist

[TerryBBurton]

@PoliticalFrustration ... yes you are confused on your Johns. A common name to this day. Try this website:  NeedGOD com

[DeanTheMarine]

@PoliticalFrustration uuummm just to let you know, revelation was written by John the apostle not John the baptist. John the apostle was the only apostle to die a natural death on the island of patmos.

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

Nope, that's not "the party line" - that's the independent verifiable facts. In the 170s we have Irenaeus stating the four-fold gospel tradition as one that one he received from earlier generations; we have Tatians Diatessaron including the four canonical gospels shortly after; we have citing of none but the canonicals in the 2nd generation fathers, etc.

Care to share your facts or continue to respond with empty rhetoric?

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

Hey riddicus1,

You seem to just be copying the story line in the fiction novel/movie the Da Vinci Code. The Council of Nicaea actually had nothing to do with choosing the gospels (let alone any book of the bible...).

The four gospels were already authoritative and accepted by Christians hundreds of years before the Council.

I think it is important that you know the difference between a fiction novel and a historical source before spreading some clearly false information.

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

You find one peer-reviewed work of historical scholarship (not a fiction novel) that agrees that the Council of Nicea did what you claimed with regard to the canon of the bible. The fact that the four-gospels were authoritative hundreds of years earlier (as testified to by Ireneaus in 170-80, Tatian's Diatessaron, the early 2nd century Church Fathers, the Muratorian Fragment, etc) demonstrates the complete folly of your claim.

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

No, the New Testament Gospels are held by most to have been written between 65 and 90. No where close to 300 A.D.

[ciaputa]

this video says it was aiming to find what the overall academic consensus was and yet we have two guys' opinion...

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

And their opinions are representative of the academic consensus. The vast majority of scholars - Christian, non-Christian, etc - throw out the Gnostic texts as historically accurate.

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

Just to sum up libertariannumber5's arguments:

1) He claims we have no new testament manuscripts from before 350AD, this is false.

See Papyrus 52 (dated 100-150) for example.

2) He said the Gospel of Thomas pre-dates the NT Gospels

Bart Ehrman - "early 2nd century" (p.xii of Lost Christianities)

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

3) He claimed that Babylonian Talmud is a first hand account of Jesus and the most historically reliable. However, the academic consensus it that the writers knew nothing of pre-70 history and anything pre-140 historically is untrustworthy.

[libertariannumber5]

The historical Jesus by Bart Ehrman says the gospel of thomas was written in the middle of the 1st century, around 45 AD.

Elaine Pagels says it might have well been the source of all the gospels.

Papyrus 52 is a fragment and therefore cannot be accurate claimed to be anything but a line which might as well be a part of some Gnostic Gospel. The earliest whole, certifiable gospel is from 350AD

[ace8842]

This is a nice try, but the canonical Gospels were all written before 100AD and some closer to 60AD. They were all written far sooner than the Gnositc gospels, whose content was clearly dependent upon the canonical gospels..

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

Why didn't you mention your hair colour? Your eye colour? The car you drive?

All equally valid questions.

//So, if age equates closeness to God//

No one made that claim. You seem to be fighting with yourself  once again.

[libertariannumber5]

This video claims that! It says that the Gnostic gospels are younger than the NT ones and hence, are closer to god...well, the answer is that Tao Te Ching is older than any gospel, so it is closer to god?

Age is meaningles..content is important. The ancient Gnostic believed it, and so I therefore believe it as well. My faith is with the church that was persecuted, not the orthodox Christians who massacred them.

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

No, it didn't. It claimed that the earlier works are more reliable in understanding the historical Jesus.

How would texts that have nothing to do with Jesus help us better understand the historical Jesus? You seem rather confused when it comes to historical method.

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

On Theissan's view of Thomas you said:

1) "In "the historical Jesus" Gerd Theissen, theology professor, says Thomas was written about 145 AD. "

2) "Actually, Gerd Theissen says it was written in 45 AD, as do many other respected researchers."

On the canonical gospels you said:

1) "the "canonical" gospels were written in the about the year 100-150 "

2) "The NT gospels were written from 80-110 AD."

You don't even know what you are talking about ...

[libertariannumber5]

the "experts" in this video...professor Mark L Srauss, Bethel seminary, professor Craig Evans, Acadia Divinty school...these people both have a clearly orthodox/Nicene Christian agenda. There are plenty of other PHDs, like Elaine Pagels, who have a different viewpoint. Why not ask Professor Stephan Hoeller, bishop of the Ecclesia Gnostica, what he thinks?

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

Oh yes, the 'Nicene agenda'!

Orthodox Christianity with its apostolic links pre-dates gnostic 'Christianity'. The legitimacy of gnostic 'Christianity' as historical equals to Orthodoxy is simply not substantiated by the evidence.

The evidence is:

Orthodox Christianity historically pre-dates the gnostic sects, their texts pre-date the gnostic sects and their beliefs arise from a first century Palestinian Jewish context. The same cannot be said about the later gnostic sects.

[KDaugherty15]

@OnlineBibleMinistry the orthodox christian church has no direct apostolic links because it wasn't a unified church until generations after the apostles, the orthodox claim Peter as the first Pope and as the link, but he was already dead, and the Protestants don't have anything because (except the Anglican Communion) have no link to the Catholic, Orthodox Church.

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

@KDaugherty15 No, it does have apostolic links. Take the fact that the most reverent works of the church are those connected with the apostles. Take the fact that the early orthodox church fathers were disciples of the apostles, etc. Claims about Peter being the first Pope have NOTHING to do with this fact. I don't know what you mean by "wasn't a unified church". Orthodoxy was unified around the more-than-person of Jesus...

It sounds like you are dealing with the 17th and not 1st-2nd century

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

There are a number of issues with this.

1) Reliability of traditions

"The Rabbis knew very little about pre-70 Pharisaism...and what they report is usually untrustworthy" (Cohen, 'Josephus in Galilee and Rome' p.253)

Jacob Neusner goes on about how pre-140 traditions are generally unreliable (se From Politics to piety)

2) Date you ascribed to the tradition

:"We have no rabbinic writings from the first or even the second century C.E." (Van Voorst, "Jesus outside the NT' p. 105)

[libertariannumber5]

So, the babylonian Talmud just coincidentally say that a palestinian Jew named Jesus was the leader of the Notzrim movement and died a violent death and had disciples named Matthew, Phillip and John. Right :) The babylonian Talmud is real and in the book of Baraita it talks about Christ the heretic, just ask any Rabbi

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

No, it wasn't coincidental. The fact that it was written a couple of hundred years post-hoc means it's historical value is greatly questionable.

[libertariannumber5]

As I said, the book of Baraita was oral tradition that was around for a long time, & only written down after the Jews were afraid that, after the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD, their laws and history would be lost. It was written by refugees from Isreal living in Babylon who most likely actually new Christ & his disciples, & it is the only truly non-bias piece of evidence that Christ lived. People can believe what they want to believe, but the evidence is clear: Jesus was a Nozrim, i.e,. a Gnostic.

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

That is a highly imaginative recount of how the texts accuracy. Highly inaccurate as well.

1) "The Rabbis knew very little about pre-70 Pharisaism...and what they report is usually untrustworthy" (Cohen, 'Josephus in Galilee and Rome' p.253)

2) Jacob Neusner goes on about how pre-140 traditions are generally unreliable (se From Politics to piety)

3) "We have no rabbinic writings from the first or even the second century C.E." (Van Voorst, "Jesus outside the NT' p. 105)

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

All the canonical gospels pre-date the Gospel of Thomas (e.g. Ehrman dates Thomas no earlier than the 2nd century). Dating the gospels composition into the second century has no standing. Firstly, no respected scholar or scholarly method has placed the gospels that late. There are a variety of reasons from writers from that period in which you claimed they were composed actually referencing them, and even manuscript evidence of the latest gospel (John) as early as 125AD.

[libertariannumber5]

By "respected scholar" you mean fundamentalist Christians, i.e., people with an agenda. Is Elaine Pagels not a "respected scholar"? In "the historical Jesus" Gerd Theissen, theology professor, says Thomas was written about 145 AD. He won a medal from the British Academy for being a historian. Is he not respected? Ohh, and the Tao te Ching, EVERYONE AGREES, was written a hundred years before the bible...does that make it more "godly"?

The oldest NT manuscript is only from the year 350

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

I quoted Bart D. Ehrman so by no means do I even imply "fundamentalist Christian".

Gerd Theissen agrees with what I said so I do not see why you are bringing him up in such a manner.

Haha, the oldest NT manuscript is debated - the earliest is probably P52 which dates to the first half of the 2nd Century. Then there are some who date P46 to the first century but that is not the majority view on those manuscripts.

[muhammedsadique]

meicle jakson this teim is muslim . all crstion condry islam caching you now

[babykissesx3]

Michael Jackson has had children say he molested them-Mohamed married a 6 yo child and teaches marriage to children is acceptable. Could it be that he has chosen mohamed teachings because he is like minded?

[Apocryphile1970]

Read the Super Gospel!

p=3B4508FB754D3890

Dozens of ancient gospels rolled into one!

[ace8842]

No serious scholars believe the Gnosic Gospels are reliable or that they were written before 175 or even 200 AD. These take Jesus out of the Jewish world He was in and attempt to put him in a Greco-Roman world. The Gnostic Gospels clearly borrowed from the Biblical Gospels, which means they were written much later.

[UnoRaza]

The problem with 'serious' scholars is they are highly controllable if not brainwashed; they skew data as necessary as we learned with energy at Y A L E and H A R V A R D.

(It seems MONEY TALKS as does threats to your career; this assumes the optimistic scenario of getting a normal, responsible person doing the research.) I've read these gospels and these people do not give objective reasons and refer to other unnamed 'scholars'.

This video does not present credible evidence.

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

What a poor parallel you attempt to draw in regard to academic bias. Good on you for reading the other gospels - I have also read them - and I find your denial baseless.

And please do explain which this video does not present credible evidence? Surely, you can provide something other than the fact that 'you don't want to believe it'.