Gnostic Gospels

monosharp

I'm very curious, why do Christians not accept these texts ?

How can you justify not accepting them ? What makes Luke, Matthew and John right. But Judas, Thomas and Mary wrong.

PDN

Several reasons.
1. The date they were written.
The range of dates accepted by scholars for the works you mention are as follows:
Gospel of Mary 120-180 AD.
Gospel of Judas 130-170 AD.
Gospel of Thomas (no hard evidence for this, but most scholars date it to the second half of the Second Century, ie after 150AD).

Compare this with:
Matthew 50-100 AD.
Mark 50-70 AD.
Luke 59-100 AD.
John 85-110AD.

It is clear that the earliest possible dates for the Gnostic Gospels are still decades after the latest possible dates for the four canonical Gospels. Therefore the four reflect the teaching of the early church, quite possible including eyewitness accounts, whereas the Gnostic Gospels reflect much later speculation and imagination.

2. Citations in other writings.
We have an abundance of quotes from early Christian writers where they cite the four Gospels, demonstrating that they viewed the four Gospels as authoritative teaching.

3. Survival of the fittest.
The decision as to which books became Scripture was not, contrary to urban legend, decided by a Church Council at Nicaea. It was a gradual and very natural process where individual congregations kept the books that they found to be helpful and dumped those that they found to be a load of crock. Gradually a concensus occurred where the four Gospels made the cut and the Gnostic Gospels did not.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

Several reasons.
1. The date they were written.
The range of dates accepted by scholars for the works you mention are as follows:
Gospel of Mary 120-180 AD.
Gospel of Judas 130-170 AD.
Gospel of Thomas (no hard evidence for this, but most scholars date it to the second half of the Second Century, ie after 150AD).

Nevertheless, scholars generally fall into one of two main camps: an "early camp" favoring a date for the "core" of between the years 50 and 100, before or approximately contemporary with the composition of the canonical gospels and a "late camp" favoring a date in the 2nd century, after composition of the canonical gospels

Do you ever feel bad twisting things like that ? I don't mean for other people. I mean feel personally bad that you need to ignore opinions that don't agree with your own personal beliefs ?

Compare this with:

It is clear that the earliest possible dates for the Gnostic Gospels are still decades after the latest possible dates for the four canonical Gospels. Therefore the four reflect the teaching of the early church, quite possible including eyewitness accounts, whereas the Gnostic Gospels reflect much later speculation and imagination.

The early church didn't know what its own teachings were for centuries. There were many different opinions on many things. There was no "right" and "wrong". That all changed much much later.

2. Citations in other writings.
We have an abundance of quotes from early Christian writers where they cite the four Gospels, demonstrating that they viewed the four Gospels as authoritative teaching.

And we have the same for the lost gospels. The gnostic gospels only survived because monks who were ordered to destroy them, after church leaders decided they didn't like them and they were to be destroyed, hide them away.

3. Survival of the fittest.
The decision as to which books became Scripture was not, contrary to urban legend, decided by a Church Council at Nicaea. It was a gradual and very natural process where individual congregations kept the books that they found to be helpful and dumped those that they found to be a load of crock. Gradually a concensus occurred where the four Gospels made the cut and the Gnostic Gospels did not.

There were possibly hundreds of different sects of Christians in the early church, each with their own different beliefs. This is fact.

The 4 canonical gospels 'made the cut' because the church leaders decided the others were heresay. There was even violence against some of the other sects who held different beliefs using different gospels.

At the end of the 3rd century there were over 20 gospels as well as other texts. Almost 80 different unique works altogether.

Check this out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvXz3N6o9ns

Slav

monosharp wrote: »

I'm very curious, why do Christians not accept these texts ?

How can you justify not accepting them ? What makes Luke, Matthew and John right. But Judas, Thomas and Mary wrong.

I think the reason for rejecting Gnostic Gospels is because they are clearly Gnostic.

Christian Church always distinguished itself from Gnosticism (which predates Christianity). Gnostic Gospels were written outside of the Church, they were foreign to it and they were pushing a teaching that contradicts the Christian teaching. So why they should be accepted by Christians then?

Seoid

The purpose of a gospel is to tell about the life and activities of Jesus - the earliest gospels were spoken messages that were written down and the canonical gospels are thought to be the oldest - Matthew Mark and Luke in one branch and John and the sayings gospel of thomas to have another source not found in the synoptics. The later they get (the further from Jesus' time and disciples) the less historical and more mystical the gospels are - John is the latest and most mystical of the canonical gospels.

As Slav so succinctly put it, Christianity rejects the gnostic gospels because they were clearly gnostic!
Gnosticism is probably older than Christianity and doesn't refer to a specific sect but the gnostics were generally dualists and believed that mystical, esoteric knowledge is required to escape the evil material world. You can see how some of them would easily have accepted Jesus but their views were at odds with the majority of Christians and with the Jewish tradition that Jesus came from. Most of the gnostic gospels are not interested in the historical Jesus and claim he was not human. They are fundamentally at odds with the canonical gospels and incorporate Greek, Roman, Egyptian myths and Greek philosophy.
Already in the 2nd Century Ireneus for example denounced the gnostics and emphasised the 4 canonical gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke & John - and this was long before any church councils.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

Do you ever feel bad twisting things like that ? I don't mean for other people. I mean feel personally bad that you need to ignore opinions that don't agree with your own personal beliefs ?

Do you ever feel bad about asking seemingly honest questions when you're really just looking for an opportunity to pick a quarrel and to make slurs against somebody else's character and integrity?

If you want a discourse on the Gospel of Thomas that lasts for several pages then I could give you one, but you can find similar stuff by googling.

There is indeed an early camp that dates Thomas earlier, just as there is an early camp that dates the four canonical gospels much earlier. If I was ignoring opinions that didn't suit my own personal beliefs then I would just have given you the early dates for the four Gospels and said that they were all written before 64 AD. However, I wanted to compare like with like so I gave the date ranges for both the canonical Gospels and the Gnostic Gospels that are accepted by the majority of scholars.

How about you actually listen to answers that are given to you in good faith instead of acting like an obnoxious pratt?

The early church didn't know what its own teachings were for centuries. There were many different opinions on many things. There was no "right" and "wrong". That all changed much much later.

If you read Galatians, written very early in Christian history, you will see that the Early Church was well capable of discussing their beliefs and deciding what was right or wrong.

And we have the same for the lost gospels. The gnostic gospels only survived because monks who were ordered to destroy them, after church leaders decided they didn't like them and they were to be destroyed, hide them away.

Yes, we do have citations from the Gnostic Gospels, but they occur in works that are dated much later than the works containing citations from the four Gospels.

It's certainly true that some church leaders destroyed works they considered heretical, but certainly not in the all-powerful way that is presented in the Da-Vinci-Code style urban legends. So, why did Christians get rid of these books? Because they had already figured out they were a load of old crock.

There were possibly hundreds of different sects of Christians in the early church, each with their own different beliefs. This is fact.

There were certainly different cults and sects. That is always the case with any belief - you get people who come up with their own embellishments of anything. However, you generally get such a variety of beliefs when there was an original version from which the rest all stemmed. Therefore it makes sense to find the oldest version of a belief instead of relying on stuff that was written decades, or even centuries, later.

The 4 canonical gospels 'made the cut' because the church leaders decided the others were heresay. There was even violence against some of the other sects who held different beliefs using different gospels. At the end of the 3rd century there were over 20 gospels as well as other texts. Almost 80 different unique works altogether.

The problem with this rather creative rewriting of history is that it completely ignores the facts.

By the end of the Third Century Christianity had already spread beyond the Roman Empire (for example, to India). These churches recognised no primacy for Rome and it would have been physically impossible for any hierarchy to have forced them to reject any books at all. Yet we find that these churches used the same four Gospels as the Church in the West.

I'm quite sure that there were over 80 works at that time that were looselly based on Christianity - in fact I would have supposed the number to have been much higher. The inventiveness of that period in respct to religion meant that there were any number of cults and sects in operation. However, that has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that Christianity was forming its own canon of Scripture and maintaining a particular body of doctrine that was consistent with that Scripture.

O'Coonassa

Gnostic Thomas is a redaction of an earlier text which is probably as old as Quelle. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html

PDN

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Gnostic Thomas is a redaction of an earlier text which is probably as old as Quelle. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/thomas.html

So these fragments of a 'Gospel' are supposedly a redaction of an earlier hypothetical book that is earlier than another hypothetical book?

Here's what tickles me - the same people who want to make a song and dance about the Gospel of Thomas try to argue that the biblical books are unreliable and we can't really know how they originally read. Yet the biblical books have an abundance of complete manuscripts, citations, and other evidence supporting them. So, by the same logic, we can't have the foggiest clue what the Gospel of Thomas actually said, if it existed at all prior to 200 AD, and if it was a Gnostic Gospel at all.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

O'Coonassa

PDN wrote: »

So, by the same logic, we can't have the foggiest clue what the Gospel of Thomas actually said

Well yes, we can only have a rough idea, same as with all the other Gospels that were written by men.

Slav

O'Coonassa wrote: »

PDN wrote: »

So, by the same logic, we can't have the foggiest clue what the Gospel of Thomas actually said

Well yes, we can only have a rough idea, same as with all the other Gospels that were written by men.

Thanks God, Christians do not follow that logic and therefore they have a good idea of what both canonical and apocryphal scriptures authors were trying to say.

O'Coonassa

Slav wrote: »

Thanks God, Christians do not follow that logic and therefore they have a good idea of what both canonical and apocryphal scriptures authors were trying to say.

Yes thanks God, the first followers of Jesus were never at all called Christians but something else entirely and so we therefore have a good idea of the twisting that has been done.

Slav

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Yes thanks God, the first followers of Jesus were never at all called Christians but something else entirely and so we therefore have a good idea of the twisting that has been done.

From what point exactly Ebionites started calling themselves Christians and became mainstream/orthodox?

O'Coonassa

Slav wrote: »

From what point exactly Ebionites started calling themselves Christians and became mainstream/orthodox?

They didn't start calling themselves Christians. The greek/hellenistic followers of Stephen who were run out of Jerusalem in Acts ended up in Antioch and it was these people who were first called Christians.

The people who stayed behind in Jerusalem never went by such a name but were variously called "the poor", "Nazarene's" or the "followers of the Way". After the fall of the Temple they appear to have dispersed and eventually were persecuted out of existance by other Jews and Christians.

Slav

O'Coonassa wrote: »

They didn't start calling themselves Christians. The greek/hellenistic followers of Stephen who were run out of Jerusalem in Acts ended up in Antioch and it was these people who were first called Christians.

The people who stayed behind in Jerusalem never went by such a name but were variously called "the poor", "Nazarene's" or the "followers of the Way". After the fall of the Temple they appear to have dispersed and eventually were persecuted out of existance by other Jews and Christians.

In this case I'm seriously struggling understanding your logic. Assuming that the followers of Christ in Jerusalem did not call themselves Christians (and even that many of them had nothing to do with the mainstream Christianity) you are coming to the conclusion that this should give us a good idea of some twisting....

Mickeroo

PDN wrote: »

Compare this with:
Matthew 50-100 AD.
Mark 50-70 AD.
Luke 59-100 AD.
John 85-110AD.

What was the life exptectancy of somebody in Isreal at this time? If there was eye witnesses they would have been children around the time of the crucifiction right?

PDN

Mickeroo wrote: »

What was the life exptectancy of somebody in Isreal at this time? If there was eye witnesses they would have been children around the time of the crucifiction right?

The crucifixion probably occurred around 33 AD. So if we take the earlier dates in the ranges, that would mean an 18 year old eye witness would be 35 or older when Matthew and Mark were written, 44 or older when Luke was written, and 70 or older when John was written.

I believe average life expectancy back then was about 40, but that is irrelevant because of high rates of infant mortality. Once somebody lived into adulthood then there was no reason why they should not live to 60 or 70 or more. Church tradition records that John died in Ephesus aged about 100, which would make even the later dates perfectly possible.

O'Coonassa

Slav wrote: »

In this case I'm seriously struggling understanding your logic. Assuming that the followers of Christ in Jerusalem did not call themselves Christians (and even that many of them had nothing to do with the mainstream Christianity) you are coming to the conclusion that this should give us a good idea of some twisting....

Indeed there were two sets of followers, one being hellenistic and Pauline in nature and it is from this schism where Christianity springs. As the orthodoxy of this church grew it was duty bound to negate the writings and teachings of the Jerusalem followers who were Hebrews and did not believe that Jesus was divine.

antiskeptic

Mickeroo wrote: »

What was the life exptectancy of somebody in Isreal at this time? If there was eye witnesses they would have been children around the time of the crucifiction right?

Life expectancy? About the same as today I imagine. It's just that fewer than today reached that age.

Mickeroo

antiskeptic wrote: »

Life expectancy? About the same as today I imagine. It's just that fewer than today reached that age.

Yeah thats what life expetancy means........your point?? PDN just said the average life expectancy was 40, almost half what it is today. Thanks to medicine and cleaner living environments people tend to live longer.


Thanks for clearing that up PDN.

postcynical

Mickeroo wrote: »

Yeah thats what life expetancy means........your point?? PDN just said the average life expectancy was 40, almost half what it is today. Thanks to medicine and cleaner living environments people tend to live longer.


Thanks for clearing that up PDN.

Not quite. More babies survive. Adults have comparable life expectancies IIRC. Anyway the point was that the Gospels are more like primary sources from a historical perspective than like Chinese whispers.

monosharp

PDN wrote: »

Do you ever feel bad about asking seemingly honest questions when you're really just looking for an opportunity to pick a quarrel and to make slurs against somebody else's character and integrity?

When I answer a question, i do so honestly and if theres no concrete opinion I provide both opinions.

I almost accepted what you wrote as fact until I checked myself.

You provide whichever opinion suits your view. I don't like that.

There is indeed an early camp that dates Thomas earlier, just as there is an early camp that dates the four canonical gospels much earlier. If I was ignoring opinions that didn't suit my own personal beliefs then I would just have given you the early dates for the four Gospels and said that they were all written before 64 AD. However, I wanted to compare like with like so I gave the date ranges for both the canonical Gospels and the Gnostic Gospels that are accepted by the majority of scholars.

In all fairness, doesn't the 'early' camp of Matthew need to provide evidence that whoever wrote it could see the future since the author references events well after the 'early' dates provided.

It's certainly true that some church leaders destroyed works they considered heretical, but certainly not in the all-powerful way that is presented in the Da-Vinci-Code style urban legends. So, why did Christians get rid of these books? Because they had already figured out they were a load of old crock.

Never said it was ala davinci code, not a fan btw.

But to say Christians got rid of these books because they figured out they were a 'load of crock' is just plain wrong.

There were many many texts that were very popular with early christians that were against the 'mainstream' and were destroyed.

What about the gospel of Peter ? Not a gnostic gospel and not complete, but why is it rejected ?

By the end of the Third Century Christianity had already spread beyond the Roman Empire (for example, to India). These churches recognised no primacy for Rome and it would have been physically impossible for any hierarchy to have forced them to reject any books at all. Yet we find that these churches used the same four Gospels as the Church in the West.

Eventually and after Rome started to extend its power. The Church sent people to churches all over Europe to destroy unwanted texts.

Fanny Cradock

monosharp wrote: »

Do you ever feel bad twisting things like that ? I don't mean for other people. I mean feel personally bad that you need to ignore opinions that don't agree with your own personal beliefs ?

I have to say that I am becoming increasingly frustrated by your largely negative interations with people on this forum.

monosharp

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I have to say that I am becoming increasingly frustrated by your largely negative interations with people on this forum.

PDN wrote:

How about you actually listen to answers that are given to you in good faith instead of acting like an obnoxious pratt?

I didn't insult PDN, I didn't call him anything, I asked him a question.

Need I point out that he broke the charter ? Need I also point out that from the quote from me you just gave, I did not break the charter.

Fanny Cradock

Did I mention anything about the charter? I'm talking about your general attitude towards Christianity. We all get it! You don't like it.

monosharp

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Did I mention anything about the charter? I'm talking about your general attitude towards Christianity. We all get it! You don't like it.

Because I don't like blind acceptance ?

I have no problem with Christ, I have no problem with the Bible, I have no problem with believing in God/Jesus etc.

My problem is this "This is the truth, accept it. Anything contrary to this is Wrong" attiude.

I ask a question and instead of a logical answer I get blind faith.

example ->

Why didn't the animals kill eachother on Noahs boat
Answer: God did it

Why don't Christians like the gnostic gospels ?
Answer: They're not true

What makes the Gnostic gospels false and the Canonical gospels true ?
Answer: Evidence in the Canonical gospels.

PDN

monosharp wrote: »

When I answer a question, i do so honestly and if theres no concrete opinion I provide both opinions.

Really, well I must have missed those posts.

I tell you what, I have already demonstrated my ability to give both sides by listing both the early and late dates for the canonical Gospels. This is even though I personally think the late dates are based on subjective assumptions and poor logic. However, I wanted to be even-handed.

Now it's your turn. Since you are proclaiming your own fairness and my sneaky bias - how about you show us all those places in your posts where you gave both opinions? Where did you post all the stuff that actually argued against your views, but you included it in a noble commitment to provide both opinions?

I almost accepted what you wrote as fact until I checked myself.

I stated pure fact. I gave you the date ranges accepted by the majority of scholars for the canonical Gospels (even though I don't agree with them personally) and excluded the minority who go for earlier dates (whom I do agree with). That was fact.

I gave you date ranges, using the same criteria, for the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Judas. That was fact.

I explained that dating the Gospel of Thomas is more problematic, but that most scholars go for the mid 2nd Century. As with the canonical Gospels I excluded the minority who go for earlier dates. That was fact.

You, in response, focused on the minority who favour an early date for Thomas and ignored the fact that I had been scrupulously even-handed. However, instead of concentrating on the issues under discussion like any normal person you chose to launch a quite unprovoked and scurillous attack on my integrity. I find that highly offensive.

You provide whichever opinion suits your view. I don't like that.

No, I provide opinions that I believe to be true and accurate, but which contradict your ill-informed and anti-Christian predjudices. You don't like that.

In all fairness, doesn't the 'early' camp of Matthew need to provide evidence that whoever wrote it could see the future since the author references events well after the 'early' dates provided.

No, but your use of such circular logic certainly demonstrates the subjective bias of those who exclude an early date, and gives us a pretty good idea why you post here.

You want to discuss which books that speak about a miracle worker are 'wrong' or 'right' but you exclude the possibility that the miracle worker can perform a pretty minor miracle such as predicting the future?

If you exclude the possibility that Jesus could predict the future then both the canonical Gospels and the Gnostic Gospels are 'wrong' - since they plainly speak of a miracle worker. Therefore your question about which are 'right' and 'wrong' has no meaning whatsoever and is incapable of discussion - which would reveal you to be a troll.

Never said it was ala davinci code, not a fan btw.

It is DaVinci-Code-style. Poor scholarship, poor history, but convincing to the ignorant who want an excuse to stick their fingers up at Christianity.

But to say Christians got rid of these books because they figured out they were a 'load of crock' is just plain wrong.

No, it's perfectly correct. Christians believe that sound doctrine is truth and so valuable, and that heresy is error and so is harmful. Therefore, if Christians decided these books were heretical (something you have already admitted) - then that means they figured them to be a load of crock.

There were many many texts that were very popular with early christians that were against the 'mainstream' and were destroyed.

What about the gospel of Peter ? Not a gnostic gospel and not complete, but why is it rejected ?

Probably because virtualy all scholars believe it to be later than the canonical Gospels, and maybe because the early Christians realised that a walking, talking, living Cross didn't quite fit in with the facts about Jesus that had been handed down to them by the apostles (although Cliff Richard could have turned it into a song).

Eventually and after Rome started to extend its power. The Church sent people to churches all over Europe to destroy unwanted texts.

So what about the churches that lay beyond Rome's reach and which rejected Rome's authority - both ecclesiastical and temporal? What about the churches in Georgia, Armenia, Persia, India etc? How come they used the same four Gospels as anyone else? It is plainly unhistorical nonsense to suggest that Rome had power in those regions to destroy unwanted texts or to force unwilling Christians to abandon lots of beloved other Gospels. Your theory is contradicted by the facts.

wolfsbane

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Yes thanks God, the first followers of Jesus were never at all called Christians but something else entirely and so we therefore have a good idea of the twisting that has been done.

Greek Χριστιανός (Christianos); Christian:
1 Peter 4:16 εἰ δὲ ὡς Χριστιανός μὴ αἰσχυνέσθω δοξαζέτω δὲ τὸν θεὸν ἐν τῷ μέρει τούτῳ
1 Peter 4:16 Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter.

Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.

Acts 26:28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “You almost persuade me to become a Christian.”

Note: Christian was used by both the Jewish and the Gentile believers, and by the unbelievers in reference to them.

Zaynzma

wolfsbane wrote: »

Greek Χριστιανός (Christianos); Christian:
1 Peter 4:16 εἰ δὲ ὡς Χριστιανός μὴ αἰσχυνέσθω δοξαζέτω δὲ τὸν θεὸν ἐν τῷ μέρει τούτῳ
1 Peter 4:16 Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in this matter.

Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.

Acts 26:28 Then Agrippa said to Paul, “You almost persuade me to become a Christian.”

Note: Christian was used by both the Jewish and the Gentile believers, and by the unbelievers in reference to them.

If the argument put forward is that the original followers of Jesus were sidelined and their books didn't make it into the New Testament, then quoting from the NT doesn't really prove anything does it? The point was that the early followers of Jesus (Ebionites) didn't call themselves Christians, because they were Jews who believed Jesus had come not to destroy the law but to uphold it. No doubt there were others who DID call themselves Christians, and they were the ones whose documents made it into the new 'Holy Book'. Even so, there are ambiguities in their documents too....

sorry for butting in.

wolfsbane

Zaynzma wrote: »

If the argument put forward is that the original followers of Jesus were sidelined and their books didn't make it into the New Testament, then quoting from the NT doesn't really prove anything does it? The point was that the early followers of Jesus (Ebionites) didn't call themselves Christians, because they were Jews who believed Jesus had come not to destroy the law but to uphold it. No doubt there were others who DID call themselves Christians, and they were the ones whose documents made it into the new 'Holy Book'. Even so, there are ambiguities in their documents too....

sorry for butting in.

Right, so the real followers of Christ were the Ebionites, not the apostles. And the New Testament writings are the fictions of the latter group. The real Christ is not the one described in the New Testament, but another who preached salvation by the Law.

That means the Jewish establishment made a big mistake in having him crucified, since he supported their understanding of the Law. But of course, maybe he wasn't crucified, since that is a New Testament account. Maybe the 'real' Jesus settled down as a respected rabbi and raised a family.

It must have been later generations of Gentiles who made up the story and foolishly many Jews bought into it. That's why we have both Christian and Jewish accounts of a Messiah/false messiah called Jesus of Nazareth.

It all makes sense, if one has the imagination.:rolleyes:

O'Coonassa

wolfsbane wrote: »

Note: Christian was used by both the Jewish and the Gentile believers, and by the unbelievers in reference to them.

Do you have any Hebrew texts from the Jewish believers to back up your assertion? I thought they'd all been destroyed as heresy. Jews could never worship in the Temple and proclaim a human being to be God, they'd have got stoned to death like Stephen. There was a definite split and despite best efforts even the Pauline author of Acts can't paper over the crack.

wolfsbane

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Do you have any Hebrew texts from the Jewish believers to back up your assertion? I thought they'd all been destroyed as heresy. Jews could never worship in the Temple and proclaim a human being to be God, they'd have got stoned to death like Stephen. There was a definite split and despite best efforts even the Pauline author of Acts can't paper over the crack.

Hebrew texts, I'm not aware of. But for a Hebrew believer, Peter is a prime example. I've already quoted his use of the term Christian.

Yes, the apostolic church faced great persecution from the Jewish leaders, and their practice of meeting in the Temple was soon curtailed. Stephen, James and many others were killed, imprisoned or driven to exile. Those who remained met in their own dwellings. Paul ventured into the Temple on his return from missionary activity outside Israel, but was recognised and arrested.

If the Church was Ebionite, they would have been just another Jewish sect and found a space like the Pharisees and their opponents the Sadducees. But Christ preached something that none of these could accept, hence the hatred and contempt He and His people endured.

O'Coonassa

wolfsbane wrote: »

Hebrew texts, I'm not aware of. But for a Hebrew believer, Peter is a prime example. I've already quoted his use of the term Christian.

Yes, the apostolic church faced great persecution from the Jewish leaders, and their practice of meeting in the Temple was soon curtailed.

Sorry wolfsbane but James the brother of Jesus and his followers were there worshipping at the Temple in Jerusalem until at least 62AD when Ananus had James stoned to death much to the displeasure of "those who were considered the most fair-minded people in the City, and strict in their observance of the Law"

This incident was recorded by Josephus in Jewish Antiquities and was far from being disputed by early Church fathers such as Clement of Alexandria. So far from being persecuted James and his followers were generally respected in Jerusalem. Had they been proclaiming the divinity of Jesus this most certainly would not have been the case.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Stephen, James and many others were killed, imprisoned or driven to exile. Those who remained met in their own dwellings. Paul ventured into the Temple on his return from missionary activity outside Israel, but was recognised and arrested.

Indeed Paul was arrested because he was considered like Stephen and his followers to be a blasphemer and apostate. Nobody knows why Herod had James killed but Herod was far from being a devout Jew, and so for it have happened over a matter of religion seems unlikely.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If the Church was Ebionite, they would have been just another Jewish sect and found a space like the Pharisees and their opponents the Sadducees. But Christ preached something that none of these could accept, hence the hatred and contempt He and His people endured.

Indeed the Nazoreans or proto-Ebionites were for all intents and purposes just another Jewish sect, albeit one that numbered amongst it's members Jesus's own family and closest friends.

O'Coonassa

wolfsbane wrote: »

Hebrew texts, I'm not aware of. But for a Hebrew believer, Peter is a prime example. I've already quoted his use of the term Christian.

For a whole host of reasons it's really very unlikely that Peter wrote 1 Peter. Certainly the vast majority of biblical scholars are very sceptical about him being the author.

PDN

O'Coonassa wrote: »

Sorry wolfsbane but James the brother of Jesus and his followers were there worshipping at the Temple in Jerusalem until at least 62AD when Ananus had James stoned to death much to the displeasure of "those who were considered the most fair-minded people in the City, and strict in their observance of the Law"

This incident was recorded by Josephus in Jewish Antiquities and was far from being disputed by early Church fathers such as Clement of Alexandria. So far from being persecuted James and his followers were generally respected in Jerusalem. Had they been proclaiming the divinity of Jesus this most certainly would not have been the case.



Indeed Paul was arrested because he was considered like Stephen and his followers to be a blasphemer and apostate. Nobody knows why Herod had James killed but Herod was far from being a devout Jew, and so for it have happened over a matter of religion seems unlikely.



Indeed the Nazoreans or proto-Ebionites were for all intents and purposes just another Jewish sect, albeit one that numbered amongst it's members Jesus's own family and closest friends.

I'm always tickled at how those who dismiss Scripture left right and centre as redactions etc. place so much trust in the words of Josephus.

O'Coonassa

PDN wrote: »

I'm always tickled at how those who dismiss Scripture left right and centre as redactions etc. place so much trust in the words of Josephus.

Christians often point to Josephus as proof of the historical Jesus having existed. He was a fairly famous historian and his account of James's death was hardly disputed by the early Church Fathers. Although there are doubtless instances of redaction in various copies of his writings I don't consider this to be one of them. But of course we have every right to be tickled by what tickles us.

Zaynzma

wolfsbane wrote: »

Right, so the real followers of Christ were the Ebionites, not the apostles. And the New Testament writings are the fictions of the latter group. The real Christ is not the one described in the New Testament, but another who preached salvation by the Law.

That means the Jewish establishment made a big mistake in having him crucified, since he supported their understanding of the Law. But of course, maybe he wasn't crucified, since that is a New Testament account. Maybe the 'real' Jesus settled down as a respected rabbi and raised a family.

It must have been later generations of Gentiles who made up the story and foolishly many Jews bought into it. That's why we have both Christian and Jewish accounts of a Messiah/false messiah called Jesus of Nazareth.

It all makes sense, if one has the imagination.:rolleyes:

sorry I don't know how to separate the individual paragraphs and quote on them but anyway...

About the Ebionites, yes that was the theory put forward so quoting the NT isn't relevant, some reliable independent corroboration would carry more weight. And about preaching salvation by the law...if you take the words that are actually ascribed to Jesus in the NT he is not the one who says the law is obsolete, that's Paul - Jesus speaks very highly and very emphatically about the law "think not that I am come to destroy the law...till heaven and earth pass not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law."

What would make you think the 'Jewish Establishment' would be happy with a Jewish Jesus coming to reaffirm the Law? If you take Herod as the pinnacle of the establishment, then he's hardly a model of a good Jewish boy is he? Jesus came to the ordinary people of Palestine, not the 'establishment', and that's why the establishment didn't like him. He exposed them for what they were, hypocrites and the like.

It wouldn't have to be 'later generations' making something up - false beliefs can spread very quickly indeed, the waters get muddied and it doesn't necessarily require evil intentions. Even Paul in his letters gets all worked up about others who are preaching 'a different Jesus' so clearly there was more than one version of events doing the rounds within a few short years.

Is it 'Jesus of Nazareth' or 'Jesus the Nazarene?' There is a very interesting debate among scholars there. Have a read up of it and see what you think.

wolfsbane

O'Coonassa said:

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Hebrew texts, I'm not aware of. But for a Hebrew believer, Peter is a prime example. I've already quoted his use of the term Christian.

Yes, the apostolic church faced great persecution from the Jewish leaders, and their practice of meeting in the Temple was soon curtailed.
Sorry wolfsbane but James the brother of Jesus and his followers were there worshipping at the Temple in Jerusalem until at least 62AD when Ananus had James stoned to death much to the displeasure of "those who were considered the most fair-minded people in the City, and strict in their observance of the Law"

This incident was recorded by Josephus in Jewish Antiquities and was far from being disputed by early Church fathers such as Clement of Alexandria. So far from being persecuted James and his followers were generally respected in Jerusalem. Had they been proclaiming the divinity of Jesus this most certainly would not have been the case.

Here's the relevant quote, and it says nothing about the Christians still meeting in the Temple:
Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.

Yes, the common people often regarded them well, when not stirred to violence by their leaders. But the gospel they preached repeatedly brought them into hatred and contempt at least of the leaders. Remember, long before Paul preached the gospel, the church was persecuted by the Jewish religious leaders. They were murdered, imprisoned, dispersed. Those who remained did so like they do in Pakistan today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Stephen, James and many others were killed, imprisoned or driven to exile. Those who remained met in their own dwellings. Paul ventured into the Temple on his return from missionary activity outside Israel, but was recognised and arrested.
Indeed Paul was arrested because he was considered like Stephen and his followers to be a blasphemer and apostate. Nobody knows why Herod had James killed but Herod was far from being a devout Jew, and so for it have happened over a matter of religion seems unlikely.

Stephen and his followers? Stephen had no followers. He was a deacon of the Jerusalem Church; he preached Jesus as the Messiah and was murdered for it. His companions (his fellow Christians) continued his work - but mostly outside Jerusalem:
Acts 8:1 Now Saul was consenting to his death.
At that time a great persecution arose against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles. 2 And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him.
3 As for Saul, he made havoc of the church, entering every house, and dragging off men and women, committing them to prison.

Why Herod hated the church is not directly stated. One possibility is their message grieved his sinful conscience. Or it might have been at the instigation of the Jewish leadership - then seeing it went down well, he sought to extend it:
Acts 12:1 Now about that time Herod the king stretched out his hand to harass some from the church. 2 Then he killed James the brother of John with the sword. 3 And because he saw that it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to seize Peter also. Now it was during the Days of Unleavened Bread. 4 So when he had arrested him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four squads of soldiers to keep him, intending to bring him before the people after Passover.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
If the Church was Ebionite, they would have been just another Jewish sect and found a space like the Pharisees and their opponents the Sadducees. But Christ preached something that none of these could accept, hence the hatred and contempt He and His people endured.
Indeed the Nazoreans or proto-Ebionites were for all intents and purposes just another Jewish sect, albeit one that numbered amongst it's members Jesus's own family and closest friends.

If any of the first Christians became Ebionites, they apostazised. We have the gospel records of how the risen Jesus was worshipped as God, we have the record of Acts, we have the theology of the epistles. From the beginning the church was rejected by the Jewish leaders as heretical. The Pharisees and Sadducees managed to co-exist - but not with the Christians.

wolfsbane

O'Coonassa wrote: »

For a whole host of reasons it's really very unlikely that Peter wrote 1 Peter. Certainly the vast majority of biblical scholars are very sceptical about him being the author.

Again, we have the conflict between conservative and liberal scholars. The balance of the argument is heavily weighed by the presuppositions each brings.

O'Coonassa

wolfsbane wrote: »

O'Coonassa said:

Here's the relevant quote, and it says nothing about the Christians still meeting in the Temple:

Well they were't Christians but Jews and as such they most certainly met in the Temple. There's numerous references to them doing so in Acts. Are you seriously suggesting that James and his followers became apostates?

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, the common people often regarded them well, when not stirred to violence by their leaders. But the gospel they preached repeatedly brought them into hatred and contempt at least of the leaders. Remember, long before Paul preached the gospel, the church was persecuted by the Jewish religious leaders. They were murdered, imprisoned, dispersed. Those who remained did so like they do in Pakistan today.

Clearly from Acts there was more than one set of followers and they believed in different things. The ones who believed in blasphemous things certainly got persecuted by the Jewish religious leaders. Those that didn't hung around Jerusalem for decades following Mosaic law without much bother at all.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Stephen and his followers? Stephen had no followers. He was a deacon of the Jerusalem Church; he preached Jesus as the Messiah and was murdered for it. His companions (his fellow Christians) continued his work - but mostly outside Jerusalem:

Yes Stephen and his followers "the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews" and to represent them foremost "They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism" His followers were these Grecian Jews who elected him. When Stephen was stoned these people belonging to the 7 were persecuted and had to flee to Antioch whilst the 12 were quite free to stay in Jerusalem.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Why Herod hated the church is not directly stated. One possibility is their message grieved his sinful conscience. Or it might have been at the instigation of the Jewish leadership - then seeing it went down well, he sought to extend it:


If any of the first Christians became Ebionites, they apostazised. We have the gospel records of how the risen Jesus was worshipped as God, we have the record of Acts, we have the theology of the epistles. From the beginning the church was rejected by the Jewish leaders as heretical. The Pharisees and Sadducees managed to co-exist - but not with the Christians.

All the writings you mention are from the Pauline/gentile branch of followers. In these writings they express their own theology. Even these writings that give their own gloss show the opposition they faced from the Jewish branch of followers who would not have given up Judaism anymore than Jesus would have.

wolfsbane

Zaynzma said:

I don't know how to separate the individual paragraphs and quote on them but anyway...

Just highlight them and click on the quote box above.

About the Ebionites, yes that was the theory put forward so quoting the NT isn't relevant, some reliable independent corroboration would carry more weight.

As we don't have any such independent sources, are we to reject the one history has provided? Christians however have not only the historic testimony, but also that of the Holy Spirit to confirm the gospels in our hearts.

And about preaching salvation by the law...if you take the words that are actually ascribed to Jesus in the NT he is not the one who says the law is obsolete, that's Paul - Jesus speaks very highly and very emphatically about the law "think not that I am come to destroy the law...till heaven and earth pass not one jot or tittle shall pass from the law."

Jesus speaks of the law being fulfilled - and He is the One sent to fulfil every aspect of the Law. He is the One who is the sacrificial lamb who takes away the sin of the world. No lamb of the Mosaic Law could do that.

Again, Jesus told the Jewish leaders that the kingdom of God was going to be removed from them and given to a nation that would produce its fruits. That the Gentiles would come from all parts of the earth and sit with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the coming Kingdom, and they themselves be cast out.

What would make you think the 'Jewish Establishment' would be happy with a Jewish Jesus coming to reaffirm the Law? If you take Herod as the pinnacle of the establishment, then he's hardly a model of a good Jewish boy is he? Jesus came to the ordinary people of Palestine, not the 'establishment', and that's why the establishment didn't like him. He exposed them for what they were, hypocrites and the like.

First, Herod was not the pinnacle of the religious establishment. He was a civil ruler. The head was the High Priest.

If Jesus preached salvation by the Law, the Pharisees would have been delighted. But He preached an inward righteousness, one that came only after a new birth. John the Baptist preached it and the common people responded - the Pharisees did not. Christ then took over from John and received the same response.

It wouldn't have to be 'later generations' making something up - false beliefs can spread very quickly indeed, the waters get muddied and it doesn't necessarily require evil intentions. Even Paul in his letters gets all worked up about others who are preaching 'a different Jesus' so clearly there was more than one version of events doing the rounds within a few short years.

OK, but my point was that if the real Christians were Ebionite, the 'heresy' we attribute to Paul must have been powerful enough to take over the Church and also persuade the Jews that Jesus was a heretic. If the Jews knew He was opposed to all Paul taught, they really missed their chance when they connected Jesus and Paul with this new teaching.

What evidence do we have for such a story? Only the perverted gospel of those who wished to avoid the offence of the cross. They wanted to be acceptable to the Jews.

God's verdict on NT Judaism was given in AD70, when Christ's prophecy against the Pharisees was openly fulfilled.

Is it 'Jesus of Nazareth' or 'Jesus the Nazarene?' There is a very interesting debate among scholars there. Have a read up of it and see what you think.

Yes, an interesting article in the New Bible Dictionary. But I doubt if there is anything of value in the debate.

wolfsbane

O'Coonassa said:

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Here's the relevant quote, and it says nothing about the Christians still meeting in the Temple:
Well they were't Christians but Jews and as such they most certainly met in the Temple. There's numerous references to them doing so in Acts. Are you seriously suggesting that James and his followers became apostates?

Yes, they became apostate from Judaism. And they were not just Jews - they were also Christians. That's why they were persecuted even though they kept the Law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, the common people often regarded them well, when not stirred to violence by their leaders. But the gospel they preached repeatedly brought them into hatred and contempt at least of the leaders. Remember, long before Paul preached the gospel, the church was persecuted by the Jewish religious leaders. They were murdered, imprisoned, dispersed. Those who remained did so like they do in Pakistan today.
Clearly from Acts there was more than one set of followers and they believed in different things. The ones who believed in blasphemous things certainly got persecuted by the Jewish religious leaders. Those that didn't hung around Jerusalem for decades following Mosaic law without much bother at all.

On the contrary, it was the church that was persecuted, not just a part of it:
Acts 8:1 Now Saul was consenting to his death.
At that time a great persecution arose against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered throughout the regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles.

That persecution waxed and waned - especially after the demise of its chief, Saul of Tarsus.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Stephen and his followers? Stephen had no followers. He was a deacon of the Jerusalem Church; he preached Jesus as the Messiah and was murdered for it. His companions (his fellow Christians) continued his work - but mostly outside Jerusalem:
Yes Stephen and his followers "the Grecian Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews" and to represent them foremost "They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism" His followers were these Grecian Jews who elected him. When Stephen was stoned these people belonging to the 7 were persecuted and had to flee to Antioch whilst the 12 were quite free to stay in Jerusalem.

As above, it was the church that was scattered, not just the Hellenists among them. And it was not the Hellenists who elected Stephen, it was the multitude of the disciples , the whole multitude, ie. the church. (Acts 6).

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Why Herod hated the church is not directly stated. One possibility is their message grieved his sinful conscience. Or it might have been at the instigation of the Jewish leadership - then seeing it went down well, he sought to extend it:

If any of the first Christians became Ebionites, they apostazised. We have the gospel records of how the risen Jesus was worshipped as God, we have the record of Acts, we have the theology of the epistles. From the beginning the church was rejected by the Jewish leaders as heretical. The Pharisees and Sadducees managed to co-exist - but not with the Christians.
All the writings you mention are from the Pauline/gentile branch of followers. In these writings they express their own theology. Even these writings that give their own gloss show the opposition they faced from the Jewish branch of followers who would not have given up Judaism anymore than Jesus would have.

Yes, the whole NT is indeed full of Pauline teaching. That's because Paul preached Christ's word by His Spirit. That's why Peter and John and Luke etc. concur.

And Yes, they faithfully record the opposition from within the church to non-Mosaic practices. They record that the first Council of the Church met to resolve that issue. Jewish Christians were free to observe the Law, Gentile Christians were free not to. The truth about the Law of Moses and its observation had to be revealed by the Spirit to Peter and the rest after the conversion of Cornelius; had to be reinforced once again at the Council of Jerusalem.

Christ kept the Law because He was born under the Law and had to perfectly fulfil it.

The Jewish Christians kept their culture in keeping the Law, but did not hold that keeping the Law was necessary for salvation. The Law as a covenant with God was abolished when Christ died as the lamb of God. He instituted the New Covenant.

O'Coonassa

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, they became apostate from Judaism. And they were not just Jews - they were also Christians. That's why they were persecuted even though they kept the Law.

So when do you think they became apostate wolfsbane? Clearly in Acts they hadn't. Why does Acts specifically say that the apostles weren't persecuted? Surely if they were part of any 'Church' they'd have been persecuted at that time also.

PDN

O'Coonassa wrote: »

So when do you think they became apostate wolfsbane? Clearly in Acts they hadn't. Why does Acts specifically say that the apostles weren't persecuted? Surely if they were part of any 'Church' they'd have been persecuted at that time also.

No, Acts doesn't specifically say that at all. Let's look at what it does say:

On that day a great persecution broke out against the church at Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. (Acts 8:1)

Acts says the persecution was directed against the church as a whole, not just against one section of the church. The apostles are mentioned as an exception because they chose to stay in Jerusalem to face the persecution rather than to flee. This was entirely consistent with the teaching of Jesus about the role and responsibility of spiritual pastors:

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep. (John 10:11-13)