The Gnostic Gospels

[mordecai_327]

---

not all church fathers voted for the exclusion of the gnostic gospels. The council was bias and politics was at play.

...I forgot to elucidate there were 3 categories of the Church Fathers.

But thanks bro for the clarification. I highly appreciate it. And I agree with you. Politics at play that time.

[mordecai_327]

nowadays...The gospel of John is considered to have gnostic teachings and the authorship is highly doubtful.

...maybe because John himself battled with those proponents of Gnosticism at the later part of his life that one may end up doubtful whether he was won on the other side.

[regnauld]

...hehehee quite a lengthy copy-pasted article. Can't you mount your own answer(s) on the points I raised? I remember I have asked you to answer them the manner I answer yours too...be a fair arguer sir! Don't bombard me of "voluminous" articles only to drown me and thrown into limbo by your posting and be swayed away from the gist of the issue. Wala na gani ka ka-post ug answers sa akong gi-raised nga tulo kabuok issue unya hatagan pa jud ko nimo aning pirting taasa? Unsa naman lang!

By the way, you said "You make me laugh! Who is more Christian you or Origen? I mean who am I to believe?", well, let me throw back the question towards you:

"Kinsa akong mas tuho-an: ikaw who lived in this present day, along with your Gnostic "superheroes" so to speak OR the eyewitnesses during that day (that means those writers of the Scriptures) the books of the Bible were written?

...common sense can answer this, you know...

Well, you wanted sources if the Gnostics were really christians and so I posted it. It's not my problem anymore if it's quite long. I thought you want a detailed explanation. My sources are better in epxplaining than myslef. . Did I not anwer them? Read carefully again and if I missed something I'm sorry. I always have my answersand the only problem is that you don't like the answers to your questions. Now, you did'nt even answer my questions too. Read again my previous post about the reformation. How come you are not united in your interpretation and practice of the christian faith? THE EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN is just one of the groups of Protestantism and you are not even the original. (LUTHERAN CHURCH WAS THE ORIGINAL).

You think ORIGEN didn't exist? Cmon. He was even considered as a great Christian Father and Theologian. I believe MORE in ORIGEN than YOU my friend and your EVANGELICAL CHURCH! And you think that the apostles did write those four gospels? think again. The Bible scholars mentioned that they were not in fact authoritative except for the Pauline Epistles. That's common sense...searching for the TRUTH!

[regnauld]

not all church fathers voted for the exclusion of the gnostic gospels. The council was bias and politics was at play.

Before the Canonization of the bible,there was no one book(compiled bible) known before. Christians at that time had different sources for their faith and instructions.

and correct me if am wrong most of the Bishops were Gentile christians who sided with the Pauline version of christianity.

Thank you Malic for your support!

[Malic]

more on the issue of Canonization...

During that time Christendom was plague with controversies and sharp disagreements. Constantine called in all christian leaders to convene in one place and wanted once and for all decide w/c theologies are correct or not. The call was necessary or else the empire would lose its edge.

The decision did not happened smoothly as what most evangelicals wanted to project. There were sharp debates.

[mordecai_327]

Well, you wanted sources if the Gnostics were really christians

I highly doubt it my friend. If they were, how come they differ from the Christianity the New Testament presented? Mind telling me?

and so I posted it. It's not my problem anymore if it's quite long. I thought you want a detailed explanation. My sources are better in epxplaining than myslef. . Did I not anwer them? Read carefully again and if I missed something I'm sorry. I always have my answersand the only problem is that you don't like the answers to your questions. Now, you did'nt even answer my questions too. Read again my previous post about the reformation. How come you are not united in your interpretation and practice of the christian faith? THE EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN is just one of the groups of Protestantism and you are not even the original. (LUTHERAN CHURCH WAS THE ORIGINAL).

Ouch! Evangelicalism of today traces its roots from Protestantism of yesterday. Class, review Church history 101 please!

You think ORIGEN didn't exist? Cmon.

Did I say? Hmmm...NO. ...

He was even considered as a great Christian Father and Theologian. I believe MORE in ORIGEN than YOU my friend and your EVANGELICAL CHURCH!

...have it your way. After all, I have no trouble reading him and the rest of the Church Fathers.

And you think that the apostles did write those four gospels? think again. The Bible scholars mentioned that they were not in fact authoritative except for the Pauline Epistles. That's common sense...searching for the TRUTH!

Tip: Being "authoritative" does not prove they were not the authors.

And who are those scholars if I may know? Mind giving names?

[Malic]

...maybe because John himself battled with those proponents of Gnosticism at the later part of his life that one may end up doubtful whether he was won on the other side.

The Gospel of John is not included to be part of the synoptic gospels. The basis for this is too convincing that one would really conclude that it is a gnostic gospel.

and again the authorship is highly doubtful,a fisherman cant write something as profound as the gospel of John. Only someone with an excellent mind can do such thing. And at that time the gnostics were known to be wise in matters of spirituality.

maybe John was won over to the other side.

[mordecai_327]

The Gospel of John is not included to be part of the synoptic gospels. The basis for this is too convincing that one would really conclude that it is a gnostic gospel.

and again the authorship is highly doubtful,a fisherman cant write something as profound as the gospel of John. Only someone with an excellent mind can do such thing. And at that time the gnostics were known to be wise in matters of spirituality.

maybe John was won over to the other side.

It's true that the Gospel of John is not part of the Synoptic Gospels. We can be certain of it because of his literary style & structure, compared to the other 3. But look at the coherence of the book...can't it be strong enough to convince a doubtful reader he is indeed presenting a Gospel of veracity?

...besides, it neither disagreed nor tilted into the other way around...

...may I recommend reading Carson, Moo, and Morris' "Intro to the New Testament"? They dealt with this, you know...

[Malic]

It's true that the Gospel of John is not part of the Synoptic Gospels. We can be certain of it because of his literary style, compared to the other 3. But look at the coherence of the book...can't it be strong enough to convince a doubtful reader he is indeed presenting a Gospel of veracity?

...besides, it neither disagreed nor tilted into the other way around...

...may I recommend reading Carson, Moo, and Morris' "Intro to the New Testament"? They dealt with this, you know...

Sir may i remind you that the point i raised was about the gospel of John being considered as having gnostic teachings.

the coherence of the book itself is one of the reason why it is considered as part of the gnostic gospel. A fisherman cant write something as profound as the gospel of john.

[mordecai_327]

Sir may i remind you that the point i raised was about the gospel of John being considered as having gnostic teachings.

the coherence of the book itself is one of the reason why it is considered as part of the gnostic gospel. A fisherman cant write something as profound as the gospel of john.

Rest assured I got your point bro. That's why I also talked about the coherence itself, with regards to the teachings of the rest of the Gospels and the New Testament (by implication) to find out.

By the way, who are we to judge if John can write such an eloquent manuscript? It reminded me nalang sad of Acts 4:13 (or you may want to read the entire chapter) wherein naka-minus ang Sanhedrin kay mga fishermen raman ni ilang gi-interrogate, but having such knowledge of the Scriptures.

What do you think sir?