The Gnostic Gospels

[mordecai_327]

---

...that's why I recommended a book for you to look upon in case you want to delve on this further..

[Malic]

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?

Actually it was just the opinion of the writer of ACTS who was never present when the interrogation happened. We cant rely on someone else opinion specially when that someone was absent when it happened.

So lets be practical in our approach...can a fisherman write something as profound as The gospel of John? for me my answer is NO for it was written in such a scholarly way,some scholars would say that.

by the way...the Sanhedrin was not impress of their knowledge of the scripture,thats only your interpretation,the verse actually says that they were astonished of their courage.

yeah who are WE to judge,that includes you. who are we to judge,this time the church fathers are included too,who are we to judge that this book was written by John son of Zebeede.

this letter's authorship was not known till Irenaeus,Orogen,Clement and Eusebius came to the picture. However ,at that time,(254 A D), a group of christians refused to accept that John the disciple wrote the gospel.

[Malic]

...that's why I recommended a book for you to look upon in case you want to delve on this further..

thank you but i read something like that already...and my common sense tells me to read the other books,w/c most evangelical christians would avoid to read.

try it...

[regnauld]

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



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



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



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



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

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

I don't see Martin Luther as the founder of The Evangelical Christian Church here. Instead, I find Barton Stone and Alexander Campbell as your leaders or founders.

The Evangelical Christian Church (Christian Disciple) name stands out in history as adherents of the Restoration Movement, known historically as the "Stone-Campbell Movement, is a Christian reform movement rooted in the "Christian Church" and traced to the 18th and 19th centuries in the United States and Canada during the Second Great Awakening. Barton W. Stone and Alexander Campbell were leading figures of many independent movements with like principles who merged together into other religious movements of significant size. These churches have a total population of about 3,000,000 in the United States, and 1,000,000.in Canada. Restorationism sought to renew the whole Christian church, on the pattern set forth in the New Testament, without regard to the creeds and hierarchical control developed over time in Catholicism, Orthodoxy, or Reform Protestantism, which allegedly kept Christianity divided.

Many of Stone's followers are now found throughout the globe, claiming to "concentrate on the essential aspects of the Christian faith, allowing for a diversity of understanding with non-essentials." Basically, there are those whose beliefs and doctrines may differ on minor subjects, but who believe in Jesus Christ the Son of God as the Savior and authority of the Christian church. Among key practices practiced by the Restorationists are the weekly celebration of the Lord's Supper on the first day of the week and a commitment to believer's baptism by immersion in water.
.
Barton Stone's passion for unity and liberty among God's people may well be the most dramatic fact in our exciting history. He was the right man with the right idea at the right time. He saw unity as the very essence of the Christian faith. Some years after his death, John Rogers said of Stone: "He hailed with enthusiastic joy the least indications of a growing spirit of forbearance and brotherly love among the different denominations." For in the universal prevalence of the spirit of union among Christians, he saw sin dethroned in the lives of God's people, and the world snatched from the fires of Hell.

The Great Western Revival became a tidal wave of religious interest and excitement which began in about 1800, reaching its crest in 1803, and then gradually diminishing as it merged with the normal stream of evangelism. Its principle expansion fields were in Tennessee and Kentucky. On Sundays of May and June 1801, there were a succession of Great Western Revival meetings at churches in the region around Lexington, Kentucky. At the last three meetings, the attendance ran to 4,000 for the first, 8,000 for the second, and 10,000 for the third, according to contemporary estimates. The "May communion appointment" at the Concord Church, of which Stone was a member, brought together between 5,000 and 6,000 people of various sects and many preachers of different denominations.

At the most basic possible level, restorationists are evangelical Christians who yearn to return to the first Christian age. Some seek to recover the Pentecost experience of the Holy Spirit. Others, like many Holiness denominations, seek to recover ancient norms for holy living. Still others, like the Evangelical Christian Church, seek to reconstruct biblical forms and structures of the primitive church on a rational and scientific basis.

Many key principles were decided among Restorationists. They believe that creeds or church councils are not equal in authority with scripture, but Christians should be able to find agreement by standing on the Bible itself (from which they believe all creeds are but human expansions or constrictions) instead of on the opinions of people about the Bible. Restorationists believe that eccleasiastical traditions divide, but Kingdom-minded Christians should be able to find common ground by following the practice (as best as it can be determined) of the early church by seeking the Kingdom of God and His righteousness first (Matt.6:33).

[regnauld]

If the Gnostic Gospels are indeed sources of truth other than the Bible, how come the early Christians, even the Church Fathers did not accept them as authoritative and at par with the rest of the Books of the Bible?

As you can see in the history, Irenaeus was the one who chose the gospels and there were more than four gospels. He rejected the other gospels known as the Gnostic gopsels because it was too threatening and heretical to the church. If you read the Gnostic Gospels, you will see that they don't rely on the authority from anybody other than themselves. The Gnostics had these personal insights or knowledge about GOD. And so, Irenaeus choose only four gospels and he based these as the four corners of the earth. Do you think that was the right thing to do for the church suppressing other gospels? Even if the church did succeed in rejecting those gospels but no secret will ever be concealed forever as it happened in Nag Hammadi.

[regnauld]

Where was Jesus for 18 years? Did Jesus studied in Nalanda, an ancient university in india?

Watch this video

YouTube - Where was Jesus for 18 years? Missing in Bible Part 1/2

[mordecai_327]

Where was Jesus for 18 years? Did Jesus studied in Nalanda, a ancient university in india?

Watch this video

YouTube - Where was Jesus for 18 years? Missing in Bible Part 1/2

...try learning the culture and lifestyle of the Jews during Jesus' time and you will have a clue. Luke has given us a short glimpse of Jesus as a boy and then no more. Otherwise what you have posted is merely a speculation without any solid probing.

[mordecai_327]

As you can see in the history, Irenaeus was the one who chose the gospels and there were more than four gospels. He rejected the other gospels known as the Gnostic gopsels because it was too threatening and heretical to the church. If you read the Gnostic Gospels, you will see that they don't rely on the authority from anybody other than themselves. The Gnostics had these personal insights or knowledge about GOD. And so, Irenaeus choose only four gospels and he based these as the four corners of the earth. Do you think that was the right thing to do for the church suppressing other gospels? Even if the church did succeed in rejecting those gospels but no secret will ever be concealed forever as it happened in Nag Hammadi.

...try researching about the formation of the canon and you will see and learn. Don't just pick some article then be gullible enough to quickly jump into it then parade it here. The Canon of Scriptures were formed not because of any individual nor council(s) have the authority to do so and decide, but the authoritativeness of the Scriptures were inherent in itself that the church merely acknowledged the authority of the books included in the canon and not handpicked it by themselves.

[mordecai_327]

Actually it was just the opinion of the writer of ACTS who was never present when the interrogation happened. We cant rely on someone else opinion specially when that someone was absent when it happened.

So lets be practical in our approach...can a fisherman write something as profound as The gospel of John? for me my answer is NO for it was written in such a scholarly way,some scholars would say that.

by the way...the Sanhedrin was not impress of their knowledge of the scripture,thats only your interpretation,the verse actually says that they were astonished of their courage.

yeah who are WE to judge,that includes you. who are we to judge,this time the church fathers are included too,who are we to judge that this book was written by John son of Zebeede.

this letter's authorship was not known till Irenaeus,Orogen,Clement and Eusebius came to the picture. However ,at that time,(254 A D), a group of christians refused to accept that John the disciple wrote the gospel.

Have it your way sir. Not relying on what Luke has written calls for a topic to be discussed on how can we trust his account and his caliber/credibility as a historian. And this will entail another topic to discuss. But as for me, I would rather believe an account of thorough investigation as what Luke stated and written rather than believe (no offense) on people of today whom which were never present during that time. That would lead me again to ask a question: what gives more weight, those people who have gone a thorough investigation of the accounts in the life of Jesus with still having the Apostles living during the time of the writing to confirm OR those people living too far away (a century or so) challenging the narrative accounts? This is a rhetorical question and you need not to answer.

[mordecai_327]

As you can see in the history, Irenaeus was the one who chose the gospels and there were more than four gospels. He rejected the other gospels known as the Gnostic gopsels because it was too threatening and heretical to the church. If you read the Gnostic Gospels, you will see that they don't rely on the authority from anybody other than themselves. The Gnostics had these personal insights or knowledge about GOD. And so, Irenaeus choose only four gospels and he based these as the four corners of the earth.

Research the Formation of the Canon.

Do you think that was the right thing to do for the church suppressing other gospels? Even if the church did succeed in rejecting those gospels but no secret will ever be concealed forever as it happened in Nag Hammadi.

Suppressing? In the first place those so-called-gospels can't even (and shall not) be worthy calling them gospels because they don't contain any good news, as what the word Gospel in the Greek means.

Do you have a sister? Or even a mother? Try reading her the Gnostic gospels and see if she won't be appalled by the way those manuscripts regard women.