Religious text and authenticity

Remove all ads!

Unlike the Synoptic Gospels, elements of Gnosticism have been recognized by some readers in the Gospel of John though it is not generally regarded as a "Gnostic gospel". In order to find passages that refute Gnosticism—by stating that Christ is approachable even as Spirit—readers only need to turn to the First Epistle of John, in passages such as 1 Jn 2:1-2; 3:8, 3:16 and 4:2-3. The earliest copies of the Gospel of John are also from sources that include overtly Gnostic writings, implying that John was read by Gnostic groups. One school of interpretation distinguishes between "Johannine Christianity" and "Pauline Christianity". The gnosis in Gnosticism is secret information that is available only to initiates. In the Gnostic view, salvation comes through special "knowledge" or "wisdom" -- those who attain this are saved, those who don't "stand condemned already."

Though John is not a "secret" gospel—as other surviving apocryphal ("secret") gospels and fragments claim to be—the narrative is interrupted at an important turn of events just before the Crucifixion, for nearly five chapters (John 13, 18) of private discourse and teachings that Jesus shares only with the disciples, the "farewell discourses", which are without parallel in the synoptic gospels, in their present version (but compare the Secret Gospel of Mark).

http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/TC-John.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_problem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_john#Characteristics_of_the_Gospel_of_John

 

haha nice Nataraja, i spend like half an hour searching wiki for your second link. which basically says the same as my old schoolbook did.

 

I learnt all this both at university and also at a Christian highschool. Funny thing was was that at school they said it was an act of God that everything was the way it is...

 

That works both ways, you know.

 

Well, those were wonderful sources, but they didn't tell me where you got your dating ideas for the Gospels, or where you got the idea that John included gnostic elements.

One thing you are forgetting (or maybe don't know) is that the gnostics believed that all flesh was inherrantly evil and all thought (or spirit) was inherrantly good. This meant that God could not come in the flesh as God could not be evil and all flesh was evil. This was by far the biggest problem the early christians had with gnosticism. Even those sects that addopted the teachings of Christ refused to admit that He had come in the flesh and instead insisted that He had been a spirit the whole time. By making claims about Jesus eating, drinking, sleeping, and touching things and people, John clearly says that He was here in the flesh. By claiming that Jesus was God, he clearly claims that God came in the flesh, thus this is not gnosticism by any means.

 

third link, scroll a bit up to dating. while it isn't where i got it from, it prety much says the same as my schoolbook in college.

 

As I posted above...

Unlike the Synoptic Gospels, elements of Gnosticism have been recognized by some readers in the Gospel of John though it is not generally regarded as a "Gnostic gospel". In order to find passages that refute Gnosticism—by stating that Christ is approachable even as Spirit—readers only need to turn to the First Epistle of John, in passages such as 1 Jn 2:1-2; 3:8, 3:16 and 4:2-3. The earliest copies of the Gospel of John are also from sources that include overtly Gnostic writings, implying that John was read by Gnostic groups. One school of interpretation distinguishes between "Johannine Christianity" and "Pauline Christianity". The gnosis in Gnosticism is secret information that is available only to initiates. In the Gnostic view, salvation comes through special "knowledge" or "wisdom" -- those who attain this are saved, those who don't "stand condemned already."

For those of you with selective reading skills *cough-christians-cough*

 

Nice to see that you can be just as non-biased as we are...

 

@Equester:
The dating mentioned on your link listed a number of differing theories, none of which seemed to present the Gospels as quite as young as you do. Several of these opinions agree with what I've been taught.

@Nataraja:
I was writing to show that the vast majority of the gnostic belief system is directly opposed to John, and the 'elements of Gnosticism' do not really represent anything at all. It isn't even useful in dating, as the 'Gnostic elements' mentioned are phrases and concpets that could have been used to appeal to pre-christian Gnostics (a sizable portion of the Greeks at the time) and convert them to Christianity.

 

Has anyone read the last few verses of 2nd Choronicles and noticed that it finishes mid-sentence? Read Ezra to see how the sentence really ends.

 

this is only partly true, while the gnostic did believe the flesh was "evil" they did believe jesus was god/divine but unlike the protestant and chatolic christians they believed that it was jesus "fate" to be crucified and that he wanted to. this is shown thier specific evangelions (the Juda, The maria and the evangelion of truth). particular in the Juda evangelion, where Juda is presented as the only diciple who truely undestand Jesus and is plans, here Juda is not the betrayer we know from modern bibles, but a devout the diciple who does what jesus wants him too.

this picture of Juda has gotten some credibility with non-christian readers of thefour classic evangelions, the reason being, that the word for what Juda does, dosn't translate to betrail at any place, in fact the word is used in medium and meens something like "an unavoideble trade that is ment to happend". i will try to dig up the word and articel where i read this ( i read that part in illustrated science, a danish magazin and watched a discovery program about it a year ago).
Juda's actions being directly translated to treachery owes much to Luther, who directly translated the word to treachery and to reneasance art, where Juda is often pictured as a greedy traitor.
another thing that makes you wonder is that jesus knows what Juda will do, he even says so.

as regarding to what this wierd derailing has to do with the topic? very little except it goes to show how translations can blur up the meaning

Another fun thing I learned recently is a fun thing regarding Jesus birth (as a fun christmass asignment we are translating Luke's evangelion about jesus birth) is the fact that shepherds sleeps outside during the birth, the birth is supposed to happend during the winter in bethlehem, since bethlehem is located quit high above the sea it gets quite cold during the winter and shepherds simply dont sleep outside during the winter. so either jesus birth didn't happend in the winter or the shepherds are made up.

seeing as jesus birth is a later invention chrnologicaly, i think the whole winterthing is put in do to two things. the mithras birth and romes annual Saturnarius feast. both took place around the 25. december (wintertime at this point in roman history)

 

This is actually a much later version of gnosticism. At the time the Gospels were written, the gnostic Christains were claiming that Jesus had never come in the flesh to begin with, since flesh is evil and God could not become something evil. Many of them even have portraits or tales of a random criminal dying on the cross where Jesus was supposed to be and Jesus (a spirit) standing next to the cross laughing. Pretty wierd, huh?

The word litteraly means 'to turn over' as in 'to turn over to authorities'. In these times, any turning in of a wanted person required the authorities to pay the person turning them in. This is what has lead many non-christians to believe Judas was acting on Christ's behalf. The problem with this is that Judas later kills himself, not an act of a man who was doing the work of God and understood the master plan. This, along with his later attempt to return the money, are why most scholars still accept the translation of 'betray'.

In the original greek, it is much less clear exactly what Jesus is talking about when Judas asks 'Is it me?' Again, chalk it up to translation, but there is a reason for why it is commonly portrayed the way it is.

Not really. Again, there's more going on that a jewish reader of the time would have known. While ordinary shepherds would have taken their flocks to warmer climates during the winter, and thus not be watching them in the fields, these shepherds were not ordinary. They were a special selection of priests looking over the Temple Flock, and, actually, the place that Mary and Joseph stay is a room inside the tower that the flock was kept in at other times. Anyway, by jewish law, this flock had to be pastured here at all times, as they had to be ready to be sacrificed at a moment's notice. This also makes much more sense as to why God would tell a bunch of random shepherds about Jesus's birth: they aren't actually a bunch of random shepherds, but rather priests.

While the exact date probably was placed to try and turn pagan festivals into Christain ones, the winter birth is supported by both the Bible and history.

 

The sheperds would have froze, it snows in the mountains, and Bethlehem is in the mountains.

I find it interesting how the gospels written earliest have very little information, yet the latter ones have a lot more information, as though the myth is being built as they write more gospels. And also they give two different ways that Judas dies.

Speaking of two different versions of one event, how about the two different creation narratives in Genesis?

 

December 25th is not Jesus Birthday. The day was choosen by a greek ruler or something......

Did you know he was also black?

 

we have no idea how jesus looks, all pictures made of him is made much later. even the crucifixtion is wrong, we know now that romans didn't crucify people the way Jesus is pictured hanging, even the chatolichs ave accepted that, not that its importent, because it is a fact that Jesus was crucified. we have roman annals from that time saying a person named Jesus was indeed punished in such a way. (Nails through the hand and feets wont hold you op on a cross, secondly if your feat ain't probably

recent teories, has the idea that Jesus was infact nailed to a tree, not a cross. this lies in a fact that the jews had a dead tree where criminals was nailed.

Regarding the shepherd theory, that would in my mind make sence, except for the fact, its freezing outside. Secondly the only place i have heard of part-time shepherds/priests is in egypt a rather warmer land. I will try and see if i can find a source to that. But as to the shepherds going to warmer climates, that is wrong, shepherds and sheep floks stay one place, but in the winter they are either in stables (like the place where jesus is born ) or huddled together. in bethlehem and the area around thier is no warmer climate, so you have to move quite a lot, which people didn't do, do to dangers.

 

Try Roman rather than Greek and I think you go the gist of it.

 

It was Mr Lucius Domitius Aurelianus who decreed that Sol Invictus (the undefeated Sun), or Deus Sol Invictus (the undefeated Sun god) had his "dies natalis Solis Invicti" (birthday of the undefeated sun) on the 25th of December, the supposed equinox.

The Roman gens Aurelia was associated with the cult of Sol. After his victories in the East, the emperor Aurelian introduced an official cult of Sol Invictus, making the sun-god the premier divinity of the empire, and wearing his radiated crown himself. He founded a college of pontifices, and dedicated a temple to Sol Invictus in 274.

Emperors up to Constantine portrayed Sol Invictus on their official coinage, with the legend SOLI INVICTO COMITI, thus claiming the Unconquered Sun as a companion to the Emperor. During the reign of Constantine the coinage ceases to be pagan in 325, and Sol Invictus disappears with the rest at that date.

Constantine decreed (March 7, 321) dies Solis — day of the sun, from which "sunday" — as the Roman day of rest:

"On the venerable day of the Sun let the magistrates and people residing in cities rest, and let all workshops be closed. In the country however persons engaged in agriculture may freely and lawfully continue their pursuits because it often happens that another day is not suitable for grain-sowing or vine planting; lest by neglecting the proper moment for such operations the bounty of heaven should be lost."

 

Ok, yes, Bethlehem is in the mountains, which means the ordinary shepherds, instead of locking their flock away for several months, just led them out of the mountains for the winter. This may not be common practice world wide (since most places don't have the option), but it was here.

As for the shepherd/priests freezing, it's called coats. Anyway, this wasn't a special sect of priests that were also shepherds, it was one of the duities of the priesthood, one that got rotated around the priests just like most everything else.

 

sure nog, guess what bethlehem gets freezing rain, that kills anybody staying out in over a night in a mather of hours our body tempureture is lowerd to under 30 degrees Celsius which is lethal, staying out longer and it goes even lower.
Sorry but i cant find anyhting that backs up your priest claim, neither the bible or external links seems to mention them.

http://www.angelfire.com/la/prophet1/jesusbirth.html

try reading this link, this is a textbook example of what we are thought in school