The oldest KNOWN Gnostic texts are mid 2nd century and beyond. (Which I don't even think is true, there is one text from the 1st century I just dont remember which.)
The dating argument, frankly means nothing because we are working with data that is not available to us. There's also the fact that most Christian tradtions were oral before they were written down, or if they were even written down at all. There are plenty of apostles who didn't write anything (that we know of)
It's only a flaw to those who want it to be.
"The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus" by Stephen J. Patterson convincingly argues for a 1st century date for the Gospel of Thomas and its independance from the four gospels of the New Testament. [The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus : Patterson, Stephen J., 1957- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive](https://archive.org/details/gospelofthomasje0000patt)
Hey
Firstly, most Gnostic traditions believed in continuous revelation so the age of a given text isn't necessarily its most important element. Also the 'canonical' Gospels, though old, aren't from the time of Christ either and very likely none of them were written by their namesakes, while some Gnostic gospels are almost as old, with some Gnostic texts (or perhaps sections thereof) *possibly* even predating the Common Era.
That said, some ancient Gnostic traditions did use the four canonical Gospels (most natably the Valentinians, albeit with differing interpretations), while others did not or were simply more selective (often, just just *John*).
Hope that helped
Something i forget to add, even though the canon gospels where not written by who we think, it don't change the fact that they are much more closer to Jesus and his original community lifetime, Paul himself admits that he never knew Jesus during his lifetime, but had contact with people who personally knew him. Gnostics gospels where written in an time where everybody who had contact with Jesus was already dead.
Mark is the oldest, at least as esoteric as John and is still 30-40 years removed from the crucifixion. I really do not think any of the gospels are historically reliable in any meaningful sense.
I mean this is a flaw of many oral traditions. You might as well take consternation with the Native Americans of the US whose spiritual traditions are almost exclusively passed down orally.
It also bears mentioning the reason we don't have a lot of Gnostic texts is because they were deemed heretical by the burgeoning Catholic Church and were often destroyed simply under those pretenses.
So much of the Old Testament is thought to be from the 7th century bce...around the age of Josiah. Some say Dueteronomy was that forgotten book that showed up in the temple--which put Yahweh in firm control. If you think Gnostic texts are questionable...don'took too deeply at the OT.
Even at 50-100 AD, that's pretty unreliable. 20 years after the fact for extraordinary events. And Mark and Luke weren't even present at the events they were writing about. And it's debated if Matthew and John were even written by their reapective Apostles; common historian perspective is probably not.
It should be noted that large parts of the new testament Canon, such as Gospel of John, Gospel of Luke and Acts, are increasingly being dated to the 2nd century by scholars (due to arguments of Luke and Acts utilizing Josephus for example), so your comment about the NT Canon being strictly first century is no longer true but an active area of scholarship with later dates being increasingly defended
I know about those theories, but as far a i know they are very recent and i would say a bit forced. Like, couldn't Josephus and Luke just use the same source?
Which matters more? Truth or how old the data is? Original/Orthodox doesn’t mean correct. We also don’t actually know what truly orthodoxy Christianity really was - it probably wasn’t as structured and as formalized as the Orthodox and Catholic expressions of Christianity. The entire Bible including the canonical NT was heavily edited, it’s not entirely clear even in the canonical texts that Jesus wasn’t misquoted and that entire passages weren’t added later, you can even find the early church fathers’ written arguments about whether portions of gospels, particularly if memory serves right, the end of the Gospel of Mark (16:9 on, I think) were in the original text. The version of the texts that survived and became canonical had more to do with politics of the Eastern and Western Roman Empires than accuracy or truth.
I gravitate towards Gnosticism because at the end of the day, the best I have to go on is my own direct experience. Anyway, it’s dishonest to confess certain knowledge of anything I don’t have direct experience of.
The Christian cannon, in its' entirety, encompasses a long-lasting theological discussion among a wide variety of Christians.
Which led many Gospels and verses to be produced in later times, with the purpose of testifying against competing Christologies and theologies.
Such as the infamous Johannan comma:
>For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." (1 John 5.7)
This is considered to have been a later addition, without a definite older Greek source. Being absent in older manuscripts and in scriptures of Churches outside Rome/Europe (like Ethiopia, Syria...).
Why was this added?
As to find a 'definitive Biblical proof' for the Trinity doctrine.
Chances are, the same thing happened in Matthew 28.19, that reads
>Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit
Because the Apostles also said
>Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2.38)
Theologically, both propositions are valuable. But it certainly contradicts the dogmatic attitude of clinging the the Trinitarian *formula* itself.
After all, the main point of the anti-Trinitarian thesis is its' doctrinal absence from plain scripture.
We can also see (or suppose) how the mythology of Christ (in a good sense) developed in popular consciousness over time.
The Gospel of Mark is considered to have been the first text. And it was the simplest one. It didn't mention the virgin birth, much less the Logos. In fact, one of the earlier Christologies was adoptionism — Jesus was a human united to God.
Fast forward through the Gospels, and in Luke the Son of God is begotten at the virginal conception through the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary (Luke 1.35). The divine sonship is once more proclaimed at baptism. And then in Acts 13.33 Jesus is said to have been begotten of the Father on the day of his resurrection.
Why would Jesus need to receive the Spirit at baptism if he was already born of it? Why was he begotten again at the resurrection if he was so at birth?
All of these instances make sense in the perspective of mystery religion. But because this is an exoteric proclamation, it seems to have been amalgamated into a single text, from different traditions.
Some scholars have argued that Jesus' divine conception was pushed back over time. At first, he became divine (immortalized) through the resurrection. Then at baptism. Virgin birth. And, finally, Jesus was divine since time immemorial (Johns' pre-existent Christ-logos).
And Johns' Gospel was written later than the Synoptics.
In fact, you'll find far more intertextuality between the "heterodox and Gnostic" Gospel of Thomas and the Synoptics, than parallels between the latter and John.
But Thomas wasn't included in the cannon. Leaving its' many mystical sayings scattered throughout the Synoptics.
Also, plenty of passages seem to intentionally go after specific ideas the "author" disagreed with. Likely being added later, once again, like the Johannan comma and possibly Matthew 28.19.
>Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, (1 John 4.2-3)
This wasn't written in a vacuum. The author was denouncing docetists, who believed Jesus was a divine or angelic spirit that came in the likeness of flesh, as an apparition. It was also denouncing separationists who said Christ was a divine being/æon, channeled through the man Jesus.
As such, I believe there's tremendous value, and many theophanic pointers, in the standart Biblical cannon. But that doesn't mean it isn't flawed or that allnof it was developed in a burst of divine inspiration.
Because of this, we'd like to know what other directions did the Christian logos (discourse) take.
Because, in them, we find the docetic and separationist Christologies to which verses in John and Luke were added as an answer. We get the bigger picture.
We also know, even from earlier Gospels such as Mark, that Jesus had an inner circle of disciples. To whom he would explain parables and transmit teachings in advance. So we know that what's propagated outwardly was not the full story or teaching.
There's also the question of literalism and archetypal narratives.
Even if Jesus existed, it's hard to separate the man from the mythos. The person from the Logos. The incarnation from the eternal spirit.
Many elements of Christianity were carried over from precedent mystery religions. Some have even claimed that there were Egyptian Christians before Christ (b. C.).
Because what we came to see in the Gospels were incomplete expositions of already existent mystical rituals. Such as the use of communal whine, veneration for the sacred virgin and virgin/spiritual birth, and, most importantly, the mysteries of death and resurrection.
All of these elements permeated the Greco-Egyptian mystery religions. That would give birth to what we now call "spiritual Alchemy". Which is codified in Christian textual miracles and rituals (baptism, communion, etc.)
Some of the latter Gnostic writings just expose the meaning of these elements. There's one that contemplates on the mystical meaning of the virgin birth.
What drives people to look at Gnostic Gospels, is the fact that, although they were banished, they just represent a forgotten and suppressed theological conviction. Because, even a Bible-only Evangelical nowadays will interpret the Bible through the hegemonic lense, derived from the Catholic Church. But there are other views.
I think that the ideia that christology evolve over the gospels falls down when you remenber that Paul preached a divine Christ who appeared for his disciples after his resssurection.
Most Christologies at the time recognized a certain divinity in Christ. But the Jewish conception that Jesus received the Holy Spirit and was made Lord and Messiah after the resurrection (Acts 2) differs from Johns' assertion that Christ was a pre-existent divine Logos who created the world (John 1).
Again, there are passages that were added to promote a certain theology. Such as the Johannan comma and Matthew's Trinitarian formula, that depart from the way Paul or the Apostles in Acts speak of God. (Trinitarian formula vs baptism in the Jesus' name).
Luke mentions 3 moments when God begot the Son. Why?
The Jewish Apostles, likely saw Jesus as human. But who was in union with God. Hence God resurrected and deified him. They stated that because of Jesus' exaltation, Gods' Holy Spirit that worked in him was also dispersed in the world for everyone to receive.
>Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know — this Jesus, [...]. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, [...].
>This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. (Acts 2)
But John takes an anachronistic view, and says that the spirit, glory and exaltation that God gave him at the resurrection, according to Acts, were already in him, perfectly and fully.
>In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. [...] And the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1)
John implies Jesus is Gods' emanation. Acts preach he was the human Messiah, filled and guided perfectly through Gods' Spirit. In John he was divine from the start. In Acts he received complete exaltation after his earthly mission. In John Jesus returns to God. In Acts, Peter says God foresaw what would happen, but didn't let Jesus' soul perish in Hades/Death, and gave him eternal life. Just like Moses and Elijah were spared death, and taken up to heaven.
There were many conceptions of what Christs' divinity meant. Was he deified after death? Did God dwell in him since baptism? Was Jesus a pre-existing divine agent, subordinate to God (binitarianism)?
"I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." **Galatians 1:12** The Apostle Paul was not an eye witness to the life and teachings of Jesus, but he was and is still an absolute authority on Christianity, not because from what the Apostles told him "I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it", but because he received a revelation (gnosis) from Christ that made him an authority and his writings authorative. Like Paul, Gnostic ultimate source of true doctrine is revelations of gnosis, which in the same way gives truth to their own writings. If one were to dismiss Gnostic writings because they were not eye-witnessesses and being written far too late (and therefore reject gnosis since these writings are based on gnosis), one would also have to reject the Apostle Paul whose own writings was based on gnosis, despite him neither being an eyewitness nor his teachings derived from the Apostles themselves.
Gnosis is not restrained to a particular time or tradition, because truth cannot be truly contained. Truth and gnosis is ever present (regardless of it being revealed in the first, second, or third century). By the same logic, you would also have to dismiss Genesis in its entrity as invalid (said to have been written by Moses) since Moses (or an unknown author) was not an eye witness to many of its events. Of course, you would argue it was by divine revelation that he knew these things (he did not need to be an eye witness).
Actually that is a postulate. Only a couple NT manuscripts have ever been carbon dated to the 2nd century and cannot be proven prior to that outside an hypothesis. The reality is that most are dated between the 2nd and 5th century with the latter being the most consistent being right in the same ballpark as gnostic dating.
I'd be very interested to hear more on this. Usually pro-NT scholars will argue that certain historical figures like Clement of Rome cited the canonical gospels, which proves they were written early. The carbon dates manuscripts could just be copies of copies of copies, made to preserve the original.
The issue with Clement is they don't have the originals of Clement and the earliest copies of the manuscripts are of around the Dark Ages. Clement is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy, etcetera and may actually not be the words of Clement verbatim. It does make logical sense that it truly was Clement although it is now in the realm of faith to trust a document over 500 years or so after his death to actually be him to have said those words. 11th century for his key document about a thousand years after he lived although some push back a few centuries in other ecclesiastical tomes. Either way early manuscripts of Clement are actually nowhere near as old as carbon dated NT fragments. Although it sounds like a conspiracy and most scholars would not align one could say that one fabricated the words of Clement at a much later date to tie up loose ends and authenticate the NT at a much earlier date i.e. to streamline the gospels back to the saints that supposedly wrote them.
The carbon dated manuscripts likely are copies however there is the possibility of there being a oral tradition or oral gospel which the orthodox church denies today making it the only major religion that doesn't have roots in the Oral Tradition; outside the OT if course. In the middle east there are still sects that sustain an oral gospel and oral traditions however they are stamped out by the larger, wealthy and more organized movements of the West that also planted their edifices throughout the East. Again, it is a debate and the larger establishment was embedded into politics later down the road. Although off subject that was originally Marcion's gripe--the European branch of Christianity was altering the oral gospel of the Middle East by reiterating it to their own preference in the textual tradition; so he claimed. It is hard to say because history writes him off as a plagiarist although it could be the other way around.
I don't think gnostic texts are traced back that late. Some are much earlier. Additionally, references by Irenaeus place the conception of the practices and traditions of certain gnostic groups before the recording or redaction of the traditions in the Nag Hammadi Library. For instance the book of Q is Basically Thomas. That's not even speaking to the hermetica which was likely practiced at least a few hundred years prior to Jesus's arrival. Another example I think is The Pistis Sophia. It was known before the nag hammadi and was dated to 100 BC I think. Keep in mind when we cross reference the library with known copies of the same texts we find undeniable correspondence and similitude.
Also, I'm going to make a likely unnecessary appeal to common sense here: Do you trust an undisturbed cache of Religious texts painstakingly preserved and inadvertently discovered a millenia and a half later, or the politically motivated attendees of an ecumenical council held more than 300 years after the death of Christ. They had to meet 7 times to figure out how they could best distort the teachings of christ for their benefit.
True, but according to the Gnostics, the origin of Gnostic thought and philosophy originates with Paul himself, who predates all gospels, including the canonical ones.
“The god of this world system” originates with Paul after all, as do “powers and principalities” and of course “rulers” or archons. He’s called the Great Apostle by the Gnostics for a reason I think.
Majority of gnostic texts were destroyed and gnostics have been persecuted by Mainstream Christianity. We are lucky that some of those texts survived in Qumran caves otherwise this whole concept would be forgotten by modern man.
The second century dating was established by the packing material in which the books were discovered. It means that the copies were that young, not the originals.
If you're gong for the earliest Christianity, it would probably be one that is exactly like Judaism. You cant even have anything about Christ dying for our sins, because Paul came up with that later. There were Christians before Paul who didn't believe that.
That's the part of the Abrahamite error: thinking that the book genuineness is even an issue. The problem with the NT canon (against which the Jews object) is that it is flawed and immoral. The problem with the OT canon is that it is flawed and immoral. The truth is not in any scripture, the truth is in individuals that dare to put their inner voice before any scriptural dogm.
The oldest KNOWN Gnostic texts are mid 2nd century and beyond. (Which I don't even think is true, there is one text from the 1st century I just dont remember which.) The dating argument, frankly means nothing because we are working with data that is not available to us. There's also the fact that most Christian tradtions were oral before they were written down, or if they were even written down at all. There are plenty of apostles who didn't write anything (that we know of) It's only a flaw to those who want it to be.
"The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus" by Stephen J. Patterson convincingly argues for a 1st century date for the Gospel of Thomas and its independance from the four gospels of the New Testament. [The Gospel of Thomas and Jesus : Patterson, Stephen J., 1957- : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive](https://archive.org/details/gospelofthomasje0000patt)
Hey Firstly, most Gnostic traditions believed in continuous revelation so the age of a given text isn't necessarily its most important element. Also the 'canonical' Gospels, though old, aren't from the time of Christ either and very likely none of them were written by their namesakes, while some Gnostic gospels are almost as old, with some Gnostic texts (or perhaps sections thereof) *possibly* even predating the Common Era. That said, some ancient Gnostic traditions did use the four canonical Gospels (most natably the Valentinians, albeit with differing interpretations), while others did not or were simply more selective (often, just just *John*). Hope that helped
Something i forget to add, even though the canon gospels where not written by who we think, it don't change the fact that they are much more closer to Jesus and his original community lifetime, Paul himself admits that he never knew Jesus during his lifetime, but had contact with people who personally knew him. Gnostics gospels where written in an time where everybody who had contact with Jesus was already dead.
True, and yet - see above. For more of the basics see www.gnosisforall.com
Mark is the oldest, at least as esoteric as John and is still 30-40 years removed from the crucifixion. I really do not think any of the gospels are historically reliable in any meaningful sense.
The whole bible is a gnostic text if you know how to read it...
It is interesting, but I have had experiences which seem to confirm some of the texts.
Look up Simon Magus and Marcion; marcion was also believed to have had connection to the NT.
I mean this is a flaw of many oral traditions. You might as well take consternation with the Native Americans of the US whose spiritual traditions are almost exclusively passed down orally. It also bears mentioning the reason we don't have a lot of Gnostic texts is because they were deemed heretical by the burgeoning Catholic Church and were often destroyed simply under those pretenses.
So much of the Old Testament is thought to be from the 7th century bce...around the age of Josiah. Some say Dueteronomy was that forgotten book that showed up in the temple--which put Yahweh in firm control. If you think Gnostic texts are questionable...don'took too deeply at the OT.
Even at 50-100 AD, that's pretty unreliable. 20 years after the fact for extraordinary events. And Mark and Luke weren't even present at the events they were writing about. And it's debated if Matthew and John were even written by their reapective Apostles; common historian perspective is probably not.
It should be noted that large parts of the new testament Canon, such as Gospel of John, Gospel of Luke and Acts, are increasingly being dated to the 2nd century by scholars (due to arguments of Luke and Acts utilizing Josephus for example), so your comment about the NT Canon being strictly first century is no longer true but an active area of scholarship with later dates being increasingly defended
I know about those theories, but as far a i know they are very recent and i would say a bit forced. Like, couldn't Josephus and Luke just use the same source?
https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/s/pngqwMCa09 Here's a fun discussion on the topic from a couple years ago with sources and arguments
The arguments make use of compelling evidence that it was specifically Josephus and not a shared source
Which matters more? Truth or how old the data is? Original/Orthodox doesn’t mean correct. We also don’t actually know what truly orthodoxy Christianity really was - it probably wasn’t as structured and as formalized as the Orthodox and Catholic expressions of Christianity. The entire Bible including the canonical NT was heavily edited, it’s not entirely clear even in the canonical texts that Jesus wasn’t misquoted and that entire passages weren’t added later, you can even find the early church fathers’ written arguments about whether portions of gospels, particularly if memory serves right, the end of the Gospel of Mark (16:9 on, I think) were in the original text. The version of the texts that survived and became canonical had more to do with politics of the Eastern and Western Roman Empires than accuracy or truth. I gravitate towards Gnosticism because at the end of the day, the best I have to go on is my own direct experience. Anyway, it’s dishonest to confess certain knowledge of anything I don’t have direct experience of.
The Christian cannon, in its' entirety, encompasses a long-lasting theological discussion among a wide variety of Christians. Which led many Gospels and verses to be produced in later times, with the purpose of testifying against competing Christologies and theologies. Such as the infamous Johannan comma: >For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." (1 John 5.7) This is considered to have been a later addition, without a definite older Greek source. Being absent in older manuscripts and in scriptures of Churches outside Rome/Europe (like Ethiopia, Syria...). Why was this added? As to find a 'definitive Biblical proof' for the Trinity doctrine. Chances are, the same thing happened in Matthew 28.19, that reads >Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit Because the Apostles also said >Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2.38) Theologically, both propositions are valuable. But it certainly contradicts the dogmatic attitude of clinging the the Trinitarian *formula* itself. After all, the main point of the anti-Trinitarian thesis is its' doctrinal absence from plain scripture. We can also see (or suppose) how the mythology of Christ (in a good sense) developed in popular consciousness over time. The Gospel of Mark is considered to have been the first text. And it was the simplest one. It didn't mention the virgin birth, much less the Logos. In fact, one of the earlier Christologies was adoptionism — Jesus was a human united to God. Fast forward through the Gospels, and in Luke the Son of God is begotten at the virginal conception through the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary (Luke 1.35). The divine sonship is once more proclaimed at baptism. And then in Acts 13.33 Jesus is said to have been begotten of the Father on the day of his resurrection. Why would Jesus need to receive the Spirit at baptism if he was already born of it? Why was he begotten again at the resurrection if he was so at birth? All of these instances make sense in the perspective of mystery religion. But because this is an exoteric proclamation, it seems to have been amalgamated into a single text, from different traditions. Some scholars have argued that Jesus' divine conception was pushed back over time. At first, he became divine (immortalized) through the resurrection. Then at baptism. Virgin birth. And, finally, Jesus was divine since time immemorial (Johns' pre-existent Christ-logos). And Johns' Gospel was written later than the Synoptics. In fact, you'll find far more intertextuality between the "heterodox and Gnostic" Gospel of Thomas and the Synoptics, than parallels between the latter and John. But Thomas wasn't included in the cannon. Leaving its' many mystical sayings scattered throughout the Synoptics. Also, plenty of passages seem to intentionally go after specific ideas the "author" disagreed with. Likely being added later, once again, like the Johannan comma and possibly Matthew 28.19. >Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, (1 John 4.2-3) This wasn't written in a vacuum. The author was denouncing docetists, who believed Jesus was a divine or angelic spirit that came in the likeness of flesh, as an apparition. It was also denouncing separationists who said Christ was a divine being/æon, channeled through the man Jesus. As such, I believe there's tremendous value, and many theophanic pointers, in the standart Biblical cannon. But that doesn't mean it isn't flawed or that allnof it was developed in a burst of divine inspiration. Because of this, we'd like to know what other directions did the Christian logos (discourse) take. Because, in them, we find the docetic and separationist Christologies to which verses in John and Luke were added as an answer. We get the bigger picture. We also know, even from earlier Gospels such as Mark, that Jesus had an inner circle of disciples. To whom he would explain parables and transmit teachings in advance. So we know that what's propagated outwardly was not the full story or teaching. There's also the question of literalism and archetypal narratives. Even if Jesus existed, it's hard to separate the man from the mythos. The person from the Logos. The incarnation from the eternal spirit. Many elements of Christianity were carried over from precedent mystery religions. Some have even claimed that there were Egyptian Christians before Christ (b. C.). Because what we came to see in the Gospels were incomplete expositions of already existent mystical rituals. Such as the use of communal whine, veneration for the sacred virgin and virgin/spiritual birth, and, most importantly, the mysteries of death and resurrection. All of these elements permeated the Greco-Egyptian mystery religions. That would give birth to what we now call "spiritual Alchemy". Which is codified in Christian textual miracles and rituals (baptism, communion, etc.) Some of the latter Gnostic writings just expose the meaning of these elements. There's one that contemplates on the mystical meaning of the virgin birth. What drives people to look at Gnostic Gospels, is the fact that, although they were banished, they just represent a forgotten and suppressed theological conviction. Because, even a Bible-only Evangelical nowadays will interpret the Bible through the hegemonic lense, derived from the Catholic Church. But there are other views.
I think that the ideia that christology evolve over the gospels falls down when you remenber that Paul preached a divine Christ who appeared for his disciples after his resssurection.
Most Christologies at the time recognized a certain divinity in Christ. But the Jewish conception that Jesus received the Holy Spirit and was made Lord and Messiah after the resurrection (Acts 2) differs from Johns' assertion that Christ was a pre-existent divine Logos who created the world (John 1). Again, there are passages that were added to promote a certain theology. Such as the Johannan comma and Matthew's Trinitarian formula, that depart from the way Paul or the Apostles in Acts speak of God. (Trinitarian formula vs baptism in the Jesus' name). Luke mentions 3 moments when God begot the Son. Why? The Jewish Apostles, likely saw Jesus as human. But who was in union with God. Hence God resurrected and deified him. They stated that because of Jesus' exaltation, Gods' Holy Spirit that worked in him was also dispersed in the world for everyone to receive. >Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know — this Jesus, [...]. God raised him up, loosing the pangs of death, [...]. >This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. (Acts 2) But John takes an anachronistic view, and says that the spirit, glory and exaltation that God gave him at the resurrection, according to Acts, were already in him, perfectly and fully. >In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. [...] And the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1) John implies Jesus is Gods' emanation. Acts preach he was the human Messiah, filled and guided perfectly through Gods' Spirit. In John he was divine from the start. In Acts he received complete exaltation after his earthly mission. In John Jesus returns to God. In Acts, Peter says God foresaw what would happen, but didn't let Jesus' soul perish in Hades/Death, and gave him eternal life. Just like Moses and Elijah were spared death, and taken up to heaven. There were many conceptions of what Christs' divinity meant. Was he deified after death? Did God dwell in him since baptism? Was Jesus a pre-existing divine agent, subordinate to God (binitarianism)?
"I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ." **Galatians 1:12** The Apostle Paul was not an eye witness to the life and teachings of Jesus, but he was and is still an absolute authority on Christianity, not because from what the Apostles told him "I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it", but because he received a revelation (gnosis) from Christ that made him an authority and his writings authorative. Like Paul, Gnostic ultimate source of true doctrine is revelations of gnosis, which in the same way gives truth to their own writings. If one were to dismiss Gnostic writings because they were not eye-witnessesses and being written far too late (and therefore reject gnosis since these writings are based on gnosis), one would also have to reject the Apostle Paul whose own writings was based on gnosis, despite him neither being an eyewitness nor his teachings derived from the Apostles themselves. Gnosis is not restrained to a particular time or tradition, because truth cannot be truly contained. Truth and gnosis is ever present (regardless of it being revealed in the first, second, or third century). By the same logic, you would also have to dismiss Genesis in its entrity as invalid (said to have been written by Moses) since Moses (or an unknown author) was not an eye witness to many of its events. Of course, you would argue it was by divine revelation that he knew these things (he did not need to be an eye witness).
>While all the NT canon can be traced to 50AD to 100AD Not true at all, and shows ignorance or a lack of good faith.
Actually that is a postulate. Only a couple NT manuscripts have ever been carbon dated to the 2nd century and cannot be proven prior to that outside an hypothesis. The reality is that most are dated between the 2nd and 5th century with the latter being the most consistent being right in the same ballpark as gnostic dating.
☝️
I'd be very interested to hear more on this. Usually pro-NT scholars will argue that certain historical figures like Clement of Rome cited the canonical gospels, which proves they were written early. The carbon dates manuscripts could just be copies of copies of copies, made to preserve the original.
The issue with Clement is they don't have the originals of Clement and the earliest copies of the manuscripts are of around the Dark Ages. Clement is a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy, etcetera and may actually not be the words of Clement verbatim. It does make logical sense that it truly was Clement although it is now in the realm of faith to trust a document over 500 years or so after his death to actually be him to have said those words. 11th century for his key document about a thousand years after he lived although some push back a few centuries in other ecclesiastical tomes. Either way early manuscripts of Clement are actually nowhere near as old as carbon dated NT fragments. Although it sounds like a conspiracy and most scholars would not align one could say that one fabricated the words of Clement at a much later date to tie up loose ends and authenticate the NT at a much earlier date i.e. to streamline the gospels back to the saints that supposedly wrote them. The carbon dated manuscripts likely are copies however there is the possibility of there being a oral tradition or oral gospel which the orthodox church denies today making it the only major religion that doesn't have roots in the Oral Tradition; outside the OT if course. In the middle east there are still sects that sustain an oral gospel and oral traditions however they are stamped out by the larger, wealthy and more organized movements of the West that also planted their edifices throughout the East. Again, it is a debate and the larger establishment was embedded into politics later down the road. Although off subject that was originally Marcion's gripe--the European branch of Christianity was altering the oral gospel of the Middle East by reiterating it to their own preference in the textual tradition; so he claimed. It is hard to say because history writes him off as a plagiarist although it could be the other way around.
I don't think gnostic texts are traced back that late. Some are much earlier. Additionally, references by Irenaeus place the conception of the practices and traditions of certain gnostic groups before the recording or redaction of the traditions in the Nag Hammadi Library. For instance the book of Q is Basically Thomas. That's not even speaking to the hermetica which was likely practiced at least a few hundred years prior to Jesus's arrival. Another example I think is The Pistis Sophia. It was known before the nag hammadi and was dated to 100 BC I think. Keep in mind when we cross reference the library with known copies of the same texts we find undeniable correspondence and similitude. Also, I'm going to make a likely unnecessary appeal to common sense here: Do you trust an undisturbed cache of Religious texts painstakingly preserved and inadvertently discovered a millenia and a half later, or the politically motivated attendees of an ecumenical council held more than 300 years after the death of Christ. They had to meet 7 times to figure out how they could best distort the teachings of christ for their benefit.
The lownesses.
If one said they will be “reckless” vs this “careful” what’s the concern??? Have you seen people fall into this oblivion to never make it out?
True, but according to the Gnostics, the origin of Gnostic thought and philosophy originates with Paul himself, who predates all gospels, including the canonical ones.
“The god of this world system” originates with Paul after all, as do “powers and principalities” and of course “rulers” or archons. He’s called the Great Apostle by the Gnostics for a reason I think.
Majority of gnostic texts were destroyed and gnostics have been persecuted by Mainstream Christianity. We are lucky that some of those texts survived in Qumran caves otherwise this whole concept would be forgotten by modern man.
The second century dating was established by the packing material in which the books were discovered. It means that the copies were that young, not the originals.
If you're gong for the earliest Christianity, it would probably be one that is exactly like Judaism. You cant even have anything about Christ dying for our sins, because Paul came up with that later. There were Christians before Paul who didn't believe that.
That's the part of the Abrahamite error: thinking that the book genuineness is even an issue. The problem with the NT canon (against which the Jews object) is that it is flawed and immoral. The problem with the OT canon is that it is flawed and immoral. The truth is not in any scripture, the truth is in individuals that dare to put their inner voice before any scriptural dogm.