Paul was not a Gnostic. Paul was one of the first writers of what later became the Christian Canon. He lived prior to the time of the Gnostics. And no, not all the first Christians were Gnostics. There was a strong, equal divide between the Gnostics and the Literalists (who would later become the Roman Church). Read Bart Erhman's "Misquoting Jesus" for a brief history of this.
There is in fact some historical evidence of a Jewish holy man named Yeshua Nazarein (Jesus of Nazareth). It is by no means conclusive, but to say there is none is being intellectually dishonest. The idea of a conspiracy to distroy the writings of the Gnostics is sensational, and sold a lot of best sellers for Dan Brown, but is steeped in half truth. The Gnostics and Literalists did battle for the hearts and minds of the laity, and the Literalists did write polemics and call them "heretics." There was no massive purge like some hollywood ideas have it though, the Literalists won, and the Gnostics faded away. Religions tend to do that when they are small and cannot gain more followers.
This is not to say there is nothing to be learned from Gnostic tradition and teaching, or many of the other ideas of early Christians about their religion. There are a great many things that did not become part of the orthodox cannon (orthodox means literally "True/right teaching," and during the debate both sides claimed to be "orthodox") that are valuable to history and debate. Do not put the Gnostics on a pedistal though, they were humans with faults just like the other Christians, and if they had won out, they too would have tought only their ideas and let the Literalist teachings die out.
2007-05-30 08:00:45
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
You could not be more misguided in your statement.
Paul was NOT a gnostic. 1 Corinthians 15 is an if-then contingency argument on the need of the physical resurrection. The Gospels very clearly are not gnostic in nature, and John's letters are very clearly cautioning against gnosticism.
You have your historical timelines out of sequence. The Gospels and the epistles all date from significantly earlier times than do the gnostic "gospels" and other writings.
I could not disagree with you more when you say that there is no "evidence" for Jesus.
You have direct testimony in the forms of the Gospels and New Testament writings. You have the writings of the early church writers, some of who studied under John, or studied under the individuals who studied under John. 95%+ of the New Testament can be reproduced from the early church writers even if you had NO manuscript evidence from the NT (we have thousands of copies).
Also, you have extra-Biblical historians who cite Jesus as well.
Your statement/position makes no logical sense
Soli Deo Gloria
2007-05-30 14:57:13
·
answer #2
·
answered by doc in dallas 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
It's not quite as cut and dry as all that. I don't think it would be accurate to call Paul or many of the first Christians gnostics. Not everyone who didn't take everything literally about Jesus in the beginning was a gnostic. The gnostics were one distinct branch of the Jesus followers among many.
2007-05-30 14:54:40
·
answer #3
·
answered by Underground Man 6
·
2⤊
0⤋
How is Paul a Gnostic? In the book of Acts, he had an encounter with Jesus that lead to his conversion. I'm pretty sure that seeing & hearing Jesus was more than an allegory. The writers of the epistles talk about Jesus in a VERY literal way (see James).
As to your claim that their is no historical proof...you need to read Josephus & Tacitus (sp?) they are non-Christian historians of that day that give first hand accounts of Jesus!!!
2007-05-30 14:55:24
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
There are historical references and proof of existence.
Fact is, Paul was no gnostic. They also knew it was no allegory- this is what the gnostics thought, and is one reason why they were viewed as heretics.
I would suggest you do a little more research into the true history of the church, and into gnosticism, what you discover about the early gnostic practices will make you sick.
2007-05-30 14:58:03
·
answer #5
·
answered by Jed 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
Paul was a devout Jew.....who was transformed by the Holy Spirit of God (actually Jesus Himself) on the road to Damascus....and then knew the truth
The gnostic gospels are just that.....gnostic and un-Godly
There is plenty of proof of our Creator in the flesh........the gospel accounts come to mind. We have this thing called....the bible perhaps?
2007-05-30 14:52:22
·
answer #6
·
answered by primoa1970 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
The 4 Gospels are older than the Gnostic so called Gospels. I think that it is more accurate to talk od Christo-Gnostics rather than Gnostic Christians.
2007-05-30 14:55:25
·
answer #7
·
answered by James O 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Can you back up what you just said, give me a credited book, pg numbers and quotes. I have never heard of that before.
2007-05-30 14:59:56
·
answer #8
·
answered by chrisamethyst 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
The historical reference called the Bible.
And secondly, everything that you just said has absolutely NO material backing it.
2007-05-30 14:52:53
·
answer #9
·
answered by Mr. A 4
·
2⤊
1⤋
Please pull yourself out of the myre,and quit believing man made myths.I suppose you believe in the DaVinci code too?
2007-05-30 14:55:08
·
answer #10
·
answered by Derek B 4
·
2⤊
0⤋