What about the Gnostic Gospels?

Question

So Why out of the 30 odd original Gospels did the Holy Roman Church only include the 4 Gospels Mathew, Mark, Luke & John in the official version ? 26 others declared Heritical ? including that of Judas. Then these 4 translated through various languages and doctored over the ages to suit political ends. One of the latest theories I have heard is that Judas was a hero rather than a traitor and was castigated by an early bishop for political expediency.It took Christians over a hundred years to write down anything that Jesus said or did so no wonder it is like a game of "Whispers" when it comes down to the veracity of the Bible.
Beats me how people can take it so literally !
One or two nice ideas on living a good life, but thats it as far as I am concerned.

Anyway, I digress so back to the question. What about the Gnostic Gospels? Could it be they contained something to hide?

Answer 1

The idea that the books of the new testament were written 100 years later is mostly the 19th century scholarship of the german rational higher critics such as Wellhausen and Graf and that crowd. I think most of the scholarship nowadays is conservative due to archeological discoveries and many other things. The liberal crowd is still around(the Jesus Seminar and others) and they always will be but they don't rule the roost anymore. The Book of Acts is the history of the early church(the first 30 years). But it is dominated by 2 people, Peter and Paul. The book has 28 chapters. The 1st 12 chapters emphasize Peter(although he is mentioned in chapter 15). The next 16 chapters look at Paul (although he is also mentioned in chapter 9). The book ends in chapter 28 with Paul under house arrest by the romans but the romans are still allowing him to preach. It also shares his plans to go to spain and preach there. He doesn't seem to be in any real danger of death, anymore than he was everyday of his life. Paul and Peter died around 66AD. Yet nowhere in that book does it mention the death of Paul and Peter. It does mention other martyrs such as James and Stephan. Also, the early church was mostly jewish. Only later did it become dominated by the gentiles. From 66-73AD Titus and roman legions destroyed jerusalem, destroyed the temple, killed 2 million jews and sent another million into slavery in egypt. For a jew, it was the most important event in their life. Yet, that's not mentioned either. In 66AD, the Nero persecution of christians started and christians were pretty much persecuted from that time until Constantine in about 311AD. Millions of christians were murdered. Nero used to light his garden up at night by tying christians to a post and pouring tar over them and then setting them on fire. That's also when they started to throw christians to the lions in the coloseum. That's not mentioned either. The only logical conclusion is that the book of acts was written before all those things happened. I think that's the position most of the scholars take nowadays. They date the book of acts around 63-64AD. But the book of Acts was the 2nd in a sequel written by Luke. The 1st one he wrote was the gospel of Luke. The Gospel of Luke was the story of Christ. The Book of Acts was the story of the church right after the death of Christ. That means the Book of Luke was probably written about 59-60AD. But most scholars believe Luke got
some of his info from from Mark and another gospel that we don't have called 'Q'. Which means that Mark was probably written around 54-55AD. This means that Mark was in the process of being written much earlier. Almost all scholars(liberal or conservative) believe 1Corinthians was written about 50AD. But 1Corinthians chapter 15 is considered by scholars to be a creed. A creed is something that's around long before it's written down. It could be a song or something like the pledge of allegiance. It's oral teaching. Most scholars date 1Corinthians chapter 15 long before the book of 1st corinthians was finished. That brings it back almost to the time of the crucifiction. There's just not enough time for legend to have developed. Read 'The book of Acts in the setting of hellenistic history' by Colin J. Hemer. He's not a christian. He gives 84 cultural events in Acts and Luke that would have only been known by someone who was there on the scene and not one that came 150 years later. The only books that are dated later are the books of John(all dated in the mid 90's). But John was an eye witness. Sixty five or so years would not cause him to forget, especially when he spent his whole life preaching about these things. There is such a rule called ‘Aristotles Dictum’. It’s a rule for handling ancient documents used by historians. It says one must listen to the claims of the document under analysis and not assumme fraud or error unless the author disqualifies himself by contradiction or known fraud or factual inaccuracies. In other words, when you find an ancient document that claims to be written by a person, you give the benefit of doubt to the document and if you want to discard it as a fraud or whatever, the burden of proof is on you to show why it should be discarded. The writers all said they were either primary sources(eyewitnesses) or secondary sources(they got it from an eyewitness). There is no reason to not believe them. Does this prove that these things happened? NO! It shows that what you read in the New Testament is what they actually said. They could have been lying. But they weren't. They all lived lives of persecution with a bulls eye on their chest because of what they said they believed and they all died martyrs deaths yet they never renounced what they said they saw. For what...a lie.....I don't think so. Christs character was impeccable and even non-believers seem to agree with that. Ghandi once said that Christ was the most morally pure person that ever lived on earth. His problem, he said, was not with Christ but with christians. I would think that the disciples were of very high moral quality also, otherwise they wouldn't want to be associated with somebody who had such a high moral standard that they had to live up to. That’s another reason why I don’t think they would lie.
As far as other gospels being written. The 27 books of the New Testament were accepted by the church. It was the Gnostic gospels which were not accepted by the church. The church knew what was real and what wasn't. The Gnostic gospels came later. They were written probably between 150-300AD. They were not even written in the isreal area. They were all written in egypt, mostly around the alexandria area.

Answer 2

Honestly they are as much a testimony as any other scriptures. The "Truth" only comes from experience and that only by love from within you. The Gnosis is the important part but I have a dozen or more Gnostic Gospels on my 360 Blog and they do have information not in the current cannon.

http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-Kq82UC82dalJBu8l_70rAQ--?cq=1&list=1

There are more out there but these are a good start. On Discovery they say more people think Thomas is the Q document....

Answer 3

because of the fact they did no longer meet the time line and different standards for the Bible gospels. a million. there is not any reliable evidence that the gospel of Mary Magdalene replaced into particularly written by her 2. nicely, he could have 'favorited' in a roundabout way her for her being a female and following Him in spite of the actuality that it replaced into no longer common for women human beings to have the skill to try this, yet God loves all the two. 3. Jealousy did no longer make the Gnostic gospels to any extent further reliable 4. Jesus replaced into sinless, Jesus did no longer have any fanatics and He in no way had intercourse, in no way. 5. No, Judas had his unfastened will. Jesus purely knew how he replaced into going to apply it. Jesus replaced into precise. 6. specific, Christianity is a private relationship with God, no longer a faith. in spite of the undeniable fact that, God made us for the community and due to this church has a great function in our very own relationship with God. we are the physique of Christ. Church is the physique of Christ. all individuals ought to function real for that physique to accomplish precise, meaning additionally exhibiting up for the worship. The 4 gospels are secure by God. They help the Scripture. Jesus shown the previous testomony and promised the NT.

Answer 4

Many of the gnostic Gospels espouse and expand upon the idea that the Kingdom is inside you. They show that one does not need the Church or it's Bishops to help you to find salvation, it is a personal journey. Maybe that was why the Church saw them as a threat to it's "authority"?

As for Islam, why are the priests of Kaaba, the sacred stone at Mecca, called "Priests of the Old Woman", even to this day? The Kaaba was, prior to Islam, dedicated to the triune Goddess Al Manat, Al Lat, Al Uzza (Virgin, Mother, Crone).

It seems all religions edit and censor whatever went before, in order to preserve and enhance their "authority".

Answer 5

If the Apocryphon of John is correct, and it is, then christianity is not. Satan created the world, not God. Sophia committed the original sin when she created her son satan. Eve was a heroine, not a scapegoat, when she ate the forbidden fruit by bringing The Light of the world here so that we would be able to know God. Does anyone else have ears to hear?

Answer 6

People don't question these things. You could take 4 books out of the bible right now, and as long as no one said anything... 100 years from now, nobody would care about them. They would think you were lying if you said it belonged in the book.

Answer 7

2000 or so years ago the world was thought to be flat, eclipses were thought to be angry gods and urinating in rivers that were then used to collect drinking water from were all common place, as were doomsayers if you do this god will expell you from heaven if you do this god will let you in, all this rubbish was spoken from the lips of man, not from the lips of a god, any god, all the things from 2000 ish years ago are now complete history and not to be adheard to. was the people of 2000 years ago obeying the rules of the 2000 years before them? I do not beleive so. the bible as you know it has been put togther by adding what is wanted and ommiting that which is not. all religions are a form of dictation and controll to make an army of people, to give a way of live, for the persons at the top to relish in their power of being a leader and the followers to follow in their fear of what might happen and fear of not belonging.

the bible is a book of dictation and discrimination, and a book of rules that only apply if you accept them, should you choose not to accept then you are led to beleive an eternity of of pain will follow, well dont let a human decide what will become of you, wait till your dead and IF and only IF there is a god, let god be your judge not power hungry humans.

for example, all throughout history where ever christians have traveled they have slaughtered and in some cases wiped out entire civilisations in the name of god. well if the christian god is so ever loving and kind to all that live on this planet, then why oh why did the christian god allow this suffering, children born with cancer, and disabilitys, what kind of god gets kicks from allowing the staving of people, the perverts to mess with kids, if these people are bad why dont a god any god stop it, now allegedly god has killed weather it be by plauges floods or famine, so why not stop the suffering in the world, seems strange that the last major miracle was how long ago ? from the native indians of north and south america to the native australians and south pacific islands, CONVERT THE BARBARIANS IN THE NAME OF GOD those who chose to follow were abused those who chose not to were butchered, as were the african slaves, etc etc. The only reason that the natives of the middle east and asia have not been infected by this christian deseise is because they were able to fight back and repell the foul stench.
I am of no religion, I have no care for idol brainwashing of any kind, I believe that when I die Ill be dead and what will happen is to my inner soul is unknown, there is no proof of an afterlife because no one has ome back here for a second try,,,, after all who would,,,,,

Answer 8

Not a direct answer but still worth reading re: the Bible.

http://www.working4jesus.org/bible.asp

Answer 9

THE BIBLE HAS BEEN ALTERED AND REWRITTEN ,TO SUIT, SO MANY TIMES,IT,S ALMOST UNBELIEVABLE.I BELIEVE,ABOUT 300 YEARS AGO,IT WAS REWRITTEN IN PORTUGAL BY A LARGE NUMBER OF CHURCH OFFICIALS,HUGE PARTS OF ORIGINAL TEXTS HAVE BEEN LEFT OUT,IN EXODUS FOR ONE.IT,S A BOOK,WRITTEN BY MAN TO CONTROL OTHERS WITH.

Answer 10

here's the warning in the bible about Gnostic Gospels

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

Galatians 1:8

As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Galatians 1:9
King James Version