How do you feel about the Gnostic Texts?

Question

and Jesus in the Qur'an?

Answer 1

While deemed to be "heretical" by the compilers of the original Bible and its adherents, these scriptures provide me with more knowledge ["gnosis"] --and they give a much rounder picture of what had transpired during the time when Jesus walked on Earth, according to their authors. I see nothing wrong with reading them and absorbing a different perspective, without the threat of altering my faith.

When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947 and, through carbon dating, were found to be the oldest original manuscripts that PRE-DATE even the original Gospels of the Bible, it has caused such a stir of CONTROVERSY among theological and biblical scholars because its contents are significantly DIFFERENT from the passages that we find in the Bible as we know it today.

And so far, the RC Church has remained SILENT as to the DISCREPANCIES and VARIANCES IN DOCTRINES between these ancient scriptural sources. Its other alternative is to lump the Dead Sea Scrolls as being "heretical" just like the Gnostic gospels that the Church decided not to include in the compilation of the Bible.

But how can that be?? Curious minds need to know...

Peace be with you.

Answer 2

There have been multitides of books written about Jesus over the centuries. Look at the recent popularity (and controversy) over the DaVinci Code recently. But I doubt that just because the DaVinci Code mentions Jesus, it is going to be included in the next printing of the Bible.

People today are aware that it is a work of fiction. They are close enough to the time when the book was first published to know that it is not an "original gospel" or something. If they look at the content (modern day setting, etc) they should be able to tell that it is not a part of scripture. And if they were to look at any existing Bibles, the book would not be there.

If you look through the writings of the early church fathers, you will find that the gnostic gospels did not begin to appear until well after the accepted books of the New Testament were already written and available to most churches. You can find references to when different ones appeared, and how they were dismissed by the people of that time as "fiction".

If you look through the roughly 40 copies of the New Testament still in existence today from the time before the Nicean Council, none of the gnostic gospels are included.

When you read through the text, they are often filled with historical and geographical errors, placing Jesus in the wrong century or locations, etc.

For the vast majority, a simple reading will show why they were not included in the Bible. They are works of fiction that happen to include Jesus as a character.


As for the Qur'an: There are several mentions of Jesus, and usually he is treated with respect and spoken of as a prophet. But then the most cirtical event of his life, the crucifixion is denied. And almost everything Jesus taught is dismissed as incorrect. How do you reconcile accepting him s a prophet, but then rejecting his message?

Muhammed was writing from nearly 600 years after the events. The four gospel writers, who all record Jesus' death on the cross and credit to him the teachings the Muhammed rejects, were writing from first hand knowledge of the events. Why would be the more reasonable to accept? The four eyewitnesses, or someone writing 600 years later?

Even secular historians from the time of Jesus, including such famous people as Josephus (a Jew), Tacitus and Pliny the Younger (Romans), Tallaus (a Greek) and Jesus' enemies the Pharisees in the Talmud, all attest to the crucifxion of Jesus.

Given the historical evidence, it would appear that the Qur'an is incorrect in what it teaches about Jesus.

Answer 3

The Gnostics were similar to some fundamentalist Christians in their disdain of sexuality -- more similar than fundamentalists would appreciate. The Nicene Creed reflects and addresses some Gnostic views, and most Christians have no idea.

Here’s the best site you can hope to find containing just about all of the Gnostic texts.

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

There are stories about Jesus in other writings, that aren’t in the Bible. Modern Biblical scholars agree that some of these stories are probably true, accurate events from the life of the Christ.

Just because something’s not in the Bible, doesn’t mean it’s not from God – Blood transfusions, for example.

Why were some books not included? People have disagreed about the story of Christ since WHILE it was happening – why the four Gospels tell different aspects of the same story, for example. Paul and his followers disagreed from the middle of Acts, through the end of their lives. So disagreements over what Jesus said and didn’t say, is expected.

Why weren’t other books included? Here’s what the author of the Gospel of John said.

John 24: This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. 25But there are also many other things that Jesus did; if every one of them were written down, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.”

Jesus in the Qur'an?

Understand that the Koran was 'dictated' by Mohamed around 300 years after the Bible was assembled, and about 600 years after Christ's resurrection.

The Christian world was so strong, for Mohamed's revolt to gain traction, he had to recognize and respect the Christians and the Jews, and so the Qur'an does. Incidentally, there are striking similarities between Mohamed's creation of a religion and Joseph Smith's creation of the religion of Mormonism.

Islam, Mormonism, and the Gnostics are all cults, outside the mainstream of the worshipers of the God of Abraham.

Peace be with you, Godspeed.

Answer 4

That is a funny question. Protestants believe only in the Bible and what it teaches, yet the Bible was put together by the Church. The Gnostic gospels and other such writings were rejected by the church as most of what was taught in them was against the "tradition" of Christianity - a concept that Protestants reject. So the Bible as it is, is a product of Catholic traditional teachings.

As for Jesus in the Qur'an, I don't think it matters. I don't believe either book to be the literal word of God.

Answer 5

I wouldn't trust anything that comes out of the mouth of the vatican.

As one person here put it: "Protestants believe only in the Bible and what it teaches, yet the Bible was put together by the Church."

First things first. I'll give the vatican credit were credit is due. The NIV, JB, NASV, NRSV, NCV, etc. were all written on the behalf of the vatican. All but one: The King James Bible. They tried to rewrite this one as well but by the power of God Almighty Himself put a stop to it. The King James Bible is the only one in existed that does not have the "blessings" of the vatican or of any pope. Funny enough, it is against State Law of the vatican for "any" catholic to have anything to do with or to own a King James Bible. Many don't know that.

I believe in the Word of God as well. That's why I will not have anything to do with the books written on the behalf of the vatican. Because they are nothing but trash!

Nothing proves my point more than the the apocrypha itself.

Take note of these simple facts: Jesus never once quoted the apocrypha. If he did, where in the Gospels of Christ was he quoted reading or quoting from it? (Mattew, Mark, Luke or John) Then, name just one book in the Old Testaments where it for tells of the apocrypha? Of course, the apocrypha makes references to the OT & NT. The apocrypha was added to the Bible during the 400 hundred years that God was silence about adding words or books to His Bible.

Last but not least, find a version of the apocrypha that was written during Christopher Columbus. Remember, God makes no mistakes.

God say in 2 Peter 1:20-21 that:

"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost."

Yet, look at the catholic's here proclaiming that only the vatican gave us the scripture.

That said, we all know that the sea vs. land is 70-30. The apocrypha claimed that sea vs. land was 50-50. Proving that the apocrypha is nothing but a fraud.

"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it." John 8:44

Yeah, there is pseudo-Christian group here. It's called the cat-aholic church.

As for the quran, a catholic by the name of Augustine (better known to some as "St." Augustine, FL) gave the Bible (catholic bible) to Mohammad to quote into their quran. In fact, Augustine helped Mohammad put the quran together. Another fact that most muslims don't know either is that Mohammad's wife was a catholic. The reason that muslims don't believe in the crucifixion of Christ is because of what Augustine told Mohammad during his day. Proof of point in this is, if you look at church historical writings, they proclaim that Mary is the savoiur of the world--not Christ.

Answer 6

The 27 books of the New Testament were widely accepted by the members of the early church long before the leaders got around to proclaiming them the canon.

Just like today there were all kinds of pseudo-Christian groups coming up with "interesting" doctrine and writing gospels to back them up. The group called Gnostics wrote the gospel of Judas in this way.

The four Gospels that were chosen were the only ones to be written in the first century and by either the original Apostles or their close companions.

The mainstream Christians of the day had absolutely no problem with the 27 books selected as canon.

With love in Christ.

Answer 7

This website may interest you...

http://usminc.org/gnostics.html

Answer 8

The Harry Potter books of their time.

Answer 9

The "gnostic texts" and the "Quran" are all satanic garbage.

Answer 10

Just as valid as the bible.
BB