Gnostic Gospels

  • Thread starter Thread starter paul11b
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

paul11b

Guest
So I have this friend that is convinced that there is a secret Gospel of Mary Magdalen, and Gospel of Judas, he says that they are called the Gnostic Gospels and that they are very different from the Gospels in the Bible. He says that they say Jesus faked his death and that they even name the person who died in his place. He also said that the Muslims believe that Jesus faked his death. Just for the record, I DO NOT BUY ANY OF THIS. But he is convinced that the Gnostic Gospels are real and just as credible as the real Gospels. I had heard about the Gnostic Gospels whenever the Da Vinci Code was big but I don’t really know anything about them. What are the Gnostic Gospels, and how can I refute their credibility?
 
If by ‘real’ you mean they exist, then yes. If by ‘real’ you mean they are equal to the 4 gospels in the canon, then no.

Here’s a link to Gnosticism from New Advent’s Catholic Encyclopedia. Comments on their literature is closer to the bottom. It is one of the earliest heresies.

newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm
 
paul11b said:
So I have this friend that is convinced that there is a secret Gospel of Mary Magdalen, and Gospel of Judas, he says that they are called the Gnostic Gospels and that they are very different from the Gospels in the Bible. He says that they say Jesus faked his death and that they even name the person who died in his place. He also said that the Muslims believe that Jesus faked his death. Just for the record, I DO NOT BUY ANY OF THIS. But he is convinced that the Gnostic Gospels are real and just as credible as the real Gospels. I had heard about the Gnostic Gospels whenever the Da Vinci Code was big but I don’t really know anything about them. What are the Gnostic Gospels, and how can I refute their credibility?
Click to expand...
I think at the time of Jesus there were alot of movements and philosophies, the Catholic Church attacked everyone who did not share her belief, so the gnostics went underground an nowdays we r seeing a revival of Gnosticism, they talk about things like the kingdom of heaven is within you n stuff. Even in the Bible theres a verse i dont know which one, but it says that Jesus gave out a special revelation or secret teaching to the disciples and for the masses a simple messege. There may be some truth to Gnosticism. The first Matrix was at its core Gnostic, i recommend you watch it again with this in mind. The elite that run this world are also Gnostic in the sense that knowledge is above all else. Gnosticism is salvation by knowledge whereas Catholicism is salvation by faith and works.

(youtube.com/user/0thetrooth0)
 
0thetrooth0 said:
I think at the time of Jesus there were alot of movements and philosophies, the Catholic Church attacked everyone who did not share her belief…
Click to expand...
“Attacked” is not the best word as it implies a war. The Bible makes clear that the the Catholic Church is the pilar and ground of Truth in regard to Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 3:15). As such the Catholic Church has a duty to protect that Truth from distortion. The the first two hundred years of Christianity the Catholic Church did fight against these distortions of the faith.

The Gnostics beliefs are basically a distortion of the story of Jesus Christ. None of the Gnostics writings were written by the Apostles, rather they were writen by people who heard the story of Jesus Christ and then modified the story to fit their own human desires.

As someone noted, Gnostic like beliefs have resufaced but are now called “New Age”.

Ran Pleasant
 
Ranp said:
“Attacked” is not the best word as it implies a war. The Bible makes clear that the the Catholic Church is the pilar and ground of Truth in regard to Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 3:15). As such the Catholic Church has a duty to protect that Truth from distortion. The the first two hundred years of Christianity the Catholic Church did fight against these distortions of the faith.

The Gnostics beliefs are basically a distortion of the story of Jesus Christ. None of the Gnostics writings were written by the Apostles, rather they were writen by people who heard the story of Jesus Christ and then modified the story to fit their own human desires.

As someone noted, Gnostic like beliefs have resufaced but are now called “New Age”.

Ran Pleasant
Click to expand...
Gnosticism believes man is lost. That the true self is found within and when you find yourself within you’ve found God.
The Church teaches the true self is wounded and lost but the revelation comes from without. St John stressing that they saw touched lived with God is a refutation of Gnosticism. The matterial world is an evil to escape not a good through which God reveals Himself to gnostics. so St John teaches that if anyone denies Jesus Christ came in the flesh is anti-christ. another refutation of gnosticism

Gnostic accounts of the Christ event tend to reverse the sources of good and evil in their retelling.
 
So this is basically the old new age movement? Am I right in reading that gnostics pretty much wrote there own scriptures to fit their way of life, way after the True Scriptures were written? Then they tried to say that their scriptures were written by the apostles or whomever they decided they wanted to say wrote them?
 
Dave_Noonan said:
See Lk 17:21. The basic meaning of Gk. “entos” is “within.”
Click to expand...
“entos” can also be interpretted as ‘among’. Otherwise Jesus is telling the Pharisees, who are plotting and eventually arrange his crucifixion that the kingdom of God is within them, those rejecting the Messiah?
 
mdkirkbride said:
“entos” can also be interpretted as ‘among’. Otherwise Jesus is telling the Pharisees, who are plotting and eventually arrange his crucifixion that the kingdom of God is within them, those rejecting the Messiah?
Click to expand...
Not seeing any citations supporting “among” in the LJS. What’s your source?
 
Dave_Noonan said:
Not seeing any citations supporting “among” in the LJS. What’s your source?
Click to expand...
RSV-2CE - 21 nor will they say, ‘Lo, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you."

I can’t find the link I saw earlier for ‘among’. I’ll retract ‘among’ and substitute ‘in the midst’.
 
mdkirkbride said:
RSV-2CE - 21 nor will they say, ‘Lo, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you."

I can’t find the link I saw earlier for ‘among’. I’ll retract ‘among’ and substitute ‘in the midst’.
Click to expand...
I meant dictionary citation actually–or other examples from Greek literature where “entos” is clearly equal to English “among” would suffice as well.

You’re assuming your translation is accurate and/or has made the correct choice among what are sometimes many possibilities–which is very iffy.
 
Dave_Noonan said:
I meant dictionary citation actually–or other examples from Greek literature where “entos” is clearly equal to English “among” would suffice as well.

You’re assuming your translation is accurate and/or has made the correct choice among what are sometimes many possibilities–which is very iffy.
Click to expand...
Translating one word in one verse 2000 years later is iffy in its own right. I could write my Dad, “Boy, Chuck Norris is one bad hombre.” and 2000 years from now someone could translate that I was addressing a young male and Chuck Norris may have been a South American dictator.

NAB translation has among -
20
Asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he said in reply, "The coming of the kingdom of God cannot be observed,

21
and no one will announce, ‘Look, here it is,’ or, ‘There it is.’ For behold, the kingdom of God is among you."

It does have the footnote - [21] Among you: the Greek preposition translated as among can also be translated as “within.” In the light of other statements in Luke’s gospel about the presence of the kingdom (see ⇒ Luke 10:9, ⇒ 11; ⇒ 11:20) “among” is to be preferred.

But I digress, can we agree on Douay-Rheims, which has ‘within’?

20 And being asked by the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come? he answered them, and said: The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
21 Neither shall they say: Behold here, or behold there. For lo, the kingdom of God is within you.

So my question remains are you saying that- Jesus is telling the Pharisees, who are plotting and eventually arrange his crucifixion that the kingdom of God is within them, those same Pharisees that are rejecting the Messiah?
 
mdkirkbride said:
Translating one word in one verse 2000 years later is iffy in its own right. I could write my Dad, “Boy, Chuck Norris is one bad hombre.” and 2000 years from now someone could translate that I was addressing a young male and Chuck Norris may have been a South American dictator.

NAB translation has among -
20
Asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, he said in reply, "The coming of the kingdom of God cannot be observed,

21
and no one will announce, ‘Look, here it is,’ or, ‘There it is.’ For behold, the kingdom of God is among you."

It does have the footnote - [21] Among you: the Greek preposition translated as among can also be translated as “within.” In the light of other statements in Luke’s gospel about the presence of the kingdom (see ⇒ Luke 10:9, ⇒ 11; ⇒ 11:20) “among” is to be preferred.

But I digress, can we agree on Douay-Rheims, which has ‘within’?

20 And being asked by the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come? he answered them, and said: The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:
21 Neither shall they say: Behold here, or behold there. For lo, the kingdom of God is within you.

So my question remains are you saying that- Jesus is telling the Pharisees, who are plotting and eventually arrange his crucifixion that the kingdom of God is within them, those same Pharisees that are rejecting the Messiah?
Click to expand...
You’re painting with an awfully broad brush here–not all Pharisees were complicit in the death of Jesus. Note that in the context Jesus also criticizes his own disciples for having the exact same mentality in 17:23.

In my opinion, it’s better to struggle with trying to understand what the text actually says rather than simply smooth over the translation to present something that may be theologically more palatable but linguistically questionable.
 
There is a very interesting documentary on “the book of judas” that is pretty interesting. It goes counter to the teachings of the Church but it is interesting nonetheless… If you are a Harry Potter fan… Judas was the Professor Snape to Jesus’ Dumbeldore.
 
Dave_Noonan said:
You’re painting with an awfully broad brush here–not all Pharisees were complicit in the death of Jesus. Note that in the context Jesus also criticizes his own disciples for having the exact same mentality in 17:23.

In my opinion, it’s better to struggle with trying to understand what the text actually says rather than simply smooth over the translation to present something that may be theologically more palatable but linguistically questionable.
Click to expand...
Ananus and his family- including Caiaphas-were Sadducee. Much different than the Pharisees. They didn’t believe in a heaven or hell, for one. Caiaphas was the force behind Jesus’ crucifixion.
 
Dave_Noonan said:
You’re painting with an awfully broad brush here–not all Pharisees were complicit in the death of Jesus. Note that in the context Jesus also criticizes his own disciples for having the exact same mentality in 17:23.
Click to expand...
Indeed. I believe we need to make some distinction between the Pharisees (who act as Jesus’ opponents in the Galilee in the Gospel accounts) and “the chief priests and the scribes and the elders” (who clash with Jesus once He reaches Jerusalem, who arrest Him and hand Him over to Pilate). We can’t say all Pharisees were good, but they aren’t all bad either: Nicodemus and the Apostle to the Gentiles were Pharisees after all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top