Where do you suppose Gnosticism came from?

[gnosisofthomas]

The Canon of Scripture wasn’t formalized until relatively late, but that doesn’t mean they were all using the same books. There are lists of canon dating back to the second century. Even back then people knew how to distinguish heresy from orthodoxy.

You’re right about the second century, the earliest proposed Christian canon came from Marcion, a pseudo-Gnostic who was later considered heretical. There were several canons compiled by different bishops. It just shows that “heresy” vs. “orthodoxy” wasn’t such a clear cut issue at the time.

I didn’t say they were all using the same books, I said they were using a lot of the same books. There was a wide variety of Christian writings circulating amongst the different communities in the early centuries.

 

[bjh13]

Don’t be surprised to know that Paul was all by himself an initiated Gnostic.

The Gnostic Paul - Elaine Pagels - full pdf

The evidence is right out there.

Lets just say that this theory isn’t exactly new, and is definitely a minority opinion.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

You’re right about the second century, the earliest proposed Christian canon came from Marcion, a pseudo-Gnostic who was later considered heretical. There were several canons compiled by different bishops. It just shows that “heresy” vs. “orthodoxy” wasn’t such a clear cut issue at the time.

I didn’t say they were all using the same books, I said they were using a lot of the same books. There was a wide variety of Christian writings circulating amongst the different communities in the early centuries.

How is anyone a false gnostic exactly? There is no universal gnosticism taught since the begining but rather strings of thought originating later and diverging into multiple different thoughts. BUt what variety are you talking about when you say Christian writings? Certaintly there was variety among Christians, but in that word Christian are you including the gnostics? I would say they don’t count as Christians.

 

[bjh13]

You’re right about the second century, the earliest proposed Christian canon came from Marcion, a pseudo-Gnostic who was later considered heretical. There were several canons compiled by different bishops. It just shows that “heresy” vs. “orthodoxy” wasn’t such a clear cut issue at the time.

I didn’t say they were all using the same books, I said they were using a lot of the same books. There was a wide variety of Christian writings circulating amongst the different communities in the early centuries.

While the final details weren’t explicitly decided on just yet regarding the canon in those early centuries, there was a lot more agreement than disagreement. There is a plethora of references for example to the four canonical Gospels going back to before any existing lists, and from the lists we do have (mostly dated to the end of the second century and later) they are mostly in agreement except for a couple of books like the Shepard of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas being added and things like 2 Peter and Hebrews being left off. More important than lists are references made by various early the Church Fathers to the existing books we have and how rarely they reference any of the ones left out. Things like the Gospel of Judas weren’t as popular or widely accepted as National Geographic and other media outlets would like us to believe.

 

[Pleroma]

Lets just say that this theory isn’t exactly new, and is definitely a minority opinion.

I know no one in this world follows Valentinian(Pauline) tradition except me and the theory is very new backed up with solid evidence, what others had speculated about St.Paul was something different and were incompetent to see the big picture that was about to unfold.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

How is anyone a false gnostic exactly? There is no universal gnosticism taught since the begining but rather strings of thought originating later and diverging into multiple different thoughts. BUt what variety are you talking about when you say Christian writings? Certaintly there was variety among Christians, but in that word Christian are you including the gnostics? I would say they don’t count as Christians.

Sorry, I meant “pseudo-” in the sense of “having the appearance of”. I probably could have used a better word, but that was best I could come up with at the time, haha. There’s some debate on whether Marcion was Gnostic – some of his teachings were similar to Gnostic ideas, but some of them had nothing in common with Gnosticism. I just didn’t want to outright call him a Gnostic, when he may not have been.

BUt what variety are you talking about when you say Christian writings? Certaintly there was variety among Christians, but in that word Christian are you including the gnostics? I would say they don’t count as Christians.

I would say I disagree with you. Gnostics were, and are, Christians.

 

[JohnVIII]

Don’t be surprised to know that Paul was all by himself an initiated Gnostic.

The Gnostic Paul - Elaine Pagels - full pdf

The evidence is right out there.

Amen to that!

 

[JohnVIII]

I know no one in this world follows Valentinian(Pauline) tradition except me and the theory is very new backed up with solid evidence, what others had speculated about St.Paul was something different and were incompetent to see the big picture that was about to unfold.

I take your statement that “no one in this world follows Valentinian(Pauline) tradition except me” to be an expression of how lonely it feels being a follower of Paul. I too have felt that I am all alone in this world as a Marcionite(Pauline) Christian. I believe that I fully accept the Valentinian claim to having received from Paul the genuine apostolic tradition, and I find not conflict doing this from a Marcionite tradition. I find no essential differences between the two.

 

[JohnVIII]

Sorry, I meant “pseudo-” in the sense of “having the appearance of”. I probably could have used a better word, but that was best I could come up with at the time, haha. There’s some debate on whether Marcion was Gnostic – some of his teachings were similar to Gnostic ideas, but some of them had nothing in common with Gnosticism. I just didn’t want to outright call him a Gnostic, when he may not have been.

. . . Gnostics were, and are, Christians.

Thank you for revising your “pseudo-” prefix. I for one would like to say that I see Marcionite Christianity as fully Gnostic. In fact I see Marcionite Christianity as the very first Gnostic Christian faith.
The 10 genuine epistles of Paul (and the Gospel written by Paul) were the first canon of scripture and were called the “Apostolicon”. The epistles said to be to Titus and Timothy are not genuine and are therefore non-canonical. This is not just a “Marcionite” point of view. The Valentinian’s likewise reject Titus and Timothy but accept all the canonical books of the Apostolicon.

Gnostic Christianity did come from Paul. Paul was not a late-comer among the apostles – this was a falsified history. How can it be explained to the satisfaction of those adhering to a Catholic perspective that all the oldest books of the New Testament are the epistles of Paul, as scholars attest, if he was the last of the apostles? Not only was Paul in fact the “first” of the apostles it can be demonstrated that most all, it not all, the See’s were first established by the Apostle Paul before Peter came around. The first bishop of Rome was Linus and he was appointed there by Paul. I put “first” in quotes because actually Paul was more that only the first apostle, he was the ONLY Apostle. Jesus chose Paul as the Apostle of the resurrection on the very day of the resurrection. It was also a fact that Paul was with Jesus all threw his ministry and when he wrote his Gospel account he did so from his own personal recollection.

Studies have been done comparing the places where there are variances between the four Catholic gospels and also comparing this to the Marcionite Gospel (i.e. the Gospel written by Paul). Variances in those sections of the four Catholic gospels which can also be found in the Marcionite Gospel vary considerably less than the sections that can not be found in the Marcionite Gospel. This indicates a probability of dependence of the four Catholic gospels on the original Gospel written by Paul.

Gnostic Christianity did not come from “Satan” as one earlier poster said. Since Gnostic Christianity preceded Orthodox Christianity perhaps one should ask where Catholic Christianity came from. I believe the answer to this question would be Polycarp. I believe that the evidence suggests that Polycarp broke from the ranks of the Ebionites and wrote his own version of the Apostolicon, the same as the original except he injected certain interpolations (such as the antichrist interpolation of 2nd Thessalonians) as a way to sway the readers of the epistles of Paul away from the genuine person of Paul, and with the help of a new “history” about a “Catholic Paul” being written in the “Acts of the Apostles”, one subservient to Peter, the Catholic Church, still very Gnostic-like at that early time (as all Christian groups originally were), began to form and gain popularity.

 

[ericc]

Gnostic Christianity did come from Paul. Paul was not a late-comer among the apostles – this was a falsified history.

You made a very strong statement. Can you substantiate it?

How can it be explained to the satisfaction of those adhering to a Catholic perspective that all the oldest books of the New Testament are the epistles of Paul, as scholars attest, if he was the last of the apostles?

You are trying to make a point that if his books are oldest then he shouldn’t be the last apostle. There is no correlation at all. Paul wasn’t among the 12 apostles that Jesus appointed. The 12 apostles are simple folks, not one learned like Paul so we are not surprised that the 12 apostles didn’t publish much. After all at that time, it was preach or perish and not publish or perish.

Not only was Paul in fact the “first” of the apostles it can be demonstrated that most all, it not all, the See’s were first established by the Apostle Paul before Peter came around. The first bishop of Rome was Linus and he was appointed there by Paul.

If Linus was first bishop of Rome, where was Peter? Who was holding on to the keys, Peter or Paul? I suppose Jesus mistakenly declared Simon to be Rock then and that he didn’t build his Church on Peter?

I put “first” in quotes because actually Paul was more that only the first apostle, he was the ONLY Apostle. Jesus chose Paul as the Apostle of the resurrection on the very day of the resurrection. It was also a fact that Paul was with Jesus all threw his ministry and when he wrote his Gospel account he did so from his own personal recollection.

You will need to proof

1. Paul is the ONLY apostle,
   2)Jesus chose Paul as the Apostle of the resurrection on the very day of the resurrection

because you are accusing all the other Gospel writers as liars and cheats. Don’t forget that Luke is Paul’s disciple and one of the Gospel writer. If Paul is his only Apostle, who was there on Pentecost? All the other 12 apostles did not exist?

So declare your sources and we’ll proceed from there.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I would say I disagree with you. Gnostics were, and are, Christians.

ntcanon.org/Marcion.shtml

newadvent.org/cathen/09645c.htm

How so in this case with its theological understanding of Jesus Christ?

 

[JohnVIII]

ntcanon.org/Marcion.shtml

newadvent.org/cathen/09645c.htm

How so [the statement by [user]gnosisofthomas[/user] that “Gnostics were, and are, Christians”] in this case with its theological understanding of Jesus Christ?

The links you provided demonstrate that Marcion was a “dualist”, and therefore could not be a believer in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and therefore (from your perspective) could not be Christian. [user]gnosisofthomas[/user] does not claim to be Marcionite, but rather a Gnostic. He makes a distinction saying that Marcion was not fully Gnostic. Many agree with [user]gnosisofthomas[/user] on this point, but I do not. To me Marcion was fully Gnostic. It is true that all Gnostics (and Marcionites) are “dualist”, but the question is does this point of view make such a believer “not a Christian”. You are free to assert this as I know how you dogmatically hold your view on your doctrine of the Holy Trinity to the point that you are compelled to judge those who otherwise assert that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was a late-comer in the history of the development of Christian teaching on God. This is not a dogmatic issue with Gnostic Christians. Nevertheless, dualism was universally the normal-common understanding among all Christians some time before the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (as it is taught today) came about. I’m sure your dogmatic position will not allow you to agree with this assertion, but if indeed I am right that even Paul the Apostle and the 12 disciples and Jesus held the duelist position, you could hardly say that they were not Christian!

There is a “trinity” doctrine of Marcionite Christianity, but is very different from the Catholic doctrine. Just as the Catholic canon of scripture came about in reaction to the Marcionite canon of scripture, so too the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity came about in reaction to Marcionite doctrine. “The Father” is “the Good One” and is the father of Jesus, but was not the creator and was unknown before revealed by Jesus. Jesus is “the Kind One” and is the savior, who died on the Cross to redeem mankind, but he likewise did not create the world, nor was he born of a woman but descended from heaven (of which Paul attests to). The demiurgos is “the just one” and is third in the Marcionite trinity. The demiurgos was the creator of the world but was himself created by Sophia. This was not a doctrine of “three persons in one God”, but it was the starting point from which the early Catholic Fathers formulated the doctrine of the Trinity. Just like the Apostolicon (the 10 epistles of Paul) was a starting point from which, after it was interpolated to the extreme, the New Testament was formed, so too you could say that the Marcionite trinity was ‘interpolated’ to death until the Catholic Trinity doctrine was formed. (There is also a connection between Sophia and the Virgin Mary.)

I know it would be asking a lot to have you tune down your dogmatism so you could ‘grandfather in’ an earlier Christian view of God and still allow those who hold to this earlier Christian view the status of ‘Christian’ seeing that you got that dogmatism from the authority of a Pope in the fourth century, but perhaps you could at least allow us to call ourselves ‘Christian’, as I think Christ himself does likewise.

For what it is worth, I consider those who hold the fourth century doctrine of the Trinity to be ‘Christian’, but I know that you are not under obligation to return the favor.

Peace!

 

[JohnVIII]

You made a very strong statement. Can you substantiate it?

-snip-

If Linus was first bishop of Rome, where was Peter? Who was holding on to the keys, Peter or Paul? I suppose Jesus mistakenly declared Simon to be Rock then and that he didn’t build his Church on Peter?

The only record I know of is the ‘Clementine Homilies’ in which Peter gives the ‘Keys’, not to Linus, but to Clement. This matter about the ‘Keys’ were an issue only for the Ebionites and in fact the Clementine Homilies are considered to be Ebionite. I think that the record suggests that this matter of Peter giving the Keys to Clement actually created a schism in the Roman Church. But to keep this thread on track I think I should say that this ‘Ebionite’ writing has even Peter as an Ebionite and even the Ebionites (and therefore Peter) were Gnostic-like in many ways. Church Father Epiphanius of Salamis said of the Ebionites that they did not think that Jesus was the name of the man born of Joseph and Mary but instead he is the name of an Adamic savior figure who – exactly in the manner of the Marcionites and other Gnostics – floated down from heaven at the beginning of the Pauline gospel narrative. The Ebionites said that Jesus was not divine and there is a place in the Clementine Homilies that has Peter himself denying the deity of Jesus. So you must take all of this on par with the record of the delivery of the Keys to one line of bishops in Rome.

Jesus ‘correctly’ (not mistakenly) called Peter a ‘rock’, but it was a rock of stumbling, not a foundation rock. Jesus called Peter ‘Satan’ because of his confession that Jesus was the Christ. This becomes clear if you remove the interpolation there in Matthew that starts by saying, “Blessed are you Simon …” Wasn’t it in the book of James that says that one should not both curse and bless from the same mouth? Yet if you hold that the matter about the blessing and giving of the Keys to Peter in Matthew was not an interpolation then that is exactly what Jesus did! But remove the interpolation and you will see that Jesus cursed Peter because he said that Jesus was the Christ!

You will need to proof

1)Paul is the ONLY apostle,

The original meaning of “Apostle” meant much the same as the word “Christ”. It referred to only one. The 12 were called only disciples until a time after their death when the term “apostle” acquired a modified pluralistic meaning. One early gospel narrative, “The Gospel of Nicodemus” never refers to the 12 as apostles, probably because this modified concept had not yet been developed.

2)Jesus chose Paul as the Apostle of the resurrection on the very day of the resurrection

Theodotus said, Paul “became the apostle of the resurrection in the image of the Paraclete. Immediately after the passion of the Lord he began to preach”. [Excerpta ex Theodoto 42.1, from Stromata, Clement of Alexander]

because you are accusing all the other Gospel writers as liars and cheats. Don’t forget that Luke is Paul’s disciple and one of the Gospel writer. If Paul is his only Apostle, who was there on Pentecost? All the other 12 apostles did not exist?

The “liars and cheats” statement is yours, not mine, I never said that. But Luke, the writer (or re-writer) of the gospel by that name in your Catholic canon was not and could not have been Paul’s disciple. We are to understand that this Luke continued right over to the writing of “the Acts of the Apostles” after this gospel. In Acts we have a timeline because it is addressed to “Theophilus” (Acts 1:1). This would be Theophilus of Antioch and thus puts the writing of Acts (and by extension, the Gospel of Luke) to have been written between 169 and 183 A.D. So this ‘Luke’ could not have been Paul’s disciple as Paul would have been ‘cut off’ (dead) some time before this.

Also, I never said “All the other 12 apostles did not exist”, I simply said that they were not “apostles”, or known as such during there lifetime.

I hope that I have continued here to make it clear that Gnosticism was indeed earlier that Orthodoxy (or Catholicism). In keeping with this thread there can be no better source for where Gnosticism came from than Paul the Apostle. There were plenty of people who considered this to be so from the earliest of times and there seems to be no controversy about it up until the last few years of the second century when Irenaeus first started to make an issue of it all.

You got a better idea of were Gnosticism came from? And no one say “Satan” again please! Not unless you can give me a reference to prove for where it came from Satan!

Peace!

 

[ericc]

JohnVIII,

You wrote a lot of things but you failed to address the questions I posed to you. You said “Gnostic Christianity did come from Paul. Paul was not a late-comer among the apostles – this was a falsified history.” I ask you to provide the evidence but you didn’t. Who falsified history? What would be the “correct” history and where is the source? Is this source credible? What gnostic stuff did Paul teach?

According to OUR bible history, Paul (Saul) was persecuting Christians after Christ resurrection before he became an apostle. You claimed: “he was the ONLY Apostle. Jesus chose Paul as the Apostle of the resurrection on the very day of the resurrection.” Luke mentioned the 12 (very much alive then) disciples as Apostles in Acts 1:26 ( unfortunately for you.) Paul became an apostle much later. Unless that journey to Damascus didn’t happen. You can read that in the Acts. Basic reasoning says that Luke’s account and yours can not be both correct. If your account is correct, then Luke’s accounts can not be right and therefore lied about the events. Don’t you agree with this reasoning?

You said Luke could not have been Paul’s disciple. Well, our Luke has been traveling with Paul all over the place. In Paul’s Epistle to Philemon, verse 24, in Colossians 4:14 and 2 Timothy 4:11. I don’t see how you are able to extrapolate Theophilus of (Acts 1:1) to your Theophilus of Antioch and come to the conclusion that writing of Acts (and by extension, the Gospel of Luke) to be written between 169 and 183 A.D. Why 169 - 183 AD? How do you know the Theophilus of Acts is the same as your Theophilus of Antioch? There could be many many Theophiluses that lived in Antioch spanning several centuries.

At this point, I see it pointless to go further until you can support your claims. You seemed to have a very different timeline, content and calendar of events compared to our Bible. Our Bible has been vetted for 2000 yrs. We have yet to see yours and put it through the same critique, study, research and investigation that ours has gone through. Do provide us with a copy. I am sure that is readily available?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Just as the Catholic canon of scripture came about in reaction to the Marcionite canon of scripture, so too the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity came about in reaction to Marcionite doctrine.

“The Church has Four Gospels; but the heretics have many, including one represented as according to the Egyptians, another according to the Twelve Apostles, Even Basilides made bold to write a Gospel and titled it with his own name, I know a certain Gospel According to Thomas, and one according to Mathias. We have read many others too, rather than seem to be ignorant of them, because of those who think to know something when they are acquainted with such things. But among all of those we approve none others except the Four only Gospels, which are received by the Church.” Origen, Homilies on Luke, Hom-1 233-AD

I think your evidence, proposition is inaccurate. Marcion’s concern was to exclude books that he disapproved of from “his” canon. Which he developed from the existing text which were already recognized as sacred scripture yet to be canonized.

And no he rejected the Torah because of his view of God in the OT, so how you arrive at the Trinity I would have to read, can’t see this as possible. You are talking the Nature of Jesus Christ which I don’t see supported either as you suggest.

 

[Pleroma]

The links you provided demonstrate that Marcion was a “dualist”, and therefore could not be a believer in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and therefore (from your perspective) could not be Christian. [user]gnosisofthomas[/user] does not claim to be Marcionite, but rather a Gnostic. He makes a distinction saying that Marcion was not fully Gnostic. Many agree with [user]gnosisofthomas[/user] on this point, but I do not. To me Marcion was fully Gnostic. It is true that all Gnostics (and Marcionites) are “dualist”, but the question is does this point of view make such a believer “not a Christian”.

That’s just simply not true. I am in no sense a dualist and it was Valentinus who first came up with the concept of trinity, that’s why his name came up while forming the biblical canon or while discussing about Christology.

Valentinian Monism

Valentinianism is ussually classified as a form of Gnosticism. The term ‘Gnosticism’ was coined in the nineteenth century to describe a variety of religious movements in the ancient world which have some common features.

Some consider “radical dualism” to be a characteristic feature of all forms of Gnosticism (Jonas 1963). However, this generalization is simply incorrect. As Elaine Pagels points out in her book The Gnostic Gospels, “Valentinian gnosticism…differs essentially from dualism” (Pagels 1978). Describing Gnostic systems such as Valentinianism as “dualist” has also been subject to extensive criticism by Simon Petrement (1990). Indeed, it has been recognized for some time that “a standard element in the interpretation of Valentinianism and similar forms of Gnosticism is the recognition that they are fundamentally monistic” (Schoedel 1980, see also Petrement 1984, Dawson 1992). This article represents an attempt to characterize Valentinian monism.

 

[gnosisofthomas]

The links you provided demonstrate that Marcion was a “dualist”, and therefore could not be a believer in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, and therefore (from your perspective) could not be Christian. [user]gnosisofthomas[/user] does not claim to be Marcionite, but rather a Gnostic. He makes a distinction saying that Marcion was not fully Gnostic. Many agree with [user]gnosisofthomas[/user] on this point, but I do not. To me Marcion was fully Gnostic. It is true that all Gnostics (and Marcionites) are “dualist”, but the question is does this point of view make such a believer “not a Christian”.

That is true, I’m Gnostic, not a Marcionite. My tradition leans more toward Valentinianism, however modern Gnosticism does tend to draw from several ancient schools of Gnostic thought. The idea that Gnostics are dualists isn’t quite accurate – we’re more monistic than dualistic, because even the demiurge himself is an emanation of the One True God, as are we all.

I think when you look at ancient Christian writings (and I’m including those of the ancient Gnostics), you can see that there was a wide variety of opinions going around amongst the different Christian communities. The particular teachings that gained popularity and shaped Eastern and Western history were those of what became orthodoxy. However, to define “Christian” based on orthodox theology is rather biased – one could easily label the majority of Protestants as unchristian, based on their theologies.

To paraphrase St. Paul: Christ is our foundation, and our chief cornerstone. We are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and of the household of God.

If Christ is our foundation, then we are Christians – regardless of the differing viewpoints we may have.

 

[JohnVIII]

That’s just simply not true. I am in no sense a dualist and it was Valentinus who first came up with the concept of trinity, that’s why his name came up while forming the biblical canon or while discussing about Christology.

Semantics! If you want Gnosticism to sound better to Trinitarians (which it never will no matter what!) you try to explain that Gnostics are really monotheistic because we believe in only one Supreme God. Of course it is true, but that one Supreme God is not the same as the O.T. god Jehovah. There are 2 primary types of Christian “callings” (according to Gnosticism), there is the ‘Pneumatic’ which corresponds to the ‘Elect’ in Christ, and there is the ‘Psychic’ which corresponds to those who are ‘Called’. Of the Pneumatic it can be said that they worship only one God, but that would not be Jehovah. However, of the Psychic Christians, they are still connected to Jehovah and call him both Lord and God, even though they understand and believe in the higher Supreme God. Yet both of these ‘callings’ (I don’t really know a good term to use, so I use the term ‘callings’), they are all a part of one and the same Body of Christ. The Pneumatic are not under the law of Jehovah, but they do have one law of Christ and that is that they must love the Psychic Christians and bear their burdens. You could say there is only one God ‘in essence’, if you want to borrow Trinitarian terminology, but if you would rather just be frank about it a ‘god’ is anything that is worshiped. Do Psychic Christians worship Jehovah? Yes! Do Pneumatic Christians worship the Invisible Supreme God? Yes! Are these two ‘gods’ (plural) really one and the same God? Gnostic answer = No!

Semantics! I am not afraid to be called a ‘Duelist’, and I don’t think it should be considered a negative term. If someone wishes to try and make it sound more negative he may add ‘extreme’ Duelist. Won’t work for me! One man’s ‘extreme’ is another man’s ‘moderation’. Even the slightest amount of dualism is going to be considered ‘extreme’ to a dogmatic Trinitarian! There are ways to demonize Trinitarianism too. If a Christian has no love for his fellow Christians there are all sorts of ways to hurt each other! If we’re interested in both love and truth let us speak plainly what we believe and the reasons for our faith, yet not demonize those who hold a different view.

 

[JohnVIII]

JohnVIII,

You wrote a lot of things but you failed to address the questions I posed to you. You said “Gnostic Christianity did come from Paul. Paul was not a late-comer among the apostles – this was a falsified history.”

You are really asking for ‘more’. If you do not consider what I have said thus far as credible, you could say just that, rather than say that I have said nothing. To me the false history of the Acts of the Apostles is not credible. Can you ‘prove’ that Acts is true? If you cannot (and you most certainly can’t) is everything you hold to be true going to sink in the same ship that carries what I believe to be true if you succeed in sinking it? I hope not, because you may need to believe what you believe right now, because if you don’t you may lose faith altogether and despair. This is the danger of those who hold ‘dogmatic’ beliefs. “For ye are all sons of faith” (Galatians 3:26 – Marcionite version); so to be what we are created to be is to have peace; and we must not set ourselves up to lose faith. Changing our faith is acceptable, but not losing our faith. Take this as a prayer, for the evil one will even use truth to tear down and destroy!

Who falsified Acts? It probably started with Polycarp. The first, earlier version of the Acts of the Apostles I think was likely written by him, or someone close to him. If you haven’t heard of the first, earlier version of Acts about all we know about it comes from Epiphanius. Epiphanius said this Acts of the Apostles had Paul as a false apostle and that Paul “wrote against circumcision, and against the Sabbath and the legislation” because he became angry for not being allowed to marry the daughter of the high priest [Panarion 2.30.16.6-9]. It can be inferred that version one wasn’t very effective at fighting this ‘evil’ Paul by claiming that he was altogether a false apostle. So version two of Acts (the one in the Catholic Bible) just has Paul as a glorified missionary, it never calls him directly “an Apostle” nor does it mention any of his ‘epistles’!

Later on you said, “… Unless that journey to Damascus didn’t happen …”. This journey to Damascus is a real problem historically! Acts claims that Saul got authority from the high priest in Jerusalem, to go to the synagogues at Damascus and might bring men and women bound back to Jerusalem (Acts 9:1,2). But this was not possible because Damascus was outside the jurisdiction of Jerusalem! There are all sorts of historical problems with Acts that scholars have written volumes about and I suggest you search for them rather than have me articulate them here in a thread about Gnosticism.

What would be the “correct” history and where is the source? Is this source credible? What gnostic stuff did Paul teach?

For “What Gnostic stuff did Paul teach?”, read ‘The Gnostic Paul by Elaine Pagels’. [user]Pleroma[/user] provided a link to a pdf version of it on post number 14 of this thread; then read Paul’s Epistles. For “What would be the “correct” history?” read ‘The Real Messiah: The Throne of St. Mark and the True Origins of Christianity by Stephan Huller’. Both books are ‘credible’, they are well referenced and documented. Here is a link to The Real Messiah: The Throne of St. Mark and the True Origins of Christianity.

…more…

 

[JohnVIII]

…more…

According to OUR bible history, Paul (Saul) was persecuting Christians after Christ resurrection before he became an apostle.

True, according to YOUR bible history Paul was a persecutor of Christians. Marcionite (Gnostic) scripture has him as not being a persecutor of Christians. Not just because Acts is non-canonical but consider that Philippians 3:6 (“as touching zeal, persecuting the church; as touching the righteousness which is in the law, found blameless”) is not in the Marcionite book of Philippians, and which I can PROVE is in fact an interpolation! Here is Tertullian: ““those things which he had once accounted gain,” [Tertullian quotes verse 7] and which he enumerates in the preceding verse—“trust in the flesh,” [Tertullian quotes verse 5] the sign of “circumcision,” his origin as “an Hebrew of the Hebrews,” his descent from “the tribe of Benjamin,” his dignity in the honours of the Pharisee” [all from verse 5]” (Against Marcion by Tertullian, book 5, chapter 20). Note that Tertullian refers to verse 5 as “the preceding verse” right before verse 7, and there is no mention of verse 6 by Tertullian there at all! In this case Tertullian doesn’t even say any such B.S. such as ‘but Marcion cut out verse so-and-so’ he just plainly tells us that verse 6 was not in the original letter to the Philippians!

Basic reasoning says that Luke’s account and yours can not be both correct. If your account is correct, then Luke’s accounts can not be right and therefore lied about the events. Don’t you agree with this reasoning?

Your reasoning is correct! “Luke” not only lied about history but he lied about who he was. Whoever wrote “Luke” and “Acts” was not and could not be the same “Luke” who is said to be a disciple of Paul. But I guess there could have been two people with the same name “Luke”.

I don’t see how you are able to extrapolate Theophilus of (Acts 1:1) to your Theophilus of Antioch and come to the conclusion that writing of Acts (and by extension, the Gospel of Luke) to be written between 169 and 183 A.D. Why 169 - 183 AD? How do you know the Theophilus of Acts is the same as your Theophilus of Antioch? There could be many many Theophiluses that lived in Antioch spanning several centuries.

Yes, there could have been more than one Theophilus, I can see that. How is it that you cannot see how the most likely Theophilus could not possibly be the Theophilus Acts refers to? But if “nobody knows who he is” works for you then by all means go with that. Scholar after scholar that I have read puts all four Catholic Gospels and Acts at that same time. Consider reading chapter 26 of Charles Burlingame Waite’s book, ‘The History of the Christian Religion, to the Year Two Hundred’ for starters.

At this point, I see it pointless to go further until you can support your claims.

Probably is pointless as you say, but not for the reasons you think.

Do provide us with a copy. I am sure that is readily available?

If I understand what you ask now you want a copy of the original Bible, is that right? That would be the Apostolicon. Paul the Apostle wrote it and canonized it. The original version of the Bible written by Paul does show, I think, Christianity’s Gnostic origin much clearer than the later Catholic versions do. It is tempting to refer you to my own website for this but somehow I wouldn’t feel right about doing that. So instead go here for the original Gnostic Bible: marcionite-scripture.info/Marcionite_Bible.htm

Peace in Christ (the second Paraclete)!