Why shouldn't I accept Gnostic or other heretical Christian texts? >They come later though

Why shouldn't I accept Gnostic or other heretical Christian texts?

>They come later though
This is debated and even if they do, earlier doesn't equal true

>But scholars say it's all just made up bullshit and the historical Jesus and apostles never said or did any of it
Scholars also say Jesus was a failed apocalyptic preacher and many aspects of his life and teachings in the canonical Gospels are made up as well. Scholarly consensus is routinely denied by Christians on the basis that it clashes with theology.

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because they are inconsistent with what the Bible teaches through and through. Most famously, the nature of matter and material reality.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Isn't that the same argument that israelites make for why they don't accept Jesus or the Trinity? Christians don't even deny that Jesus's teaching are very radical and unexpected from the OT.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Anything that conflicts with what Paul taught is false, whether OT or NT
        Paul is the One True Prophet of God
        Only throigh Paul may we rrach salvation
        Blessed is Paul

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        It is. And they fail to make it because Christ is very consistent with the OT. As is the idea of multiple persons of God, which is why it was held by many during Second Temple Judaism. Die-hard-Jews had to establish Rabbinical Judaism a couple centuries later to get rid of that idea and many others.
        >Christians don't even deny that Jesus's teaching are very radical and unexpected from the OT.
        They are unexpected because they radically emphasize the OT, not because they are incoherent with it. Gnosticism is incoherent with OT and NT both.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Christ is a meaningless nobody
          Paul is the Messiah
          Praise Him

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            That would contradict the teachings of Paul.

            >What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas[a]”; still another, “I follow Christ.”
            >Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul? I thank God that I did not baptize any of you except Crispus and Gaius, so no one can say that you were baptized in my name.
            1 Corinthians 1:12-15

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >they radically emphasize the OT
          >Christ is very consistent with the OT
          If it was consistent wouldn't Christ affirm the dietary laws rather than say "What goes into someone’s mouth does not defile them" (Matthew 15:11)

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Matthew 15 is not about diet, it's about washing hands before food. Which as far as I remember isn't the Law, it was something Pharisees either added to the Law or misleadingly exaggerated.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Jesus goes on to say,
            >Don’t you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body?
            Washed or unwashed hands don't go into your stomach and out your body, food does that

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Dirt does that too. It's a pretty straight line from "Why don't you wash your hands" to "I'll excrete it soon enough". There is, of course, much more going on in the text, but none of it is about diet. This passage is not the reason Christians eat pork.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >This passage is not the reason Christians eat pork.
            "(In saying this, Jesus declared all foods clean.)" - Mark 7:19

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >>This passage is not the reason Christians eat pork.
            Correct. Christians eat pork because it was revealed to Saint Peter and Saint Paul in a dream.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            It's in brackets because it's an unreliable verse/translation. Literal Standard Version has it (I think rightly) listed as Christ saying this, not Mark commenting this.
            >"...Because it does not enter into his heart, but into the belly, and into the drain it goes out, purifying all the meats.” And He said, “That which is coming out..."

            The reason Christians eat pork is Paul's vision.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >>This passage is not the reason Christians eat pork.
            Correct. Christians eat pork because it was revealed to Saint Peter and Saint Paul in a dream.

            Why are you coping so hard about this passage? Would it be a bad thing if Jesus eliminated Kosher? Jesus is clearly getting rid of dietary laws. Unclean foods are counted in the things that can enter a man's stomach, and Jesus says these things don't defile him.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Would it be a bad thing if Jesus eliminated Kosher?
            No. I just don't see that that's what he did.
            >Jesus is clearly getting rid of dietary laws.
            If you say so... I don't find it particularly convincing.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I just don't see that that's what he did.
            Does eating pork defile someone according to OT dietary laws?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ceremonially, yes.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            But Jesus said it doesn't defile you, so at the very least he's changing dietary laws if not abrogating them completely.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            If they were discussing diet, that would be my first thought as well. But they're discussing washing hands. And it is indeed not the dirt that man swallows that defiles him, but the one he spits out. Pork is not in the picture until a couple books later.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Can pork go into your mouth, then stomach, then out your body? Of course it can, and Jesus says it doesn't defile you. Why is this so hard to understand?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The challenge isn't to understand you. The challenge is to accept this reach. It's like when a priest says "If you truly believe, you can do anything!" and a kid replies "oh yea? even a square circle?". Lol no, not even a square circle, the claim has its place within its context and you cannot just rip it out and exaggerate it ad absurdum. I think "Oh yea? Even pork?" would be one such exaggeration. It hasn't even struck me as an option when I was reading Mark to be honest.
            And I'm not saying you're definitely wrong. I just don't find it convincing.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ignoring dietary laws isn't do to anything Jesus said, it was revealed in a vision to Peter.

            >About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles and birds. Then a voice told him, “Get up, Peter. Kill and eat.”
            “Surely not, Lord!” Peter replied. “I have never eaten anything impure or unclean.”
            >The voice spoke to him a second time, “Do not call anything impure that God has made clean.”
            >This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven.
            Acts 10:9-16

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Isn't that the same argument that israelites make for why they don't accept Jesus or the Trinity? Christians don't even deny that Jesus's teaching are very radical and unexpected from the OT.

      The contradiction on material versus immaterial is made evident when Jesus proves his resurrection by letting his disciples examine his wounds. Thomas literally refused to believe it until he got to stick his hand in the spear wound. This all points to a bodily resurrection.

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    A true Christian gets his answers directly from God.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      God told me that I am God
      Kneel

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >I am
        I AM THAT I AM

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >A true Christian gets his answers directly from God.
      100% of the time this actually translates to "I do whatever I want and then attribute that desire to God telling me to do it".

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        The Kingdom of Heaven dwells within everyone, Heaven stands for the Presence of God
        >b-but my clergyman said
        I don't care

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I mean they are absolutely later than Mark. That is not debated.

    imo Mark and Thomas are probably the two earliest and most reliable. Thomas is called a "gnostic" text, but it really isn't except in what circles it came to be associated with.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Thomas is what later came to be known as Sethian

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I began reading the Gospel of Nicodemus because there was evidence that the earliest Christians read something called the Acts of Pilate, which is the first half of Gospel of Nicodemus. I highly recommend it.

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I also read "Gospel of Judas", I don't think I finished it, but it is just satanic garbage.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      t. Demiurge bot

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because you’ll make israelites mad

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >This is debated and even if they do, earlier doesn't equal true
    The apostles were all dead by the time they were made. Not even stuff written by their succesors like 1 Clement, the Didache and St Ignatius' letters, which DIDN'T contradict the teachings of the gospel, made it even though they are all considered genuine and good to read, with 1 Clement even being read in some early churches.
    There's also the Cerinthus, one of the earliest gnostics, being seen by St John the Evanghelist as an enemy of truth, with his gospel being meant to combat his ideas.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerinthus
    Also, the next generation, the students of apostles were noted for not liking gnostics and trying to combat them, with St Irenaeus, who was a student of St Polycarp (the source on Cerinthus from being a student of St John), talked against them at length.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >The apostles were all dead by the time they were made
      They were when the canonical gospels were made as well, with the possible exception of Mark.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Matthew

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Cerinthus wasn't even a Gnostic, he was a judeo-platonist

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    A lot of what texts got accepted is more due to politics. Early Christians couldn't agree on theology and each group represented themselves through a different apostle. Even in the synoptic Gospels has some of these oddities like John showing some weird tension between Peter and the unnamed "Beloved Disciple" with Jesus even getting testy with Peter over it.

  9. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Why shouldn't I accept Gnostic or other heretical Christian texts?
    Nobody is forcing you into not doing that. The thing is that you won't be Christian but a Gnostic. The Christian canon was stablished by Pope Damasus during late 300s AD and it has been like that ever since, even for heretical movements and sects as protestants and orthodox.

  10. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Because accepting the Gospel of Judas for example would mean that God sent his only begotten son to Earth to spread his word only for 11/12 to misunderstand his gospel and for only one written copy made in the late 3rd century in Coptic to survive; only being rediscovered in the 20th century; and that this text is the TRVE WORD

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >the secret gospel only revealed to 1 of 12 disciples is disproven by 11/12 christians misunderstanding it and the true, gnostic interpretation was only known to a select few
      If anything you're making an argument for the gospel of Judas.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      The Gnostics wouldn't exactly have an issue with that. Gnostics don't believe it's meant for most people.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's literally all Abrahamic religion though. Like, being a Christian OR a israelite requires you to believe that the Greek Zeus and Aphrodite worshiping dudes that got paid to gather up the israelites' oral tradition and codify it for them got everything right despite finding all of this silly dunecoon crap to be fanciful fairy tales and best and outright blasphemy at worst. Then, you have to believe that of all of the texts written centuries after the supposed Messiah died only this small selection of them are legitimate. Then you have to believe some people were getting it right in secret for another century when the Roman government completely made up the religion anyways.

      I'm not even going to get into the problems with the Talmud.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Except that the “small selection” of texts is the overwhelming majority of Christian texts from that period; and their religion spread worldwide.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Isn't that just survivorship bias? Orthodox scribes didn't copy heretical texts and thus we don't have them today.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Except that the “small selection” of texts is the overwhelming majority of Christian texts from that period
          This isn't true unless you believe that the Church Fathers were morons for saying that the heretical texts outnumbered the canonical texts.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Isn't that just survivorship bias? Orthodox scribes didn't copy heretical texts and thus we don't have them today.

          >Except that the “small selection” of texts is the overwhelming majority of Christian texts from that period
          This is completely untrue, and is so easily demonstrated as being false that I'm inclined to believe that you're trolling. No one could seriously be so moronic as to be this brazenly wrong given how easy it is to look into this matter before having an opinion.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Gospels

          >and their religion spread worldwide.
          Again, I'm inclined to believe that you're trolling because you also say that you believe that 99.99% of all so-called Christians were actually blasphemous pagans who are burning in hell for disagreeing with you.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      The world is ruled by Satan, of course the most popular religion is going to be Satanic

  11. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Why shouldn't I accept Gnostic or other heretical Christian texts?
    because you have no reason to do so

  12. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    sorry, you're asking why you shouldn't believe something because you also don't believe something else? 'religion' wasn't really about choosing something that just sounds cool or trying to 'choose' the right religion. you were born into a faith that believced its own things but whether or not you truly believed those things were beside the point and most people were too stupid to understand the historical narrative of the original texts let alone the gnostic follow ups

    you should not be trying to 'accept' something over the other, you should be using the basis of your people's faith as a way to examine the myths of the world to understand reality.

    gnosticism wasn't about an evil god, it was just equating Yahweh with the other lesser deities that the judeans themselves had villained into the 'sons of god' that led humanity astray.

    Yahweh was exempt as their own tribal deity obviously, so gnostic texts that weren't rooted in judaism would portray yahweh as yet another lower deity to warn against tribal worship.

    the 'joke' of the text was that there wasn't a demiurge at all, but that we were the reason we are trapped on earth and that the demiurge is just a symbol for our own folly.

    none of this really contradicts the new testament narrative, they are just additional stories where jesus himself even claims to be lying within the narrative in order to convey a greater truth, which is literally the writer saying that this made up story jesus is telling is also made up in real life.

    but sure, 'accept it'

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Complete horseshit from start to finish.
      >we were the reason we are trapped on earth and that the demiurge is just a symbol for our own folly
      Crypto buddhist nonsense. Actually read their scriptures

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        i did. in pistis sophia and apocryphon of jon, sophia falls because of her own failures, sure shes lured into a trap, but its her desire to go below to gain the light that made her do it.

        she made the choice and got trapped. in apocryphon of jon the demiurge is literally the child of sophia who like her, wants to just create without truly understanding the force above them.

  13. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >This is debated and even if they do, earlier doesn't equal true
    True. The Dead Sea Scrolls are the best examples of blatant forgeries.

  14. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    The only serious answer that you'll ever get and which isn't trivially refuted is "I have a personal relationship with God therefore the canon embraced by the Church I practice within is complete and sui generis, if that weren't true I would know because I have authentic religious experience"

    Of course, you could argue that all other religious people have an equal claim to positive knowledge that their scripture is special, including neo-gnostics. So there is no rational reason why you shouldn't.

  15. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Gnosticism flat out isn't Christianity because it views the story of both the Bible and of Jesus completely different from what any other interpretation is. Also it is one of the many misinterpretations of Platonism, where instead of the Land of the Forms being an explanation for how we know things a priori ("How can a slave know math when he is uneducated?!"), it is a spooky mysticism land that can only be accessed with secret knowledge passed down by the cult leader. Gnositicism is just flat out dumb.

  16. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Any cool podcasts on early christianity?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Bart Ehrman's podcast is nice

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Born in the Second Century

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *