Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

where did Gnostics come up with their theory about there being a higher God ? they were a sect of Christianity correct / so they must have something from the Bible backing up their idea there was some sort of separate "spiritual Jesus" and etc..

They didn't use the Bible. They had their own gospels which were rejected from the accepted canon. Gnostics had different beliefs from region to region so its hard to say exactly where some of them got their ideas.

Originally posted by Nellinator
They didn't use the Bible. They had their own gospels which were rejected from the accepted canon. Gnostic's had different beliefs from region to region so its hard to say exactly where some of them got their ideas.

The bible (NT) did not exist at the time of the Gnostic's. The books of the NT were available to every Christian. There is a very good chance that the Gnostic where aware of the the books that eventually were added to the bible.

The Gnostic's did not support an all powerful Roman church. Therefore, it is not surprising that they were left out when this Roman church put together the NT.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The bible (NT) did not exist at the time of the Gnostic's. The books of the NT were available to every Christian. There is a very good chance that the Gnostic where aware of the the books that eventually were added to the bible.

The Gnostic's did not support an all powerful Roman church. Therefore, it is not surprising that they were left out when this Roman church put together the NT.
Did I say it did? No, not everyone, but yes they were widely accessible. The Gnostics did not use them though, hence why you Gnostic writers did not quote NT books, nor were NT scrolls found at any Gnostic sites.

The biggest reason is the lack of apostolic support for any of them. Thomas was the only one that came close because it was possibly written by an apostle or his followers.

The Gnostic books were floating around but were considered heresy and not included in the Bible.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Did I say it did? No, not everyone, but yes they were widely accessible. The Gnostics did not use them though, hence why you Gnostic writers did not quote NT books, nor were NT scrolls found at any Gnostic sites.

The biggest reason is the lack of apostolic support for any of them. Thomas was the only one that came close because it was possibly written by an apostle or his followers.

Not a single book in the NT was written by any of the apostles. Look up the Q Gospel.

The gospel of Q, though unknown writer(s), were pretty true to the statements of Jesus, yes. Then it's up to us/you/others to interpret the meanings of what he was trying to say.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Not a single book in the NT was written by any of the apostles. Look up the Q Gospel. Umm, two were written by disciples at least, a third was written by a disciples scribe. Also, disciple =/= apostle.

Also, I am of the opinion that the Q document never existed. It is a fanciful theory and is a poor solution to a non-existent problem.

Let's fancy it all then, eh?

Originally posted by Nellinator
Umm, two were written by disciples at least, a third was written by a disciples scribe. Also, disciple =/= apostle.

Also, I am of the opinion that the Q document never existed. It is a fanciful theory and is a poor solution to a non-existent problem.

None of the four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are original documents written my the people who bear their names. The Q Gospel might have been written by one of those four, but sense we don't have the Q Gospel, we will never know.

* how about the epistles/letters? they are also parts of the New Testament... and we are very positive those were written by Paul, James, Peter, Jude and John...

Originally posted by peejayd
* how about the epistles/letters? they are also parts of the New Testament... and we are very positive those were written by Paul, James, Peter, Jude and John...

That is why I clarified my statement by listing Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
None of the four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are original documents written my the people who bear their names. The Q Gospel might have been written by one of those four, but sense we don't have the Q Gospel, we will never know. There is good reason to believe that they were written by the claimed authors. Not that it really matters.

We will likely never have the Q document because such a thing likely never existed.

Originally posted by Nellinator
There is good reason to believe that they were written by the claimed authors. Not that it really matters.

We will likely never have the Q document because such a thing likely never existed.

What is your good reason?

I find the evidence that supports the Q Gospel to be compelling.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is why I clarified my statement by listing Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

* and those epistles/letters go in accordance with the life story of Jesus through the 4 Gospels... eventhough the author did not identify themselves, we are still positive that the 4 Gospels are true...

Originally posted by peejayd
* and those epistles/letters go in accordance with the life story of Jesus through the 4 Gospels... eventhough the author did not identify themselves, we are still positive that the 4 Gospels are true...

You will have to define what you mean by the word "true". You can believe anything you wish too.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What is your good reason?

I find the evidence that supports the Q Gospel to be compelling. The fact that it is not claimed that disciples wrote all the canonical gospels. Early dates of composition, when the alleged authors would still be alive, and early acceptance and defense of the four gospels as canon.

And yet, it can't be found anywhere and no one really talks about anything of the sort. It's wishful thinking and is full of fail imo.

Originally posted by Nellinator
The fact that it is not claimed that disciples wrote all the canonical gospels. Early dates of composition, when the alleged authors would still be alive, and early acceptance and defense of the four gospels as canon.

And yet, it can't be found anywhere and no one really talks about anything of the sort. It's wishful thinking and is full of fail imo.

Then were are the original writings?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then were are the original writings? I support the idea of the gospels being the original writings. Do you not think if the Q document existed it would have been copied and preserved?

Originally posted by Nellinator
I support the idea of the gospels being the original writings. Do you not think if the Q document existed it would have been copied and preserved?

There have been a lot of things lost over time. From what I understand, all we have of all the books of the NT are copies. Am I wrong about that?

You are not. And supposedly the Vatican has the originals yet won't put them on display for any reason. Why? Maybe there are none? Yet, history shows us that there were thousands of books not put in the Bible. Some say they are repetitive, others say they teach a different view.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There have been a lot of things lost over time. From what I understand, all we have of all the books of the NT are copies. Am I wrong about that? That would be correct. However, nearly everything was copied by early Christians, even the Gnostic gospels and other writings. Although the Gnostic gospels were mostly destroyed we still many mentions of them by the Church fathers prior to the Council of Nicea when they were formally rejected. Do you not think that something as a significant as the sayings of Jesus would have been copied if it existed? And more significantly, do you not think there would have been mention of it by the Church fathers? Of course people will argue Papias wrote it, but I think that is a desperate ploy.

"Matthew compiled the oracles of the Lord in a Hebrew manner of speech" does not suggest any written documents at all. Yet, that is the basis for the argument for the Q document. I fail to understand why the idea that one of the gospels came first is so hard to accept. Personally I see the best argument to be for Matthew, though I think the popular idea that Mark came first is very plausible.

Originally posted by Nellinator
That would be correct. However, nearly everything was copied by early Christians, even the Gnostic gospels and other writings. Although the Gnostic gospels were mostly destroyed we still many mentions of them by the Church fathers prior to the Council of Nicea when they were formally rejected. Do you not think that something as a significant as the sayings of Jesus would have been copied if it existed? And more significantly, do you not think there would have been mention of it by the Church fathers? Of course people will argue Papias wrote it, but I think that is a desperate ploy.

"Matthew compiled the oracles of the Lord in a Hebrew manner of speech" does not suggest any written documents at all. Yet, that is the basis for the argument for the Q document. I fail to understand why the idea that one of the gospels came first is so hard to accept. Personally I see the best argument to be for Matthew, though I think the popular idea that Mark came first is very plausible.

But that is not the point I was getting too. Many people claim that the Gnostic Gospels are invalid because they date from a later time then the Gospels of the NT. They forget to mention that we are only talking about copies and not originals. Therefore, because one copy is older then another does not say anything about the age of the originals that were copied from.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But that is not the point I was getting too. Many people claim that the Gnostic Gospels are invalid because they date from a later time then the Gospels of the NT. They forget to mention that we are only talking about copies and not originals. Therefore, because one copy is older then another does not say anything about the age of the originals that were copied from. Many of the Gnostic gospels were originally written at a later date. It has been determined using literary analysis and by deduction from early Christian writings. Thomas is the only one with an earlier date, however, date is not the only source of discrimination.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Many of the Gnostic gospels were originally written at a later date. It has been determined using literary analysis and by deduction from early Christian writings. Thomas is the only one with an earlier date, however, date is not the only source of discrimination.

But this same literary analysis supports the Q Gospel. You can't have it both ways.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But this same literary analysis supports the Q Gospel. You can't have it both ways. No, not really. Hence the criticism of the Q document. There are a few arguments that are equally well explained by the priority of any one of the gospels. The strength of the argument for Markan priority is that there are many different places that suggest it, while there are limited places the Q document hypothesis provides any solution. That said, I don't think there really needs to be a solution because there is a good chance there isn't even a problem.