Christian Dating Guide
Question about the Christian bishop Irenaeus??
Before you read this: 1) Im NOT looking for hate, Im looking for honest, serious answers. This is a serious question im pondering 2) Im not going to tell you my religious affiliation, b/c a) It's not relevant, and b) it will only spark hate. Anyone of any religion can, through reading the Old and New Testaments, can see the drastic differences between them. God takes a completely different form in the New Testament. Now, the Old Testament is pretty solid in terms of accuracy through the practices of their scribes. However, the NT has come under HUGE controversy, especially in the wake of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi. Also, these books (as well as the Gospel of John oddly) bear a sort of distinct "gnostic" flavor that many have found in Genesis. In the time of Jesus writing in the name of an apostle was considered an act of homage, NOT of forgery. It is also VERY important to note that John's book is dated the earliest, circa 50-60 ce, considerably earlier than the others. Irenaeus (bishop) chose these four Gospels during the same time he was writing "Against Heresies", which included the relentless bashing of gnosticism, due to the fact that it was SO widespread throughout that time. So, my question is: Do you think he ignored the dozens of gospels like Judas, Thomas, etc. with this VERY Gnostic flavor b/c he wanted to convince himself Orthodoxy was the way and b/c he wanted to avoid anything that contradicted his narrow-minded beliefs? What do you think? b/c I don’t see why Orthodox Christianity should have been viewed over Gnosticism. It came EARLIER than orthodoxy, only to be stomped to an underground belief from the relentless bishops of the Roman Empire. P.S. It would take me far to long to explain what “Gnositicism” is other than that its premise is salvation via knowledge/insight (Greek--”gnosis”) and the flawed nature of our world’s creator (i.e. Yahweh) so please go google/yahoo/av it to learn a little about it if you don’t know. I apologize for the overly-drawn out question, I do tend to ramble a lot. @ Jed: It would not be homage---->I'm just pointing out how that custom from long ago, which would now be considered plagarism, could bring about questions of authenticity.
Public Comments
- Interesing but please define your question.... without rambling please.
- You are ahead of the game. I truly believe your beliefs will become widespread and accepted in the near future.
- The canon includes all those works which are known to be authentic. While writing in "the name of" someone may have been viewed as an homage, it does NOT have the authenticity. As a matter of fact, the Apostles fought AGAINST Gnosticism. As far as John's book, it most certainly is not dated that late. It was the LAST of the Gospels written. John wrote to the CHURCH, whereas the others were written to specific audiences. John had written to the well established church. I do not know where your info originates, but I do suspect it was from Gnostic writers...consider your sources. Shall I write something, and put YOUR name to it? How would you like it if it contained all manner of heresy? IS that homage?
- Your premise is flawed, and I can tell that you haven't done any research into your claims at all. First, the Old Testament is not "pretty solid in terms of accuracy through the practices of their scribes". That is apparent from various quotes recorded over time, and by comparing the Masoretic Text to the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea scrolls contain no books of the New Tetstament, so they shed no light on the New Testament whatever, excepting for illustrating the Essene origins of Christianity. The Nag Hammadi library proves only that the early Church was right in refusing to acknowledge gnosticism, as it has no foundation in Judaism. And the nature of God in the Old Testament and the New Testament is identical.
