Questions About Jesus's Life Addressed In Non-canonical Gospels.

[White Knight]

[i][b]Acknowledging the fact that the Church had to take great amounts of time and conversing on which Gospels were really authentic, that had direct connections to the Apostles of Jesus Christ, or aleast the disciples of the Apostles, and which ones were written by gnostics hundreds of years later after everyone who had seen Jesus had been long deceased, and not to mention the actual events were long over.

Extactly how many Gospels were there written down? Ive heard of various numbers ranging from 20-80 maybe less or more, I dunno the extact details, however I would like to know if any of these gospels that were not including in the "Confirmed Cannon" have any clues on the missing years of Jesus between the time He was a teenager all the way up to His Public Ministry, or even during when He was growing up before reaching the age of twelve. [/b][/i]

[b] Also maybe the Post Reserrection-Pre-Ascension teachings. He was with us 40 days before Ascending to Heaven to be at the Right Hand of the Father, surely He had to teach something during those days, more than what is written down in the Scriptures we have in the four Gospels, can any of these Gospels provide us clues? that may be really well reguarded, but not elevated to the status of Scripture?[/b]

[b]The Church from what I know threw out these books because... some of them were "Just plain and clearly false" others were harder to discern I'm sure, can any of these highly reguarded non-canonical scriptures bring us clues about Jesus, in ways that the four Gospels we have may not? Even though they are not reguarded as [color="#FF0000"][b]"Truely Inspired Scripture?"[/b][/color] [/b]

The Scriptures that were written down by gnostics I heard were written a long time after the actual events took place, that these writtings claimed to be recording about, plus theres more..

1) These had clear contradictions of the Person of who Jesus Christ was and is. Contradicting Sacred Tradtion that which has been past down through the years.

2) No Connections to anyone who Knew Jesus Publically or Privately. No Apostles or Disciples of the Apostles..

3) The obvious forgeries written down during the huge time gap between the first century A.D. to the fourth and fifth century A.D. The Time that these false gospels were written down have clearly a timing issue.




I guess my questions are many, however I will try my best to narrow it down to one or two.


[size=4][color="#FF0000"][b]Can any of the writtings that are not considered tradition or scripture, provide us with "real authentic" teachings of Jesus of who He Was and Is, and What He Did, in between the Gospel time differences we have now?[/b][/color][/size]




God Bless You, Pax Christi.
Happy Blessed Trinity Sunday
White Knight.

[CatherineM]

You have to understand the things that went into the decisions as to which books were inspired. First, they would look at the writing to make sure that there isn't anything contained in it that would be against our understanding of Christ and the Kingdom. This is where the Gnostic gospels fall on their face. We also had to look at how those writings acted upon the communities where they were read. If hearing those Gospels brought people to conversion, that was a sign that they were in fact inspired.

Jesus had plenty of time and was certainly literate. Had he wanted to leave behind a gospel or a body of writings, he would have. The only writing he did in the New Testament was drawing with his finger in the dirt. He knew how writings could become obsolete, or misinterpreted. I mean look at how many different ways the US Constitution has been interpreted over 200 years. It was written in English. Compare that to a 2000 year old Gospel written in a different language. This is why Christ taught the apostles. This is why tradition is so important. He wanted to leave the important things in the hands of those taught by him or handed down by those he taught.

I find the Gnostic gospels or something like Barnabas (which is the writing Muslims draw upon for their vision of Christ), intellectually interesting, but in no way inspired. A mere curiosity. The inspired writings are so full and fulfilling, that I have no need to look elsewhere for the answers we have already been given.

[Veridicus]

There is an author named Professor Bart. D. Erhman who has written extensively on the formation of the Canon. Since his earlier books it seems like he has decided to write more and more controversially...but he's written a few books about how the formation of the new testament and has some translations of the apocryphal texts which were pretty good.

The important thing to realize, I think, is that these apocryphal books can potentially offer a breadth of information...but all of it is suspect. It's like reading anything else outside of Scripture. For example, the Protoevangelium of James has extensive applicability to discerning the early thoughts on Mariology...but we can't trust with any certitude that its words necessarily represented the truths of the early Church. Same thing with the Didache and others. They can be fairly orthodox in context, but they still at the end of the day are NOT scripture.

Edited May 21, 2008 by Veridicus

[Altari]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1532759' date='May 18 2008, 07:24 PM']First, they would look at the writing to make sure that there isn't anything contained in it that would be against our understanding of Christ and the Kingdom. This is where the Gnostic gospels fall on their face.[/quote]
Oh dear...recursive logic. We decide the answer we want, then we pick and choose the responses that make us right.

I have a copy of the "Gnostic" or "Lost" gospels. There actually isn't much in there that is contradictory to the rest of the Word. In fact, I have found a lot of interesting historical tidbits that give a greater understanding of early church communities.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Altari' post='1536167' date='May 21 2008, 12:12 PM']Oh dear...recursive logic. We decide the answer we want, then we pick and choose the responses that make us right.[/quote]

Not to be a jerk, but as far I as I've been able to deduce through study....recursive logic is EXACTLY what gave us the New Testament Canon...the texts had to be orthodox, ancient, apostolic, and widely used...with an emphasis on the orthodox part.

[Galloglasses]

And you seriously need to re-read those Gnostic Gospels. Gnostic Theology is wacko, just because it uses some historical truth does not make it fully true. Hence why we only have four Gospels that stood the trial by fire.

[Altari]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1536171' date='May 21 2008, 01:15 PM']Not to be a jerk, but as far I as I've been able to deduce through study....recursive logic is EXACTLY what gave us the New Testament Canon...the texts had to be orthodox, ancient, apostolic, and widely used...with an emphasis on the orthodox part.[/quote]
Hmm...I think you're missing something.

[b]recursive logic[/b] != [b]orthodox, ancient, apostolic, and widely used[/b]

Things can be [b]orthodox, ancient, apostolic, and widely used[/b] and also go [b]against our understanding of Christ and the Kingdom[/b].

This is similar to saying, "I want to write an article on why blonds are idiots. I'll compile all studies related to hair color and intelligence, and throw out everything that does not comply with my assumptions." To actually critically study something, one must come forward with objective criteria, such [b]orthodox, ancient, apostolic, and widely used[/b]. Not a simplistic need for it to edify what we already believe.

[quote]Gnostic Theology is wacko[/quote]
Some of it is, yes. But a large portion of it is quite enlightening historically and spiritually.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Altari' post='1536191' date='May 21 2008, 12:23 PM']Hmm...I think you're missing something.

[b]recursive logic[/b] != [b]orthodox, ancient, apostolic, and widely used[/b]

Things can be [b]orthodox, ancient, apostolic, and widely used[/b] and also go [b]against our understanding of Christ and the Kingdom[/b].

This is similar to saying, "I want to write an article on why blonds are idiots. I'll compile all studies related to hair color and intelligence, and throw out everything that does not comply with my assumptions." To actually critically study something, one must come forward with objective criteria, such [b]orthodox, ancient, apostolic, and widely used[/b]. Not a simplistic need for it to edify what we already believe.[/quote]

I'm not arguing what you are trying to defend apparently. I'm just saying that those 4 criteria appear to be the basis for why the New Testament contains some books and not others.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Altari' post='1536191' date='May 21 2008, 12:23 PM']Some of it is, yes. But a large portion of it is quite enlightening historically and spiritually.[/quote]

If by historically enlightening you mean it was written 200-300 years after Christ's life and so has little to offer in the sense of historical veracity.

If by spiritually enlightening you mean believing in the non-divinity of Christ, the inherent evil of the physical world, the dichotomy between the Old Testament and New Testament "God", that our only eternal being is a chunk of the eternal 'divine essence' shatterd with the creation of an evil world, etc. etc. etc.

Gnosticism is whacko like Tom Crusie and Michael Jackson!

[Altari]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1536204' date='May 21 2008, 01:33 PM']I'm not arguing what you are trying to defend apparently. I'm just saying that those 4 criteria appear to be the basis for why the New Testament contains some books and not others.[/quote]
Then I misunderstood you. I was arguing this statement
[quote]recursive logic is EXACTLY what gave us the New Testament Canon[/quote]

[kujo]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1536210' date='May 21 2008, 02:36 PM']If by historically enlightening you mean it was written 200-300 years after Christ's life and so has little to offer in the sense of historical veracity.

If by spiritually enlightening you mean believing in the non-divinity of Christ, the inherent evil of the physical world, the dichotomy between the Old Testament and New Testament "God", that our only eternal being is a chunk of the eternal 'divine essence' shatterd with the creation of an evil world, etc. etc. etc.

Gnosticism is whacko like Tom Crusie and Michael Jackson![/quote]

Nah, I can see what they mean here. It's interesting to think of "What if's." Like, sometimes I wonder about the everyday, non-theological discussions that Jesus and His disciples had. Did they discuss women? Did they discuss sports? Did they wrestle around or pick on each other?

[Altari]

[quote name='Veridicus' post='1536210' date='May 21 2008, 01:36 PM']If by historically enlightening you mean it was written 200-300 years after Christ's life and so has little to offer in the sense of historical veracity.

If by spiritually enlightening you mean believing in the non-divinity of Christ, the inherent evil of the physical world, the dichotomy between the Old Testament and New Testament "God", that our only eternal being is a chunk of the eternal 'divine essence' shatterd with the creation of an evil world, etc. etc. etc.

Gnosticism is whacko like Tom Crusie and Michael Jackson![/quote]
Except not all of them were written that long after Christ, and not all of them discuss the "inherent evil" of the physical world. Have you read them? Or just the controversial ones?

[Veridicus]

[quote name='kujo' post='1536216' date='May 21 2008, 12:39 PM']Nah, I can see what they mean here. It's interesting to think of "What if's." Like, sometimes I wonder about the everyday, non-theological discussions that Jesus and His disciples had. Did they discuss women? Did they discuss sports? Did they wrestle around or pick on each other?[/quote]

What ifs are very dangerous sometimes......Ever heard of Mormonism?

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Altari' post='1536217' date='May 21 2008, 12:40 PM']Except not all of them were written that long after Christ, and not all of them discuss the "inherent evil" of the physical world. Have you read them? Or just the controversial ones?[/quote]


I have read most of them...not all of them are as explicit in their pedagogical approach to revealing gnostic nonsense, but the gonstic theology still permeates the text. Just because it isnt' explicit doesn't mean that it isn't there and potentially dangerous.

[CatherineM]

We were taught in law school that once a witness is caught in a lie on the stand, the jury can disregard everything else they have said even things that are clearly true. That's how I feel about the Gnostic gospels. Aside from the fact that they were produced by and for a community whose beliefs are completely un-Christian, they contain obvious untruths. I can read every word of the New Testament, and never see anything but a clear view of the grace of Christ. When reading some of those "lost" gospels, I will encounter things that stop me cold. For instance, I can not image Christ killing on a whim or in a fit of anger even as a child.