Why do Christians reject gnostic teaching?

[Tomoz]

Thus, while our present Infancy Gospel of Thomas may have been expanded over time, the original must have been written sometime in the middle of the second century.



ZN

That is still over fifty years older than the latest date for a book in the Bible

[satay]

namaste Tomoz,
Just some questions...

Hi there everybody

Firstly, the gnostic gospels were written a lot later after Jesus died than the gospels we accept (which are known as the canonical gospels).

Oh okay. What about the gospels that you guys do accept...when were they written? How long after jesus' death?

So how did the church decide which writings to include in the New Testament? Again, there is quite a logical and mundane answer to this. It was decided that, to be accepted as true, the writings had to have been written either by one of the apostles (one of the 12 that comprised Jesus' inner circle during his three years of ministry) or someone with a close association with an apostle. Why is Paul considered an apostle, if he didn't live with Jesus during his ministry? Well Peter, the main man in terms of apostledom, affirmed Paul as an apostle (you can find this in 2 Peter).

so as long as peter said that paul was in his company...paul was accepted as apostle even though he never actually met jesus? hmm...
What about Matthew? Did matthew know Jesus? How well? Do we know?

The fact that the gnostic gospels were written so much later meant that they couldn't have been written by an apostle or an apostle's disciple, so they weren't accepted as reliable.

fair enough. Did jesus write anything of his own?

Also, the Gnostic teachings themselves clash with Christianity, in a couple of ways you might not expect.

Well, I guess if you guys have defined 'christianity' this one way then everything that contradicts it is going to be 'clashing with it' isn't it?

Firstly, we believe there is only one God, who is the creator and the redeemer. The world that God created was good, but we messed it up.

oh?
If GOD is the creator then how can he create something that can 'mess' something up that he created?

So evil comes not from God, but from rebellion against God

Where does the 'rebellion' come from? before you say, 'free will' my question will be where does 'free will' come from?

Is GOD the source of everything or not?

(Christianity isn't a dualistic religion because we don't believe in an equal good and evil force - we believe that God, who is good, is infinitely more powerful than any evil).

I don't understand. So you are saying there are two sources...good and evil but GOD is infinitely more powerful than evil. ?

2) The gnostic gospels tell stories of Jesus as a boy, making birds out of clay and bringing them to life, and, after losing a game that he is playing with his friends, striking them down! These silly, mythological stories go against everything we learn about how Jesus operated on Earth - if you look through the biblical gospel stories, you will see that not once did Jesus use his power to aid himself or in his own interest. His use of the miraculous was completely selfless. He was actually quite down to earth.
The gospel of Judas contains another story. As his disciples break bread and give thanks to God, Jesus laughs at them - because, according the the Gnostics, they are giving thanks to an evil demiurge, not a good God. This again goes completely against what we learn about Jesus in the canonical gospels. He took any sin or lack of understanding very, very seriously and, if they actually were lacking in understanding, he wouldn't have simply laughed at his closest followers, but would have put them straight. We know this from reading in the canonical Gospels about how Jesus operated.

actually I read somewhere that jesus never 'laughed' I guess how could he...

I hope you can see that, agree or disagree, the selection of canonical scripture was actually carried out quite logically, without any cover-ups or conspiracy.

yes, quite logically.

[Tomoz]

Hi Satay! I know you're a pretty knowledgeable guy and you've probably heard answers to these questions a hundred times before, but seeing as you asked...

Oh okay. What about the gospels that you guys do accept...when were they written? How long after jesus' death?

Mark's gospel is the earliest, dated at around 60 a.d. However, in Paul's letters, which were written earlier, Paul quotes Jesus as scripture. This means that Jesus words were written down and accepted as scripture before the gospels we have were written.

so as long as peter said that paul was in his company...paul was accepted as apostle even though he never actually met jesus? hmm...
What about Matthew? Did matthew know Jesus? How well? Do we know?

In the book of 2 Peter, Peter describes Paul's letters as scripture. He was accepted as an apostle by the people who lived closest to Jesus, and to whom Jesus gave authority at the last supper.
Matthew was one of the 12. The gospel was written either by Matthew or his own disciples. I can't tell you the ins and outs of how this is known, as my knowledge isn't good enough. However, I can tell you that very intelligent people have devoted their lives to studying these texts for the past few millenia. Some people date them later, some earlier. Bith give convincing arguments. It comes down to what you believe based on the evidence given to you.

fair enough. Did jesus write anything of his own?

No - no Rabbis did. That was the job of their disciples.

Well, I guess if you guys have defined 'christianity' this one way then everything that contradicts it is going to be 'clashing with it' isn't it?

Well, as I said above, that definition has come from scholars devoting their lives to study of the bible and its teachings. We haven't just decided on dogma.

oh?
If GOD is the creator then how can he create something that can 'mess' something up that he created?

Here's that term - free will.

Where does the 'rebellion' come from? before you say, 'free will' my question will be where does 'free will' come from?

Is GOD the source of everything or not?

Free will comes from God. He gave us free will. This is because he wants a real, loving relationship with us. For that to be a possibility, we gave us the freedom to choose following him over the alternative. Creating us to automatically love him wouldn't be a relationship - that would be a prison.

I don't know the ways of God, but apparently He thought that giving us the freedom to make the choice to follow Him was worth the risk of us choosing not to.

I don't understand. So you are saying there are two sources...good and evil but GOD is infinitely more powerful than evil. ?

Not quite - gnostic teaching is that there are two sources, two equally opposing good and evil forces. Christians believe there is one source, a good one, God.

actually I read somewhere that jesus never 'laughed' I guess how could he...

You know, I don't think that is actually true! In the gospels Jesus is accused by the pharisees for having too good a time with his disciples!

[TruthSeeker]

Free will comes from God. He gave us free will. This is because he wants a real, loving relationship with us. For that to be a possibility, we gave us the freedom to choose following him over the alternative. Creating us to automatically love him wouldn't be a relationship - that would be a prison.

How could one make up one's mind, whether to choose the world or God? I see the world, I see it gives me good and I love it. I dont see God, dont see any reason to beleive it, but dont "hate" God. What could God be expecting except than wishing us to forfeit our brains over blind faith. Is it like choosing between reason and faith, and reason must be deserted? Is that how we are supposed to use freewill?

If God were known, I suppose no one will reject God over something else. So we have to concede that the die is heavily loaded -- and very few will see through this game.

I don't know the ways of God, but apparently He thought that giving us the freedom to make the choice to follow Him was worth the risk of us choosing not to.

Apprently, his "thought" was not worth the risk, with most of his creation opting for the freedom. He could stop creation atleast now, so that the mess is minimized and be wound up. Why bother to continue with a "soul factory" that has heavily backfired?

[Tomoz]

Hithere truthseeker

How could one make up one's mind, whether to choose the world or God? I see the world, I see it gives me good and I love it.

Well we believe that the world won't ultimately satisfy the hunger we have for 'something else'. Everyone has a god-shaped hole in their heart. Some try to fill it with money, sex, ego etc etc etc. Nothing truly will fit it but God.
I speak as a Christian but I think that most faiths would agree with this.

I dont see God, dont see any reason to beleive it, but dont "hate" God. What could God be expecting except than wishing us to forfeit our brains over blind faith. Is it like choosing between reason and faith, and reason must be deserted? Is that how we are supposed to use freewill?

If God were known, I suppose no one will reject God over something else. So we have to concede that the die is heavily loaded -- and very few will see through this game.

I don't think it is simply a case of reason versus faith. Many people have become Christians simply by logically waying up the evidence. They write great apologetics too. I think that, on investigation, belief in God is completely reasonable. We believe God gave us brains for a reason, that we should use them.
But it's not like you wake up one day with faith. For me, I decided that there was a pretty good chance that God was real, but wasn't sure. So I prayed - not knowing if there was anyone out there to hear the prayer - for God, if He existed, to show me He was real, to give me faith. And here I am - a Christian.

Apprently, his "thought" was not worth the risk, with most of his creation opting for the freedom. He could stop creation atleast now, so that the mess is minimized and be wound up. Why bother to continue with a "soul factory" that has heavily backfired?

Actually, we believe that God isn't winding it all up now because He is waiting for as many people to come to Him as possible. Well, that's what the Bible says anyway

[satay]

Hi Satay! I know you're a pretty knowledgeable guy and you've probably heard answers to these questions a hundred times before, but seeing as you asked...

Thank you for answering my questions. Do I know you from before? Sometimes my (bad) reputation proceeds me.

Mark's gospel is the earliest, dated at around 60 a.d.

On the other hand, Augustine concluded that Matthew was written first and Mark used Matthew and peter’s teachings as his sources. However, I could not care less either way. I was just trying to see how ‘early’ are the ‘early’ writings that you guy accept as your spiritual guide.
2 Peter is estimated to be written around 100-160 a.d. by http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/

To an outsider like me…it doesn’t make sense to just ignore some writings that some scholars think are written later in the date when the same scholars are not even sure of the dates for the ‘authentic’ documents. So therefore, I do not agree with the conclusion that Gnostic writings should be rejected based on ‘time’ of writings.

Now, the second point you made was that Gnostic writings are rejected because they contradict with the ‘accepted’ writings. If that’s the case then we should reject both Luke and Matthew since they contradict each other on birth stories of jesus.

The new testament contains no clue as to the time of jesus’ birth. Christmas was a pagan tradition adopted by Constantine. Birth stories of both luke and matthew contradict each other. There is no record of the census as mentioned in the gospel of luke, in the roman empire under augustus. And to make matters worst, we have no record of herod decreeing the murder of the male children of bethelhem as mentioned in matthew.

Most of the so called ‘historical’ evidence is only provided by the believers. We have absolutely no record of jesus’ existence in any historical source. If jesus was really born in the year 1 herod the great would already have been dead for four years. So either the count is off or the story of herod’s intervention is false.

However, in Paul's letters, which were written earlier, Paul quotes Jesus as scripture. This means that Jesus words were written down and accepted as scripture before the gospels we have were written.

Paul was the disciple of peter and never met jesus himself so I reject all his writings as hearsay.
The bottom line is that the new testament is written entirely by the believers and ‘historians’ have no evidence of even jesus’ existence let alone a reason to believe in what paul says.

In the book of 2 Peter, Peter describes Paul's letters as scripture. He was accepted as an apostle by the people who lived closest to Jesus, and to whom Jesus gave authority at the last supper.

All this does is that person B is authentic since person A says so. This is not ‘historic’ evidence. It is hearsay.

Matthew was one of the 12. The gospel was written either by Matthew or his own disciples. I can't tell you the ins and outs of how this is known, as my knowledge isn't good enough. However, I can tell you that very intelligent people have devoted their lives to studying these texts for the past few millenia. Some people date them later, some earlier. Bith give convincing arguments.
It comes down to what you believe based on the evidence given to you.

Let’s assume for the purpose of this discussion that jesus did exist even though there is no historical evidence of him anywhere. Even if we assume that there are still some problems for me.

Who ‘baptized’ jesus? John. How come john baptized the only son of god? What was the need?

Jesus preached the end of the world. If taken literally, the end of the world has not come.

Jesus’ death in itself is a very disrespectful way of dying. Why such a disrespectful death to the only son of god?

No one actually saw him arise.

The inscription on the cross was “jesus of Nazareth, king of jews”

Most of what I see with Christians is a matter of faith, not claims that can be demonstrated historically.

No - no Rabbis did. That was the job of their disciples.

Fair enough. But did jesus then at least verify what his disciples were writing or saying?

Well, as I said above, that definition has come from scholars devoting their lives to study of the bible and its teachings. We haven't just decided on dogma.

The so called scholars are all believers.

Here's that term - free will.

If free will is responsible for the mess and GOD is the source of free will then ultimately the buck stops with GOD and if he is omniscient then he must have known that this free will is going to create mess. If that’s the case then he himself is responsible for the mess and not man.

If we look at the nature of GOD in sri bagvatam, we find that this creation is all a play. In the grand scheme of things ‘we’ are nothing but part and parcel of him and we do have free will which activates the karmic law but ultimately GOD himself is responsible for the karmic law, free will and the whole damn mess or as we hindus call it leela (a divine play).

Free will comes from God. He gave us free will. This is because he wants a real, loving relationship with us. For that to be a possibility, we gave us the freedom to choose following him over the alternative. Creating us to automatically love him wouldn't be a relationship - that would be a prison.

If free will is truly free then no one should be punished for ‘not choosing’ to love him.
‘disobedience’ is ‘implied’ in free will. If GOD wanted us to follow him and love him and pray to him like a robot then he should not have given us free will. But sinc e he did give us free will he should be indifferent to what we choose...in fact, he should be happy that adam rebelled as 'rebellion' is a sign that the child has grown to be a 'man' and is not a child anymore.

I don't know the ways of God, but apparently He thought that giving us the freedom to make the choice to follow Him was worth the risk of us choosing not to.

In Gita we find out about the true nature of GOD. He does not force anything…we are responsible for our actions and thus the karmic law.

Not quite - gnostic teaching is that there are two sources, two equally opposing good and evil forces. Christians believe there is one source, a good one, God.

No, my comment was in response to your comment that GOD is infinitely better than Evil. This statement assumes that there is ‘evil’ that exists separately from GOD and out of control of GOD because to compare the source i.e. GOD to evil you implied that there is another source for evil.

My question: is GOD the source of ‘everything’ or not? Please think about it before answering.

You know, I don't think that is actually true! In the gospels Jesus is accused by the pharisees for having too good a time with his disciples!

‘good time’…that doesn’t make any sense…as how can a son of god who came to take the sins of ‘all’ men have good time! What in your opinion is ‘good time’ that he was having?

Sorry, this post is too long…

[TruthSeeker]

Hi Tomoz,

Well we believe that the world won't ultimately satisfy the hunger we have for 'something else'. Everyone has a god-shaped hole in their heart. Some try to fill it with money, sex, ego etc etc etc. Nothing truly will fit it but God. I speak as a Christian but I think that most faiths would agree with this.

What do you mean by "ultimately" satisfy the hunger of man? There are a number of people who have had no problems in life from birth to death, and have never felt the need for "something else".

Yeah, we all agree with the "God shaped hole" but we dont think most people find it in one life time. They will "ultimatelly" definitely find it.

I don't think it is simply a case of reason versus faith. Many people have become Christians simply by logically waying up the evidence. They write great apologetics too. I think that, on investigation, belief in God is completely reasonable. We believe God gave us brains for a reason, that we should use them.
But it's not like you wake up one day with faith. For me, I decided that there was a pretty good chance that God was real, but wasn't sure. So I prayed - not knowing if there was anyone out there to hear the prayer - for God, if He existed, to show me He was real, to give me faith. And here I am - a Christian.

This could be uttered by anybody...when a person prays to God, some one becomes a muslim, and some one becomes a Hindu. Was it the same God that led people into different faiths on praying?

Actually, we believe that God isn't winding it all up now because He is waiting for as many people to come to Him as possible. Well, that's what the Bible says anyway

So that means as many people have to be sacrified in order for God to get as many people as he wants.

Does God know what happens to every man he creates before hand or not? Answer this...if he does not, then he simply is not omniscient or all knowing.

[satay]

sorry to interrupt your dialogue with TS but I wanted to add some comments...

Everyone has a god-shaped hole in their heart.

Metaphorically speaking of course.
We hindus believe that we are part and parcel of GOD. Our atma (soul) is directly made up of energy that is GOD.

Some try to fill it with money, sex, ego etc etc etc. Nothing truly will fit it but God.
I speak as a Christian but I think that most faiths would agree with this.

Yes, ‘love’ for money, ego, sex must be eliminated or better word is ‘transcended’.
The gita says

“They are forever free who renounce all selfish desires and break away from the ego-cage of "I", "me", and "mine" to be united with the Lord. This is the supreme state. Attain to this, and pass from death to immortality.”

Many people have become Christians simply by logically waying up the evidence.

And as many have left Christianity for the same reason. They have dis-covered that paul’s paulinity is not ‘christ’s religion.

They write great apologetics too. I think that, on investigation, belief in God is completely reasonable. We believe God gave us brains for a reason, that we should use them.

Belief in GOD is reasonable yes. Using reason we should decipher what evidence sits in front of us and not follow it blindly due to the environment we were born-in.

While all religions of the world make a promise of ‘some reward’ or ‘punishment’ after our death…only Vedanta is bold enough to say…
Here is the prescription to ‘Experience’ GOD right here on this earth while you are still visiting this planet!

But it's not like you wake up one day with faith.

As GOD tells us in Gita :
Chapter 17
GOD said: The natural faith of embodied beings is of three kinds: Goodness, Passion, and Ignorance. The faith of each is in accordance with one’s own natural disposition governed by karmic impressions.

Earlier in chapter 13 he says:
Other who don’t know the yogas of meditation, knowledge and work; but they perform deity worship with faith, as mentioned in the scriptures by the saints and sages. They also transcend death by virtue of their firm faith in what they have heard.

Actually, we believe that God isn't winding it all up now because He is waiting for as many people to come to Him as possible. Well, that's what the Bible says anyway

This is illogical and ‘reason’ if we choose to use it says that this makes GOD some kind of tyrant that enjoys throwing souls in the fire pit!

Let’s examine what we have discovered so far:
GOD created world and us. He gave us free will. We messed up the world with our free will (well, actually only adam messed it up not us but let’s carry on…).

First of all if GOD is omniscient he must have known that we will mess it up. Secondly, if he didn’t know (and at this point he remains GOD no longer) and at least now knows that we have messed up big time with our free will then any reasonable creator should and would stop the ‘source’ of this mess i.e. stop creating souls. If he chooses to still create new souls as he does now all the while knowing that we will contribute to more mess then I reject such illogical GOD as common man seems to have won the argument of logic to GOD!

The only thing that makes reasonable sense for the behavior of GOD is if we accept that it is all a divine play as Vedanta declares.

Having said all this though GOD also promises in Gita that those who pray to other deities he will make our faith stronger in those deities…as ultimately all ‘worship’ goes to that one GOD as explained in the Gita.

[TruthSeeker]

First of all if GOD is omniscient he must have known that we will mess it up. Secondly, if he didn’t know (and at this point he remains GOD no longer) and at least now knows that we have messed up big time with our free will then any reasonable creator should and would stop the ‘source’ of this mess i.e. stop creating souls. If he chooses to still create new souls as he does now all the while knowing that we will contribute to more mess then I reject such illogical GOD as common man seems to have won the argument of logic to GOD!

The freewill/destiny is a paradoxial problem isn'i it? If God is omniscient then there is no room for freewill beyond God's knowledge. If everything is destined then what is the role of prayers or worship?

In advaita, destiny alone exists from the absolute perspective. It is the inevitable destiny of the Atman to enjoy uninterrupted bliss. Freewill exist only from the phenomenal perspective, and since there is only a universal witness or experience, ie Atman, there could be no real freewill.

God must hence certainly know the biography of every soul that emanated from him and reach him in the end. The soul certainly does not know, and hence from his perspective freewill exists to a certain extent, though it is easy to verify the role of destiny in every walk of life.

If it is destiny all the way, then what is the role of prayers or meditation? Well, just like we cant leave the factory work to destiny in worldly life, spiritual work cannot be left to destiny from our perspective. So most teachers will preach only a combination of destiny and freewill, though destiny ought to be the ultimate reality. Enlightened sages know the fate of every soul, and hence never indulge in this "soul saving" business as they know it is all already planned by God.

It is all just play only, a well planned play to the finest detail. Perhaps this divine author might change his play occasionally based on audience feedback? If so, that might be a little bit of real freewill in this play.

[satay]

More on reason and 'early writings'

"
These books, beginning with Genesis and ending with Revelation (which, by the by, is a book of riddles that requires a revelation to explain it), are, we are told, the word of God. It is, therefore, proper for us to know who told us so, that we may know what credit to give to the report. The answer to this question is, that nobody can tell, except that we tell one another so. The case, however, historically appears to be as follows:
When the Church Mythologists established their system, they collected all the writings they could find, and managed them as they pleased. It is a matter altogether of uncertainty to us whether such of the writings as now appear under the name of the Old and New Testament are in the same state in which those collectors say they found them, or whether they added, altered, abridged, or dressed them up.

Be this as it may, they decided by vote which of the books out of the collection they had made should be the WORD OF GOD, and which should not. They rejected several; they voted others to be doubtful, such as the books called the Apocrypha; and those books which had a majority of votes, were voted to be the word of God. Had they voted otherwise, all the people, since calling themselves Christians, had believed otherwise — for the belief of the one comes from the vote of the other. Who the people were that did all this, we know nothing of; they called themselves by the general name of the Church, and this is all we know of the matter."

Age of Reason Part First, Section 4 - Thomas Paine