Gnostic timeline reversed?

quote:

---

they predate every gospel and are possibly as old as just four years after the crucifixtion.

---

Unless I've missed an update, I thought the crucifixion was around 33CE.The earliest date I've seen for the epistles is 51CE.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

I've heard four years after........besides, even 51 A.D. would predate all gospels, and Paul clearly expresses true Christian theology in all his epistles.

other way around.the earliest canonic text, mark, was written about ad 90. they think thomas was about 40 or 50 in its earliest form, and that it might be related to the source document for mark, matthew, and luke (q).i could be a little fuzzy on the dates, cause i just woke up, but i do recall thomas being older than any gospel in the new testament.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 10-21-2004 10:41 AM

well, yes, i said earliest gospel, not earliest epistle. i'm not terribly sure on the dates for the epistles, because frankly i hate paul so i'm not that interested. well, yes, i said "may or may not actually be a gnostic gospel." it could be read as one, but it also could be read in other ways. personally, i think it's somewhere in the middle.but i'll look up the dating of thomas again.

Quote: "Doubtful. For starters, NONE of the church fathers were Gnostics.......and the Gnostics were considered heretics by all of the church fathers. So, if the FOUNDERS of the religion weren't Gnostics, I think it's safe to say that Biblical theology predates Gnosticism.Also, the Catholic church was founded in order to combine Christianty and Paganism.......so why wouldn't the already formed fusions of Christianity with Paganism, such as Gnosticism, been embrassed if it was the form if Christianty that most early Christians adhered to? The obvious answer is that most early Christians did NOT adhere to Gnosticism, and so the Rome abolished Gnosticism in order to make its union with Christianity more agreeable to Christians. "Except that we are only JUST NOW learning about the early church, everything we knew before was most likely a lie since Constantine decided to make the official religion of Rome Christianity and he commisioned one writer to do so. All other Christian texts were destroyed. The only thing we know about the early church is what was written in 400ce by an author who was commissioned by a tyrant. The gospels were the only ones allowed to pass through. This is why the idea of Gnosticism predating Christianity is such a new idea. The only thing we knew about gnostics or pagans was from their opponents until books like Thomas came to light. This is why I am very interested in the dates...
Brad

Well lets compare them:
Dionysus based on mythology Jesus based on mythology
Dionysus male Jesus male
Dionysus father is a god Jesus father is a God
Dionysus born of a virgin Jesus born of a virgin
Dionysus wine ceremony Jesus wine ceremony
Dionysus worshiped as a god Jesus worshipped as a God
Dionysus tortured by Titans Jesus tortured by Romans
Does Seven similarities constitute 'many' in your opinion? It vary well may be a moot point because the early church made sure to burn all possible links that could be made. Which is why we can only speculate today.This message has been edited by 1.61803, 10-21-2004 05:44 PM

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

not a moot point because Dionysus came first, did he not?

There's no argument that the Paul predates the gospels, but I haven't seen anything that brings any of them within four years of the crucifixion.

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

Hi Shadow, It is a moot point to me. Does it matter if Christians want to negate an ancient pagan religion that the church has distanced itself from for thousands of years? Gnosticim is still practiced but you well know the Holy Roman Church has discontinued the Inquistions so if you are a gnostic you can come out of the closet LOL!!!! To answer your question: Yes I do believe that Dionysus predates Christanity, Bachaus was the Roman equvilent to Dionysus. Have a good one.This message has been edited by 1.61803, 10-21-2004 09:10 PM

I've never read it entirely, but the only part I've heard which seems like it MIGHT be Gnostic is that one verse.........so, seems as if it's definitely not a Gnostic gospel.

I don't know where you got this from, but the Romans held many various councils (Council of Nicea comes to mine) to decide what was going to be official church theology and official church canon.......the New Testament canon now in existence is based on the concensus of Christian historians at the time........I've never heard this "one auothor" stuff before. This ISN'T a new idea, though.........we've had the Gnostic gospels since the 40s........you're making the teenager mistake of thinking that because something is new to YOU, it's new period. No, the epistles and the Revelation was passed through as well, the first of which undeniably predates any other Christian writing........and reflectes no Gnostic theology whatsoever.And, I reiterate, NONE of Christ's disciples were Gnostics.......how could Gnosticism predate Christianity when the students of Christ Himself didn't adhere to it?

I don't recall Dionysus being tortured by the Titans or born of a virgin.......and, apart from that and the wine-ceremony, all these other things also apply to the cult of Alexander the Great.........standard stuff.As far as drinking the blood of Dionysus, obviously one religion influenced the other........but you can't prove that it was the cult of Dionysus influending Christianity and not the other way around.......in fact, rejection of Pagan religion was why Christians were persecuted by Rome, so it's much more likely that the cult of Dionysus picked up the wind-ceremony from Christianity than vice-versa. No reason to speculate this. Besides, as I said before, the Catholic church CREATED many links between Pagan and Christian.......so why would they abolish the pre-existing ones?

We know they must have been written some time between then (that's when Paul might the Disciples in Jerusalem) and Paul's death.........there's no reason to believe they WEREN'T written that early, from what I've heard.But as long as we agree that the epistles pre-date everything else, it kind of trumps every other pagan conspiracy, doesn't it?

But that was around 320AD, so much went before. Even then, there was no firm agreement. If you look, there is still no single canon today. For example, the Ethiopian Orthodox Christian Church, one of the oldest of the Christian churches, has two canon, a smaller one that has the same 27 books and a larger one that includes 8 additional books. The Syrian Canon excludes 2 ^nd. Peter, John 2 & 3 and all of Revelations.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

No, he did not.......the first historically documented mentioned for god-blood-drinking is in the epistles.Don't believe everything your Philosophy professor tells you.......This message has been edited by SirPimpsalot, 10-22-2004 10:18 AM