Gnostic timeline reversed?

Greetings SPAL et al,

quote:

---

"There is no contention in Gnostic writings against the 12 being the original disciples of Christ, whether he was a matterial or immaterial."

---

There is no hard evidence that the 12 apostles even existed.

quote:

---

"...and we know from the epistles that the theology of Paul and the 12 showed no Gnostic influence at all"

---

Rubbish.Paul was revered as "THE Apostle" by the Gnostics themselves -
There is a Gnostic work called "the Prayer of the Apostle Paul".
Several Gnostic works cite or allude to Paul or his writing.
Have you never seen Pagel's work "The Gnostic Paul" ?Paul describes a journey to the 3rd heaven where he personally learned divine secrets - the very definition of a gnostic.
Paul describes a layered universe - just like the Gnostics.
Paul describes multiple bodies - just like the Gnostics.
Paul contrasts evil matter with spirit - just like the Gnostics.(Also, the Johanine epistles show signs of Christians who did not believe in a "son of God".)Furthermore,
Paul makes no clear mention of a historical Jesus or his ministry, nor do the epistles - merely spiritual references to a Risen Christ.There is NO MENTION in ANY Christian writing of the bulk of Jesus' ministry until a century or so after the alleged events -
* No birth stories - no Mary, Joseph, Herod, Bethlehem
* No miracles, no healings - no Lazarus
* No triumphal entry, no table-turning
* No sermon, no speeches
* No trial - no Pilate, no cock-crowIn fact, not one single Christian mentions the empty tomb story, or the trial before Pilate until the 2nd century - long after the alleged events.

quote:

---

"so, there should be no question of whether Gnosticism or Christianity came first."

---

Indeed,
the evidence suggests that Christianity was originally Gnostic, but later mis-understood as based on a historical person who never really existed.Iasion

Greetings Bob,Welcome to EvC :-)

quote:

---

This manuscript (P52) has generally been dated to ca. A.D. 125.

---

This comment is misleading.
P52 is dated to -
* 2nd century (100-199) by N.A. ,
* early 2nd century (100-149) by many scholars,
* late 2nd century (150-199) by some scholars (Schneelmelcher?)So P52 could be as late as late 2nd century.

quote:

---

This fact alone proved that the original Gospel of John was written earlier, viz. in the first century A.D.,

---

Pardon?
Can you explain why you think this?P52 could be late 2nd C.,
G.John could easily be early-mid 2nd century (even with a ca.125 date).
No Christian writer clearly mentions G.John until mid 2nd century (Ptolemy, Heracleon)The currently accepted dating for G.John is usually 100-110 - but it could even be as late as mid 2nd century.

quote:

---

as had always been upheld by conservative scholars.

---

You mean faithful Christians, who have taken the Nicene Oath?
The most biased and self-serving opinions one could imagine.

quote:

---

The manuscripts Sin. (Sinaiticus), A (Alexandrinus) and B (Vaticanus) are almost complete parchment manuscripts. With the help of the earlier papyrus manuscripts we have been able to establish that the text of these three great manuscripts is to a large extent reliable.

---

Pardon?
There are many large differences found amongst these documents. In fact - NO TWO Gospel manuscripts have exactly the same text (excepting tiny scraps).The 16:9-20 ending of G.Mark is missing from Sinaiticus and Vaticanus - are you really unaware of this?
In fact there are FOUR DIFFERENT endings to G.Mark found in various MSS !
What does this tell you about their "reliability" ?Even the Lord's prayer found in G.Matt 6:13 comes in many different versions in various MSS.And the very WORDS of GOD at the baptism of Jesus come in different versions -
"...and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved son; in thee I am well pleased"
vs
"...and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou are my son, this day have I begotten thee"The trinity formula was added by Jerome in the 4th century.In Col. 1:14 the phrase "through this blood" was added later.So,
there is a vast body of evidence that the NT documents were frequently modified by Christians. We do NOT know what the "original" was at all.Our current NT represents that which was extant about 200CE.Iasion