(July 26, 2014 at 6:59 am)alpha male Wrote: Yes, we can selectively find things in the gospels which are found in gnosticism. We can also find things which are anathema to it, such as Jesus showing that he still had a physical body after the resurrection:
Luke 24
36 Now as they said these things, Jesus Himself stood in the midst of them, and said to them, “Peace to you.” 37 But they were terrified and frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit. 38 And He said to them, “Why are you troubled? And why do doubts arise in your hearts? 39 Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”
40 When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet.[f] 41 But while they still did not believe for joy, and marveled, He said to them, “Have you any food here?” 42 So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. 43 And He took it and ate in their presence.
Yes, we can selectively find support for all the early Christian sects in the Bible. And having read the gospels a few times myself, I doubt that the gospels would lead you to the church's (Catholic, liberal or conservative Christian) current or first millennium view of Jesus if you were to read them without a theological overlay. The gospels simply do not provide a coherent picture of Jesus. And should you read the non-canonized gospels your view would be even more confused.
And I'm not talking mere factual differences about when Jesus lived, and what day he died on, I'm talking about doctrinal differences. It's no wonder there are so many sects of Christianity.
Paul won. But not necessarily because he was right--always assuming of course that there was a historical Jesus.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
