There is a very good reason no one dismissed the illegitmate gospels as illegitimate until 180 AD:
Joel Send a noteboard - 20/09/2012 09:15:05 PM
1) We have very little original documents that are 1600 years old. Note I said 1600 and not 1800 or 1900. This document would have more religious authority weight if it was not 300 to 400 years removed from the time of Christ.
2) Most people do not know anything about Christian history, because of which most people don't know there were hundreds of Jesus stories. most people don't know the modern new testament was organized around 367 AD (also known as Common Era), and it wasn't till 180 AD that people actually started to state that the 4 gospels are the only gospels you should care about and the rest are "illegitimate."
I say anything that makes people learn a little more history is a good thing.
------------------------------------------------
This is assuming the whole thing is not a forgery, which there are way too many throughout christian history. I feel sorry for my grandmother who is a very devout catholic and how much it means for her to see the Shroud of Turin, and how she tells the story of that pilgrimage as well as others she has done throughout her life. I have to bite my tongue and not say that the shroud of turin is most likely a fake for radiocarbon dating shows it is from the 13th or 14th century which is ironically the same time it was "discovered."
2) Most people do not know anything about Christian history, because of which most people don't know there were hundreds of Jesus stories. most people don't know the modern new testament was organized around 367 AD (also known as Common Era), and it wasn't till 180 AD that people actually started to state that the 4 gospels are the only gospels you should care about and the rest are "illegitimate."
I say anything that makes people learn a little more history is a good thing.
------------------------------------------------
This is assuming the whole thing is not a forgery, which there are way too many throughout christian history. I feel sorry for my grandmother who is a very devout catholic and how much it means for her to see the Shroud of Turin, and how she tells the story of that pilgrimage as well as others she has done throughout her life. I have to bite my tongue and not say that the shroud of turin is most likely a fake for radiocarbon dating shows it is from the 13th or 14th century which is ironically the same time it was "discovered."
Because there is NO mention of them until then, strongly suggesting they were written then. Which, incidentally, makes things like the "Gospels" of Thomas and Judas pseudepigraphs at best, and blasphemous gnostic fantasies at worst.
I know you are not saying the gnostic "gospels" are valid, but those who do utterly baffle me. The first historical reference to gnostic texts is a Church Father CONDEMNING them as wicked lunacy, a century and a half after the Crucifixion. It is the chronological equivalent of todays New York Times stating, "people claiming Abraham Lincoln was a slave owner are idiots knowingly or otherwise serving Americas enemies." Would any sane person take that to PROVE the claim it rejects?
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
So, about this silly "Jesus' wife" story making the rounds...
19/09/2012 10:55:55 PM
- 1302 Views
That's right! Jesus' position on marriage was "One man, no woman." *NM*
19/09/2012 11:05:55 PM
- 582 Views
What is the context? The canonical bible says Christ has a wife: The Church.
19/09/2012 11:25:19 PM
- 937 Views
Oh please...don't confuse "wife" with "bride"
19/09/2012 11:35:09 PM
- 909 Views
What word do the Prophets use for Israels relationship to God?
20/09/2012 12:38:20 AM
- 882 Views
BRIDE
20/09/2012 03:39:30 PM
- 870 Views
I love your last two sentences. They're a really nice description.
*NM*
20/09/2012 07:58:19 PM
- 434 Views

That makes sense for an eternal God, but sounds like a wife who remains a bride.
20/09/2012 08:56:07 PM
- 943 Views
It's "bride" in the Old Testament as well.
20/09/2012 09:48:37 PM
- 881 Views
The distinction is important for preserving the newlywed condition, but not for this fragment.
20/09/2012 11:21:52 PM
- 919 Views
Two things why it is important
20/09/2012 04:24:37 AM
- 859 Views
Did someone hit you over the head? "Two things why it is important"? Really?
20/09/2012 03:50:02 PM
- 948 Views
Something I forgot to ask you about last night: What is your take on Daniels messianic prophecy?
20/09/2012 09:21:32 PM
- 859 Views
I don't get that at all. "And will be no more", or "And will have nothing" is better.
20/09/2012 10:13:20 PM
- 815 Views
It is the King James text, which I have never heard anyone call heretical.
20/09/2012 11:15:54 PM
- 897 Views
The King James Bible is aesthetically pleasing but a bad translation.
21/09/2012 12:03:00 AM
- 833 Views
I like the NKJV because it tries to include all ambiguities.
21/09/2012 12:47:38 AM
- 905 Views
There is a very good reason no one dismissed the illegitmate gospels as illegitimate until 180 AD:
20/09/2012 09:15:05 PM
- 822 Views
The Gospel of Thomas was written before 180 AD.
20/09/2012 09:33:44 PM
- 812 Views
What is the oldest extant text of or reference to it?
20/09/2012 11:11:03 PM
- 890 Views
The Oxyrhynchus fragments were dated to c. 200 AD, and they are copies
21/09/2012 12:18:33 AM
- 807 Views
I would buy 200 AD, of course.
21/09/2012 12:58:32 AM
- 870 Views
It's not about "buying" it - it's essentially proven at that point.
21/09/2012 03:26:50 AM
- 842 Views
Yes; all I meant was that I never disputed a date around 200 AD.
22/09/2012 12:25:41 AM
- 859 Views
I don't think any of the gospels were written by their purported authors.
22/09/2012 03:36:32 AM
- 773 Views
Not even Mark or Luke?
22/09/2012 01:21:24 PM
- 814 Views
Well, but everyone knew Peter didn't speak Greek
22/09/2012 09:46:57 PM
- 759 Views
True, but everyone also knew Paul spoke it fluently, and he would have been an ideal choice.
24/09/2012 06:20:22 AM
- 823 Views
Some people did "lie big".
24/09/2012 02:11:58 PM
- 847 Views
I forgot about (or possibly repressed memories of) the Gnostics "Gospel" of Peter.
24/09/2012 11:26:43 PM
- 926 Views
I'm not trying to defend Gnosticism doctrinally, but...
24/09/2012 11:51:40 PM
- 889 Views
I am not relying SOLELY (or chiefly) on popularity though.
25/09/2012 02:21:01 AM
- 864 Views
The Gnostic response would be:
25/09/2012 06:01:58 AM
- 788 Views
That just sounds like more conspiracy allegations based on desire rather than evidence.
25/09/2012 07:15:06 AM
- 941 Views
The issue of evidence for Gnosticism would make this thread unnecessarily long.
25/09/2012 07:28:22 PM
- 779 Views
What about those who postulate a mid-to-late 1st century composition?
22/09/2012 02:21:18 AM
- 886 Views
Elaine Pagels ceased to be an impartial academic a long time ago.
22/09/2012 03:41:41 AM
- 843 Views
Suspected as much, but wanted to see if you thought so as well
22/09/2012 03:47:05 AM
- 985 Views
Let's not get started on Funk
22/09/2012 09:48:05 PM
- 777 Views
don't these people have anything better to do?
20/09/2012 11:39:35 PM
- 818 Views
Clearly not.
22/09/2012 12:27:29 AM
- 721 Views