Talk:Gnostic Gospels

message: "It is now generally believed that Gnosticism was a Jewish movement which emerged directly in reaction to Christianity." 
I appreciate that this is referenced but quite frankly its preposterous! Gnosticism, Hermetism and Mithraism are three Hellenistic religions, in their own right. Calling Gnosticism Jewish is like calling Hermetism Egyptian Paganism, its patently rediculous!
The facts are that Gnosticism was a Gentile movement in reaction to the Ebionites and Judaizers. 
I'll find a quote and correct the misleading interpolation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.197 (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Greek Gnosticism

message: I would like to start a discussion on the valididty of the Bible and the Gnostic Gospels —Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.242.130 (talk • contribs) 21:51, April 9, 2007
: I think the person who wrote this article may have a touch of Bible bias: they have not backed up any or their arguments making it seem an extremely biased article ( Tom April 11) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.37.250 (talk • contribs) 14:40, April 11, 2007)
:: If you see any statements that you wish to challenge, please add  at the end of the sentence or section, to request a citation.  If a citation is not provided in a reasonable amount of time (a few weeks), the statement can be removed.  Or, if you have citable information which refutes a statement in an article, please add it, quote your source, and remove the other info.  And if you have any questions, let us know! --Elonka 21:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Validity

message: This is listed on WP:CLEAN, but has no cleanup tag.  Is there a good reason? Thinboy00 22:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am now adding an NPOV tag to the article for reasons mentioned all over this talk page.  If consensus is reached to remove it or I am mistaken about putting it there, remove the article from WP:CLEANThinboy00 01:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the cleanup tag? 

message: The article is poorly written, and has punctuation errors.
Furthermore, it does not present a neutral viewpoint, as in "The Gnostic Gospels, may have some truth, but are not considered to be the word of God", which is ambiguous. It does not specify by whom they are not considered the word of God.
Lacking neutrality more evidently is the statement "The Gnostic Gospels are not included in the Bible because they are not valid as the Word of God". Here it is assumed that that the word (Word in the text) of God is documented. The full sentence seems also to imply, for complementarity, that the Gospels that are included in the Bible are the word of God. Overall the neutral viewpoint would be reinstated if the "who" is specified. Who considers them not to be valid as the word of God?--209.150.240.231 02:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is some zealot here trying to censor any attempt to provide a balanced overview of the topic. This section really needs a lot more information which I'm willing to collaborate on. [User:MrHaney|MrHaney]] 00:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For best results, please try to focus talkpage comments on the article, and not on the editors who may be working on it.  See WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. --Elonka 01:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality and style issue 

message: Elonka --
Wonderful job on reformatting those references!  Small problem is the references don't actually say exactly what the text says they say.  You ok with me being bold and cleaning this (and you revert anything you disagree with) or do you want me to discuss with you first?  jbolden1517Talk 00:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, and can you give a specific example? --Elonka 07:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Buddhism line (removed yesterday) had 2 big problems but I corrected and you didn't seem to object. Another example is the reference to the appearance of the "Gnostic Gospels".  In the DaVinci code's world this is a specific book containing the gospels which has that title.  In real life the only book that is well known with that title would be Pagel's book which is about exegesis of gnostic literature (in particular gospels).  jbolden1517Talk 23:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe you are correct most of the documents cited were known by the 2nd century.  That's a reasonable change.  I suggest you raise the issue on the talk page and give Elonka a chance to respond regarding her dating of these documents.  As for the buddhism claim I'd like to see some evidence of Buddhist -> Gnostic influence.  jbolden1517Talk 03:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Based on a scan through the papers at scholar.google.com, the most common description in academic journals seems to be "second century." I've tentatively changed our lead paragraph to use the wording, "around the second century." How does that sound? --Elonka 09:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  reference clean up but.... 

message: Some scholars, such as Edward Conze and Elaine Pagels, have suggested that Gnosticism blends teachings like those attributed to Jesus Christ with teachings found in Eastern traditions  you have switched this to blends the teachings of Jesus Christ with those found in Eastern traditions
I'd like to know where Pagels has ever asserted a blend of Jesus's teachings is contained in any collection of writings.  jbolden1517Talk 01:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phrase 

message: Time to get dress for work.  I've started the section on dating.  If we actually going to bite this issue off, its pretty complicated and we need to start separating the gospels into origins/schools.  Anyway if anyone wants to jump in on the dating issue here is a good place jbolden1517Talk 11:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense.  Let's pull Pagels' name out of that sentence. --Elonka 20:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Unfortunately, Wikipedia articles cannot be used as citations.  But you could pull out an appropriate citation from that article, and include it here. --Elonka 20:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK tell me if this works for the Marcion reference.  I can do essentially the same thing for Valentinus.  #4 and #5 are going to be multiple cites.  jbolden1517Talk 21:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  For the last ref I'm totally confused.  I can quote Porphyry From the first year of Gallienus Plotinus had begun to write upon such subjects as had arisen at the Conferences: when I first came to know him in this tenth year of the reign he had composed twenty-one treatises. to show the The Enneads were written during the first year of Gallienus, quote any roman Historian on Valerian for tieing that to the year 253.  But that seems odd, this isn't disputed by anyone AFAIK.  What exactly are you looking for here?  jbolden1517Talk 22:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What I added was clarification on the points - taking note of conservative, liberal and hypersceptical approaches to the dating of Thomas. Provided citations from leading scholars such as Bart Ehrman, removed the fringe pseudo-scholarship of a popular writer, removed the bias with regard to "Other scholars with a deeper focus on pagan and Jewish literature of the period", etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ari89 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating 

message: I'm trying to figure out where the disagreement is that's driving the request for citations.  Lets take the first example, The Gospel of the Lord can be unquestionably dated to Marcion and thus the early 2nd century universally.  What exactly is to be cited:
# That Marcion authored the Gospel of the Lord
# That Marcion  was in the 2nd century
As far as I can tell the Gospel of the Lord article is the citation for both those facts.  jbolden1517Talk 10:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, Wikipedia articles cannot be used as citations.  But you could pull out an appropriate citation from that article, and include it here. --Elonka 20:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK tell me if this works for the Marcion reference.  I can do essentially the same thing for Valentinus.  #4 and #5 are going to be multiple cites.  jbolden1517Talk 21:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  For the last ref I'm totally confused.  I can quote Porphyry From the first year of Gallienus Plotinus had begun to write upon such subjects as had arisen at the Conferences: when I first came to know him in this tenth year of the reign he had composed twenty-one treatises. to show the The Enneads were written during the first year of Gallienus, quote any roman Historian on Valerian for tieing that to the year 253.  But that seems odd, this isn't disputed by anyone AFAIK.  What exactly are you looking for here?  jbolden1517Talk 22:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

text: What I added was clarification on the points - taking note of conservative, liberal and hypersceptical approaches to the dating of Thomas. Provided citations from leading scholars such as Bart Ehrman, removed the fringe pseudo-scholarship of a popular writer, removed the bias with regard to "Other scholars with a deeper focus on pagan and Jewish literature of the period", etc.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ari89 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  dates on gospels 

message: "The Gospel of the Lord, a gnostic but otherwise non-canonical heretical text"  This is an odd wording, making it sound like most gnostic texts would be canonical.  Maybe it was supposed to say "non-gnostic"??? Mcswell (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclarity 

message: gnostic = enlightenment = buddha  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.231.216 (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gnostic Gospels. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090707214841/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org:80/Neoplatonism to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Neoplatonism#History_and_Doctrines
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified