Talk:Gospel of Nicodemus

Christian mythology?

User:Str1977 has methodically gone through articles included in the Category:Christian mythology removing them. This article was one of those removed.Perhaps not in the interests of the non-indoctrinated Wikipedia reader? I have no opinion in this particular case myself. --Wetman 09:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing and deleting

These books were viewed at Trent and are an intrical part of Church history and should not be removed.

In any good Biblical Commentry they are discussed and referred to.

Could Wikipedia have a policy on deleting and removing? I make the point never to remove someone else's work, but request comment and negosiate with the originator of the article page to change. It is a better policy.

MacOfJesus (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia actually has quite a few policies and guidelines that discuss when and how to remove material... I would suggest that you start with WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources. You should also read WP:No original research and WP:Neutral point of view (there are others, but most of them stem from these four basic ones). I would also suggest reading WP:FRINGE... not saying that this topic is "Fringe", but it touches upon related topics that are, and so being familiar with that guideline will help you figure out what to include and what to exclude as the article grows.

You seem concerned that this article, or parts of this article, will be removed. The best way to ensure that this does not occur is to support what is stated in the article with citations to high quality reliable sources. You indicate that the topic is discussed in "any good Biblical Commentry"... great... pick a few of the best and discuss what they say on the topic. Support any statement made with citations to these commentries. Good luck. Blueboar (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I've posted on the village pump the same, or similar, comment. I understand that the catagory was what was changed. I am at the moment writing on the Father Victor White article page, a sister article page to Jung, threatened with deletion and others. When I get a chance I'll follow this up. It is almost becoming full-time-occupation! Any chance of a raise?

MacOfJesus (talk) 20:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Timescale not possible in the article

"(writing c. 325), ..... "We are forced to admit that [the Christian Acts of Pilate] is of later origin, and scholars agree in assigning it to the middle of the fourth century." " DOES NOT MAKE SENSE - HOW CAN HE WRITE AT THE BEGINING OF 4TH CENTURY THAT THE ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN MID 4TH CENTURY. Time lines are wrong somewhere —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.178.239 (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

---

The article says (near the top), "...scholars agree in assigning the resulting work [Acts of Pilate] to the middle of the fourth century."

Yet, near the bottom of the page it says, "Justin the Martyr wrote, "And that these things did happen, you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate."' Justin the Martyr lived AD 100–165. See how "Scholars" lie?

How can WikiPedia be so devious? Now one can clearly see the disingenuous nature of the "Higher Scholarship" when dating the Gospels.

Now, "Jesus was one in a series of Jewish religious-political rebels bent on destroying the Roman empire and the status quo at Jerusalem in the name of the kingdom of God. These Jewish messiah-figures described by the Jewish historian Josephus in his Jewish Antiquities (especially in Books 17, 18 and 20) often used religious symbols and traditions to gain a popular following and to begin an uprising. The Roman governors dealt with them swiftly and brutally."

The Acts of Pilate precisely confirms why Pontius Pilate refused to arrest Jesus when Jesus was in his jurisdiction on at least two occasions (the first visit to Pilate's jurisdiction lasting seven months) causing mob spectacles. These mob-based upsetting of the Roman Peace were not tolerated, yet with Jesus Pilate does nothing! Why? Pilate had agents watching Jesus, and they would have informed Pilate about Jesus. It was the agents'-based reports that prompted Pilate to allow Jesus to upset the Roman Peace. And what was in those reports that restrained Pilate's hands? Obviously that Jesus was a deity, otherwise Pilate would have done what he always did in such circumstances involving religious-based disturbances: arrest and execute without trial the person responsible for the mob disturbances.

Even when the Jewish Elders cornered Pilate when they sent Jesus to him for adjudication, Pilate is STILL reluctant to condemn Jesus. Why? Why would Pilate have a problem executing (even without adjudication) a man that the previous Sunday (Palm Sunday to Christians) caused another mob spectacle?

The Acts of Pilate confirm very well as to why Tiberius in the Acts is recorded to have petitioned the Roman Senate to make Jesus a deity.173.73.128.208 (talk) 06:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• Bravo!!! I couldn't have said it better myself. If it wasn't for the fact that I am threatened with blocking every time I try to fix wikipedia, I would whole-heartedly help you. "Scholers" delight in putting orthodox legends at late dates and heretical ones at early dates, just look at the Gospel of Thomas, the Sophia of Jesus Christ or the Epistle to the Laodiceans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LutherVinci (talk • contribs) 11:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Tiberius or Claudius?

In the intro we are told:

"The section about Pilate is an older text found in the Greek Acts of Peter and Paul and is a purported official document from Pontius Pilate (or composed from reports at the praetorium at Jerusalem) reporting events in Judea to Emperor Tiberius, and referring to the crucifixion of Jesus, as well as his miracles."

But latter on we are told "An appended text purports to be a written report made by Pontius Pilate to Claudius" and the reference shows it is Emperor Claudius ie no earlier then 41 CE.

So which is it? Emperor Tiberius (d 37 CE) or Emperor Claudius (41 CE)?--216.31.124.15 (talk) 04:25, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The Order of Nicodemus?

A previous version claimed (without citation) that this work was written by a member of "The Order of Nicodemus", whereas the name of the work comes from the belief that the text was in large part a copy of a Hebrew original written by Nicodemus, an associate of Jesus from The Gospel of John. This title was given to the work in the Middle Ages. Furthermore, there seems to be no source for deriving the title from any association with this supposed order; "The Order of Nicodemus" appears nowhere in the lists of monastic orders, and simply seems to be completely made up! This has now been replaced with the truth (and citation). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.23.158 (talk) 18:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I can find no evidence that an "Order of Nicodemus" ever existed. Daask (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)