The Conservative Cave

Interests => Religious Discussions => Christian Fellowship => Topic started by: Doc on February 16, 2010, 03:14:36 PM

Title: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Doc on February 16, 2010, 03:14:36 PM
I'm far from a Biblical scholar, but I've been long curious as to why these books were excluded from the Canon (ostensibly during the Council of Nicaea, in 325 AD).

First, many of these writings source from the Egyptian Coptic Church, which is recognized as being one of the earliest organized Christian churches.  It is theorized that this church was founded by Mary herself, when she fled to Egypt following the Crucifixion.

An excerpted discussion from Wiki:

Quote
The documents which comprise the collection of gnostic gospels were not discovered at a single time, but rather as a series of finds. The Nag Hammadi Library was discovered accidentally by two farmers in December 1945 and was named for the area in Egypt where it had been hidden for centuries. Other documents included in what are now known as the gnostic gospels were found at different times and locations, such as the Gospel of Mary, which was recovered in 1896 as part of the Akhmim Codex and published in 1955. Some documents were duplicated in different finds, and others, such as with the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, only one copy is currently known to exist.

Although the manuscripts discovered at Nag Hammadi are generally dated to the 4th century, there is some debate regarding the original composition of the texts. A wide range and the majority of scholars date authorship of the Gnostic gospel of Nag Hammadi to the second and third century. Scholars with a focus on Christianity tend to date the gospels mentioned by Irenaeus to the 2nd century, and the gospels mentioned solely by Jerome to the 4th century. The traditional dating of the gospels derives primarily from this division. Other scholars with a deeper focus on pagan and Jewish literature of the period tend to date primarily based on the type of the work.

The Gospel of Thomas is held by most to be the earliest of the Gnostic gospels composed. Scholars generally date the text to the early-mid second century. Some scholars including Nicholas Perrin argue that Thomas is dependent on the Diatessaron, which was composed shortly after 172 by Tatian in Syria. A minority view contends for an early date of perhaps 50, citing a relationship to the hypothetical Q document among other reasons.
 
The Gospel of the Lord, a non-gnostic but otherwise non-canonical heretical text, can be dated no later than the time of Marcion in the early 2nd century. The traditional view holds Marcion did not compose the gospel directly but, "expunged [from the Gospel of Luke] all the things that oppose his view... but retained those things that accord with his opinion"  The traditional view and dating has continued to be affirmed by the mainstream of biblical scholars, however, G. R. S. Mead and others have argued that Marcion's gospel predates the canonical Luke and was in use in Pauline churches.

The Gospel of Truth and the teachings of the Pistis Sophia can be unquestionably dated to the early 2nd century as they were part of the original Valentinian school, though the gospel itself is third century.
Documents with a Sethian influence (like the Gospel of Judas, or outright Sethian like Coptic Gospel of the Egyptians can be dated substantially later than 40 and substantially earlier than 250; most scholars giving them a 2nd century date. More conservative scholars using the traditional dating method would argue in these cases for the early 3rd century.
Some gnostic gospels (for example Trimorphic Protennoia) make use of fully developed Neoplatonism and thus need to be dated after Plotinus in the 3rd century.

Selected gospels:
Though there are many documents that could be included among the gnostic gospels, the term most commonly refers to the following:

Gospel of Mary (recovered in 1896)
Gospel of Thomas (versions found in Oxyrhynchus, Egypt in 1898, and again in the Nag Hammadi Library)
Gospel of Truth (Nag Hammadi Library)
Gospel of Philip (Nag Hammadi Library)
Gospel of Judas (recovered via the antiquities black market in 1983, and then reconstructed in 2006)]

I've read excerpts from several of these, and I have yet to determine what the early bishops found so controversial about them (other than chronological irregularities), as to exclude them from consideration in the New Testament.

I would be interested in the opinions of those of you of the faith regarding these writings, and their contents, as well as what would have been the effect on the church were they included in our modern scriptural study.

doc
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Chris on February 16, 2010, 03:20:45 PM
I've read parts of those in addition to the Gospel of Nicodemus.  I don't get what the big deal was either, but I'm probably the last person you should ask about these kinds of things.
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Thor on February 16, 2010, 03:45:36 PM
From what I've read, these particular books were deemed heretical and didn't always show Christ in a positive light. In other words, even the media was biased way back when........ That's why I don't consider the bible an absolute as many Christians do.
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Chris_ on February 16, 2010, 03:56:44 PM
From what I've read, these particular books were deemed heretical and didn't always show Christ in a positive light. In other words, even the media was biased way back when........ That's why I don't consider the bible an absolute as many Christians do.

I would agree.......even the Vatican acknowledges that the earliest of the included Gospels was not committed to writing until 80 years after Christ's Crucifixion, the logical conclusion being that the story was passed by "word of mouth" until that time.......

Setting aside the "Divine Guidance" concept for a moment, I think that it would be naive to think that the Council of Nicaea, with 1800 bishops participating, would not have had a lot of political infighting.

doc
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Eupher on February 16, 2010, 04:19:48 PM
I would agree.......even the Vatican acknowledges that the earliest of the included Gospels was not committed to writing until 80 years after Christ's Crucifixion, the logical conclusion being that the story was passed by "word of mouth" until that time.......

Setting aside the "Divine Guidance" concept for a moment, I think that it would be naive to think that the Council of Nicaea, with 1800 bishops participating, would not have had a lot of political infighting.

doc

It's my understanding that the Gospel of Mark, one of the three Synoptic Gospels, was the first. It was written between A.D. 60 to 80, but probably not long after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 66.

I'd offer that the Gnostic Gospels were omitted from the Canon because in order to qualify for inclusion into what became the New Testament, the author had to be either an apostle or situated very close to one. Luke was not an apostle, but he qualifies as he was a very close associate of Paul's.
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Chris_ on February 16, 2010, 04:27:38 PM
It's my understanding that the Gospel of Mark, one of the three Synoptic Gospels, was the first. It was written between A.D. 60 to 80, but probably not long after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in A.D. 66.

I'd offer that the Gnostic Gospels were omitted from the Canon because in order to qualify for inclusion into what became the New Testament, the author had to be either an apostle or situated very close to one. Luke was not an apostle, but he qualifies as he was a very close associate of Paul's.

However, it has been established that none of the included gospels were actually written by the people for whom they are named (they were long dead by the time the account was written) , and the actual authors of most are completely unknown.......we draw the assumption that the origional account was related by the person for whom they are named, and later comitted to writing by someone else.

doc
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Eupher on February 16, 2010, 04:31:26 PM
However, it has been established that none of the included gospels were actually written by the people for whom they are named (they were long dead by the time the account was written) , and the actual authors of most are completely unknown.......we draw the assumption that the origional account was related by the person for whom they are named, and later comitted to writing by someone else.

doc

Are you saying that the Gospel of Luke was written by somebody other than Luke? Gospel of Mark written by somebody other than John Mark?

I'm not sure I'm following you here....
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Chris_ on February 16, 2010, 04:36:31 PM
Are you saying that the Gospel of Luke was written by somebody other than Luke? Gospel of Mark written by somebody other than John Mark?

I'm not sure I'm following you here....

That is correct.......inasmuch as "written" is literally interpreted as "committed to writing".......the Gospels were actually "written" between 80 and 250 AD, long after the demise of those that are named.  That is not to say that the oral history did not originate with the named apostle.......at least according to Vatican research.

doc
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Chris_ on February 16, 2010, 04:41:51 PM
This gives a general analysis to authorship and timeframe:

http://protestantism.suite101.com/article.cfm/credibility_of_the_gospels

doc
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Eupher on February 16, 2010, 04:42:17 PM
That is correct.......inasmuch as "written" is literally interpreted as "committed to writing".......the Gospels were actually "written" between 80 and 250 AD, long after the demise of those that are named.  That is not to say that the oral history did not originate with the named apostle.......at least according to Vatican research.

doc

I know that scholars are still debating whether or not Matthew was written by Matthew or somebody else; and ditto with John. There's that whole business with Q, etc.

It's a fine point as to whether or not Luke actually put pen to paper/papyrus -- I'm satisfied that Luke's gospel and the book of Acts were "written" by him.
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Celtic Rose on February 16, 2010, 04:49:23 PM
Another point of consideration is that when the church "created" the New Testament, what they really did was compile the works that were widely recognized among Christians as being valid.  The gnostic gospels were excluded for various reasons.  Mainly, they didn't have a strong enough lineage (ie, the author did not have a strong enough connection to an apostle) or they weren't widely recognized.  Whether or not they have spiritual value likely depends on the specific writing in question.
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Chris_ on February 16, 2010, 04:49:45 PM
I know that scholars are still debating whether or not Matthew was written by Matthew or somebody else; and ditto with John. There's that whole business with Q, etc.

It's a fine point as to whether or not Luke actually put pen to paper/papyrus -- I'm satisfied that Luke's gospel and the book of Acts were "written" by him.

From the link above:

Quote
Who Wrote the Gospels?

The Gospels themselves are formally anonymous. Nevertheless, some deference should be given to those who lived during or close to the time period in which the Gospels were written. And it is due to these individuals, who lived near the area of the books' composition, that traditional attribution to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John was made.



Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: MrsSmith on February 16, 2010, 05:29:01 PM
I'd like to point out, first, that the Gospels are attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John by most Christian scholars. 

Quote
Since the times of the early church fathers, the apostle Matthew has always been accredited with the authorship of the first gospel (canonically). Even the title "According to Matthew" (KATA MAQQAION) is found in the earliest manuscripts, and was the most highly regarded and quoted of the gospels by the church fathers.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/intros/matthew.cfm

Quote
Though the author does not directly identify himself, there is still strong evidence to attribute the Gospel to John Mark. In addition to Markan composition, church fathers also state that Mark was the interpreter of Peter, which would give reason to believe that he wrote his Gospel under the guidance or assistance of the apostle. [1] Like the other Gospels, the title "According to Mark" (KATA MARKON) is found in the earliest manuscripts.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/intros/mark.cfm

Quote
Externally, even the earliest manuscripts support the title "According to Luke" (KATA LOUKAN). [2] Much of early church tradition also believed that Luke wrote this Gospel. [3]

The name Luke is only mentioned three times in the New Testament. From these three occurrences, it is evident that Luke was a physician (Col 4:14) and a companion of Paul
http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/intros/luke.cfm

Quote
he Apostle John is usually credited with the authorship of the fourth Gospel. First of all, the author had to have been an eyewitness of the ministry of Jesus (1:14; 19:35; 21:24). He would have also had a decent familiarity with Palestine before the destruction of the temple in AD 70, and would have been familiar with the Jewish way of life. John the Apostle does fit the description, but it is not exclusive to him. Early traditions help to identify the author as John. Irenaeus, a disciple of John's disciple Polycarp, is of the earliest extant sources to associate John with the fourth Gospel. [1] Like the other Gospels, the title "According to John" (KATA IWANNHN) is found in the earliest manuscripts.
http://www.blueletterbible.org/study/intros/john.cfm

Denying the authorship of Scripture is a very common way to try to muddy or deny the message.  Just as denying the accuracy of the OT has become very popular among so-called scholars...many of whom have been embarrassed by archeological evidence supporting the Biblical accounts.  In point of fact, despite the opinion of "scholars" today, no archeological evidence has been found that proves any Biblical account wrong. 

 
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: MrsSmith on February 16, 2010, 05:36:49 PM
I asked my hubby about the objections to the Gnostic Gospels because I couldn't google what I thought I remembered...and, besides the association with an apostle, the books included had to get the basic Gospel correct.  If the author didn't understand how Salvation worked, then the writings could not have been divinely inspired.
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Chris_ on February 16, 2010, 05:43:37 PM
I'd like to point out, first, that the Gospels are attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John by most Christian scholars.

Denying the authorship of Scripture is a very common way to try to muddy or deny the message.  Just as denying the accuracy of the OT has become very popular among so-called scholars...many of whom have been embarrassed by archeological evidence supporting the Biblical accounts.  In point of fact, despite the opinion of "scholars" today, no archeological evidence has been found that proves any Biblical account wrong.   

No one has attempted to deny anything about the Gospels........merely pointing out the facts associated with what is known about them.

And the original topic was the "Gnostic Gospels".......there may be Christians that consider these writings "heresy", but IMO, broadening our scope, and continuing the quest for additional scriptural knowledge is never a bad thing.......

doc
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Thor on February 16, 2010, 05:56:50 PM
No one has attempted to deny anything about the Gospels........merely pointing out the facts associated with what is known about them.

And the original topic was the "Gnostic Gospels".......there may be Christians that consider these writings "heresy", but IMO, broadening our scope, and continuing the quest for additional scriptural knowledge is never a bad thing.......

doc

You HERETIC!!! You WILL abide by the Bible and what's in it!!! Nothing more!!! [/sarc]

The Catholic Church called a lot of them the "Apocrypha" (the Gnostic  Books)
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Chris_ on February 16, 2010, 05:59:12 PM
You HERETIC!!! You WILL abide by the Bible and what's in it!!! Nothing more!!! [/sarc]

The Catholic Church called a lot of them the "Apocrypha" (the Gnostic  Books)

Good grief....I created another monster.......all I can hope for now, is that this one doesn't go 22 pages......

doc
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: MrsSmith on February 16, 2010, 06:03:50 PM
No one has attempted to deny anything about the Gospels........merely pointing out the facts associated with what is known about them.

And the original topic was the "Gnostic Gospels".......there may be Christians that consider these writings "heresy", but IMO, broadening our scope, and continuing the quest for additional scriptural knowledge is never a bad thing.......

doc
That would be true...if the knowledge is from divinely-inspired scripture.  But there were liars back then, just as there are now.  It is a bad thing to search for scriptural knowledge in writings that are NOT scripture...writings that have the basic message wrong.  The Bible reveals to us the mind of God, inasmuch as we can understand it, but that cannot be revealed from writings He didn't inspire.

And those "facts" aren't considered "facts" by most Christian scholars.
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Duke Nukum on February 16, 2010, 06:05:52 PM
The gnostics also believed something radically different from what today we would call traditional Christianity.  The essential doctrine which set the gnostics apart was a belief that there was a good God and an evil, insane creator god, the god who created the earth being the evil one.  This caused some rather radical theories about Jesus, such as, Jesus being the true Son of the good God was sent here to release us from the bondage of the insane creator god, Samael and therefore, not being a creation of Samael, Jesus could not have taken on flesh and therefore could not have died on the cross.

Furthermore, true salvation came from gnosis, or direct knowledge imparted by the True God and not from a church hierarchy and definitely not from the crucifixion for the reason stated above.

During the 12th and 13th century there was a resurgence of gnosticism starting with the Bogomils of the east influencing the Cathar movement in Occetania (today southern France) and led to the Albigensian crusade.  The society of the Cathars was one of believers and the Perfected.  When a believer was near death, a Perfecti was summoned who would impart a ritual to the dying believer that was supposed help them in the next life remember who they were and the true nature of the world and this ritual was supposed to shorten the length of time it took to be freed from Samael's false creation and united with the True God above the false creator God of this world.  Can't quite remember how this final transition was supposed to happen.

After the Albigensian Crusade, the Bogomils continued for a time in the east but finally the western church pressured the eastern church and they were somehow wiped out also.


Afterward, the gnostics disappear from history and not much thought of until the discovery of the Nag Hammadi Codex in, was it 1944?  So either they were all wiped out by the 14th century or learned to keep very, very quiet.
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Chris_ on February 16, 2010, 06:16:38 PM
That would be true...if the knowledge is from divinely-inspired scripture.  But there were liars back then, just as there are now.  It is a bad thing to search for scriptural knowledge in writings that are NOT scripture...writings that have the basic message wrong.  The Bible reveals to us the mind of God, inasmuch as we can understand it, but that cannot be revealed from writings He didn't inspire.

And those "facts" aren't considered "facts" by most Christian scholars.

If you'll review the first page, I think that you will find that I asked that the "Divinely Inspired" argument be set aside for a moment in consideration of these texts.

I suppose that one could argue that the 1800 bishops that made the decision in 325 AD were "Divinely Inspired", but in reality, logic might dictate that we cast a wider net.....so to speak......

doc
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Chris_ on February 16, 2010, 06:23:16 PM
The gnostics also believed something radically different from what today we would call traditional Christianity.  The essential doctrine which set the gnostics apart was a belief that there was a good God and an evil, insane creator god, the god who created the earth being the evil one.  This caused some rather radical theories about Jesus, such as, Jesus being the true Son of the good God was sent here to release us from the bondage of the insane creator god, Samael and therefore, not being a creation of Samael, Jesus could not have taken on flesh and therefore could not have died on the cross.

Furthermore, true salvation came from gnosis, or direct knowledge imparted by the True God and not from a church hierarchy and definitely not from the crucifixion for the reason stated above.

During the 12th and 13th century there was a resurgence of gnosticism starting with the Bogomils of the east influencing the Cathar movement in Occetania (today southern France) and led to the Albigensian crusade.  The society of the Cathars was one of believers and the Perfected.  When a believer was near death, a Perfecti was summoned who would impart a ritual to the dying believer that was supposed help them in the next life remember who they were and the true nature of the world and this ritual was supposed to shorten the length of time it took to be freed from Samael's false creation and united with the True God above the false creator God of this world.  Can't quite remember how this final transition was supposed to happen.

After the Albigensian Crusade, the Bogomils continued for a time in the east but finally the western church pressured the eastern church and they were somehow wiped out also.


Afterward, the gnostics disappear from history and not much thought of until the discovery of the Nag Hammadi Codex in, was it 1944?  So either they were all wiped out by the 14th century or learned to keep very, very quiet.


I'm familiar with the Cathars........it would be interesting to compare their beliefs with those of the Coptic Church which is (I believe) from whence they came initially.......as well as the Nag Hammadi texts....

doc
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Chris_ on February 16, 2010, 07:10:11 PM
An excerpt from a discussion of the Gnostic texts:

Quote
Why were these texts buried-and why have they remained virtually unknown for nearly 2,000 years? Their suppression as banned documents, and their burial on the cliff at Nag Hammadi, it turns out, were both part of a struggle critical for the formation of early Christianity. The Nag Hammadi texts, and others like them, which circulated at the beginning of the Christian era, were denounced as heresy by orthodox Christians in the middle of the second century. We have long known that many early followers of Christ were condemned by other Christians as heretics, but nearly all we knew about them came from what their opponents wrote attacking them. Bishop Irenaeus, who supervised the church in Lyons, c. 180, wrote five volumes, entitled The Destruction and Overthrow of Falsely So-called Knowledge, which begin with his promise to set forth the views of those who are now teaching heresy . . . to show how absurd and inconsistent with the truth are their statements . . . I do this so that . . . you may urge all those with whom you are connected to avoid such an abyss of madness and of blasphemy against Christ.

He denounces as especially "full of blasphemy" a famous gospel called the Gospel of Truth. Is Irenaeus referring to the same Gospel of Truth discovered at Nag Hammadi' Quispel and his collaborators, who first published the Gospel of Truth, argued that he is; one of their critics maintains that the opening line (which begins "The gospel of truth") is not a title. But Irenaeus does use the same source as at least one of the texts discovered at Nag Hammadi--the Apocryphon (Secret Book) of John--as ammunition for his own attack on such "heresy." Fifty years later Hippolytus, a teacher in Rome, wrote another massive Refutation of All Heresies to "expose and refute the wicked blasphemy of the heretics."

This campaign against heresy involved an involuntary admission of its persuasive power; yet the bishops prevailed. By the time of the Emperor Constantine's conversion, when Christianity became an officially approved religion in the fourth century, Christian bishops, previously victimized by the police, now commanded them. Possession of books denounced as heretical was made a criminal offense. Copies of such books were burned and destroyed. But in Upper Egypt, someone; possibly a monk from a nearby monastery of St. Pachomius, took the banned books and hid them from destruction--in the jar where they remained buried for almost 1,600 years.

But those who wrote and circulated these texts did not regard themselves as "heretics. Most of the writings use Christian terminology, unmistakable related to a Jewish heritage. Many claim to offer traditions about Jesus that are secret, hidden from "the many" who constitute what, in the second century, came to be called the "catholic church." These Christians are now called gnostics, from the Greek word gnosis, usually translated as "knowledge." For as those who claim to know nothing about ultimate reality are called agnostic (literally, "not knowing"), the person who does claim to know such things is called gnostic ("knowing"). But gnosis is not primarily rational knowledge. The Greek language distinguishes between scientific or reflective knowledge ("He knows mathematics") and knowing through observation or experience ("He knows me"), which is gnosis. As the gnostics use the term, we could translate it as "insight," for gnosis involves an intuitive process of knowing oneself. And to know oneself, they claimed, is to know human nature and human destiny. According to the gnostic teacher Theodotus, writing in Asia Minor (c. 140-160), the gnostic is one has come to understand who we were, and what we have become; where we were... whither we are hastening; from what we are being released; what birth is, and what is rebirth.

Yet to know oneself, at the deepest level, is simultaneously to know God; this is the secret of gnosis. Another gnostic teacher, Monoimus, says:

Abandon the search for God and the creation and other matters of a similar sort. Look for him by taking yourself as the starting point. Learn who it is within you who makes everything his own and says, "My God, my mind, my thought, my soul, my body." Learn the sources of sorrow:, joy, love, hate . . . If you carefully investigate these matters you will find him in yourself.

What Muhammad 'All discovered at Nag Hammadi is, apparently, a library of writings, almost all of them gnostic. Although they claim to offer secret teaching, many of these texts refer to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and others to the letters of Paul and the New Testament gospels. Many of them include the same dramatic personae as the New Testament--Jesus and his disciples. Yet the differences are striking.

Orthodox Jews and Christians insist that a chasm separates humanity from Its creator: God is wholly other. But some of the gnostics who wrote these gospels contradict this: self-knowledge is knowledge of God; the self and the divine are identical.

Second, the "living Jesus" of these texts speaks of illusion and enlightenment, not of sin and repentance, like the Jesus of the New Testament. Instead of coming to save us from sin, he comes as a guide who opens access to spiritual understanding. But when the disciple attains enlightenment, Jesus no longer serves as his spiritual master: the two have become equal--even identical.

Third, orthodox Christians believe that Jesus is Lord and Son of God in a unique way: he remains forever distinct from the rest of humanity whom he came to save. Yet the gnostic Gospel of Thomas relates that as soon as Thomas recognizes him, Jesus says to Thomas that they have both received their being from the same source:

Jesus said, "I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have become drunk from the bubbling stream which I have measured out.... He who will drink from my mouth will become as I am: I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him."


doc
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: rubliw on February 16, 2010, 07:21:54 PM
The gnostics also believed something radically different from what today we would call traditional Christianity.  The essential doctrine which set the gnostics apart was a belief that there was a good God and an evil, insane creator god, the god who created the earth being the evil one.

One other novel and interesting thing about the Gnostics, was that they also believed that this evil God was, in fact, the God described by the Old Testament.
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: MrsSmith on February 16, 2010, 08:02:38 PM
If you'll review the first page, I think that you will find that I asked that the "Divinely Inspired" argument be set aside for a moment in consideration of these texts.

I suppose that one could argue that the 1800 bishops that made the decision in 325 AD were "Divinely Inspired", but in reality, logic might dictate that we cast a wider net.....so to speak......

doc
If you ignore the divine inspiration, then you've decided to consider anything at all to be scripture.  Without divine inspiration, it really is just something some guy wrote down.  It's not possible to learn about God if He isn't the originator.  That would be like trying to learn about Him by reading wilbur's posts.
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Chris_ on February 16, 2010, 08:25:57 PM
If you ignore the divine inspiration, then you've decided to consider anything at all to be scripture.  Without divine inspiration, it really is just something some guy wrote down.  It's not possible to learn about God if He isn't the originator.  That would be like trying to learn about Him by reading wilbur's posts.

For sake of this discussion, I can learn about God by viewing the universe through a telescope, or by watching a sunset, or reading the elegant solution to a complex equation........God is not vested alone in Scripture, nor is Scripture the sole means of learning about God........

doc
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Duke Nukum on February 16, 2010, 09:06:42 PM
For sake of this discussion, I can learn about God by viewing the universe through a telescope, or by watching a sunset, or reading the elegant solution to a complex equation........God is not vested alone in Scripture, nor is Scripture the sole means of learning about God........

doc
If the Universe is holographic, as it appears to be, then God is indeed vested in every part and this would validate the gnostic point of view that one can best know God by knowing one's self and at the same time it doesn't invalidate any other way of knowing God.
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Chris_ on February 16, 2010, 09:34:47 PM
After the Albigensian Crusade, the Bogomils continued for a time in the east but finally the western church pressured the eastern church and they were somehow wiped out also.


Afterward, the gnostics disappear from history and not much thought of until the discovery of the Nag Hammadi Codex in, was it 1944?  So either they were all wiped out by the 14th century or learned to keep very, very quiet.


OK, so to recap where we are so far:

The Church evolved from the first through the latter half of the third century with the commission of several versions of the Gospels being written and eventually codified into the faith.  There were also some divergent interpretations evolving as well during this period.  All began essentially as "oral histories" from the Apostles, and were eventually consolidated by believers into several somewhat different interpretations of the life (and meaning thereof) of Christ.

Then enters Emperor Constantine, who.....although many historians believe his conversion to Christianity to be an entirely political one, convenes a conference in order to "consolidate the faith".  During this period the Church begins the journey from being a purely faith-based organization, to a bureaucracy, which is now known as Roman Catholicism.

At the beginning of this bureaucracy, the Church does what all bureaucracies do.....attempts to purge its realm of any and all competing interests.  Therefore the alternative interpretations of Christ's life and mission are suppressed and driven underground.  The Church continues along these political and ecumenical lines until Martin Luther nails his complaints to a door, which began the end of the RCC's stranglehold on any divergent interpretation of the faith.

Christianity expands from this point to what we have today.......many slightly different views of the same set of events, with each claiming their own dogma and ecumenical validity.  

Enter the long-lost Gnostic texts..........by studying these writings do we risk eternal damnation, by even considering that an alternate view of the events of Christ's life exists, or has any credibility, or are we simply enriching our faith by learning that the beginnings of our religion were, even a few decades after the Crucifixion, viewed differently by different observers?

I submit that when I wish to study the Old Testament, I don't go to a Christian minister for guidance......I consult a Rabbi........after all, they wrote it, and have been debating its contents for several thousand years before Christianity came along.  Along those same lines, I don't think that we can completely dismiss alternative views of Christ's life and mission.......less we risk missing the point of His life entirely, and become so rooted in dogma that we lose our objectivity, and along with it the meaning of our faith.

doc
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: MrsSmith on February 16, 2010, 10:05:58 PM
For sake of this discussion, I can learn about God by viewing the universe through a telescope, or by watching a sunset, or reading the elegant solution to a complex equation........God is not vested alone in Scripture, nor is Scripture the sole means of learning about God........

doc
Well, this is true.  God "wrote" the universe, the sunset, and the laws of physics and math.  He didn't write non-scripture.\

You can read false teachings, if you wish...but can you learn truth from lies?
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Chris_ on February 16, 2010, 10:13:00 PM
He didn't write non-scripture.

You can read false teachings, if you wish...but can you learn truth from lies?

How, exactly do YOU know that they are false?

I am not so arrogant in my faith that I assume that anything other than what I've been taught about God is true........

It appears that you are.......

doc
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Duke Nukum on February 16, 2010, 10:42:31 PM
OK, so to recap where we are so far:

The Church evolved from the first through the latter half of the third century with the commission of several versions of the Gospels being written and eventually codified into the faith.  There were also some divergent interpretations evolving as well during this period.  All began essentially as "oral histories" from the Apostles, and were eventually consolidated by believers into several somewhat different interpretations of the life (and meaning thereof) of Christ.

Then enters Emperor Constantine, who.....although many historians believe his conversion to Christianity to be an entirely political one, convenes a conference in order to "consolidate the faith".  During this period the Church begins the journey from being a purely faith-based organization, to a bureaucracy, which is now known as Roman Catholicism.

At the beginning of this bureaucracy, the Church does what all bureaucracies do.....attempts to purge its realm of any and all competing interests.  Therefore the alternative interpretations of Christ's life and mission are suppressed and driven underground.  The Church continues along these political and ecumenical lines until Martin Luther nails his complaints to a door, which began the end of the RCC's stranglehold on any divergent interpretation of the faith.

Christianity expands from this point to what we have today.......many slightly different views of the same set of events, with each claiming their own dogma and ecumenical validity.  

Enter the long-lost Gnostic texts..........by studying these writings do we risk eternal damnation, by even considering that an alternate view of the events of Christ's life exists, or has any credibility, or are we simply enriching our faith by learning that the beginnings of our religion were, even a few decades after the Crucifixion, viewed differently by different observers?

I submit that when I wish to study the Old Testament, I don't go to a Christian minister for guidance......I consult a Rabbi........after all, they wrote it, and have been debating its contents for several thousand years before Christianity came along.  Along those same lines, I don't think that we can completely dismiss alternative views of Christ's life and mission.......less we risk missing the point of His life entirely, and become so rooted in dogma that we lose our objectivity, and along with it the meaning of our faith.

doc
And a view emerges of Jesus of someone who's teachings were so radical for the time that simply trying to grasp them created all these divergent views.  Some where sincere attempts to understand and carry on Jesus' ministry.  Others may have been looking for more of a military leader to over throw the Romans and establish a certain idea of God's New Jerusalem.  And then we can't overlook the possibility that some words attributed to Jesus were actually said by John the Baptist, who was actually more renowned at that time then Jesus.  If there were any contemporary writings concerning Jesus, they may well have been lost with the sacking of Jerusalem in 70.

So then, what does that leave us?  Probably the Gospel of Thomas, which isn't a gnostic writing even though it was rediscovered with many other gnostic writings.  Instead of being a narrative, it is a sayings gospel.  Even this may have been corrupted with time and different agendas as it was copied spurious sayings may have been added, but it is probably the closest to the actual teachings of Jesus and probably the original was written down very soon after Jesus' death.
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Eupher on February 17, 2010, 09:26:42 AM
<snip>
Then enters Emperor Constantine, who.....although many historians believe his conversion to Christianity to be an entirely political one, convenes a conference in order to "consolidate the faith".  During this period the Church begins the journey from being a purely faith-based organization, to a bureaucracy, which is now known as Roman Catholicism.

At the beginning of this bureaucracy, the Church does what all bureaucracies do.....attempts to purge its realm of any and all competing interests.  Therefore the alternative interpretations of Christ's life and mission are suppressed and driven underground.  The Church continues along these political and ecumenical lines until Martin Luther nails his complaints to a door, which began the end of the RCC's stranglehold on any divergent interpretation of the faith.

Christianity expands from this point to what we have today.......many slightly different views of the same set of events, with each claiming their own dogma and ecumenical validity.  

Enter the long-lost Gnostic texts..........by studying these writings do we risk eternal damnation, by even considering that an alternate view of the events of Christ's life exists, or has any credibility, or are we simply enriching our faith by learning that the beginnings of our religion were, even a few decades after the Crucifixion, viewed differently by different observers?

I submit that when I wish to study the Old Testament, I don't go to a Christian minister for guidance......I consult a Rabbi........after all, they wrote it, and have been debating its contents for several thousand years before Christianity came along.  Along those same lines, I don't think that we can completely dismiss alternative views of Christ's life and mission.......less we risk missing the point of His life entirely, and become so rooted in dogma that we lose our objectivity, and along with it the meaning of our faith.

doc

To answer your question, I find that exploring all of this -- even the so-called "lies" or "untruths" -- helps enrich me in my faith. Jesus was exposed to temptation and to lies while in the desert following his baptism and I see no reason why I shouldn't take a look at something that isn't within the mainstream.

I am secure enough in my faith to be willing to do that and I am not threatened by it.

That said, I think the point should be underlined concerning Constantine and his political ambition. Whether or not he truly was a convert to Christianity (as opposed to merely embracing it for its political benefits), the fact is that Constantine's efforts finally lent credence and legitimacy to a faith that up to that point had been ridiculed and persecuted, its members tossed into martyrdom. That is noteworthy all by itself.

Second, we all should be reminded that a bureaucracy's first obligation is the preservation of itself. And so it was with the RCC. Any time two or more people convene in the name of something, it doesn't take long for the fallibility of man to screw it up. (Look what we have in Congress.)

In essence, my faith is personal and it's a direct reflection of my relationship with God and Jesus Christ. The church helps support me in my efforts, but I shouldn't EVER depend on an organization/bureaucracy to do what I need to do for myself and my God.
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Chris_ on February 17, 2010, 10:54:40 AM
Quote
And a view emerges of Jesus of someone who's teachings were so radical for the time that simply trying to grasp them created all these divergent views.  Some where sincere attempts to understand and carry on Jesus' ministry.  Others may have been looking for more of a military leader to over throw the Romans and establish a certain idea of God's New Jerusalem.  And then we can't overlook the possibility that some words attributed to Jesus were actually said by John the Baptist, who was actually more renowned at that time then Jesus.

Although I find it very hard to place myself in the mindset of a first-century Jew, I believe that this is true.......the Jews were at that time (and still are) awaiting their Messiah, and I suspect that for many of them, the fact that he was among them was inthinkable at best, and suspicious at worst.  I think also that you are on to something with the attribution to John the Baptist........I have read a couple of biblical scholars state the same opinion.

Quote
So then, what does that leave us?  Probably the Gospel of Thomas, which isn't a gnostic writing even though it was rediscovered with many other gnostic writings.  Instead of being a narrative, it is a sayings gospel.  Even this may have been corrupted with time and different agendas as it was copied spurious sayings may have been added, but it is probably the closest to the actual teachings of Jesus and probably the original was written down very soon after Jesus' death.

Wasn't a confirming copy of a portion of the Gospel of Thomas found at Nag Hammadi?  I'll have to check to be certain, but it seems to me that several of the texts were confirmations of pre-existing discoveries that had been around for a while (or at least portions of them).

doc
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Doc on February 17, 2010, 11:14:46 AM
To answer your question, I find that exploring all of this -- even the so-called "lies" or "untruths" -- helps enrich me in my faith. Jesus was exposed to temptation and to lies while in the desert following his baptism and I see no reason why I shouldn't take a look at something that isn't within the mainstream.

I am secure enough in my faith to be willing to do that and I am not threatened by it.

That said, I think the point should be underlined concerning Constantine and his political ambition. Whether or not he truly was a convert to Christianity (as opposed to merely embracing it for its political benefits), the fact is that Constantine's efforts finally lent credence and legitimacy to a faith that up to that point had been ridiculed and persecuted, its members tossed into martyrdom. That is noteworthy all by itself.

Second, we all should be reminded that a bureaucracy's first obligation is the preservation of itself. And so it was with the RCC. Any time two or more people convene in the name of something, it doesn't take long for the fallibility of man to screw it up. (Look what we have in Congress.)

In essence, my faith is personal and it's a direct reflection of my relationship with God and Jesus Christ. The church helps support me in my efforts, but I shouldn't EVER depend on an organization/bureaucracy to do what I need to do for myself and my God.

Some here (as demonstrated upthread) would state that you are veering dangerously close to the gnostic view........I happen to agree that our relationship with God is not vested in any church or denomination, but resides within.

To borrow a concept from the eastern religions......the more we learn about Christ, and the origins of our faith, the closer we come to "enlightenment".........the objective of all faith.

Regarding Constantine, many historians believe that his vision of the cross on the battlefield is a myth, and his entire purpose in embracing Christianity was the consolidation of power.  Instead of fighting inumerable "brushfire" ideological wars and rebellions with Christians within the Empire (and Christians were rapidly growing as a political force), it was expedient for him to embrace the religion, and turn the faithful into political assets, rather than wasting resources supressing the movement that could be better utilized for conquest externally........a brilliant strategic move actually......that cost him virtually nothing, and made him a hero to the early church.

doc
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Duke Nukum on February 17, 2010, 04:23:57 PM
Although I find it very hard to place myself in the mindset of a first-century Jew, I believe that this is true.......the Jews were at that time (and still are) awaiting their Messiah, and I suspect that for many of them, the fact that he was among them was inthinkable at best, and suspicious at worst.  I think also that you are on to something with the attribution to John the Baptist........I have read a couple of biblical scholars state the same opinion.

Wasn't a confirming copy of a portion of the Gospel of Thomas found at Nag Hammadi?  I'll have to check to be certain, but it seems to me that several of the texts were confirmations of pre-existing discoveries that had been around for a while (or at least portions of them).

doc
I was under the impression that Thomas was lost until the rediscovery at Nag Hammadi.  I would be very interested is learning about a pre-Nag Hammadi copy.
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Thor on February 24, 2010, 06:12:08 AM
How can one trust a Church that goes directly against what the Bible teaches?? (by condoning or accepting homosexuality) I'm finding it very difficult to stick with any particular denomination because all of them go against the Bible and if they don't, the Church is so full of hypocrites that it's ridiculous. By exploring these writings, I've discovered more about religion than I had ever learned through the Church. I'm forming the opinion that organized religion is little more than an attempt by the Church to control the masses and a way to take from them. Many of them are almost as bad as our Government.

One primary example that burns in my mind is the issue of abortion. The KJV Bible doesn't really address abortion in fact. "Thou shalt not murder" is a pretty wide statement. IMO, it really doesn't address when life begins. If one were to read one of these lost or omitted books, they would discover that the abortion issue is truly addressed, without any added interpretation in the book of Barnabas, Chap 14, vs 11. "Thou shalt not destroy they conceptions before they are brought forth; nor kill them after they are born." That seems pretty clear to me.

Then, corporal punishment is addressed in vs 12: "Thou shalt not withdraw thy hand from thy son or from thy daughter; but shall teach them from their youth the fear of the Lord." There's plenty more, but those two stick out.
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Doc on February 24, 2010, 11:41:05 AM
How can one trust a Church that goes directly against what the Bible teaches?? (by condoning or accepting homosexuality) I'm finding it very difficult to stick with any particular denomination because all of them go against the Bible and if they don't, the Church is so full of hypocrites that it's ridiculous. By exploring these writings, I've discovered more about religion than I had ever learned through the Church. I'm forming the opinion that organized religion is little more than an attempt by the Church to control the masses and a way to take from them. Many of them are almost as bad as our Government.  

Which comes very close to what the Gnostic's believe, and to a lesser degree the Coptic Church, that I mentioned above (widely thought to be the oldest Christian church)........that ones faith is vested in ones self, and not in an organized religion.

All though not so much the church that I was raised in (Southern Baptist), I have watched my MIL's church, which we attend regularly (Disciples of Christ) transform itself from a relatively strict interpretation of the Gospels, and Christian belief, into a "politically correct" liberal organization that has national leftist politics as its fundamental core structure, embracing everything from homosexuality and interpretive scripture, to antiwar/anti-Bush political rhetoric........all in the past fifteen years.

IMO, anytime a church morphs away from core principles into other arenas, they cease to be a church, and become more of a "cult".........Christian fundamentals being essentially timeless, and not in need of "modernization" or "revitalization"......Christian doctrine is what it is.........and always will be.......

Further, although I have no axe to grind with Catholics, Roman Catholicism ceased being a "church" in about 375 AD, and became, for all intents and purposes, a "government"........the Vatican, as a sovereign state, has (it is estimated, as the real numbers are never allowed in the public eye) more wealth than 75% of the countries in the world.  It has its own State Department, Intelligence Service (foreign and domestic), military services (both overt and covert), central bank, and media and propaganda service.  Nowhere in Scripture do I find any warrants or justifications for any of this in a Christian Church, so how do Catholics justify their existance?.........Christ simply never spoke about the creation of a huge bureaucracy to advance the faith, nor did he advocate the accumulation of a massive amount of wealth within his Church.........which, kinda explains why the RCC (and other Protestant faiths) have so ardently repressed the Gnostic teachings.......they are simply a threat to their continued accumulation of wealth and power......

doc
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: MrsSmith on February 24, 2010, 06:27:40 PM
How can one trust a Church that goes directly against what the Bible teaches?? (by condoning or accepting homosexuality) I'm finding it very difficult to stick with any particular denomination because all of them go against the Bible and if they don't, the Church is so full of hypocrites that it's ridiculous. By exploring these writings, I've discovered more about religion than I had ever learned through the Church. I'm forming the opinion that organized religion is little more than an attempt by the Church to control the masses and a way to take from them. Many of them are almost as bad as our Government.

One primary example that burns in my mind is the issue of abortion. The KJV Bible doesn't really address abortion in fact. "Thou shalt not murder" is a pretty wide statement. IMO, it really doesn't address when life begins. If one were to read one of these lost or omitted books, they would discover that the abortion issue is truly addressed, without any added interpretation in the book of Barnabas, Chap 14, vs 11. "Thou shalt not destroy they conceptions before they are brought forth; nor kill them after they are born." That seems pretty clear to me.

Then, corporal punishment is addressed in vs 12: "Thou shalt not withdraw thy hand from thy son or from thy daughter; but shall teach them from their youth the fear of the Lord." There's plenty more, but those two stick out.
Scripture repeatedly refers to children as blessings, and parents with many as blessed.  It uses the same word to refer to a child before and after birth.  Jesus not only calls the little children to Himself, but says that Heaven is made up of such as these.  The overwhelming impression given is that we are to cherish, teach and feel blessed with every child we're given.  Those that don't understand that have to ignore a lot of Scripture.
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on February 25, 2010, 06:17:50 AM
Is there any attribute to the GGs that, if a man were forever deprived of that attribute, would endanger his soul?
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Chris_ on February 25, 2010, 11:28:18 AM
Is there any attribute to the GGs that, if a man were forever deprived of that attribute, would endanger his soul?

Not sure snugs who you are asking the question.......and what attribute?

doc
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on February 25, 2010, 01:48:16 PM
Not sure snugs who you are asking the question.......and what attribute?

doc
Perhaps I'm out of my depth here but it is my understanding that the Christian creeds are this:

* God is a wholly just being. It is beyond His nature to be unjust.
* Man is not.
* God has imparted to man His commandments so as to keep man free of sin, injustice, etc
* Man invariably fails to live up to these commandments
* God, also a wholly merciful being, entered into the world as a man; specifically, Jesus
* The Passion was God-as-man taking all punishment for all sin upon Himself
* God-as-man rose from the dead 3 days earlier
* Those who are called and heed His voice are redeemed from their failings into a state of eternal communion

Those who call themselves Christians must "swear" to these creeds (assuming I have completely and properly cited them to one degree or another). To borrow the "Great Physician" analogy: this is the prescription.

But any prescription that is incomplete or improperly mixed or possessed of alien ingredients may be rendered inert or worse.

My query is:

Do the creeds/doctrines/teachings of the gnostic gospels complete a prescription that the synoptic gospels left incomplete or do they remove any impurity the synoptic gospels introduced?
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Chris_ on February 25, 2010, 02:17:22 PM
Perhaps I'm out of my depth here but it is my understanding that the Christian creeds are this:

* God is a wholly just being. It is beyond His nature to be unjust.
* Man is not.
* God has imparted to man His commandments so as to keep man free of sin, injustice, etc
* Man invariably fails to live up to these commandments
* God, also a wholly merciful being, entered into the world as a man; specifically, Jesus
* The Passion was God-as-man taking all punishment for all sin upon Himself
* God-as-man rose from the dead 3 days earlier
* Those who are called and heed His voice are redeemed from their failings into a state of eternal communion

Those who call themselves Christians must "swear" to these creeds (assuming I have completely and properly cited them to one degree or another). To borrow the "Great Physician" analogy: this is the prescription.

But any prescription that is incomplete or improperly mixed or possessed of alien ingredients may be rendered inert or worse.

My query is:

Do the creeds/doctrines/teachings of the gnostic gospels complete a prescription that the synoptic gospels left incomplete or do they remove any impurity the synoptic gospels introduced?

Beginning with the caveat that I've not read them all completely, and the portions that I have read, in places, I don't completely understand........

Quote
* God is a wholly just being. It is beyond His nature to be unjust.
* Man is not.
* God has imparted to man His commandments so as to keep man free of sin, injustice, etc
* Man invariably fails to live up to these commandments

I've found no conflict with these conclusions in the GG.....

Quote
* God, also a wholly merciful being, entered into the world as a man; specifically, Jesus
* The Passion was God-as-man taking all punishment for all sin upon Himself
* God-as-man rose from the dead 3 days earlier

It gets a bit "iffy" here, as some GG texts seem to suggest that Christ was God's presence on earth, and that there was no human component to his earthly existence.  In at least one account, the Crucifixion and Resurrection are not mentioned at all.

Most of what I've gleaned from my (limited) study so far is that the major differences between the existing Canon, and the GG is that the (a) account of Christ's life and mission is slightly different, and told from the perspective of more skepticism, and (b) the focus of Christian faith is vested more in self-awareness, and introspective examination, rather than in an organized "church"........

doc
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on February 25, 2010, 03:26:19 PM
Most of what I've gleaned from my (limited) study so far is that the major differences between the existing Canon, and the GG is that the (a) account of Christ's life and mission is slightly different, and told from the perspective of more skepticism, and (b) the focus of Christian faith is vested more in self-awareness, and introspective examination, rather than in an organized "church"

Here is the meat of the matter. Yes, there are differences. Say, what one will of the Niceans but if synoptic canon was their objective they seemed to have succeeded rather well. The gnostic gospels obviously have glaring differences up to and including utterly discounting The Passion and Resurrection.

So...

...do the gnostic gospels provide the proper prescription for healing man's diseased soul? Has recieved canon (organized churchery notwithstanding) failed to provide the proper prescription?

Of course this is all predicated upon a proper diagnosis of the disease.

IOW: if man's condition can be solved by self-examination then perhaps the crucifixion never happened/is immaterial...but if there was need for propitiation then perhaps no amount of navel gazing will suffice and the gnostic texts are simply an intriguing distraction.

To this particular outsider the contrast is so striking and the consequences so staggering I'm surprised the debate has remained as cordial as it has for as long as it has (Actually, not really. You and Mrs Smith are always interlocutors of the highest caliber and decorum.).
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Chris_ on February 25, 2010, 04:08:03 PM
Here is the meat of the matter. Yes, there are differences. Say, what one will of the Niceans but if synoptic canon was their objective they seemed to have succeeded rather well. The gnostic gospels obviously have glaring differences up to and including utterly discounting The Passion and Resurrection.

So...

...do the gnostic gospels provide the proper prescription for healing man's diseased soul? Has received canon (organized churchery notwithstanding) failed to provide the proper prescription?

Of course this is all predicated upon a proper diagnosis of the disease.

IOW: if man's condition can be solved by self-examination then perhaps the crucifixion never happened/is immaterial...but if there was need for propitiation then perhaps no amount of navel gazing will suffice and the gnostic texts are simply an intriguing distraction.

To this particular outsider the contrast is so striking and the consequences so staggering I'm surprised the debate has remained as cordial as it has for as long as it has (Actually, not really. You and Mrs Smith are always interlocutors of the highest caliber and decorum.).

Being as pragmatic as I tend to be, my theory is that the Niceans simply picked the versions of the gospel story that tended to agree with one another, and rejected the ones that did not.......it could be that simple.  Additionally, there is no record that many of the GG were available for consideration at the time........they possibly existed in a theological "vacuum" created by geography or persecution.  Up until Constantine, Christianity was not "politically correct", and largely repressed.

Quote
...do the gnostic gospels provide the proper prescription for healing man's diseased soul? Has received canon (organized Churches notwithstanding) failed to provide the proper prescription?

Of course this is all predicated upon a proper diagnosis of the disease.

So far my understanding is that it is more subtle than that, inasmuch as the GG suggests that one should apply Christ's teachings to one's own life in a direct, personal manner, without the intervention of intermediaries or organizations........the impact on man's soul is the same, just the vehicle is different.......

I too am surprised that this discussion has remained a cordial one.......as sadly, my experience is that many devout Christians are so myopic in matters of faith, that they simply don't allow such concepts to intrude into their worldview........

doc

Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: MrsSmith on February 25, 2010, 04:34:01 PM

I too am surprised that this discussion has remained a cordial one.......as sadly, my experience is that many devout Christians are so myopic in matters of faith, that they simply don't allow such concepts to intrude into their worldview........

doc


Or, perhaps we've made the choice to not put on the level of Scripture writings that don't present the, as Snugs put it, entire prescription...or even the wrong prescription.


(b) the focus of Christian faith is vested more in self-awareness, and introspective examination, rather than in an organized "church"........

Introspection and self-awareness are an integral part of the faith inside the organized church, also.  The organized church is necessary for support of missions, for fellowship, for "moral" support...a place to turn in need.  We are commanded to love one another, to make ourselves obvious to the world through our love for each other, and for our enemies.  You can't fulfill all the commandments if you're going it alone...and you don't  have anyone to help you discern error if you take the wrong path.  Going off to your prayer closet is necessary, but so is the educated company of believers.

Remember, Satan does actively target those that belong to Christ.  Take care...
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Chris_ on February 25, 2010, 04:52:32 PM

Quote
Or, perhaps we've made the choice to not put on the level of Scripture writings that don't present the, as Snugs put it, entire prescription...or even the wrong prescription.


Certainly your choice.......which begs the obvious question.......why participate to begin with?

Quote
Introspection and self-awareness are an integral part of the faith inside the organized church, also.  The organized church is necessary for support of missions, for fellowship, for "moral" support...a place to turn in need.  We are commanded to love one another, to make ourselves obvious to the world through our love for each other, and for our enemies.  You can't fulfill all the commandments if you're going it alone...and you don't  have anyone to help you discern error if you take the wrong path.  Going off to your prayer closet is necessary, but so is the educated company of believers.

Nonsense........and all of the above points are nice, but there are no scriptural warrants for any of them.......If a person is true to his/her faith it seems to me to be the ultimate vanity to have to be organizationally required to rely on someone (or some group) to validate your spiritual choices.........

Christian fellowship is a marvelous thing, however the Gnostic's believed that it was not required for conversion to the faith.

doc
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on February 25, 2010, 05:28:35 PM
So far my understanding is that it is more subtle than that, inasmuch as the GG suggests that one should apply Christ's teachings to one's own life in a direct, personal manner, without the intervention of intermediaries or organizations........the impact on man's soul is the same, just the vehicle is different.......
Near as I can tell the Nazarene was of the same opinion. His go-rounds with the establishment of the day are legendary to say the least, yet he never seemed to shirk religious duties such as Passover and whatnot.

Indeed, the larger anything gets the more impersonal it becomes whether religion, government, corporations or whatever. Still, I cannot imagine a large organization being an automatic disqualifier for remediation as if a large church in and of itself were a sin.

Of the large, modern demonimations the Catholics leave me perplexed the most. I see so many rites that I cannot reconcile and they definitely seem to have had the most controversial history but at the same time they have produced the likes of Augustine, Aquinas, Pascal, Francis of Assisi, Chesterton, Tolkien etc who have always held inexhaustable depths of humanity...all surprisingly born of the supposedly impersonal Catholic doctrine.

Conversely, the protestant and unaffiliated denominations appear personal yet they are awash in chaos. Certainly open inquiry is to be encouraged but at the same time the restless soul of man, coupled with his vanities and with his incessant need for novelty seem to invite impurities of doctrine that couls poison his soul just as easily as any brothel. Traditions also have a virtue.

Perhaps God--assuming there is one...and this particular one--tolerates this situation to keep each in balance by the exertions of its opposites.

Or perhaps God is simply laughing...or beating His head against His desk.

Again, I am an outsider so more than likely I am unqualified to speak.

As to the GG's: I have surveyed them and come away with the opinion, "so what?" Even if they were to true I see nothing in them particularly unique. I fail to see how they could improve a man's spiritual longings over anything else already provided. I know from my own warren they are very popular (no thanks to Dan Brown) but the warren I left is populated by those who like to congratulate themselves on being smarter than the proles. They enjoy the term "gnostic" for gnostic's sake. IOW, they like feeling they have some knowledge others do not. I do not lay this charge at the feet of anyone here but for the most part the GG's have, in my limited experience, been the books that served the reader's ego more than his humanity. Self-enlightened pharisees is the only term I can provide as a label.

Forgive me if the ill-manners of others has tainted my view of your studies. I mean nothing towards you personally.

Still, ill-manners seem to abound when the GG's are brought in (almost as bad as Christ's telemarketers: the Pentacostals). If (and I stress IF) I were to desire being a religious rabbit I would want to a god that to appeal to the philosophers and scientists...

...but I would also want one that would reach down to the filthy, unlettered wretches as well. After all, they by far make up the surging masses of humanity.

The very word "gnostic" seems to deny any such possibility.
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Duke Nukum on February 25, 2010, 07:16:35 PM

Still, ill-manners seem to abound when the GG's are brought in (almost as bad as Christ's telemarketers: the Pentacostals). If (and I stress IF) I were to desire being a religious rabbit I would want to a god that to appeal to the philosophers and scientists...

...but I would also want one that would reach down to the filthy, unlettered wretches as well. After all, they by far make up the surging masses of humanity.

The very word "gnostic" seems to deny any such possibility.

Why?  The filthy, unlettered wretches have as good a chance as anyone to find their inner guidance.  Maybe an even better chance as their minds aren't cluttered with all the excesses of a higher education.

I would say their problem would not be in God being able to reach down to them, as you say, but with the philosophers and scientists prejudicial views of a filthy, unlettered wretch being in the possession of wisdom without the proper credentials.

And while the Cather and Bogomil societies were divided into Perfecti and Believers, the Believers were not looked down upon or viewed as second-class citizens.  There was nothing extra special about the Perfecti, they simply had found their inner guidance.
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: MrsSmith on February 25, 2010, 07:28:12 PM
Certainly your choice.......which begs the obvious question.......why participate to begin with?

Nonsense........and all of the above points are nice, but there are no scriptural warrants for any of them.......If a person is true to his/her faith it seems to me to be the ultimate vanity to have to be organizationally required to rely on someone (or some group) to validate your spiritual choices.........

Christian fellowship is a marvelous thing, however the Gnostic's believed that it was not required for conversion to the faith.

doc
No scriptural warrants for fellowship?  Missions?  To love each other?  Turning to others with doubts?  Correction of those wavering?  Maybe you need to go back to the New Testament for a while. You seem to have missed quite a lot.

Why participate?  I take it you mean this discussion?  Why not?  Am I bothering you too much?
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Chris_ on February 25, 2010, 07:44:47 PM
No scriptural warrants for fellowship?  Missions?  To love each other?  Turning to others with doubts?  Correction of those wavering?  Maybe you need to go back to the New Testament for a while. You seem to have missed quite a lot.

Perhaps you might point me to exactly where scripture vests the warrants in an "organization" such as a church.........as opposed to the free association of believers........I'm no Biblical scholar, but my money would be on......the fact that you can't.....

If memory serves, there is only one statement in the New Testament where Christ refers to a "church", and in that statement most learned Biblical scholars believe that he was referring to Peter......

And you certainly are not bothering me......the Holy Spirit convicts me, not zealots of any stripe.......

doc
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Chris_ on February 25, 2010, 07:50:41 PM
Why?  The filthy, unlettered wretches have as good a chance as anyone to find their inner guidance.  Maybe an even better chance as their minds aren't cluttered with all the excesses of a higher education.

I would say their problem would not be in God being able to reach down to them, as you say, but with the philosophers and scientists prejudicial views of a filthy, unlettered wretch being in the possession of wisdom without the proper credentials.

Interestingly, the bolded part was exactly the position of the RCC from its Constantine roots, until the Reformation.......that only the priesthood was sufficiently "enlightened" and "educated" to possess the body of Christian knowledge......certainly not the great unwashed masses.....

doc
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: MrsSmith on February 25, 2010, 08:05:00 PM
Perhaps you might point me to exactly where scripture vests the warrants in an "organization" such as a church.........as opposed to the free association of believers........I'm no Biblical scholar, but my money would be on......the fact that you can't.....

If memory serves, there is only one statement in the New Testament where Christ refers to a "church", and in that statement most learned Biblical scholars believe that he was referring to Peter......

And you certainly are not bothering me......the Holy Spirit convicts me, not zealots of any stripe.......

doc
Paul was already supported by churches in his missions.  How many believers manage to build homes, orphanages, and schools without an organized church supporting them?  How do new Christians learn, especially if they can't yet read, without a church to teach them?  

Since when is an organized church not also a free association of believers? But a free association of believers can't each, alone, go fulfill the commands.

Do I actually need to quote you scripture?  Surely you know at least the New Testament well enough to see my points.
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Doc on February 25, 2010, 08:20:53 PM
Near as I can tell the Nazarene was of the same opinion. His go-rounds with the establishment of the day are legendary to say the least, yet he never seemed to shirk religious duties such as Passover and whatnot.

He was an observant Jew, however, unless I completely missed the boat in that Sunday School lesson, the "New Covenant" eliminated all of that for the believer.....

Indeed, the larger anything gets the more impersonal it becomes whether religion, government, corporations or whatever. Still, I cannot imagine a large organization being an automatic disqualifier for remediation as if a large church in and of itself were a sin.

My personal beliefs aside, I don't think that the GG (at least that I've found so far), in any way suggests that participation in a Christian church places a believer beyond remediation, just that it is not necessary....

Of the large, modern demonimations the Catholics leave me perplexed the most. I see so many rites that I cannot reconcile and they definitely seem to have had the most controversial history but at the same time they have produced the likes of Augustine, Aquinas, Pascal, Francis of Assisi, Chesterton, Tolkien etc who have always held inexhaustable depths of humanity...all surprisingly born of the supposedly impersonal Catholic doctrine.

The early examples that you cite simply had no other choice, as there was only one church.......however, there are many Catholics that have moved beyond the dogma to the essence, and likely the remainder of those you mentioned found themselves there......after all, they were "great minds" in their own endeavors.

Conversely, the protestant and unaffiliated denominations appear personal yet they are awash in chaos. Certainly open inquiry is to be encouraged but at the same time the restless soul of man, coupled with his vanities and with his incessant need for novelty seem to invite impurities of doctrine that couls poison his soul just as easily as any brothel. Traditions also have a virtue.

I've found protestants, and particularly Evangelical ones, to be more "hidebound" and immersed in dogmatic minutia than Catholics.......therefore, certainly less likely to accept impurities of doctrine.

Perhaps God--assuming there is one...and this particular one--tolerates this situation to keep each in balance by the exertions of its opposites.

Or perhaps God is simply laughing...or beating His head against His desk.

I suspect that God laughs at us alot.........since He told us that he made us in his own image, he likely finds our quaint attempts at understanding the mysteries of life hilarious.....

Again, I am an outsider so more than likely I am unqualified to speak.

Anyone that demonstrates the level of intellectual dexterity that you do, most certainly does have every right to speak......only the closeminded and ignorant fear a free exchange of ideas.

As to the GG's: I have surveyed them and come away with the opinion, "so what?" Even if they were to true I see nothing in them particularly unique. I fail to see how they could improve a man's spiritual longings over anything else already provided. I know from my own warren they are very popular (no thanks to Dan Brown) but the warren I left is populated by those who like to congratulate themselves on being smarter than the proles. They enjoy the term "gnostic" for gnostic's sake. IOW, they like feeling they have some knowledge others do not. I do not lay this charge at the feet of anyone here but for the most part the GG's have, in my limited experience, been the books that served the reader's ego more than his humanity. Self-enlightened pharisees is the only term I can provide as a label.

I would suggest that the term "Gnostic" as it relates to knowledge, and these texts, is a misnomer.......that said, I am at a loss as to what else to call them.....for want of a better term.

Forgive me if the ill-manners of others has tainted my view of your studies. I mean nothing towards you personally.

Still, ill-manners seem to abound when the GG's are brought in (almost as bad as Christ's telemarketers: the Pentacostals). If (and I stress IF) I were to desire being a religious rabbit I would want to a god that to appeal to the philosophers and scientists...

...but I would also want one that would reach down to the filthy, unlettered wretches as well. After all, they by far make up the surging masses of humanity.

The very word "gnostic" seems to deny any such possibility.

doc
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Chris_ on February 25, 2010, 08:30:48 PM
Paul was already supported by churches in his missions.  How many believers manage to build homes, orphanages, and schools without an organized church supporting them?  How do new Christians learn, especially if they can't yet read, without a church to teach them?  

Since when is an organized church not also a free association of believers? But a free association of believers can't each, alone, go fulfill the commands.

Do I actually need to quote you scripture?  Surely you know at least the New Testament well enough to see my points.

I see your points......I simply don't agree with them.......As far as quoting Scripture, I don't think that you can......Christ commissioned us to go fourth and do good works in his name......he never mentioned schools, and orphanages......it is an interpretive thing, thus very personal......you are entitled to your interpretation, and the rest of us ours......please don't imply that yours is the ONLY correct interpretation of that commission.....that would be unchristian, after all.....not to mention vain.....

doc

Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: MrsSmith on February 25, 2010, 11:09:09 PM
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.  But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.  And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

members of his body - one body of believers.

My interpretation may not suit you, but it's well supported in the Scriptures.
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on February 26, 2010, 07:34:52 AM
Why?  The filthy, unlettered wretches have as good a chance as anyone to find their inner guidance.  Maybe an even better chance as their minds aren't cluttered with all the excesses of a higher education.

I would say their problem would not be in God being able to reach down to them, as you say, but with the philosophers and scientists prejudicial views of a filthy, unlettered wretch being in the possession of wisdom without the proper credentials.
To clarify: I never said God would not reach down via the gnostic gospels

Quote
And while the Cather and Bogomil societies were divided into Perfecti and Believers, the Believers were not looked down upon or viewed as second-class citizens.  There was nothing extra special about the Perfecti, they simply had found their inner guidance.
Given time they would have become as all human creations become.

Again, I see nothing within the gnostic gospels that would be considered indispensable to inquiries of remediation between God and man. I see nothing in the snyoptic gospels that should preclude that remediation...except The Passion and resurrection (TPaR).

It seems to me that since the issue hangs on whether the TPaR is the means of remediation.

Let us assume the TPaR is God's intent. In that case the GG add nothing to that fact one may discard them without threat. The GG may even be a threat if they detract from that act.

If TPaR were not the means of man's remediation the GGs simply add to the number of books that press man to shed his selfishness and the TPaR distracts from this introspection. If the latter than Jesus' career is remarkable only for its brevity, not the novelty of his spiritual message because his spiritual message is not novel.
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Duke Nukum on February 26, 2010, 09:08:40 AM
To clarify: I never said God would not reach down via the gnostic gospels
Given time they would have become as all human creations become.

Again, I see nothing within the gnostic gospels that would be considered indispensable to inquiries of remediation between God and man. I see nothing in the snyoptic gospels that should preclude that remediation...except The Passion and resurrection (TPaR).

It seems to me that since the issue hangs on whether the TPaR is the means of remediation.

Let us assume the TPaR is God's intent. In that case the GG add nothing to that fact one may discard them without threat. The GG may even be a threat if they detract from that act.

If TPaR were not the means of man's remediation the GGs simply add to the number of books that press man to shed his selfishness and the TPaR distracts from this introspection. If the latter than Jesus' career is remarkable only for its brevity, not the novelty of his spiritual message because his spiritual message is not novel.
A more fundamental question is, "What was the fall?" because if the separation from God never happened then that changes the game.  One bit of commentary on the Nag Hammadi codex that has stuck with me since I was a teen is something like:  "Original sin (error) is nothing more than mistaking what we see as the world as real."  If, as other faiths insist, the world is some sort of illusion, a "veil of tears," then anything that focuses in on the world as real is a distraction from "salvation," such as the "pain" the body feels, or seems to feel because, as we all know, the body does not feel pain, instead, the mind actually tells the body when to feel pain.

Therefore, if Jesus was really trying to redeem the world, he wasn't trying to put a giant guilt trip on us, the message of TPaR is the pain the body seems to feel is as meaningless as the seeming death of the body.  I believe this interpretation is backed up by the synoptic gospels where Jesus diminishes the importance of the body when he says it is better to enter into the Kingdom with one eye than to remain in Hell with two.
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Chris_ on February 26, 2010, 10:47:55 AM
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.  But if he will not hear [thee, then] take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.  And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell [it] unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so [let] the wives [be] to their own husbands in every thing.
Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourished and cherished it, even as the Lord the church:
For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

members of his body - one body of believers.

My interpretation may not suit you, but it's well supported in the Scriptures.


Actually no......its supported by YOUR INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures........

In the first bolded statement, which is the one that I referred to in a prior post, it is generally accepted (by Biblical Scholars) that Christ was referring to Peter personally, ("upon this rock" meaning the "rock" of Peter's strength and dedication to evangelism) and not a "body of believers".......this is the trap that many evangelicals fall into when they insist upon interpreting Scripture literally, word for word......often out of context.  You are perfectly free to do so, but don't expect to win any credibility from others while doing it.......

In the second reference that is bolded, nowhere can you cite scripture in the New Testament that the "body of believers" is required to be organized, have a hierarchy, and be "officially designated" as a church.......the Scriptures simply refer to any fellowship that is gathered in his name.........i.e. more than one believer.

Unfortunately, this is the problem that I run into with many "churches",(and their members)......when I study Scripture, I do so with an eye towards the multiple translations that it has gone through, and the total context of the individual "book" or discussion in the text.  I cannot take a single verse and attempt to prove a point with it, as that would be a gross logical error.......we can both agree that Scripture is the inspired Word of God, but I must view it through lens of the fallibility of the men who wrote it, and the other forces and motivations (political, translational, ecumenical) that brought it to where it is today.......it is simply silly, and ignorant to think that it "fell from the sky" in its present form without requiring any logical thought and interpretation as to how it got here.

Lets take for example the Old Testament......written in the original ancient Hebrew, it is still being interpreted and translations corrected.......by the same Jews (figuratively) that wrote it 3000 years ago, and through Kabbalistic studies, new meanings and interpretations are arising even today.......do we Christians really have the colossal audacity to believe that our interpretation is "absolutely correct" when the ancient society that started our entire faith is still evolving in its understanding of "its" faith, upon which ours is founded......that would take a lot of "chutzpah" to coin a phrase.......but I've never found a shortage of that in many Evangelicals......

doc
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Chris_ on February 26, 2010, 11:17:58 AM
To clarify: I never said God would not reach down via the gnostic gospels
Given time they would have become as all human creations become.

Again, I see nothing within the gnostic gospels that would be considered indispensable to inquiries of remediation between God and man. I see nothing in the snyoptic gospels that should preclude that remediation...except The Passion and resurrection (TPaR).


Perhaps I need to revert a bit as to why I think, broadly, that the Gnostic Gospels are interesting and important (strictly from an academic perspective).......I don't trust the Roman Catholic Church........not that I have anything against them, or their faith, just that they were the sole keepers of all Christian knowledge for 1500 years unchallenged.......and if we view the history of the RCC through this period we find that they were at times the most violent, corrupt,and repressive organization on the face of the earth.......so why should any thinking person believe that their version of events (which is the one accepted by the vast bulk of Christendom) is the correct, and unaltered one.

Evangelical protestants can stand in their respective pulpits forever shouting their "one true faith", but the fact remains that their faith evolved from the scriptural understandings that were kept and put forward by the RCC through the centuries.

The Gnostic texts give us a view of Christ's life that has been proven archaeologically, to have existed completely separately from the Roman Church.......and therefore academically (and spiritually) interesting, if for no other reason than to generate questions as to what actually happened.

And regardless of what "organized" religions may think, I believe that questions are always a good thing.......

doc
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: MrsSmith on February 26, 2010, 06:21:29 PM
Actually no......its supported by YOUR INTERPRETATION of the Scriptures........

In the first bolded statement, which is the one that I referred to in a prior post, it is generally accepted (by Biblical Scholars) that Christ was referring to Peter personally, ("upon this rock" meaning the "rock" of Peter's strength and dedication to evangelism) and not a "body of believers".......this is the trap that many evangelicals fall into when they insist upon interpreting Scripture literally, word for word......often out of context.  You are perfectly free to do so, but don't expect to win any credibility from others while doing it.......

Upon this rock I will build my church...  Peter, personally, yes, it could be.  The same belief in Christ...could be also.  It's pretty hard to duck His statement that He was founding a church, though.  Or the commandment for that church to preach His gospel to the entire world.  But hey, if you can do that all by your lonesome, with no support group...and never get led astray by things that may not be true (like the Gnostic Gospels), well, more power to you.  However, if it were me, I'd start seaching my own heart for some pride, you know?  "Big tough believer, don't need any educated person telling me that I may be off the path.  I can run my own life."   Satan uses our pride and self-reliance way more than we want to think, you know?
In the second reference that is bolded, nowhere can you cite scripture in the New Testament that the "body of believers" is required to be organized, have a hierarchy, and be "officially designated" as a church.......the Scriptures simply refer to any fellowship that is gathered in his name.........i.e. more than one believer.

Unfortunately, this is the problem that I run into with many "churches",(and their members)......when I study Scripture, I do so with an eye towards the multiple translations that it has gone through, and the total context of the individual "book" or discussion in the text.  I cannot take a single verse and attempt to prove a point with it, as that would be a gross logical error.......we can both agree that Scripture is the inspired Word of God, but I must view it through lens of the fallibility of the men who wrote it, and the other forces and motivations (political, translational, ecumenical) that brought it to where it is today.......it is simply silly, and ignorant to think that it "fell from the sky" in its present form without requiring any logical thought and interpretation as to how it got here.

Lets take for example the Old Testament......written in the original ancient Hebrew, it is still being interpreted and translations corrected.......by the same Jews (figuratively) that wrote it 3000 years ago, and through Kabbalistic studies, new meanings and interpretations are arising even today.......do we Christians really have the colossal audacity to believe that our interpretation is "absolutely correct" when the ancient society that started our entire faith is still evolving in its understanding of "its" faith, upon which ours is founded......that would take a lot of "chutzpah" to coin a phrase.......but I've never found a shortage of that in many Evangelicals......

doc
You might wonder if your real problem with organized religion isn't that there are churches, but that it "isn't cool" to be a member of one.  It is tough to go against the popular opinion of Christians these days...at least, until you do it long enough to figure out that popular opinion isn't very accurate.

Before I started to meet a lot of them, I avoided "bible thumpers" and "fundies" very carefully.  It came as quite a shock to me when I realized that the nicest people I've ever known are the ones that are in church every Sunday.
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Chris_ on February 26, 2010, 08:10:26 PM
Upon this rock I will build my church...  Peter, personally, yes, it could be.  The same belief in Christ...could be also. 

<snip>

Before I started to meet a lot of them, I avoided "bible thumpers" and "fundies" very carefully.  It came as quite a shock to me when I realized that the nicest people I've ever known are the ones that are in church every Sunday.

Brought in reinforcements, I see.....two distinctly different writing (and rationalization) styles.....

Do you allow others to do your "thinking" for you as well?

doc
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Thor on November 20, 2010, 12:44:15 AM
I don't know how much more closely that one could get to Jesus than Mary Magdalene..... And yet, her Gospel was omitted from the New Testament. The facts are, the Council of Nicea was a political group and even the Catholic Church uses these Gospels that were omitted from the Bible in the form of the Apocrypha. Also, in early times, the "Priests" and "church leaders" were a sexist bunch, often treating women like the Muslims do today.
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: TVDOC on November 20, 2010, 10:28:35 AM
I don't know how much more closely that one could get to Jesus than Mary Magdalene..... And yet, her Gospel was omitted from the New Testament. The facts are, the Council of Nicaea was a political group and even the Catholic Church uses these Gospels that were omitted from the Bible in the form of the Apocrypha. Also, in early times, the "Priests" and "church leaders" were a sexist bunch, often treating women like the Muslims do today.

Pretty much the point that I was establishing in the previous five pages of this thread.......however, you risk the wrath of the "righteous" by resurrecting it...........I'll let you fade the heat this time......

doc

 
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Thor on November 20, 2010, 11:20:11 AM
I get your point, DOC. However, who is to say what/ who is "righteous"?? It's all a matter of personal opinions and beliefs. And we ALL know about "opinions"....  ;)
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Erasmus on July 27, 2011, 04:31:08 PM
I've read quite a bit on this and from what I gather, most were excluded because of their much later dating.  By the turn of the first century, the earliest church fathers had a fairly common collection of texts that were commonly referred to and used.  These included most of the books of the New Testament.  It was not official "cannon" or even called a "bible" as the Old Testament was the "Bible", but the books were used and referenced by those who were seen as the ones to carry on the tradition of Christ and his disciples.

By (I think) 200AD, before many of the famous Gnostic Gospels were even written, all but 11 verses of the New Testament could be reconstructed without any fragments or copies of the Bible, simply by taking the verses written in the correspondence between the early church fathers.  The only time later (still pre-Nicea) church fathers mentioned the Gnostics were to warn people against reading them.  This was still 100 years before the Council of Nicea.  I think the church fathers referenced the New Testament verses some 33,000 times in their correspondence if I recall correctly.

The books were chosen simply because that was what was already heavily in use.

Lots of modern authors have a tendency to romanticize the Gnostic Gospels, especially the Gospel of Thomas, but they rarely mention the fact that TGOT is misogynistic, for example.  And of course, folks like Dan Brown just fictionalize the entire process.
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: olde north church on August 05, 2011, 05:30:41 AM
I would have liked to be part of this discussion when it was was fresh.  I'll comment now though regarding this passage, sentence bolded:

Quote

The gnostics also believed something radically different from what today we would call traditional Christianity.  The essential doctrine which set the gnostics apart was a belief that there was a good God and an evil, insane creator god, the god who created the earth being the evil one.   This caused some rather radical theories about Jesus, such as, Jesus being the true Son of the good God was sent here to release us from the bondage of the insane creator god, Samael and therefore, not being a creation of Samael, Jesus could not have taken on flesh and therefore could not have died on the cross.

It always stood out for me, considering what is implied by this:   

I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; you shall have no other gods before me.
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: vesta111 on August 05, 2011, 12:27:04 PM
Darn this is interesting reading.

Now I wonder what Jesus meant by the word Church, what was the meaning to HIM. HE as a JEW, his mother and legal father were Jews as was John the Baptist and  [most of his followers ]---not to forget that GOD Himself considers Himself a Jew as the 12 Tribes were his special people.

Church I do not think would be a term Jesus would use as I see nothing to indicate that Jesus wanted to split with his faith. He it seems wanted to bring a kinder and gentler side of God to the Jews, not split off into some other faith.

Putting aside any momobjumo and looking at Jesus as a man first, to many only half human, in no way would he want his faith to become different, just gentler.

What was the meaning of the word Church at the time HE walked the Earth and later 200 years or so later, what did that mean to the Christians and all the translations and languages ???

Some how I cannot see God approving of Jesus creating a foreign faith, that would undo all HIS work for HIS people.   Turn on his people and attempt to distroy them.

What happens to GOD if all the Jews on earth were to die, without his people to worship HIM as instructed, would God cease to exist???

Yeah, Yeah I know I am looking at this from a human point, but if we are made in Gods Image, then I have to give God the same trates we humans have. 
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: obumazombie on February 14, 2012, 03:45:03 AM
There must be more to Christianity than the Old Testament, and the New Testament. And some of this more would include tradition, and a spoken record of the church. Also there would need to be a lineage leading directly back to Christ. Christ's lineage to Adam is fairly well spelled out in the Old Testament. The reason lineage is important in my eyes is that there can only be no more than one true religion. God is the author of unity, and order , not confusion. Faith, and it's intricacies 
are important, because not all can be known. What cannot be known must be left to faith.
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Rugnuts on February 14, 2012, 09:20:22 AM
....

In essence, my faith is personal and it's a direct reflection of my relationship with God and Jesus Christ. The church helps support me in my efforts, but I shouldn't EVER depend on an organization/bureaucracy to do what I need to do for myself and my God.

that sums it up for me as well
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: vesta111 on April 14, 2013, 06:13:42 PM
that sums it up for me as well

Found this for you Colonel C, quite a interesting thread for a Bible Scoller.  If I were to have a child in Bible school, I would start at the begining, take them to Friday night services at the local synogog and learn what Jesus was taught .   

High holy days are a must to see and hear what Jesus saw and heard in his young years.   All the unacounted years of his life, where was he and what was he learning.?

HE was a carpenter by trade, was he building boats ??  How did he meet Mary Magiline and how old was she ??  Why were his diciples so jealous of her ??? 

 Interesting that his mothers sister  also claimed to have a virgin birth to John the Baptist.  Small town were they raised together as family ??   

Until John was beheaded for being a troublemaker Jesus was kind of quiet.   After that he seemed to give up his job and begin street preaching.    HE must have abandoned his job and gone out collecting deciples as they wandered about the area.   How did he survive with no job, and at one time had to live in a cave.   

In order to know Jesus, one must know what HE believed as a Jew.   To teach the Christian faith one must know what Jesus believed in HIMSELF.    Get the to a Synogog and get trained as he was first then go on the long hard road to what his believer after he died believed.
 
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: ColonelCarrots on April 15, 2013, 07:00:56 PM
Found this for you Colonel C, quite a interesting thread for a Bible Scoller.  If I were to have a child in Bible school, I would start at the begining, take them to Friday night services at the local synogog and learn what Jesus was taught .   

High holy days are a must to see and hear what Jesus saw and heard in his young years.   All the unacounted years of his life, where was he and what was he learning.?

HE was a carpenter by trade, was he building boats ??  How did he meet Mary Magiline and how old was she ??  Why were his diciples so jealous of her ??? 

 Interesting that his mothers sister  also claimed to have a virgin birth to John the Baptist.  Small town were they raised together as family ??   

Until John was beheaded for being a troublemaker Jesus was kind of quiet.   After that he seemed to give up his job and begin street preaching.    HE must have abandoned his job and gone out collecting deciples as they wandered about the area.   How did he survive with no job, and at one time had to live in a cave.   

In order to know Jesus, one must know what HE believed as a Jew.   To teach the Christian faith one must know what Jesus believed in HIMSELF.    Get the to a Synogog and get trained as he was first then go on the long hard road to what his believer after he died believed.
 
I doubt Jesus was building boats. Nazareth and Bethlehem were both land locked. The life of Jesus isn't relevant (Like most of the wandering in the Wilderness isn't in the Bible) before John the Baptist because the time wasn't ready. Remember what John the Baptist was doing, he was paving the way. He was the last Old Testament prophet(because the Holy Spirit didn't dwell in him. It was in him, but wasn't there to stay because the Holy Spirit begins to dwell in people when Jesus says he is going to heaven to prepare a place for his disciples, but will bring a comforter. John was dead by then.). Jesus' ministry was important not when he was weaned. He started his ministry after he was baptized.

Jesus probably survived on gifts. Like a missionary who goes on deputation to go to the mission field. To be honest I don't think the Son of God has to worry about starving even without money.

Jesus met Mary Magdalene in Luke 8:2. She is possessed by 7 devils.

Also it is spelled as synagogue.
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Ptarmigan on May 01, 2013, 10:13:31 PM
There must be more to Christianity than the Old Testament, and the New Testament. And some of this more would include tradition, and a spoken record of the church. Also there would need to be a lineage leading directly back to Christ. Christ's lineage to Adam is fairly well spelled out in the Old Testament. The reason lineage is important in my eyes is that there can only be no more than one true religion. God is the author of unity, and order , not confusion. Faith, and it's intricacies  
are important, because not all can be known. What cannot be known must be left to faith.

Agreed. The Bible we know today is from the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.

Just to add, many of the what Christianity is, is a product of the First Council of Nicaea.
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: vesta111 on May 02, 2013, 09:31:13 AM
I doubt Jesus was building boats. Nazareth and Bethlehem were both land locked. The life of Jesus isn't relevant (Like most of the wandering in the Wilderness isn't in the Bible) before John the Baptist because the time wasn't ready. Remember what John the Baptist was doing, he was paving the way. He was the last Old Testament prophet(because the Holy Spirit didn't dwell in him. It was in him, but wasn't there to stay because the Holy Spirit begins to dwell in people when Jesus says he is going to heaven to prepare a place for his disciples, but will bring a comforter. John was dead by then.). Jesus' ministry was important not when he was weaned. He started his ministry after he was baptized.

Jesus probably survived on gifts. Like a missionary who goes on deputation to go to the mission field. To be honest I don't think the Son of God has to worry about starving even without money.

Jesus met Mary Magdalene in Luke 8:2. She is possessed by 7 devils.

Also it is spelled as synagogue.

You say the life before Jesus  met John the Baptist is not relevant.   For goodness sake John was the son of Jesus mothers sister.  He Jesus and John must have known and grew up with each other. Small town and family must have gathered together quite often.   

Naturally this is relevant, family bond by blood of Jesus and John for many years. Both were raised together and worshiped together with both family's on High Holy days.

Very much like today's family's where two sisters visit often and the their kids play together. These two cousins had to have found a common bond, somewhere in the their adult formative lives that we have no record of.

Question is how John had the power to baptise the Son of God if he did not have the Power to do so if the Holy Spirit did not dwell in him ??

 The more questions I have transcends faith, it becomes fact and brings this into  the realm of --- not faith but belief, a real thing that happend and the truth and not some old story from the past that has been fiddled with for 2000 years to benefit others.

The more I learn about Jesus the more I believe in Him, His life is very relevant to me, who he was raised by, who his teachers were, his parents Mary and Joseph and the family's on both sides of the family.   

All a huge influence on Jesus  to my mind , a someone not to have just faith but belief in that changed the world.   
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: FlaGator on May 02, 2013, 10:03:43 AM
A word about the gnostic gospels and why they weren't included in the Bible. When the Council of Nicea was deciding which books to include in what would become the New Testament some of the criteria that was use was could the writings be validated to be from the 1st century. To make this determination the reviewed earlier documents that could be accurately data that referenced the writings. The letters of people like Clement and Irenaeus and Polycarp were used to valid the Gospels and Epistles of Paul, Peter, John and the others. Also the writings were viewed in light of theologically agreeing with each other.

The problem with the gnostic writings is either they were too new to be considered valid or they were making claims to teachings that could not be validated against the teaching of Christ and the known teachings of the Apostles. Also, and this is my personal belief, that God guided the process so that only the correct books were included and that the revelation of the Gospel is true and accurate.

The gnostic gospels seem to be contrived to put forth some idea or another that is contrary to the accepted cannon. The claims that Christ was really a spirit and that is physical appearance was an illusion, that He taught some secret ideology that he only shared with the Apostles, that He had a homosexual relationship (secret Mark), etc.

There was a theologian who was asked to by a lady journalist why he didn't consider the Gospel of Thomas as being value, that it contained a lot of wisdom that was in the current four Gospels but some extra stuff that seem important to know. The theologian, and I can't remember who it was, ask the journalist what she thought of the last verse of the Gospel of Thomas. We she read it she withdrew her previous support of this gnostic gospel.

Here was verse 114 of the Gospel of Thomas
(114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Ptarmigan on May 02, 2013, 10:22:16 AM
I don't know how much more closely that one could get to Jesus than Mary Magdalene..... And yet, her Gospel was omitted from the New Testament. The facts are, the Council of Nicea was a political group and even the Catholic Church uses these Gospels that were omitted from the Bible in the form of the Apocrypha. Also, in early times, the "Priests" and "church leaders" were a sexist bunch, often treating women like the Muslims do today.

They often portray Mary Magdalene as a prostitute.
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: FlaGator on May 02, 2013, 11:11:23 AM
They often portray Mary Magdalene as a prostitute.

or an adulterer but the Bible never actually states this. It is believed that elements with in the church spread this false assumption  in order to diminish her role (and the role of women in general) in Jesus' ministry.
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: ColonelCarrots on May 02, 2013, 12:30:25 PM
You say the life before Jesus  met John the Baptist is not relevant.   For goodness sake John was the son of Jesus mothers sister.  He Jesus and John must have known and grew up with each other. Small town and family must have gathered together quite often.   

Naturally this is relevant, family bond by blood of Jesus and John for many years. Both were raised together and worshiped together with both family's on High Holy days.

Very much like today's family's where two sisters visit often and the their kids play together. These two cousins had to have found a common bond, somewhere in the their adult formative lives that we have no record of.

Question is how John had the power to baptise the Son of God if he did not have the Power to do so if the Holy Spirit did not dwell in him ??

 The more questions I have transcends faith, it becomes fact and brings this into  the realm of --- not faith but belief, a real thing that happend and the truth and not some old story from the past that has been fiddled with for 2000 years to benefit others.

The more I learn about Jesus the more I believe in Him, His life is very relevant to me, who he was raised by, who his teachers were, his parents Mary and Joseph and the family's on both sides of the family.   

All a huge influence on Jesus  to my mind , a someone not to have just faith but belief in that changed the world.   
Because the Gospel is the birth, burial, and resurrection of Christ. The Synoptic Gospels and John are really what you need. Jesus doesn't need a teacher. Why would Jesus the Son of God need a school teacher? Wouldn't Jesus' ministry be sufficient and not what he ate every Tuesday?

All Old Testament prophets, leaders, who spoke God's word had the Holy Spirit cover them in a sense for a period of time. John the Baptist died before Jesus says he would bring down a comforter which is the Holy Spirit and wouldn't leave them.

You can read the Gnostic Gospels all you want, but you need to read Romans. Don't put other rituals and other teachings before your faith. You don't need to worry about did Adam have a belly button, or if Jesus had long hair. Just worry about the fear of the Lord.

Its good to be educated, but you need to worry about learning too much because sometimes your lines begin to blur and you can distinguish what is true and what isn't. In the Gnostic Gospels it says that John the Baptist ate a root plant, but my KJV Bible says he ate honey and locusts, and people thought he was Elijah. Elijah ate honey and locusts.
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: Ptarmigan on May 02, 2013, 12:33:14 PM
or an adulterer but the Bible never actually states this. It is believed that elements with in the church spread this false assumption  in order to diminish her role (and the role of women in general) in Jesus' ministry.

I hear prostitute. Never heard adulterer. I am well aware the Bible never said that. Some say she was married to Jesus. I am not suggesting it in any way. I am going by what I have read in the past. She was a target of gossip/rumors as they did not want female priests.
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: FlaGator on May 02, 2013, 04:02:00 PM
I hear prostitute. Never heard adulterer. I am well aware the Bible never said that. Some say she was married to Jesus. I am not suggesting it in any way. I am going by what I have read in the past. She was a target of gossip/rumors as they did not want female priests.

In some stories she has been linked to the woman in John 8 that was accused of adultery.
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: dixierose on May 03, 2013, 08:01:21 AM
In some stories she has been linked to the woman in John 8 that was accused of adultery.

Is that the same one Jesus rid of several demons? I get the Mary's confused....
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: FlaGator on May 03, 2013, 08:29:49 AM
Is that the same one Jesus rid of several demons? I get the Mary's confused....

The Bible states that Mary Magdalene had seven demons removed
Quote
and also some women who had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out,
Luke 8:2

It never really gives the name of the woman accused of adultery.

There are quite a few women named Mary in the four Gospels and it does get hard keeping track of them all
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: dixierose on May 03, 2013, 01:52:46 PM
Thanks!
Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: MrsSmith on May 04, 2013, 01:49:01 PM
You say the life before Jesus  met John the Baptist is not relevant.   For goodness sake John was the son of Jesus mothers sister.
 Mary and Elisabeth were NOT sisters.  
Luk 1:36       And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

He Jesus and John must have known and grew up with each other. Small town and family must have gathered together quite often.

Mary and Elisabeth didn't live in the same town.
Luk 1:39, 40  And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda;
And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.
 


Naturally this is relevant, family bond by blood of Jesus and John for many years. Both were raised together and worshiped together with both family's on High Holy days.

Very much like today's family's where two sisters visit often and the their kids play together. These two cousins had to have found a common bond, somewhere in the their adult formative lives that we have no record of.

Mary and Joseph went to Bethlehem, and Jesus was born there.  They lived there until they fled to Egypt to preserve His life.  When they returned from Egypt, they lived in Nazareth.  Those moves all fulfilled prophecy, by the way.  But they mean that Jesus and John did not grow up together!!


Question is how John had the power to baptise the Son of God if he did not have the Power to do so if the Holy Spirit did not dwell in him ??

 The more questions I have transcends faith, it becomes fact and brings this into  the realm of --- not faith but belief, a real thing that happend and the truth and not some old story from the past that has been fiddled with for 2000 years to benefit others.

Vesta, YOU are fiddling with this history, getting all the facts wrong and then calling it a "story" that has been fiddled with for 2000 years!  Read the New Testament.  It's 2000 years old!!!

Title: Re: Gnostic Gospels
Post by: obumazombie on June 09, 2013, 04:55:11 AM
Another awesome and informative thread.