The difference between the Gnostic Gospels and the NT...

[benburch]

Is *only* the Council Of Nicea.

It was at this meeting of church leadership where the Catholic Church itself was born. The gospels which most supported the Roman Empire's continued existence were selected and made "official" and the rest were suppressed, and ordered destroyed. At the same time various sects within Christianity were labeled Heretics, and bans were issued on them; Convert or Die. And die they did, by the thousands. This is the true legacy of Christianity; Blood and Death to support the ruling elite. Much as today.

This is made more current by all of the hype surrounding the "discovery" of the Gospel of Judas which paints a VERY different picture of the passion of Christ.

[moc]

1. Are you watching the Nat'l Geographic special on the Gospel of Judas?

It's on right now. 7-9 CST. Fascinating.

[benburch]

2. No. I don't watch Television.

Except under duress.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

7. Which channel?

My brother is planning to watch it, so if I can't he'll give me a full report.

[ClintonTyree]

3. Which is why I put my faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.....

it's not all that rigid a philosophy. Plus you get to talk like a pirate. :shrug: Hey, it works for me! ;)

[DoYouEverWonder]

4. From my understanding of gnostic christianity

it is not a rigid philosophy at all.

[benburch]

5. I believe...

he was referring to Modern Christianity.

[DoYouEverWonder]

8. Most people

don't know the difference.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

31. As opposed to, say...

Medieval Christianity?

Heck, I don't even have to wear a hat to church anymore.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

6. Also

the suppressed gospels tended to take a mystical turn, saying that each individual can have a personal relationship with the One, without the intervention of a priest or even a church structure. Tradition says that the concept came from the old Egyptian Mystery schools, where first Abraham and Ishamael and then Jesus learned it. Estoeric schools related to various faiths continue these teachings today.

[jody]

9. Don't some Protestant groups believe each person can have a personal

relationship with God without an intermediary such as a priest?

[benburch]

13. Yes.

But many of the early Christians believed that Scripture was just a guideline, and that God would reveal the truth to you directly. Others believed "thou art god". Both of these beliefs was totally at odds with a Church that was to serve the interests of an Empire. (And we can see how well it worked, the Roman Empire fell apart under Christianity, but rulers up through the 19th Century would squabble over which of them was the true heir to the title of "Holy Roman Emperor".

[KoKo]

30. Mainstream Protestant Churches were founded on that. And, what

we now know as the Fundamentalists certainly were against Priests and Intermediaries.

The very far Right Groups seemed to have latched onto Bush as their Priest...as an intermediary. Maybe they strayed so far from their original foundations..they just long for that old heirarchy that they gave up when they broke from the Catholic church.

What goes around comes around again, I guess. :eyes:

[TallahasseeGrannie]

32. But don't the Mormons

(very RW in my humble opinion) consider each man his own priest? (I don't know about women, maybe they don't count)

[GeorgeGist]

11. Or better yet ...

maybe that concept came from God.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

16. Oh yes

since everything is God, it did indeed come from God.

[sutz12]

12. That's a quote a lot of Christians forget....

I believe Christ said, "Wherever several of you are gathered together, there I am among you."

Hardly a ringing endorsement of 10,000 member mega-churches, let alone a large scale religio-business venture like the Catholic church.

From my reading of the gospels (FWIW), I would say that Christ envisioned a more grass roots religion, with primarily local priests/chaplins/rabbis (he was Jewish, after all), and not a lot of top heavy centric organization like we see in modern times.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

15. Any mystic will tell you

that what Jesus said is true-often the most profound experiences happen when there are two or three people at a ceremony or service.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

33. You know...

maybe the little known conclusion of that verse was lost over the ages...

"Wherever several of you are gathered together, there I am among you.......

But when you get over, say, about 500 I get overloaded and go home."

[MISSDem]

44. As to "10,000 member mega churches", remember what

the man said in Life's Little Instruction Book, "avoid any church that has cushions on the pews and is considering building a gymnasium".

[jody]

10. Do the Gnostic Gospels exist as an approved group from history or

is the term a modern invention?

[benburch]

14. They were effectively suppressed.

Though memories of the Heretics and their "false gospels" remained in church history, the Gospels themselves were mostly lost until the discovery of the Nag Hammadi Library in 1945.

[jody]

17. Understand but is there proof that the "Gnostic Gospels" were accepted

in the first few centuries as accurate and therefore acceptable as the foundation for a religious dogma?

I thought they were simply a collection of documents without any proof and they were not accepted as the "bible" for gnosticism. I thought they merely documented some of the beliefs that may or may not have been accepted by Gnostics.

[benburch]

18. Well, I am not an expert on that.

But given the amount of effort and expense copying any text required back then, they had to be quite important to somebody.

[jody]

19. Thanks.

:hi:

[DoYouEverWonder]

20. They were accepted by a large number of followers

unfortunately most of the people who followed gnostic teachings got killed for their beliefs, so of course they went out of style.

[jody]

21. What is you source they were accepted by a large number of followers? n/t

[DoYouEverWonder]

22. Gnostic groups were widespread throughout the ME

History: Gnosticism has changed over time and through different leaders, however it flourished during the first several centuries (Edwards). There were two major parts of Gnosticism: the Syrian Cult and the Alexandrian Cult. The Syrian Cult was led by Simon Magus, while the other was led by Basilides. Basilides impressed "Egyptian Hermetizism, Oriental occultism, Chaldean astrology, and Persian philosophy in his followers."(Davies) Also, his doctrines intertwined early Christianity and pagan mysteries (Davies). Aside from his Gnostic leadership Basilides remained a member of the church in Alexandria until he died (Eliade: 571). When Basilides died, Valentinus took over leadership of Gnostics, incorporating some of his own ideas (Davies). He was born in Egypt, familiar with Greek culture, and was nearly a bishop (being passed up for a martyr). He then separated from the church (Foerster: 121). Valentinus incorporated the pleroma, or heavenly world, into Gnosticism. The pleroma consists of at least thirty aeons (worlds). He also believed that ignorance is the root of the world and if it no longer existed, the world would cease to exist (Foerster: 122).

During the 2nd Century, several systems of Gnosticism grew in Alexandria and the Mediterranean area, most of which were closely related to Christianity. This was a period in which Gnosticism came to focus on Gnosis itself, as a goal for Gnostics to reach (Edwards). This century was also a period when Pagan, Jewish and Christian forms of Gnosticism had the most influence on the doctrine and structure of the Christian Church, even though critics treated it a Christian heresy (Crim: 277). Valentinus and another strong Gnostic leader, Marcion, were the most feared by the Catholic church (Crim: 278 and Rudolph: 296). They offered an alternate or rival form of Christianity, which caused the church to begin setting up barriers to Gnosticism (McManners: 27).

Mani came into leadership, and "Gnosticism became a world religion when Mani (216-277) founded his alternative Christian Church."(Eliade: 572) Mani, the Jewish-Christian raised in a Baptist community, started Manichaeism. It existed for over one thousand years (Eliade: 572). However, Manichaeism disappeared in the West during the Middle Ages. When Roman Catholicism became the state church in Armenia, the Gnostics hid in the outskirts and mountains (Eliade: 572).

After the 3rd Century, Gnosticism practically disappeared. There was some attempt to revive it during the Middle Ages, but this was nearly impossible because any documents or material about Gnostics had been buried in the desert.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=214&topic_id=60800&mesg_id=60829

[jody]

25. I'm aware of those summaries but where is the evidence that particular

gospels were believed by large numbers of people?

It is quite possible that a copy of such things as the Gospel of Judas is in some Vatican archive but that doesn't prove Roman Catholics believed that document.

[DoYouEverWonder]

28. Roman Catholics didn't even exist

during the days of Christ.

[jody]

29. Neither did Gnostics as a single religious group. The term was a catchall.

In that sense I've never seen any proof that many people believed the Gospel of Judas or any of the several other documents referred to as apocrypha, pseudepigrapha, and even the so called Gnostic Bible.

[DoYouEverWonder]

34. Oops, posted wrong link

Here's the correct one.

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/gnosticism.html

[jody]

38. Understand but another perhaps more useful discussion is at Wikipedia

Gnosticism

[carl_pwccaman]

36. Proof, sort of, all around

All around, there is proof that people took spiritual writings spiritually seriously.

Of course, the NT Gospels were taken seriously. So were these other Gnostic writings.

Some communities, some regions, had their favorite texts. Hard to say whether some of them were taken as literal about historic events.

The NT Gospels may have been very popular, simply because they tell a lot of stories about this or that event, miracle, encounter with religious authorities, etc.

There is much to indicate, in the text itself of the Gospel of Judas, that the author was very sincerely expressing their understanding of something spiritually important to them. Did they believe it was literally what Jesus told Judas, exactly? Did they believe it was handed down from Judas himself? We don't know for sure.

But then, we don't know for sure entirely how the author of Mark approached that Gospel, etc. We can make educated guesses.

At some point, people who had such texts, canonical or non-canonical, approached them in ways that may have been much different from that of the author(s).

Instead of trying to prove this or that with any text, I think it is more a matter of praying, contemplating, meditating, before and after reading such texts, and seeing what you get out of it.

Some canonical texts will perhaps seem more faithful to certain details, and will therefore be given more faith on details. Some of those texts, however, may not have been faithful to details, so much as the elaborations of legend and heresay and speculation were given in detailed form, describing physical aspects of stories.

[Igel]

27. The term is a modern invention.

Many gnostic groups--even producing a convincing definition of 'gnosticism' invariably excludes one or more 'gnostic' groups--were diametrically at odds with each other. Many were of limited geographic distribution, relied crucially on one text as the filter to gain the only correct understanding of one or more other more standard texts, and typically excluded most of the widely accepted texts.

If you believe you're job is to feed the sheep, the gnostics were perceived as wolves. Some had specific individuals that formulated them; others were more general movements that accepted some new idea filtering in from outside the empire, or spreading from some area in the empire. But this was the day of the 'church universal' as a single community of believers, the Body of Christ that continued from apostolic days; the idea of "Xianity" as a cover term for completely incompatible points of view and of diversity for diversity's sake being a good thing were centuries in the future. The battle against the smaller heresies by the dominant group went on for a long time before the Council of Nicaea, and continued for a long time after it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism does a decent job.

In consolidating the church in an attempt to keep heresies from gaining too much ground--I don't think anybody liked the idea of heresies--they excluded the adherents of various party factions and their corresponding texts. Of course, some heresies didn't have deviant texts. There was the Quartodeciman controversy, for instance--same texts, just a different interpretation.

[madrchsod]

23. don`t forget the coptic church

[Sarah Ibarruri]

24. I told this to an evangelical fundamentalist Christian and he said....

...that I was wrong, that the New Testament is the word of God and the Catholic Church didn't put it together, that all other writings are fake. Ahem.

[jody]

26. Only God knows and she's not talking. n/t

[carl_pwccaman]

35. Faith notwithstanding...

The MEANING of such texts, is the issue, isn't it?

I.e., if someone prays, reflects, contemplates, meditates, before and after reading such works, what spiritual fruit might they get?

The reason why I'm a Gnostic is because of the spiritual fruit I've found in Gnostic texts. Not because of ancient history claims this way or that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. Can I ask you a question about the history of Gnosticism?

You may not have an opinion, or may not want to give it in a public forum, in which case I quite understand, of course.

Do you think that Gnosticism started developing before or after Jesus lived (or, if you think he was legendary, when he was supposed to live)? Looking on the web, I seem to find both opinions, but I can't tell if they come from people trying to prove a particular point, or which may be an objective evaluation of what is known or surmised.

Thanks.

[carl_pwccaman]

39. Physical History or Spiritual Meaning?

When it comes to mere physical history, it seems to me that there are several TECHNICALLY POSSIBLE views of the first and second century of Christianity, Gnosticism, and Judaism, some of which are assessed as MORE PLAUSIBLE, depending upon the ASSUMPTIONS made. Some assumptions are quite popular, though not beyond criticism or challenge.

I.e., it seems TECHNICALLY possible that Jesus was a story or combination of several characters (some real some imaginary), into a teaching story of some sage in Palestine, and that with the destruction of the Temple around 70 AD, and all the chaos, some newer converts in certain regions, thought they had the whole story, and emphasized the outer teachings that were given as allegories, missing the point, and when some years later they came in contact with other Christians of more Gnostic views, allegorical and philosophical views, such Christians who were emphasizing the outer teachings as the whole story, came into conflict and wondered where these 'heretics' came from. That is what I get from Freke and Gandy, Gerald Massey, and others. Apparently some of the European research is a bit better documented, a bit better thought out, than these English language sources, from what I was told. Still, is it PROBABLE? Is it LIKELY? What assumptions would make it improbable or probable?

And maybe a better question is, why should we rule out other alternatives?

It seems IMPOSSIBLE that there would be none, or only one person named Yeshua in Palestine at the time. It seems PROBABLE that one or more wandering healers/miracle workers/exorcists/teachers/reformers/whatevers in Palestine, would be named Yeshua, as the name itself refers to salvation. Yeshua is just Joshua, there was no 'J', 'J' was 'Y'.

So it seems POSSIBLE that there may have been more than one person in Palestine at the time, who could fit the bill of wandering healer/teacher/exorcist/reformer, etc., with the name Yeshua. I'd say it's likely, since it's just Joshua, I mean Joshua's the name of a book in the Hebrew Scriptures. For someone to name their kid Joshua, or for a reformer to take the name, sounds like a no-brainer. Lots of people wandering doing all kinds of things at the time, too.

Maybe several different people got confused. Maybe there were several different movements LITERALLY founded by different Yeshua's. Maybe at some future date after the chaos of the destruction of the Temple, two or more merged together.

Burton Mack, in Q: The Lost Gospel, argues that the statements of Jesus in the NT Gospels that are shared in more than one Gospel, portray a rather common figure of the time, the wandering cynic/sage. As in characters like Diogenes. They would challenge custom and worldly concerns, turn social conventions/expectations on their heads, making parables, etc. Maybe like a street-corner philosopher in the town square.

Hellenistic Judaism is interesting in and of itself, Platonic Judaism, Philo and all that. Some early Christians were of that flavor. There were Pagans traveling very near Galilee to Sephoris, it was a short walk from the one to the other. 3 Magi really could have visited a child in a cave in Bethlehem, such characters did wander around, there were major roads through the area.

It isn't just Ebionites and Essenes to consider. There's Hellenistic Jews and all kinds of 'alternative' takes on things you could relate to Hebrew Scripture and tradition, in the area, some of which I'm sure we are completely ignorant about. Some really bizaare forms of Judaism could have existed. A good bit of what was mainstream among Hebrews of the time, we might find extremely weird, today.

With Mystery religions we really aren't sure what went on, they were secret. Some Christian apologists like Justin Martyr, admitted that Christianity had the ancient teachings of the Pagans in it, some even said that the religion of Christianity always existed. Then they went on to claim it was the Pagans who were demonic for having the truth beforehand in imitation, as if the Pagans imitated the Christianity of the future, as a Satanic ruse!

It seems that some form of Gnostic teaching/thought/themes, existed before the first century.

I'm open to such speculations.

But the history is speculation. Some periods, some places, some subjects, the history is more speculative than others. In the case of the first and early second century, there are some really good questions and speculations that we have no clear answer...

As a Gnostic, myself, what is more important, is that I've sought spiritual insight, and prayed, meditated, contemplated, looked at Gnostic texts and teachigns in such a manner, and found it spiritually fruitful.

So the meaning of a text, and the fruit it bears spiritually in my path, is more important to me than whether or not it accurately reflects physical events or literal words spoken between two physical bodies in this place at that time.

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. Thanks very much for a comprehensive answer

I understand the spiritual ideas are more important to you than historical dates, but you have been very helpful.

[carl_pwccaman]

43. No prob.

I do find the historical discussions/theories interesting, I just don't think any are compelling enough to say conclusively, and I think good historians would agree, they just feel certain scenarios are more likely/plausible, for their reasons.

[NAO]

40. The Canonical Gospels are Crude Legends; the Gnostic Gospels are sublime

works of philosophical allegory.

The book "The Jesus Mysteries" is the best single book I have found on how the cosmic myths /allegorical stories of the early Christians became trivialized, literalized, and historicized by the forces of orthodoxy.

[Zhade]

42. Good luck, friend.

When even some liberal Christians deny the truth about the origin of Gnostics and Christianity, it's an uphill battle.