How do you all feel about the discovery made at Nag Hammadi and the version of Christianity the Gnostic writings give? I have a copy of the Gnostic Bible by Willis Barnstone and Marvin Meyer in my library and I enjoy reading it more then I do the orthodox bible. These writings give insight into what some of the early Christians believed, and it is radically different from the direction the religion ended up taking. The Gnostics seem to have looked at Jesus as more of a teacher who wanted to show them the way to save themselves and experience God directly instead of a savior or incarnation of God who came to die for their sins. They believed he only taught his disciples directly, while he gave everyone else teachings on morality and parables that hid his real meaning because they weren't prepared for his more esoteric teachings. Certain passages of the new testament seem to coincide with this belief, and I know it is the feeling that I got from reading the bible before I had ever heard of the Gnostics. They did seem to have quite a pessimistic attitude towards physical life though, but from a modern perspective they look to have been much more tolerant then the church of Rome and it's modern derivatives. Some of the early church fathers used the fact that they allowed women to have equal roles as men in their religious services and that they were accepting of other religions as examples of their heretical behavior. Do any of the Christians here find value in the Gnostic scriptures?
I'm not a christian, but I am Agnostic. However you just inspired me to learn more about the Gnostic religion and scriptures, thank you.
Hello Rob, Here is a website with a good introduction to Gnostic Christianity. They also have many of the Gnostic scriptures available to be read online. http://www.gnosis.org/gnintro.htm
as far as i know gnostic chritianity is the only way one can really make the jesus story work and offer real spiritual lessons, mainstream chritianity requires "followers" to give away their power....gnostic chritianity cultivates an individuals power, which is what spirituality is about really...i dig it
Gnostic Gospels fraudulently wrote in the names of the Apostles even after the fact that the Apostles had died long before the Gnostic Gospels were even written. The Gnostic Gospels were written almost 200 years after the orginal Bible. And the Gnostic Gospels counterdict almost every Biblical teaching of the orginal. And for this reason alone, the early church rejected these Books. These books donot agree with the Apostles, and the Bible predates the Gnostic Gospel. So no, I see little value in such books for obvious reasons.
Can you back this up as FACT? Name your source. If you cannot unquestionably prove that this is fact, it equates to nothing more than another theological debate.
You saying then that the book of John in the bible was written some 200 years after the apostles were all dead? The opening lines of john are CLASSIC GNOSTICISM. I do find it interesting that the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hamadi Library both lay in the eart for some 2000 years and then were both discovered within a year or so of each other.
So you're suggesting that these books were written with fraud as the primary purpose? Agree, the early Church didn't accept them into what was to become canonical scripture. This fact doesn't prove that they have no validity or are wrong. It just proves that early Church authorities didn't want them included. The spiritual concepts in the Gnostic writings certainly predate the life of Jesus Christ, are at least contemporary with the events of the Old Testament, and likely quite a bit older than the OT. With this in mind, it really doesn't matter when the Gnostic texts were written. What is eternal is eternal. No one knows what authentically-ancient find relating to Biblical events or Christian thought will turn up next, but one thing is certain...if it doesn't agree with the Orthodox or Evangelical versions, it will be met with a wall of denial, criticism, and demonization.
If those who wrote the Gnostic Gospels had any contact with the apostles and if their text supported what the apostels taught I would not have as much of a problem with them useing the apostles names. Yet we find just the oppsite. And unlike the Bible which has thousands of supporting copies and some from the second century, the Gnostic Gospels have few. Clearly even from their beginning little intrest was given in preserving them. And as far as being inspired by God, the final saying in the Gnostic book of Thomas has Peter saying. "Mary should leave us, for females are not worthy of life." The Gnostic Gospels are true slam at woman. Also the Bible is filled with prophecies where as I donot see this sort of thing in the Gnostic Gospels. It is the prophecies that make the Bible stand out above other Books, and in fact is evidence of Gods authorship. Clearly the Gnostic Gospels are lacking in this area. The reason Orthodox or Evangelical versions are accepted is because the Gnostic Gospels were written hundreds of years after the event, where as the Gospels of the Bible are first hand accounts of the event. It's like having a first hand account of some American cival war battle, and casting that aside for some writers theory about a battle that he had never witnessed and yet tries to describe what he thinks might of happen one hundred and thirty years after the event. Naturally the first hand account that is backed up by thousands of supporting copies from all over the world would be prefered.
The fact that many authors of religious writings in the ancient world took up the names of more well known figures is pretty well known. This is a tradition that was followed within many religions, including Christianity and the New Testament gospels. If there are any biblical scholars who still think the apostles wrote the four gospels of the new testament they are in a very small minority. Some of the Gnostic writings are dated to around the same time as those included in the new testament, others long after. The Gnostics didn't put much stock into the apostles, they preferred their own revelations to those of men they had never met. They only used their names because they were recognizable figures and in many cases they were used as symbolic representations of the orthodox church. So in this sense they weren't fraudulent, they didn't expect people to think the apostles were writing the books. Actually their were many reasons the orthodox church rejected the gnostics, many of them just as much politically motivated as they were religiously. The Gnostics didn't believe in the authority of the church because they were having direct experiences of God, and did not see the point in a mediator. And as Brother Joseph said, The Gnostic tradition predates Christianity and spans over many different religions. As far as Gnostic Christianity in particular, who can really say. The church wiped out almost all traces of Gnostic Christianity until the find at nag hammadi. It is possible the Gnostic writings give a more accurate representation of Jesus and his message, just as it is possible the Orthodox writings give a more accurate representation of Jesus and his message. If you can find no value in the Gnostic writings, that is understandable, they are very different from what is commonly accepted as Christianity.
I think the problem was that much interest was given in destroying them. It is debatable wether or not this was added to the text after it was written or not, but Peter is often used as a symbol of the orthodox church in Gnostic writings. The Gnostics drew lots at their religious gatherings so everyone could contribute equally without set roles, and allowed women to take on leadership positions if that is the lot they drew. They considered everyone equal to them regardless of gender or religion, something the early church considered heretical and still does to an extent. Also they considered eve as having helped mankind instead of leading it to it's downfall. They showed respect to Sophia, a divine feminine being who represented wisdom. And they referred to God in both masculine and feminine terms. Why is prophecy so important? How is this evidence of Gods authorship? If it is humans giving prophecy then are they not the ones who should get the credit.
Elaine Pagels "Gnostic Gospels" (I think that's the title) is a very interesting & precise look at how & why the non-biblical writings were eliminated. It was primarily because the gnostic texts did *not* point to jesus as link to divine authority that these books & thier followers were eliminted from early christianity. If you are interested in building a centralized organization that bolsters your power, you are going to make sure that new organization (the early Church) talks a lot about external sources of truth that cannot be doubted, and then make sure that you are in control of those sources, as opposed to the teaching that you find the truth within yourself. I don't know if any here have heard of the "Q" gospel - Q for 'quelle' the german word for 'source' - it's a theoretical gospel - the original words of jesus. Scholars have recreated it by looking at the older gospels, and non-biblical gospels (I think one of these is the gospel of john). For example, a lot of the material from the sermon of the mount is found in all these gospels, so it is felt pretty likely that the historic jesus was actually heard to say this (eg or something like it)
It makes Jesus seem even more a Buddha or simply awakened one and I wonder if it is just that simple. The actual teachings are in the Gnostic texts which sound very much like Hinduism or Buddhist teachings..if this were the case it wouldn't be a good idea for the Church to have it in the Bible or nobody would go b/c they would be enlightened. This can't really happen from reading but would still expose where the thought comes from and where liberation, the Kingdom is and in other religions no less. Or I've wondered is it just the Churches next move? to try to get the 'alternative' ones and them thinking they have a secret...Davinci Code, suddenly all these findings it could be real and they know the masses won't understand it or be able to use it alone to attain or whatever. I'm surprised the Bhagavad Gita ever made it here much less the epics b/c it gives so much of the show away. And I could go on like this forever and again it's faith like everything that seems more like Jesus to me than how He is protrayed, it just feels right but I've had gnostic ideas since I was a child so I sway there easy. I do like the texts and think there is something to it but I'm not a live by a book kinda person or even really trust Bibles, Creeds, Churches, sinners blah, God loves you peace
This is a really good book for an introduction to the place of the Gnostics in early Christianity. I just started re-reading it the other night and I really like Elaine Pagels writing style. Is no one else interested in the Gnostic writings? I have spoken with a few Christian friends of mine lately and some of them had surprisingly never heard of the Gnostics, while the ones who had didn't even care to read the scriptures. They do seem to offer quite a different view on diety and salvation, but from the time I have spent comparing the perspective I get from the Gnostic writings with the perspective I get from the New Testament writings, I don't really see any contradiction. I suppose like anything else it all depends on your perspective. I can easily see the Gnostic teachings complementing the teachings found in the Gospels of the New Testament and vice versa.
This is particularly interesting if you think about it Jesus said to them, "When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the female female; and when you fashion eyes in the place of an eye, and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and a likeness in place of a likeness; then will you enter [the Kingdom]." peace, love
