Gnosticisim and the Gnostic Gospels

[JohnnyBoyC]

I have read SOME of the Gospel of Thomas. Some things in it are wise and some... are against fundamental Christianity. For those who do not know. The Gnostic Gospels never ONCE mention Jesus Divinity, they focus on the HUMAN qualities.

The Gnostic Gospels

The Gospel of Thomas

The Gospel of Philip

The Gospel of Truth

The Gospel to the Egyptians

The Apocalypse of Peter

The Apocalypse of Paul

The Letter of Peter to Philip

The Thunder, Perfect Mind

The Testimony of Truth

Ok, so in my sig we see a phrase I recently read from the Gospel of Thomas, it is very wise, and was allegedly stated by Jesus.

If you want to read them...

The Gospel of Thomas

The Gospel of Philip

Ill add more later I have to go...

My question is, what are the credibility of these scrolls dug up in Egypt, that were allegedly concealed from Constantine, to preserve "Truth"

BTW These are also mknown together as "The Gnostic Bible" or more scientfically, "The Nag Hammadi Scrolls"

[JohnnyBoyC]

anyone?

[mako]

Well, I have read a few of them partially, but mythology is not really my bag (probably dated myself with that term). I agree with you that they do not portray a divine Jesus, only a human one. I doubt if you will get much from the Christians on this, they have been taught that those lost books were lost by God for a reason.

[+Paranoid Android]

Err, we have been taught no such thing. We are taught of the Gnostic gospels at church, though obviously in no great detail. We are told they have biblical inconsistencies, which is why they are not in the canon, though i've never seen one to prove or disprove that. I've been curious to read what they have to say for a while now. So, thanks for the link. I'll look it up and see where it takes me.

Regards,

[101]

I have never read these Gospels. I will check out your linky!

[sanchera1978]

Johnny boy I have only read the Gospel of Thomas. For some reason I trust whats in that gospel alot more then anything in the bible. The sayings of Jesus just seem to vibrate with truth alot more then other stuff in the bible.

[Ashley-Star*Child]

Ashley's dictionary:

Gnosticm:

1. A degenerate collection of utter tripe created as an aftermath for those who did not believe in divinity and believed God was evil, and that satan had rescued them by teacing them 'knowledge' through the temptation of Eve freeing them of the 'evil' Yahweh.

2. Utterly uninformed and majorly a Gentile creation. Confuses 'knowledge' of Tree in Eden with the reality of the matter which was in fact mortality for a second created angel whom death would never have touhced.

3. Crap, crap, and once more, crap.

[Lamont Cranston]

Gnosticm:

1. A degenerate collection of utter tripe created as an aftermath for those who did not believe in divinity and believed God was evil, and that satan had rescued them by teacing them 'knowledge' through the temptation of Eve freeing them of the 'evil' Yahweh.

2. Utterly uninformed and majorly a Gentile creation. Confuses 'knowledge' of Tree in Eden with the reality of the matter which was in fact mortality for a second created angel whom death would never have touhced.

3. Crap, crap, and once more, crap

And this from a person who believes that "Enoch" is divinely inspired....to quote ASC, "Crap, crap, and once more crap"

[Ashley-Star*Child]

I'm more informed than you, and when I say it's 'crap' it is. When you say Enoch is 'crap' you talk from mere opinion. Go play with some toys over at the other scriptually illterate playground.

[Lamont Cranston]

When 98% of the biblical scholars say crap in reference to "Enoch", it is safe to assume that yours is the opinion, not the fact. And that's my final answer.

[EmpressV]

The gnostic writings seem to shed a light of reality on the man. The church hierarchy wanted to paint jc in a light of mystisism and purity, it puts the story of his life on a higher level. Some of us (including Thomas) see this man as just that a MAN with great social, psychological and marketing skills.

Edited August 17, 2005 by curiousity

[LarryOldtimer]

Err, we have been taught no such thing.  We are taught of the Gnostic gospels at church, though obviously in no great detail.  We are told they have biblical inconsistencies, which is why they are not in the canon, though i've never seen one to prove or disprove that.  I've been curious to read what they have to say for a while now.  So, thanks for the link.  I'll look it up and see where it takes me.

Regards,

793099[/snapback]

They have inconsistancies? So do the Bible books they did choose.

[LarryOldtimer]

The gnostic writings seem to shed a light of reality on the man. The church hierarchy wanted to paint jc in a light of mystisism and purity, it puts the story of his life on a higher level. Some of us (including Thomas) see this man as just that a MAN with great social, psychological and marketing skills.

795084[/snapback]

It was Paul who had the marketing skills!

[Ashley-Star*Child]

When 98% of the biblical scholars say crap in reference to "Enoch", it is safe to assume that yours is the opinion, not the fact.  And that's my final answer.

795060[/snapback]

And you opinion means jack to me. As for that '98%' times are changing, watch and learn.

[Lamont Cranston]

Yep, I've noticed - Christianity is dying everywhere but in the third world nations. Europe is for all intents and purposes a secular continent (even Italy has an extremely large secular population), Canada and the United States have seen the percentage of the population that claims Christianity fall from 87% in 1980 to 61% in 2005. Most of Asia has never been Christian, Christianity is growning in parts of Africa, but so is Islam. Central and South America have never really been Christian, although they pay lip service to Catholicism. Their brand of Catholicism is actually a mixture of the various Native American (Red Indian to our Brit, Aussie, and Kiwi friends) religions married to a framework of Catholic Christianity. We will probably see an Africa with a Strong Fundamentalist Christian population struggling with an equally Strong Islamic population within 2 decades. We will see a mainly secular North America and Europe with a Muslim Middle East (relax, their time will also come to die out) and a largely secular Asia (many of the so-called religions of Asia are more philosophies than religions). Probably within 3 decades no one will even remember Enoch, Daniel or even the so-called Holy Scriptures of the Christians. That is how things are changing! Which means your opinion is just that, and personal opinion that few if any share.

[EmpressV]

Yep, I've noticed  - Christianity is dying everywhere but in the third world nations.   Europe is for all intents and purposes a secular continent (even Italy has an extremely large secular population), Canada and the United States have seen the percentage of the population that claims Christianity fall from 87% in 1980 to 61% in 2005.    Most of Asia has never been Christian, Christianity is growning in parts of Africa, but so is Islam. Central and South America have never really been Christian, although they pay lip service to Catholicism.  Their brand of Catholicism is actually a mixture of the various Native American (Red Indian to our Brit, Aussie, and Kiwi friends) religions married to a framework of Catholic Christianity.  We will probably see an Africa with a Strong Fundamentalist Christian  population struggling with an equally Strong Islamic population within 2 decades.  We will see a mainly secular North America and Europe  with a Muslim Middle East  (relax, their time will also come to die out) and a largely secular Asia (many of the so-called religions of Asia are more philosophies than religions).  Probably within 3 decades no one will even remember Enoch, Daniel or even the so-called Holy Scriptures of the Christians.   That is how things are changing!  Which means your opinion is just that, and personal opinion that few if any share. 

797140[/snapback]

Couldn't happen too soon for me!

[antiaging]

I have read SOME of the Gospel of Thomas. Some things in it are wise and some... are against fundamental Christianity. For those who do not know. The Gnostic Gospels never ONCE mention Jesus Divinity, they focus on the HUMAN qualities.

The Gnostic Gospels

The Gospel of Thomas

The Gospel of Philip

The Gospel of Truth

The Gospel to the Egyptians

The Apocalypse of Peter

The Apocalypse of Paul

The Letter of Peter to Philip

The Thunder, Perfect Mind

The Testimony of Truth

Ok, so in my sig we see a phrase I recently read from the Gospel of Thomas, it is very wise, and was allegedly stated by Jesus.

If you want to read them...

The Gospel of Thomas

The Gospel of Philip

Ill add more later I have to go...

My question is, what are the credibility of these scrolls dug up in Egypt, that were allegedly concealed from Constantine, to preserve "Truth"

BTW These are also mknown together as "The Gnostic Bible" or more scientfically, "The Nag Hammadi Scrolls"

792263[/snapback]

THEY ARE FORGERIES. They were not written by the authors that they pretend to be written by. The gnostics were heretics that did not believe in the trinity and did not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ. They also are the ones responsible for corrupting the Old and New Testament manuscripts that come from Alexandria Egypt. They added, deleted, or changed about 5% of the scriptures. That is why the real bible, the King James version, disagrees with the corrupted modern bibles in about 5% of the places.-- the corrupted Alexandrian text is mixed in the modern bibles.

Gnosticism evolved into what today is known as the universalist unitarian church.

[Something Like Laughter]

If you want to read them...

The Gospel of Thomas

The Gospel of Philip

Ill add more later I have to go...

i think all of them have english translations availiable on www.earlychristianwritings.com

My question is, what are the credibility of these scrolls dug up in Egypt, that were allegedly concealed from Constantine, to preserve "Truth"

most of them cannot be dated earlier than the 2nd century and lack much support from the early church fathers.

[iaapac]

Ashley's dictionary:

Gnosticm:

1. A degenerate collection of utter tripe created as an aftermath for those who did not believe in divinity and believed God was evil, and that satan had rescued them by teacing them 'knowledge' through the temptation of Eve freeing them of the 'evil' Yahweh.

2. Utterly uninformed and majorly a Gentile creation. Confuses 'knowledge' of Tree in Eden with the reality of the matter which was in fact mortality for a second created angel whom death would never have touhced.

3. Crap, crap, and once more, crap.

794784[/snapback]

I consider this a degenerate description rather than the gnostic works being a degenerate collection. The truth is that many of the early fathers used the gnostic writings as references in their sermons and, Jerome, for example, considered many of them far more holy than those selected to be in the Bible.

And what is this about these being a "Gentile creation?" Nothing could be father from the truth. Many of the works gathered in gnostic writings are written in poetic forms and represent Jewish, Christian, Hermetic, Mandaean, Manichaean, Islamic, and Cathar expressions of gnostic spirituality. Their regions of origin include Egypt, the Greco-Roman world, the Middle East, Syria, Iraq, China, and France.

Even at the Council of Nicaea, many of the gnostic writings were considered to be holy and inspired.

[Ashley-Star*Child]

Gnosticism was never considered 'holy and inspired'. And while there may have been a form of 'Jewish Gnosticism' it was, by and by, a majorly (you really should read EVERY word in a post) 'Gentile Creation'. Do you believe satan saved you? Eh, someone had a sense of dark humour.

As for the comment on the decline in belief in God, what on Earth does that have to do with what I was talking about? Please tell me that's not the best comeback you can come up with. If there is a decline, it's because many things have become corrupted and thereby so has understanding. How many religions are there today? Every single one of them claiming to be right and better than the other and yet not one of them has the full story.

[Lamont Cranston]

They were not written by the authors that they pretend to be written by.

The same could be said about the gospels and all but five of Paul’s letters!

They also are the ones responsible for corrupting the Old and New Testament manuscripts that come from Alexandria Egypt. They added, deleted, or changed about 5% of the scriptures

Yet the non-Gnostic Christians changed the NT for the first 200 - 300 years for political purposes, as can be evidenced by the 4th century bibles that exist in the Vatican and the Monastery in Sinai.

That is why the real bible, the King James version, disagrees with the corrupted modern bibles in about 5% of the places

I love how Christians loathe Gays, yet it was a Gay (Queen James was his nickname with the citizens of England) that had the bible version they love translated! Hilarious!

most of them cannot be dated earlier than the 2nd century and lack much support from the early church fathers.

To repeat myself neither can the gospels and all but five of Paul’s letters.

Do you believe satan saved you?

Nope and I don’t believe that your god could either. That which does not exist can not perform any actions.

[Something Like Laughter]

Yet the non-Gnostic Christians changed the NT for the first 200 - 300 years for political purposes, as can be evidenced by the 4th century bibles that exist in the Vatican and the Monastery in Sinai.

then you shouldnt have any trouble producing significant doctrinal differences between Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus (the two i think you are referring to in that post) and lets say the Textus Receptus that the KJV was translated from. ill be waiting.

[Lamont Cranston]

Not worried about the docrinal difference between the two 4th century codex and the textus...by the time the 4th century books were produced the docrine was established, it was what came before...we have nothing but incomplete fragments that are older . Would like an explanation of why the KJV Mark is longer than that of the 4th century Codex.

[Something Like Laughter]

ah, so you've got nothing besides speculation. why am i not surpised?

[Lamont Cranston]

I think a version of Mark that is 11 verses shorter than the present version, that cuts off with the empty tomb (remember this is the first gospel, the one that Matthew and Luke copied from) that totally skips the ascension and the proclaimation to go forth and convert the world, is just a wee tad more than speculation . Without older versions to check we can only speculate, but the smoking gun is there, isn't it ? Besides, you are only speculating that your God even exists, you have less proof of that than I do of an altered NT!