Gnostic Gospels

[ScottBot]

Thats the shame in it... you have done exactly what you say you have not done. By blindly accepting what is given to you without putting thought into it, you have recreated God in the image of others.

I, on the other hand, have allowed God to reveal Himself to me. There is a big diffference. I have not "recreated God in my own image." That's what you have done by blindly accepting. I don't try and force God into a box-- which is done throughout ALL religion, including Christianity. Instead, I allow God to show Himself to me, and I then draw whatever conclusions I can about Him. Believe me, I know that I know nothing about God-- He's too majestic for that. But theen again, that's what separates us. You do (think you know Him).

No, I have accepted Christ as taught by the ones who were taught by Christ. So, I wonder why you are here if you have such superior knowledge of Him. Is it to enlighten us poor brainwashed traditional folk? Us ignint wretches who have ben stuff with all the stuffy or tired stories of the last 2,000 years? Go right ahead, tell us ALL what Jesus is really about, since you seem to know better.

 

[tsukino_Rei]

Is it me or is it getting hot in here? luv! hugs! happy in Christ-ness!

We don't need to agree with eachother about everything. Discussion like this are about understanding one another in Love.


Love is a many splendid thing.
Love lifts you up where you belong.
All you need is love. doo doo doo doo doo... all you need is love. doo doo doo doo doo. all you need is love, love. Love is all you need.

 

[junegillam]

Is it me or is it getting hot in here? Discussion like this are about understanding one another in Love.

If we could only keep this in our minds all the time! All the places, too, here in CF. Shows how much we are mere humans, ya?

jg

 

[98cwitr]

i have read the majority of the gnostic gospels and have not really found anything to be evil or misleading to who Christ was and his message...a lot of them parallel what is currently held and regarded as canon...sorry to bring this thread back from the dead, but I read the gnostic gosels this weekend and was wanting other's insights

With that said, I take them with a grain of salt, because the possibility of their falsehood is apparent as is the politics that put the Bible together in the first place. Yet, I hold firm to the the Bible as the Word, but do not dare think that other ancient texts cannot expand on who Jesus was and what other things he accomplished.

You can tell from reading the book of John that John had a bit of an ego problem

 

[PaladinValer]

i have read the majority of the gnostic gospels and have not really found anything to be evil or misleading to who Christ was and his message.

You're kidding, right?

You realize they say Jesus and Christ are two separate beings, that the God of the OT is a Demiurge, that matter is evil and illusion, and that women must be made male, right? That is all in there.

How is that not misleading?

..a lot of them parallel what is currently held and regarded as canon.

Some passages, yes. But their intent and their clear meaning is utterly contradictory to everything Christian.

With that said, I take them with a grain of salt, because the possibility of their falsehood is apparent as is the politics that put the Bible together in the first place.

It had nothing to do with politics. It had to do with their heretical content; a content that is very plain.

Yet, I hold firm to the the Bible as the Word,

Correction: JESUS is the Word of God, not the Holy Scriptures. St. John 1:1 is very clear.

but do not dare think that other ancient texts cannot expand on who Jesus was and what other things he accomplished.

Some do; most are, however, at least somewhat if not completely tainted by Gnosticism.

You can tell from reading the book of John that John had a bit of an ego problem

I'll bite: explain.

 

[student ad x]

I'm wondering why a 3 year old thread has been resurrected

 

[PaladinValer]

I'm wondering why a 3 year old thread has been resurrected

Necromancy lives...

**gets his torch and pitchfork +1/+3 against necromancers**

 

[98cwitr]

^^^wow...sounds like you have judged and getting ready for a Crusade!! haha...please.

You're kidding, right?

Nope, surely I am not kidding. And reading your post...I think you have really twisted what I literally said in mine.

You realize they say Jesus and Christ are two separate beings, that the God of the OT is a Demiurge, that matter is evil and illusion, and that women must be made male, right? That is all in there.

How is that not misleading?

Please be more specific...I do not recall those finding in my reading of Thomas, Peter, and Mary...again I take all of these with a grain of salt and do not intertwine them with Christian Canon. Parallel lines do not cross

Some passages, yes. But their intent and their clear meaning is utterly contradictory to everything Christian.

Again, please be specific

It had nothing to do with politics. It had to do with their heretical content; a content that is very plain.

I was not referring to exclusion as much as inclusion.

Correction: ]JESUS is the Word of God, not the Holy Scriptures. St. John 1:1 is very clear.

Luke 4:1-4...Jesus is the Word of God, but does not negate what the OT says or it's Divine origins. Jesus clears refers to the Word of God outside of his own teachings.

Some do; most are, however, at least somewhat if not completely tainted by Gnosticism.

Thank you, i agree

I'll bite: explain.

Haha. Ok...Notice how many times John refers to himself as "the disciple Jesus loved" but never refers to any other disciples in this way. Peter also got the short end of the stick and seems to be belittled by John toward the end of the book. ie: the trip to the tomb and the last chapter in John.

 

[student ad x]

MOD HAT ON

Since the gnostic writings are not authoritative.... this thread is being moved to the Christian History forum.
MOD HAT OFF
​

 

[PaladinValer]

^^^wow...sounds like you have judged and getting ready for a Crusade!! haha...please.

I didn't judge anything. The Church already decided the issue back during the days of the Apostles themselves.

Nope, surely I am not kidding. And reading your post...I think you have really twisted what I literally said in mine.

I twisted nothing.

Please be more specific...I do not recall those finding in my reading of Thomas, Peter, and Mary.

So you're telling me you don't see Gnostic theology in Gnostic gospels?

Luke 4:1-4...Jesus is the Word of God, but does not negate what the OT says or it's Divine origins. Jesus clears refers to the Word of God outside of his own teachings.

No He doesn't because He is the Word of God.

The Bible isn't the Word of God. Jesus is and only Jesus is.

Haha. Ok...Notice how many times John refers to himself as "the disciple Jesus loved" but never refers to any other disciples in this way. Peter also got the short end of the stick and seems to be belittled by John toward the end of the book. ie: the trip to the tomb and the last chapter in John.

St. Peter didn't get the short end of the stick at all. Furthermore, St. John was often referred to as the disciple who Jesus loved most, mostly because of his youth and innocent, filial relationship.

I suggest staying away of Gnostic Scripture until you get a better picture of Gnosticism and how it is taught by those heretical books.

 

[98cwitr]

I didn't judge anything. The Church already decided the issue back during the days of the Apostles themselves.

I twisted nothing.

Your post was sounding like I was referring them as part of Canon...which they are not. Clearly...

So you're telling me you don't see Gnostic theology in Gnostic gospels?

Nope, because I am seeing these writing from a purely Christian perspective.

No He doesn't because He is the Word of God.

Then what is the Old Testament before Christ came to earth? You are a firm believer in the Holy Spirit, God, and Jesus being literally the same entity then, right?

The Bible isn't the Word of God. Jesus is and only Jesus is.

Then what is the Bible in your perspective?

St. Peter didn't get the short end of the stick at all. Furthermore, St. John was often referred to as the disciple who Jesus loved most, mostly because of his youth and innocent, filial relationship.

Careful there, friend...the word 'most' is NOT found in Scripture in regards to the context in which we are speaking and you have no authority to add it.

I suggest staying away of Gnostic Scripture until you get a better picture of Gnosticism and how it is taught by those heretical books.

I will do no such thing....

The president of the Maecenas Foundation, Mario Roberty, suggested the possibility that the Maecenas Foundation had acquired not the only extant copy of the Gospel, but rather the only known copy. Roberty went on to make the suggestion that the Vatican probably had another copy locked away, saying:
In those days the Church decided for political reasons to include the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in the Bible. The other gospels were banned. It is highly logical that the Catholic Church would have kept a copy of the forbidden gospels. Sadly, the Vatican does not want to clarify further. Their policy has been the same for years – 'No further comment.'[17]

Any denomination did not, do not, and never will have the authority to add to or remove what is in the Bible...yet this clearly has occurred.

 

[PaladinValer]

Your post was sounding like I was referring them as part of Canon...which they are not. Clearly...

My post most certainly did not suggest or directly say anything of the sort.

Nope, because I am seeing these writing from a purely Christian perspective.

Just to make it perfectly clear: there is therefore no Gnosticism in the Gnostic gospels? Is that what you mean?

Then what is the Old Testament before Christ came to earth?

Non-canonized.

You are a firm believer in the Holy Spirit, God, and Jesus being literally the same entity then, right?

Non-sequeter Fallacy.

Then what is the Bible in your perspective?

A Divinely Revelated Canon, inspired and inerrant in all matters of faith, religion, spirituality, theology, discipline, doctrine, and morals.

Careful there, friend...the word 'most' is NOT found in Scripture in regards to the context in which we are speaking and you have no authority to add it.

What are you talking about? Who is adding anything to Scripture?

I suggest you also read what people are saying in context, because you are saying a lot of...weird things that do not logically follow.

 

[98cwitr]

My post most certainly did not suggest or directly say anything of the sort.

then what was your intentions in post #67?

Just to make it perfectly clear: there is therefore no Gnosticism in the Gnostic gospels? Is that what you mean?

Again, from a purely Christian perspective...I cannot answer that question. I don't know. I am simply comparing what is in the Bible to what is in the Gnostic gospel and will not taint my views with some other religion that I don't believe in. If it relates to Jesus though, I am interested and will pursue it's validity...hence the reason why I resurrected this thread

Non-canonized.

So the OT has no value to you whatsoever?

Non-sequeter Fallacy.

Non-sequitur fallacy? Then that's a no? Then, it stands to reason that you do not believe in the OT Word?

A Divinely Revelated Canon, inspired and inerrant in all matters of faith, religion, spirituality, theology, discipline, doctrine, and morals.

Then by Divine, you mean of God and inclusive of the OT? Because the OT is part of the Bible.

What are you talking about? Who is adding anything to Scripture?

You added the word 'most' as in 'The disciple that Jesus loved most' and it DOES NOT say that...John was being egotistical. Jesus washed all the disciples feet, right?

I suggest you also read what people are saying in context, because you are saying a lot of...weird things that do not logically follow.

Where am I taking your words out of context?

 

[PaladinValer]

then what was your intentions in post #67?

What does it say?

Again, from a purely Christian perspective...I cannot answer that question. I don't know. I am simply comparing what is in the Bible to what is in the Gnostic gospel and will not taint my views with some other religion that I don't believe in. If it relates to Jesus though, I am interested and will pursue it's validity...hence the reason why I resurrected this thread

There is extremely little if any value for a Christian for their spirituality, religion, or moral growth or nourishment in Gnostic literature.

In addition, a kind notice: many find thread resurrections to be odd at best.

So the OT has no value to you whatsoever?

That question doesn't follow the answer I gave to your previous question. Read what you asked me, read my reply, and please don't skip steps with assumptions.

Non-sequitur fallacy? Then that's a no?

Then it means you've committed a logical fallacy and I'm awaiting a proper response.

Then by Divine, you mean of God and inclusive of the OT? Because the OT is part of the Bible.

Who suggested otherwise? Again, you need to read what I say in context.

Let me make the above clear. You asked, and I quote: "What is the Old Testament before Christ came to Earth?" Note what I bolded. That's called a condition; your asking me about the status of the OT before Christ came in a Christian perspective.

Since the Canon wasn't established by Christians yet, I said non-canonical. That's a historically true answer.

The next question should have been "How about after Christ came to Earth?" Instead, you ignored that step and jumped the gun.

Do you understand your error now?

You added the word 'most' as in 'The disciple that Jesus loved most' and it DOES NOT say that.

I never said that. Where did I say the Bible said "most?" WHAT DID I ACTUALLY SAY? Quote me please.

Where am I taking your words out of context?

Read the above; those are only examples.

 

[98cwitr]

What does it say?

Read it yourself....the posts are numbered for our convenience


I see this will only end in semantics but when God spoke to Abraham, Moses and Elijah in the OT that also was the literal words of God as well. That's my point. John 1:14. Therefore stands to reason that the Word of God includes Jesus because Jesus fulfilled all things of God, and also includes the words of God spoken to the Israelites in the OT. We see Jesus the man, and we see Jesus as the Son of God. Okay, fine...just to appease you, the Bible contains the Word of God.

I never said that. Where did I say the Bible said "most?" WHAT DID I ACTUALLY SAY? Quote me please.

HERE YA GO

Furthermore, St. John was often referred to as the disciple who Jesus loved most, mostly because of his youth and innocent, filial relationship.

Your words..."was often referred to as"? Your statement and posting of this implies your belief in the statement, and it contains the word "most." Which is not proven by Scripture.

this discussion is becoming quite trivial....

 

[CaDan]

Thread drift.

We haz it.



Good source for scholarly info that hasn't been completely Pagelized: The Forbidden Gospels Blog (don't let the blog name put you off)

 

[PaladinValer]

Read it yourself....the posts are numbered for our convenience

And so you continue to quote me out of context...whatever.

I see this will only end in semantics but when God spoke to Abraham, Moses and Elijah in the OT that also was the literal words of God as well. That's my point. John 1:14. Therefore stands to reason that the Word of God includes Jesus because Jesus fulfilled all things of God, and also includes the words of God spoken to the Israelites in the OT. We see Jesus the man, and we see Jesus as the Son of God. Okay, fine...just to appease you, the Bible contains the Word of God.

St. John 1:1 is the only place where the Logos Deus is identified. It has nothing to do with any book or person besides Jesus of Nazareth, our Lord God-man.

Your words..."was often referred to as"? Your statement and posting of this implies your belief in the statement, and it contains the word "most." Which is not proven by Scripture.

Who else was referred to by the title then other than he? Entirely Scriptural. I never said nor implied the word "most" was in Scripture anyway in that phrase besides.

There is never any context given in your replies. Enjoy all the Gnosticism you wish; its your free will.

**Desubscribes**

Edit: Just to kindly remind you, many people don't like thread resurrections.

 

[Dark_Lite]

Gnosticism is far larger of a belief system than Christianity.

 

[98cwitr]

^^^got any stats on that?

 

[Dark_Lite]

^^^got any stats on that?

Gnostic concepts are found in all sorts of places. Manichaeism, Sethian Gnosticism, Mandaeism are all gnostic religions that are outside the umbrella of Christianity. Some have more relations to Abrahamic religion than others, but some are not related at all (Manichaeism in particular).

Even in Christian Gnosticism there are different groups. Two that come to mind are the Valentinians (Valentinius almost became Pope, actually) and the Cathars (a French medieval Gnostic resurgence).