Nag-Hammadi

[GummiSaul]

I´m sorry if this is an older topic here, this is my first post.

What do you think about the Nag-Hammadi scriptures and the Gospel of Judas?
My personal belief is that the founders of the churches decided to edit those parts out of the first Bible to gain more power over the people, at [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The First Ecumenical council of Nicaea[/FONT] in A.D. 325. In that first council they also decided that Jesus was God and not a man filled with the Holy Spirit of God. They made it look like that Jesus was not human and had really no human urges. In the Gospel of Marie Magdalene it can be read that Jesus and Marie Magdalene had some sort of a loving relationship, which is against the decision of the first council meeting. My opinion is: Jesus Christ was human filled with the Holy Spirit and indeed was the son of God, though concepted by Joseph, and I strongly believe that ALL scriptures should be in the Bible as ALL are the word of God. The council robbed us of the word of God for their greater good, and I find that disgusting.

So my question is: What do you think?

And to be clear I am a devoted Christian, I believe Christ died on the cross for our sins and was resurected to join His Father in Heaven.

 

[ebia]

I´m sorry if this is an older topic here, this is my first post.

What do you think about the Nag-Hammadi scriptures and the Gospel of Judas?

2nd Century and later gnostic texts - much less exciting than the canonical Gospels.

My personal belief is that the founders of the churches decided to edit those parts out of the first Bible to gain more power over the people, at [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The First Ecumenical council of Nicaea[/FONT] in A.D. 325.

Don't believe everything you read in a Dan Brown novel - it's fiction.

The gnostic texts were never in the running for the canon, which was almost entirely established well before Nicea.

In that first council they also decided that Jesus was God and not a man filled with the Holy Spirit of God.

Paul had made quite clear that Jesus was God and man by the mid 50s AD. All Nicea did is formularise a way of saying it and declare as heretic those who disagreed with that.

They made it look like that Jesus was not human and had really no human urges.

Um, no they didn't. Authentic Christianity (as early as we can possibly tell - ie the writings of Paul) has always said that Jesus is fully human and fully divine.

So my question is: What do you think?

That you've been reading too much popularist stuff. Controversy sells - books claiming this or that text was "thrown out by the church" are a dime-a-dozen not because that's historically supported but because the idea appeals to the current age.

And to be clear I am a devoted Christian, I believe Christ died on the cross for our sins and was resurected to join His Father in Heaven.

If I might clarify your sentence, Jesus died on the cross for our sins and was resurrected to defeat death and bring new life and new creation to this world, and then ascended into heaven.

The resurrection is something the groups who wrote the gnostic texts like the Nag-Hammadi texts denied. They tended to keep the word, but completely redefined it to mean 'non-physical life after death' instead of what it had always meant - a coming back to fresh physical life in this physical world.

 

[Lovely Lane]

I´m sorry if this is an older topic here, this is my first post.

What do you think about the Nag-Hammadi scriptures and the Gospel of Judas?
My personal belief is that the founders of the churches decided to edit those parts out of the first Bible to gain more power over the people, at [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The First Ecumenical council of Nicaea[/FONT] in A.D. 325. In that first council they also decided that Jesus was God and not a man filled with the Holy Spirit of God. They made it look like that Jesus was not human and had really no human urges. In the Gospel of Marie Magdalene it can be read that Jesus and Marie Magdalene had some sort of a loving relationship, which is against the decision of the first council meeting. My opinion is: Jesus Christ was human filled with the Holy Spirit and indeed was the son of God, though concepted by Joseph, and I strongly believe that ALL scriptures should be in the Bible as ALL are the word of God. The council robbed us of the word of God for their greater good, and I find that disgusting.

So my question is: What do you think?

And to be clear I am a devoted Christian, I believe Christ died on the cross for our sins and was resurected to join His Father in Heaven.

You are not alone in thinking of Jesus as only a man, there are Unitarian's who still have this belief. Going as far as saying that Jesus was adopted by G'd in some way.

The Gnostic scriptures of Nag Hammadi and others were around when the books were selected to become canonical. Some made the cut, some were deemed deuterocanonical and many were set aside as heretical.
If you recall, it was during the Reformation that the Protestants removed from the Old Testament the Apocrypha books. Being a Protestant, I have a current copy of a catholic bible that I read from and enjoy.

I do not understand the point you are making about Jesus was G'd and not man idea. If you would read the Nicene Creed, I think you may have a better understanding of what the Council of Nicaea accomplished, especially in regards to one substance and two natures of Christ.

"So my question is: What do you think?"
I believe that I would rather read the Deuterocanonical / Apocrypha books than to be snared by the gnostic texts.

 

[Jpark]

I´m sorry if this is an older topic here, this is my first post.

What do you think about the Nag-Hammadi scriptures and the Gospel of Judas?
My personal belief is that the founders of the churches decided to edit those parts out of the first Bible to gain more power over the people, at [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The First Ecumenical council of Nicaea[/FONT] in A.D. 325. In that first council they also decided that Jesus was God and not a man filled with the Holy Spirit of God. They made it look like that Jesus was not human and had really no human urges. In the Gospel of Marie Magdalene it can be read that Jesus and Marie Magdalene had some sort of a loving relationship, which is against the decision of the first council meeting. My opinion is: Jesus Christ was human filled with the Holy Spirit and indeed was the son of God, though concepted by Joseph, and I strongly believe that ALL scriptures should be in the Bible as ALL are the word of God. The council robbed us of the word of God for their greater good, and I find that disgusting.

So my question is: What do you think?

And to be clear I am a devoted Christian, I believe Christ died on the cross for our sins and was resurected to join His Father in Heaven.

If Jesus was just spirit filled, He would be like us and His role in history would not be as important. Nearly all heresies deny the Trinity and the deity of Jesus. Do you make yourself a heretic?

 

[marlowe007]

I've skimmed over the Judas Gospel, and one part that stuck out was the reference to wisdom as Sophia. I guess they had someone from the goddess movement help translate; either that or a Gnostic. Saklas wasn't translated into fool either.

It's a very strange text that makes little sense. Deals a lot with stars and angels. None of it has any relation to the canonical gospels, save for the mention that Jesus has to be betrayed "in order that the prophesies may be fulfilled." It doesn't mention the betrayal until the last paragraph, where it seems tacked on (but then, the whole text seems entirely random). Jesus also makes fun of the disciples and mocks them for their questions, or at least, that was my impression. At any rate, it's an essentially worthless text - they can dig up the Gospel of Luke Skywalker, doesn't mean it's true or will refute anything in Christianity except for those who are consumed with finding error in it.

Whether or not the Judas Gospel and the NHL texts are examples of pseudipigrapha won't matter to modern Gnostics. I've heard many of them say that authenticity is irrelevant as long as the authors "experienced" god directly.

 

[wayseer]

I´m sorry if this is an older topic here, this is my first post.

Hi and welcome.

[What do you think about the Nag-Hammadi scriptures and the Gospel of Judas?

The Gospel of Judas is not part of the Nag Hammadi Library of texts as far as I'm aware. I am also aware that scholars seem to agree that the gJudas is a fraud.

My personal belief is ...

We are all entitled to our personal beliefs. However if you wish to make some contribution you have to demonstrate the veracity of those beliefs.

So my question is: What do you think?

The Nag Hammandi Library is a collection of gnostic texts. The Gnostics were basically pagan in their belief and while their views might appeal to present day New Age imagery they have little to contribute towards Christianity.

 

[marlowe007]

Some of the Nag Hammadi texts are Gnostic*. But others not so: the NHL includes hermeticism, a fragment of Plato's Republic, etc.

*Like the Testimony of Truth for example, an Ophite text which alludes to the tempter/serpent in a very warm-fuzzy way.

 

[Phileoeklogos]

I´m sorry if this is an older topic here, this is my first post.

What do you think about the Nag-Hammadi scriptures and the Gospel of Judas?
My personal belief is that the founders of the churches decided to edit those parts out of the first Bible to gain more power over the people, at [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The First Ecumenical council of Nicaea[/FONT] in A.D. 325. In that first council they also decided that Jesus was God and not a man filled with the Holy Spirit of God. They made it look like that Jesus was not human and had really no human urges. In the Gospel of Marie Magdalene it can be read that Jesus and Marie Magdalene had some sort of a loving relationship, which is against the decision of the first council meeting. My opinion is: Jesus Christ was human filled with the Holy Spirit and indeed was the son of God, though concepted by Joseph, and I strongly believe that ALL scriptures should be in the Bible as ALL are the word of God. The council robbed us of the word of God for their greater good, and I find that disgusting.

So my question is: What do you think?

And to be clear I am a devoted Christian, I believe Christ died on the cross for our sins and was resurected to join His Father in Heaven.

I'm afraid that your personal beliefs are confused and contradictory, and I don't say that to flame, or put you down in any way.

It is very clear that you have not based your beliefs on a through researching of the topics contained in your post, if you had, you would have seen the impossibility of holding them, I'm not saying that no one has held one or all of the beliefs that you do, but I do not believe anyone could and claim any consistency of what they believe..


There are many accusations in your post that are commonly made, but never proven, or to even have a shred of evidence, I would have to think that someone who would make these claims, would at the very least made a through study of the following subjects,

1. The historicity and reliabilty of the New Testament text, to include all texts and fragementary evidence prior to 325 AD

2. The writings of the early church fathers and all post apostolic christian writings prior to Nicea, looking for scripture quotes, references to their belief in the Deity of Christ, and what books they believed should be in the NT canon.

3. The writings and beliefs of the Gnostics.

4. Early christian writings in dispute of Gnosticism.

5. The proceedings of Nicea.


Now for the most important thing, you have identified yourself as a christian, but you deny the deity of Christ and His virgin birth, this would also have to include a denial of the Trinity and the truth of the Old and New Testaments, I'm not sure if you are aware of that, but by necessity that would have to be true.

My question to you is are you sure you have the true Christ, if you have another Christ, then you believe another Gospel, and if that be the case you are still in your sin, and that has an eternal consequence, I pray that you consider that and I would be glad to dialogue about these things

 

[laconicstudent]

I´m sorry if this is an older topic here, this is my first post.

Haven't seen it before, actually.

What do you think about the Nag-Hammadi scriptures and the Gospel of Judas?

I ignore them

My personal belief is that the founders of the churches decided to edit those parts out of the first Bible to gain more power over the people, at [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]The First Ecumenical council of Nicaea[/FONT] in A.D. 325.

Wrong Ecumenical Council for that. The da Vinci Code gets it wrong.

In that first council they also decided that Jesus was God and not a man filled with the Holy Spirit of God.

Here are the canons and texts of that Council

NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

No, that is not what they dealt with there. The da Vinci Code is wrong.

They made it look like that Jesus was not human and had really no human urges.

Why don't we read what they actually say.

The Synod at Nice set forth this Creed
The Ecthesis of the Synod at Nice.


We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten (γεννηθέντ&#945, not made, being of one substance (ὁμοούσιον, consubstantialem) with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth. Who for us men and for our salvation came down [from heaven] and was incarnate and was made man. He suffered and the third day he rose again, and ascended into heaven. And he shall come again to judge both the quick and the dead. And [we believe] in the Holy Ghost. And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not (ἤν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦ&#957, or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a different substance or essence [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion—all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.

So no.

In the Gospel of Marie Magdalene it can be read that Jesus and Marie Magdalene had some sort of a loving relationship, which is against the decision of the first council meeting.

And also strangely not mentioned in canonical book or any of the writings of the early Christians. Curious.

My opinion is: Jesus Christ was human filled with the Holy Spirit and indeed was the son of God, though concepted by Joseph,

Yeah, then why does Scripture say the exact opposite, and specifically state that Mary conceived as a virgin?

and I strongly believe that ALL scriptures should be in the Bible as ALL are the word of God.

No, some are abominable forgeries. The canon was closed centuries ago

The council robbed us of the word of God for their greater good, and I find that disgusting.

The Councils protected us from the poison of the gnostic forgeries, for which I thank them.

So my question is: What do you think?

I think you should put down the da Vinci Code and read the Bible and the writings of the Church Fathers.

And to be clear I am a devoted Christian, I believe Christ died on the cross for our sins and was resurected to join His Father in Heaven.

Welcome to the Christian Classics Ethereal Library! | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 100 versions and 50 languages.

Read, I implore you.

 

[Yarddog]

I´m sorry if this is an older topic here, this is my first post.

Welcome to the forum.

So my question is: What do you think?

I think that you need to stop listening to whomever is filling your head with the misinformation that you believe about the early Church and learn the truth.

And to be clear I am a devoted Christian, I believe Christ died on the cross for our sins and was resurected to join His Father in Heaven.

That is what was always taught by the Church. I'm glad that you embrace Jesus. Hold on tightly and never let go.

 

[Lukaris]

A bishop of the early church St. Irenaeus (ca. 180) wrote volumes of a refutation of gnosticism and its writings. CHURCH FATHERS: Against Heresies (St. Irenaeus) (scroll down slightly after accessing link).