I've been reading these texts lately and have found them to be great importance to understanding Jesus. Specifically it fills in the blank of Jesus as a child, growing into adulthood and the many miracles His birth brought about. It also focuses a lot on mysticism and offers a different older account of Genesis. I'm new in my studies and havent finished all the books but I was curious about y'alls take. Have you ever read them? What is your perception of them if you have?
Post Reply
1 of 1
Gnosticism and the Hammadi Library
1,846 Views |
14 Replies |
Last: 3 yr ago by Woody2006
I have not read them but would caution to tread carefully. The NT scriptures were written and the canon formed for the Church by the people within the Church.
As I understand it Gnostic and other writings were often excluded precisely because they include many false teachings and lead to a misunderstanding of who Christ is, which is very dangerous. But that is my uninformed opinion, there are many posters here who know more than I do on this subject.
As I understand it Gnostic and other writings were often excluded precisely because they include many false teachings and lead to a misunderstanding of who Christ is, which is very dangerous. But that is my uninformed opinion, there are many posters here who know more than I do on this subject.
The Gnostic gospels were written after the original epistles and Gospels of the New Testament were written. In fact Iraneaus, taught by Polycarp, Who is taught by John the apostle was one of the most ardent detractors of Gnosticism.
I've read some of them, and they depict hey Jesus that says a woman must become like a man to be "fit to live". The gnostic infancy gospel portrays a child Jesus, who murder punches kids and adults as a child.
Another of the Gnostic gospels says that Jesus wasn't fully man, but that the spirit of Jesus basically possessed another person.
Another of the gnostic texts claims that Jesus was never crucified, instead Simon of Cyrene was.
Yet another Gnostic text claims that the God of the Old Testament was actually an evil demiurge, and that material creation is evil.
These are some of the reasons why the gnostic theology and Gospels were rejected from canon.
I've read some of them, and they depict hey Jesus that says a woman must become like a man to be "fit to live". The gnostic infancy gospel portrays a child Jesus, who murder punches kids and adults as a child.
Another of the Gnostic gospels says that Jesus wasn't fully man, but that the spirit of Jesus basically possessed another person.
Another of the gnostic texts claims that Jesus was never crucified, instead Simon of Cyrene was.
Yet another Gnostic text claims that the God of the Old Testament was actually an evil demiurge, and that material creation is evil.
These are some of the reasons why the gnostic theology and Gospels were rejected from canon.
Read whatever you want but just know that gnostic writings are not Christian. The early church declared Gnosticism as heretical. If you want to dive into real studies of God I would recommend On the Incarnation: Saint Athanasius,
On the Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ: Saint Maximus the Confessor or check out The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church by Lossky.
On the Cosmic Mystery of Jesus Christ: Saint Maximus the Confessor or check out The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church by Lossky.
Yeah the whole Jesus child killer is interesting. He kills a lot of people as a kid apparently. Makes more sense why the Jews wanted him dead so bad. He reminds me a bit of brightburn.
I do like the gospel of john and thomas however.
I'll check out the recommendations above.
I do like the gospel of john and thomas however.
I'll check out the recommendations above.
Tibbers said:
Yeah the whole Jesus child killer is interesting. He kills a lot of people as a kid apparently. Makes more sense why the Jews wanted him dead so bad. He reminds me a bit of brightburn.
I do like the gospel of john and thomas however.
From the gospel accounts it was His explicit claim of his own divinity. "Before Abraham, I am". Stuff like that. If Jesus were not God, he would have committed blasphemy, a crime punishable by death.
I think the Gnostic gospels are interesting in that "Brightburn" sense. I just don't see value in them as truthful theological texts. Like reading Greek mythology or fan fiction.
I just wonder how they came to be. Why were they taken as gospel in their time and why did it take the church burning their thoughts and branding the entirety as heretical in order to purge them from their religion? The meaning of catholic is universal so they sought about with 'correcting' christianity as it was understood. That seems fascinating to me.
The trials of arous as well are fascinating. If they are so antithetical to the nature of Jesus why did people even take them seriously?
There are also similar stories but told in completely different ways. In one tale of Jesus during the Sabbath he is by the river making clay pigeons. When a jew came by and said he was blaspheming God by doing so went to get Joseph. Joseph came with the jew and asked Jesus why He was doing so. He smiled and blew into the pigeons and they took flight and flew away. Another of the same tale tells of a boy who disturb the pools Jesus was making to catch fish on the Sabbath. When the jew came by to tell him of his blaspheme a boy destroyed his pool and Jesus touched him and he died. The family grabbed their kid brought him to town and there was great commotion. Mary and Joseph were brought out and told that Jesus must make the boy whole again. Spitefully Jesus brought him back to life but left a part of the kid withered.
It's strange. I still dont understand though. If Jesus was the son of God straight from birth why does the Bible not talk at all about his boyhood? Wouldnt the lessons learned be just as valuable as when he was an adult?
The trials of arous as well are fascinating. If they are so antithetical to the nature of Jesus why did people even take them seriously?
There are also similar stories but told in completely different ways. In one tale of Jesus during the Sabbath he is by the river making clay pigeons. When a jew came by and said he was blaspheming God by doing so went to get Joseph. Joseph came with the jew and asked Jesus why He was doing so. He smiled and blew into the pigeons and they took flight and flew away. Another of the same tale tells of a boy who disturb the pools Jesus was making to catch fish on the Sabbath. When the jew came by to tell him of his blaspheme a boy destroyed his pool and Jesus touched him and he died. The family grabbed their kid brought him to town and there was great commotion. Mary and Joseph were brought out and told that Jesus must make the boy whole again. Spitefully Jesus brought him back to life but left a part of the kid withered.
It's strange. I still dont understand though. If Jesus was the son of God straight from birth why does the Bible not talk at all about his boyhood? Wouldnt the lessons learned be just as valuable as when he was an adult?
To be fair, they were not taken as gospel among the vast majority of Christians. But it seems the Gnostics (although not a homogeneous group by any stretch) where very influenced by more Greek philosophy than by Judaism. Their use of the "Demiurge" is a great example of that.
The rejection of the OT, and the God of the OT, probably helped them take out the Jewish context of Jesus's ministry. (Not a bad thing by a more Hellenistic philosophy than something born out of judaism). However,Jesus outside the OT Doesn't make sense. So, the accounts of Jesus in the NT scriptures were attested to by the apostles and those they taught like Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement, etc while those with a more Gnostic viewpoint couldn't reconcile what they were teaching with the witness account of the apostles. so, they eventually wrote there own competing Gospels. (For example the gospel of Judas basically says all the apostles got it wrong except for Judas...)
Also keep in mind that many of the Gnostic texts/gospels contradict each other about the crucifixion, some sects said it happened some day it only "appeared" that way as Jesus laughs, and in another it's Simon of Cyrene. So given the fractured nature of the Gnostic movement I'm sure that played a role, in addition to the counter claims from the apostolic fathers, in it not getting more Mainstream traction.
Has two young Jesus and why it's not covered in the gospels:
My bet is that he lived a pretty boring life probably. In fact, in the Gospel of Matthew when he heads to his hometown to preach, the response is basically "isn't this the son of the Carpenter Joseph..." not " Isn't this the guy who turned clay into pigeons And killed a kid..."
The rejection of the OT, and the God of the OT, probably helped them take out the Jewish context of Jesus's ministry. (Not a bad thing by a more Hellenistic philosophy than something born out of judaism). However,Jesus outside the OT Doesn't make sense. So, the accounts of Jesus in the NT scriptures were attested to by the apostles and those they taught like Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement, etc while those with a more Gnostic viewpoint couldn't reconcile what they were teaching with the witness account of the apostles. so, they eventually wrote there own competing Gospels. (For example the gospel of Judas basically says all the apostles got it wrong except for Judas...)
Also keep in mind that many of the Gnostic texts/gospels contradict each other about the crucifixion, some sects said it happened some day it only "appeared" that way as Jesus laughs, and in another it's Simon of Cyrene. So given the fractured nature of the Gnostic movement I'm sure that played a role, in addition to the counter claims from the apostolic fathers, in it not getting more Mainstream traction.
Has two young Jesus and why it's not covered in the gospels:
My bet is that he lived a pretty boring life probably. In fact, in the Gospel of Matthew when he heads to his hometown to preach, the response is basically "isn't this the son of the Carpenter Joseph..." not " Isn't this the guy who turned clay into pigeons And killed a kid..."
Thank you for the response. I need to research polycarp, Clement and Ignatius. What is your take on Arous?
I still can't wrap my head around Jesus being a boring kid. I don't think he killed anyone or made clay into birds but the gospel of mary does have some really great stories. How the very bathwater of Jesus cured leprosy. How Jesus and Mary were travelling came across Dismas and Gesmas who were to rob them. Dismas pleaded to let them go. Jesus told Mary that in 30 years those same men would be crucified alongside him. How Jesus would cast out demons and how Mary obtained gifts and recognition through the works of Jesus' healing.
I mean are we to believe that Jesus, a guy who holy men travelled miles following a star to present him with gifts and Herod who killed any baby in Bethlehem for fear of the boy king was just an unknown commodity? How about the slaying of Zacharius in Jerusalem? These would have left lasting wounds to the Jewish people. I find it hard to believe His childhood would be an afterthought.
I dont think every book in the Hammadi Library reads the same way but the gospel of Mary, Thomas, and John read differently than the rest. The stories of Jesus as a boy read like fan fiction while the gospel of Thomas are just collections of Jesus' sayings. As a follower of. Christ and not of any church, I appreciate that greatly.
Elohim, Yahweh, and Angels and demons are explained in John as well as a more complete story of Adam and Eve. John also explains quite well the duality of man, a spiritual battle within us. John also encourages us to read Zoroaster's account as well and offers great explanation on the levels of Heaven and reasons why those who came before Jesus are still saved. It helps marry the idea that universal truth such as the golden rule is not purely found in Christianity but in Buddhism, Hinduism and Daoism.
I'm blabbering but I have many questions.
I still can't wrap my head around Jesus being a boring kid. I don't think he killed anyone or made clay into birds but the gospel of mary does have some really great stories. How the very bathwater of Jesus cured leprosy. How Jesus and Mary were travelling came across Dismas and Gesmas who were to rob them. Dismas pleaded to let them go. Jesus told Mary that in 30 years those same men would be crucified alongside him. How Jesus would cast out demons and how Mary obtained gifts and recognition through the works of Jesus' healing.
I mean are we to believe that Jesus, a guy who holy men travelled miles following a star to present him with gifts and Herod who killed any baby in Bethlehem for fear of the boy king was just an unknown commodity? How about the slaying of Zacharius in Jerusalem? These would have left lasting wounds to the Jewish people. I find it hard to believe His childhood would be an afterthought.
I dont think every book in the Hammadi Library reads the same way but the gospel of Mary, Thomas, and John read differently than the rest. The stories of Jesus as a boy read like fan fiction while the gospel of Thomas are just collections of Jesus' sayings. As a follower of. Christ and not of any church, I appreciate that greatly.
Elohim, Yahweh, and Angels and demons are explained in John as well as a more complete story of Adam and Eve. John also explains quite well the duality of man, a spiritual battle within us. John also encourages us to read Zoroaster's account as well and offers great explanation on the levels of Heaven and reasons why those who came before Jesus are still saved. It helps marry the idea that universal truth such as the golden rule is not purely found in Christianity but in Buddhism, Hinduism and Daoism.
I'm blabbering but I have many questions.
The canonical gospels were written and compiled in the first century by eyewitnesses and early followers of Jesus (ie what we call the Church).
The gnostic gospels were written from the 2nd to the 4th century by gnostics who attempt to make Jesus sound like a gnostic.
Obviously a proper biography of Jesus based on the academic standards of today would run into thousands of pages and cover every aspect of His life, including lots of details about His childhood. But that's not what the canonical gospels are going for. They are teaching us who Jesus is and what He did for us. They don't lack any information in doing that.
I'm not saying not to read it, just have to keep all of the above in mind while doing so.
You mentioned mysticism in your first post, you might find this book interesting:
https://www.amazon.com/Mystical-Theology-Eastern-Church/dp/0913836311
The gnostic gospels were written from the 2nd to the 4th century by gnostics who attempt to make Jesus sound like a gnostic.
Obviously a proper biography of Jesus based on the academic standards of today would run into thousands of pages and cover every aspect of His life, including lots of details about His childhood. But that's not what the canonical gospels are going for. They are teaching us who Jesus is and what He did for us. They don't lack any information in doing that.
I'm not saying not to read it, just have to keep all of the above in mind while doing so.
You mentioned mysticism in your first post, you might find this book interesting:
https://www.amazon.com/Mystical-Theology-Eastern-Church/dp/0913836311
That is exactly right. Gnosticism itself is one of the earliest and longest lasting heresies to this day. Learning who Jesus is from that angle is like learning how to grill meat from experience grilling vegetables only. Rough analogy, but you get my point. No better resource than the Bible to read about who Jesus was and is. No better resource or experience than prayer to KNOW who He is.Gator03 said:
I have not read them but would caution to tread carefully. The NT scriptures were written and the canon formed for the Church by the people within the Church.
As I understand it Gnostic and other writings were often excluded precisely because they include many false teachings and lead to a misunderstanding of who Christ is, which is very dangerous. But that is my uninformed opinion, there are many posters here who know more than I do on this subject.
There's a lot of historical and social context with Gnosticism that gets lost when you just read the remaining writings. When the Romans spread into the Middle East, they brought back home a lot of new ideas and beliefs. Romans were pretty accepting of almost all belief systems. As long as you worshipped the Roman dieties, or later the Emperor, then you could spend the rest of your religious life doing whatever you want. Anyway, so the returning Roman soldiers brought Eastern mystery religions back to the Mediterranean.
These can be pretty varied, but the actual beliefs of the mystery cult is less important than the structure. You start a secret society with rich or influential people. You get people to buy-in, usually literally. Then you promote members who show the most loyalty, give the most money, or bring in the most new members. As people get promoted, they get benefits. These benefits can be wealth, social standing, sexual favors, or access to secret knowledge, and many times they were a combination of all of these things. They were really just religious pyramid schemes that rewarded more senior members at the expense of newer members.
Notable is that the true beliefs of the cult were hidden in the secret knowledge, and this information was only accessible to the highest ranking members. But the "true beliefs" and "secret knowledge" weren't the point of the cult. They were just benefits that motivated the newer and lower standing members to buy-in even more. We see mystery cults based on Middle East and Asian mythology, mystery cults based on Greek or Roman dieties, or mystery cults based on really anything. When the mystery cults based themselves in Christianity, they were called Gnostics.
So don't think the Gnostics were trying to broadcast a more fully fleshed Christology or theology. They didn't make these writings and beliefs known to just anyone. It took a lot of commitment, money, work, and time to get to the point where you could even learn what was in these writings. By that point, the writings and true knowledge was inconsequential. By the time you learned that the secret knowledge was all nonsense, you were in so deep and benefitting so much that you just went with it. As someone already mentioned, the various Gnostic cults usually had contradictory beliefs with each other as well. So it's not like they tapped some unknown source of truth that normal Christians could access.
Now I'm not saying that there aren't interesting ideas in Gnostic writings, but that's all they are. The earliest Christians fought the Gnostics constantly. The Gospel and writings of the Apostles were preached and freely distributed. The Church taught that all people were equal, and special privileges were denied. They also taught that money, social standing, and sex were all beside the point and usually detrimental to the true faith. So these early Christians wrote treatises against the Gnostics and freely distributed them to anyone that wanted them. The earliest canonical Bibles were created as a defense against Gnostics. At every step, the Christians repeatedly said "they aren't us" and "that's not what we believe"
These can be pretty varied, but the actual beliefs of the mystery cult is less important than the structure. You start a secret society with rich or influential people. You get people to buy-in, usually literally. Then you promote members who show the most loyalty, give the most money, or bring in the most new members. As people get promoted, they get benefits. These benefits can be wealth, social standing, sexual favors, or access to secret knowledge, and many times they were a combination of all of these things. They were really just religious pyramid schemes that rewarded more senior members at the expense of newer members.
Notable is that the true beliefs of the cult were hidden in the secret knowledge, and this information was only accessible to the highest ranking members. But the "true beliefs" and "secret knowledge" weren't the point of the cult. They were just benefits that motivated the newer and lower standing members to buy-in even more. We see mystery cults based on Middle East and Asian mythology, mystery cults based on Greek or Roman dieties, or mystery cults based on really anything. When the mystery cults based themselves in Christianity, they were called Gnostics.
So don't think the Gnostics were trying to broadcast a more fully fleshed Christology or theology. They didn't make these writings and beliefs known to just anyone. It took a lot of commitment, money, work, and time to get to the point where you could even learn what was in these writings. By that point, the writings and true knowledge was inconsequential. By the time you learned that the secret knowledge was all nonsense, you were in so deep and benefitting so much that you just went with it. As someone already mentioned, the various Gnostic cults usually had contradictory beliefs with each other as well. So it's not like they tapped some unknown source of truth that normal Christians could access.
Now I'm not saying that there aren't interesting ideas in Gnostic writings, but that's all they are. The earliest Christians fought the Gnostics constantly. The Gospel and writings of the Apostles were preached and freely distributed. The Church taught that all people were equal, and special privileges were denied. They also taught that money, social standing, and sex were all beside the point and usually detrimental to the true faith. So these early Christians wrote treatises against the Gnostics and freely distributed them to anyone that wanted them. The earliest canonical Bibles were created as a defense against Gnostics. At every step, the Christians repeatedly said "they aren't us" and "that's not what we believe"
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
I don't honestly know enough, or have looked into in any sort of detail, to be able to have an opinion on the 7 heavens and the like.
While it may be possible Jesus performed miracles, I don't think so. Some examples that give credence is the water into wine at Cana. It is often cited as his first miracle, and even Jesus hints at it in the gospel when he talks about his "time has not yet come". Also in the same Gospel, when the apostles are being gathered, Nathaniel asks "Can anything good come from Nazareth?" I think one of the points of this is a sense of humility. Maybe an emphasis on the full humanity of Jesus. The Gnostics didn't care at all about his full humanity. They tended to have a very docetist bent that denied the humanity of Jesus because then they would have to accept the material aspects of Christ. So the idea of at divine being being humble, being, well "Human" was probably insulting in a way.
Even the gospel of Thomas has some problematic sayings like this gem:
"Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."
Also, within the traditional Christian view, those who came before Jesus were liberated during the so called "Harrowing of Hell" on Holy Saturday. Here is an awesome sermon/homily that kinda dramatizes it.
https://churchpop.com/2015/04/03/this-ancient-homily-for-holy-saturday-will-give-you-chills/
Moreover, I don't think that other religions are completely devoid of any semblance of truth. We can accept the truth that is within other faith traditions, while also acknowledging the fullness of truth that lays exclusively within Christ and Christianity. Here is a great video by Fulton Sheen where he discusses the concept of other religions having some truth, but....
Some things to consider.
While it may be possible Jesus performed miracles, I don't think so. Some examples that give credence is the water into wine at Cana. It is often cited as his first miracle, and even Jesus hints at it in the gospel when he talks about his "time has not yet come". Also in the same Gospel, when the apostles are being gathered, Nathaniel asks "Can anything good come from Nazareth?" I think one of the points of this is a sense of humility. Maybe an emphasis on the full humanity of Jesus. The Gnostics didn't care at all about his full humanity. They tended to have a very docetist bent that denied the humanity of Jesus because then they would have to accept the material aspects of Christ. So the idea of at divine being being humble, being, well "Human" was probably insulting in a way.
Even the gospel of Thomas has some problematic sayings like this gem:
"Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."
Also, within the traditional Christian view, those who came before Jesus were liberated during the so called "Harrowing of Hell" on Holy Saturday. Here is an awesome sermon/homily that kinda dramatizes it.
https://churchpop.com/2015/04/03/this-ancient-homily-for-holy-saturday-will-give-you-chills/
Moreover, I don't think that other religions are completely devoid of any semblance of truth. We can accept the truth that is within other faith traditions, while also acknowledging the fullness of truth that lays exclusively within Christ and Christianity. Here is a great video by Fulton Sheen where he discusses the concept of other religions having some truth, but....
Some things to consider.
Just to add to Ordhound's thoughts, I can't think of any childhood in the entire Bible. Maybe someone can correct me. We go from prebirth or birth to adulthood. Jacob and Esau were in the womb, and then they were grown men. Moses was a baby, and then he was an adult. The closest I can think of is Samuel, but best I can tell he jumps from being a baby to an adolescent. So it's not like we have the childhood accounts of everyone else and then suddenly we don't have the one for Jesus. We don't have any childhood narratives.Quote:
I still can't wrap my head around Jesus being a boring kid. I don't think he killed anyone or made clay into birds but the gospel of mary does have some really great stories. How the very bathwater of Jesus cured leprosy. How Jesus and Mary were travelling came across Dismas and Gesmas who were to rob them. Dismas pleaded to let them go. Jesus told Mary that in 30 years those same men would be crucified alongside him. How Jesus would cast out demons and how Mary obtained gifts and recognition through the works of Jesus' healing.
Rom 1:18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualitieshis eternal power and divine naturehave been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.Quote:
It helps marry the idea that universal truth such as the golden rule is not purely found in Christianity but in Buddhism, Hinduism and Daoism.
While God gave direct revelation to Moses and sent Jesus to Israel, God never ignored the rest of humanity. That's why you see the principles of God's goodness in other faiths and cultures. However, we have the true picture of Christ to judge those beliefs. So when a Muslim follows Islam by devoting themselves to charity and acts of kindness, they are following God. When they follow Islam by attacking others, then they are sinning. The same can be said for any religion, even Christianity itself. God is love and goodness, and we certainly have no monopoly on that. Whenever anyone, anywhere, anywhen is living a life of love and goodness, then they are following God. Whenever anyone, anywhere, anywhen is selfish, malicious, hateful, greedy or sadistic then they are not following God. To the extent that their religion encourages the good and condemns the bad we should applaud it. To the extent that it encourages the bad or discourages the good we should criticize and condemn it.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Great post.
Ordhound04 said:
The Gnostic gospels were written after the original epistles and Gospels of the New Testament were written. In fact Iraneaus, taught by Polycarp, Who is taught by John the apostle was one of the most ardent detractors of Gnosticism.
I've read some of them, and they depict hey Jesus that says a woman must become like a man to be "fit to live". The gnostic infancy gospel portrays a child Jesus, who murder punches kids and adults as a child.
Another of the Gnostic gospels says that Jesus wasn't fully man, but that the spirit of Jesus basically possessed another person.
Another of the gnostic texts claims that Jesus was never crucified, instead Simon of Cyrene was.
Yet another Gnostic text claims that the God of the Old Testament was actually an evil demiurge, and that material creation is evil.
These are some of the reasons why the gnostic theology and Gospels were rejected from canon.
Lol Iraneus justified the idea that there should only be 4 gospels because there are only 4 corners of the (flat) earth.