Gnosticism
-
My personal point of view: I am against it totally.
The gnostic gospels are all distorted truths and deceptions leading people to a false Christ.
The gospel of Thomas
The gospel of Philip
The gospel of Mary Magdalene
The gospel of Judas
I am sure there are more 'gospels' to come
Gnosticism can never co-exist with Christianity. -
But they were written along side the other "accepted" gospels.
On what grounds were they rejected by the early Church?
I is not fair to deem them as "un-christian" just because they were not accepted by a select few who compiled the New Testament. -
The messages are entirely different. Read and compare them yourself.Originally posted by dotaro:But they were written along side the other "accepted" gospels.
On what grounds were they rejected by the early Church?
I is not fair to deem them as "un-christian" just because they were not accepted by a select few who compiled the New Testament. -
Gnosticism is a historical term for various mystical initiatory religions, sects and knowledge schools that were most active in the first few centuries C.E. around the Mediterranean and extending into central Asia.
These systems typically recommend the pursuit of mysticism or "special knowledge" (gnosis) as the central goal of life. They also commonly depict creation as a mythological struggle between competing forces of light and dark, and posit a marked division between the material realm, typically depicted as under the governance of malign forces (such as the demiurge), and the higher spiritual realm from which it is divided, governed by God (the Monad) and the Aeons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism -
Different from the "accepted gospels"?
That is a relative statement.
I can also say that the New Testament Gospels are different from the so called "Gnostic Gospels".
A different view from the "accepted gospels" does not deem them as "un-Christian". -
how 'along-side' can that be? The gnosis concept is rejected way before the entire NT came into being. The Old Testaments is totally against gnosis in every sense and there is no room for gnosticism in Christianity.Originally posted by dotaro:But they were written along side the other "accepted" gospels.
On what grounds were they rejected by the early Church?
I is not fair to deem them as "un-christian" just because they were not accepted by a select few who compiled the New Testament.
The gnostic gospels were written late in time. as far as 150AD after the days of the apostles. Most importantly, their ideas are not consistent with Jewish teachings of which the OT and NT get their roots. -
Gnosticism reject the need for salvation because Mankind is not lost; they are just ignorant.
This teaching also deem the flesh and matter as evil and that the spirit alone is the one that needs liberation.
I can without apologies say that it is a form of New Age movement packaged nicely. -
So either is telling the truth. Make your choice. Be your own judge. Decide your fate!Originally posted by dotaro:Different from the "accepted gospels"?
That is a relative statement.
I can also say that the New Testament Gospels are different from the so called "Gnostic Gospels".
A different view from the "accepted gospels" does not deem them as "un-Christian". -
Well, its been telecast in Nat.Geographic. The early compilers for the new testament did not incorporate the gospels in because they do not have the aptitude to understand what is written in the Gnostic gospels. Ofcourse, we know that leaders of Christianity in that period are exceptionally narrow-minded (Bare in mind the inquisition and the witchcraft percecutions, etc)Originally posted by vince69:Gnosticism is a historical term for various mystical initiatory religions, sects and knowledge schools that were most active in the first few centuries C.E. around the Mediterranean and extending into central Asia.
These systems typically recommend the pursuit of mysticism or "special knowledge" (gnosis) as the central goal of life. They also commonly depict creation as a mythological struggle between competing forces of light and dark, and posit a marked division between the material realm, typically depicted as under the governance of malign forces (such as the demiurge), and the higher spiritual realm from which it is divided, governed by God (the Monad) and the Aeons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism
Being shallow (maybe not a good word) or people who do not have high wisdom, they could not fathom that the "Gnostic" gospels are actually philosophical and methophorical. Also, ofcourse, they do not fit well with the easier accepted gospels as they were easier to understand.
Hmm...i was just thinking, if they had accepted these gospels (Gnostic), then Christianity would have evolves into something like Buddhism or Confuscianism, which are philosophical and ever-lasting. Then there wouldnt be such a "crisis" now for them.
Sorry, just my 2 cents worth. Dun flame me please.
-
The gospel of Thomas
The gospel of Philip
The gospel of Mary Magdalene
The gospel of Judas
They were written around the same period as the NT gospels.
They were "condemned" as Gnostic under the Council of Nicea. -
where you get this piece of info?Originally posted by dotaro:The gospel of Thomas
The gospel of Philip
The gospel of Mary Magdalene
The gospel of Judas
They were written around the same period as the NT gospels.
They were "condemned" as Gnostic under the Council of Nicea.
The Council of Nicea deals with Jesus being eternally begotten Son of God and not made God. -
Please dont say about the 150AD thingly. This is the "lamest" evidence people could site. Why? Because carbon dating only logs you in onto a range of period, often in terms of a range of 100 years. That is, scientifically, it could be between 50-150AD or 100-200AD.Originally posted by NT2:how 'along-side' can that be? The gnosis concept is rejected way before the entire NT came into being. The Old Testaments is totally against gnosis in every sense and there is no room for gnosticism in Christianity.
The gnostic gospels were written late in time. as far as 150AD after the days of the apostles. Most importantly, their ideas are not consistent with Jewish teachings of which the OT and NT get their roots.
Anyway, the gnostic gospels found, could be the 3rd or the 4th copy. Not the orginal ones. So let's say, if the original First copy is written in 50AD, then it got duplicated due to Christian percecution in that period, say at 80AD. Then the 2nd copy got very torn or worn out and people decide to re-duplicate it at 120AD.
So are you going to say that IF they find an exact set maybe 10 years down the road, and radio-carbon dating dates it back to 50AD. You are going to accept it? hmm...maybe the high people in the Christian echaleon might think of some other reason to reject it then?
-
even if the gnostic gospels were written in era closer to the days of the apostles wat can it show? the contents were obviously deviant from the New Testament and Old Testament teachings. the gnostic gospels cannot fit into anywhere in the Canonical books of the Bible. Its teachings are erroneous, deceptives and unorthodox.Originally posted by nightzip:Please dont say about the 150AD thingly. This is the "lamest" evidence people could site. Why? Because carbon dating only logs you in onto a range of period, often in terms of a range of 100 years. That is, scientifically, it could be between 50-150AD or 100-200AD.
Anyway, the gnostic gospels found, could be the 3rd or the 4th copy. Not the orginal ones. So let's say, if the original First copy is written in 50AD, then it got duplicated due to Christian percecution in that period, say at 80AD. Then the 2nd copy got very torn or worn out and people decide to re-duplicate it at 120AD.
So are you going to say that IF they find an exact set maybe 10 years down the road, and radio-carbon dating dates it back to 50AD. You are going to accept it? hmm...maybe the high people in the Christian echaleon might think of some other reason to reject it then?
Read the OT then read the gnostic gospels...the gnostic gospels sound slike pure thrash in the light of the ancient Scriptures. -
It is widely known.
Though many people tried to deny it, however, there's no proof to deny that the Canonisation of the Bible was discussed during that first meeting in of the council.
Though it does not appear in the agenda of the council, the agenda was drafted by the same group who maintaned that the unacceptable gospels were Gnostic. -
No need for Coucil of Nicea .. John the most favoured disciple already condemned liao.Originally posted by dotaro:The gospel of Thomas
The gospel of Philip
The gospel of Mary Magdalene
The gospel of Judas
They were written around the same period as the NT gospels.
They were "condemned" as Gnostic under the Council of Nicea.
-
I support NT2.Originally posted by NT2:even if the gnostic gospels were written in era closer to the days of the apostles wat can it show? the contents were obviously deviant from the New Testament and Old Testament teachings. the gnostic gospels cannot fit into anywhere in the Canonical books of the Bible. Its teachings are erroneous, deceptives and unorthodox.
Read the OT then read the gnostic gospels...the gnostic gospels sound slike pure thrash in the light of the ancient Scriptures.
If you cannot harmonize the gnostic gospels with the letters from the apostles, then they are out. -
thanks for ur support.Originally posted by Icemoon:I support NT2.
If you cannot harmonize the gnostic gospels with the letters from the apostles, then they are out.
then they pro-gnostics will say the remaining epistles are also part of the agenda....
and more gnostic epistles will come out....National Geographic boh eng liao
-
salvation by knowledge. doesn't sound that bad.
-
then idiots got a real problemOriginally posted by Ito_^:salvation by knowledge. doesn't sound that bad. -
I wouldnt be so fast to give my opinions though. The contents were deviant from the NT as the compilers of NT (as stated before), could not fathom the philosophical meaning in such gospels, given their limited wisdom. And basing on the "correct" gospels begins to sculpt the NT or garnishing (or "completing") it in a way they feel its most "right".Originally posted by NT2:even if the gnostic gospels were written in era closer to the days of the apostles wat can it show? the contents were obviously deviant from the New Testament and Old Testament teachings. the gnostic gospels cannot fit into anywhere in the Canonical books of the Bible. Its teachings are erroneous, deceptives and unorthodox.
Read the OT then read the gnostic gospels...the gnostic gospels sound slike pure thrash in the light of the ancient Scriptures.
Also, we have to bare in mind that the Gnostic gospels are by Mary, Judas etc. Do you think there is a chance for them to write what happened during that time or do you think the apostles have more time to write?
The Gnostic gospels could have been written much later, perhaps even at the dying stage of Mary or Judas or others, due to the percecution by the supposedly "right" christians? Or that the remaining followers for them, after reading the OT, thinks that it is not exactly correct, and therefore sets about writing the gospels to "right" the wrongs in the OT and NT?
Sorry, i am not a Christian, so forgive me if i do not talk sense. -
by the way the Canonical Gospels says that Judas committed suicide...how can a dead man write...Originally posted by nightzip:I wouldnt be so fast to give my opinions though. The contents were deviant from the NT as the compilers of NT (as stated before), could not fathom the philosophical meaning in such gospels, given their limited wisdom. And basing on the "correct" gospels begins to sculpt the NT or garnishing (or "completing") it in a way they feel its most "right".
Also, we have to bare in mind that the Gnostic gospels are by Mary, Judas etc. Do you think there is a chance for them to write what happened during that time or do you think the apostles have more time to write?
The Gnostic gospels could have been written much later, perhaps even at the dying stage of Mary or Judas or others, due to the percecution by the supposedly "right" christians? Or that the remaining followers for them, after reading the OT, thinks that it is not exactly correct, and therefore sets about writing the gospels to "right" the wrongs in the OT and NT?
Sorry, i am not a Christian, so forgive me if i do not talk sense. -
yup, i agree too...i mean why would anyone want to incorporate contradicting texts into a bible....it's like analogous to teaching maths in pri2, saying that 2x4=8 and then say actually 2x4 is also =10. right?Originally posted by Icemoon:I support NT2.
If you cannot harmonize the gnostic gospels with the letters from the apostles, then they are out.
But, we MUST know that human beings have their individual minds and is always subjective. And human beings do not have perfect knowledge.
So by eliminating these other gospels, actually makes the bible an incomplete text. And because it contradicts the average knowledge does not mean it is wrong too...bare in mind the inquisition, the earth is flat, witchcraft etc.
Another 2 cents? -
ugh. den ill better go book a nice place in hell le.Originally posted by NT2:then idiots got a real problem -
Idiots can learn too right? Are you saying that those autistic people cannot learn to take care of themselves?Originally posted by NT2:then idiots got a real problem
As long as people learn, sooner or later they could gain knowledge. -
man my pastor was just preaching about this topic today..together with the topic on the da vinci code..hmmm..