Gnostic & Christian Beginnings

[Jaxbac]

In 325AD the Nicene Counsel agreed on a set of texts to be included and excluded from what we now know as the Christian bible. Gnostic gospels and those deemed heretical were excluded, while those that conformed with the "organized" church (that of Constantine) were included. When the Naghammadi texts were found in 1947 (the Gnostic scriptures) they were found to include a different set of teachings and ideas put forth by Christ, not conforming to the Christian doctrine followed today. The fact that so many people are unaware of these scriptures speaks volumes for there importance, insofar as the Christian church has kept their content from spreading. Is the Christian church afraid of the implications this might have?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In 325AD the Nicene Counsel agreed on a set of texts to be included and excluded from what we now know as the Christian bible.

Why do people assert things with so much certainty and so little evidence?

The fact that so many people are unaware of these scriptures speaks volumes for there importance ...

Nonsense.

 

[Katzpur]

In 325AD the Nicene Counsel agreed on a set of texts to be included and excluded from what we now know as the Christian bible. Gnostic gospels and those deemed heretical were excluded, while those that conformed with the "organized" church (that of Constantine) were included. When the Naghammadi texts were found in 1947 (the Gnostic scriptures) they were found to include a different set of teachings and ideas put forth by Christ, not conforming to the Christian doctrine followed today. The fact that so many people are unaware of these scriptures speaks volumes for there importance, insofar as the Christian church has kept their content from spreading. Is the Christian church afraid of the implications this might have?

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that the Council at Nicaea in 325 A.D. had nothing at all to do with the Christian canon, but to discuss the nature of God.

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that the Council at Nicaea in 325 A.D. had nothing at all to do with the Christian canon, but to discuss the nature of God.

This is where Chrisianity as we know it today was created. From these councils.

 

[Katzpur]

This is where Chrisianity as we know it today was created. From these councils.

I know that, Mujahid. But the Nicene Creed had nothing to do (as far as I know) with making any decisions as to the Christian canon. It had to with the nature of God and the relationship of God the Father and Jesus Christ. It was where the doctrine of the Trinity was established, not where the canon was established.

 

[Bennettresearch]

Hi Jax

I have to agree with Jay on this. It wasn't the council of Nicea that went after heretical literature, it was the church that followed after that did this. Its scope was far reaching. As to the Gnostic Gospels, I do not know of any suppression of them. They are available. As to whether there is any offical recognition per se, there is resistance. However, many scholars quote books like the Gospel of Phillip and Mary.

 

[Halcyon]

I think the final decision on the biblical canon was decided some time in the 16th century, but i could be mistaken.

As for suppression of the Gnostic Gospels, that simply isn't true anymore, i myself own them in no less than three different publications. Of course when Gnosticism was a viable alternative to Pauline Christianity there was massive suppression, book burning and massacres to supress the many different Gnostic sects.

Also, the teachings aren't really that drastically different, if you get a copy of the standard Christian bible and read only what Jesus said without all the commentaries and theorizing that accompanies it, then there is not much new in the Gnostic Gospels. The Gospel of John for example, was considered by the Gnostics to be their gospel, and the copy found at Nag Hammadi was indeed very similar to the one in the bible.
The gospels of Thomas, Philip and Mary could probably even be added to the bible now without too much fuss.

Its when you look at more specifically Gnostic texts such as the Secret Book of John, the Gospel of Truth and the Sophia of Jesus Christ (Pistis Sophia) as well as many others, that we see the real differences between Pauline Christianity and Gnosticism.

 

[ChrisP]

Its when you look at more specifically Gnostic texts such as the Secret Book of John, the Gospel of Truth and the Sophia of Jesus Christ (Pistis Sophia) as well as many others, that we see the real differences between Pauline Christianity and Gnosticism.

The major difference seems to be the belief that Yahweh/Jehovah of the Jewish people is seen as a genocidal sadist by Gnostics, in contrast to the belief of Pauline Christians that he is one and the same as Jesus.

These Gospels were probably excluded as they went against Paul's idea that the Jesus was a physical reprensentation of the Jewish God.

The only reason they have been kept secret so long is that the Early Catholic Church did such a splendid job of stamping their existence out.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

NT Canon

 

[Halcyon]

That's the one i was thinking of, the Council of Trent 1546, god bless wikipedia, thanks for the link Jayhawker.

The major difference seems to be the belief that Yahweh/Jehovah of the Jewish people is seen as a genocidal sadist by Gnostics, in contrast to the belief of Pauline Christians that he is one and the same as Jesus.

These Gospels were probably excluded as they went against Paul's idea that the Jesus was a physical reprensentation of the Jewish God.

The only reason they have been kept secret so long is that the Early Catholic Church did such a splendid job of stamping their existence out.

Well, you're talking about the demiurge theory which was popular amoung most Gnostic sects. They varied in their view of Yahweh as the demiurge from him being pure evil, to just a bit arrogant and stupid.

The BIG difference between Christian Gnostics and Pauline (modern) Christians is the role of a church. Gnostics didn't need a church as they believed God could be sought via contemplation and meditation, their goal was Gnosis (knowledge) of the true nature of God.
The early church obviously didn't like this idea as it would essentially render them useless, no need for middle men like priests, bishops and a pope if every commoner on the street can find God on their own! This is probably the main reason why the gospel of thomas was not included, as it contained sayings of Jesus such as "Split wood, I am there. Lift up a rock, you will find me there." and "If your leaders say to you 'Look! The Kingdom is in the heavens!" Then the birds will be there before you are. If they say that the Kingdom is in the sea, then the fish will be there before you are. Rather, the Kingdom is within you and it is outside of you". Nothing about, 'go to church to find me (god)'.

Plus, like you say they did have a different view of Jesus, most didn't believe him to be the son of God (as they believed all people are the direct children of God, each containing a divine spark) - again they ranged in their views of Jesus, from seeing him as a man who had reached Gnosis, to the literal word of God (logos) who only appeared to take on human form as the man Jesus.

I think it important to mention that Gnosticism is/was not a Christian sect nor heresy. Gnosticism is a set of theological concepts which boil down to 1. The material world being irrelevant to spiritual evolution and the gaining of Gnosis, and 2. God can be found within each of us, we just need to look. This can be incorporated into any set of beliefs, and it was. There were Pagan, Hermetic, Jewish, Islamic, Cathar and Christian Gnostics as well as other faiths built on the Gnostic principles including Manichaeism and the Mandeans.

 

[Mujahid Mohammed]

I know that, Mujahid. But the Nicene Creed had nothing to do (as far as I know) with making any decisions as to the Christian canon. It had to with the nature of God and the relationship of God the Father and Jesus Christ. It was where the doctrine of the Trinity was established, not where the canon was established.

It had everything to do with it due to the fact the one who called for this council was the Emperor Constantine the leader of the ruling governing body at the time The Romans by byzatinne empire. He made the Creed law because he was the king. Many executions and scripture contradicting what they established as being dogma. Now you must remember the romans are Gentiles and the people at these council were the scribes and pharisees at the time. Now we know from some of Jesus's testimony the character of these individuals. I have a few books on the subject I will go back and refresh my memories with the details and will list it in this post insha Allah. I hope this helps.

 

[Katzpur]

I think it important to mention that Gnosticism is/was not a Christian sect nor heresy. Gnosticism is a set of theological concepts which boil down to 1. The material world being irrelevant to spiritual evolution and the gaining of Gnosis, and 2. God can be found within each of us, we just need to look. This can be incorporated into any set of beliefs, and it was. There were Pagan, Hermetic, Jewish, Islamic, Cathar and Christian Gnostics as well as other faiths built on the Gnostic principles including Manichaeism and the Mandeans.

I disagree. By the middle of the second century, there were three major movements within Christianity: Jewish Christianity, Hellenistic (or Gentile Christianity) and Gnosticism. These three were not as clearly defined as it might seem. There was actually a rather large spectrum of belief crossing over these three main categories and a certain amount of overlapping.

As has already been mentioned, the Greek word “gnosis” means “knowledge.” The Gnostics believed they were saved by the knowledge of God, in other words, that knowledge itself was salvation. Gnostic thought incorporated everything from oriental mythologies to astrological doctrines to Jewish tradition to Christian eschatology to Platonic terminology. The Gnostic movement came into existence during the Apostolic period, but never became particularly strong until much later. We can credit the Apostles with keeping their heresies from taking hold. However (according to Eusebius), Gnosticism began to flourish during the first few centuries after the apostolic period.

 

[Katzpur]

It had everything to do with it due to the fact the one who called for this council was the Emperor Constantine the leader of the ruling governing body at the time The Romans by byzatinne empire. He made the Creed law because he was the king. Many executions and scripture contradicting what they established as being dogma. Now you must remember the romans are Gentiles and the people at these council were the scribes and pharisees at the time. Now we know from some of Jesus's testimony the character of these individuals. I have a few books on the subject I will go back and refresh my memories with the details and will list it in this post insha Allah. I hope this helps.

Mujuhid,

I think refreshing your memory would be a very good idea, because you are obviously mixed up. Meanwhile, keep in mind that I do not subscribe to many of the tenets of mainstream Christianity myself. You definitely don't need to convince me that something went wrong with Jesus Christ's Church. I already know that.

Kathryn

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I disagree. By the middle of the second century, there were three major movements within Christianity: Jewish Christianity, Hellenistic (or Gentile Christianity) and Gnosticism. These three were not as clearly defined as it might seem. There was actually a rather large spectrum of belief crossing over these three main categories and a certain amount of overlapping.

Precisely ... well said!

 

[greatcalgarian]

That's the one i was thinking of, the Council of Trent 1546, god bless wikipedia, thanks for the link Jayhawker.
..........
I think it important to mention that Gnosticism is/was not a Christian sect nor heresy. Gnosticism is a set of theological concepts which boil down to 1. The material world being irrelevant to spiritual evolution and the gaining of Gnosis, and 2. God can be found within each of us, we just need to look. This can be incorporated into any set of beliefs, and it was. There were Pagan, Hermetic, Jewish, Islamic, Cathar and Christian Gnostics as well as other faiths built on the Gnostic principles including Manichaeism and the Mandeans.

Wilkipedia is not neutral in this respect. Read Richard Carrier:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html

Around 135 the Gnostic Basilides composed a mighty treatise called the Exigetica which, judging from quotes by critics, contained lengthy exegesis on Gospel stories like the Sermon on the Mount and the Rich Man and Lazarus (M 78-9). We do not know if he was drawing on any actual Gospels, or oral tradition. Nevertheless, the attack was underway: whoever disagreed with him had to respond in kind, with their own texts, and somehow win the resulting propaganda war. For this purpose the New Testament was all but born. And in addition to this was the political need for a scapegoat: pressure against Christians by the Roman authorities prompted many to criticise other Christian sects with the general theme "they are the bad Christians, but we are the good ones, so you should punish them instead." Thus, pro-Roman elements, and the absence of anti-Roman features, were a precondition for the canonic texts of any church with a chance of success, and this also affected the formation of the surviving canon--and, incidentally, given the tense relations between Rome and the Jews, antisemitic features would also win Roman favor and release the Christians from Roman hostility toward Jews, although one could not take this pandering too far in a church largely comprised of Jews or their descendants.
In 144, Marcion proposed a reform of Christianity for which the church leaders expelled him merely for suggesting: that the OT was contradictory and barbaric and that the true Gospel was not at all Jewish, but that Jewish ideas had been imported into NT texts by interpolators, and only Paul's teachings are true. Moreover, he rejected the idea that Jesus was flesh, and the idea of Hell. But what is significant for us is that this implies a recognition of "texts" as being authoritative (M 90-4). Expelled, Marcion started his own church and was the first to clearly establish a canon, consisting of ten of the Epistles and one Gospel, which Tertullian decades later identified as the Gospel of Luke, though stripped of "unacceptable features" such as the nativity, OT references, etc. Yet Tertullian attacks Marcion for not having named the author of the book, but simply calling it "the Gospel" (Against Marcion 4.2), even though everyone had been doing just the same thing before him. Thus it is possible, if not likely, that by 144 the Gospel of Luke had not yet received its name. We have already seen how around 130 Papias perhaps names Mark so as to defend its authority, and alludes to a text by Matthew which could have inspired naming another Gospel after him, the one which seemed to rely most on OT prophecies. Thus, the very need to assert authority is perhaps compelling church leaders to give names to the Gospel authors sometime between 110 and 150, in order that the authority of certain Gospels can be established.

 

[greatcalgarian]

http://www.probe.org/content/view/961/77/

Probe Ministry short write up is worth reading as well.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Sometimes it really surprised and amazed me that my creation could be so imaginative and productive. Look at what Gnostic Basilides wrote (Nag Hammadi) in Exigetica around AD135, and AD144 Marcion's faith and Gospel, Montanism in AD156, Talmud in AD200, Justin, Tatian, Terullian, Theophilus, Serapion, Essenes, Dionysius, Athenagoras, Irenaeus, all telling different stories.

More links on various thoughts of early Christians.

 

[greatcalgarian]

Actually the disappearance of Gnostic line of Christianity is the work of the early "Catholic" Christians led by Constantine. Without Constantine, the Christians today may be practicing comletely different dogma. During those early days, Christians persecuting Christians was more serious than non-Christians persecuting Christians.

 

[greatcalgarian]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/

I love the informative write up by PBS Frontline.

 

[Bennettresearch]

Nice Article greatc,

I think that the confusion of some about Constantine is that he was instrumental in forming the church of Rome and didn't dictate the selection of scriptures. He only decreed that the Bishops get their act together and come up with a canon of sorts. How could this church claim authority if it didn't have the matter all settled? This is where the selection is debateable because they of course wanted to please the Emperor. The most problematic question is why, almost a full 300 years after Jesus, was there not an authoritative canon already in existence? Why did it take Constantine's participation to make this happen?