As a Christian, does it mean anything to you?
Nag Hammadi library - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nag Hammadi library - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Nag Hammadi library!
- Thread starter TashaN
- Start date
Nope.
No. It has nothing to offer, either to me or to Christianity at large.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
I think it shows us that there is more than just a literal meaning to scripture, the so called Nag Hammadi library, is just another way of seeing the lord, or the truth of what is.
roger1440
I do stuff
It reveals more history and more views.
It seems to me that it is of interest mainly / almost exclusively to Gnostic Christians, whose beliefs are not all that similar to those of the demographically far more common Pauline Christians.
I suspect most Christians don't even know Gnostic Christianism exists, and their general attitude is probably not too far off from "I have no reason to seek new canon, and this does not seem to really have much to do with my religion anyway".
There seems to be no particular urge from either Pauline Christians (meaning, more or less, the Christians of this DIR) or Gnostic Christians (roughly meaning those who belong in the Gnosticism DIR) to reach a common understanding; far as I can tell, both groups are fairly satisfied in agreeing to disagree. They are, far as I can tell, simply two different religious movements who both claim inspiration from Jesus Christ but have largely incompatible understandings of what that should entail.
It is not like (say) the Orthodox/Catholic divide, which happened after nearly a millenium of common understanding; Gnostic and Pauline Christianities have ever been divergent doctrines, since their very origins.
I suspect most Christians don't even know Gnostic Christianism exists, and their general attitude is probably not too far off from "I have no reason to seek new canon, and this does not seem to really have much to do with my religion anyway".
There seems to be no particular urge from either Pauline Christians (meaning, more or less, the Christians of this DIR) or Gnostic Christians (roughly meaning those who belong in the Gnosticism DIR) to reach a common understanding; far as I can tell, both groups are fairly satisfied in agreeing to disagree. They are, far as I can tell, simply two different religious movements who both claim inspiration from Jesus Christ but have largely incompatible understandings of what that should entail.
It is not like (say) the Orthodox/Catholic divide, which happened after nearly a millenium of common understanding; Gnostic and Pauline Christianities have ever been divergent doctrines, since their very origins.
gsa
Well-Known Member
I am no longer a Christian, but when I was practicing Christianity I considered these texts to be important. Not because they are part of the confession of the Trinitarians (I was always more or less a unitarian anyway), but because they illustrated the divergence of the early Christian tradition. The Gospel According to Thomas is one of the most important from the collection, because it is a) believed to be fairly old for a "Gnostic" text and b) it contains many of the sayings of the Synoptics while John is arguably a response to the Thomas tradition (a negative response, but a response).
If you are interested in Gnosticism, the texts are indispensable. But as LuisDantas points out, correctly, there's not much overlap between the Christian tradition as it developed over time and the Gnostic tradition. After all, it was heretical.
If you are interested in Gnosticism, the texts are indispensable. But as LuisDantas points out, correctly, there's not much overlap between the Christian tradition as it developed over time and the Gnostic tradition. After all, it was heretical.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
I read the Nag Hammadi library once a year. Fantastic stuff.
roger1440
I do stuff
Your kidding right? I have had a copy for nearly 25 years.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
You're much older than me. I bought mine in grad school, about 2001 or so. I need to have it all fresh on my mind when I read other things.
roger1440
I do stuff
Yeah, I'm real old. Wanna know what my first job was? I was a waiter at the Last Supper.
A
angellous_evangellous
Guest
haha - that's funny. I'm sorry I sad 'old' - that was unfair. I was measuring your experience by mine - you could have had it since you were three or four years old or whatever.
In any case, I hope we share a love for that literature.
nazz
Doubting Thomas
your question is a bit vague. Could you be more specific?
te_lanus
Alien Hybrid
For me it shows that when Christianity started, Christianity was way more diverse than what it is today.
Personally I regular read it. Especially the Valentinian Text: Gospel of Truth The Gospel of Philip
A great site is Nag Hammadi Library
Personally I regular read it. Especially the Valentinian Text: Gospel of Truth The Gospel of Philip
A great site is Nag Hammadi Library