The Gospel of Philip. An ancient work by early Christians purposely omitted by modern Christians.

[Glaurung]

There is no doubt aside from us doubting Thomas's it was an early Christian scripture none the less.

It's not an early Christian scripture. Christian scripture encompasses those texts accepted as canonical by the various churches. The Gnostic texts were rejected, not because they contained truths the established Church wanted to hide, but because they were the bogus, cultic texts. They contradicted the tradition passed down from the very people who knew Jesus personally.

The existence of Gnostic and heretical groups was never a secret. (Cults have always existed). And as interesting as those Gnostic texts are as historical artifacts, their existence does not come close to proving any of your original claims. The texts which actually made it into the canon predate all Gnostic texts.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's not an early Christian scripture. Christian scripture encompasses those texts accepted as canonical by the various churches. The Gnostic texts were rejected, not because they contained truths the established Church wanted to hide, but because they were the bogus, cultic texts. They contradicted the tradition passed down from the very people who knew Jesus personally.

The existence of Gnostic and heretical groups was never a secret. (Cults have always existed). And as interesting as those Gnostic texts are as historical artifacts, their existence does not come close to proving any of your original claims. The texts which actually made it into the canon predate all Gnostic texts.

The question is which one was actually the cult?

There's no doubt that the Gospel of Philip is a direct threat to Pauline Christianity of which seems to be contentious itself.

 

[Glaurung]

The question is which one was actually the cult?

The innumerable Gnostic groups, who tended to claim exclusive, salvific knowledge only accessible to their own initiates.

There's no doubt that the Gospel of Philip is a direct threat to Pauline Christianity of which seems to be contentious itself.

Gnostic texts are basically the third and forth century equivalents to the Book of Mormon. They're no threat at all.

I'll take Saint Paul's letters, a man who wrote in the first century and personally knew the Apostles, over centuries late texts written by a long dead cults.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It reveals that early Christianity was far different from what we see today. Something Christians don't like to talk about and would rather pretend it's not there as with other ancient gospels that were rejected because it would change the nature of Christianity and Christian belief.

Christianity in its early days was a lot closer to Manichaeism in it's true early form establishing the fact of Christianity's pagan origins.

Fortunately the gospel itself survived and can be read post translation.....

The Gospel of Philip -- The Nag Hammadi Library

Like the Book of Lilith , the Gospel of Philip really sheds a historical
window into the world of early Christianity and what it actually was like.

re: Apocrypha

A "Berean Christian" studies the books for themselves and makes their own decision. However, here are some reasons I do not accept books beyond the 66. These other books:

1) Aren't accepted by the Jewish people

2) Aren't accepted by more than 99% of groups that began new church movements, via Bible study and study of non-canon books

3) Do not say, as the Bible says over 6,000 times in the OT alone, "This is the Word of God", indeed, they say things like "Here's wisdom my grandfather told me"

4) Contain teachings that contradict the Bible

5) Contain impious or "dirty" passages that are more sexual or violent in nature than the Bible

6) Were reluctantly placed in some movements to keep the peace, while adding footnotes like "of unknown origin/veracity"

7) Contain self-contradictory teachings, like Person A disagrees with Person B in the same apocrypha

8) Shows lack of character: Daniel tricking people instead of being an honest witness, the child Jesus puts a fellow child to death, etc.

9) Do not withstand any type of codes/gematria analysis

 

[Katzpur]

I'll take Saint Paul's letters, a man who wrote in the first century and personally knew the Apostles, over centuries late texts written by a long dead cults.

And you'll also take multiple creeds written centuries later by men who were educated in Greek philosophy, and whose aim was to create a God that differed vastly from the God the early Jewish converts to Christianity had worshiped.

 

[sealchan]

Any document that was rejected by the early church was rejected because 1) the early Christians couldn’t trace authorship to an Apostle or eyewitness accounts, and 2) the theology differed from what had been handed down from the Apostles and 3) such documents were considered fraudulent.

None of the gospels are likely to have been eyewitness accounts as they all seem to borrow from similar sources or disagree on important events that memory shouldn't have trouble with. No, what actually happened in God's creation is that a great variety of texts were written and one community emerged as the one to outlast and persecute the other communities and they chose with their God-given free will to select certain texts from others.

We cannot assume any special authenticity of the chosen books over the others.

 

[sealchan]

@Nowhere Man -

The Book of Lilith?

Is this the Book of Lilith?

https://www.amazon.com/Book-Lilith-Robert-G-Brown/dp/1430322454

 

[QuestioningMind]

It reveals that early Christianity was far different from what we see today. Something Christians don't like to talk about and would rather pretend it's not there as with other ancient gospels that were rejected because it would change the nature of Christianity and Christian belief.

Christianity in its early days was a lot closer to Manichaeism in it's true early form establishing the fact of Christianity's pagan origins.

Fortunately the gospel itself survived and can be read post translation.....

The Gospel of Philip -- The Nag Hammadi Library

Like the Book of Lilith , the Gospel of Philip really sheds a historical
window into the world of early Christianity and what it actually was like.

The reality is that none of the books in the bible have Approved By God stamped on them. What is considered 'God inspired' and what isn't has been decided purely by fallible human beings with fallible human motivations. Sadly Christians haven't put their faith in God, but have instead put their faith in the decisions made by other fallible humans beings.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I'll take Saint Paul's letters, a man who wrote in the first century and personally knew the Apostles, over centuries late texts written by a long dead cults.

It would appear they are still around today albiet somewhat rare.

Manichaean Church

 

[Clear]

It reveals that early Christianity was far different from what we see today. Something Christians don't like to talk about and would rather pretend it's not there as with other ancient gospels that were rejected because it would change the nature of Christianity and Christian belief.

Christianity in its early days was a lot closer to Manichaeism in it's true early form establishing the fact of Christianity's pagan origins.

Fortunately the gospel itself survived and can be read post translation.....

The Gospel of Philip -- The Nag Hammadi Library

Hi Nowhere Man;


1) Evolving Christianity and Evolving Christian literature
I appreciate your recognition that early Judeo-christianity was quite different in it’s worldviews than the many, many later Christian movements with their conflicting and evolving doctrines. The early Judeo-Christian literature of belief is quite wide and even the later various canon’s differed both in time and geographically. For example, the 4th-5th century New Testament (C Sinaiticus) contained Barnabas and hermas and the modern common western canons (both protestant and catholic) differ from the eastern canon (Ethiopic – 81 books in the large canon)



2) All of the earliest sacred texts, including the bible, are pseudoepigrahic (the author is unknown)
All of the texts in eastern and western bibles, both old and new testaments are pseudographic in that we do not know who wrote any book of either the old or New Testament. One problem with the historical category of “gnostic” writing is that it was such a loose category in the early stages of historical categorization that there are many books people call “gnostic” which aren’t and others. For example, New Testament John has been considered gnostic. “Gnostic”, as a historical category is a mis-used word.


3) Value and meaning in sacred literature of depends on personal characteristics and background
Historical books and textual quotes are often critiqued by non-historians in a personal light and far differently than they are viewed by religious historians of early texts. Non historians often do not understand the idioms and context, and thus do not view the text as having meaning and value (as did the early Judeo-Christians who read the texts). For example, the writer of New Testament Jude quotes Enoch as scripture while modern Christians are often either unfamiliar with or disoriented by the same literature. This affects the personal value an individual places on such writings.

Take the example given us by the poster “InChrist”

The Gospel of Phillip reads : "God is a dyer. As the good dyes, which are called "true", dissolve with the things dyed in them, so it is with those whom God has dyed. Since his dyes are immortal, they become immortal by means of his colors. Now God dips what he dips in water."

InChrist comments that such verses sound to him ”…like nonsensical gibberish...” (InChrist, Post #7)

Whereas I value this text inside the early historical concept that God is in the business of improving individuals (“garments” was an early idiom for the embodied soul) by imbuing them with intelligence and the holy spirit (the dyes that improve the garment) and its’ connection with baptism (the dipping in water). The symbolism of a great cosmic "dyer" who is in the business of improving garments (the embodied spirits of mankind) and imbuing those who undergo the covenant of baptism with intelligence and moral wisdom is quite profound inside my view of early Christian worldviews. It is a wonderful summation of the purposes of God in early Christian worldviews.

The difference in "finding meaning" vs "seeing giberish" may simply be that I am a historian of these early texts and InChrist is not.

Agnostics and Athiests have often pointed out that there are biblical texts that, to them, also are nonsensical. The difference between what is meaningful and what is gibberish often depends upon our personal background and personal context.


In any case I wish you a great spiritual journey in this life as you try to make models of what is going on inside the earliest sacred texts.

Clear
δρφυσεω

 

[RabbiO]

Is this the Book of Lilith?

https://www.amazon.com/Book-Lilith-Robert-G-Brown/dp/1430322454

That is the title of this particular book.

It does deal with Lilith, however it is a contemporary novel published about 10 years ago. It is not a supressed ancient manuscript.

Or did I just not see your tongue in cheek humor?

 

[sealchan]

That is the title of this particular book.

It does deal with Lilith, however it is a contemporary novel published about 10 years ago. It is not a supressed ancient manuscript.

Or did I just not see your tongue in cheek humor?

Not tongue in check but a sincere mistake...I did a quick search and read the first customer comment and was misled. My apologies!

 

[sooda]

That is the title of this particular book.

It does deal with Lilith, however it is a contemporary novel published about 10 years ago. It is not a supressed ancient manuscript.

Or did I just not see your tongue in cheek humor?

I don't know where the myths and legends about Lilith originate, but one is interesting.. After the Fall when Adam and Eve were forced out of Eden God separated them for 130 years. During that time Adam cohabited with Lilith and she gave birth to demons. After 130 years God forgave Adam and Eve and they were reunited, built and altar in Mecca and worshiped God. Sometime later Eve died and was buried in the "grandmother city".. Jeddah.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Hi Nowhere Man;


1) Evolving Christianity and Evolving Christian literature
I appreciate your recognition that early Judeo-christianity was quite different in it’s worldviews than the many, many later Christian movements with their conflicting and evolving doctrines. The early Judeo-Christian literature of belief is quite wide and even the later various canon’s differed both in time and geographically. For example, the 4th-5th century New Testament (C Sinaiticus) contained Barnabas and hermas and the modern common western canons (both protestant and catholic) differ from the eastern canon (Ethiopic – 81 books in the large canon)



2) All of the earliest sacred texts, including the bible, are pseudoepigrahic (the author is unknown)
All of the texts in eastern and western bibles, both old and new testaments are pseudographic in that we do not know who wrote any book of either the old or New Testament. One problem with the historical category of “gnostic” writing is that it was such a loose category in the early stages of historical categorization that there are many books people call “gnostic” which aren’t and others. For example, New Testament John has been considered gnostic. “Gnostic”, as a historical category is a mis-used word.


3)Value and meaning in sacred literature of depends on personal characteristics and background
Historical books and textual quotes are often critiqued by non-historians in a personal light and far differently than they are viewed by religious historians of early texts. Non historians often do not understand the idioms and context, and thus do not view the text as having meaning and value (as did the early Judeo-Christians who read the texts). For example, the writer of New Testament Jude quotes Enoch as scripture while modern Christians are often either unfamiliar with or disoriented by the same literature. This affects the personal value an individual places on such writings.

Take the example given us by the poster “InChrist”

The Gospel of Phillip reads : "God is a dyer. As the good dyes, which are called "true", dissolve with the things dyed in them, so it is with those whom God has dyed. Since his dyes are immortal, they become immortal by means of his colors. Now God dips what he dips in water."

InChrist comments that such verses sound to him ”…like nonsensical gibberish...” (InChrist, Post #7)

Whereas I value this text inside the early historical concept that God is in the business of improving individuals (“garments” was an early idiom for the embodied soul) by imbuing them with intelligence and the holy spirit (the dyes that improve the garment) and its’ connection with baptism (the dipping in water). The symbolism of a great cosmic "dyer" who is in the business of improving garments (the embodied spirits of mankind) and imbuing those who undergo the covenant of baptism with intelligence and moral wisdom is quite profound inside my view of early Christian worldviews. It is a wonderful summation of the purposes of God in early Christian worldviews.

The difference in "finding meaning" vs "seeing giberish" may simply be that I am a historian of these early texts and InChrist is not.

Agnostics and Athiests have often pointed out that there are biblical texts that, to them, also are nonsensical. The difference between what is meaningful and what is gibberish often depends upon our personal background and personal context.


In any case I wish you a great spiritual journey in this life as you try to make models of what is going on inside the earliest sacred texts.

Clear
δρφυσεω

It's too bad historicy is so difficult to establish when it comes to things like this. We are undoubtedly at the mercy of time and age in recovering such mysteries.

I do find reading the content of the books ergo 'between the books' to be extremely fascinating for their content, if not for their true origin and authorship.

Very informative and friendly post. :O)

 

[sooda]

It's not an early Christian scripture. Christian scripture encompasses those texts accepted as canonical by the various churches.

The Gnostic texts were rejected, not because they contained truths the established Church wanted to hide, but because they were the bogus, cultic texts. They contradicted the tradition passed down from the very people who knew Jesus personally.

The existence of Gnostic and heretical groups was never a secret. (Cults have always existed). And as interesting as those Gnostic texts are as historical artifacts, their existence does not come close to proving any of your original claims. The texts which actually made it into the canon predate all Gnostic texts.

Thirteen leather-bound papyrus codices buried in a sealed jar were found by a local farmer named Muhammed al-Samman.

The writings in these codices comprise 52 mostly Gnostic treatises, but they also include three works belonging to the Corpus Hermeticum and a partial translation/alteration of Plato's Republic.

Nag Hammadi library - Wikipedia

These codices may have belonged to a nearby Pachomian monastery and were buried after Saint Athanasius condemned the use of non-canonical books in his Festal Letter of 367 A.D. The discovery of these texts significantly influenced modern scholarship's pursuit and knowledge of early Christianity and Gnosticism.

The contents of the codices were written in the Coptic language. The best-known of these works is probably the Gospel of Thomas, of which the Nag Hammadi codices contain the only complete text. After the discovery, scholars recognized that fragments of these sayings attributed to Jesus appeared in manuscripts discovered at Oxyrhynchus in 1898, and matching quotations were recognized in other early Christian sources.

The written text of the Gospel of Thomas is dated to the second century by most interpreters, but based on much earlier sources. The buried manuscripts date from the 3rd and 4th centuries.

The Nag Hammadi codices are currently housed in the Coptic Museum in Cairo.

 

[sooda]

It's too bad historicy is so difficult to establish when it comes to things like this. We are undoubtedly at the mercy of time and age in recovering such mysteries.

I do find reading the content of the books ergo 'between the books' to be extremely fascinating for their content, if not for their true origin and authorship.

Very informative and friendly post. :O)

They were written in Coptic and found in upper Egypt just north of Luxor.

 

[Glaurung]

And you'll also take multiple creeds written centuries later by men who were educated in Greek philosophy, and whose aim was to create a God that differed vastly from the God the early Jewish converts to Christianity had worshiped.

I'll take the creeds considered authoritative by the teaching Magisterium, which has the guarantee of Christ to never fall into error. Despite the claims of various religion founding "prophets" throughout the centuries.

That the Church over time sought to expound on the faith isn't a bad thing. On the contrary it is good and necessary. And there's nothing intrinsically wrong with using the terms of Greek philosophy to do so. If your complaint is that some such terms originate with pagan thinkers (albeit usually with Christianized meanings when used by the Church) well so too does the script and language you are using to raise your objections.

 

[InChrist]

None of the gospels are likely to have been eyewitness accounts as they all seem to borrow from similar sources or disagree on important events that memory shouldn't have trouble with. No, what actually happened in God's creation is that a great variety of texts were written and one community emerged as the one to outlast and persecute the other communities and they chose with their God-given free will to select certain texts from others.

We cannot assume any special authenticity of the chosen books over the others.

That is your perspective, but from my research it is not mine.

 

[Katzpur]

I'll take the creeds considered authoritative by the teaching Magisterium, which has the guarantee of Christ to never fall into error. Despite the claims of various religion founding "prophets" throughout the centuries.

That the Church over time sought to expound on the faith isn't a bad thing. On the contrary it is good and necessary. And there's nothing intrinsically wrong with using the terms of Greek philosophy to do so. If your complaint is that some such terms originate with pagan thinkers (albeit usually with Christianized meanings when used by the Church) well so too does the script and language you are using to raise your objections.

I disagree, but thank you for your response.

 

[sooda]

I disagree, but thank you for your response.

This book contains translations of all of the texts found in volume I of the weighty Oxford University Press Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, without any of the apparatus. The First Book of Adam and Eve
The Second Book of Adam and Eve
The Book of the Secrets of Enoch
The Psalms of Solomon
The Odes of Solomon
The Letter of Aristeas
Fourth Book of Maccabees
The Story of Ahikar
The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
Testament of Reuben
Testament of Simeon
Testament of Levi

continued


The Forgotten Books of Eden Index