Who here is interested in the early Christian literature? The books that were not included in the NT. I've recently read over text known as "The Gospel of Mary Magdalene". It's very interesting, and paints the image of Jesus, as well as his teachings, in a new light. It seems that early literature was very abundant, beyond the 27 books chosen for the New Testament. I feel, in order to understand the origins of Christianity, one needs to experience the diverse nature of the religion as it formerly stood. Before it was crystallized into the scriptures we know today. What's everyone's thoughts? I'll just throw in a few interesting quotes from The Gospel of Mary: 22) The Savior said, All nature, all formations, all creatures exist in and with one another, and they will be resolved again into their own roots. 26) The Savior said There is no sin, but it is you who make sin when you do the things that are like the nature of adultery, which is called sin. 10) I said to Him, Lord, how does he who sees the vision see it, through the soul or through the spirit? 11) The Savior answered and said, He does not see through the soul nor through the spirit, but the mind that is between the two that is what sees the vision and it is [...]
The primary reason the Gnostic 'Gospels' (which almost none are 'Gospels' btw) are not part of the real New Testament is actually very simple: They are shit. Now, I know you want to hear some more explanation and I realise that with Davinci Code books out now, everybody has a big titilating conspiracy theory they want. Sorry. The actual reason the Gnostic 'Gospels' failed to get added to the NT is because they suck major balls. They are shitty. They simply look, feel and quack like fake writings. They are full of shitty incomprehensible 'doctrines' and stupid ideas. It really is that simple.
"They're shit, stupid ideas, incomprehensible, suck major balls." Wow, good reasons. Could you maybe give some actual reasoning for why they're "shit" besides your own personal, emotionaly charged rejection of them (probably due to your indoctrination with the "accepted" books)? Personally, I like them, they show another side of Jesus, a true mystic teacher. I mean, surely in his life he said more than what is encompassed in the Bible's 4 Gospels (which mostly repeat themselves), and these are a look into that. It's at least useful for understanding what people were really thinking about Jesus back then, before the Church destroyed all their opposition. I don't see any reason to accept the orthodox view of Jesus over these Gnostic ones besides popularity and Church authority (and they're only popular because the authority made them so).
I refer not to the Da Vinci Code book nor to conspiracy theories. Merely to those with religious authoritative power dictating what was believed to be Jesus' teaching. Nothing new really. Nothing surprising. The Gnostic Gospels are very interesting, and on the contrary are not incomprehensible. From reading the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, one finds fascinating insights. For instance: The mind sees the vision, not the soul. What does that imply? That we create the vision? That it is illusion? That's fascinating. Sounds a little like Krishnamurti. Or how about the nature of matter and such? Interesting again, how the gospel implies things are interconnected. Sounds almost like Quantum Physics, or the Tao. There is much to be appreciated from these forgotten books. Conspiracy and corruption aside. Those who formed the New Testament were fallible human beings, just like us today. Studying the popular literature of the time is studying the rich, dynamic roots of Christianity. Plus, there is always something to be learned from these books, whether they are in the New Testament or not.
I've read most of those works, and I think there is something to them - but only to those willing to look beneath the surface.
Sorry. The 'Gnostic Gospels' are shitty. Dont think you can change that with fake conspiracy theories which totally misrepresent even the simplest understanding of how the Real Gospels were accepted. There is a reason the Gnostics floundered away and their shitty 'books' were found in what can be described as a Nag Hamadi Refuse Container. Probably chucked in there by the cleaning staff one day.
From what I've learned, historically, the Gnostic Gospels had a popular following. The mainstream Church, or should I say the differing Church campaigned against it with counter arguments and such. With its own views. Eventually, the Gnostic Gospels were defeated, drowned out from mainstream. That's the jist of what I learned in Catholic school. "The Gnostics" were one of the "great challengers" the early Church had to overcome. Not sure if this is accurate, and even if it isn't, it means the gnostic gospels weren't considered 'shitty'. It's just that those with the differing views won the fight. That's not conspiracy. That's predictable history. And I guess it's okay to call this a 'conspiracy theory' by archeologists and historical researchers, but the early Churchmen could do no wrong, right?
One of the main reasons the Gnostic Gospels were not made part of the canon of the Bible is because they make Christian salvation into a kind of knowledge (gnosis) that only a select few can obtain through specific ritual practices. Strangely enough, this is what many people who follow religion do today without even realizing it. Anytime you are trying to make a community in which you must look, act and think like everyone else is not the true body of believers. Jesus calls many different people of different races, classes and ages. Christians are still both saint and sinner after being baptized.
True Molly, but at the same time, what a scripture says and what a religion develops around the scripture can be two different things. It's up for interpretation and opinion, and the dogma generated around that perception. For instance, the Gospel Of Mary (What I've read) did not imply any secret that only a few elite could understand. It was a gospel for all to read.
Shaman Sun, one of the other issues that arises in Gnostic Scriptures (see the Second Treatise of the Great Seth) is that in this writing, Jesus does not die on the cross. Someone else takes Jesus' place, and yet the onlookers didn't notice the substitute. This works fine if you're a Muslim, since Muslims believe that Jesus was the only human that was taken to heaven without dying a physical death. However, it would kind of mess up the whole notion of Jesus' death on the Cross atoning for our sins.
Again, no disagreement here either. The Gnostics obvioulsy didn't believe that then, no? A different perception. An alternative. Yes, it didn't agree with the leaders of the early Church, and thus was discarded. It isn't garbage though. There is alot of insight in there. It's another look at Jesus. I can't say for certain it is right or wrong, but I can't say the New Testament's literature is either. I only say that there are things to be learned in Christian literature, excluded or included.
