Have You Read the Nag Hammadi?

I'm not afraid of studying anything. I just pray for discernment.

It's funny, I went through the public ackowledgement of being saved (in church) and was baptised. I grew up in the church. All of that. But the most religious-like experience I've ever had was the first time I ever dropped acid (a long time ago). I'll never forget that experience. Having that experience makes it much easier for me to read the Nag Hammadi and consider what its saying. As I've said before, alot of it is on a level many Christians simply couldn't handle or make any sense of.

Originally posted by Nygdan
... but it seems that the bulk of the christians didn't buy into the 'gnostic' version of the faith. I think that that is important. We are talking about a time when there was no 'church', when 'the church' was people meeting in private in their homes and maybe groups electing a metropolitan/bishop/whathaveyou for their city.

But you must also remember that the bulk of christians could not even read texts at that time either, and much of it was filtered for them. There was an "elite" group of people who would do this. More of the "gnostics" could read and write and therefore could come to thier own conclusions. Many of them also concidered themselves of a predestined group of people who contained the spark of God and all others could not obtain gnosis.

Originally posted by Nygdan True enough again, however, they're still forgeries. They're not authentic, and the public overall seems to have not beleived them. For example, no one is going to throw away the gospel of saint thomas if they think its authentic, no matter what some prelate says.

This is simply not true. If you felt that you were part of a people set apart from others, and you had a divine spark in you, when others did not, it follows that you would belive that any revilation from God would be authentic. No matter how you decided to write it down the knowledge is valid. Much of the gnostics type texts were purposly written in a stylized way and were not intended for "the masses"The overall public did not run to the library and decide, "Yes I like this and no I think this is bunk" Just by the fact that the NHL was hidden shows how much someone thought the texts were authentic.

Originally posted by queenannie38
3. Some truly priceless gems of pure gnostic revelation

Interesting, which of the texts would you class as that, from the nag hammadi library?

At the time they were written they were not done with the purpose of deceiving anyone, then or later

Yes, but this is called a 'pious fraud'. Its still a fraud. The other gospels are maintained to be copies, with obvious editorialzing, of texts written by the apostles. Some have a stronger case than others of being such.

But heresy is a human tool...

I don't mean to say that I think heresy against church orthodoxy should be stamped out.

savagecupid
But you must also remember that the bulk of christians could not even read texts at that time either

I would caution that the literacy levels of the urban roman public was much much higher than of the dark and middle ages, though I'd agree that the bulk probably were mostly illiterate. However, they'd have these things read to them in their little house masses.

There was an "elite" group of people who would do this

That comes much later though. And, for what its worth, it would've been the elite that were creating the apocryphal gospels, whereas any authentic ones would've been dictated to hired scribes.

More of the "gnostics" could read and write

Upon what do you base this?

you felt that you were part of a people set apart from others, and you had a divine spark in you, when others did not, it follows that you would belive that any revilation from God would be authentic. No matter how you decided to write it down the knowledge is valid

I'm not talking about the knowledge as religious knowledge, thats a matter of faith. I am saying that these gnostic gospels weren't created by the apostles, and that is why, unsurprisingly, they don't get included in the biblical cannon, because the people at the time recognized them as philosophizing tracts, not the archaeological-literary remains of the apostles.

Just by the fact that the NHL was hidden shows how much someone thought the texts were authentic.

It doesn't show that they were thought to be authentic (ie made by the claimed author), it shows that they were though important. The oxyrhincus papiri, containing lots of gnostic material, was dumped into the trash. Thats somewhat irrelevant though to the authenticity of the texts and the faiththat was held in the texts.

Ok Nygdan I do see your point and understand where you are coming from now, even if I don't completely agree with it, expecialy the idea that if the texts were not concidered important to the majority back then we should not take them as anything of importance now. I think the world would have been a better place if more of the gnostic christianity ideas would have influenced our current form. peace

Originally posted by savagecupid
But you must also remember that the bulk of christians could not even read texts at that time either, and much of it was filtered for them. There was an "elite" group of people who would do this. More of the "gnostics" could read and write and therefore could come to thier own conclusions.

Actually, no. Koine Greek was the 'common' people's Greek--I don't know what language the NH was found as written in, but the NT was Koine because most people could read Koine.

The world was not illiterate until the dark ages--while it has never been wholly literate (the world) it was not as illiterate in times past as people assume it was.

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by queenannie38
3. Some truly priceless gems of pure gnostic revelation

Interesting, which of the texts would you class as that, from the nag hammadi library?

On the Origin of the World, The Sophia of Jesus Christ, Pistis Sophia, The Gospel of Thomas, The Dialogue of the Savior, Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth..

There are others, but those are the ones that I can recall off the top of my head.

At the time they were written they were not done with the purpose of deceiving anyone, then or later

Yes, but this is called a 'pious fraud'. Its still a fraud. The other gospels are maintained to be copies, with obvious editorialzing, of texts written by the apostles. Some have a stronger case than others of being such.

Not much different than the once-acceptable practice of 'imitating the masters' in the renaissance art world, by copying the Mona Lisa and such.
Cultures were different then, in that respect.
What we consider fraud was not necessarily meant to defraud, and that's where the difference lies.

Originally posted by Nygdan
True enough, but it seems that the bulk of the christians didn't buy into the 'gnostic' version of the faith. I think that that is important.

Perhaps it's important, but on what do you base it? Paul's sect came to power and obliterated the opposition, including the destruction of their texts. The fact that some of these texts survived and were found in Egypt, I would think suggests gnosticism was quite popular. For all we know, it was the dominant sect in terms of numbers.

I see all this talk of the writings being fraud. How does anyone know that? There are a lot of folks out there who think believing in the Bible is ridiculous. People say the Protocols of the Elders of Zion are a fraud. Personally, I think PoEoZ may be a fraud, but they sure are accurate; which is scary. Just as scary as the Bible and Nag Hammadi, itself.

I know this: something beyond human influenced the Nag Hammadi, as well as the Bible. Is that demonic? Who knows. As I said in the beginning, I'm open to anything you can put before me. I pray that God will give me discernment to know truth from falsehood. As far as I know, He hasn't disappointed me yet.

Anyone read the THUNDER? (It's a female writing, supposedly, which is very interesting. Thunders' name is applied b/c of the gravity of her subject.)

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Anyone read the THUNDER? (It's a female writing, supposedly, which is very interesting. Thunders' name is applied b/c of the gravity of her subject.)

Yes I have read it, and found it to be filled with great wisdom.

It's probably one of the most misunderstood texts in the NHL, with a myriad of interpretations by all people.

This Gnostic website in my opinion does a decent job interpreting the Scripture in relation to Gnostic doctrine:

Thunder, Perfect Mind

Inverencial Peace,
Akashic

Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
Yes I have read it, and found it to be filled with great wisdom.

It's probably one of the most misunderstood texts in the NHL, with a myriad of interpretations by all people.
Inverencial Peace,
Akashic

AW, thanks for the comments.

Why misunderstood? Izzat b/c it was derived from the pen of a woman, and of its command?

Thanx for link.

virtually all the new testament comes from one source Paul. Some now believe
that the synoptic gospels were written by followers of paul.

Before his vision paul was Saul a paid killer and assassin. after the conversion to
Paul he just changed the venue and destroyed any who didnt believe as he did.
His followers continue this method and practice today. They even hide under anothers name to protect themselves.

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Anyone read the THUNDER? (It's a female writing, supposedly, which is very interesting. Thunders' name is applied b/c of the gravity of her subject.)

Yes!! One of my favorites, which I forgot to list...

Thanks.

Pistis Sophia is the Thunder.

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Nygdan
True enough, but it seems that the bulk of the christians didn't buy into the 'gnostic' version of the faith. I think that that is important.

Perhaps it's important, but on what do you base it?

The writtings that we have are, in the majority, non-gnostic.

Paul's sect came to power and obliterated the opposition

I just don't see where there are really that many gnostic christians, especially in association with the apostles. Paul is popular, but his group isn't obliterating anything. The apostolic 'synod', if we accept it as an actual event, doesn't indicate that gnosticism was seen as something that was clashing with the 'mainstream' christianity, and indeed, the big hereies are arrianism, and arguements about the substance of christ, not gnosticism and the like. Arrian wasn't a gnostic. At least then, by this time, gnosticism had fallen to the way side.

The fact that some of these texts survived and were found in Egypt, I would think suggests gnosticism was quite popular.

I'd note that its egypt, where the cities were rather cosmopolitan and there was a lot of 'eastern knowledge' existant, and that this probably indicates that the christians there who were gnostic were influenced by more ancient eastern traditions, and thus a variant of mainstream christianity.

For all we know, it was the dominant sect in terms of numbers.

If it was, and if the church fathers were as cynical as often alluded, then would not gnostic christianity be the one that they dominated? It woudl be especialyl useful since only the elite within gnostic christianity get the true gnosis and meaning, as opposed to the original mainstream christianity, which was a revealed religion (not a mystery religion).

Also, as you note, its 'for all we know'. Given that there is nothing that indicates that gnosticism was the most popular, and given that gnosticism was most likely a variation of christianity, then why suppose that it was the dominant one?

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by Nygdan
True enough, but it seems that the bulk of the christians didn't buy into the 'gnostic' version of the faith. I think that that is important.

Perhaps it's important, but on what do you base it?

The writtings that we have are, in the majority, non-gnostic.

What do you mean, exactly, by 'non-gnostic?'

That they weren't favored by those believed to be gnostics?
Or that they don't contain deep and hidden gnostic lessons?

Nygdan,

Do you believe in the Holy Spirit?

Do you believe it can take hold of you?

Or are you just all dogma straight down the line?

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Or are you just all dogma straight down the line?

What are you talking about, I am not being dogmatic.

QA38
What do you mean, exactly, by 'non-gnostic?'

That they're not considered gnostic by self-identifiying gnostics and religious scholars. Not that I have seen anyway.

Originally posted by Nygdan
What are you talking about, I am not being dogmatic.

...your avatar, ... oh nevermind.

Nygdan,
I hear in your words a more clinical approach to faith, rather than spiritual. Are you a member of a particular faith? I'm a Baptist.

Do you believe in the Holy Spirit?

Aint this the guy that was running around the world posing as a ghost
while he was shagging,doinking,boffing, in short screwing a woman who was not his wife? in short commiting adultry , a stoning offense.

Or, could the writings be the "legaleze" of the day referin to an occurence that
in today's news would read somthing like this,

Investigators have determined that on or about June (15?)a person or persons unknown did enter the bedroom of Mary and did commit the crime of sexual assult/rape. the investigation is ongoing.

UPDATE: since much time has passed since the crime was committed it has been turned over to the Cold Case Unit for further investigation.

[edit on 12-1-2006 by stalkingwolf]

[edit on 12-1-2006 by stalkingwolf]

Originally posted by stalkingwolf

Do you believe in the Holy Spirit?

Aint this the guy that was running around the world posing as a ghost
while he was shagging,doinking,boffing, in short screwing a woman who was not his wife? in short commiting adultry , a stoning offense.

Who you talking about?