Why were the gnostic gospels suppressed by the RCC?

M

Medicine*Woman

Jesus: Mythstory--Not History!
Valued Senior Member
*************
M*W: A story about Mary Magdalene appears briefly in the gospels of the NT. Long since the canonical gospels were approved by the RCC, Mary Magdalene appeared again in the lost text of Nag Hammadi. The RCC suppressed these newly found (1896) gnostic gospels. But, back to Constantine's day, many early texts were suppressed. Books were burned, but more importantly, some were hidden. Scholars believe the gnostic gospels were hidden in the desert in Egypt at about 350AD. Did they whisk them away from Constantine so he wouldn't destroy them? The timeline of the gnostic gospels predates the NT gospels back to 50AD. The first NT gospel, Mark, was written in 70AD. The Gospel of Mary Magdalene can be dated as late as the second century.

When the NT speaks of Mary Magdalene's seven demons, what it really means is are the 'chakras' in Sanskrit, or the seven energy centers of the body. Jesus may have healed Mary's body by freeing up the seven energy centers. Christians have always interpreted this to be the seven cardinal sins. Nowhere in any literature, except for the NT, is Mary called a whore. The definition of prostitute in those days was 'a woman of the temple,' 'a woman of independent means,' 'a tower of strength,' etc.. When Jesus was to have exorcised seven demons from Mary M., what he did was free the clouds of energy in her being. It was MM who healed herself within.

Why is the Gospel of Mary Magdalene so important? Mary lived in Jesus' day -- with Jesus -- as his wife. MM walked with him and worshipped him -- but Jesus also worshipped MM. I believe it was Jesus' great love for her that made him great, but Jesus didn't die for MM, although I believe he would have. The dying demigod savior myth was Paul's creation that he based on the previous 16 dying demigod saviors who were born of a virgin.

Anyone care to discuss?
 
This story was repressed because it was a story about a woman achieving the same or greater spiritual accomplishments as men. This would have contradicted the cultural and biblical notion that women were somehow inferior.
 
I was just reading this about an hour ago and curiously you wrote on it so here:

http://home.freeuk.net/jesusmyth/formatn.htm#IV

...he 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.
Click to expand...
 
Although it's not evident whether Mary Magdalene was Jesus' wife or not, she did seem to have a special relationship with him, since she alone understood the meaning of his teachings. Sinner or not, after meeting Jesus she underwent a transformation, which is what the seven demons ceremony most likely refers to.

This story was repressed because it was a story about a woman achieving the same or greater spiritual accomplishments as men. This would have contradicted the cultural and biblical notion that women were somehow inferior.
Click to expand...

Exactly
 
Yo MW,

The early period of Christianity is very interesting in that there definately was a supression by the Roman Church of competing sects and texts of early Christians. Especially the Gnostic sect and their texts. These texts were discovered in the Egyptian desert at Nag Hammadi in 1945. These gospels are extremely interesting as they could quite plausibly present a closer aproximation of the truth regarding Jesus`s teaching, rather than the texts the Church voted on to become the Canon. It seems that the gospel of St. John is tantalisingly close to the message of Jesus in the Gnostic Gospels, and displays clear parrallels to the style and metaphysical aspect of the Gnostic texts. Elaine Pagels (Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University), has done extensive research on the subject and these are excerpts from a lecture she delivered in 1996.

"What is interesting about the Gnostic gospels is that they do not deny what is said about Jesus in other gospels, but rather testify that they contain secret teachings of Jesus that their authors believed needed to be preserved. Iraneus, the Bishop of Lyon in France, was one of many Church officials who denounced this literature circulating Europe and defended the four gospels that the Church had selected to be in the canon as the only authentic gospels--because "there are four principle winds, four pillars that hold up the sky, and four corners of the universe; therefore, it is only right that there be four gospels."

Kinda infantile thought process no?

And just for you MW.

"Indeed, the suppression of the Gnostic gospels fits the pattern of rational patriarchy that has marked the Church throughout the centuries. Unlike the dominant imagery of God (The Father) in the institutional Church, the Gnostic gospels recognize a feminine influence in God as Jesus' origin, and also affirm Jesus' upending of Jewish tradition by including women in his ministry."

The page can be found here: http://www.radiofreemaine.com/rfm/gnostic.html

Her book on the subject is: Elaine Pagels: The Gnostic Gospels, Random House, New York, 1989.

Ahem.
 
Since you have read the Gospels you must now realise that the scriptures point to Him? Now that you know Him, why do you pour over texts? You are like a pirate who follows a map to the treasure, to the spot marked with a cross but when you get to the cross you forget why you came. You do not believe that the cross marks the spot so you go off in search of other maps never realising that the treasure was at your feet when you reached the cross.
Why do you not just dig your treasures up and discard the map? The map has served its purpose already. It has taken you to the spot where the cross did mark the treasure. Now dig already.

peace

c20
 
does winnie the pooh, point to pooh, or christopher robin, or does alice in wonderland, point to her, or the white rabbit, or does long john silver, or young hawkins point to the treasure, they are all including, the bible fairy stories, theres no real treasure it's just make believe. DUH!
 
Most scholars, Christian and non Christian alike, believe that the gospel of Mary Magdalene is a forgery. It's date about 120 A.D. However, a lot of those same people think she wrote gospel of John, epistles of John, and possibly revelation.
 
c20H25N3o said:
Since you have read the Gospels you must now realise that the scriptures point to Him? Now that you know Him, why do you pour over texts? You are like a pirate who follows a map to the treasure, to the spot marked with a cross but when you get to the cross you forget why you came. You do not believe that the cross marks the spot so you go off in search of other maps never realising that the treasure was at your feet when you reached the cross.
Why do you not just dig your treasures up and discard the map? The map has served its purpose already. It has taken you to the spot where the cross did mark the treasure. Now dig already.

peace

c20
Click to expand...
How would you recognize the treasure if you saw it? I like this analogy, though, it reminds me of a story of the Buddha. He said, after you use the raft to cross the river, why carry it around on your head? Send it back for others to cross.
 
Yo c20,

"Since you have read the Gospels you must now realise that the scriptures point to Him?"

That is your humble opinion only, nothing more nothing less.

Ahem.
 
Please people. I hope you know what you're subscribing to by promoting the gnostic gospels. I doubt you will accept the Gnostic message any more readily than that of the Canonical gospels.

For instance, from the Sophia (Wisdom) of Jesus:
"After he rose from the dead, his twelve disciples and seven women continued to be his followers, and went to Galilee onto the mountain called "Divination and Joy"..."​
Do you accept that Jesus rose from the dead? Then why subscribe to the Nag Hammadi interpretations, and not the gospels?
spidergoat said:
This story was repressed because it was a story about a woman achieving the same or greater spiritual accomplishments as men. This would have contradicted the cultural and biblical notion that women were somehow inferior.
Click to expand...
Let's see. From the Gospel of Thomas:
(114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."​
 
Jenyar: Please people. I hope you know what you're subscribing to by promoting the gnostic gospels. I doubt you will accept the Gnostic message any more readily than that of the Canonical gospels.

For instance, from the Sophia (Wisdom) of Jesus:
"After he rose from the dead, his twelve disciples and seven women continued to be his followers, and went to Galilee onto the mountain called "Divination and Joy"..."​

Do you accept that Jesus rose from the dead? Then why subscribe to the Nag Hammadi interpretations, and not the gospels?

Let's see. From the Gospel of Thomas:
(114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."​
*************
M*W: Please Jenyar. I can't speak for everybody on the forum regarding their search for the Gnostic Gospels, but I for one am searching to learn. Since they were suppressed by christianity, they need to be read by those who are interested. It matters not to us if Jesus died, because we know he wasn't resurrected. So what if the Gnostic Gospels add proof that Jesus existed. So what? We don't have to believe that either. The truth will be told in the Gnostic Gospels and the Dead Sea Scrolls. You don't want to believe anything that you haven't been brainwashed with. You don't have to believe the truths found in extrabiblical texts, but you are in no position to tell the rest of us what to do! It's ignorants you like that keep your lack of learning back in the Dark Ages.
 
Jenyar said:
Let's see. From the Gospel of Thomas:
(114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life."
Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."
Click to expand...

I'm aware of this verse, and it doesn't contradict what I said. From the intro to the Gospel of Thomas written by Craig Schenk:

"As the preamble indicates, these are "secret sayings", and are
intended to be esoteric in nature. The Sayings are not intended
to be interpreted literally, as their New Testament parallels
often are, but to be interpreted symbolically, as attested by
Saying #1. While a literal interpretation may make sense, only by
understanding the deeper meanings of the Sayings can one truly
understand them. Thus in Saying #114, it is to be understood that
"male" symbolizes the pneumatic (spiritual, or Gnostic)
Christians, and "female" symbolizes the psychic (unenlightened,
or orthodox) Christians, rather than actually referring to males
and females."

So, this verse really means that women can accomplish the same things as males. To "make herself male" in the context of the time means that through teaching, she may learn to transcend the era's percieved limitations of being female.
 
Please people. I hope you know what you're subscribing to by promoting the gnostic gospels. I doubt you will accept the Gnostic message any more readily than that of the Canonical gospels.

For instance, from the Sophia (Wisdom) of Jesus:
"After he rose from the dead, his twelve disciples and seven women continued to be his followers, and went to Galilee onto the mountain called "Divination and Joy"..."
Do you accept that Jesus rose from the dead? Then why subscribe to the Nag Hammadi interpretations, and not the gospels
Click to expand...
The reason the Gnostic gospels are more sastifiying for me than the Canonical pospels is that the true meaning can only be percieved by personal experience. Rising from the dead can mean many things. The Buddhists also have this notion, that death exists only conceptually, and that, by transcending the idea of the personal ego trapped in a bag of skin, we also transcend death, or as they say "end the cycle of birth and death".
 
spidergoat: I'm aware of this verse, and it doesn't contradict what I said. From the intro to the Gospel of Thomas written by Craig Schenk:

"As the preamble indicates, these are "secret sayings", and are
intended to be esoteric in nature. The Sayings are not intended
to be interpreted literally, as their New Testament parallels
often are, but to be interpreted symbolically, as attested by
Saying #1. While a literal interpretation may make sense, only by
understanding the deeper meanings of the Sayings can one truly
understand them. Thus in Saying #114, it is to be understood that
"male" symbolizes the pneumatic (spiritual, or Gnostic)
Christians, and "female" symbolizes the psychic (unenlightened,
or orthodox) Christians, rather than actually referring to males
and females."

So, this verse really means that women can accomplish the same things as males. To "make herself male" in the context of the time means that through teaching, she may learn to transcend the era's percieved limitations of being female.
*************
M*W: Thanks, spidergoat, for your comments and citation. I agree with you about the 'secret sayings,' as that is what I have learned from reading the Gospel of MM which teaches how to become 'fully human.' I understood this teaching to mean achieving a balance between Body-Mind-Spirit, which is what the introduction of the gospel indicates. However, I personally believe that becoming 'fully human' would also be to become androgynous -- or both male and female.
 
Medicine Woman said:
M*W: Please Jenyar. I can't speak for everybody on the forum regarding their search for the Gnostic Gospels, but I for one am searching to learn. Since they were suppressed by christianity, they need to be read by those who are interested. It matters not to us if Jesus died, because we know he wasn't resurrected. So what if the Gnostic Gospels add proof that Jesus existed. So what? We don't have to believe that either. The truth will be told in the Gnostic Gospels and the Dead Sea Scrolls. You don't want to believe anything that you haven't been brainwashed with. You don't have to believe the truths found in extrabiblical texts, but you are in no position to tell the rest of us what to do! It's ignorants you like that keep your lack of learning back in the Dark Ages.
Click to expand...
Well done Jenyar. :)
 
spidergoat said:
I'm aware of this verse, and it doesn't contradict what I said. From the intro to the Gospel of Thomas written by Craig Schenk:

"As the preamble indicates, these are "secret sayings", and are
intended to be esoteric in nature. The Sayings are not intended
to be interpreted literally, as their New Testament parallels
often are, but to be interpreted symbolically, as attested by
Saying #1. While a literal interpretation may make sense, only by
understanding the deeper meanings of the Sayings can one truly
understand them. Thus in Saying #114, it is to be understood that
"male" symbolizes the pneumatic (spiritual, or Gnostic)
Christians, and "female" symbolizes the psychic (unenlightened,
or orthodox) Christians, rather than actually referring to males
and females."

So, this verse really means that women can accomplish the same things as males. To "make herself male" in the context of the time means that through teaching, she may learn to transcend the era's percieved limitations of being female.
Click to expand...
Thank you for Schenk's opinion. However, let's treat this as we would treat an apparent contradiction in the Bible, shall we? It's very convenient to tell me to "just look deeper", but you wouldn't accept that from me, would you?

Saying 1: These are the secret words which the living Jesus spoke, and which Didymus Judas Thomas wrote down. (Gospel of Thomas).
"A similar incipit opens another document from the Nag Hammadi Library, Book of Thomas 138, 1-4: 'The hidden sayings that the savior spoke to Judas Thomas, which I, Mathaias, in turn recorded. I was walking, listening to them speak with each other.' "​
If we take the Nag Hammadi text seriously, it seems likely that these "sayings" were literally words spoken in conversation, as indeed Saying 114 pretends to be. If Jesus or Peter were speaking in code language, then it should be proven from the text. We can't simply accept Schenk's conclusion at face value. And we certainly can't go on "what is more satisfying for me".

What's the difference between "...can mean many things" and "...can mean whatever I want it to?"
 
Last edited:
Yo Jenyar,

Quote Jenyar:
"What's the difference between "...can mean many things" and "...can mean whatever I want it to?"

Thats rich. Which parts of the Bible are literal? Which figurative? It is all "interpretation" dude.

Quote J:
We can't simply accept Schenk's conclusion at face value. And we certainly can't go on "what is more satisfying for me".

Yeah, yeah... Lets look deeper into the establishment of the Biblical Canon.

"Most people are aware that Catholic editions of the Bible include sections (in fact whole books such as 1 & 2 Maccabees) not found in standard Protestant versions. Fewer are aware that the Orthodox churches include even more material in their scriptures (such as 3 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasseh). So, what about that extra material? Or more to the point, why does the 66-book edition most of us are familiar with not include it, and who decides what is and isn't scripture?"

and,

"Traditionally, evangelical Christians have circled their wagons around the distinction between genuine writings and "apocrypha". Genuine writings being, of course, their 66-book Bible; apocrypha (sometimes called pseudepigrapha) conveniently being everything else. Evangelicals have been quick to assert, for example, an "obvious qualitative difference" between the two. Unfortunately there is an obvious qualitative difference between books within the Bible as well, as anyone will know who has compared the Gospel of John with the Book of Numbers."

Hmmm...

"But wasn't the whole thing decided at the very start of the Christian Church? Here's where things get interesting. The Jewish canon (Old Testament) first reached its present form after 70 AD with a gathering of rabbis at a place called Jamnia (Jabneh), 24 km south of modern Tel Aviv. Notice the date, this is several decades after the establishment of the church. Paul has left the scene and the events related in Acts are already history. Notice too that this was a Jewish council. There was no Christian input into the process at all."

Ahem...

"Christianity, however, was to continue to use the Septuagint based "Alexandrian Canon" for another thousand years! This makes it quite hard to see how modern fundamentalists can justify their present canon as being either "apostolic" or "determined by the Holy Spirit".

and...

"What about the New Testament? The New Testament canon was a matter of debate for centuries. It first reached its present form as late as 367 AD when Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria, compiled a list of recognized books which agrees with the ones we now have. Three hundred years is a long time by anyone's reckoning. If the writing of the New Testament documents had started back in 1840, we wouldn't get to see the final product until the year 2140! Although it seems hard to imagine, during this 300 year period Christians of all persuasions pursued their faith without the benefit of the Bible as we know it today."

Well now,

"As late as 200 AD the Church at Rome still didn't consider the books of Hebrews, James, 1 Peter or 2 Peter as scripture. However they did include two "apocryphal" works: The Apocalypse of Peter and The Wisdom of Solomon."

Mmmm...

" In the end the final selection was to be a narrow thing, with the popular Shepherd of Hermas missing a listing in Athanasius' canon by a whisker, while the controversial books of Revelation and Hebrews squeaked through. The main criteria used in the selection was that the documents should come from the pens of those with first hand knowledge of the events surrounding the creation of the church. We now know that Athanasius made several wrong calls. For example, several of the letters attributed to Paul (such as the epistles to Timothy) are in fact later documents."

Oh well,

"An interesting example of a book that has drifted in and out of favor is 1 Enoch. It was regarded as scripture in many parts of the early church, and is quoted in the New Testament book of Jude (v.14). In the Ethiopian Orthodox Church it still forms part of their Old Testament canon."

Huh,

"The Ethiopian Orthodox Church adds four extra books to its New Testament, and another two (including 1 Enoch) to the Old Testament.

Writing around 300 AD Eusebius, the historian of the early church, listed Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude and Revelation as either dubious or false.

The Syrian Orthodox tradition continues to reject 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude and Revelation.

Irenaeus, who is credited with standardizing the number of gospels at the present four, included a book called The Revelation of Peter in his canon.

Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest complete New Testament manuscript that has come down to us (fourth century AD) includes Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas.

As late as the fifth century the Codex Alexandrinus included 1 & 2 Clement."

So let`s sum it up Jenyar,

"The canon of the Bible, then, did not drop out of the heavens one day, fully formed and divided tidily into proof texts. A basic knowledge of the process of canonization ensures that any concept of inerrancy is untenable, a weakness of those who have (to quote Luther) "swallowed the Holy Spirit feathers and all".

Even today, there is clearly no single Christian canon of scripture, and in fact there never has been."

But I forget, one has to be filled with the holy ghost to get it right eh?

Ahem.

(from: http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~gavinru/canon.htm)
 
How many of those books have you read, stretched?

stretched said:
"The canon of the Bible, then, did not drop out of the heavens one day, fully formed and divided tidily into proof texts. A basic knowledge of the process of canonization ensures that any concept of inerrancy is untenable, a weakness of those who have (to quote Luther) "swallowed the Holy Spirit feathers and all".
Click to expand...
One has to be an idiot to believe that, and completely ignore the message of scripture. Should they teach Inerrancy, or God?

For instance. Name one - ONE - of those books that throw doubt on the existence of God.

Do you believe in God?

There is your canon.
 
Yo Jenyar,

Eventhought it is beside the point, I have read more books than you can imagine brother. You were however the one knocking the Gnostic texts. Have you read them?

Quote J:
"Please people. I hope you know what you're subscribing to by promoting the gnostic gospels. I doubt you will accept the Gnostic message any more readily than that of the Canonical gospels."

Whatever one`s pov as to what is, and what is not acceptable, the facts that I pointed out in my last post stand. To sum it up again:

"Even today, there is clearly no single Christian canon of scripture, and in fact there never has been."

You can readily research this for yourself.

Quote J:
"One has to be an idiot to believe that, and completely ignore the message of scripture. Should they teach Inerrancy, or God?"

You may indeed be the idiot if you ignore for example, the message of Bhuddism, Sufism or Toaism dude. All of which teach unity and not division. And non of which claim inerrancy.

Quote J:
"For instance. Name one - ONE - of those books that throw doubt on the existence of God."

I agree totally, but that is not the point here either.

Quote J:
"There is your canon."

As I have said before Jenyar, I have no need of a worldly canon. My canon is written in my heart, and my faith is written on the smiles of those who touch me.

Ahem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top