Why were the gnostic gospels suppressed by the RCC?

[Jenyar]

"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.

That's like saying 'there is no single book of scripture'. Yes, and...? There's no single book of history either. No single book on Caesar. No canon of Churchill or Napoleon or Hitler. Does that mean historians are all deluded when they talk about these people, or compare accounts for historicity and accuracy?

The Bible is not God. That was my point. You try to make it sound as if the whole thing depends on how you look at it. Very convenient, but false. The gnostic books offer a secret knowledge. It's exclusive, as saying 114 makes clear, and cryptic to the point of just being ammo for metaphysical foodfights. The gospel of Thomas only offer short saying, robbed of context and meaning. They were reduced from what we have, they don't add to what we have. Jesus' work was inclusive - He came to make God visible, not invisible. That would polarize people, for sure - because it doesn't let them believe whatever they want. He told us what God wants.

What you want is written in your heart. As is the law - the ability to distinguish right from wrong. But where there is a law, there is a judge. No amount of creative interpretation or religious philosophy will make God redundant.

It is always advisable to read texts critically, and what we end up with depends on how critically we have read it. The early church fathers did just that, to the best of their knowledge and abilities, and ended up with something, which they called the "rule" or "measurement" - canon. They did not end up with nothing. Nobody ever did. Coming up with a single canon would mean that only one person got to choose, or only one book was ever available and read. Unfortunately history is never that simple and easy to compile, and everything that was written about God and his involvement in people's lives cannot be that clearly distinguished.

But it's not an impenetrable forest of books and texts, like you make it sound. That's the argument of 'oh, it's too complicated, I'll never understand it, so I won't bother trying'. A seed is much more simple than a grown tree, and the 'canon in your heart' is a seed - what people respond to is how you let it grow, and for that, not everything goes.

Be my guest, read the books for yourself, and form your own "canon" if you want to - the least I expect is that you be honest about whether you believe what they say or not. Criticism is a form of strategic retreat, but somewhere you have to approach God again, or you risk cutting yourself off from Him completely.

 

[stretched]

Yo Jenyar,

Quote J:
"That's like saying 'there is no single book of scripture'. Yes, and...? There's no single book of history either. No single book on Caesar. No canon of Churchill or Napoleon or Hitler. Does that mean historians are all deluded when they talk about these people, or compare accounts for historicity and accuracy?"

Nope dude, these guys don`t claim inerrant deity status. And you can do better than that silly response. Bottom line, Christians claim their book, the Bible, to be divinely inspired, and the inerrant word of god. Their book comes in many versions. The various denominations claim their various books as "THE CANON". All I am pointing out is that there is an interesting history to the manner in which this "divine" book came to be. And even today there is no definitive "CANON". Which indicates questionable divine authenticity. And it should leave any honestly thinking person curious.

Quote J:
"But where there is a law, there is a judge. No amount of creative interpretation or religious philosophy will make God redundant."

Which god?

Quote J:
"It is always advisable to read texts critically, and what we end up with depends on how critically we have read it. The early church fathers did just that, to the best of their knowledge and abilities, and ended up with something, which they called the "rule" or "measurement" - canon."

It seems rather iffy, about rounded off numbers.See example below:

"C. AD 400:
Jerome translates the Bible from Hebrew and Greek into Latin (called the "Vulgate"). He knows that the Jews have only 39 books, and he wants to limit the OT to these; the 7 he would leave out (Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach [or "Ecclesiasticus"], and Baruch--he calls "apocrypha," that is, "hidden books." But Pope Damasus wants all 46 traditionally-used books included in the OT, so the Vulgate has 46."

(from: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/canon.html)

Quote J:
" Be my guest, read the books for yourself, and form your own "canon" if you want to - the least I expect is that you be honest about whether you believe what they say or not."

I have read many versions of the canon and the apocrypha over many years, and have found certain beauty and wisdom (particularly "The Thunder, Perfect Heart"), but also great cruelty,inanity and naivety. Nothing however inspires me to bestow the term "divinely inspired" on these texts. (yes, yes, my humble, human opinion only)

Quote J:
"Criticism is a form of strategic retreat, but somewhere you have to approach God again, or you risk cutting yourself off from Him completely"

Again, relativism, to you criticism, to me observation. And thanks dude but I am never alone.

Ahem.

 

[Jenyar]

I think the crux is that you don't believe God is to be found in them -- not in one word, not in one, 39 or 46 books. The reason is understandable enough: no words will ever be sufficient; God will not be sufficiently contained in them or expressed by them. Indeed, Jews considered the written word inferior to spoken (and remembered) words. But do you reject Israel's God because they don't have everything written down to your specifications? Do you accept all so-called "sacred" texts because they all propose to talk about God?

You might have an unrealistic idea of what it would look like if humanity ever had a authentic encounter with God. What would our failings and uncertainties look like, in that light? What form would our desires and hopes take on, in that light? The moment we come into contact with God, we become part of that relationship - cruel, inane, and naive as we might be. A dialogue in even the highest courts of law, or most illustrious palaces, will reflect both judge and criminal, king and servant. But we should be aware whether we are king or criminal when we listen to what is said, because that will determine what we conclude from it.

We would certainly not assume the face of God ourselves, not in thinking nor in expression. We would continue seeking, as some have sought before, and many will continue to seek - and our recorded searches would look different at various stages of the quest. Until something happens: We Find, or Are Found. When we meet God, it is always on His ground. And you are always alone in His presence.

The Bible is not divine because the paper is sacred, or the words are holy. The message is not divine because it was written in Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek, or by certain "inspired" people. Many deeds and words have since been inspired in exactly the same fashion since, and they haven't been included in the Bible either. Because that's not the point. We're not trying to collect God, but to find ourselves in Him.

We don't believe in Jesus because the Bible talks about Him; we believe in the Bible because it talks about Jesus. He is the Word that was heard. If we ever find another authentic epistle by Paul (we know there were more), then it would be included in the Bible, and the canon would change once again. Not because some person or council thinks it's important, or beautiful, but because it tells us about Christ and the church surrounding him. It can only add to what we have, and if Paul was Paul, it would confirm what he had told the other churches. In the Bible, we don't have a book making a unanimous claim, but we have people who can't stop talking about their witness to God's work.

John 21:25
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.​

If you don't ask yourself who and what scripture is talking about, then it will always remain words that could have been uttered by anyone. There are enough of those to go around -- I'm sure you've been to earlychristianwritings.com. But the Word of God is only half of the dialogue, and what has been written down comprises even less.

You ask "which god?" as if you know a few. Tell me, do you believe yourself to be divinely inspired?

 

[anonymous2]

I think the crux is that you don't believe God is to be found in them -- not in one word, not in one, 39 or 46 books. The reason is understandable enough: no words will ever be sufficient; God will not be sufficiently contained in them or expressed by them. Indeed, Jews considered the written word inferior to spoken (and remembered) words. But do you reject Israel's God because they don't have everything written down to your specifications? Do you accept all so-called "sacred" texts because they all propose to talk about God?

I don't, because I know people lie, etc. I don't accept any of them, not the Bible, not the apocryphal works, not the Qur'an, not the Hadith, Vedas, Upanishads, Puranas, Avesta, blah blah.

In the Bible, we don't have a book making a unanimous claim, but we have people who can't stop talking about their witness to God's work.

John 21:25
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.​

In the Bible we have many books which were, even by Jewish/Christian tradition, authored by a single person. How many actual PEOPLE authored the books of the Bible? And I am not convinced that "Matthew" and "Luke" were independent witnesses of anything really, considering they seem to copy "Mark" almost verbatim in places. This "66 books" stuff does not really impress me. How many actual human authors are involved in this, even by tradition? Much less than 66. And this "Jesus did so much that I suppose the whole world would not have room for the books", what can I say? What an exaggeration. I can't take that seriously. I interpret that as meaning "Hey, believe me, Jesus really did tons of stuff". I see a claim.

I'm sure you've been to earlychristianwritings.com. But the Word of God is only half of the dialogue, and what has been written down comprises even less.

You ask "which god?" as if you know a few. Tell me, do you believe yourself to be divinely inspired?

Yes, I know about Peter Kirby's website, if we're thinking about the same one. And if you're referring to me, no, I don't believe I'm divinely inspired, but I don't care whether the Bible, or the Avestan writings, or whatever says blah blah, that does not impress me. And I don't think it's true that the Bible has multiple witnesses to a deity/holy man, while other religions don't. Not that you're necessarily claiming this, but this seems to be an implication that the Bible has all these books while other religions don't, as if that makes it better. What about all the lines of tradition about Muhammad in the Hadith? Aren't those witnesses? And I think there are miracle claims in them. If someone wants to take the writings on stone and put them in a book, one could make the claim that there were multiple witnesses to certain deities. There are all sorts of religious writings about certain gods, and I don't trust any of them.

I don't think I'm divinely inspired, but I'm sure as heck going to trust myself, instead of some alleged God, until this deity wants to show himself. I've already had enough trouble with religion, I don't need to put myself into more with it. That's kind of why I question why I joined this forum in the first place.

 

[Jenyar]

Anonymous2

How many actual human authors are involved in this, even by tradition? Much less than 66.

Conservative estimates have 40, over a period of 1500 years. But one person may write things that thousands were involved in, and thoughts - like wisdom and beliefs - can include generations of people.

but I'm sure as heck going to trust myself...

Will you also make sure that others can trust you? If you had something important to say, could anyone believe you?

If you can't trust anyone, you shouldn't trust yourself either.

I've already had enough trouble with religion, I don't need to put myself into more with it. That's kind of why I question why I joined this forum in the first place.

Yes, that much is obvious. You've been hurt, and religion was central to that hurt. You've probably lost a relationship with someone. What happened?

 

[anonymous2]

Will you also make sure that others can trust you? If you had something important to say, could anyone believe you?

I think I've contributed something of worth to this forum, although I admit that things have turned into a personal matter. But then again, you did ask "What really is your case against God?", didn't you? And I've been explaining some of it.

If you can't trust anyone, you shouldn't trust yourself either.

This is a cute word game, in my opinion. Let me say this then, I prefer to trust myself, instead of another. Fair enough?

Yes, that much is obvious. You've been hurt, and religion was central to that hurt. You've probably lost a relationship with someone. What happened?

Yep, pretty much. Failed relationships at least partially over religion. I was involved with the Jehovah's Witnesses in my early teens, and when I found the "truth" of Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christianity, I was pretty much kicked out of the lives of my "second family". Then after I found the "truth" of Evangelical/Fundamentalist or whatever Christianity, after I had doubts about that, that helped to ruin a relationship with the person I knew who was old enough to be my father at the time. He was my "spiritual father" in a sense. I had a friend who was Jewish who I tried to convert before this and he never bought it. Also, two relationships I had with the opposite sex partially failed I'd say based on religion. So, yep, you got it. But I haven't totally hidden myself about this either, although this is the first time I've been more explicit about it.

 

[Jenyar]

It's not only your relationship with them that didn't work - it was also their relationships with you. In the end you have to ask yourself: was your love conditional? Was it based on religion, or on following the precepts of Christ, which is to love unconditionally?

Is there a possibility that you have overcorrected, and made your disappointment with people into a disappointment with God? You are still you, aren't you? If you could love then, you can love now - and religion has nothing to do with it. In fact, loving in spite of religion is what God requires. Chances are, that religion was only the excuse - the reason given - but underlying every belief and action is a person.

 

[anonymous2]

It's not only your relationship with them that didn't work - it was also their relationships with you. In the end you have to ask yourself: was your love conditional? Was it based on religion, or on following the precepts of Christ, which is to love unconditionally?

Is there a possibility that you have overcorrected, and made your disappointment with people into a disappointment with God? You are still you, aren't you? If you could love then, you can love now - and religion has nothing to do with it. In fact, loving in spite if religion is what God requires.

Well, the first situation I was pretty much kicked out of their lives after I became involved with the Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christian ideas.. the JW friend I knew at the time called months ago and admitted that the reason I was kicked out of their lives is because of religion. This was like 18 years ago that I was involved with the JW's. So I told him to tell his mom that she shouldn't do that to people over religion. And I'd say I was kicked out of their lives, not the other way around. Although I talked to the Jewish friend I had months ago, but he has never called me back, so.

That "you" has long ago died. Sure, it's quite possible that I have misplaced anger, but do you think I should love God for the things that have happened in my life? Good luck with that I suppose.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Jenyar: That's like saying 'there is no single book of scripture'. Yes, and...? There's no single book of history either. No single book on Caesar. No canon of Churchill or Napoleon or Hitler. Does that mean historians are all deluded when they talk about these people, or compare accounts for historicity and accuracy?
*************
M*W: Why must you always manipulate the conversation to divert our attention from the facts? You would make a great waffling politician.
*************
Jenyar: The Bible is not God. That was my point. You try to make it sound as if the whole thing depends on how you look at it. Very convenient, but false. The gnostic books offer a secret knowledge. It's exclusive, as saying 114 makes clear, and cryptic to the point of just being ammo for metaphysical foodfights. The gospel of Thomas only offer short saying, robbed of context and meaning. They were reduced from what we have, they don't add to what we have.
*************
M*W: You denounce the very texts that may be able to prove Jesus' existence! The Bible does no such thing. What you choose to 'protect' in an apologetic sense is christianity. The reason you decry the gnostic gospels is that they interfere with your own beliefs, and the GG's prove christianity is a false religion.
*************
Jenyar: Jesus' work was inclusive - He came to make God visible, not invisible. That would polarize people, for sure - because it doesn't let them believe whatever they want. He told us what God wants.
*************
M*W: Sorry, but Jesus' work was NOT inclusive nor did he ever write anything himself. That means there is no proof of his existence. The GG's have him speaking directly to MM and the disciples -- not what some phony hallucinatory idiot wrote down not even knowing Jesus!
*************
Jenyar: What you want is written in your heart. As is the law - the ability to distinguish right from wrong. But where there is a law, there is a judge. No amount of creative interpretation or religious philosophy will make God redundant.
*************
M*W: How in the world can you claim that you know what anonymous2's heart says? You've read his posts, and now you think you have psychoanalytic skills (obviously christian-biased beliefs) to analyze his spiritual motives!
*************
Jenyar: It is always advisable to read texts critically, and what we end up with depends on how critically we have read it.
*************
M*W: I've read the texts critically as have many of us on sciforums, and we have found them to lies! You, OTOH, believe the lies you read and try to push them on us as if we are totally incompetent to read and understand them.
*************
Jenyar: The early church fathers did just that, to the best of their knowledge and abilities, and ended up with something, which they called the "rule" or "measurement" - canon. They did not end up with nothing. Nobody ever did. Coming up with a single canon would mean that only one person got to choose, or only one book was ever available and read. Unfortunately history is never that simple and easy to compile, and everything that was written about God and his involvement in people's lives cannot be that clearly distinguished.
*************
M*W: First, those early church fathers have been found to manipulate scripture just like you do!!! It must come with the territory!
*************
Jenyar: But it's not an impenetrable forest of books and texts, like you make it sound. That's the argument of 'oh, it's too complicated, I'll never understand it, so I won't bother trying'. A seed is much more simple than a grown tree, and the 'canon in your heart' is a seed - what people respond to is how you let it grow, and for that, not everything goes.
*************
M*W: My, my, you use a lot of psychoanalytic and metaphorical bullshit to prove your point (which you have failed to do).
*************
Jenyar: Be my guest, read the books for yourself, and form your own "canon" if you want to - the least I expect is that you be honest about whether you believe what they say or not. Criticism is a form of strategic retreat, but somewhere you have to approach God again, or you risk cutting yourself off from Him completely.
*************
M*W: How convenient and how biased you are!!! The website you posted just 'happens' to be one of christian apologetics! This is just another one of your manipulative ploys to defend your false religion! Who the hell cares what christians think??? I know I don't care, and there's a lot of other members who would agree with me, but trying to lead us to a christian website that explain GG's is devious, but you already knew that -- that's why you cited it. What you should be doing is truly apologizing for the christian beliefs you have tried to cram down our throats. Time, Jenyar, is not in your hands. Christianity is dying as we speak. When christianity falls from the grace of major worldwide religions (and it will), who ya gonna call?

 

[spidergoat]

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".

I woudn't say "code language", this is how religious truths have always been expressed, not as statements of fact, but as metaphors, as poetic language.

Schenk's conclusion is based on:

1) And He said, "Whoever finds the interpretation of these
sayings will not experience death.

This states pretty clearly that interpretation is left up to the reader.

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

You are eluding to the fact that Christians seem to want everything spelled out for them in simplistic and literal language. They don't trust themselves, yet somehow they trust religious authorities to tell them the correct interpretation. A sincerely religious person who wanted to discover the meaning of these texts would not be satisfied making them fit their own preconcieved notions, rather, they would live with them like a lover of Shakespeare's writing, always discovering new depths in it. Religion should not be the end of discovery, but the beginning.

 

[okinrus]

M*W, the books look genuine, though here's a larger <a href = "http://www.gnosis.org/library/gs.htm">gnostic library</a>. I'm not sure what you're argument is. Let's say I asked you to gather your 72 favorite books. Well, I'm not going to argue why you picked one book but not the other unless if I believe you picked an inferior book.

Whether the gnostic books were burned or not doesn't seem too relevant. I say this because if membership into the Church was by one's own volition, as it was during this time period, then clearly the Church can choose which books are to be read and used. Owing to gnostic secrecy, I fail to see how the Church would come to possess these so-call secret books.

 

[stretched]

Yo Jenyar,

I will reiterate:

Quote J:
"But where there is a law, there is a judge. No amount of creative interpretation or religious philosophy will make God redundant."

S: "Which god?"

What exactly do you mean by your statement? For all practical purposes God IS redundant per se. Look at the world around you. Apart from the current American slide into the sleep of reason, we live in a largly secular world. On the revolving stage of mankind, gods come and go. History indicates this as fact.
(as an aside, did you grow up in an authoritarian Calvanistic household?)

Quote J:
"You ask "which god?" as if you know a few. Tell me, do you believe yourself to be divinely inspired? "

Nope I am not as divinely inspired as I am inspiringly divine. (heh heh, well, according to the babe anyhow!)

This is actually simple Jenyar,
"No amount of creative interpretation or religious philosophy will make God redundant."

Is Allah your god?

Ahem.

 

[Jenyar]

Well, the first situation I was pretty much kicked out of their lives after I became involved with the Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christian ideas.. the JW friend I knew at the time called months ago and admitted that the reason I was kicked out of their lives is because of religion. This was like 18 years ago that I was involved with the JW's. So I told him to tell his mom that she shouldn't do that to people over religion. And I'd say I was kicked out of their lives, not the other way around. Although I talked to the Jewish friend I had months ago, but he has never called me back, so.

That "you" has long ago died. Sure, it's quite possible that I have misplaced anger, but do you think I should love God for the things that have happened in my life? Good luck with that I suppose.

I think you are holding God responsible for the failure of people. JW's are notoriously exclusivistic, and it doesn't surprise me that you were treated that way after you left them, but the behaviour isn't limited to JW as you are aware. Especially if your stance was fundamentalistic as you say (which is also exclusivistic and 'hostile'). Fanaticism is not only dangerous in religion, but in every area of life.

You might be justified to blame religion (although you must realize it is a generalization to blame all religious people as well), as that was the 'family' that treated you this way - and you're not alone in this experience - but if this is behaviour that God condemns, then will it help to blame Him? You have been an orphan of religion on more than one occasion...

James 1:27
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.​

I don't like to psycholanalyze, and it might sound insensitive of me, but I think it should be said: you are harbouring resentment, and the people who have caused that resentment aren't there to face, so it remains unresolved. You haven't forgiven them, and this is affecting your relationship with God. Yes, He led those people into your life, and they have probably disappointed Him, but do not allow them to destroy your faith. Remember what they meant to you when you were young. Now you also have a responsibility, and it would be good to remember Asaph's words, when he struggled with God about the unfairness of it all:

Psalms 73:13-15
Surely in vain have I kept my heart pure;
in vain have I washed my hands in innocence.
All day long I have been plagued;
I have been punished every morning.
If I had said, "I will speak thus,"
I would have betrayed your children.​

Imagine yourself on the ark, battling the waves as they throw you around - do you praise God for the swells, and curse Him for the dips? Or do you take refuge in the fact the God is with you all the way, on that ark - that is what keeps you safe, not dry ground, sunny weather and clear skies.

People weren't there for you when you needed them, let that inspire you to be there for people when they have nobody. Forgive those who have sinned against you, finish your struggle with God, and turn around again to work with Him instead of against Him. Don't let your anger lead you to betray those precious people who are trying to make God's love visible in this world.

 

[Michaelangelo]

"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."

Nice summary.

Enoch is quoted in 4 places: Jude 6, 14, 15, and II Peter 2:4

Peace

 

[dunwanderin]

The reason may have just become self evident. The first synthesis and interpretation to include NT/OT, Apocrypha, The Nag Hammadi Library and the Dead Sea Scrolls, of a wholly new moral conception of the teaching of Christ is on the Net. Entitled The Final Freedoms, this is the first teaching to confirm, by an act of faith, its own efficacy. How ever incredible, the first living and testable proof of the living God has been published. I found my copy [a 1.3mb pdf] at www.energon.uklinux.net