Gnostic Gospels...what the heck!

[Chez_Moi]

Where the heck did these come from? I’m sorry to say but whoever wrote those was high or something.

But on the other hand, how would you know for sure that the disciples or Jesus didn’t actually say those things?

Anyone want to explain?

 

[bpbasilphx]

Because you have the tradition of the Church–even those ancient aposotlic churches of the East not in union with Rome–about which books are canonical.

 

[Chez_Moi]

Well, perhaps the Gnostic gospels were written along with the famous 4 Gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke and John) and the Church decided to abandon the Gnostic…maybe because they had nothing to do with the faith of the famous 4?

 

[lizaanne]

The Church did not include these in the Canon of Scripture - I’m sure they had very good reason for doing so. They are not divinely inspired - just because they are called “gospels”.

~Liza

 

[Joe_5859]

Here’s a relevant article that answers your question:

The Gnostic Gospels

All historical evidence points to much later composition dates for the gnostic writings than those found in the canon of Scripture.

 

[Chez_Moi]

I’m sure they had very good reason for doing so.

~Liza

Yes, I can see why:

114 Simon Peter said to them, “Make Mary leave us, for females don’t deserve life.” Jesus said, “Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every female who makes herself male will enter the kingdom of Heaven.”

Okay, whatever!

 

[PinoyCatholic]

Gnostic gospels are like me writing today about what George Washington said when he was alive, claiming that I was there when he said them and adding a few things into the brew just to make it more interesting.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

Four Criteria for Canonicity (why certain books were eventually accepted into the NT Canon, while others were rejected):

Apostolic Origin - attributed to and/or based on the preaching/teaching of the first-generation apostles (or their closest companions).

Universal Acceptance - acknowledged by all major Christian communities in the Mediterranean world (by the end of the fourth century).

Liturgical Use - read publicly along with the OT when early Christians gathered for the Lord’s Supper (their weekly worship services).

Consistent Message - containing theological ideas compatible with other accepted Christian writings (incl. the divinity and humanity Jesus).

catholic-resources.org/Bible/NT_Canon.htm

In short, the gnostic writings were NOT written by anyone in the church, we know this because they were not delievered to any churches by a trustworthy messenger, “mailman”. The gnostic gospels were NOT used in the churches worldwide, nor were they used in any well known church. And, their message contradicts the known scriptures. Most gnostic “gospels” were written hundreds of years after the new testament period too.

Think of it this way. Paul wrote a letter and sent it to a church by someone well known to that church, a faithful mailman. Well known faithful mailmen would hand carry a copy of those letters to other churches.

In fact, most “gnostic” writings were unknown to the church at all.

 

[SoCalRC]

There were really three branches of early Christianity. Pauline, Jewish, and Gnostic. Pauline spread and flourished, the other two eventually vanished.

The gnostics had some very un-Catholic ideas, so their writings should not be treated as a substitute for reading a Catholic Bible or the Catechism. But for historical context and study, they can be interesting.

What we tend to forget is that there were lots of widely beloved texts which did not make the ‘Constantine’ (or later) ‘cuts’. Again, they are not a substitute for Holy Scripture or proper Church teaching, but they can be educational when trying to understand early Christian thinking and divisions.

 

[inthecloud]

I love reading the Gnostic Gospels, is like reading the Bible while doing mushrooms. Not that I ever had done anything like that but you get the idea.

 

[nsper7]

Here is an article on the formation of the NT canon by J. P. Holding of Tekton Apologetics Ministries.

On the Formation of the NT Canon

Hopefully, this article will address any concerns about whether there were book wrongly left out of the canon or not.

 

[annem]

There were really three branches of early Christianity. Pauline, Jewish, and Gnostic. Pauline spread and flourished, the other two eventually vanished.

The gnostics had some very un-Catholic ideas, so their writings should not be treated as a substitute for reading a Catholic Bible or the Catechism. But for historical context and study, they can be interesting.

What we tend to forget is that there were lots of widely beloved texts which did not make the ‘Constantine’ (or later) ‘cuts’. Again, they are not a substitute for Holy Scripture or proper Church teaching, but they can be educational when trying to understand early Christian thinking and divisions.
Reply With Quote

I know that the contention of most liberal biblical scholars for the last fifty years or so was that there were a number of different Christainities, but do you really see any proof of this?

Yes, there was a dispute in the early church about whether or not to continue with all the Jewish laws–but that was surely an inevitable and obvious dispute, which, in the evidence we have, seems to have been resolved quickly, first by Peter’s dream and later in the Council of Jerusalem.

Other than that, what real evidence is there for a Pauline and and Jewish branch? Not much.

What we do have is lots of evidence of missionary activity. Not just Paul’s, but many people, some driven out because of persecution and ending up carrying the good news, and some choosing, like Paul, to spend their lives converting as many people as possible. And not only the missionary activity, we have plenty of evidence of letters and messages being sent from city to city. All of this would argue against a separate tradition growing up and growing apart from the rest of Christianity.

As for the gnostics, they were a century later. They seemed to have little to do with Christianity itself. If any group deserves to be called separate, then each and every one of the gnostic schools does. Separate from Christianity and from each other. They were few, and very elitist, and their views were frankly silly. My favorite all time gnostic quote “All women deserve to be killed” from Thomas.

Of course there were many devout things written in the first three centuries, such as the Didache or Shepherd or 1 Clement, that were not put into the bible. They are worth reading, certainly. Especially since they would convince anyone of the fact that the church of the earliest years was against abortion, homosexuality, and essentially teaches what the church teaches today.

But I can’t think of any reason to read the gnostics except for general interest, as a scholar or historian.

What do you think? Do you disagree?

God bless, Annem

 

[vern_humphrey]

There were really three branches of early Christianity. Pauline, Jewish, and Gnostic. Pauline spread and flourished, the other two eventually vanished.

No.

Gnosticism probably pre-dated Christianity, and Gnosticism as we know it was an attempt to subvert Christianity to the benefit of the Gnostic leaders.

The gnostics had some very un-Catholic ideas, so their writings should not be treated as a substitute for reading a Catholic Bible or the Catechism. But for historical context and study, they can be interesting.

The Gnostics denied such basic things as the Creation by God, the historic life of Christ and the need for faith.

What we tend to forget is that there were lots of widely beloved texts which did not make the ‘Constantine’ (or later) ‘cuts’. Again, they are not a substitute for Holy Scripture or proper Church teaching, but they can be educational when trying to understand early Christian thinking and divisions.

Since Constantine was dead about half a century before the Canon was proclaimed – and the final Canon is very close to the one supported by the bishop he persecuted (Athanasius) – there were no “Constantine cuts.”