How do we interpret the rejection of the Gnostic Gospels?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 14olearyn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
1

14olearyn

Guest
Hello!
I recently attended a lecture at my church on the Gnostic Gospels.

In the first lecture, the lecturer seemed to imply that the Gospels of Mary Magdalene and Thomas were rejected by the Church fathers because the fathers sought to control the development of the Church for their own benefit.

In the second lecture, he explained that much of what is written in the Gospel of Thomas is inconsistent or even contrary to what is written in the Gospel of John. The Gospel of John, he said, was written specifically to counter what is written in the Gospel of Thomas. Again, the lecturer was implying that the Gospel of John had been written for political reasons, and consequently, he seemed to be subtly suggesting that we cannot affirm anything in the Gospels.

The whole ordeal shook my faith a bit. I kept reasoning silently, “If we cannot trust what is written in the Gospels, we have no grounds to trust the Church, and if we cannot trust the Church, we cannot trust the Gospels.” If the authority of the Church is based on scripture (i.e. Matthew 16:18), but scripture was created by the Church, what basis does the scripture have, and what basis does the Church have for its authority?
(I’m sorry for being so confusing!)

Thank you!
 
Gnosticism is a heresy, that is why they were rejected. Why should we accept heresy?
 
A lecture suggesting such was given at a Catholic church? By whom?

Not having heard what you heard, we may try to be charitable and assume that some of the content, in attempting to be intellectually and academically honest, may have been misunderstood and/or poorly communicated.

That said, not everything self-professed to be a “gospel” is authentic, nor does such portray the events and deeds in the life of Christ in a representative fashion.

As previously noted, Gnosticism is heresy. Many of the Gnostic accounts were written well after apostolic times and are of dubious authorship. There is far more than the content of these texts that must be considered, and when this is done, it becomes very clear why they were rejected.
 
Serpents in the Garden… Some people just try too hard to be fashionable. Stomp on their heads…

One has onl;y to read the gnostic gospels, and gnostic literature in general, to realise how beautifully straighforward are the Christian gospels. No esoteric nonsense only the wise & the wonderful can understand, but written for everyman (yes, and everywoman, too!).
 
The “Gospel of Thomas” is refered to (when refered by) by the ECFs as spurious. No exceptions.

The best dating of the GoT is no earlier than 170–probably later. Attempts by those of the “Jesus Seminar” and others like Karen Armstrong to posist an earlier (earlier than the cannonical gospels) version are all “special pleading” with NO evidence whatsoever. So unless these “higher critics” come up with some firm textual proof, they (and their media darlings, like those who wrote/produced the movie Stigmata) are blowing smoke.

The GoT reflects a mish-mash composition partly orthodox, partly heretical (gnostic) and partly concerned with the particular concers of the late 2nd century Syriac Churches. The “gospel” contect is certainly derived from the circa 150+ AD composition of the Diatesseron a popular conflation of the four cannonical gospels, using John’s gospel as a framework. That alone places the GoT compositon well out of the apostolic era.
 
14olearyn said:
Hello!
I recently attended a lecture at my church on the Gnostic Gospels.

In the first lecture, the lecturer seemed to imply that the Gospels of Mary Magdalene and Thomas were rejected by the Church fathers because the fathers sought to control the development of the Church for their own benefit.

In the second lecture, he explained that much of what is written in the Gospel of Thomas is inconsistent or even contrary to what is written in the Gospel of John. The Gospel of John, he said, was written specifically to counter what is written in the Gospel of Thomas. Again, the lecturer was implying that the Gospel of John had been written for political reasons, and consequently, he seemed to be subtly suggesting that we cannot affirm anything in the Gospels.

The whole ordeal shook my faith a bit. I kept reasoning silently, “If we cannot trust what is written in the Gospels, we have no grounds to trust the Church, and if we cannot trust the Church, we cannot trust the Gospels.” If the authority of the Church is based on scripture (i.e. Matthew 16:18), but scripture was created by the Church, what basis does the scripture have, and what basis does the Church have for its authority?
(I’m sorry for being so confusing!)

Thank you!
Click to expand...
It comes down to this: either God was guiding the Church in its selection of which books were canonical and which were not, in which case it does not matter if people now (or even people then) thought that the selection involved political reasons because it happened how God wanted it to.

OR: God was not guiding the Church in such selections, so it’s all a sham.

Another comment: OF COURSE the fathers, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, were guiding the development of the Church. That was their JOB. That is what they were there for. The “for their own benefit” part is silly baseless accusation, but the guiding was there. That is why we had councils and determined which books were canonical. They were guiding the Church towards truth and away from heresy.

The mere fact that guidance was going on lays no doubt on anything, if we accept that God was involved. Which would be a pretty silly thing for a Christian to deny.
 
14olearyn said:
Hello!
I recently attended a lecture at my church on the Gnostic Gospels.

In the first lecture, the lecturer seemed to imply that the Gospels of Mary Magdalene and Thomas were rejected by the Church fathers because the fathers sought to control the development of the Church for their own benefit.

In the second lecture, he explained that much of what is written in the Gospel of Thomas is inconsistent or even contrary to what is written in the Gospel of John. The Gospel of John, he said, was written specifically to counter what is written in the Gospel of Thomas. Again, the lecturer was implying that the Gospel of John had been written for political reasons, and consequently, he seemed to be subtly suggesting that we cannot affirm anything in the Gospels.

The whole ordeal shook my faith a bit. I kept reasoning silently, “If we cannot trust what is written in the Gospels, we have no grounds to trust the Church, and if we cannot trust the Church, we cannot trust the Gospels.” If the authority of the Church is based on scripture (i.e. Matthew 16:18), but scripture was created by the Church, what basis does the scripture have, and what basis does the Church have for its authority?
(I’m sorry for being so confusing!)

Thank you!
Click to expand...
it is pretty sad that a church would bring in someone that undercuts what the Church has decided what should or should not be in the cannon of scripture. If the lectures are as stated they should not be invited to come in and confuse people and cause them to distrust the Gospels. Did the lecturers state this is what others say about why gnostic books were excluded or did they actually promote it themselves? Did they say other believe the gospels can’t be confirmed or promote it as their own beliefs and this is what you should believe too?
 
14olearyn said:
Hello!
I recently attended a lecture at my church on the Gnostic Gospels.

In the first lecture, the lecturer seemed to imply that the Gospels of Mary Magdalene and Thomas were rejected by the Church fathers because the fathers sought to control the development of the Church for their own benefit.

In the second lecture, he explained that much of what is written in the Gospel of Thomas is inconsistent or even contrary to what is written in the Gospel of John. The Gospel of John, he said, was written specifically to counter what is written in the Gospel of Thomas. Again, the lecturer was implying that the Gospel of John had been written for political reasons, and consequently, he seemed to be subtly suggesting that we cannot affirm anything in the Gospels.

The whole ordeal shook my faith a bit. I kept reasoning silently, “If we cannot trust what is written in the Gospels, we have no grounds to trust the Church, and if we cannot trust the Church, we cannot trust the Gospels.” If the authority of the Church is based on scripture (i.e. Matthew 16:18), but scripture was created by the Church, what basis does the scripture have, and what basis does the Church have for its authority?
(I’m sorry for being so confusing!)

Thank you!
Click to expand...
The reason the early Church rejected the Gnostic gospels is because they were all written much later than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Because they were writtten later, no one believed them to actually be written by the apostles.

So,
  1. The synoptic Gospels and John were written by 90 AD at the latest (and probably earlier), the earliest the gospel of Thomas could have been written was 120 AD and it was probably later. Most other gnostic gospels are from later centuries. There was no conspiracy theory by the Church, they excluded the gnostic gospels because they were written late and no one believed them to be by the apostles.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Gnosticism is a heresy, that is why they were rejected. Why should we accept heresy?
Click to expand...
I just want to point out that the word “Gnostic” simply means knowledge.

I know little about the so called “Gnostic Gospels” and have no idea if they contain the heresy known as gnosticism, but not everything labled “Gnostic” is heretical.

The fifth century Bishop Diadochus of Photike wrote a work called “100 Gnostic Chapters” in which he speaks of the knowledge of God through experience in an orthodox and inspiring way. It is an amazing work, but people get scared away when they hear the word gnostic.

I have heard that the so called Gospel of Thomas has little to do with the heresy of gnosticism. Again, I know little about it but that is what I have been told.

Not trying to defend it, just pointing out that not everything about gnosis is heretical.

-Tim-
 
Wow, that was in a Catholic Church? The pastor was okay with this? Horrific.

Of course the Church Father’s sought to control the development of the Church. Does a Sheppard not guide his sheep?

Gnosticism was a religion that existed completely separate from Christianity. It began to adopt some of Christian texts and thoughts in order to convert people. It was sort of like Mormonism is today. In fact, some of Gnosticism predates Christ. It would not be absurd to say that some of what the apostles wrote was written to counter Gnostic thought. The Gospel of John was after all a letter written to another congregation. It did not start off as being a “gospel”. John was dealing with the problems at the time.

This guy is “subtly suggesting” that you can’t trust any authority but his own.

In a sense scripture was created by the church in that John (who was part of the church) wrote it and the church itself affirmed it as being true. The basis that the Church has for its authority is Christ, for Christ told us to go out and proclaim the gospel.

He is trying to tell you that the Church only teaches what it does because it wants to control people. This is ridiculous. The Church teaches what it does because it truly believes it to be true.

You shouldn’t appologize for being confused. This guy was horrible and you should talk to your pastor and majorly complain.
 
14olearyn said:
In the second lecture, he explained that much of what is written in the Gospel of Thomas is inconsistent or even contrary to what is written in the Gospel of John. The Gospel of John, he said, was written specifically to counter what is written in the Gospel of Thomas. Again, the lecturer was implying that the Gospel of John had been written for political reasons, and consequently, he seemed to be subtly suggesting that we cannot affirm anything in the Gospels.
Click to expand...
This part of your post struck me. Even if the Gospel of John had been written (by John, as has been attested throughout the ages) to counter the Gospel of Thomas (not written by Thomas, as far as any evidence goes), that does not make it “political.” How is it any less inspired because it is fighting an existing falsehood that is being spread around?

Just because Augustine was fighting the Manichaeans, Donatists, etc., doesn’t make him wrong. How is something less reliable because it is countering error?

And that’s even accepting the unsupported premise that the Gospel of Thomas was older than the Gospel of John.

The lecturer should not only not have been allowed in a Catholic Church, he shouldn’t be allowed to speak anywhere where logic and reason are appreciated. 😃

–Jen
 
TimothyH said:
I just want to point out that the word “Gnostic” simply means knowledge.

I know little about the so called “Gnostic Gospels” and have no idea if they contain the heresy known as gnosticism, but not everything labled “Gnostic” is heretical.

The fifth century Bishop Diadochus of Photike wrote a work called “100 Gnostic Chapters” in which he speaks of the knowledge of God through experience in an orthodox and inspiring way. It is an amazing work, but people get scared away when they hear the word gnostic.

I have heard that the so called Gospel of Thomas has little to do with the heresy of gnosticism. Again, I know little about it but that is what I have been told.

Not trying to defend it, just pointing out that not everything about gnosis is heretical.

-Tim-
Click to expand...
The heresy of Gnosticism surrounds the idea that the physical world is “unclean” which God himself wouldn’t touch. And that our objective in life is to shed the unclean physical and go to God as a cleansed spirit. And that is the so-called “knowledge” they have, because to them this is the knowledge revealed by Christ which we didn’t know before which will lead us to our salvation.

Of course that is completely wrong. God will save both our bodies and souls and the physical world will be renewed.
 
The lecturer was obviously a highly biased, agenda promoting huckster, really, really attempting to undermine orthodox faith. It is shameful your pastor allowed him acess to his parishoners.

Step One: Talk to your priest. Let him know how this affected you but that you now have good reason to know this nonsense for what it is. It is the job, in part, of a priest to preach the faith correctly and forthrightly and NOT let “the wolves among the sheep”

Step Two: IF your priest attempts to dismiss you, or even really seems sympathetic to the lecturere TAKE IT UP WITH YOUR BISHOP. The more parishoners you can get to do this, the better.

Step Three: IF and only IF you get NO satisfaction out of the diocese, then you take it to the Vatican–The Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, Pope Benedict’s former office. That can take some time but they DO keep tabs on Bishops who allow such nonsense to flourish
 
I didn’t read ProdglArchitect’s links…

Gnostic belief:

Jesus was NOT the Son of God incarnate as human.
NOT a belief in the Trinity.
gospel of Thomas did NOT mention resurrection. (Gnostic belief was it didn’t happen)
I’m sure there’s more.

St.Irenaeus:thumbsup:
 
The gnostics weren’t Catholics, or even Christians. Why don’t we use their holy books? The same reason we don’t use the Koran.
 
I can’t say how you or anyone else should interpret the rejection of what is called “Gnostic” gospels. I have read most of them and some of them do not put across what is deemed gnostic thought. Gnosticism was a Christian sect. It maintained some Christian ideas but it taught that you had to have special knowledge in order to be saved. I am not Gnostic in my beliefs. But, I was like you and I wanted to understand. I also don’t believe that God, the Father, wants us to rely on what we are told by others to believe and accept. I think He wants us to develop a relationship with Him and to allow Him to guide us. To know when we are guided by Him though, you need to read the Bible, all of it, not just the New Testament, and then use your discernment, the light of the Holy Spirit within you, to make a determination on your own. Right now I am reading the Gospel of Truth which is supposed to be a Gnostic gospel. I am also reading Luke in the NT. I have not finished the Gospel of Truth, but pretty much it seems to say the same thing as Luke. It just does it in a more direct fashion in terms of it does not go into the parables or describe the actions of Jesus. It states what and why Jesus came. I haven’t read all of it yet though.

I have also read that the Gnostics believed that you can’t know God unless you experience God. That is, have an encounter with God. I believe that this is what we strive for in our lives–closeness with God. I also believe that this is a fundamental Christian teaching. Just reading the Bible and saying prayers or psalms and saying “I believe that Christ was the Son of God” does not make you a Christian. Nor does doing good works and refraining from sin. We live in Grace, yes because our ability to understand and to follow is limited due to the fact that we are human and as human are not able to have perfect understanding. Hence, a need to seek guidance from God and leading from the Holy Spirit. However, it is even more than this that we are to seek and develop. We have to LOVE in the way God loves and live our lives, construct our relationships in all areas of our lives from a place of loving. We can’t do this unless we are connecting with God. The OT says over and over how God wants us to act towards one another. It demands this to be followed and the penalties for not are pretty heavy. It is how Jesus directed us to live.

However, if you have not had an encounter with God even though you have been seeking it doesn’t really mean you are not a Christian. Just keep seeking it and it will come. Or, think about your life and you may come to see that you have over and over and just didn’t recognize it for what it was.

Also, I am not going to say that it is true the men that determined what went in the Bible and what did not were not, at least in part, driven by the politics and social rules of the time. I also am not going to say they weren’t driven by the Holy Spirit. I wasn’t there. I didn’t know these men. I am not prepared to say that I trust they had nothing but divine guidance leading them. I trust in God. I also trust what is in the Bible is His Word. Is it all of His Word? I don’t know. But, as long as He is guiding me in my life, I will be walking in His Light. Remember Jesus once said to the Disciples not to trust in the word of dead men when they had the living God with them? He still lives.

Also, Gnosticism had some other beliefs that I think are incorrect. Some of them are actually very spooky. So, if you are going to read what is called the Gnostic gospels, I would suggest you don’t stray from reading just these and if you find something that unsettles you in any of them, put it down and don’t pick it up again. I don’t see why these Gospels are labeled gnostic except in that they were probably kept safe by them. I certainly would not call them Gnostic “Holy Books”. The named authors were not Gnostics. Some people say they were merely attributed to Disciples and written by Gnostics. But, hey don’t really have gnostic teachings. I haven’t read them all though, just most of them.
 
danserr said:
The reason the early Church rejected the Gnostic gospels is because they were all written much later than Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Because they were writtten later, no one believed them to actually be written by the apostles.

So,
  1. The synoptic Gospels and John were written by 90 AD at the latest (and probably earlier), the earliest the gospel of Thomas could have been written was 120 AD and it was probably later. Most other gnostic gospels are from later centuries. There was no conspiracy theory by the Church, they excluded the gnostic gospels because they were written late and no one believed them to be by the apostles.
Click to expand...
Other reasons to reject the Gnostic Gospels:
  1. They insist that we are saved by “secret knowledge” (gnosis), not by the public sacrifice of Jesus Christ. We firmly believe that Jesus came to save ALL humans, or at least to offer them salvation, and so would not reserve anything essential as a secret available only to a few.
  2. Many go further, and imply that matter is evil, and that Jesus, being divine, could not really be human, but only seemed to be human (docesis)–these are the Docetists. In essence, they are claiming that God lies to us in giving us a human savior, who really wasn’t human at all. (This also is related to the Gnostic distrust of the Resurrection: If the Spirit of Jesus was freed by dying, would God have imprisoned it again in Matter? That was against one of their fundamental beliefs.)
3.These Gospels describe a Jesus that we do not recognize or believe in. Some have Jesus “showing off” to demonstrate his divinity, such as by creating birds on the Sabbath–something the Jesus we know steadfastly refused to do.
 
bmonk said:
Other reasons to reject the Gnostic Gospels:
  1. They insist that we are saved by “secret knowledge” (gnosis), not by the public sacrifice of Jesus Christ. We firmly believe that Jesus came to save ALL humans, or at least to offer them salvation, and so would not reserve anything essential as a secret available only to a few.
  2. Many go further, and imply that matter is evil, and that Jesus, being divine, could not really be human, but only seemed to be human (docesis)–these are the Docetists. In essence, they are claiming that God lies to us in giving us a human savior, who really wasn’t human at all. (This also is related to the Gnostic distrust of the Resurrection: If the Spirit of Jesus was freed by dying, would God have imprisoned it again in Matter? That was against one of their fundamental beliefs.)
3.These Gospels describe a Jesus that we do not recognize or believe in. Some have Jesus “showing off” to demonstrate his divinity, such as by creating birds on the Sabbath–something the Jesus we know steadfastly refused to do.
Click to expand...
Not all of them have the elements you speak of. Also, the Book of Thomas is believed to be the oldest of all the gospels including those in the NT. Also, our beliefs have been formed by those selected to be included in the NT. The selection was made in the 3rd century long after the Resurrection. I think this is what was troubling the original poster. The post came across as indicating he/she didn’t know what to believe after learning about these gospels. Jesus did not teach theology, He taught Faith. It doesn’t matter what happened back then or what their motives may have been. If you believe, you know. This is the “knowledge” they were talking about. Jesus said “let him who has eyes see and ears hear”. It is the same thing. A person can be so wrapped up in their religion that they miss the whole point. This is also what Jesus said to the Pharisees over and over. Know God and follow God. It is as simple as that. Why debate what the Gnostics believed? The only guidebook we really need is our hearts.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top