the kingdom is in your centre
and is about you
when you know yourselves,
then you will be known,"
-- The Gospel of Thomas
I have a challenge to all protestant Christians. This is not an attack or an attempt to create an argument. I would really like all Protestants to think about this seriously, if only for a moment. But first I must give some history.
The council of Nicaea first met in 325 A.D. It was called by the newly converted Emperor Constantine. His goal was to end the internal bickering that had characterized early Christianity and to decide once and for all what constitutes a Christian.
The end result was three major things. They wrote the Nicene Creed, a short statement of faith that is still used throughout the world by widely divergent faiths to define themselves and other Christians. Secondly, they began the process of canonization, that is deciding which of the early religious writing belonged in the Bible and which did not. Finally they established the authority of the bishops and the Pope in Rome, ultimately leading to the formation of the Catholic Church.
It is these last two I want to deal with mostly. Let's take canonization first.
Three hundred years after the birth of Christ there was already a fair amount written about him. Numerous gospels existed. Many of the original apostles had written books of Acts and numerous letters back and forth. Early bishops also wrote back and forth repeatedly.
Much of what was left out was left out for practical reasons. Many of the letters contained similar information, and added little to the general understanding of Christianity -- either then or now. Some of it was too specific, written by one bishop for one congregation. Some of the writings were short or incomplete.
However some of what was left out was for political reasons. There were three main factions in the early church. Without going into too much detail, two of them -- the Catholics (not quite the same as modern Catholics) and the Orthodox sects -- teamed up and pushed out the Gnostics, who they considered Heretics.
Much of the writing from that time has been lost but not all. Thanks to the relatively recent discovery of the Nag Hammadi library in Egypt, several of the more important Gnostics writings are still available. We will come back to that in a moment.
The other major decision of the council involved settling a long standing debate about who had authority to say what Christianity was. Once again, two factions -- one out. They were supporters of the Pope in Rome and the Patriarch in Alexandria. Eventually they would schism into the Catholic church and the Eastern Orthodox Church respectively.
Flash forward about 1500 years. Martin Luther posts his ninety-nine theses and the rest, they say, is history. Christianity divided into hundreds of distinct denominations. All are called Protestant, because they were all spawned from this one act of protest.
Specifically, all these myriad churches and denominations share one crucial protest; they do not believe the Pope is not infallible. The Pope does not have the right to tell all Christians what to believe or what to do. In saying this, they are rejecting one of the cornerstone decisions of the council of Nicaea.
So here is my challenge to you. If the council of Nicaea was wrong about the Pope and wrong to establish the Catholic Church, could they have been wrong about the canonization? If their divine inspiration failed at this turn, could it be possible that they weren't divinely inspired at all? Maybe they were just men.
Not sure? Read one of the Gnostic texts for yourself. Personally I recommend the Gospel of Thomas. I am not trying to convince that it is right or wrong; I merely want you to read it with an open mind. It presents -- as all the Gnostic writing does -- a different view of Jesus and of Christianity.
I like Thomas in particular because he really delivers. He speaks not one word about the life of Jesus or any suppose miracles he performed. the Gospel opens with:
"These are the words that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded" And that is exactly what the book is -- a record of what Jesus said.
I like it to because many of the sayings are similar to what's in the other Gospels, but they are given a different perspective.
Gnosticism is less concerned about Jesus' divinity than it is with his example. How do we follow his example, how do we individual achieve a relationship with God? I think Christianity today could benefit from a wider understanding of it's own history and of the diversity of thought it contains. I hope at least some of you will seriously consider what I have said.
What are your thoughts on church history and the divisions that have occurred in its history? Do you think that books outside of the Bible -- like the Gnostic books -- deserve as much attention and importance?
Recommend
Comments (53)
I believe is books need more attention.It was just yesterday that i was doing some research pertaining to the bible and i came upon the gnostic gospels and i think the church should have tried to have included them some way in their teaching but they rather thought that these gospels were written to late and hold no validity towards the bible.withholding these books is like telling half of the truth that really exists.
Origin and Hippolytus were writing against the Gospel of Thomas in the 200s, before the Council of Nicaea.
Also, most translations of the opening line of the Gospel of Thomas read, "These are the secret/hidden words that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded."
This, I believe, hints at the whole nature of the Gnostic movement, that certain spiritual figures inherit secret knowledge from their own teachers, which they reveal only to certain individuals. Within the movement, this secret knowledge was used as a source of power and control, since followers wished access to this knowledge and only the leaders claimed to have it. The Gnostics used Christ as one of these possessors of secret knowledge and wrote their own "Gospels" which portrayed him passing that knowledge secretly on to certain followers including Thomas, Judas, and Mary Magdalene.
Yet, Jesus says in the true Gospel, "I no longer call you slaves, because a slave does not know what his master is doing. I have called you friends, because I have told you everything I have heard from my Father" (John 15:15).
The life of Jesus was not based upon secrets, but on full disclosure. This reason and others that were not merely the result of politics, but of close inspection of teaching/doctrine, tradition and scripture were what led to the rejection of Gnosticism.
Also, salvation is not merely based upon what one knows; knowledge is not most important.
While the Council of Nicea made the canon "official" it really didn't do much picking and choosing when it came to scripture. The New Testament canon had been largely established by the end of the second century. To think that the Council of Nicea took a ton of writings and chose a select few to consider 'scripture' is inaccurate. Origen probably considered the same 27 New Testament books to be scripture at least 100 years before Nicea. A few books, such as Peter and Hebrews, were in question, but the vast majority of the New Testament was widely agreed upon. The Gospel of Thomas was not even a serious consideration at Nicea.
I noticed that the Da Vinci Code movie made the same erroneous assumption. Simply because an official meeting confirmed something didn't mean that it wasn't that way before. If anyone should know that, it would be the Catholic church, which still officially declares doctrines in the 1900's. (i.e. the assumption of Mary in 1950)
I dont mean this the wrong way and i am not making fun of you but someone who is transgender talking about a gospel that states that women have to become men in order to enter heaven is kind of funny.
I think people should know about them. Too often I hear about most of the New Testament being inspired by the Holy Spirit so we should do everything it says. What about the texts that were not chosen? They could have been 'inspired' too; however, simply because they were not chosen to be canon people ignore them. To be honest this is why I have trouble taking portions of the bible seriously.
I have read the Gospel of Thomas and while I do not agree with some of the statements, it is one of the more enjoyable reads. My favorite book of the bible is Tobit but I have not been able to find it in a Protestant bible even though it is not gnostic at all.
A thought strikes me--some who are more learned might see s question like this as beneath their dignity. You and I, however, are not learned--at least not in the formal extensive training sense of the term.
My thoughts--the institution of the Papacy was under big assault at that time. It was a plum for the picking--a bone of contention between powerful families like the DeMedicis and the Borgias. Then the French went and abducted the Pope and set him up in Avignon. Then there was a new one appointed back in Rome. And neither one wanted to resign. A third one was appointed to mediate. They all appointed their own archbishops. What a mess. It would’ve made the Bush-Gore stalemate look like a parking ticket dispute. It must’ve caused terrible consternation among the faithful.
And even before the Reformation, there were attempts to return to the presumed simplicity of the early Church--the Cathars, the Lollards, the Hussites, the Jansenists--and so on. The canon was of such simplicity compared to that as to be a nonissue--unless you factor in the controversy translating the Vulgate into the vernacular and the inclusion of the Apocrypha.
There is, of course, the doctrine that every religion espouses--that the canon has been sovereignty preserved throughout all the centuries. I’ve read material by Muslim scholars on how assiduous the process is for determining the canonicity of a writing for Islam. Is it historical? Is it doctrinal? Yadda yadda. Like a complex filter for a search engine. Same deal for Mormonism. And my take is this--even though I’m an Evangelical Christian, and disagree with the content of other faiths, I am convinced of the sincerity of the scholars of those faiths, and of the canonicity of their scriptures--which, I know, sounds totally contradictory.
As to Gnosticism--I gotta go with Ancient_Scribe. It’s a faith built on deliberate ambiguity. Feed the populace one party line--keep the secret esoteric teaching for the inner circle--the privileged few. We have enough of that as it is. I prefer the egalitarian faith of St. Paul, who preached what he called the simplicity of the Gospel. The meanest believer was privy to the Sacramental Meal and assured of access to the Godhead through prayer and faith.
--just off the top of my head. Good questions, though.
@squanto_07@xanga - good call. Is that the gospel of Thomas, or of Mary Magdeline? No matter. It's one of those big pink elephant issues everyone politely ignores until someone with enough chutzpah tastelessly brings it up.
@snarkius@xanga - you never will, either. Tobit is strictly deuterocanonical--like Macabees, Judith, and parts of Daniel and Esther. Strictly Roman Catholic. This Protestant--me--likes 'em, BTW--even if he doesn't give 'em the full weight of canon
@Ancient_Scribe@xanga - "The life of Jesus was not based upon secrets,"
Very important point. The Gnostics never get away of knowing secret things, from knowledge. It never says Mary understood, or had knowledge of everything, it said she pondered things in her heart. Clearly, we see dimly. We have faith, hope, and love. For the Gnostics, there is a God behind the God... but that's not Christianity...
@wrybreadspread@xanga - I think its thomas but its been a while since i have read them... hard to remember
@Theophilus166@xanga - took the words right out of my mouth, well said
@wrybreadspread@xanga - Ah, I just thought it had something to do with the publishers. I guess that is what I get for falling asleep in too many bible classes.
@snarkius@xanga - just noticed your avatar pic--most awesome
you left out the part in this history leasson in which, a year after luther posted his 95 thesis where he wrote a letter in which he pretty much went back on most of what he said. a lot of protestants also miss the part about the "reformation" being 90% political.
i HIGHLY suggest that anyone listen to Stephen Ray's talk called "Finding the Fullness of Faith". you can find it here. you can preview the talk there as well. in fact, even just the preview is enough to spark some ideas and plant some seeds of conversion.
still, on the matter at hand, gnosticism is a heresy because, as scribe explains, it's not about knowledge.
@wrybreadspread@xanga - deviantart...can't remember the artist.
8 For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boas
John 3:16 (NIV)
16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Jesus said nothing about salvation through knowledge, but by faith in Him as Savior from sin.
Well, I cannot speak for the love that Christ has for all of this people. However, everyone has a chose to believe whatever they want.
There are still people in the U.S. that hate other people because of whatever reason and still read the KJV
as a history buff, i love the Gnostic texts because in all likelihood, they probably represent one of the earliest forms of Christianity.
gnosis is not about secrecy. it is about obtaining knowledge of the divine available only to those who truly dedicate their lives to serving God. i'm reminded now of the dozens of Christians on revelife alone who tell me the only thing that can truly nurture faith in an individual is the Holy Spirit... if that's not a form of gnosis, i don't know what is.
in general, hearing Christians calling Gnosticism a heresy is like the pot calling the kettle black. you guys believe that Jesus, the Son of God yet still somehow also God, rose from the dead after living in Hell for three days after being crucified as a blood sacrifice to Himself/His father. but you can't believe that MAYBE some people have a deeper understanding of God through knowledge than others? you're splitting hairs, and it makes the whole religion seem ridiculous.
I've done alot of research on heresy, the Council of Nicea, and on Gnosticism in general and have come to the conclusion that it is best to be careful. The History Channel special, "Banned from the Bible" focuses on these Gnostic gospels. Some of them sound legitamate, others end up being bizzare beyond words. Essentially, Gnostics believed in their secret knowledge to free themselves from the battle between good and evil because God the father wasn't powerful enough to free them with Jesus' blood alone. I was taught that the greatest danger in Christianity came not from those going in the opposite dirrection, but from those basically on the same path leaning left or right. If you're not careful you could be led astray. If they do deserve any attention or importance, it also ought to be noted for the damage they've caused and the churches they've divided. Some of their teachings weren't stamped out by Council, but have survived til this day in popular books and movies.
The problem is, at the canonization councils, the Gnostic gospels weren't even in the running.
Seriously. Look at all the books that were being suggested, look at the arguments being made. Most of the arguments were about whether Hebrews should be included because we don't know the author, or whether Revelations was worth including, or whether 2nd Peter was really written by Peter. Yes, there were a few books kicked around that didn't make it in--1 and 2 Clement, the Didache. But the Gospel of Thomas? Gospel of Mary? Never were even contenders. They weren't "Banned from the Bible," no-one had any interest in including them in the Bible.
Even Marcion, a Gnostic himself, did not include any Gnostic gospels in his canon. In 140 A.D., he was the first to try to compile a "New Testament." His list included * Gospel according to Luke
* Galatians
* I Corinthians
* II Corinthians
* Romans
* I Thessalonians
* II Thessalonians
* Ephesians (which Marcion called Laodiceans)
* Colossians
* Philemon
* Philippians. See any of the Nag Hammadi Gnostic gospels in there? Me neither.
Athanasius was already using the New Testament as we know it long before Nicaea. And a hundred years before him, Origen was using almost the exact same list (possibly excluding some of the disputed books that have since been accepted). In 170 A.D. the Muratonian Fragment lists a similar New Testament, missing only Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, and James--and it argues against pseudographica (in this case several books written in Paul's name by gnostics "to further the heresy of Marcion").
Protestants do believe that the Church is fallible. However, the development of the canon was not a top-down hierarchically imposed decision: it was a bottom-up decision, a meeting of bishops from across the Christian world who brought the list of books their churches were already using, so they could decide on a universal list. The canonization of Scripture is a decision that is not worth questioning: the decision was sound.
@squanto_07@xanga - Yeah, it's Thomas.
'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."' --Thomas 114
@too_pretty_to_die@xanga - Heresy is defined as a belief within a religion that runs counter to established doctrine.
Within Christianity, it is established doctrine (and universally accepted) that the God of the Old Testament is the same as the God Jesus preached, an all perfect all good being. This is a basic, core belief. Gnostic Christianity likes Jesus but doesn't like his family, so to speak: in Gnosticism the God of the Old Testament was an imperfect (and possibly evil) demiurge, in contrast to the superior entity that Jesus (as an æon) represented. This is a vast departure.
Pot calling the kettle black? Not quite. Gnostic Christianity claims to be within Christianity, but Christianity does not claim to be within Gnosticism. So when Gnostic Christianity contradicts basic teachings of Orthodox Christianity, it is a heresy. But when Orthodox Christianity contradicts basic teachings of Gnosticism, it's not a heresy, because it views itself as seperate.
@ChrisRusso@xanga - except that, as far as any historian can tell, Orthodox Christianity (if it even existed that early) and Gnosticism had equal footing in the beginning. the declaration of whether or not something is a heresy seems to "History is written by the victors" personified, rather than any real attempt to establish official doctrine. therefore, it makes no sense to declare Gnosticism a heresy when any real orthodox doctrine hadn't even been created yet.
The 'history' in the original post contains some errors. The Council of Nicea was not convened to determine which books were to be in the Bible ----- that ignores the situation of the church at that time. Any decent history book will reveal the error of such a premise and other ones in the posting. Consequently, the questions are pointless because the historical premise is inaccurate.
Are there other inspired books? Possibly. But it is unlikely that any will become widely accepted today. Barring an enormous discovery of new letters/books, the contenders are limited and have never gained acceptance by any sufficient number.
Now, to the real focus of the posting........that we should be more concerned with Jesus' example than His divinity. No, we should be more concerned with His sinless death and resurrection for us. His 'example' is nice, but I cannot live up to it ------- that is akin to works righteousness. Instead, it shows that I cannot live up to Him and cannot save myself by my works. That is the Gospel. Not focused on "me", but on the Christ who is risen!
The end.
Gospel of Thomas has some deep truth. It should not all be thrown out but having said that the gnostic Christian faith got a few things wrong. The first thing they got wrong was making knowledge more important than love. The goal of the Christian faith from all three sides of the family tree (Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant) is to love God and love people. The goal of gnosticism is to be transformed by secret knowledge. That's not Jesus. There is more but that's one of a few things that matter.
p