The Gnostics - Nag Hammadi Scriptures - (Part Two)

[good342011]

written by a Greek non believer back in the old time ..most of the Nag Hammadi Scriptures show fear and oppose to Jesus . Edit | Remove

[SonofSethoitae]

@Saiaton

As a modern Sethian, I think that's what they were going for as well.

[Saiaton]

Perhaps when they called the Jewish creator god evil, they were thinking more of the image of 'God' in the mind of - eg modern hellfire & damnation fundamentalists - than of an actual existing entity, saying in effect that the true divinity was far beyond that image held to blame for natural disasters and as an excuse to exterminate other peoples. Calvin's God is not the Pope's, nor the poet Rumi's that of Osama bin Laden - but we mean that their image of 'God' differs, not different deities.

[delagrazia]

@Saiaton no i believe it refers to different entities .For ex see the greek creation story. Zeus tells Prometheus to create man.Epimitheus creates animals and gives out all gifts So Prometheus steals the fire from Zeus (and knowledge +arts)and gives it to men In response Pandoras box is given by Ζeus to balance things out His wife is told nt to open it but by curiosity she does and so all hardships and disease fall upon men /the last content though is hope.Later Prometheus is punished by Zeus

[delagrazia]

@Saiaton Do u see aNY Similarities with Lucifers story and the allegations of some alien channelings that he created man?of course the story when presented from different points of view he appears 2b as the good rebel or the bad rebel against God.

[J7Rod7]

Well, you have wasted too much time with the history lessons. It would have been more important and revealing to actually tell us what the Gnostics said in relation to their direct communion with "divine Spirit" without the need for an intermediary as the bastard christian church finally teaches. The Gnostics were a truly a remarkable people which were much more open to the truth that Immanuel taught when he walked the Earth in his mission to all Humanity.

[mujaku]

Some Christian scholars don't want to accept the evidence that there was no such thing as Gnostics or a gnostic movement within so-called orthodox Christian faith. The term Gnosticism is the invention of Catholic heresiologists. What the Church doesn't want to admit is that there is more than one interpretation of Christ's message; one, in fact, that makes more sense and is, in this regard, truer. Nag Hammadi's importance is that it presents another legitimate Christianity—one not Catholic.

[truthseeker010101]

I wish people would stop saying things like GNOSTICS, gnostics where a religion and reading Jesus words does not mean flipping the bible and making God the devil and the devil God, that would be called SATANISM! not shit! MOSES wrote the pentatcut and The Jews still have the freaking ORIGIANL!  GET REAL!

[THEMANOUTOFTHECAVE]

@truthseeker010101 Gnostics were not a religion. They were not even a cult. Gnostics were (and still are) a "school of thought", divided in many different branches. Gnostics are against religion and establishment. Gnostics search God through knowledge and don't search for God through intermediaries, rather personally.

[truthseeker010101]

@THEMANOUTOFTHECAVE that sounds like me

[delagrazia]

@THEMANOUTOFTHECAVE one branch of which i know being Samael A.Veor teachings .Called gnostics but have no relevance whatsever Gnostic is a pursuer of knowledge Those ancient gnostics were religious as can be seen from their writings

[THEMANOUTOFTHECAVE]

@delagrazia The fact that their teachings are infused with religious language does not mean they are religious per se. Of course they were sects and groups, but the basic outline of a gnostic is that of a man who seeks god personally, using existing simbolism and religious criteria to his own advantage. GNosticism is not a religion for it has no specific dogma or obligations. A gnostic may adopt different views fron an another, but their objective is the same.

[delagrazia]

@THEMANOUTOF to which group are you reffering? Today gnostics in seek of the supernatural share a common view point (not different point of view regarding knowledge/reality and the means to evolve)Old gnosticism had specific beliefs as well within the same group =specific well defined dogma, It was not up to the individual ..ok perharps u r reffering to modern gnosticism(i had run across an(interesting) site long ago=.Individual path but well defined beliefs about reality+not a religion

[THEMANOUTOFTHECAVE]

@delagrazia For example Giordano Bruno and William Blake can classified as gnostics. They were individual who sought truth through knowledge. I'm not saying that gnosticism doesn't have specific criteria and cardinal points, but it is the individual that shapes his own vision based on that of his ancestors. Just look at the differences between hermetics, neo-platonists and, say, someone like Fludd. The basis is there, but the worlds of belief built upon it are not the same.

[THEMANOUTOFTHECAVE]

@delagrazia As with dogmas I was refering to specific rules, rathen than beliefs (ie don't do this, do that). Those are absent.

[CosmosPrivateer]

What if these were written by the Egyptians?

[truthseeker010101]

@CosmosPrivateer The knowledge in the gospel of Thomas about physics and science have recently been discovered, watch the video, science has found god , I wrote a short paper on it if you want to read it I'll mail to you

[ineedaname777777]

I'm very excited to have found the Nag Hammadi Library and read more about Jesus!

[ineedaname777777]

After all the study it all comes down to submitting to God, Loving God, Loving your naboor as self.  "my yoke is easy" One Love

[Smarterthanyouarable]

I read the literal translation from the Greek. Hard to figure out how it could be translated to English. A 6 word sentence ends up a paragraph.

[QuestioProVerum]

@Smarterthanyouarable

The same can be said, for example, to Tacitus' Annals and Historiae. At the turn of the 20th century, book one, chapter one, consisted of over 300 words. Over time, the translations have become more condensed over time and the English language is very complex, French and German translations are definately more accurate and consise.

[Smarterthanyouarable]

@QuestioProVerum You are obviously know more about history than I do so thanks for your video. I have read the major works of all philosophers and all the English translations of the Bible. I had a computer program that let me compare them all at once.

[QuestioProVerum]

@Smarterthanyouarable

The computer programs work well and are an excellent tool to utilize, you're fortunate to have one.

[ineedaname777777]

@QuestioProVerum you guys have a bunch of knowledge. Is Love and submitting yourself to God still on yall's list of things to do?

[tuggleprentiss]

Not sure why you are interested in ideas that came about so much later than the early church.

[QuestioProVerum]

@tuggleprentiss

For starters, the philosophy of gnosticism predates Christianity by centuries, but you are right, the Christian gnostics writings come later. That said, the oldest complete copies of the New Testament date to the middle of the fourth centuries, to include the Codex Siniaticus and Vaticanus, respectively. While earlier fragments have been found of NT scripture, Gnostic doctrine arose during a time when the 'approved' doctrine we have today wasn't even completed.

[tuggleprentiss]

@QuestioProVerum I am, of course, referring to Christian gnosticism. Who cares about complete copies? We have individual books and parts of individual books as well as Christian authors talking about those books dating back to the end of the first century and early second century. The four gospels of Matthew through John actually were compared by some writers to North, South, East and West.

[QuestioProVerum]

@tuggleprentiss

We do have individual books, but the copies we do have date between the second and third centuries CE, and of course we have people referencing their works in the second century, but keep in mind, some of the gnostic scriptures, date to the same period and are referenced by the same historians as approved Orthodoxy doctrine. Furthermore, Eusebius and Origen, as examples, had many gnostic overtones in some of their writings.

[tuggleprentiss]

@QuestioProVerum I don't think you are being very honest there. We have lots more material of the NT that long predates most of the Christian Gnostic materials. We have a fragment of John that dates to about 125 AD and John is obviously the last of the gospels written according to most scholars. Even the Didache is easily dated to have been written at the end of the 1st century. It either copied from Matthew or used the same source.

[QuestioProVerum]

@tuggleprentiss

The frustrating part would be the missing 'Q' source that Mark obviously relies on. Some scholars have even suggested that the Gospel of Thomas is in fact the missing Q source itself, however, most scholars have dated it around 140 CE, but could be as early as 50-60 CE if were influenced by the minority.

Gnosticism and the Orthodoxy church battled each other for centuries and most early church fathers actually wrote many gnostic themes, it fascinating how these sects battled.

[tuggleprentiss]

What we know of Q is that it was a list of quotations, not a narrative story like the gospels. The Gospel of Thomas idea is pretty discredited, it has too little in it to be Q and other reasons it can't be.

"Gnosticism and the Orthodoxy church battled each other for centuries."

I agree, but there were several other offshoots of Christianity that battled as well. It wasn't a battle of equals. Christian Gnosticism started later & was always a sidelight, just like Marconianism & other offshoots.

[QuestioProVerum]

@tuggleprentiss

The Q source is a list of quotations just like the Gospel of Thomas and it is extant in three different manuscripts, One in Coptic contained within the Nag Hammadi and two others in Greek.

There were many different offshoots of Christianity, true, but none argued longer then that between the Gnostics and the early Orthodox church. The argument was whether Jesus was a spiritual being or an actual human. We all know who won that argument, simply by slaughtering the other.

[tuggleprentiss]

But Thomas doesn't even have a fraction of the quotes it needs to be Q. As for offshoots, Christian gnosticism is a big one. But there are others, some much earlier. The 1st was those wanting the gentile Christians to do everything that the Jews did, from circumcision to dietary maters. That was early enough Paul dealt with it. Same for the "we are saved by Jesus blood so we can do anything folk" (like promiscuity). Christian gnosticism couldn't come about until later when eyewitnesses were dead

[QuestioProVerum]

@tuggleprentiss

The Essenes were some of the first Gnostics, those leaving Judaism and becoming Christian once the differences between the two were set in stone and they were perceived as distinctly different. Gnosticism was born in the First Century CE, just as the Orthodox church was, just because a majority of the scripture comes later, doesn't mean that the ideas of Christian Gnosticism are born just as late.

[tuggleprentiss]

The Essenes were not Christians. At all. They don't even mention him in mass quantities of writings. So they weren't Christian Gnostics. Jewish Gnostics and Christian Gnostics have as much in common as hot dogs do to guard dogs. Christian Gnostics are a specific branch of Christianity that broke off later. Much later because we know of other earlier branches like those I mentioned. We have little evidence of Christian Gnosticism in the first century, it is a 2nd century thing.

[QuestioProVerum]

@tuggleprentiss

The Essenes were big on their Messiah returning, waiting for the end of days, as well as the end of the world. Many, MANY scholars have pointed out that many of the first Gnostics were actually once Essenes, or at least some of the earliest Gnostics. Their non-biblical scrolls matched much of what Christianity had to offer and that is why the Essenes all but disappeared after the end of the Second Roman-Jewish war.

Much of their writing appears long before the NT scripture.

[tuggleprentiss]

@QuestioProVerum But none of the Essenes writings mention Jesus or really have any relevance to him. They were a Jewish sect with their own brand of Jewish beliefs about the messiah. The writings you talk about being early are Essene writings about Judaism and the Essene concept of a messiah, not Christian Gnostic writings which are all later.

[QuestioProVerum]

@tuggleprentiss

I understand your assertions tuggleprentiss, I do, however, while they were not writing about Jesus, they were awaiting for a messiah of Jewish descent to arrive and bring about the end of the world. Its apparent that they would have followed a spiritual leader in Jesus, after all, the 'teacher of righteousness' appearing in all non-biblical texts was crucified 88 BCE by Jucundus during the Maccabean revolt. Its not to far out their to understand their shift.

[tuggleprentiss]

@QuestioProVerum "Gnosticism was born in the First Century"

You seem to be intentionally obscuring the difference between Jewish Gnosticism and Christian Gnosticism. Christian Gnosticism was NOT born in the first century. It was later. There is no evidence of Christian Gnosticism in the first century. Christian Gnosticism couldn't sell until the 2nd century when there were no longer eye witnesses that could say "I saw him" and "I ate dinner with him" and "I followed him around".

[QuestioProVerum]

@tuggleprentiss

I'm not obscuring anything. I understand Jewish Gnosticism, but remember, it was the Sethians who flourished during the end of the 1st Century, later followed by the Valentinians and their leader Valentinius, who might I add was born during the turn of 1st Century CE. Remember, the only TRUE gnostic sects were these two that I mentioned. The other off-shoots were not because of a lack of belief in gnosis. This belief is what separated them from all others.

[tuggleprentiss]

@QuestioProVerum "it was the Sethians who flourished during the end of the 1st Century"

Sethians are NOT Christian. They predate Christianity, and are an offshoot of Judaism, not Christianity. They matter as little to Christianity as the ideas of the Pharisees and Sadduces. Sethian doctrine doesn't mention Jesus at all. It predates his birth. Valentius wasn't born until 100AD and his teaching were all mid-2nd century. Not early. The church was well established by then.

[QuestioProVerum]

@tuggleprentiss

Yes an argument can be made that the Sethians were of Jewish descent, however, many did not end up that way. They converted to belief in Jesus and even Irenaeus of Lyon mentions them in his Against Heresies. This was a Christian author, attempting to dismiss the doctrine of the Sethians and their interpretation of NT scripture. Just because they claimed descend through Seth, doesn't equate to not believing in Jesus.

[QuestioProVerum]

@QuestioProVerum

Perhaps you should read NHC, III, 4, The wisdom of Jesus Christ, contained within the Nag Hammadi text. This, by many, such as Douglas Parrott, claim a Sethian text simply because it contains so many Sethian and Ophite traditions, described by Irenaeus himself. Furthermore, its dated to the second half of the First Century, shortly after Egypt was Christianized. 

[tuggleprentiss]

An argument can be made? Even Philo was writing about the Sethians in 20to30 AD. They preexisted Christianity. They did far more than claim descent through Seth. They thought themselves a special race within humanity, & were influenced by Plato's writings. Once Christianity was strong, Sethians tried to interpret Christian doctrines to fit their ideas. Just the fact that you refer to their attempts to interpret "NT scripture" shows how late that is. By the time NT writings were scripture ...

[QuestioProVerum]

@tuggleprentiss

You call it a special race, it merely ties back to the belief of 'gnosis', or special knowledge. While they interpret NT doctrine to quote on quote fit their ideas, they still believed in the mythology of Jesus Christ and fit that mythology within their worldview, becoming...Christian. They believed in a spiritual figure named Jesus.

[tuggleprentiss]

Some Sethians accepted Jesus authority. Jesus was popular, so they needed to fit him into their Sethian ideology. So what? It has nothing to do with Christianity, a booming religion by the time you have any "new testament scriptures". It has to do with Sethianism. No more relevant than Mohammed calling Christians by the name "the people of the book" & Mohammed calling Jesus a prophet. Muslims believe in a spiritual figure named Jesus too. It has nothing to do with what Christianity is.

[QuestioProVerum]

@tuggleprentiss

You keep reverting back to the idea of 'so what' and 'no big deal'. Yet, many of the early church fathers believed in the idea of gnosticism, and wrote about it (specifically dealing with Sethian and Valentinian schools of thought). Prime example would be Eusebius. He conformed to the 'Constantinian' idea of the church, but did so reluctantly. The same can be said of Origen

It had such a large influence on the early church, it led them to torturing and killing them to succeed

[tuggleprentiss]

"Yet, many of the early church fathers believed ..."

Any that did were 2nd century. even of those, many of those who wrote about it were calling it an abomination, not following it. Valentinus? The guy thrown out of the church and called a heretic? Hardly a church leader. Eusebius? Born in 263 - 339. He wrote in the 4th century. LOL, the 4th century You keep wanting to make Christian Gnosticism sound early, but everything you bring up is later and later. Not early at all. Origen = 3rd century

[TheLivingDinosaur]

Please don't take too long in releasing the next part!

[macnutz]

More please. :) Thanks for doing this, I look forward to the rest of the series.

[deprofundis442]

I was getting all, "OOO! And then?", but then it ended. Damned cliffhangers. I'm eagerly awaiting part three. Good work.

[QuestioProVerum]

@deprofundis442

I do apologize for the cliffhanger, but I wish to keep this series interesting, part by part over the entire course of the series, therefore, cliffhangers become necessary. :-)

I do appreciate your interest and hope to fulfill your 'eagerness'.

[Danmill23]

Gnice video.

[nebulajr]

Great job!