It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nag Hammadi & the lost gospels

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 09:22 PM
link   
I couldn't find this topic in an ats search, sorry if its been covered before.

"The Nag Hammadi Library, a collection of thirteen ancient codices containing over fifty texts, was discovered in upper Egypt in 1945. This immensely important discovery includes a large number of primary Gnostic scriptures -- texts once thought to have been entirely destroyed during the early Christian struggle to define "orthodoxy" -- scriptures such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, and the Gospel of Truth."

Apparently these scriptures have been supressed by the church, I was just wondering if anyone has debunked the Nag Hammadi codices, and what your thoughts were about the whole thing?

The gospel of thomas seems to be of particular interest and is definitely an interesting read if nothing else - www.gnosis.org...




posted on Nov, 20 2004 @ 11:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by slick
Apparently these scriptures have been supressed by the church, I was just wondering if anyone has debunked the Nag Hammadi codices, and what your thoughts were about the whole thing?

The gospel of thomas seems to be of particular interest and is definitely an interesting read if nothing else - www.gnosis.org...


If you are talking about the Dead Sea Scrolls themselves - I don't think they are being suppressed as much as they are being debated. All religions (especially Catholic and Jewish) want their say in how they are translated or in some cases interpreted. IMO their paranoia is well-founded considering the level of control they had for so long.

The little I know about the Gospel of Thomas is fascinating and shows Christ in a less than messianic light - more fallable, more human. Here's a couple of sites I found for you - Happy Hunting.

Dead Sea Scrolls and other manuscripts

St. Andrew Divinity School - Dead Sea Scrolls

Various translations of the Gospel of Thomas

B.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 12:08 AM
link   
Thanks a lot, and I definitely agree its very interesting indeed. I suppose it must be difficult regarding translation, only three translations were compared on one of the sites I looked at and even they differed quite a bit, so it must be hard agreeing on a common translations/interpretations.

Thanks for the links, /me goes off to read =)



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 03:30 PM
link   
No the Nag Hammadi and the Dead Sea Scrolls are two different groups
of texts.

the Nag Hammadi were translated and released with in a relatively short time
they were discovered in1945 and published(in english) in 1977/78 with most of the work being done in the last 10-12 years.

the Dead Sea scrolls I will have to look up the dates on. it is said that the bulk of these have yet to be published but i dont know for sure.

from what i have read the people working on the two projects were completely different.

the Nag Hammadi were independent scholars and historians and such where
as the Dead sea scrolls team was pretty much controled by the RCC.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 03:50 PM
link   
Two different finds, discovered two years apart. The Nag Hammadi find in Egypt 1945, was not published until 1970, the . The Dead Sea Scrolls the first of which were discovered in 1947, in Israel and continuing over years, were distributed to any and everyone who wanted to buy fragments. There are numerous publications on various pieces, with thousands still remaining from the public eye, thanks to the Israeli antiquity authorities.

The Christian authorities would rather not give attention to the Nag Hammadi library given the contents. While the fact they were found in Egypt should be significant to Christian theology, the Jewish theologians would want no part of them for that reason as well as the Christian content.



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by stalkingwolf
No the Nag Hammadi and the Dead Sea Scrolls are two different groups
of texts.


I don't think slick was (nor was I) implying that they were the same - I posted both sets because they are seen as "less revised" religious texts.

At least that's the impression I got.

B.


[edit on 11/21/04 by Bleys]



posted on Nov, 21 2004 @ 04:54 PM
link   
The gospells in the king James Version are all that remains of the many Gospells that have slowly disappeared from the bible, the four extant Gospells being the official gospels only having been resolved at the council of Trent in (1545-1563).

One foremost authority on the translation of the Nag Hammadi Library and the dead sea scrolls is Dr Barbara Theiring who has a website devoted to her work, notably the Pesher Scroll.

thiering.net...



posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by slick
I couldn't find this topic in an ats search, sorry if its been covered before.

"The Nag Hammadi Library, a collection of thirteen ancient codices containing over fifty texts, was discovered in upper Egypt in 1945. This immensely important discovery includes a large number of primary Gnostic scriptures [...]


Ah, The Nag Hammadi, long since have I seen that mentioned ...

For me, the most interesting is the gnosis "The Thunder: Perfect Mind" - it sits almost perfectly uncomfortably with the rest: is generally regarded as being female in origin, and as such, is almost exclusively discounted by the early church (deliberate lack of emphasis), if not regarded as downright heretical (although the heretical nature is not exclusively as gender related).

I'm scratching around for references, but there if I recall correctly there is some speculation that the text is in some way related to the Cathars, the cult of the Black Madonna, and southern France (Rennes-le-Chteau/Montsgur ?)- even to the extent that this location was the last resting place of the Magdalene, even the Grail itself. (The source was an academic book on the female form in religious symbolism, and one I've not read for a while ... but leave it with me - I'll check).

The structure (if not the content) of The Thunder, Perfect Mind appears (at least, superficially) similar to that adopted later in the tale of Taliesin in the Mabinogion & in some of the praise songs in the Black Book of Carmarthen, and in other, later European meters (oddly, given the context so far, also to an extent with eddaic, if not skaldic meters - but maybe that's just me).

www.gnosis.org...
www.sacred-texts.com...

... but not entirely surprising I guess, if the Thunder Perfect mind survived (maybe in oral form, as I'm unaware that it exists outside the Nag Hammadi library), it could very much have influenced later writers, especially if it builds on the myth of the Grail: or perhaps the whole Grail (and to an extent the Arthurian) thing started later, with the Mabinogion and such, and was inferred (or attributed) backwards to the (by now 'finished') Cathars/cult of the Black Madonna ...

Blimey, how many topics is it possible to squeeze into a single post ? (added to which - isn't Rennes-le-Chteau linked with the largely unproven Priory of Sion 'thing' ?).

Thanks for reminding me of the work I once did on this, (*shakes head shamefully and wanders off to bookcase, blowing dust of once loved volumes, recalling with pleasure the hours spent tracing the tantalising and obscure links within* ...).

Edit:
Does the Da Vinci code mention this text ? I now understand that it kinda covers similar ground to the principles the have been associated with the Cathars, and the resting place of the Grail: Either way, that's not the topic of this post.

[edited to add heresy & disclaimer about the Da Vinci code].


[edit on 4-1-2005 by 0951]



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 02:37 AM
link   
Hey guys
I have read something about these gospels being mentioned by the bishops in their books in an attempt to answer them back. The bishops summed up what the gospels wrote so that would mean that the knowledge was there and the gospels didnt add anything to the known facts about what they say. Is this true? any knowledge about this? thnx



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 11:35 AM
link   
essenes.net...

this site discusses and refutes the bishops claims against the gospels. I have been reading on other site what the bishops summed up and doesn't seem they touched up on Peter's revelation when he said Jesus wasn't crucified.

I also found this site which says that most of the writings were not known prior to exploration of scripts.

"Up to the time of the find at Nag Hammadi most of what was known about the various Gnostic sects had come from their enemies, from early church fathers who wanted to stamp out what they regarded as dangerous and threatening aberrations from their views of what constituted true Christianity. Most writings of the Gnostics themselves had been destroyed or lost. Now and then a fragment would surface, but for the most part scholars trying to reconstruct Gnostic beliefs and texts had to rely on accounts given by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Epiphanius, and other early church fathers hostile to the Gnostic systems that they were describing.


The Nag Hammadi library marks a dramatic change. It brings a a relatively huge addition to the "fragments of a faith forgotten," as the sparse Gnostic materials earlier available have been called. The collection will provide grist for scholarly mills for generations to come. Within a few decades of the discovery a large body of scholarly literature emerged, and it grows apace.


Source: www.webcom.com...

It is interesting that the Koran says the same thing written in Peter's Apocrypha about the crucifixion of the like of Jesus. The script says also that this secret will be given to another race. I read this issue on a muslim site:
www.answering-christianity.com...


read also www.answering-christianity.com...



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 11:49 AM
link   
The church has been suppressing the Gnostic "gospels"... The first question, I suppose, would be what does suppressing in this context mean? Currently, most Christians refute all of the Gnostic gospels as being false, they're not read in churches, and other Christians are told not to believe them.

Let me turn this around a little bit and use a different example. Your son has wanted to become a mathematician since he was about 5. Now, he's 14, and is a complete math wiz for his age, when he comes along several math books. In these math books, they explain that 2 + 2 is actually 3, you can divide by 0, imaginary number's actual value is 3.284, and that absolute value does not exist. Your son is fascinated by this, and starts to accept what these other math books are saying because they're written very persuasively to the point where a teen seeking answers about his passion will believe. You, as a parent, know that these math books are at least going to slow down your son's achievement of his goal of becoming a mathematician, and at worst he will abandon his life long dream, disillusioned with math, and pursue something he's less passionate about. Do you tell your son the author's correct? Do you tell your son he needs to read those books more? Or do you tell your son that it is false, use all resources at your disposal to help him see that those teachings are false, and get him back on track to fulfill his dream? If you went with the last option, would it be because your intentions are sinister?



posted on May, 16 2006 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I've read A LOT of the gnostic scriptures and was angered by the missing text... I found my way to the Aquarian Gospel Of Jesus The Christ and was relieved to find the proper texts concerning all of the skewed parables they miswrote (on purpose) in the King James and other Popular version of the bible... The Aquarian Gospel is my favorite..



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 07:25 AM
link   
I understand that the church will try to tell ppl the gospels are false, but that doesn't necessitate they are.

dnero, what attracted you most in that Bible? If you have any good site please direct me to it.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 08:00 AM
link   
The gnostic gospels haven't been 'debunked', but they're not considered to have been written by the apostles. The gnostic version of christianity seems to be a fusion of gnostic religions and 'mainline' christianity.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 09:29 AM
link   
The four accepted gospels were not in all likelyhood written by disciples either. Most
scholars agree that the names appended to the gospels were added later by scribes
for veracity sake. for all we know the 4 accepted gospels written between 65- 100AD
might have been written by the butcher,the baker, the candlestick maker, and ted the tanner.



posted on May, 17 2006 @ 09:42 AM
link   
LOLOLOL
I love this stuff....
How can so many millions of people follow a religon ????

They dont even have all of the books yet !!!!

I think religon is funny but that is my right to say.
I apologize if I have offended anyone.



posted on May, 21 2006 @ 02:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by slick

"The Nag Hammadi Library, a collection of thirteen ancient codices...



I love how, when it comes to tiny Branch Dravidian type fringe groups within the early Church, the ungodly spin their writings as "ancient," yet the NT, for instance the letters of Paul (approx. 20 years after Christ's death and resurrection), which are centuries older, are proclaimed to be "late" and thus mostly, if not completely, unreliable.


[edit on 21-5-2006 by Paul of Nisbis]



posted on May, 22 2006 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Gnostic..wise...wisdom based..logic reason....sophist....wizards..

In the gnostic versions ..humanity is played up...by Human reason and logic. God is reasoned out..by mans reason..not by Faith.
This is very popular among many people of religion..particularly those of a Eastern Religiouis slant. God is reasoned out by the wisdom of men. This is what was going on in Alexandria. Paul and some of the other apostles warned about this in the New Testament. Alexandria, Egypt for those of us not up on our geography

The reason so many dislike the apostle Paul is that he was already brought up in a type of Gnostic Religions...Judaism. THe Hebrew leadership had already deviated from the Law of Moses given on the Mount in Sinai. They had substituted the instructions given by God to Moses on the Mount with the traditions and customs of mens logic with which they had come into contact in captivity and by contact with the nations surrounding Israel. They had tried privily to incorporate these practices of logic and reason..into the Law overlaying these customs as if they were the Law. THe Hebrews were warned over and over by God through His chosen prophets ...not to do this very thing..yet they did it and often killing the Prophets sent by God to warn His people ..Paul was very aware after his conversion of this practice among the Hebrews. This is why Paul is not liked as was Jesus ...they both exposed the Hebrews and particularly the Hebrew leadership for this substitutionary practice..for the Law of Moses. This is called in the New Testament ...the traditions of men.

Remember...the Apostle Paul is no ordinary Hebrew...he is highly educated for his day...raised in the inner court of the religion and the Parisee sect...before his conversion. Paul knows to much of the Hebrew Leadership and their dirty laundry.
Todays bible scholars and thinkers know this ..this is why they must downplay Paul.
They must remove Paul and his credibility from the picture.

This is precisely the pattern of operation being attempted by the Gnostic Gospels. Humanity is being attempted to infiltrate Christianity and supplant the instructions of God and the New Testament as if they were in fact the instructions from God. When they get done they will totally alter the Christian practices of centurys and replace them with Gnostic practices and eventually Eastern Philosophys. This is the intent. Just as they attempted to do with the Hebrews they are attempting to do with the Christians today.

Barbra Theiring has the Gnostic view..of Dan Brown and others ...Lincoln, Blagent , Leigh/Holy Blood Holy Grail. So does Robert Eisenmen...they all have the new age type gnostic view.

Their problem is that Carbon dating of many scrolls ..including the Dead Sea Scrolls has put the dates outside of thier claims. They were very popular for awhile among many scholars and new age thinkers until the Scrolls were carbon dated.
People still like to quote them as authoritative on this subject. The carbon dating results are seldom ever quoted or mentioned.

If you watch these claims of the Gnostic and even new age versions..they all attempt to debunk some basic foundation of the Gospel positions on Jesus Christ. His Divinity, Blood attonement , The Cross. Virgin Birth...et al...all in a attempt to water the doctrine down and shift the basis of belief...preparing the ground for a substitution down the road..to a new gospel and a new christ.

I will not be running out to see Dan Browns tale/movie.. as years ago..I read Holy Blood Holy Grail and immediately recognized the Gnostic/occult substitution principle at work. This is not a new line of thinking..it is centurys olde.
There is nothing new under the sun.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on May, 26 2006 @ 09:34 AM
link   
There is nothing new under the sun.....

Parables and stories in the OT are reproduced fables spread over the world most likely by phoenician Sea traders. These strories in turn were handed down even earlier. The Hebrew Alphabet descends from the Phonician, so its logical stories and even beliefs followed the language and writings, scribes and teachers. The story of the great flood precedes Noah by 1800 Years (the epic of Gilgameh), and so on.

The NT in turn bears striking resemblance to Egyptian mystery religions, to beliefs and rituals practiced for thousands of years before Christ walked the earth.


Paul took what jesus left and converted it to suit distrust and suspicion of Women, created fear when Christ intended a calm heart, modified teachings to suit
his personal quest(s). Compare what Christ says, and then what everyone else in the Bible says Christ says. they are not the same.
Politicians today use their "christianity" to pursue their careers, even to the point of bombing and invading foreign Nations, as if Christ instructed them too. This is no less than what Paul did.


I would truly love to see the missing 18 years of Christs Life. The Bible is supposed to be the book leading to salvation through Christ....yet we have been left with nonsensical books recording wars, armies, penalties for touching a dead pig ( death)...etc. Who cares how many people were killed in battles that took place 3500 years ago....
The Bible has been hijacked by lessor men...the teachings of Christ must be out there somewhere, in their pure form.

the Bible is not it.



posted on May, 27 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Yeah. I have asked Dr. Phelip Jenkins, a professor of religious studies. He said that Valentinus and certain gnostic christians wrote certain books which were transmitted through people explaining gnostic ideas similar to the found bibles at Nag Hammadi.
regards



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join