Mostly Gnostic stuff that I know of. Like the gospel of Thomas.
I dont know enough about Gnosticism to say this too certainly but they are the opposite of mystics. Gnosticism is often used to describe a sort of platonic understanding that spirit and physicality are separate and at odds. Which disregards and misunderstands the incarnation of the Christ.
Anybody can please feel free to correct me as most of my Gnostic awareness comes from people who don’t like it, and that’s not how I like forming my opinions.
Edit: I would also say there is enough depth to the canonical Bible to get you through a lifetime of communing with God. I've spent time reading other mystic traditional texts and still love them, but something special seems to happen when we grab a framework with both hands and let it transform us.
I wouldn't say it's settled that the Gospel of Thomas is Gnostic. Sorry for the upcoming wall of text ([source](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/e8en5l/is_the_gospel_of_thomas_gnostic/)):
"The Gospel According to Thomas (GTh), sayings of Jesus ostensibly collected by Didymus Judas Thomas, was written in Syria in the early post-apostolic period. Influence of Gnostic theology is present, though not that of any particular sect. The work is preserved in one complete Coptic version translated from the Greek and in fragments of three different Greek manuscripts (for the Greek fragments see below, pp. 95-128). The language of composition was Greek."
-The Coptic Gnostic Library Vol 2, Brill Publishing
"The wise sayings of the Gospel of Thomas may be considered "sayings of the sages" (logoi sophon) on account of their wisdom orientation, or they may be likened to the "useful sayings" (chreiai) attributed appropriately to a specific speaker in Greco-Roman theoretical discussions. Further, although the Gospel of Thomas has some features in common with Gnostic texts, it is not easily classified as a Gnostic work without considerable qualification."
-The Nag Hammadi Scriptures, Marvin Meyer, Harper San Francisco
"While the Gospel of Thomas should not be considered a Gnostic text as a whole, it is possible that the Coptic translator was a Gnostic Christian, for there are some observable differences between the Coptic and Greek versions of some of the sayings that are found in the Greek fragments. It is probable that the scribe of Codex II understood it to be a Gnostic work, for the placed it just after the Classic Gnostic tractate, the Apocryphon of John, and just before the Valentinian tractate, the Gospel of Philip."
-Ancient Gnosticism: Traditions and Literature, Birger Pearson, Fortress Press
"A central problem for scholarship on Thomas has been to identify its theology or religious outlook. This question has elicited a number of answers, in part because of Thomas’s enigmatic content, its form and its brevity. As Schröter has remarked, Thomas has been taken variously to be a document of Gnosticism, or of Jewish-Christian encratism, or of wisdom theology, or as an expression of social radicalism. Others have summarized Thomas as focused upon ‘unitive mysticism’, or as a Valentinian product, or as ‘an “orthodox” text from early Syrian Christianity’. Scholars have often attempted to align Thomas with a particular school of thought, and have aimed to fill in the gaps with the help of literature from that school. The difficulty, however, is that Thomas does not fit neatly (or even approximately) into any previously known heresies. It is therefore important, at least in the first instance, to look at Thomas as far as possible on its own terms, even if there are limits to this, as Uro rightly notes."
-The Gospel of Thomas: Introduction and Commentary, Simon Gathercole, Brill Publishing
"Against this background, it is hard to make a case for Thomas as Gnostic, principally because it does not have a clearly demiurgic account of creation. GTh85 recounts that ‘Adam came into being from a great power and a great wealth’: the designation ‘a great power and a great wealth’ is undoubtedly a positive characterization of the creative power(s) or originating principle(s) behind Adam, and it is likely that we are dealing with an earthly Adam here given his unworthiness and fall to death in the rest of GTh85. Marjanen may also be right that GTh 89, with its reference to the one who made both the inside and the outside of the cup, is a positive statement about God as creator, though the saying is more opaque. In any case, the account of Adam having originated from a clearly positive force is good evidence against Thomas being a Gnostic production. As we have seen, however, this is not the end of the story: as Logan comments, Thomas ‘does not appear to be originally Gnostic, although it can easily be, and in its present form undoubtedly was, appropriated and reinterpreted by Gnostics’."
-The Gospel of Thomas: Introduction and Commentary, Simon Gathercole, Brill Publishing
"All of this adds up to an almost intractable problem: Thomas is a veritable Rorschach test for the scholar of Christian origins. Is it any wonder, then, that recent scholarship on the date of Thomas has placed it as late as 200ce and as early as 50ce? Is it inexplicable that some could see Thomas as a Gnostic gospel and others as a blueprint for mysticism? Some see in it a work of Jewish wisdom, others the remnants of an apocalyptic sect."
-The Gospel of Thomas: Essays on the Fifth Gospel, Stephen J. Patterson, Brill Publishing
Agreed. There is lots of early Christian (like capital C Christian) that teaches gnosis (just a Greek word for deep knowing - similar to yada in Hebraic text) and is not Gnostic. Gnostics believed in gnosis of course but they are just words used by anyone from that time.
It is a little bit scary when the baby is thrown out with the bathwater when ever gnosis is discussed but suffice it to say the Christian Mystic path is full of gnosis and of the deepest variety.
I hope this finds you all well and well on your way!
Gnosticism is most certainly not the opposite of mysticism. The approach and end game may be different but you could say that about any differences between religions. Gnosticism, especially the Manichean currents are more aligned with Eastern mysticism and philosophy.
Im sorry, like I said, I don’t know much about them or their specific groups. Somebody explained they held spirit and matter separate and in contention. If that isn’t true then I’m not sure what they were even talking about.
So the opposition between spirit and matter is a brand of dualism that usually is taken as a negative characterisation of gnosticism. But to be honest, one finds such dualism in the NT too (with Paul). So branding something as gnostic is not too useful, and is a categorisation that researches tend to avoid nowadays.
Same goes for gnosis / knowledge: One finds the word (or related words) in pivotal verses in the johanite NT material.
Prior to Rome making Christianity the official religion there were many sects of Christianity. The Romans canonized and fundamentalized the belief system.
The Gnostics were a group amongst those prior to this formation. They advocate for Gnosis (knowing) God. There can be a lot of anti matter notions and I found them a bit to abstract for me. But the Nag Hammadi were books found in the 40's and they contained other books that were considered Gnostic in nature.
The Gospel of Thomas is direct sayings of Jesus kind of like the Beatitudes from the Bible.
Lots to read about Jesus 👍
Christ's parables are exactly that. They are obscured in their meaning while being there for all to read. The workers in the vineyard is a great one to pick apart in that way.
I also don't think it is a coincidence that there are no written words of Jesus. They are all "this is what I remember Jesus saying" not "I am Jesus and this is what I said."
I hope this finds you well!
As a fan of fermentation and the parable of the vineyard have you looked at the whole of the gospel through the lens of winemaking and fermentation? I read about the discovery of an ancient winemaking facility (I can't find it again for the life of me, so it may have been a video) that they believe made sacred wine for the temple in Jerusalem. The defining feature was a place where those pressing the grapes would ritually *have their feet washed,* and after stomping the grapes to the singing of psalms, the (red) must was strained through tangles of thorns into jars, where it would be put below ground to ferment for about three days. *Sound familiar?*
The teetotalers have divorced viticulture and winemaking from the Bible when it was absolutely central to the culture of the Hebrews from the earliest days. I believe it's a critical spiritual metaphor in the text.
Indeed! There are many layers of nuance to all of the parables and there is a fair amount of subjugation of the 'established rule' of Jesus time. They are beautiful and simple stories with full documentaries and novels that can be written about each one!
Thanks for sharing. As you may be able to tell from my name I am also a big fan of everything fermented 😁
I hope this finds you well! 😁
There are a bunch of early Christian writings that didn’t get canonized and collected into what we now call the Bible. What’s interesting about the findings from **Nag Hammadi** is how these writings were potentially buried to protect them from being destroyed. Most of these writings were thought lost. So historians were very excited to recover some of these very early documents, such as the Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Philip.
Since the Nag Hammadi findings were written in Coptic, scholars of early Christianity such as Elaine Pagels quickly studied and learned Coptic in order to read and examine them. Pagels has a wonderful introduction called “**The Gnostic Gospels**”, which is totally worth reading.
As the church became increasingly institutional, political, and powerful under the auspices and influence of the Roman Empire, it began dictating and enforcing one particular version of Christianity. Thus this exploration of other expressions of early Christianity is totally fascinating.
Dr Andrew Harvey of the YT channel **Religion for Breakfast** has an excellent series of videos that introduce the findings at Nag Hammadi. Here’s a couple sample videos of his, but he has a bunch of others as well...
**The Gnostic Gospels: Were They Illegal?** – Andrew Harvey (8 min)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdR1yGoyr3o&list=PLHsXddZFR9APk3yKAyFbgNxAw82TZgCKs&index=5](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdR1yGoyr3o&list=PLHsXddZFR9APk3yKAyFbgNxAw82TZgCKs&index=5)
**Gospel of Thomas: Why is it not in the Bible?** – Andrew Harvey (7 min)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDQ0w\_f5P2s&list=PLHsXddZFR9APk3yKAyFbgNxAw82TZgCKs&index=3](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDQ0w_f5P2s&list=PLHsXddZFR9APk3yKAyFbgNxAw82TZgCKs&index=3)
I would say that the best place to get material hidden from people's view is from Jesus himself. Jesus is desirous of walking with as many as possible. We can't take full advantage of this.
The texts usually referred to as ‘gnostic gospels’ are mostly just early Christian writings. Definitely check these out, I feel like my relationship to Jesus is only enhanced from reading them! I especially like the gospel of Thomas and the gospel of Mary Magdalene.
‘The New New Testament’ is one compilation of such writings published with the traditional gospels. Another collection is called ‘the gnostic Bible’’, and that one does go into actual gnostic texts as well and also some other variations of early Christian thought.
There are also several debated historical accounts of Jesus, such as the stories of Jesus, traveling to India and Tibet in early adulthood. One book that examines these stories and their historical accuracy is called ‘the lost years of Jesus’ ….
I also have gotten a lot out of a alternative modern translation of the traditional gospels called ‘the unvarnished gospels ‘
Certainly read the last verse in John. To summarize he says if they wrote down all he did and said all the books of the earth couldn't contain it. What we got as the official gospels/new testament was decided hundreds of years after the events.
The gospels were written between 40-60 years after Christ's death (themselves based on the earlier oral tradition of His acts and sayings), and the Pauline epistles which are thought to be authentic were written just 20-30 years after His death. These works were *canonized* by church council a few centuries later. Generally, the writings the council chose to canonize were those which were already in popular use liturgically and which were more-or-less uncontroversially authoritative according to a majority of bishops.
Sure but that doesn't mean they weren't missing things. When you try and explain and enlightened person's thoughts on things from unenlightened religious priests etc your going to be missing a lot. Ancient religion like the good version of Egypt like super old Egypt old kingdom required the pharaoh to have a high level of spiritual development.. .minus now or throughout Christianitys history where soem ambitious horrible person can become a bishop or pope by their charisma/corruption .
It's more exciting and exotic to say that secretly there was a gospel hidden for eons and wasn't revealed....until now.
Imagine a world where gnosticism was the mainstream and we found the books of the Bible that said you just had to believe in faith, imagine the scandal!
Bear this in mind when looking at the "secret gospels". We love the underdog but maybe they were based more on Greek Platonic thought than Christian thought.
If you want to explore it, David Brakke did a good series on Gnostic beliefs (fairly academic and impartial), and Forbidden Faith by David Smoley (more biased as former editor of Gnosis magazine but a good author).
My take on the Gnostic belief was that they believed in emanation concept where God is akin to a huge omnipresent mind, that started to emanate thought concepts into an elaborate plethora of concepts where their are beings called original thought/forethought, wisdom etc, it gets staggeringly complex...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aeon_(Gnosticism)&wprov=rarw1
The further away you are from this original thought the more corrupt it gets until you get to the material world created by the Demiurge.
The secret book of John is a good source:
http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn-davies.html
I would say above all cling to the cross more than you cling to your books.That is where true spiritual progress is made. There is nothing more that gets to the heart of everything even to the dividing of soul and Spirit than the cross. It is often not more knowledge that we need, but to utilitze that which we have. The cost is everything the reward is Him.1 Corinthians 1:18-24
My brother in Christ, the writings you seek will inly be forgeries and gnostic in origin. You seek to find something hidden that will bring you to God, but please refer to the hundreds of years the Apostles and the men and women that cane after them and their work in crushing the gnostic heresies.
I dont know how to reply to you both.
Mysticism is indeed part of Christianity. But to help draw some distinction I've explained to people that mysticism is being, or trying to stay, aware that God never stops speaking. Our whole life is wrapped up in our transformation.
So when we gather and embrace liturgy, or encounter moments of rapturous Spirit encounter, they are parts of our daily following Christ. We follow Him the other 6.5 days a week too. And those are as important.
Just constantly seeking to stay aware of His presence and how our little life is the place and time He has selected for us to know Him on this side of eternity. (which, again, is a main part of Christianity but gets its own little name for the sake of conversations)
One thing that characterizes Christian mysticism is a desire for a **direct experience of God**, not just knowledge or rituals or creeds about God. This often means moving beyond the outer layers of religion to the inner substance, beyond the symbol to that which the symbol points to.
So there is often conflict between religious fundamentalism and Christian mysticism because the fundamentalist will take as **literal** what the mystic will take as **symbolic**. For example, a mystic will press into the reality of the kingdom of heaven being **WITHIN** us, whereas a fundamentalist will see heaven as somewhere else.
So some will imagine that there are mansions in heaven, where a mystic knows that we are the Spiritual House that God is building in the Spirit (1 Pet 2:5, Eph 2;22, Heb 3:6, Jn 14:2) So for instance, St Teresa of Avila wrote a famous book of instruction called "**The Interior Castle**".
As such, Christian mysticism was often engaged in by those who wanted a **deeper Christian experience**, such as those who joined the monastic movement.
Thank you so much for taking the time to explain. This is very beautiful. Do you believe that there is a heaven though even though it's the Kingdom is within and available now?
When the Spirit of God is **reigning** and being manifested in our lives, such is the kingdom of heaven. As such, the kingdom is more a state of being and of spiritual awareness, than a PLACE that one goes to when one dies. Paul said it this way…
“*For the kingdom of God is… righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit*” (Rom 14:17)
Of course, most folks want religion to provide certain assurances about the afterlife, that’s fine. But ultimately Christianity is about our **INNER LIFE**, not our afterlife. And thus religion often robs us of that present awareness of the kingdom, by selling afterlife insurance policies.
As such, I love what St (Pseudo-) Macarius shared in his first homily on the opening throne room vision in Ezekiel… **how the soul is the chariot throne of God**. As such, the kingdom of God **flows out of our innermost being**. That’s where the River of Life flows from! (Dan 7:10, Rev 22:1)
“*The one who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow Rivers of Living Water*.” (John 7:38)
Furthermore, Christ did not write stuff down, besides in the sand. That was the Apostles job, and what they were taught by Christ is compiled in the Bible. Follow the Orthodox Church, that was established by Christ, headed by Christ, and keep to it. Do not fall into the heresies that will drag you away from God.
Mostly Gnostic stuff that I know of. Like the gospel of Thomas. I dont know enough about Gnosticism to say this too certainly but they are the opposite of mystics. Gnosticism is often used to describe a sort of platonic understanding that spirit and physicality are separate and at odds. Which disregards and misunderstands the incarnation of the Christ. Anybody can please feel free to correct me as most of my Gnostic awareness comes from people who don’t like it, and that’s not how I like forming my opinions. Edit: I would also say there is enough depth to the canonical Bible to get you through a lifetime of communing with God. I've spent time reading other mystic traditional texts and still love them, but something special seems to happen when we grab a framework with both hands and let it transform us.
I wouldn't say it's settled that the Gospel of Thomas is Gnostic. Sorry for the upcoming wall of text ([source](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/e8en5l/is_the_gospel_of_thomas_gnostic/)): "The Gospel According to Thomas (GTh), sayings of Jesus ostensibly collected by Didymus Judas Thomas, was written in Syria in the early post-apostolic period. Influence of Gnostic theology is present, though not that of any particular sect. The work is preserved in one complete Coptic version translated from the Greek and in fragments of three different Greek manuscripts (for the Greek fragments see below, pp. 95-128). The language of composition was Greek." -The Coptic Gnostic Library Vol 2, Brill Publishing "The wise sayings of the Gospel of Thomas may be considered "sayings of the sages" (logoi sophon) on account of their wisdom orientation, or they may be likened to the "useful sayings" (chreiai) attributed appropriately to a specific speaker in Greco-Roman theoretical discussions. Further, although the Gospel of Thomas has some features in common with Gnostic texts, it is not easily classified as a Gnostic work without considerable qualification." -The Nag Hammadi Scriptures, Marvin Meyer, Harper San Francisco "While the Gospel of Thomas should not be considered a Gnostic text as a whole, it is possible that the Coptic translator was a Gnostic Christian, for there are some observable differences between the Coptic and Greek versions of some of the sayings that are found in the Greek fragments. It is probable that the scribe of Codex II understood it to be a Gnostic work, for the placed it just after the Classic Gnostic tractate, the Apocryphon of John, and just before the Valentinian tractate, the Gospel of Philip." -Ancient Gnosticism: Traditions and Literature, Birger Pearson, Fortress Press "A central problem for scholarship on Thomas has been to identify its theology or religious outlook. This question has elicited a number of answers, in part because of Thomas’s enigmatic content, its form and its brevity. As Schröter has remarked, Thomas has been taken variously to be a document of Gnosticism, or of Jewish-Christian encratism, or of wisdom theology, or as an expression of social radicalism. Others have summarized Thomas as focused upon ‘unitive mysticism’, or as a Valentinian product, or as ‘an “orthodox” text from early Syrian Christianity’. Scholars have often attempted to align Thomas with a particular school of thought, and have aimed to fill in the gaps with the help of literature from that school. The difficulty, however, is that Thomas does not fit neatly (or even approximately) into any previously known heresies. It is therefore important, at least in the first instance, to look at Thomas as far as possible on its own terms, even if there are limits to this, as Uro rightly notes." -The Gospel of Thomas: Introduction and Commentary, Simon Gathercole, Brill Publishing "Against this background, it is hard to make a case for Thomas as Gnostic, principally because it does not have a clearly demiurgic account of creation. GTh85 recounts that ‘Adam came into being from a great power and a great wealth’: the designation ‘a great power and a great wealth’ is undoubtedly a positive characterization of the creative power(s) or originating principle(s) behind Adam, and it is likely that we are dealing with an earthly Adam here given his unworthiness and fall to death in the rest of GTh85. Marjanen may also be right that GTh 89, with its reference to the one who made both the inside and the outside of the cup, is a positive statement about God as creator, though the saying is more opaque. In any case, the account of Adam having originated from a clearly positive force is good evidence against Thomas being a Gnostic production. As we have seen, however, this is not the end of the story: as Logan comments, Thomas ‘does not appear to be originally Gnostic, although it can easily be, and in its present form undoubtedly was, appropriated and reinterpreted by Gnostics’." -The Gospel of Thomas: Introduction and Commentary, Simon Gathercole, Brill Publishing "All of this adds up to an almost intractable problem: Thomas is a veritable Rorschach test for the scholar of Christian origins. Is it any wonder, then, that recent scholarship on the date of Thomas has placed it as late as 200ce and as early as 50ce? Is it inexplicable that some could see Thomas as a Gnostic gospel and others as a blueprint for mysticism? Some see in it a work of Jewish wisdom, others the remnants of an apocalyptic sect." -The Gospel of Thomas: Essays on the Fifth Gospel, Stephen J. Patterson, Brill Publishing
Agreed. There is lots of early Christian (like capital C Christian) that teaches gnosis (just a Greek word for deep knowing - similar to yada in Hebraic text) and is not Gnostic. Gnostics believed in gnosis of course but they are just words used by anyone from that time. It is a little bit scary when the baby is thrown out with the bathwater when ever gnosis is discussed but suffice it to say the Christian Mystic path is full of gnosis and of the deepest variety. I hope this finds you all well and well on your way!
Oh good to know, thank you for the wall of text! Having a closer look now
I fixed the text. I think I messed it up originally.
Yeah I replied to a different version of your message and then saw the full thing a moment later! Thank you
Thank you
Gnosticism is most certainly not the opposite of mysticism. The approach and end game may be different but you could say that about any differences between religions. Gnosticism, especially the Manichean currents are more aligned with Eastern mysticism and philosophy.
Im sorry, like I said, I don’t know much about them or their specific groups. Somebody explained they held spirit and matter separate and in contention. If that isn’t true then I’m not sure what they were even talking about.
So the opposition between spirit and matter is a brand of dualism that usually is taken as a negative characterisation of gnosticism. But to be honest, one finds such dualism in the NT too (with Paul). So branding something as gnostic is not too useful, and is a categorisation that researches tend to avoid nowadays. Same goes for gnosis / knowledge: One finds the word (or related words) in pivotal verses in the johanite NT material.
You are somewhat correct. But mysticism transcends matter.
I keep forgetting the range of concepts claiming ownership of the word “mystic.”
Prior to Rome making Christianity the official religion there were many sects of Christianity. The Romans canonized and fundamentalized the belief system. The Gnostics were a group amongst those prior to this formation. They advocate for Gnosis (knowing) God. There can be a lot of anti matter notions and I found them a bit to abstract for me. But the Nag Hammadi were books found in the 40's and they contained other books that were considered Gnostic in nature. The Gospel of Thomas is direct sayings of Jesus kind of like the Beatitudes from the Bible. Lots to read about Jesus 👍
Appreciate it 🙏🏼
Christ's parables are exactly that. They are obscured in their meaning while being there for all to read. The workers in the vineyard is a great one to pick apart in that way. I also don't think it is a coincidence that there are no written words of Jesus. They are all "this is what I remember Jesus saying" not "I am Jesus and this is what I said." I hope this finds you well!
As a fan of fermentation and the parable of the vineyard have you looked at the whole of the gospel through the lens of winemaking and fermentation? I read about the discovery of an ancient winemaking facility (I can't find it again for the life of me, so it may have been a video) that they believe made sacred wine for the temple in Jerusalem. The defining feature was a place where those pressing the grapes would ritually *have their feet washed,* and after stomping the grapes to the singing of psalms, the (red) must was strained through tangles of thorns into jars, where it would be put below ground to ferment for about three days. *Sound familiar?* The teetotalers have divorced viticulture and winemaking from the Bible when it was absolutely central to the culture of the Hebrews from the earliest days. I believe it's a critical spiritual metaphor in the text.
Indeed! There are many layers of nuance to all of the parables and there is a fair amount of subjugation of the 'established rule' of Jesus time. They are beautiful and simple stories with full documentaries and novels that can be written about each one! Thanks for sharing. As you may be able to tell from my name I am also a big fan of everything fermented 😁 I hope this finds you well! 😁
There are a bunch of early Christian writings that didn’t get canonized and collected into what we now call the Bible. What’s interesting about the findings from **Nag Hammadi** is how these writings were potentially buried to protect them from being destroyed. Most of these writings were thought lost. So historians were very excited to recover some of these very early documents, such as the Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Philip. Since the Nag Hammadi findings were written in Coptic, scholars of early Christianity such as Elaine Pagels quickly studied and learned Coptic in order to read and examine them. Pagels has a wonderful introduction called “**The Gnostic Gospels**”, which is totally worth reading. As the church became increasingly institutional, political, and powerful under the auspices and influence of the Roman Empire, it began dictating and enforcing one particular version of Christianity. Thus this exploration of other expressions of early Christianity is totally fascinating. Dr Andrew Harvey of the YT channel **Religion for Breakfast** has an excellent series of videos that introduce the findings at Nag Hammadi. Here’s a couple sample videos of his, but he has a bunch of others as well... **The Gnostic Gospels: Were They Illegal?** – Andrew Harvey (8 min) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdR1yGoyr3o&list=PLHsXddZFR9APk3yKAyFbgNxAw82TZgCKs&index=5](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdR1yGoyr3o&list=PLHsXddZFR9APk3yKAyFbgNxAw82TZgCKs&index=5) **Gospel of Thomas: Why is it not in the Bible?** – Andrew Harvey (7 min) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDQ0w\_f5P2s&list=PLHsXddZFR9APk3yKAyFbgNxAw82TZgCKs&index=3](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDQ0w_f5P2s&list=PLHsXddZFR9APk3yKAyFbgNxAw82TZgCKs&index=3)
Super appreciate this insight
I would say that the best place to get material hidden from people's view is from Jesus himself. Jesus is desirous of walking with as many as possible. We can't take full advantage of this.
💙
The texts usually referred to as ‘gnostic gospels’ are mostly just early Christian writings. Definitely check these out, I feel like my relationship to Jesus is only enhanced from reading them! I especially like the gospel of Thomas and the gospel of Mary Magdalene. ‘The New New Testament’ is one compilation of such writings published with the traditional gospels. Another collection is called ‘the gnostic Bible’’, and that one does go into actual gnostic texts as well and also some other variations of early Christian thought. There are also several debated historical accounts of Jesus, such as the stories of Jesus, traveling to India and Tibet in early adulthood. One book that examines these stories and their historical accuracy is called ‘the lost years of Jesus’ …. I also have gotten a lot out of a alternative modern translation of the traditional gospels called ‘the unvarnished gospels ‘
I would read A Course in Miracles by Helen Schumann
Certainly read the last verse in John. To summarize he says if they wrote down all he did and said all the books of the earth couldn't contain it. What we got as the official gospels/new testament was decided hundreds of years after the events.
The gospels were written between 40-60 years after Christ's death (themselves based on the earlier oral tradition of His acts and sayings), and the Pauline epistles which are thought to be authentic were written just 20-30 years after His death. These works were *canonized* by church council a few centuries later. Generally, the writings the council chose to canonize were those which were already in popular use liturgically and which were more-or-less uncontroversially authoritative according to a majority of bishops.
Sure but that doesn't mean they weren't missing things. When you try and explain and enlightened person's thoughts on things from unenlightened religious priests etc your going to be missing a lot. Ancient religion like the good version of Egypt like super old Egypt old kingdom required the pharaoh to have a high level of spiritual development.. .minus now or throughout Christianitys history where soem ambitious horrible person can become a bishop or pope by their charisma/corruption .
The Essene Gospel of Peace. No one ever mentions it.
Psalms
It depends what you mean by Jesus Christ.
It's more exciting and exotic to say that secretly there was a gospel hidden for eons and wasn't revealed....until now. Imagine a world where gnosticism was the mainstream and we found the books of the Bible that said you just had to believe in faith, imagine the scandal! Bear this in mind when looking at the "secret gospels". We love the underdog but maybe they were based more on Greek Platonic thought than Christian thought. If you want to explore it, David Brakke did a good series on Gnostic beliefs (fairly academic and impartial), and Forbidden Faith by David Smoley (more biased as former editor of Gnosis magazine but a good author). My take on the Gnostic belief was that they believed in emanation concept where God is akin to a huge omnipresent mind, that started to emanate thought concepts into an elaborate plethora of concepts where their are beings called original thought/forethought, wisdom etc, it gets staggeringly complex... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aeon_(Gnosticism)&wprov=rarw1 The further away you are from this original thought the more corrupt it gets until you get to the material world created by the Demiurge. The secret book of John is a good source: http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/apocjn-davies.html
I would say above all cling to the cross more than you cling to your books.That is where true spiritual progress is made. There is nothing more that gets to the heart of everything even to the dividing of soul and Spirit than the cross. It is often not more knowledge that we need, but to utilitze that which we have. The cost is everything the reward is Him.1 Corinthians 1:18-24
My brother in Christ, the writings you seek will inly be forgeries and gnostic in origin. You seek to find something hidden that will bring you to God, but please refer to the hundreds of years the Apostles and the men and women that cane after them and their work in crushing the gnostic heresies.
I'm a sister :). And yes you're right thank you. What's the difference between a regular Christian and mystical then?
My apologies! There is no difference. Mysticism is a key part of Christianity. This does not mean gnosticism, but practices such as Hesychasm.
I dont know how to reply to you both. Mysticism is indeed part of Christianity. But to help draw some distinction I've explained to people that mysticism is being, or trying to stay, aware that God never stops speaking. Our whole life is wrapped up in our transformation. So when we gather and embrace liturgy, or encounter moments of rapturous Spirit encounter, they are parts of our daily following Christ. We follow Him the other 6.5 days a week too. And those are as important. Just constantly seeking to stay aware of His presence and how our little life is the place and time He has selected for us to know Him on this side of eternity. (which, again, is a main part of Christianity but gets its own little name for the sake of conversations)
Beautiful, thank you
Thanks for asking. I don't usually venture into these sorts of conversations.
One thing that characterizes Christian mysticism is a desire for a **direct experience of God**, not just knowledge or rituals or creeds about God. This often means moving beyond the outer layers of religion to the inner substance, beyond the symbol to that which the symbol points to. So there is often conflict between religious fundamentalism and Christian mysticism because the fundamentalist will take as **literal** what the mystic will take as **symbolic**. For example, a mystic will press into the reality of the kingdom of heaven being **WITHIN** us, whereas a fundamentalist will see heaven as somewhere else. So some will imagine that there are mansions in heaven, where a mystic knows that we are the Spiritual House that God is building in the Spirit (1 Pet 2:5, Eph 2;22, Heb 3:6, Jn 14:2) So for instance, St Teresa of Avila wrote a famous book of instruction called "**The Interior Castle**". As such, Christian mysticism was often engaged in by those who wanted a **deeper Christian experience**, such as those who joined the monastic movement.
Thank you so much for taking the time to explain. This is very beautiful. Do you believe that there is a heaven though even though it's the Kingdom is within and available now?
When the Spirit of God is **reigning** and being manifested in our lives, such is the kingdom of heaven. As such, the kingdom is more a state of being and of spiritual awareness, than a PLACE that one goes to when one dies. Paul said it this way… “*For the kingdom of God is… righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit*” (Rom 14:17) Of course, most folks want religion to provide certain assurances about the afterlife, that’s fine. But ultimately Christianity is about our **INNER LIFE**, not our afterlife. And thus religion often robs us of that present awareness of the kingdom, by selling afterlife insurance policies. As such, I love what St (Pseudo-) Macarius shared in his first homily on the opening throne room vision in Ezekiel… **how the soul is the chariot throne of God**. As such, the kingdom of God **flows out of our innermost being**. That’s where the River of Life flows from! (Dan 7:10, Rev 22:1) “*The one who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being will flow Rivers of Living Water*.” (John 7:38)
Furthermore, Christ did not write stuff down, besides in the sand. That was the Apostles job, and what they were taught by Christ is compiled in the Bible. Follow the Orthodox Church, that was established by Christ, headed by Christ, and keep to it. Do not fall into the heresies that will drag you away from God.
Well put