In 1988, when my husband of twenty years died in a hiking
accident, I became aware that, like many people who grieve, I was
living in the presence of an invisible being—living, that is, with
a vivid sense of someone who had died. During the following
years I began to reflect on the ways that various religious
traditions give shape to the invisible world, and how our
imaginative perceptions of what is invisible relate to the ways we
respond to the people around us, to events, and to the natural
world. I was reflecting, too, on the various ways that people
from Greek, Jewish, and Christian traditions deal with
misfortune and loss. Greek writers from Homer to Sophocles
attribute such events to gods and goddesses, destiny and fate—
elements as capricious and indifferent to human welfare as the
“forces of nature” (which is our term for these forces).
In the ancient Western world, of which I am a historian,
many—perhaps most—people assumed that the universe was
inhabited by invisible beings whose presence impinged upon the
visible world and its human inhabitants. Ancient Egyptians,
Greeks, and Romans envisioned gods, goddesses, and spirit
beings of many kinds, while certain Jews and Christians,
ostensibly monotheists, increasingly spoke of angels, heavenly
messengers from God, and some spoke of fallen angels and
demons. This was especially true from the first century of the
common era onward.
Conversion from paganism to Judaism or Christianity, I realized,
meant, above all, transforming one's perception of the invisible
world. To this day, Christian baptism requires a person to
solemnly “renounce the devil and all his works” and to accept
exorcism. The pagan convert was baptized only after confessing
that all spirit beings previously revered—and dreaded—as divine
were actually only “demons”—hostile spirits contending against
the One God of goodness and justice, and against his armies of
angels. Becoming either a Jew or a Christian polarized a pagan’s
view of the universe, and moralized it. The Jewish theologian
Martin Buber regarded the moralizing of the universe as one of
the great achievements of Jewish tradition, later passed down as
its legacy to Christians and Muslims. The book of Genesis, for
example, insists that volcanoes would not have destroyed the
towns of Sodom and Gomorrah unless all the inhabitants of
those towns—all the inhabitants who concerned the storyteller,
that is, the adult males—had been evil, “young and old, down to
the last man” (Gen. 19:4).

… I assumed that Jewish and Christian
perceptions of invisible beings had to do primarily with
moralizing the natural universe, as Buber claimed, and so with
encouraging people to interpret events ranging from illness to
natural disasters as expressions of “God's will” or divine
judgment on human sin. But my research led me in unexpected
directions and disclosed a far more complex picture. Such
Christians as Justin Martyr (140 C.E.), one of the “fathers of the
church,” attributes affliction not to “God's will” but to the
malevolence of Satan. His student Tatian allows for accident in
the natural world, including disasters, for which, he says, God
offers solace but seldom miraculous intervention. As I proceeded
to investigate Jewish and Christian accounts of angels and fallen
angels, I discovered, however, that they were less concerned
with the natural world as a whole than with the particular world
of human relationships.
Rereading biblical and extra-biblical accounts of angels, I
learned first of all what many scholars have pointed out: that
while angels often appear in the Hebrew Bible, Satan, along with
other fallen angels or demonic beings, is virtually absent. But
among certain first-century Jewish groups, prominently
including the Essenes (who saw themselves as allied with angels)
and the followers of Jesus, the figure variously called Satan,
Beelzebub, or Belial also began to take on central importance.
While the gospel of Mark, for example, mentions angels only in
the opening frame (1:13) and in the final verses of the original
manuscript (16:5-7), Mark deviates from mainstream Jewish
tradition by introducing “the devil” into the crucial opening
scene of the gospel, and goes on to characterize Jesus’ ministry as
involving continual struggle between God’s spirit and the
demons, who belong, apparently, to Satan’s “kingdom” (see
Mark 3:23-27). Such visions have been incorporated into
Christian tradition and have served, among other things, to
confirm for Christians their own identification with God and to
demonize their opponents—first other Jews, then pagans, and
later dissident Christians called heretics. This is what this book
is about.
To emphasize this element of the New Testament gospels does
not mean, of course, that this is their primary theme. “Aren't the
gospels about love?” exclaimed one friend as we discussed this
work. Certainly they are about love, but since the story they
have to tell involves betrayal and killing, they also include
elements of hostility which evoke demonic images.

The Origin of Satan
Elaine Pagels

A few points of my own:

1. It's not uncommon for these texts to take years to get to any kind of public view. The same happened with the Nag Hammadi texts, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Mar Saba Clementine. The article does it justice: reassembling the text is a long task, coupled with the rendering of ink smudges into transcripts into translations into commentary into scholarly article into National Geographic special. It does take decades.
2. This article makes as good a plot as the new Indiana Jones movies. But without the sword fights. So far.
3. Bart Ehrman seems to love controversy for its own sake.
4. Elaine Pagels would do well to get out of the spotlight and back into her scholarship.
5. Kathleen McVey, a beloved seminary professor of mine, had this to say about Pagels's Gnosticism work. I'm glad to find this review in digital form rather than an nth-generation xerox.
6. The Gospel of Judas, like most Gnostic texts, is stridently anti-Jew. In its theology, Ialdaboth (a faux-Hebrew term, soundalike to 'Yahweh") is the creator sub-deity and is also a deluded and evil underling. To this theology, Jesus came to rescue the Jews from the worship of the evil God of Israel and to the true, ineffable God.

Title: The Cross of Thoth
Interviewer and Director: Philip Gardiner
Media: DVD
Producer: Reality Films

In The Cross of Thoth Crichton E. M. Miller makes esoteric connections among astrology, navigation, archaeology, linguistics, ancient Pagan and early Christian history.

So much material is covered in this DVD that the intelligent layperson might have a hard time assessing each of its claims.

The host, Miller, seems to be a contemporary Gnostic. And Gnostics are a bit different from orthodox Christians.

Not unlike the word orthodoxy, the meaning of the term Gnosticism is ambiguous because there have been several different Gnosticisms throughout history.

In the general sense, however, Gnostics are those who believe they learn about spiritual truth through direct, inward experience. Although Gnostics, themselves, say they don't believe at all. They apparently know.

While orthodoxy tends to view history in a linear sense, where Christ is the perfect fulfillment of the Old Testament prophets, contemporary Gnostics tend to emphasize a circular or upwardly spiraling view of time.

Gnostics also say (or imply) that orthodox churches place too much emphasis on externally imposed rules. For Gnostics, orthodox structures apparently squelch out genuine spirituality.

Meanwhile, orthodox churches tend to say (or imply) that Gnostics are fuzzy-minded mavericks, possibly deceived by ungodly spiritual powers. 

Perhaps alluding to this orthodox idea, Toronto Catholic Archbishop Michael Collins said in a televised interfaith dialogue on TVO's The Agenda that true spirituality isn't a mere "glow" but an ongoing commitment to serve God.

The popular author Elaine Pagels attempts to sum up the main differences between Gnosticism and aspects of Western orthodoxy:

When the Jewish theologian Martin Buber sought to explore the sources of religious experience, he characterized the Jewish devotee's relationship to God as "I and Thou"; but no orthodox Jew, any more than an orthodox Christian, could say, with the Hindu devotee, "I am Thou." But Gnostic interpreters share with the Hindu...that very conviction (Adam, Eve and the Serpent. New York: Vintage Books, 1989: 65).

This brings to mind a Catholic homily in which a priest once said that God doesn't want "Lone Rangers" but, rather, obedience to the Pope.

Whether or not this is an accurate depiction of what most Catholics actually believe seems debatable. But to my mind Miller would probably be viewed by traditional Catholics as both a Gnostic and a Lone Ranger.

This kind of 'in-group/out-group' approach, so common today, probably doesn't help to lessen the split between orthodox Christians and Gnostics.

But these two groups have not always been at loggerheads. Elaine Pagels notes that some early Christians admired their Gnostic counterparts, if not in every respect.

Could contemporary Gnostics and orthodox believers benefit from well-intentioned dialogue?

It seems they could, providing each side checked their biases and looked to the other as fellow human beings instead of mere objects for conversion. Dialogue isn't really dialogue is one party is utterly convinced they're right.

Along these lines, some orthodox believers might react angrily to several of Miller's ideas as set forth in this DVD. But sincere seekers of all persuasions should recognize that overblown, emotional reactions often point to something lurking in the unconscious just begging to be integrated within conscious awareness. 

Agree or disagree with Miller's complex observations and far-reaching conclusions, The Cross of Thoth is highly recommended for those wishing to reflect a little deeper into the mysteries of the human soul.

--MC

In one of the sermons that Pope Gregory I gave in 591, he identifies Mary Magdalene as: "She whom Luke calls the sinful woman, whom John calls Mary [of Bethany], we believe to be the Mary from whom seven devils were ejected according to Mark." Remember this is the Pope who started celibacy in ‘The Church.' The Catholics only reversed their unofficial position in the late 1960's.

Peter was at odds with her. He openly criticizes her in front of other Apostles and is rebuked by Levi for his attitude towards her.

Did she actually write the Gospel of Mary? People of religion have told me that the Nag Hammadi Gnostic Gospels were too late (200's-300's CE) to be considered as real or applying to Christianity as we know it now. But, I think they forget that Eusebius was collecting letters and papers for the modern Bible as late as the 350's CE.

Was she the enigmatic ‘Beloved Disciple' of the Gospels; was she in fact the writer of the Gospel of John, as some people believe. See: Elaine Pagels ...and others...check out Wikipedia and Mary Magdalene on the net. Sorry, no evidence that she had Jesus' baby.

Did she retire to France, where 5 churches claim to have her bones, or did she retire along with John and Mary mother of Jesus, to Ephesus, Turkey where they all died?

Reading the convoluted history of the early Christian Church is much like reading a very anticipated crime novel by your favorite author. There are twists and turns that no one could even think of in earlier times. The level of scholarship relating to the early church is amazing and exhaustive. Modern researchers have turned upside down early theories and some biblical ‘truths'.

From Mary Magdalene article in Wikipedia:

"Further attestation of Mary of Magdala and her role among some early Christians is provided by the Gnostic, apocryphal Gospel of Mary Magdalene which survives in two 3rd century Greek fragments and a longer 5th century translation into Coptic. In the Gospel the testimony of a woman first needed to be defended. All of these manuscripts were first discovered and published between 1938 and 1983, but as early as the 3rd century there are Patristic references to the Gospel of Mary. These writings reveal the degree to which that gospel was despised and dismissed by the early Church fathers. In the fragmentary text, the disciples ask questions of the risen Savior (a designation that dates the original no earlier than the 2nd century) and are answered."

The history I am finding...is fascinating, and I find a lot of it contradicts today's evangelical fundamentalist thought. Of course they just think this stuff is lies spread by the devil.

For latest post go: Here

more cat pictures

THE LOST GOSPELS

Built into me is this inner need to dig deeper into course materials than what is required. I don't want to be the type of person who blindly accepts the agenda of another person or group of people. What I mean by this is that I want to hear all sides of an argument and not be dismissive towards materials that others before me have decided to ignore. I want to know why decisions were made as they were, and then I still want to hear the thoughts of "the other side". For example, when learning about the canonization of scripture, I want to know why the books included in the Bible were chosen, but I also want to know why others were not. And I want to read those books that were not chosen.

This applies directly to the Church History course I began in October of last year. The two books that were assigned to me by LIFE were supplemented by several books I found on my own. Amongst other authors, I found it interesting and enlightening to read the work of Elaine Pagels. Ms. Pagels, who is a professor at Princeton University and received her PhD from Harvard, goes into depth on the Lost Gospels. I've read criticism of Ms. Pagels online, but it seems to me that such is unjustified. Where critics have said, "Ms. Pagels can't be a Christian because she believes x, y or z", I've found that she never actually tells us what she personally believes. Rather, she merely does her best to objectively present all sides. I appreciate this, and also enjoy her writing style. If you'd like to educate yourself on topics you'll likely never hear in church, head to your nearest Barnes and Noble and pick up any of Elaine's books. I'd suggest starting with Beyond Belief: The Secret Gospel of Thomas. Not only does it present the Gospel that is attributed to Thomas (and written a bit before the book of John) it also dives into a lot of church history. This may sound boring, but if you've an interest in the early days of Christianity this book is an easy , informative read.

I've also read most of the Nag Hammadi Library and will complete what I haven't read soon. These books are also referred to as Gnostic Scriptures and pre-date the canonization of scripture as we know it today.

AND NOW FOR A DISCLAIMER

What is it about humans that causes many of us to so easily jump to conclusions? I've mentioned the things I've just written about to others and am usually cautioned about heading down the wrong path. What part of the paragraphs I've written above indicate that I'm ready to turn away from "traditional" Christianity and embrace gnosticism or some other form of religious belief? I'm simply the type of person who wants to know WHY I believe what I believe. I have to admit, I kind of look down on those who choose not to do so. I feel we owe it to the society in which we live to be educated Christians. Is it wrong of me to do look down on those who don't agree with that? Absolutely. I know it is. This is just an admission on my part.

I remember when I was in the midst of my rebellious years of porn production... I approached various Pastors and asked them a list of tough questions. I really wanted answers, but not a single one of them could assist with such answers, nor could they refer me to someone who could. In the year and a half since surrendering my life to God I've gone out and found the answers to nearly every question I used to ask. It appears to me that the Seminary training obtained by the ministers I approached didn't extend beyond the pre-determined agenda or yoke of teaching that their schools had established. In this time of questioning, I think it's a mistake not to prepare our religious leaders to address the questions the world asks of us. It's frustrating to those who don't believe when circular reasoning is used to answer their questions. If a person does not yet believe the Bible, the Bible can't be used to prove anything. That's like me writing a book declaring myself the Messiah, and when asked for proof, pointing to the book I've written. There is an enormous wealth of outside proof to the things we believe as Christians, and it's time more of us educate ourselves about such information.

And that, my friends, is what fuels my desire to hear all sides. Just a few days ago I had an all-day email conversation with a man who produces porn. He kept sending me messages about how I needed to educate and enlighten myself on certain aspects of Christianity. His attitude seemed to be that he had some "secret knowledge" that I as a Christian did not possess. I enjoyed receiving his challenges and kept asking for clarification as to what he wanted me to know about. All the while I had a pretty good idea of the direction he was headed. When he finally sent me the "killer" questions I referred him to names I'd mentioned earlier in our conversation... the names of authors I've read that discuss the very issues he thought would spiritually "slay" me. I then elaborated on the very points he made to me. In other words, I was prepared for his arguments. I've read and studied them. Recently. The questions he asked of me were the types of questions I used to ask of religious leaders and receive no answers.

I guess the "disclaimer"  I'd like to put out is that those of you who consistently read the things I write are likely going to witness controversial topics discussed on this website.  It may be easy to assume that I'm confusing myself and heading down a wrong spiritual path.  Please, don't worry.  Wouldn't you agree that a faith that can't stand up to questioning is not a very good faith at all?  I'm in the process of learning, and that process is likely to take years.  Or the rest of my life.  This blog is just me thinking out loud.  Feel free to join in the discussion.

He leído algunos libros sobre el tema, (novelas, ensayos, estudios y artículos) y he pensado que hoy sería un buen momento para aconsejaros algunos de ellos, por si en alguna ocasión os interesa conocer otras visiones de este personaje enigmático que, actualmente, continúa siendo uno de los más influyente en la historia de la humanidad. Estoy convencido que habrá muchos más libros, más especializados y mejores, pero estos son los que he leído:

Detalle de "Cristo con la Cruz a cuestas" de El Bosco

El principio:

La Biblia. La palabra "Biblia" proviene del griego y significa "libros". Es el conjunto de Libros Sagrados llamados también "Sagradas Escrituras" (Mateo 21:42; Hechos 8:32) que contienen la Palabra Viva de Dios y narran la "Historia de Salvación" (como Dios nos salva). Nos revela las verdades necesarias para conocerle, amarle y servirle. La Biblia se divide en dos partes: Antiguo Testamento (antes de Cristo) y Nuevo Testamento (plenitud de la promesa en Cristo). "Testamento" significa "alianza" y se refiere a las alianzas que Dios pactó con los Israelitas en el Antiguo Testamento y la nueva y definitiva alianza que Dios hizo con los hombres en la Sangre de Jesucristo. Podéis consultar aquí la Biblia en castellano.

Novelas:

La última tentación (1951) de Nikos Kazantzakis. Una recreación de la constante lucha entre el espíritu y la carne donde el autor intenta ilustrar en forma de ficción la teoría adopcionista de Jesús. Fue el primer libro que leí sobre la vida de Jesús y a partir de entonces comenzó mi "obsesión" por este personaje. Todos recordamos la polémica adaptación cinematográfica de Martin Scorsese. (The Last Temptation of Christ, 1988).

Otras obras del mismo autor (que me gustaría leer): Cristo de nuevo crucificado (1948), El pobre de Asís (1953), Libertad o Muerte (1950).

Sobre el autor: www.historical-museum.gr/kazantzakis

“Escribí este libro para ofrecer un ejemplo supremo al hombre que lucha, para mostrarle que no debe temer al sufrimiento, la tentación ni la muerte, porque todo ello puede ser vencido y ya ha sido vencido. Cristo sufrió, y desde entonces el sufrimiento quedó sacrificado; la Tentación luchó hasta el último instante para extraviarlo, y la Tentación fue vencida. Cristo murió en la Cruz, y en ese mismo instante fue por siempre vencida.” (La última tentación, de Nikos Kazantzakis)

Caballo de Troya y otros libros varios, de J.J. Benitez. Aunque muy criticado por su falta de rigor histórico y plagio, debo admitir que me he leído los seis primeros volúmenes de esta saga. Tengo pendiente los números siete (Nahúm) y ocho (Jordán). Entretenidos los tres primeros, la lectura del resto es puro vicio. Se espera una novena entrega, ¿Qué más le quedará por contarnos?

"Estoy asombrado de que tan pronto os estéis apartando del que os llamó por la gracia de Cristo, para ir tras un evangelio diferente. No es que haya otro evangelio, sino que hay algunos que os perturban y quieren pervertir el evangelio de Cristo. Pero aún si nosotros mismos o un ángel del cielo os anunciara un evangelio diferente del que os hemos anunciado, sea anatema. Como ya lo hemos dicho, ahora mismo vuelvo a decir: Si alguien os está anunciando un evangelio contrario al que recibisteis, sea anatema." (Gálatas 1: 6-9)

Otras novelas:

El evangelio según Jesucristo (O Evangelho Segundo Jesus Cristo, 1991), de José Saramago. El otro evangelio, según Saramago.

Rey Jesús (King Jesus, 1946) de Robert Graves. Más información del autor en su página oficial (en inglés).

Las sandalias del Pescador (The shoes of the fisherman, 1963), de Morris West. El autor nos invita en estas páginas a una reflexión sobre el sentido de la justicia, tanto terrena como divina. La novela fue llevada al cine (The Shoes of the Fisherman, 1968) con cierto éxito. Otros títulos del mismo autor (que me gustaría leer): Los Bufones de Dios (1981) y Lázaro (1990).

Investigación:

El primer evangelio, el documento Q (1993) y Jesús y los manuscritos del Mar Muerto (2006), de Cesar Vidal. Son los dos libros que he leído de este prolífico y controvertido autor doctor de Historia, Teología y Filosofía (además de Licenciado en Derecho), experto y autor de numerosos libros sobre el origen del cristianismo y textos antiguos: Los documentos del Mar Muerto (1993), El mito de María (1994), Diccionario de Jesús y los Evangelios (1995), El judeocristianismo palestino en el siglo I, De Pentecostés a Jamnia (1995), Textos para la historia del pueblo judío (1996), Diccionario de Las Tres Religiones Monoteístas (1996), Enciclopedia de las religiones (1997), Los Esenios de Qumran (1999), El testamento del pescador (2004), Los evangelios gnósticos (2005), El legado del cristianismo en la cultura occidental: Los desafíos del siglo XXI (2006), El evangelio de Judas (2006), Jesús y Judas (2006), Pablo, el judío de Tarso (2007), etc. (Bibliografia completa).

Los evangelios gnósticos (The gnostic gospels, 1979), de Elaine Pagels. Obra de referencia indiscutible sobre los evangelios gnósticos. Este best-seller ganó el premio de Libro Nacional del Círculo de Críticos (National Book Critic circle award) y el premio de Libro Nacional (National Book Award) y fue elegido por la biblioteca moderna como una de los 100 mejores libros del siglo XX. Un libro breve y conciso de lectura obligada.

Cristianismos Perdidos. Los credos proscritos del nuevo testamento. (Lost Christianities.The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew, 2003), de Bart D.Ehrman. Un estudio ameno y objetivo del origen de los actuales textos cristianos. Muy recomendable leerlo, no os defraudará. Otros libros del autor (que me gustaría leer): El evangelio de Judas, Jesús no dijo eso, Simón Pedro, Pablo de Tarso y María Magdalena. Web del autor: http://bartdehrman.com/

Y finalizamos con nuestro español, Antonio Piñero (enlace a su blog), Catedrático de la Universidad Complutense, especializado en "Lengua y literatura del cristianismo primitivo". Editor y traductor de textos antiguos (Apócrifos del Antiguo Testamento; Textos coptos gnósticos de Nag Hammadi, descubiertos en 1945; Hechos apócrifos de los Apóstoles. Autor de textos sobre Nuevo Testamento y cristianismo primitivo, "El otro Jesús. Vida de Jesús según los Evangelios apócrifos", "Orígenes del cristianismo", "Guía para entender el Nuevo Testamento", "Biblia y Helenismo: pensamiento griego y formación del cristianismo" y autor de unos cuarenta artículos científicos sobre judaísmo, Antiguo y Nuevo Testamento y cristianismo primitivo en revistas nacionales y extranjeras. Además de traductor de unas quince obras sobre Nuevo Testamento y cristianismo antiguo. Un curriculum impresionante para uno de los eruditos nacionales sobre cristianismo primitivo. Su obra más importante es:

Textos gnósticos: Biblioteca de Nag Hammadi I, II y III. (Edt. Trotta, 1997). Antonio Piñero, Montserrat Torrents, José y García, Bazán, Francisco. El tomo I tiene una excelente introducción sobre los sistemas de creencias de la comunidad gnóstica de Nag Hammadi.

Y hasta aquí el repaso por mis cristianismos perdidos. Os aconsejo que leáis algunos de estos libros, ya que independientemente de nuestras creencias, nos ayudará a tener una visión más amplia sobre las raíces del cristianismo y a comprender por qué se ha convertido en una religión universal.

Para Hojear:

 Creer... en qué

Un cura obtiene el mayor premio académico del mundo por probar supuestamente la existencia de Dios.

Las falsas profecías de la Biblia.

Libros de Cristianismo en Agapea.

Libros de Cristianismo en casadellibro.

Examinado las religiones en Sin Dioses.org.

Not being the type to just accept one perspective, I picked up a total of 7 other books in addition to the required text. I've been blown away by what I've learned. I think every Christian needs to educate themselves on subjects such as the lost Gospels, why certain books were included in our New Testament while others were rejected, how much disagreement really went on during those early years... the list goes on.

I was surprised at how many other gospels have been written and attributed to Jesus' disciples. A man named Irenaeus (who was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John) was very influential in deciding which Gospels are included in our New Testament. From the very beginning, Christians disagreed on which writings were and were not to be considered for inclusion in our scriptural readings.

In 313 when Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity, he was very disappointed that Christians were not in agreement. He thought all Christians would be unified. When he found that wasn't the case, he decided to work to create unity. He agreed with the teachings passed down from Polycarp and Irenaeus. Those who chose to believe that way were granted political power and tax exemptions. When he called religious leaders together in an attempt to unify them that particular counsel forever influenced the shape of Christianity to this day. Opposing viewpoints were subdued. Many writings were destroyed. Some were hidden away to be discovered many many many years later.

I'd go more into this, but I have a dinner appointment in 10 minutes. My thoughts on the matter can be summed up in a few sentences:

Today we listen to our Pastors teach their interpretation of scripture and how to apply it to our lives. We read the works of Christian authors. We eat the meat and spit out the bones. If something sounds off base, we dismiss it. If a message hits home we digest it. Why, then, are so many afraid to read the lost Gospels attributed to people who actually walked with Jesus? Nobody is asking that it be accepted as part of the canon of scripture we call our Bible. But I can tell you I have personally enjoyed reading some of this text, and think many others would too.

Feedback?

(PLEASE READ THE COMMENTS TO THIS ENTRY, as I've added more opinions in the comments section and will probably continue to do so)

I've been meaning to read this ever since The Da Vinci Code came out.  Yes, elitist propgandhis, I liked that book.  Maybe it was just pop-arting something you knew for AGES and AGES, because you're so fucking intellectual, but it was news to me, and it made me want to research more.  Not so much that I actually did read other books, but you know I THOUGHT about it. (I apologize for the unusual level of ire.  It's just that I had to deal with so much hatred and scorn for actually swallowing the Koolaid on this one from coworkers at the IgNoble).

My brother had bought the Matrix videogames when Da Vinci was making its rounds.  The games take place between Matrix II and III.  In the game you have to fight the Merovingians vampires and werewolves.  So I researched the term Merovingian, and found out that it derives from grail legend, supposedly a bloodline that thought it was immortal.  It's where we get the myth of the vampire.  Consider my mind fucking blown.  What?  Jesus made Dracula?  Fuck. Yeah.

The Gnostic Gospels are part of a group of scrolls found in a cave in an area of the world called Nag Hammadi.  They supposedly offer extra gospels to the four of the new testament.  It's all part of the whole Jesus storyline.  The Gnostics were people that essentially believed in free thought and knowledge, and that the key to betterment was within each and every person.  Oh, and also that Jesus passed on some secret to enlightenment like Yoda and the Jedis. 

I had thought that the Gnostic Gospels would actually be expanded out in the book, but I had thought wrong.  Instead, it's sort of a study of the impact of gnosticism versus orthodox Christianity.  It was very dry and dull, but it made a few really intriguing points.

Essentially, the gnostics were sort of new agey and the orthodox were right wing fanatics.  That's painfully simplifying things, and kind of inaccurately, but it's a pretty solid argument.  The Gnostics believed that Jesus imparted secret wisdom on enlightenment to his disciples (and these are the cats who support Mary Magdalene being the wife of Jesus) and that if you reached that stage, you could become Jesus.  Taking into consideration that Jesus' kinda went on a Eastern Religions World Tour between pulling his teen angsty tantrum kicking over the moneylenders' temple, and coming back spouting fortune cookie parables even the oldest gramma can cross-stitch on an ominous handwoven craft, it makes sense. 

This, of course, didn't jive well with how the emerging Christian church wanted things.  They were organizing the hierarchy of bishop, deacon, priest and so they didn't want people to believe they just had to look to themselves to pray and to find peace and enlightenment.  Even worse, the Gnostics claimed that since Jesus was spirit, you could essentially become a Christ yourself.  So the church spent the next few years hiding and burning all record of these "heretical" texts. 

That's the part that fascinated me.  That supposedly Jesus was influenced by the Eastern arts.  You know, that the three wise men were from different faiths (Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam).  And so, now Christianity has become hardcore and misogynestic, and all this came about so that Christians could build a core church that would defend against persecution from Rome.  That tenets of meditation and inner spirituality would be thrown away because the Church didn't want to let girls play. 

Interesting further was the aspect of the Roman persecution.  This was a time when the Christians were being used as spear targets and lion food.  Since Jesus was killed on the cross, tortured, and cast aside, the orthodox Christians viewed their sacrifices as akin to that of Jesus.  They figured they'd achieve enlightenment because they were literally dying as their savior.  The Gnostics, favoring knowledge, felt that to die was missing Christs message of achieving self gnosis, so they would avoid persecution.  This is the same argument you see today among intellectuals versus hardcore faithers.  The same people who bomb abortion clinics can't understand how a couple of bearded dudes can drive a plane into a building.  The same people call those who won't die for their country cowards because it's not a cause they believe in. 

I don't want to paint the Gnostics in some sort of bright shiny light.  They were more holier than thou than the shiniest haired evangelist.  They claimed that Jesus imparted secret wisdom to his favored disciples and that you had to pass tests and seek this knowledge and then alone would you be worthy.  It's that sort of self-righteous arrogant assurance one expects from the New Age worshippers.  It smacks of elitism. 

I like the way the new gospels portray the disciples.  As in-fighting, jealous, and scared.  It makes them human.  It makes them fallible.  I like that Jesus might have faked the whole thing.  This book wasn't what I was looking for, and I have since found websites where I can actually...kinda...read what was in the Gnostic Gospels.  I will be reading further on this topic, as I'm looking towards Holy Blood, Holy Grail and The Sword and The Chalice.  Right now, I'm actually moving along on the other aspect of this that fascinates me with the Templars and the conspiracy theorist stuff.

I'm also trying to find a more accessible version of the Eastern faiths.  I plan on trying to read the Tao Te Ching, some of the Bhagadavita (I know I butchered the shit out of that), and some of the Qu'ran.  I really liked Eastern Religion when I was introduced to it college, and I'd like to read more.  I also want to read the Wiccan stuff, because it ties nicely into my Catholicism. 

It's not giving me the mind opening like I'd hoped yet, but it's definitely increasing my appreciation for politics, history, and spirituality.

This Bible scholar writing an oped in the New York Times is actually very kind as she meticulously explains how National Geographic engaged in what can only be described in willful deception, in that National Geographic purposefully violated several accepted scholarly norms in translating, interpreting, and publicizing this false document. First of all, National Geographic and the media in general failed to deal with the gnostic character of the book. As such, from reading their account of the book, it was merely an alternative version of the gospel events, which allows them to claim that there was no unified story or message of Jesus Christ until the church created one by selectively choosing and then editing several books. The fact that this and other gnostic books contain an entirely different belief and value system from both Christianity AND Judaism is never dealt with. The Judaism thing is key: the New Testament is utterly Jewish in theology, philosophy, and culture. The gnostic books merely use the Christian and Jewish books as allegories to expound their pre - existing pagan beliefs.

And of these, the Gospel of Judas was perhaps the worst. National Geographic hid this fact by purposefully mistranslating the type of entity that Judas was as "spirit" instead of "demon" and then withholding the manuscripts so that the text could not be independently studied. That and other liberties that they took concealed from the public the fact that The Gospel of Judas was a blistering attack on Christianity. Quoting the author: "Because Judas is a demon working for Ialdabaoth, the author believed, when Judas sacrifices Jesus he does so to the demons, not to the supreme God. This mocks mainstream Christians’ belief in the atoning value of Jesus’ death. " It is obvious that by misrepresenting the true nature of the book, National Geographic used it to mock Christianity a second time.

The scholar, April D. DeConick, does not attribute truly nefarious motives to National Geographic. Quite the contrary, she claims that they did it to make money (in the most timid fashion possible) and even claimed that there was some altruistic desire to reduce the tensions between Christians and Jews. Well, in a sense she is right: convincing Christians that their religion is false and thereby destroying the religion would, by default, reduce tensions between Christians and Jews because there would be no more Christians.

Fortunately, National Geographic's tactics regarding the Gospel of Judas was thoroughly rejected and discredited as questionable scholarship done to make money in the eyes of all but the most agenda - driven people not long after it's release. It is a question whether people like Elaine Pagels, who fully accepted the book as a legitimate way of reconstructing the true message of Jesus Christ based on the original willfully distorted translation that National Geographic presented, will stick to their guns, or more likely just ignore the new information without anyone holding them accountable. From a review of Pagels' book on the Gospel of Judas: "Pagels and King have come to realize that they "cannot easily dismiss this author as either a madman or a lunatic." Instead, they delve deeply into his theological view that a pure, spiritual realm exists beyond the physical world that we see—a Gnostic chestnut that recurs in other second-century texts. Alive to irony and historical nuance, this remarkably concise primer opens readers to a plausible and often persuasive interpretation of the disquieting Gospel of Judas. " Another: "Pagels' text will help general readers get past the difficulties and into the fascinating message, which emphasizes spiritual rather than physical resurrection for both Jesus and his followers. Pagels also shows why this message was so noxious to church leaders and explains how the gospel fits into the body of noncanonical literature. By showing how Judas' vision of life after death should be understood, this elegantly written book makes clear the relevance of a centuries-old text for a contemporary audience."

Now to be fair, it appears that the "scholar"that worked with Pagels on their book on the false gospel retranslated it. Which makes it worse ... they ALSO refused to acknowledge that the book presented the death of Jesus Christ as a climactic triumph of evil over good.

April DeConick says it all here: "To its credit, National Geographic has acknowledged this mistake, albeit far too late to change the public misconception." Of course, she never deals with the possibility that such was their intent in the first place. She also says: "I have wondered why so many scholars and writers have been inspired by the National Geographic version of the Gospel of Judas." Other than the wishful thinking that it was to improve relations between Christians and Jews, she rejected seriously dealing with the evidence on that matter as well: that the world will be "inspired" by anything that rejects and hates Jesus Christ and His gospel.

First off, the claims by the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Jesus only folks, etc. that the original apostolic doctrines were discarded and that their group is the true church restoring the true faith ... well they have been around for awhile. The first known group to make this claim were the "adoptionists", who claimed that Jesus Christ was born a mere man (though supremely virtuous), received God's "anointing" at baptism, and did not reach divine status until His resurrection. This doctrine originated in 190 AD, and within a few decades  its followers started claiming that their doctrine was the original doctrine first given to universally accepted by the church until it was changed when the church was led by Zephyrinus, the bishop of Rome from 198 AD to 217 AD. Fortunately there were still people around that were alive before Zephyrinus became bishop of Rome to refute their lies, and further Hippolytus was easily able to trace documents, doctrines, and teachers into the first century, which was the apostolic era itself. So the same lies that Charles Taze Russell, Joseph Smith, and the neo - gnostics like Elaine Pagels and Dan Brown are currently pushing

Second, the notion that Jesus Christ and Michael the archangel were one and the same did not originate with Ellen G. White of the Seventh Day Adventist denomination. Instead, it was first proposed in a crude form by second century figure Hermas. The source of Hermas' confusion on this matter seems to be that put the Holy Spirit in the place of Jesus Christ in his Similitudes writings. Also in those writings he described a council of six angels, with Michael as the lead, who were called most venerable, holy, and glorious, and were also were given supreme power over the people of God, to pronounce judgment, etc.

Third, the original Jesus only oneness pentecostal, a late second - early third century figure named Noetus, who along with his followers justified their doctrines by rejecting John 1:1-18 by refusing to interpret it literally. In those days, it was a common practice to resort to an "allegorical" or "spiritual" interpretation of scripture whenever one encountered something that they did not want to believe or obey. It was most commonly used to A) discard things in scripture that did not conform to the Hellenistic mindset and B) bash Jews, which appears to have been a beloved pasttime of the early church after the Jewish Christian - Gentile Christian schism. But of course allegorizing and outright taking things out of context was also broadly used by heretics, as it was in this case. Please keep in mind that the views of Noetus actually predated the Council of Nicea by 100 years and the Council of Constantinople, where the full Trinity doctrine was adopted, by over 150 years. Despite what the oneness crowd claims, "Jesus only" and similar was not the doctrine being debated at Nicea and Constantinople, but rather Arianism, which rejected both Christianity and oneness by claiming that Jesus Christ was a created being that was not divine. The Trinity doctrine, then, was fully articulated as a response to Jehovah's Witness - ism, not modalism, which had been rejected over 100 years earlier. Please consider that it was in response to the teachings of Noetus that Tertullian became the first to refer God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit as "Persons", and the document in which he did so was produced in 213 AD. Not that Tertullian was an innovator, but rather built on the writings of Irenaeus, and he on other church leaders.

Oh yes, and as to the claim that the early church baptized in the name of Jesus only, the Didache (the Teachings of The Twelve Apostles), which was written as early as 140 AD, says otherwise. So do the writings of Theophilus, who was born around 115 AD and became bishop of Antioch in 169 AD.  Not coincidentally, this same Theophilus is considered the first person to use the word "Trinity."

Source: Early Christian Doctrines by J.N.D. Kelly.