The DaVinci Code, Gospel of Judas, and other Gnostic conspirarcy theories

[heretic888]

lol....all I ever say to the conspiracy theories is you never know because it often involves people who have passed away and things that are very hard to support by facts because time has put its stamp on the world.

I find it curious how everyone is treating the suppression of the Gnostic gospels as a "conspiracy theory". In reality, it is historical fact.

It is known that, during the Council of Nicea in the mid-300's CE, that the four gospels we have (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) were forcibly decided upon. It is known that, shortly thereafter, the Roman empire under the leadership of the converted Emperor Constantine began a centuries-long campaign to murder all members of dissenting Christian sects as well as burn their teachings. One need only look to the Manicheans and Cathars for proof of this.

It was no accident that texts like the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Nag Hammadi corpus were hidden by their owners. Having such books would have been a death sentence in the 5th century West.

(Even the bible has some points in it that CANNOT be taken literally)

To quote St. Dionysius:

"Don't suppose that the outward form of these contrived symbols exists for its own sake. It is a protective clothing, which prevents the common multitude from understanding the Ineffable and Invisible. Only real lovers of holiness know how to stop the workings of the childish imagination regarding the sacred symbols. They alone have the simplicity of mind and the receptive power of contemplation to cross over to the simple, marvellous, transcendent Truth the symbols represent."

Laterz.

 

[Xue Sheng]

I came across something and I may very well be wrong, and I am by no means suggesting a conspiracy here but could it be that the Gnostic gospels were omitted simply based on the fact that Gnostics have a very different view of original sin?

 

[heretic888]

I came across something and I may very well be wrong, and I am by no means suggesting a conspiracy here but could it be that the Gnostic gospels were omitted simply based on the fact that Gnostics have a very different view of original sin?

Nah, the "Gnostic" gospels were omitted from the Nicene Council's canon solely out of political maneuvering. Constantine had his thumb in the pie from the very beginning.

In fact, you'll see alot of this political power-playing throughout early Christianity. The various Christian communities didn't tend to get along all that well.

Laterz.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Nah, the "Gnostic" gospels were omitted from the Nicene Council's canon solely out of political maneuvering. Constantine had his thumb in the pie from the very beginning.

In fact, you'll see alot of this political power-playing throughout early Christianity. The various Christian communities didn't tend to get along all that well.

Laterz.

Make sense.

I am not that strong in Western religions, even though I am from the west, but it does not surprise me in the least that early Christian communities did not get along, they don't always get along well today.

 

[heretic888]

Make sense.

I am not that strong in Western religions, even though I am from the west, but it does not surprise me in the least that early Christian communities did not get along, they don't always get along well today.

Indoubatably!!!

In fact, if everyone shall pardon my boldness, I would posit that much of the "orthodox" writings and theology of Christianity is actually a reaction to the writings and teachings of Marcion, a "Gnostic" heretic active in Rome approximately 110 to 140 CE.

For example, the Epistles of Ignatius --- which are traditionally dated from around 90 to 110 CE --- actually specifically address the docetic position of the Marcionites, and specifically tries to give a pro-Judaic picture of Jesus (against Marcion's Antitheses, circa 140 CE). This more accurately puts the text (at least in its current form) much later, probably to around 150 CE or later.

Much of the canonical "gospels" also feature anti-Marcionite and anti-gnostic elements. That they "appear" in the hands of orthodox apologists like Irenaeus and Tertullian near the end of the 2nd century should come as no surprise. Another orthodox writer, Justin Martyr, writing not even even fifty years earlier, never mentions them (or Paul) by name.

Laterz.

 

[tshadowchaser]

some excellent knowledge being given in this thread
thanks

sheldon

 

[Xue Sheng]

Early Christian and Gnostic info and writings

I cannot vouch for the site, but I found it interesting.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/
Gnostics, Gnostic Gospels, & Gnosticism
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/gnostics.html

 

[fireman00]

my own .02 - once the Gnostics supported the idea that Adam and Eve should have eaten the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden all other beliefs they tried to push forward were doomed to be considered heretical.

The Gospel of Judas seems to be more of a "look at how great Judas was" type gospel - not the kind of humble writings that one would associate with Christian writings.

 

[Edmund BlackAdder]

It's all as real as you want it to be.

 

[BlueDragon1981]

I just don't think it is something to get upset over and such. Everyone has their own way that they look at things....if its said to be legit...okay cool but I am not going to make a big deal over it because what is the point when there are still many things we don't know.

 

[heretic888]

my own .02 - once the Gnostics supported the idea that Adam and Eve should have eaten the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden all other beliefs they tried to push forward were doomed to be considered heretical.

My own .02 - "Gnostic" is a very generic term that is applied to an exceedingly broad number of early Christian (and non-Christian) groups. By no means did they universally share all of their beliefs.

The Gospel of Judas seems to be more of a "look at how great Judas was" type gospel - not the kind of humble writings that one would associate with Christian writings.

You obviously aren't familiar with "Christian writings".

Laterz.

 

[knifeboy]

The Da Vinci code is ficton thus even if one belongs to a religion that would declare Dan Brown's opinions herecy, i think (correct me if i'm wrong) that would only be if the views were stated as compelling fact with the intent to educate and convince.... Brown isn't doing this, he's just telling a story and i think people need to get off his back a little

 

[heretic888]

The Da Vinci code is ficton thus even if one belongs to a religion that would declare Dan Brown's opinions herecy, i think (correct me if i'm wrong) that would only be if the views were stated as compelling fact with the intent to educate and convince.... Brown isn't doing this, he's just telling a story and i think people need to get off his back a little

While The DaVinci Code is indeed a work of fiction, Brown makes it clear that it is based on actual scholarly "research" (after reading Angels and Demons, I am inclined to take his "research" efforts with a hefty grain of salt) and is himself absolutely certain that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and had generations of descendents.

If you've ever seen any interviews with the man, this fact becomes abundantly clear.

Laterz.

 

[elder999]

absolutely certain that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and had generations of descendents..

It's almost a certainty that if the man-if he truly did exist-or whomever he was based on was married to someone.