gnosis92

From either the NT, the 1st or 2nd noncanonical Gnostic gospels, Patristic writings, polemics? and How were you first exposed to it?

For me my tenatitve would be

The 4 gospels, the authentic Pauline epistles, Hebrews, Marcion's antithesis, (first learned of Marcion on PBS special from Jesus to Christ) Gospels of Thomas and Phillip, Secret Book of James, Gospel of Truth, (Elaine Pagels the gnosis gospels) Odes of Solomon (I thank Earl Doherty for mentioning it)


I would not include Revelation, or the harangue of Jude, or the pastoral epistles, James is borderline in its insistence to social good.

I find the negative references to Jesus and Christians by Pliny and Suentonius to be refreshing.

I do not understand the secret book of John, but I've read summaries of its ideas, which I find enchanting. PBS introduced me to Pepetua's martydom which is touching. I do not believe The THunder PErfect Mind is Christian. The didiache didn't strike me as all that interesting. Have not yet read Gospel of Judas.

The danger in such indulgences is that the literature might cause you to fall to the Dark Side as did a young atheist named Peter Kirby , who was a pupil of earlychristianwritings, Kirby was seduced by the Dark Side of the Force

Perhaps we'll see Peter Kirby on TV, on Easter and Christian PBS/NBC/MSBNC specials alongside Bart Ehrman, Elaine Pagels, Christine Copeland (stanford) Marvin Meyer, Dominic Crossan.

judge

Sections of 1 John.

David B

Back in my mystical period, over 30 years ago now, I remember being very impressed by the Gospel of Thomas.

David B

Koyaanisqatsi

GThomas has been the only one I can stomach.

GakuseiDon

I'm not sure if this is in scope of the OP, but Origen's Contra Celsus. Many of the arguments about God brought up there are still being argued today.

EarlDoherty

The only work in the entire Christian (or proto-Christian) record I could say I "enjoyed" was the Odes of Solomon. I may be a committed atheist, but some part of me regrets that it was not the spirit and outlook of this document which determined the future of "Christ belief". Unfortunately, Pauline neurosis, blood sacrifice soteriology, apocalyptic and Revelation lunacy, Platonic cosmological fantasy, and not the least Gospel allegory misinterpreted as history (to mention only a few), blocked that from happening. If the religious philosophy of the Odes had won out, the history of the last 2000 years would probably have been a lot happier.

As a near second, Hebrews is fascinating (and revealing), but what price such delusion!

(For those interested, my article on the Odes: The Odes of Solomon)

Earl Doherty

gnosis92

Hey opinions are always welcomed

What about Marcion's antithesis?

gnosis92

Thanks for sharing this and yes I've read your essay.
I agree about Revelation lunacy but I do find parts of Paul's letters to be very good, and then there's the Gospel of John and Thomas.


Given "The problem is, the Odes do not conform to mainstream Judaism (there is nothing about the Temple cult or the Mosaic Law in them), and they refuse to yield up any but the vaguest of Christian references, and then only under duress. I would suggest that if one brings a fresh, unprejudiced eye to these poems, one will uncover valuable insights into the nature and diversity of early Christianity, the types of belief that were developing in different sectarian communities, where the light of the Gospels had not yet arrived to cast its artificial and distorting glare over the new landscape."

I infer you regard Odes as "Christian", not "Jewish" in the sense that the "original" Christ-mythicist Jewish-Christians wrote this, same or similar group as Paul and Hebrews, and that the Son prefigured "fictious" Gospel Jesus?


Regards

Joan of Bark

But it's not true!!!! The Catholic Church said so ...

EarlDoherty

Not quite. Strictly speaking, I would label the Odes "proto-Christian". They do not contain the same degree of "Christ" belief that Paul and Hebrews do. Quite apart from not having any sacrificial redeemer, the "son" and "beloved" (along with Sophia/Wisdom) of the Odist seem still to be regarded as aspects or "emanations" of God, rather than fully distinct divine personages. A kind of 'hypostatization' that is only half-way there. The Odes are still thoroughly God-centered. But the Odist is under the influence of what I have called the "intermediary son" concept characteristic of the Hellenistic era (including in Platonism), which in one direction grew into the full fledged divine Christ/Son of cultic Paulinism. Hebrews 1:2-3 and Colossians 1:15-20 are further along than the Odist's "Word". This "Word" is also not yet "Christ mythicism" since it is not envisioned as a distinct subordinate deity operating in his own right, as Paul sees his Christ. The Odist and his community do seem to be "Jewish" though not of the 'mainstream' character.

It is precisely this profuse variety, this wide range of (often incompatible) treatment of that "intermediary son" concept that we find in the record surrounding earliest Christianity which strengthens the case for recognizing the evolutionary process which gave rise to the Christian religion we know, and its lack of a single point or figure of origin. It has proven a heck of a problem for orthodox scholars who are constantly having to come up with ways to force all of this variety into some kind of response to Jesus of Nazareth. In regard to the Odes, J. H. Charlesworth has put himself through hoops trying to find the Gospel Jesus, and even his death and resurrection, alluded to in those hymns. Of course, they are not there, as my website article demonstrates.

Earl Doherty