The Gospel of Philip. An ancient work by early Christians purposely omitted by modern Christians.

[Twilight Hue]

It reveals that early Christianity was far different from what we see today. Something Christians don't like to talk about and would rather pretend it's not there as with other ancient gospels that were rejected because it would change the nature of Christianity and Christian belief.

Christianity in its early days was a lot closer to Manichaeism in it's true early form establishing the fact of Christianity's pagan origins.

Fortunately the gospel itself survived and can be read post translation.....

The Gospel of Philip -- The Nag Hammadi Library

Like the Book of Lilith , the Gospel of Philip really sheds a historical
window into the world of early Christianity and what it actually was like.

 

[Firemorphic]

Yeah, those early Gnostic texts are pretty awesome

 

[InChrist]

It reveals that early Christianity was far different from what we see today. Something Christians don't like to talk about and would rather pretend it's not there as with other ancient gospels that were rejected because it would change the nature of Christianity and Christian belief.

Christianity in its early days was a lot closer to Manichaeism in it's true early form establishing the fact of Christianity's pagan origins.

Fortunately the gospel itself survived and can be read post translation.....

The Gospel of Philip -- The Nag Hammadi Library

Like the Book of Lilith , the Gospel of Philip really sheds a historical
window into the world of early Christianity and what it actually was like.

The book of Philip was rejected because it was Gnostic writing with ideas contrary to the teachings of Christ and the apostles. A fraudulent name of one of Jesus' disciples was used in an attempt to give it more credibility, as was done in the case of many so-called "lost books". Anyone reading it can easily tell it is not compatible, does not compliment, have similar writing style or message as the Gospels or letters of the NT and it really sounds rather incoherent.

 

[InChrist]

It reveals that early Christianity was far different from what we see today. Something Christians don't like to talk about and would rather pretend it's not there as with other ancient gospels that were rejected because it would change the nature of Christianity and Christian belief.

Christianity in its early days was a lot closer to Manichaeism in it's true early form establishing the fact of Christianity's pagan origins.

Fortunately the gospel itself survived and can be read post translation.....

The Gospel of Philip -- The Nag Hammadi Library

Like the Book of Lilith , the Gospel of Philip really sheds a historical
window into the world of early Christianity and what it actually was like.

Any document that was rejected by the early church was rejected because 1) the early Christians couldn’t trace authorship to an Apostle or eyewitness accounts, and 2) the theology differed from what had been handed down from the Apostles and 3) such documents were considered fraudulent.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The book of Philip was rejected because it was Gnostic writing with ideas contrary to the teachings of Christ and the apostles. A fraudulent name of one of Jesus' disciples was used in an attempt to give it more credibility, as was done in the case of many so-called "lost books". Anyone reading it can easily tell it is not compatible, does not compliment, have similar writing style or message as the Gospels or letters of the NT and it really sounds rather incoherent.

How could it be rejected? It was used by early Christians.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

How could it be rejected? It was used by early Christians.

It was used by SOME early Christians.

It was declared heretical by a later Christians.

 

[InChrist]

How could it be rejected? It was used by early Christians.

As I said they were Gnostic writings. They were not used by the Peter, Paul, James, the other Apostles or the early Christians who knew and followed Jesus. Have you actually read 'the gospel of Philip" ? Most of it sounds like nonsensical gibberish...nothing like the actual words, sentences, accounts, and teachings of Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.


"A Gentile does not die, for he has never lived in order that he may die. He who has believed in the truth has found life, and this one is in danger of dying, for he is alive. Since Christ came, the world has been created, the cities adorned, the dead carried out. When we were Hebrews, we were orphans and had only our mother, but when we became Christians, we had both father and mother."

"Before Christ came, there was no bread in the world, just as Paradise, the place were Adam was, had many trees to nourish the animals but no wheat to sustain man. Man used to feed like the animals, but when Christ came, the perfect man, he brought bread from heaven in order that man might be nourished with the food of man. The rulers thought that it was by their own power and will that they were doing what they did, but the Holy Spirit in secret was accomplishing everything through them as it wished. Truth, which existed since the beginning, is sown everywhere. And many see it being sown, but few are they who see it being reaped."

"God is a dyer. As the good dyes, which are called "true", dissolve with the things dyed in them, so it is with those whom God has dyed. Since his dyes are immortal, they become immortal by means of his colors. Now God dips what he dips in water."

excerpts from:
The Gospel of Philip -- The Nag Hammadi Library

 

[RabbiO]

@Nowhere Man -

The Book of Lilith?

 

[Twilight Hue]

@Nowhere Man -

The Book of Lilith?

Isn't The Book of Lilith part of the Babylonian Talmud ?

 

[Twilight Hue]

As I said they were Gnostic writings. They were not used by the Peter, Paul, James, the other Apostles or the early Christians who knew and followed Jesus. Have you actually read 'the gospel of Philip" ? Most of it sounds like nonsensical gibberish...nothing like the actual words, sentences, accounts, and teachings of Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.


"A Gentile does not die, for he has never lived in order that he may die. He who has believed in the truth has found life, and this one is in danger of dying, for he is alive. Since Christ came, the world has been created, the cities adorned, the dead carried out. When we were Hebrews, we were orphans and had only our mother, but when we became Christians, we had both father and mother."

"Before Christ came, there was no bread in the world, just as Paradise, the place were Adam was, had many trees to nourish the animals but no wheat to sustain man. Man used to feed like the animals, but when Christ came, the perfect man, he brought bread from heaven in order that man might be nourished with the food of man. The rulers thought that it was by their own power and will that they were doing what they did, but the Holy Spirit in secret was accomplishing everything through them as it wished. Truth, which existed since the beginning, is sown everywhere. And many see it being sown, but few are they who see it being reaped."

"God is a dyer. As the good dyes, which are called "true", dissolve with the things dyed in them, so it is with those whom God has dyed. Since his dyes are immortal, they become immortal by means of his colors. Now God dips what he dips in water."

excerpts from:
The Gospel of Philip -- The Nag Hammadi Library

That's why modern-day Christians rejected it. It was still used by early Christians.

 

[RabbiO]

Isn't The Book of Lilith part of the Babylonian Talmud ?

There is no Book of Lilith.

If you're talking about the story of Lilith being the first wife of Adam, that first appears in a work that dates to the10th century C.E., hundreds of years after the Talmud and about a thousand years after the close of the Hebrew canon.

 

[Glaurung]

It reveals that early Christianity was far different from what we see today. Something Christians don't like to talk about and would rather pretend it's not there as with other ancient gospels that were rejected because it would change the nature of Christianity and Christian belief.

We know what early Christian orthodoxy was because that orthodoxy is well attested in early Christian writings. We have not just the New Testament, but also the Church Fathers and the records of Ecumenical Councils. The rejection of the Gnostic texts was not a conspiracy. They were rejected because they were late, dubious and heretical. For the umpteenth time, orthodoxy preceded the canon.

Christianity in its early days was a lot closer to Manichaeism in it's true early form establishing the fact of Christianity's pagan origins.

Pure question begging.

That heretical groups emerged almost immediately isn't an argument against orthodoxy, let alone an argument that such groups had a "truer" interpretation of Christianity. All you prove is the mere existence of other "Christian" groups who were never a secret in the first place. Even the New Testament repeatedly warns of false teachers with heretical ideas running about.

Like the Book of Lilith , the Gospel of Philip really sheds a historical window into the world of early Christianity and what it actually was like.

It isn't early, it's centuries late. The text dates to the third century, far later than the canonical Gospels.

 

[InChrist]

That's why modern-day Christians rejected it. It was still used by early Christians.

It was not modern-day Christians who rejected it. It was early Christians. If you know anything at all about Gnosticism and Christianity you would understand that they are not the same thing, they are incompatible and there is no way the early Christians would have used the so-called gospel of Philip or any other Gnostic writings, with teachings that contradicted Jesus and which were considered heresy.

 

[Glaurung]

It was not modern-day Christians who rejected it. It was early Christians. If you know anything at all about Gnosticism and Christianity you would understand that they are not the same thing, they are incompatible and there is no way the early Christians would have used the so-called gospel of Philip or any other Gnostic writings, with teachings that contradicted Jesus and which were considered heresy.

Fundamentally the OP follows a Da Vinci Code style of historical understanding. That essentially Christianity as we know it is a conspiracy. That the Church rejected bogus texts is not in itself particularly interesting unless you view it conspiratorially, in which case such rejections are "proof" of a cover up.

 

[Augustus]

Christianity in its early days was a lot closer to Manichaeism in it's true early form establishing the fact of Christianity's pagan origins.

Christianity predates Manichaeism, and Manichaeism wasn't Pagan.

It reveals that early Christianity was far different from what we see today. Something Christians don't like to talk about and would rather pretend it's not there as with other ancient gospels that were rejected because it would change the nature of Christianity and Christian belief.

Of course Christianity was different, it was 2000 years ago.

But there is no reason to believe that the Gnostic texts reveal the 'true' Christianity and the current texts were merely fabricated by mendacious imposters.

he Gospel of Philip really sheds a historical
window into the world of early Christianity and what it actually was like.

Well it shows some of the diversity of thought that existed in a religion emerging over a large geographic area without a centralised orthodoxy.

 

[sooda]

It reveals that early Christianity was far different from what we see today. Something Christians don't like to talk about and would rather pretend it's not there as with other ancient gospels that were rejected because it would change the nature of Christianity and Christian belief.

Christianity in its early days was a lot closer to Manichaeism in it's true early form establishing the fact of Christianity's pagan origins.

Fortunately the gospel itself survived and can be read post translation.....

The Gospel of Philip -- The Nag Hammadi Library

Like the Book of Lilith , the Gospel of Philip really sheds a historical
window into the world of early Christianity and what it actually was like.

Really interesting .. thanks.

Those who say that the Lord died first and (then) rose up are in error, for he rose up first and (then) died. If one does not first attain the resurrection, he will not die. As God lives, he would [...].

 

[sooda]

Philip the apostle said, "Joseph the carpenter planted a garden because he needed wood for his trade. It was he who made the cross from the trees which he planted. His own offspring hung on that which he planted. His offspring was Jesus, and the planting was the cross." But the Tree of Life is in the middle of the Garden. However, it is from the olive tree that we got the chrism, and from the chrism, the resurrection.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It was not modern-day Christians who rejected it. It was early Christians. If you know anything at all about Gnosticism and Christianity you would understand that they are not the same thing, they are incompatible and there is no way the early Christians would have used the so-called gospel of Philip or any other Gnostic writings, with teachings that contradicted Jesus and which were considered heresy.

That's not what the actual history shows.

 

[Glaurung]

That's not what the actual history shows.

I really doubt you're in a position to lecture on that history.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I really doubt you're in a position to lecture on that history.

And I really doubt you're in any position to refute that history in kind. ;O}

There is no doubt aside from us doubting Thomas's it was an early Christian scripture none the less. Particularly from
Valentinus, an early Christian Gnostic theologen.

Gospel of Philip - RationalWiki