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

[Sky Rivers]

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

The thing I find particularly unusual about this writing is it reads like something from semi modern times; like something "new age" and honestly, like demons inspired it.

 

[Katzpur]

This book contains translations of all of the texts found in volume I of the weighty Oxford University Press Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, without any of the apparatus. The First Book of Adam and Eve
The Second Book of Adam and Eve
The Book of the Secrets of Enoch
The Psalms of Solomon
The Odes of Solomon
The Letter of Aristeas
Fourth Book of Maccabees
The Story of Ahikar
The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
Testament of Reuben
Testament of Simeon
Testament of Levi

continued


The Forgotten Books of Eden Index

I'm not sure what your point is. Care to explain?

 

[sooda]

I'm not sure what your point is. Care to explain?

The Gospel of Philip isn't the only one.

 

[Muffled]

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.

I believe it was not likely Christianity but false religion masquerading as Christianity.

 

[Muffled]

Yeah, those early Gnostic texts are pretty awesome

I believe they are about as awesome as Harry Potter.

 

[Muffled]

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

I believe there were Arians also but that doesn't mean they were right.

 

[sooda]

I believe it was not likely Christianity but false religion masquerading as Christianity.

Probably not.. Everybody and their cousin was writing about Jesus in the first century and Christianity was very diverse.. There was NO single mandatory theology.

 

[InChrist]

The thing I find particularly unusual about this writing is it reads like something from semi modern times; like something "new age" and honestly, like demons inspired it.

Exactly. I have no doubt they were inspired by demons. Most of the saying are completely bizarre. Like these examples from the so-called gospel of Thomas (not written by Thomas the disciple of Jesus, BTW) below which so obviously make no sense, do not sound like any of Jesus' words in the NT Gospels, and even blatantly contradict Him on important points:

(7) Jesus said, "Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man."

(19) Jesus said, "Blessed is he who came into being before he came into being. If you become my disciples and listen to my words, these stones will minister to you. For there are five trees for you in Paradise which remain undisturbed summer and winter and whose leaves do not fall. Whoever becomes acquainted with them will not experience death."

(114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

 

[sooda]

Exactly. I have no doubt they were inspired by demons. Most of the saying are completely bizarre. Like these examples below which so obviously make no sense, do not sound like any of Jesus' words in the NT Gospels, and even blatantly contradict Him on important points:

(7) Jesus said, "Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man."

(19) Jesus said, "Blessed is he who came into being before he came into being. If you become my disciples and listen to my words, these stones will minister to you. For there are five trees for you in Paradise which remain undisturbed summer and winter and whose leaves do not fall. Whoever becomes acquainted with them will not experience death."

(114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

Demons? Do you actually believe in demons?

 

[InChrist]

Demons? Do you actually believe in demons?

Definitely.

 

[Sky Rivers]

Exactly. I have no doubt they were inspired by demons. Most of the saying are completely bizarre. Like these examples from the so-called gospel of Thomas (not written by Thomas the disciple of Jesus, BTW) below which so obviously make no sense, do not sound like any of Jesus' words in the NT Gospels, and even blatantly contradict Him on important points:

(7) Jesus said, "Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, and the lion becomes man."

(19) Jesus said, "Blessed is he who came into being before he came into being. If you become my disciples and listen to my words, these stones will minister to you. For there are five trees for you in Paradise which remain undisturbed summer and winter and whose leaves do not fall. Whoever becomes acquainted with them will not experience death."

(114) Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

Is this from those WEIRD gnostic writings?

 

[Clear]

Hi Nowhere man

1) Regarding the judgment by non-historians that early Christian texts are "gibberish" and "demon inspired" texts
Inadvertently it seems, the posters InChrist and Sky Rivers provide yet another example of why non-historians are not a good source of finding meaning and value in the scriptures of early Christians.

In post #41, Sky Rivers condemns early Christian texts (which reflect early Christian theology, but describe it in a different symbol set) as “demon inspired”. Ironically this is the same accusation the Pharisees make against Jesus himself in Matt 12:24.

In post #48, InChrist offers us example of Christian theology he feels is “demon Inspired”.

Below is the actual text surrounding his example (Laytons version of his example sentence I placed in BLUE) :

(6)…“Jesus said, "Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate, for all things are plain in the sight of heaven. For nothing hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain without being uncovered."

(7) Jesus said, "Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, then the man becomes a lion."

(8) And he said, "The man is like a wise fisherman who cast his net into the sea and drew it up from the sea full of small fish. Among them the wise fisherman found a fine large fish. He threw all the small fish back into the sea and chose the large fish without difficulty. Whoever has ears to hear, let him hear."

(9) Jesus said, "Now the sower went out, took a handful (of seeds), and scattered them. Some fell on the road; the birds came and gathered them up. Others fell on the rock, did not take root in the soil, and did not produce ears. And others fell on thorns; they choked the seed(s) and worms ate them. And others fell on the good soil and it produced good fruit: it bore sixty per measure and a hundred and twenty per measure."

Is it logical and rational to conclude that verse 6s' concept that men should not do things [to others] they themselves do not like done to themselves (a Jewish version of the “do unto others”… doctrine) is "gibberish" or "demon inspired".?

Is it logical and rational to conclude that verse 8, which is a parallel to the concept of the New Testament “pearl of great price” is "gibberish" or "demon inspired"?

Is it logical and rational to conclude that verse 9 which is a version of Matt 13, “sower and the seed” that uses the symbolism of worms instead of weeds which ruin the plants, is "gibberish" or "demon inspired"?

It is verse 7 described as a “demon inspired” text for Sky Rivers and for InChrist. Their judgment of such early text which causes them so much consternation is another good reason of the underlying wisdom of Jesus’ admonition to “Judge not”, especially if we are making such judgments without historical knowledge or wisdom. To call the early Christians and their texts “demon inspired” is simply silly.


2) Regarding Verse 7 (from Layton) reads

“Jesus said, "Blessed is the lion which becomes man when consumed by man; and cursed is the man whom the lion consumes, then the man becomes a lion."

If we follow the examples of InChrist and Sky Rivers, and declare the early texts “gibberish” and “demon inspired” without any consideration of historical context and symbolism of early Judeo-Christianity, then we will make the same mistakes in judgment as they are making. It is better to simply withhold judgment and admit that we simply may not know what a verse is saying rather than calling it “gibberish” or “demon inspired”.

For example, Gerd Ludemann offers historical context when he describes this verse and says it “is about the humanization of bestial forces in human beings..." versus "... human beings lapsing into a bestial nature.” The lesson is that man is to tame their animal natures rather than be overcome by this nature.

Jean Doresse agrees that, in this verse, "...the lion here represents human passions…” the “spirit of evil” He offers a contextual example from a Coptic Manichaean Psalm (CCLVII): 'This lion [evil] which is within me, which defiles me at every moment, I have strangled it and cast it out of my soul. . . .'"

If, anciently the lion represents the “bestial forces” inside man, his passions and the spirit of evil which overcomes him versus the “rational man”, the “civilized man” that obedience to the Gospel creates, then the nature of the teaching is that man is to overcome his worst nature. This is hardly a “demon inspired teaching”.

Thus Neal A Maxwell describes that “…real, personal sacrifice never was placing an animal on the altar. Instead, it is a willingness to put the animal in us upon the altar and letting it be consumed! Such is the 'sacrifice unto the Lord … of a broken heart and a contrite spirit,'"


3) Use of animals as a symbol of "untamed" and "uncivilized" man was common in early literature

This is not a “weird” teaching in early Judeo-Christian thought. Animals were often symbols of “untamed” and “uncivilized” man who needs to become “domesticated” and “tame” by living higher moral principles.

“There are domestic animals like the bull and the a$$ and others of this kind. Others are wild and live apart in the deserts. Man ploughs the field by means of the domestic animals, and from this he feeds both himself and the animals, whether tame or wild. Compare the perfect man. It is through powers which are submissive that he plows, preparing for everything to come into being...” The gospel of Phillip;

The concept that it is primarily through "domesticated" animals that the ancients plowed, planted, and distributed means of living for the benefit of all others is a simple concept. The parallel concept of being "the salt of the earth", is not particularly obtuse, and it is not a "demon inspired" concept.

The teaching that God gave moral teaching to mankind so that they could live a higher manner of life is hardly “gibberish” and hardly “demon inspired” teaching. Instead Prayer #3 of Hellenistic Synagogal Prayers speaks of “the goal of the creative work – [is] the rational living creature, the world citizen – having given order by your [Gods’] Wisdom, you created, saying, “let us make man according to our image and likeness”... You who are the Maker of life for the dead, through Jesus Christ, our hope! "

The gospel and it’s taming and civilizing effect was seen as the impetus and means for irrational (animalistic) man to become a rational, civil being. Such context is reflected inside the early Synagogal prayers where one prayed : “O Almighty God, eternal one, Master of the whole universe, Creator and President of everything... and who gave an implanted and written law to him, so that he might live lawfully as a rational being, 4 and when he had sinned, gave him your goodness, as a pledge to lead him to repentance" (AposCon 8.9.8f)

The concept that uncivilized, evil, unrepentant man was represented by an animal was a common symbol in ancient Judeo-Christianity. And, it was only the unrepentant man who had not undergone the proper ordinance in the proper place that was considered unclean. For example, Concerning the skin of a clean animal not slaughtered inside the purity of the temple it was said ‘“No skin of a clean animal that has been slaughtered in other cities is to enter my city. Certainly on other cities they may use them for their work, whatever the need may be, but such skins are not to be brought into My city. The reason: their degree of purity corresponds with that of the animals flesh. Therefore you are not to defile the city that I sanctify, where I have established My name and Temple. No, they must use skins of animals sacrificed in the temple of My temple city, ... THE TEMPLE SCROLL 11Q19-20 Col 48

Such early usage of such symbols and types are not “demon inspired” but were often used in ancient Judeo-Christianity to teach perfectly orthodox principles.

For example, In Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs (Joseph 19:8-11) Uncivilized, profane and evil men were compared to wild animals in their opposition to the lamb of God in early texts.

“And I saw that a virgin was born from Judah, wearing a linen stole; and from her was born a spotless lamb. At his left there was something like a lion, and all the wild animals rushed against him, but the lamb conquered them, and destroyed them, trampling them underfoot. 9 And the angels and mankind and all the earth rejoiced over him….. the Lamb of God who will take away the sin of the world, and will save all the nations, as well as Israel.” Such early symbolism used in explaining the gospel was not “gibberish” to those who understood it, nor was such early Christian teaching “demon inspired”.

As was taught anciently, not all individuals are given to understand the gospel in its clarity.

“There was a householder who had every conceivable thing, be it son or slave or cattle or dog or pig or corn or barley or chaff or grass or castor oil or meat and acorn. Now he was a sensible fellow and he knew what the food of each one was. He himself served the children bread and meat. He served the slaves castor oil and meal. And he threw barley and chaff and grass to the cattle. He threw bones to the dogs, and to the pigs he threw acorns and scraps of bread. Compare the disciple of God; if he is a sensible fellow he understands what discipleship is all about. The bodily forms will not deceive him, but he will look at the condition of the soul of each one and speak with him. There are many animals in the world which are in human form. When he identifies them, to the swine he will throw acorns, to the cattle he will throw barley and chaff and grass, to the dogs he will throw bones. To the slaves he will give only the elementary lessons, but to the children he will give the complete instruction.” The gospel of Phillip

The simple concept underlying my comments is that such texts are not to be judged by individuals who have not really taken the time to study early Christian thought and their symbol set. I hope readers understand the wisdom of reading such documents for themselves and if they come across something they don’t understand, then the rational and logical thing to say to themselves is simply, “I don’t understand what is being said”, rather than coming to the bizzare conclusion that the text is “gibberish” or worse, that it is “demon inspired”.

I honestly think that early Christianity is generally more rational and logical in it’s early teachings and its early doctrines than the theories and theologies of later versions of Christianity and their movements.

Good luck in coming to a familiarity with early Christianity and it’s teachings.


Clear
σετζδρω

 

[Rise]

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.

Your entire premise is based on unfounded, unsupported, and unproven assumptions
The assumption that:
a) This represents a written work that was contemporary with the New Testament.
b) This represents the "true" christianity, and it's actually the New Testament that's wrong.
c) That this was rejected because it was true but unwanted, and not rejected because it was actually false.

You cannot provide a single piece of historical evidence that any of your assumptions are true.

In fact, all the evidence we do have goes against your assumptions.
1. No scholar is even trying to advocate the belief that the "gospel of phillip" existed prior to the 3rd century, yet those same scholars will advocate for much earlier dates for the New Testament writings.
2. No ancient source listing scriptural canon mentions it. But they mention the New Testament books.
3. No early church father referenced it or quoted from it.
4. Early church fathers attacked some of the gnostic ideas found in the "gospel of phillip". Which may not point to be the gospel of phillip being in existence, but points to them denouncing similar ideas as false.
5. The gnostic ideas found in the "gospel of phillip" aren't compatible with the Old Testament, but the New Testament is compatible with the Old Testament and a fullfillment of it.
6. The "gospel of phillip"'s content directly contradicts what is in the New Testament. They cannot both be true at the same time. And none of the historical evidence points towards the "gospel of phillip" being the original authentic version of events.

You have have absolutely no basis for your assumption that the "gospel of phillip" could even be contemporary with the New Testament, much less predate it.

As a result, everything you tried to argue is nullified because it's based on a false assumption.
You would need to be able to prove your assumption even has any chance of being true before you could even begin to start arguing conclusions based on that assumption.
But you can't do that. There is nothing you could use to logically support that assumption.

 

[Rise]

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

Your claim is false.
You have no historical basis for making such a claim.

Go try to dig up any piece of history that you think would support the idea that the "gospel of phillip" was even around during the early church, let alone that it was being used by Christians.

You wont be able to do it because it doesn't exist.

I also wouldn't consider the 3rd century to be "early christians" as far as church chronology goes (which is the time frame scholars assign to the "gospel of phillip's" creation). "Early" implies the initial formation stages of the church and Scripture. Which would imply a time when the church still had members in it who were alive at a time when the apostles were still alive (so we're talking about no later than mid 2nd century at the latest, if we're talking about young converts, but late 1st to early 2nd century would be most fitting).

 

[Harel13]

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.

True. Although there is a much ealier midrash about the so-called "first Eve".

Edit: Just noticed this is a bit of an old thread.

 

[RabbiO]

True. Although there is a much ealier midrash about the so-called "first Eve".

Edit: Just noticed this is a bit of an old thread.

That’s okay. I’m a bit of an alter kaker.

More seriously, I know the earlier midrash. It just didn’t seem germane to the thread topic.

 

[Hawkins]

Legitimate books are those kept by legit churches set up by the apostles (such as Paul). Other books are those not kept by the churches. That's why the canonization is needed for the churches to confirm what books are valid.