Rating: 
Summary: HIDDEN MEANINGS OF TRUTH
Review: The facts brought forth in this book are mostly not known by christians, unless they are prophets, or Gnostics. The most interesting of all the Gnostic writings to me! This should be read with the "Sophia of Jesus Christ" in the Nag Hammadi Library, by James Robinsin. The miracle of the Bridechamber spoken of in the King James Bible, is further explained in this book. This is written for easy reading and understanding. Also, read "Four Gnostic Gospels, by Elaine Pagels.
Rating:
Summary: HIDDEN MEANINGS OF TRUTH
Review: The facts brought forth in this book are mostly not known by christians, unless they are prophets, or Gnostics. The most interesting of all the Gnostic writings to me! This should be read with the "Sophia of Jesus Christ" in the Nag Hammadi Library, by James Robinsin. The miracle of the Bridechamber spoken of in the King James Bible, is further explained in this book. This is written for easy reading and understanding. Also, read "Four Gnostic Gospels, by Elaine Pagels.
Rating:
Summary: Eye opening!
Review: The gnostic interpretation of Paul provides a clearer framework in which one can grow to understand his pivotal works more truthfully, and therefore come to know Christ in a new and radically dynamic way. If you are open minded, seek the works by the gnostic Valentinus (St. Valentine), and get ready to be united with the "One true God".
Rating: 
Summary: To Go A Step Beyond
Review: This book is a good choice to begin to learn about the amazing history of the Christian Church.
Especially Gnosticism and the early Christian Church, and especially the creation of the New Testament Bible. For a different review....here is my review of books that build on these interests, especially the "lost" books of the New Testament Bible and the concepts of Gnosticism.
Nearly all knowledgeable Biblical scholars realize there have been a wide range of writings attributed to Jesus and his Apostles..... and that some of these were selected for compilation into the book that became known as the Bible.....and that some books have been removed from some versions of the Bible and others have been re-discovered in modern times.
The attention focused on Gnosticism by Dan Brown's DaVinci Code may be debatable, but the fact is that increased attention on academics tends to be predominately positive, so I welcome those with first-time or renewed interest. At least first-timers to Gnosticism are not pursuing the oh-so-popular legends of the Holy Grail, Bloodline of Christ, and Mary Magdalene.
This is great......I seldom quote other reviewers, but there is one reviewer of Pagels' books who confided that he had been a Jesuit candidate and had been required to study a wide range of texts but was never was told about the Nag Hamadi texts. He said:
"Now I know why. The Gospel of Thomas lays waste to the notion that Jesus was `the only begotten Son of God' and obviates the need for a formalized church when he says, `When your leaders tell you that God is in heaven, say rather, God is within you, and without you.' No wonder they suppressed this stuff! The Roman Catholic Church hasn't maintained itself as the oldest institution in the world by allowing individuals to have a clear channel to see the divinity within all of us: they need to put God in a bottle, label the bottle, put that bottle on an altar, build a church around that altar, put a sign over the door, and create rubricks and rituals to keep out the dis-believing riff-raff. Real `Us' versus `them' stuff, the polar opposite from `God is within You.' `My God is bigger than your God' the church(s)seem to say. And you can only get there through "my" door/denomination. But Jesus according to Thomas had it right: just keep it simple, and discover the indwelling Divinity `within you and without you.'"
Here are quickie reviews of what is being bought these days on the Gnostic Gospels and the lost books of the Bible in general:
The Lost Books of the Bible (0517277956) includes 26 apocryphal books from the first 400 years that were not included in the New Testament.
Marvin Meyers' The Secret Teachings of Jesus : Four Gnostic Gospels (0394744330 ) is a new translation without commentary of The Secret Book of James, The Gospel of Thomas, The Book of Thomas, and The Secret Book of John.
James M. Robinson's The Nag Hammadi Library in English : Revised Edition (0060669357) has been around 25 years now and is in 2nd edition. It has introductions to each of the 13 Nag Hammadi Codices and the Papyrus Berioinensis 8502.
The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (0140278079) by Geza Vermes has selected works....a complete work is more difficult to achieve than the publisher's marketing concept indicates. His commentary generates strong reactions.
Elaine Pagels has 2 books (The Gnostic Gospels 0679724532 and Beyond Belief : The Secret Gospel of Thomas 0375501568) that have received considerable attention lately. For many, her work is controversial in that it is written for popular consumption and there is a strong modern interpretation. She does attempt to reinterpret ancient gender relationships in the light of modern feminist thinking. While this is a useful (and entertaining) aspect of college women's studies programs, it is not as unethical as some critics claim. As hard as they may try, all historians interpret the past in the context of the present. Obviously there is value in our attempts to re-interpret the past in the light of our own time.
If you want the full scholarly work it is W. Schneemelcher's 2 volume New Testament Apocrypha.
Also, to understand the Cathars......try Barbara Tuckman's Distant Mirror for an incredible historical commentary on how the Christian Church has handled other points of view
Rating:
Summary: another good Pagels work
Review: this is a pretty extensive look at how the gnostics saw Paul and his works. However, this is not a reconstruction of the historical Paul, as the book itself states, but a study of gnosticism and their interpretation, so it is best read with a copy of Paul's authentic letters and a copy of the Nag Hammedi libary close by. And to correct another reviewer( yes I do read other reviews), St.Valetine and Valentinus are not the same individual, Valentinus lived in the second century and St. Valentine died in the year 269. That aside, this a good book for those who are serios about new testament history, but probably not so good for those who are searching for inspiration or spiritual truth.
Rating:
Summary: Gnostic or orthodox?.....
Review: What did Paul the author of various letters (epistles) to the Corinthians, Galatians, Hebrews, Ephesians, Romans and other inhabitants of the ancient world really think about Jesus Christ? Folks who have studied Paul's writings in various church-education programs have been taught that Paul had much to say about the 'law' versus 'faith', but was he writing in a kind of code that only an initiated few (an 'elect') could understand? Using unorthodox(non-canonical) sources such as the writings of Valintinus, Basilides, Simon, and Carpocrates as well as the orthodox writings of early church "leaders" like Irenaeus, who preached against 'Gnosicism' Elaine Pagels demonstrates how Paul appears to have written "dual" passages that can be viewed as supportive of the Gnostic position. What is the Gnostic position? According to my reading of Pagels text, Gnosticism seems to have included the belief that God did not become man in the form of Jesus Christ, i.e. he did not take on a material form which was crucified, died, and buried and then arose from the dead. The Gnostics or 'pneumatike physis' have been exposed to a 'pneumatic charisma' (Romans 1:11) that leads them to regard bodily or material things with indifference. As a result they interpret Paul's discussion of the 'resurrection' not as a material event but as a pneumatic or spiritual event. The idea that God took on a material form and was 'killed' and then resurrected from the dead is absurd according to the Gnostics. They suggest that when Paul spoke of the death of the body and resurrection, he meant the death of the psychic body (physei) and it's replacement with pneumatic or spiritual understanding transmitted through grace (charis). Pagels says Gnostic writers translated I Corinthians 13:13 as about "faith (earth), hope(water), love(wind) and gnosis (light)"and suggests they believed that only through gnosis does one mature spiritually. Paul says he was spiritually born though the grace of God (charis). As such he is 'raised from the deadness of this life to spiritual life', i.e. "the resurrection of the dead is the recognition of the truth spoken by those who have gnosis." Pagels' book is relatively complex, but may prove illuminating for those interested in a different understanding or non-orthodox interpretation of text that is often taken quite literally. In the end, Pagels suggests that the historical theologian cannot discern Paul's intent, be it orthodox or gnostic, although there appears to be a good deal of evidence to support the notion that Paul understood the Gnostic point of view.
Rating:
Summary: Gnostic or orthodox?.....
Review: What did Paul the author of various letters (epistles) to the Corinthians, Galatians, Hebrews, Ephesians, Romans and other inhabitants of the ancient world really think about Jesus Christ? Folks who have studied Paul's writings in various church-education programs have been taught that Paul had much to say about the 'law' versus 'faith', but was he writing in a kind of code that only an initiated few (an 'elect') could understand? Using unorthodox(non-canonical) sources such as the writings of Valintinus, Basilides, Simon, and Carpocrates as well as the orthodox writings of early church "leaders" like Irenaeus, who preached against 'Gnosicism' Elaine Pagels demonstrates how Paul appears to have written "dual" passages that can be viewed as supportive of the Gnostic position. What is the Gnostic position? According to my reading of Pagels text, Gnosticism seems to have included the belief that God did not become man in the form of Jesus Christ, i.e. he did not take on a material form which was crucified, died, and buried and then arose from the dead. The Gnostics or 'pneumatike physis' have been exposed to a 'pneumatic charisma' (Romans 1:11) that leads them to regard bodily or material things with indifference. As a result they interpret Paul's discussion of the 'resurrection' not as a material event but as a pneumatic or spiritual event. The idea that God took on a material form and was 'killed' and then resurrected from the dead is absurd according to the Gnostics. They suggest that when Paul spoke of the death of the body and resurrection, he meant the death of the psychic body (physei) and it's replacement with pneumatic or spiritual understanding transmitted through grace (charis). Pagels says Gnostic writers translated I Corinthians 13:13 as about "faith (earth), hope(water), love(wind) and gnosis (light)"and suggests they believed that only through gnosis does one mature spiritually. Paul says he was spiritually born though the grace of God (charis). As such he is 'raised from the deadness of this life to spiritual life', i.e. "the resurrection of the dead is the recognition of the truth spoken by those who have gnosis." Pagels' book is relatively complex, but may prove illuminating for those interested in a different understanding or non-orthodox interpretation of text that is often taken quite literally. In the end, Pagels suggests that the historical theologian cannot discern Paul's intent, be it orthodox or gnostic, although there appears to be a good deal of evidence to support the notion that Paul understood the Gnostic point of view.
Rating:
Summary: Gnostic or orthodox?.....
Review: What did Paul the author of various letters (epistles) to the Corinthians, Galatians, Hebrews, Ephrsians, Romans and other inhabitants of the andcient world really think about Jesus Christ? Folks who have studied Paul's writings in various church-education programs have been taught that Paul had much to say about the 'law' versus 'faith', but was he writing in a kind of code that only an initiated few (an 'elect') could understand? Using unorthodox(non-canonical) sources such as the writings of Valintinus, Basilides, Simon and Carpocrates as well as the orthodox writings of early church "leaders" like Irenaeus, who preached against 'Gnosicism' Elaine Pagels demonstrates how Paul appears to have written "dual" passages that can be viewed as supportive of the Gnostic position. What is the Gnostic position? According to my reading of Pagels text, Gnosticism seems to have included the belief that God did not become man in the form of Jesus Christ, i.e. he did not take on a material form which was crucified, died and buried and then arose from the dead. The Gnostics or 'pneumatike physis' have been exposed to a 'pneumatic charisma' (Romans 1:11) that leads them to regard bodily or material things with indifference. As a result they interpret Paul's discussion of the 'resurrection' not as a material event but as a pneumatic or spiritual event. The idea that God took on a material form and was 'killed' and then resurrected from the dead is absurd according to the Gnostics. They suggest that when Paul spoke of the death of the body and resurrection, he meant the death of the psychic body (physei) and it's replacement with pneumatic or spiritual understanding transmitted through grace (charis). Pagels says Gnostic writers translated I Corinthians 13:13 as "faith (earth), hope(water), love(wind) and gnosis (light)"and suggesta they believed that only through gnosis does one mature spiritually. Paul says he was spiritually born though the grace of God (charis). As such he is 'raised from the deadness of this life to spiritual life', i.e. "the resurrection of the dead is the recognition of the truth spoken by those who have gnosis." Pagels' book is relatively complex, but may prove illuminating for those interested in a different understanding or non-orthodox interpretation of text that is often taken quite literally. In the end, Pagels suggests that the historical theologian cannot discern Paul's intent, be it orthodox or gnostic although there appears to be a good deal of evidence that Paul understood the Gnostic point of view.
|
