should christians consider the gnostic gospels?

Yes, but they won't..."it's not in the Bible" and they don't believe anything that's not in the Bible.

Gnosticism teaches that the God in the OT is an evil third generation incomplete beast and is NOT the God of the NT.

So yes, they should be *considered*, but as New Age heresy.

I read the Apocryphon of John from here last week:

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl_sbj.htm

It seemed pretty cool at first, then it turned with a vengeance.

It lays out the gnostic pantheon pretty well.

I think it was the long version I read.

I was looking for the Apocalypse of Peter, which I remembered an Art History prof mentioning in college, with reference to iconography of Catholic churches.

Gnosticism.

Sounds cool.

It isn't.

The Gnostics believed something very very different from what any other Christians have believed at the time or since. They didn't believe in one God! They didn't believe that God loved everyone the same. Their beliefs would sound very foreign to nearly anyone today.

As for 'the Gnostic Gospels', you are probably referring to the documents found at Nag Hamadi in Egypt after WWII. These were thought to be Gnostic Gospels but not all of them really were. Some were books that were simply not included in the New Testament, but which basically go along with the story as Christians today believe it. I think they should be considered, because there is precious little actual evidence from that time and every little bit of it should count.

The Gnostic gospels are writings via early "Christian" Gnostics. After the 1st century of Christianity, 2 popular divisions progressed - the orthodox and the Gnostics. The orthodox Christians held to books we've in the Bible and to what's right now seen orthodox theology. The Gnostic Christians, in the event that they are in a position to truly be defined as Christians, held a fantastically diverse view of the Bible, of Jesus Christ, of salvation - and purely approximately another substantial Christian doctrine. in spite of if, they did no longer have any writings via the apostles to offer legitimacy to their ideals. hence and how the Gnostic gospels have been created. The Gnostics fraudulently linked the names of nicely-regularly occurring Christians to their writings, such because of the fact the gospel of Thomas, the gospel of Philip, the gospel of Mary, and so on. the invention of the Nag Hammadi library in northern Egypt in 1945 represented a substantial discovery of Gnostic gospels. those Gnostic gospels are often pointed to as meant "lost books of the Bible." So, what are we to make of the Gnostic gospels? ought to some or all of them be in the Bible? No, they could desire to no longer. First, as we noted above, the Gnostic gospels are forgeries. The Gnostic gospels have been fraudulently written in the names of the apostles as a manner to offer them a legitimacy in the early church. luckily, the early church fathers have been almost unanimous in recognizing the Gnostic gospels as advertising fake teachings approximately purely approximately each and every key Christian doctrine. There are limitless contradictions between the Gnostic gospels and the actual Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The Gnostic gospels could nicely be a powerful source to income early Christian heresies, yet they could desire to be rejected outright as no longer belonging in the Bible and not representing the real Christian faith.

Yes, you should consider the Gnostic gospels.

Do you know why there are only four gospels in the current Bible? Because the early church fathers voted. The logic was that there were four corners of the earth, and the number of gospels should correspond to the number of corners. (Google a guy named Irenaeus, and "four gospels" and "four corners".)

We now know that the earth has NO corners. Therefore, their logic was a bit faulty.

Unfortunately, somewhere around the year 300, the Church sent out a decree that all "heretical" writings were to be destroyed. We're fortunate that we have some of these in the form of the Nag Hammadi discovery.

Always remember: the current contents of your Bible are the result of a vote at The Council of Hippo, and they also voted that ministers should be celibate (unmarried). There's no telling how much other stuff they got wrong.

Yes, they should consider the Gnostic gospels... because Gnostic means "knowledge," and that is the very "light" that Christ was bringing to the world.

It's rather simple to confirm my answer. Just pick up a concordance and see what Christ said about "light" and what he said about "sacrifice." It was all positive about the first and quite negative about the second.

The Gnostics had their eye on the ball... but those who attacked the Gnostics were out to snuff out this original gospel of light.

Read the whole story here: http://gospelenigma.com/ That resource explains the difference between the original gospel of light and the gospel we hear these days.

My answer to this is simple...Christianity is built on a false premise that God (assuming there is one) was ready, willing, and able to sacrifice his/her/its only begotten son for the sake of absolving humanity from it's sins. As a Supreme Being needs no intermediary this wouldn't be necessary. Additionally, folks always forget that the Jews had broken their covenant with God and as punishment they serve as the LIVING, BREATHING penance for the sins of humanity. In the end, however God will forgive that transgression of so long ago and the Jews will ascend to Heaven (assuming there is one) first and keep the gates. This is well documented in the OT and is also why the NT Gnostic Gospels, etc are all BUNK/JUNK. PEACE!

This is an issue that was addressed in the early Church. the teachings of Gnosticism deny the manhood of Christ because of greek philosophy which stated that flesh was evil, God was good. This thinking led to "God could not have become flesh because flesh is evil and God would be tainted if he became flesh." Once this context is understood it is easy to look at the letter I John as a letter directly addressing this issue. Thus No, they should not be considered scripture, but Christians may still consider them as informative texts as to the state of the early church.

no, because Gnosticism denies the oneness of Jesus Christ. The Gnostics believed that Jesus was separate from Christ. Jesus was the man part that died. Christ was a separate being that inhabited Jesus. It was Christ that rose, not Jesus, and ascended to heaven. Pretty far-fetched and not in line with Christian Doctrine at all. Jesus Christ was one person.

I know this reads a little weird but that is the best way to explain it. Interesting for a non-Christian philosophy of 200 AD or thereabouts but not good for doctrine.

there are scriprutes that are written about in the bible that have never been discovered and the bible was assembled by man so did you ever read about who assembled the bible or why they left books out or why the king james left out the whole apocrapha if you want to know about the deception look up st athanasius and arius you will find that arius was defending the traditional church or true teaching of christ but due to a series of murder and assinations then athanasius end up destroying all the records of what was previously taught i personally think there is some truth in all scripture but some have been tampered with or mistranslated

am not a Christian but yes i believe they should be put in the bible...

what was wrong with them, ( gospels)that they had to removed they the bible...especially the gospels of Thomas, Judas and Mary...

Don't they want us to know that Judas was Jesus best friend ... and that they had a great relationship before his betrayal .......

Jesus and Judas did discuss many things concerning end of times and also many things that happened during The book of Enoch(also not in the bible) ...the days before the flood...and the folks that took out these books have secrets they trying to hide..