I have trouble reconciling this misogyny with the message of the Gospels, in which Jesus is so accepting regardless of sex/gender.

That's a great quote. It is time the Church explained to us why Thomas is not in the official anthology. The reasons given at the time are implausible these days.

The problem for those who would like to use the remaining fragment of the Gospel of Mary as proof that Jesus spoke equally for all human beings is that Mary presents Jesus as a Gnostic. Either Mary was a close disciple and Jesus was a teacher of gnosis or her gospel is a fraud.

The reasons for rejecting the Gnostic writings remain valid. Just because some people like conspiracy theories and some people like Gnosticism is no reason to think it has gained in validity over time.

Orthodox Christianity rejects Gnosticism. If someone accepts gnosticism, they are not orthodox. I simply don't understand why this is not clear. If someone practices Judiasm, they are a Jew, not a Christian. If someone practices Islam, they are a Moslem, not a Christian. Some beliefs simply cannot be reconciled, and the idea of creating some polyglot church just won't work.

I understand that some think Jesus' "true" teachings have been supressed by the Catholic Church. Considering Blagojevich can't even keep a simple swindle secret, it would be truly amazing if the Catholics have succeeded for two millenia. The Romans fell. The Ottomans fell. Hitler fell. The Soviet Union fell. But Jewish bankers and Catholic priests continue to be successful. Hmm.

So, let's consider the possibilites:

1) Maybe Jesus truly did bring the "gnosis" to earth. If he did, it appears he failed pretty miserably given that a human institution can suppress the desires of the "demiurge". I'm not impressed. He should probably try again.

2) Maybe Jesus was a fraud. If so, who cares whether he was gnostic or not?

3) Maybe gnosticism really is incompatible with Jesus teachings. If so, wouldn't you expect the church to speak out against it? And, given Jesus' incredible impact on history, wouldn't you expect that every nut with an agenda would try to tack on their treatise beneath his name? So, the church has quite a task to separate information from disinformation.

Personally, I'll go with #3.

And, as far as the supposed misogynistic bent of Paul, you'll find similar language in Peter's letters and the Old Testament - along with statements against sodomy and a whole host of other things we've decided are OK now. Attempts to cleanse Christian writing of such sentiments are disingenuous. Either you accept them or you don't, but you can't rewrite history. I accept them, and don't find Paul misogynistic at all.

Except that the history of the suppression is well documented. It's not, and has never been, a secret that the Church has systematically suppressed gnostics and other non-orthodox Christian faiths.

And how does the Church become the authority? We are talking about a Church that gained political authority because a Roman Emperor needed a bureaucracy. That's the only reason.

You'll have a hard time arguing that the teachings of Jesus is incompatible with gnosticism when so many gnostics are Christian.

We can and do rewrite history - this occurs when we learn new information. Pretty common. The discovery of the Nag Hammadi Library has lead to a great deal of historical conversation; we are still rewritting the history due to that find.

Why do orthodox Christians so fear gnosticism? I really don't understand this. If Jesus was a gnostic teacher then so what? ... To most scholars the evidence seems undeniable.

Let me clarify. I did not mean the "suppression" was a secret, but rather the idea that the Vatican has vaults filled with secrets they are trying to suppress. It's this idea that the Vatican knows Jesus was gnostic, but they're supressing it because that better enables them to hold power.

What about gnosticism threatens their power? If that is all they are interested in, they could claim to have the gnosis, and charge people to come and see it.

I don't know your position, Didymos, but I it seems to escape many people to consider the possibility that some orthodox/catholic (whatever label you like best) Christians actually believe the theology they espouse. Maybe Pope Benedict actually believes Jesus was not a gnostic. If so, doesn't make sense that he would oppose gnosticism?
That was one of the points I tried to make.

This is a gross misrepresentation of Constantine - a legacy that still floats around in popular fiction but which few serious historians continue to support. If you've got the evidence to back up that statement, I'd like to see it.

Again, it belittles the possibility that maybe God touches history from time to time (or maybe that was your intention). Regardless, some consider the partnership between Rome and the Church a curse rather than a blessing.

There are also many Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc., etc. who are not orthodox. Neither are they gnostic. I don't see how this helps your case.

You are twisting my words, and I think you know it. By "rewriting history" I meant attempts to change the intent of the original documents.

To be honest, I don't know much about Nag Hammadi, but it is an interesting coincidence that I just discussed that topic with some acquaintances this morning.

Regardless, I don't see how this helps your case either. It is no surprise to discover that gnostics have long existed. We already knew that. Early Christians were well aware of gnostic writings, and rejected them. How does discovering some of these writings change that? As I said, the reasons for rejecting them remain.

Would Ptolemy suddenly regain legitimacy and overturn quantum physics if we were to discover a previously unknown writing of his? No. Why? Because the reasons for accepting quantum physics remain.

I am trying to say that gnosticism contradicts orthodox Christianity, and that is why it is rejected. We need not invoke conspiracies and ulterior motives and power hungry popes to understand why people with contradictory beliefs oppose each other.

Let me clarify. I did not mean the "suppression" was a secret, but rather the idea that the Vatican has vaults filled with secrets they are trying to suppress. It's this idea that the Vatican knows Jesus was gnostic, but they're supressing it because that better enables them to hold power.

What about gnosticism threatens their power? If that is all they are interested in, they could claim to have the gnosis, and charge people to come and see it.

I don't know your position, Didymos, but I it seems to escape many people to consider the possibility that some orthodox/catholic (whatever label you like best) Christians actually believe the theology they espouse. Maybe Pope Benedict actually believes Jesus was not a gnostic. If so, doesn't it make sense that he would oppose gnosticism?

To be honest, I don't know much about Nag Hammadi, but it is an interesting coincidence that I just discussed that topic with some acquaintances this morning.

Regardless, I don't see how this helps your case either. It is no surprise to discover that gnostics have long existed. We already knew that. Early Christians were well aware of gnostic writings, and rejected them. How does discovering some of these writings change that? As I said, the reasons for rejecting them remain.

Would Ptolemy suddenly regain legitimacy and overturn quantum physics if we were to discover a previously unknown writing of his? No. Why? Because the reasons for accepting quantum physics remain.

It's an oversimplification, to be sure, but not a misrepresentation. Constantine's empire was vast and lacked a strong, central authority. Constantine needed a bureaucracy that extended throughout his empire with which he could govern his empire.

Also, Rome was not the capital of the Empire - remember, Constantine moved the capital to Byzantium and renamed the city after himself.

You claimed that the teachings of Jesus were incompatible with gnosticism. This claim is false because there are, and have been, Christian gnostics.

How am I trying to change the intent of the original documents?

(Re: Ptolemy) Okay, but that's a false analogy.

And for the most part, the fact that orthodox Christianity and gnosticism have different theologies is enough to explain why orthodox Christians reject gnosticism and vice versa. But there is another important element, and that is the history involved. It's the same with most heretical groups, the authority of the time suppressed them, often times violently. Bringing up this history doesn't make orthodox Christianity "wrong" and some other brand "right". It's just the history.

Yes, and picking Christianity was an odd choice if he was looking for something to unify the empire. Regardless, I inferred from your comment that you meant his only motivation was to use religion to prop up the empire. His conversion was sincere, but people remain people. I do not deny that he did some un-Christian things after his conversion - even and including drawing some media attention to his vision for secular purposes.

Karen Armstrong - yuck. I don't put much stock in her work. But, I can't deny that she has a large public following and some nice credentials.

Uh. What about my analogy was unclear? There are Mormons. Does that make the Book of Mormon "true"? Absolutely not. The existence of gnostics who call themselves Christians proves nothing. The fact that I am orthodox (technically Protestant) doesn't "prove" my view either.

By claiming you have proven Jesus was a gnostic. You've proven nothing of the kind.

We will continue to see "new perspectives" of the Bible until the end of the world. But the truth is, there is nothing new about them. They just recycle the same old nonsense.

Well, we differ in philosophies of science, then. I think it's perfectly valid, but I won't argue it. It would be a whole other digression.

Hey, I can pretty much agree with that. That's a nice change.

Except that it isn't a change.

The existence of gnostics who are Christians proves that one can be a Christian and a gnostic - that the teachings of Jesus are compatible with gnosticism. I'm not arguing that the gnostic interpretation is right or wrong, or that any other interpretation is right or wrong. I'm saying that Christianity and gnosticism are compatible - which is evident due to the fact that there are gnostic Christians.

This is not at all true. When we discover material once lost and relevant to the Bible, we learn something new about the Bible. The Nag Hammadi Library is one such find, a find that provides us with much to learn about the Bible and about early Christianity.

I did not mean you had changed your position (if that is what you inferred). I meant it was nice that we agree about something, which is a change in the context of this conversation.

Not if one defines Christianity in a way that precludes gnosticism. If we define it to include gnosticism, we might as well define it to include Islam, Buddhism, Shintoism, etc. And then it means nothing.

If you mean that some Christians have mistakenly accepted gnosticism, well, yeah. Christians make mistakes just like everybody else.

No, we learn more about gnostics and their interpretation of the Bible. But nothing about the Bible itself.

I think Whoever was waiting for a clarification on the differences between orthodoxy and gnosticism. As I said, I'd like to have a definition of gnosticism given in this thread before I answer. I don't want to waste time arguing about what is or isn't gnosticism. I'll let you define it as you please.

Gnosticism is a term that should not be used. It misrepresents the traditions involved. By covering different faith traditions, and by covering different strands of Gnosticism which are incompatible (dualism vs monism for example), the term does not make much sense.

But even if Gnosticism has a fundamentally flawed theology, Gnostic Christians are still Christians.

Again, check out Elaine Pagels and her work regarding Paul.

In John, he (Thomas) is portrayed negatively, as Doubting Thomas. Many scholars have come to believe that John casts Thomas in this negative role in response to the Gospel of Thomas, which presents a radically different theology than the Gospel of John.