Interesting Sunday School Thought

Good story.

When reading anything in the Bible it is best to read the whole book. Paul's epistles (letters) especially. He is writing to specific assemblys (not church since church is a miss interpretation) about specific problems that congregation is having. Taking one or two verses or chapters and hanging a whole doctrine on it is what has caused so very many denominations. I happen to like the guy.

Paul is much less ponderous if read in the original. He is also using philosophical ideas from other teachings, as the Greek, which were understood by many who were not Christians in order to communicate to them. It helps to know the ideas of the time . Also, the Church edited his writings later (as changing the names of female apostles to male ones!). The common belief among early Christians that Sophia was part of the Trinity was probably shared by Paul but it became usual not to speak of it openly because it was common in other teachings that were not Christian. Some of the letters attributed to Paul may have been by his pupils. Scholars debate on that.
There are some more accurate translations. For example, this one expresses the ideas accurately(which were common in other teachings of the time ). It is a spiritual exercise, intended as a teaching meditation which should be sensed in the body and feelings, not read only the mind.

Paul's Letter to the Ephesians, 6:10-19
Translation by Cynthia Hindes
What it comes to in the end is this: grasp the power which streams to you in the experience of Christ in the soul and in the powerful regency of his pure spiritual strength.

Put on the power of God as one puts on full armor, so that you may stand against the well-aimed attacks of the adversary. For our struggle is not to fight against powers of flesh and blood, but against

spirit beings mighty in the stream of time,
against spirit beings powerful in the molding of earth substance,
against cosmic powers whose darkness rules the present time,
against spirits who carry evil into the realms of the spiritual world.

Therefore take up the full armor of God, that you may be able to stand your ground on the day when evil unfolds its greatest strength, and victoriously withstand it.

Stand firm, then, girded with the truth, like a warrior firmly girded. Connect yourself with all in the world as is justified in the spiritual world, and this connection with the spirit will protect you like a strong breastplate.

And may Peace stream through you, down to your feet, so that on your path you spread peace, as the message that comes from the realm of the angels.

In all your deeds have trust in God. This trust will be like a mighty shield; with it you can quench all the flaming arrows of the evil one.

Take into your thinking the certainty of Christ's healing deed. It will protect your head like a helmet.

And the spirit, which has become living in you, you shall grasp as one grasps a sharp sword. The sword of the spirit is the working of the Word of God.

May this armor clothe you in all your prayers and supplications, so that in the right moment you raise yourself in prayer to the spirit, and at the same time practice wakefulness in inner loyalty.

Feel yourself united in prayer with all other bearers of the spirit-also with me, Paul, so that the power of the word will be given to me when I am to courageously bring the knowledge of that holy mystery which lives in the message of the gospel.

:-)

I learned alot about Paul's writtings when I was Seminary Teacher for 14 years. I had to study extra hard as those teens can ask some pretty deep questions. I can honestly say that I gained an appreciation for Paul's writings at that time. The handbooks that helped me alot are available online
CES Institute Handbooks.

Connie, have taught about every class that a Ward conducts (including a brief stint as Seminary teacher -- didn't find the kids that challenging, but the parents were a pain) except Relief Society classes. I have read a lot regarding Paul and his Epistles, none have relieved my concerns regarding his writing -- the bloke may have been a fine man, its his writing that is of concern. I give him the benefit of the doubt that he was writing in a different time to a different culture -- but his writing is the least clear in the New Testament and the complexity does not add precision, rather vagueness and a kind of pompous lack of clarity.

Clarke, where did you find that translation?

I support what Clarke wrote, entirely.

Many peolpe dislike Paul for the stern admonitions that fundamentalists love to pull out of context and use to demean and hurt people.

When I had the opportunity to study the Pauline epistles, to learn how the various letters were written to address different circumstances and problems, the contradictions began to disappear,

There are few examples of writing more exalted than St. Paul's rhapsody to Charity, to the Incarnation (in Hebrews), to the gifts of the Spirit.

George,
Did you ever attend CES conference at BYU???
We went every summer and the classes were wonderful. There are some handouts of the classes available as well as the CD's and cassette tapes.

I have had some wonderful Spiritual Seminary Students and then again, I have had some that did not want to be in class at all. My years in teaching Seminary helped me alot in teaching Adult and Youth Sunday School. Brother Eyring stressed each year that we should study the words of Paul as he was a great writter.

George,
Cynthia Hindes, the translator, serves The Christian Community. You can perhaps find her translation if you search on the Web.
I am surprised you find Paul a poor writer! In the original he writes brilliantly , adapting the ideas of his time to create a Christian teaching. Are you familiar with the Wisdom literature that was a source for the Hebrew Bible, and which all Paul's people, whether Greek, Jewish et al. would have been familiar with? Also, Greek philosophy had influenced the many religions existing in Paul's time?

Clarke, Paul reached prominence in the New Testament era because of the fact that Thomas was suppressed. The result is a lot more emphasis on philosophy and a lack of clarity. However, it is possible that Paul's writings were bastardized by subsequent translators seeking to make Christianity more palatable to the Greek and Roman intelligentsia. I admit there is quite a bit of remake and reinvention of Paul as a "learned Jew," rather than a Roman tentmaker and sometimes thug of the Jewish establishment converted on the road to Damascus. Greek philosophy continues to influence Christianity -- although I find that influence less harmful than the fundamentalist heavy reliance upon the Old Testament when interpreting the New Testament. As I grow older, I find myself more and more tending to emphasize the four Gospels and the Book of Mormon, although I still find Genesis a rich and puzzling book filled with spiritual nuggets. The Book of Mormon seems to me an old testament which is more consistent with the teachings of the Gospels than the Old Testament -- more consistent with the doctrine of Christ and Jehovah being one and the same Being.

George,
There were many Gospels, so not only Thomas was not chosen by the Chirch. But the Four Gospels were created by four very different people who each stressed a centain approach. Scholars realize the four texts contradict themselves in many places. But from the point of view of their authors, they were not attempting to "write history" but a certain teaching which reflected an aspect of Christ's mission (and the different streams of earlier teachings he incorporated in the unfolding and giving out his teaching - Buddhist, Zoroastrian, Mosaic, Egyytian etc which he had received.)
Paul saw his mission was to establish a church as an institution for the many. This was not the mission of the Apostles: they were empowered to emulate their teacher's life and teaching by example and transmit it to individuals and groups as he had done. The church claims Peter was chosen to found "their church," which was not the case.

Clarke, the Catholic Church does in fact claim that Peter was chosen to found "the Church" -- we, however, believe that Christ was referring to revelation via the Holy Ghost when He referred to upon this rock. Paul was definitely building a Church around the Mediterranian. Thomas spread the Gospel to Asia and actually travelled farther in his missions than Paul. However, Augustine after the Church had become the established Church of Rome suppressed the writings of Thomas. I find the four Gospels that we have very powerful, I do not find the writings of Paul to be powerful. We believe that Peter, James and John were called by Christ to be the First Presidency of the Church after the ascension of Christ. As the Apostles were killed off eventually there was no one authorized by Christ to run the Church -- we consider the Great Apostasy to have been complete with Constantine making the Christianity the established religion of the Roman Empire. That was also the time when the cross was introduced as the pre-eminent symbol of Christianity -- Constantine supposedly had a vision of a bloody cross and the declaration, "Under This Sign We Conquer." So the cross replaced the traditional wolf tails before the legions and Constantine reivigorated the Roman Legions for several centuries.

George,
That was what I meant about Peter. The church chose to trace its lineage to him, although the NT didn't support that. James was too clear and practical in his recorded teaching perhaps (which was intended for communities not institutions) for a church? John was the visionary, so not a threat.

There has been some speculation published of late as to the emphasis on John being the "beloved" and whether there was not some tinkering to support that view, and whether there was also tinkering to make sure that Thomas was remembered primarily for the incident resulting in the tag of "Doubting Thomas."

George,
I think John was given the Book of Revelation . He may be indicating it was "downloaded" into him by Christ on the cross so that he could later compose it - a traditional energy transmission of a teaching from teacher to pupil: He writes when Jesus speaks to him from cross of 'Jesus mother and her sister Mary' as a way of pointing to this "gift." John in other cases introduces similar paradoxical statements when he want to say something but not openly. It would be clear to some but not to others, according to their level of understanding . John's Gospel is a masterful work. I think of "Thomas Gospel" as probably a version (or copy) of supplementary teachings that may have circulated among different communities

Would just like to add a few things here without getting into too much detail:

1) The Official chruch didnt really as much to do with the scriptures, at least not to the extent as is most commonly perceived by large numbers. The roman chruch was established rather late(later centuries) way after the scriptures were already written. Even the council of Nicea had nothing to do with establishing biblical records i believe but in fact had to do with other matters which included discussing & reevaluating the divine status of christ.

2) It i public knowledge that gnostic gospels/writings and esoteric works did begin to exist in subsequent centuries. Like clarke has rightly pointed out, thomas wasnt the only gnostic gospel that hasnt made into the scriptures. I believe theres philip,mary, judas & a couple of others as well. Among other jewish mystic writings of this later period, we may also find the talmud. These are also popular amongst kaballist.

3) In acknowledging the fact that other gospels have not made it into the bible, one should also consider certain things about the 4 that have actually been included. Unlike others the 4 gospels are 1st century accounts and of the four, 2 were personal witnesses(apostles i believe). Mark & Luke are characters who themselves may have not been close to christ but the time frame within the which these were written & the content of these have lead many scholars to believe that these were close associates of peter(mark) & paul(luke) and were given to understand their accounts of gospel events.

3) It is not as though gnostic have been ignored, its justthat these have been treated with skeptcism. The gap between gospel events having occured & the time these were documented by second century(+) writings can be compared with the documentation of documenting ww1 something like 20 years from now. The point is given an earlier source of historic events one must question which would be favoured or which would be thought to be more credible.

Dar, the article was primarily about Paul who was not involved with Christ during the time period covered by the four Gospels. We do not know the full extent of the suppression of the writings and teachings of Thomas, although we do know that among the Catholic monastic orders there was a considerable difference of opinion on doctrine -- there is a relatively interesting account of this battle in a recent book regarding the Irish. It has also been recently argued that there was a specific intent to reduce or eliminate the influence of Thomas -- not just the Gospel of Thomas -- but Thomas himself, and consequently raise the influence of Paul. Neither Thomas or Paul were alive at the time this was all going on -- so it would be unfair to attribute such activities to either of them. To my way of thinking, some of the doctrine attributed to Thomas seems much more truly aligned with Mormon doctrine than some of the comments of Paul to the extent you can wade through Paul's unnecessarily verbose convoluted writing to discern a specific meaning (something that several denominations have attempted to do and apparently failed at miserably.)

George, I have no issues with one questioning the writings of paul, particularly in light of the fact that he was not a first hand witness of Jesus' life. I was merely adding some perspective in regards to "higher criticism" in relation to gospel writings.

I would however like to add something here as well, particularly in regards to paul this time. It is important to set paul's writings apart from Thomas in regards to certain aspects of his life & his writings that are more certain (known) than is with the case of Thomas (Judas Thomas). Despite the possibility that one may have certain problems with the writings of paul, his non interaction with Christ during his earthly life (his only interaction supposedly being with the risen Christ), one must also consider that unlike other Gnostic writers/writings & later century writers, he did live during the time of Christ & did interact with his apostles and did have the opportunity to gather first hand accounts pretty much the way luke did.

In light of the fact of the timeframe of his existence, one must also consider that despite certain suggestions & perhaps even certain indications from his writings, there is no clear cut evidence that places pauls writings in line with that of later century Gnostic writers/writings. Paul stresses on salvation through Christ whereas Gnostic writers speak of souls (the true essence of every being) learning to free itself from the material world through esoteric (secret) knowledge & revelation. Moreover, mention of Sophia (wisdom) & others etc are typical of second century (+)/Gnostic writers and such references have not been made paul. In light of this timeframe & the content of his writings, even though it may perhaps be a possibility, the suggestion that the early fathers may have heavily edited his writing to remove all such Gnostic references continues to remain speculation. There is no conclusive evidence that suggests this has been the case. I wouldn't make any attempts in suggesting that pauls writings(the content matter itself) are free from criticism though, nevertheless in comparison to Thomas (the Thomas gospel) his works are substantially far more sound in terms of "higher criticism" and therefore the authorship of his writings are far less disputable than other later Gnostic writings.

Concerning the Gospel of Thomas itself, some suggest the following possible reasons for it not being included in the New Testament:

1) It was deemed heretical.
2) It was deemed inauthentic.
3) It was unknown to certain early orthodox Christians.
4) It was thought to be superseded by the narrative gospels.
5) It belonged to a branch of Christianity outside the circle of Athanasius of Alexandria.

Without discussing all of these and focusing on only two of the above (namely the second & fourth) we may briefly gain a little understanding of authority of this gospel. With respect to the fourth note above, aside from manuscripts & textual evidence, we may refer to the works of second century Christian leaders such as Papias & Irenaeus. It was known that by this time, the 4 gospels were already traditionally accepted by then or that at the very least that they were already written. This at a time when later century gospels were still being/were not yet written. In Thomas's case, we observe that the gospel begins with:

"These are the secret sayings that the living Jesus spoke and Didymos Judas Thomas recorded."

Despite the writings being attributed to him, there is no substantiating evidence that suggests this is the case or that these can be traced back into the first century & therefore can not conclusively/reliably be acknowledged as early writings. What is known is known for certain about this gospel for certain is that:
1) The different versions of these manuscripts themselves are dated late 2nd century & mid 4th century respectively.
2) Redactions by Mathew & Luke of their original source, perhaps mark; sometimes appear in Thomas, suggesting that these may have been written after those two.
3) The writings are consistent with late 2 century (+) Gnostic writings in both content & style (not like the narrative forms of the 4 known gospels).
4) The gospel was found in a library among other, more apparent gnostic texts.
5) There is no known mention (at least not to me) of the Thomas gospel by 2nd century Christian leaders (like is the case with the gospel of judas, which helps trace that to mid/late 2nd century) which helps narrow down the period within which it can be placed.

About the suggestion that Thomas's relation to Mormon doctrine; I can not be too certain about this, but its something that doesn't surprise me all that much. Firstly there is a great deal of overlapping in Gnostic/Kabalistic/Mystic beliefs. Of course mystic beliefs, for instance practiced by the kabala, have earlier Persian/Babylonian origins, so in other words these go back a long way. In any case such mystic beliefs have by no means died out. A large part of this contributes to Masonic (freemasonry) practices, beliefs & in particular rituals & symbolism. Also a few years ago there was this documentary concerning the Mormon beliefs & rituals and about how these were created by & influenced by freemasons. Now I wouldn't want to be too suggestive here, but perhaps this explains some of it.

I would not consider Mormonism to necessarily be considered mystic. While there have been accusations in the past, primarily by the RLDS Church (now Community of Christ) which was formed by dissenters about 20 years after the assasination of Joseph Smith, Jr., the connection between Free Masonry and the Church is overdone. The simplest explanation is that Mormonism tends to believe in what the Masons call Speculative Masonry. If one accepts Speculative Masonry to actually be founded in truth, then it wouls make sense that various forms of religious rituals would be found in many different religious traditions which is in fact the case.

Dating via higher criticism has its own problems, not the least of which was the dating of Isaiah which was attributed to several authors of much later date than was indicated. This was exploded by the Dead Sea Scrolls which disclosed Isaiah to be intact as one document at a much earlier date than had been set by higher criticism. Also, I don't think we should be hanging all the teachings of Thomas and the subsequent Thomasists on the Gospel of Thomas.

"This was exploded by the Dead Sea Scrolls which disclosed Isaiah to be intact as one document at a much earlier date...."

The point still remains that we can only safely go as far as the documentation take us without resorting to speculation. If the thomas gospel copies & the content within them do not allow us to cconclusively/reasonable date these as first century writings, it is advisable that we do not forcefully place them within that period unless there is reasonable evidence to the contrary.

" Also, I don't think we should be hanging all the teachings of Thomas and the subsequent Thomasists on the Gospel of Thomas. "

Absolutely correct, however the same standards must be used in regards to these as well.


The mormon- freemason influence issue; I know theres quite a bit more i'd come across earlier that i'm missing here . However i have all that information saved elsewhere right now & i dont remember too much at the moment, so i'd rather not comment.

Much of what is in the Gospel of Thomas can be found in 200 BC and earlier texts. It was revised to express Jesus' mission.

That would perhaps not be too surprising. The talmud for instace which was significantly popular around after 200 AD was deeply rooted in its persian and babylonian sources & were significantly influenced by practes of those times. Other 2nd centruy popular writings also appear to have earlier influences.

"It was revised to express Jesus' mission."
A similar situation may be observed with Mithraism. In todays times we tend to generalise the use of this word when in fact Mithraic beliefs varied over time. Those that were practiced by the persians evolved to something a bit different as practiced by later 2nd, 3rd and 4th century roman periods. In some of these later periods there seems to be some similarities between christian practices & some mithraic ones. Earlier, there a larger number that suggested that such similarities were an indication that christianity was influenced by Mithraism, later (or more recent) studies seem to suggest just the opposite. For one it has been observed that these similarities much spoken about are observed in later centuries and secondly these elements of Mithraic beliefs appear do not appear to resemble its earlier pre christian/persian forms.

It is certain that Jesus as a historic character had a significant impact on documented history that followed him. The Synoptic Gospels viewed him one way, later gnostic writings another, the talmud yet again differently (I think jesus is a bastard child according to the talmud).

Of course in the end what to choose and what not to is each ones decision, but we must be careful with the soundness of historic records that we choose to place our trust in. On many occasions i've observed people quick to point a finger at early christian leaders accusing them of coverup & distortion and yet it often appears that the demand for evidence of such and certain explanations/statements by those earlry leaders get ignored.

I remember a while ago there was a program on the Gospel of Judas on national geographic. I thought it would be pretty interesting considering that they had found another gnostic gospel. Turns out the program was less than impressive or objective for that matter. The channel appeared to use it more as a marketing tool for the amounts they had invested in acquiring the manuscript. Then came the past where they mantioned Irenaeus & stated that Synoptic Gospels were well accepted & established during his time but that he had a stupid reason for acknowledging only the 4 litigimate Synoptic Gospels. They did briefly comment that he rejected the gospel (of judas) but to my surprise they did not provide a quote where he says this & also provides certain objections against prevailing writing of those times. Here is what he said:

"Others again declare that Cain derived his being from the Power above, and acknowledge that Esau, Korah, the Sodomites, and all such persons, are related to themselves. On this account, they add, they have been assailed by the Creator, yet no one of them has suffered injury. For Sophia was in the habit of carrying off that which belonged to her from them to herself. They declare that Judas the traitor was thoroughly acquainted with these things, and that he alone, knowing the truth as no others did, accomplished the mystery of the betrayal; by him all things, both earthly and heavenly, were thus thrown into confusion. They produce a fictitious history of this kind, which they style the Gospel of Judas." (1.31.1)

But then if they didnt intend to put it in there why at all should National geographic mention Irenaeus's reference to his rejection of Judas(the gospel). Well it soon became apparent that since the manuscript itself was much later Irenaeus's mention of the gospel safely placed it as a prevailing text duing his time. Of course thats all fine, but then providing half the information can be as good as lying sometimes.

Dar R.,

The academics and theologians don't understand how to distinguish between Gnosis and gnosticism. The transmission of one knowledge has always been expressed in different forms in different cultures, globally, through scripture, art ,ritual and so on.
This is not to deny the specific role of a Jesus or a Buddha or the Mayan, Egyptian ete teachings. Knowledge has always been transmitted through schools of initiation. Texts only partially represent any teaching: the "keys" to learn what they mean have to learned from those who know and teach the practices and disciplines needed.

I am not really interested in the speculation as to where certain ideas came from, it has been my experience that such tends to be just speculation combined with the assumption that if you can find some other group which was well known at the time and had similar beliefs or rituals that the belief or originals came from that other group. It is simply a manner of trying to cast doubt on the belief or ritual. To me it makes more sense to believe that certain beliefs and rituals are so connected to the truth that you find them in diverse places at diverse times and that is because of their truthfulness not because they were incorporated wholesale into a religion -- I think the higher criticism, which normally amounts to merely academic skepticism of anything actually being true or genuine is the worst form of speculation since it does not promote belief in anything, but doubt as to everything. Its quite possible that a certain belief and ritual was known to ancient Hebrews as part of their inherited beliefs and that the same belief and ritual was known to other cultures -- instead of using one to discredit the other, I believe the more positive approach is to use the existence of the belief and ritual in more than one religious culture as evidence of the likelihood of either or both being correct or true. If in fact a belief or ritual was given of God, one would expect to find traces of it all over the place. For example, we find some evidence of what appear to be Masonic Blue Lodge artifacts in various pre-Colombian Native American cultures. Do we then assume that the Masons were influenced by the Native Americans? No, I don't think so.

Any scripture or revelation (and their are many revelations which are channeled from psychic levels not from higher consciousness which can be called "spiritual") only represents one aspect of the teachings from higher intelligence. The "how to" is transmitted directly through practical disciplines. Humanity has descended into materiality, by stages, and become blind to spiritual perception. "The way up is the way down." The task for humanity is to consciously regain faculties that were gradually removed. For individuals conscious evolution is possible. Higher intelligence supports this "rapid way"

I think the emphasis in determining influence should be more on that of philosophies & other ritualistic practices in light of these.

The thing with gnosticism, mystic and mystery religions is that these predate christ, existed during his time & even after him. Yet these experienced an evolution overtime. Sometimes somethings changed but others remained the same. The Goddess Venus/Libertas (liberty) was known by different names overtime but her role & character do not change all that much. Her earlier names/equivalents include aphrodite, Ashter, Isis, Isthar and semiramis.Over a period of time cultures borrowed from each other, but that is not to say that all things remained the same.

What is certain is the existence of such elements before, during & after christ. Do connections between these amount to speculation? Perhaps, perhaps not, we may never know. The scriptures themselves though suggest that the Hebrews, Israelites and later Jews & Christians were no strangers to other cultures. On several occasions they appeared to engage in other beliefs & rituals and the worship of other deities most commonly known outside the bible. Such instances include (Moses') people in the desert, Solomon marrying many outside the Hebrews and eventually building shrines to worship Chemosh god of Moab, and Molech and many of his people worshiping them too, somewhat the same sort of situation during Jeremiah's time as well and the encountering and influence of other beliefs during the period in exile.

In regards to Gnostic writings and 2nd century mystic writings, what is known is known for certain is that the themes concerning christ's life or christianity in gereral appear as rather late writings & these together in themselves appear to be different from other mystical writings that that appear in earlier centuries in that, parts of it are common with other well known Christian writings & others appear to be common with earlier pre christian mystical works.

On the other hand it would be important to note however, that if there were to be found other gnostic or mystic writings/gospels that predate existing Gnostic writings and fall within a timeframe that rivals those of the synoptic gospels, this would present a good case for the existence of alternative Christian teachings and an alternative story to the historical christ as well. That has not been the case with existing documents so far. The limitation here is that elevating the status of later century works beyond what they present themselves to be itself amounts to speculation.

I would not suggest that the validity of historic documents (history) should be dismissed without lower & higher criticism and there are limitations to these to the extent documentation isn't available, but these are significantly useful when there plenty of documentation to work with. The thing is one can not dismiss or for that matter trust everything that is written without closely examining who has written it, the circumstances within which they were written and the integrity of such information in light of other documented information(history).

In the case of higher criticism, it is not as though all synoptic gospels are free from it. It has been suggested that John's authorship is in dispute in regards to his gospel. Among the few issues that have been raised, John's gospel appears to drift away from a style pattern followed by the earlier 3 and his doctrine differs at times (but does not necessarily oppose them) , his authorship has been questioned by modern scholars and there appear to be what some suggest are elements similar to(but not clearly identifiable as) Gnostic material. The are however reasons why john continues to be accepted as an acknowledged gospel:

1) Manuscripts do indicate that these can be placed within the timeframe commonly accepted
2) Johns gospel differs but does not largely oppose the other 3 gospels
3) References from johns text appear in other 2nd century texts/writings, indicating the existence of an earlier date for the gospel.
4) Despite spotting what appears to be material similar to writings, the gospel itself differs largely from those types. They also include a whole lot of material disclosed in the other 3 gospel and are written in a narrative form just like the other 3.
5) Early church leaders acknowledge that an established acceptance of the 4 gospels by that time despite the emergence of new writings (such as Gnostic ones), indicating that it was part of the four.
6) Early church leaders such as Irenaeus also attest john as the writer (the question is which john) and later Eusebius insists that polycarp, the teacher of Irenaeus, was a disciple of the Apostle john.

I believe higher & lower criticism are useful tools used in conjunction with other information. If the above mention points (and some others I've not mentioned) were not existent, I would be disappointed if the authority given to this gospel was as is acknowledged today, this in light of other documented information available concerning the other 3 gospels.

Dar R.,
Have you read Rudolf Steiner's several lecture series on the different Gospels?

No I believe, i havent. May have come across the name in passing. Think he was one of those philosopher/writers if im not mistaken

Dar R.,
The lectures on the Gospels by Steiner started about 1908. Most probably are on the Web.He included teachings that were not known to scholars until Nag Hammadi and Qumran discoveries.

Will check it out sometime, ah but now I think remember where I may have come across the name. Rudolf Steiner was known for his interest in esotericism and was associated with the Masonic order.

Of course some of the other prominent names associated with both esotericism and masonry include:

a) Alice bailey, whose husband foster bailey was a freemason and with whose help she founded Lucifer Trust(The named later being changed to lucis trust as it stands today)
b) Aleister Crowley (aka "The Beast") (Wikipedia has been pretty generous by not including some other really gruesome details about the guy)
c) Albert Pike (Prominent name within higher levels of masonry and The author of morals & dogma).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Steiner#Spiritual_research

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Bailey
http://www.lucistrust.org/en/publications_store/other_authors
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucis_Trust

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleister_Crowley

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Pike
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morals_and_dogma

The following is a pretty well written article titled "gnosticism and the gnostic jesus"

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_gnostic_gospels.html

There is a lot of disinformation, much of it old stuff now put on the Web regarding a number of the names you list. Steiner is one of them. He had many enemies during his lifetime , from Hitler to the Roman Catholic Church, who both tried to kill him. The Church banned his books . Now Catholic universities teach him, especially his methods of educating the young (Waldorf Education.)

Re the article on gnosticism, while I agree with much of what the author says regarding Pagels' bias in interpretation, I think his own conclusions are based on narrow minded academic research and thought. He too has an agenda.

Yes clarke im aware that like a lot of stuff i write about, there is a whole lot of diinformation & inaccurate information regarding these, but i try to the story as straight as possible and i try to be careful with the links i use.

In any case if there apprears to be something incorrect about what i've said about the earlier mentioned names in my last comment please do mention it and i can always double check.

In addition, to the earlier mentioned material i seem to have also found the following:

http://themasonictrowel.com/Articles/General/about_individual_files/theodor_reuss.htm
(reference 36)

"This charter made Steiner the leader of the Memphis-Misraim rite in Germany. Steiner used his authority within the M.M.rite to establish his own "Esoteric School" which consisted of three departments, one being the "Misraim-Dienst".

http://www.gnostique.net/ecclesia/EG.htm
http://members.aol.com/dilloo/doc.htm

Yes hitler may have something against him, quite ironically hitler did have a thing against freemasons too.

He is also the author of the book, "The portal of initiation"

http://cgi.ebay.com/The-PORTAL-of-INITIATION-ROSICRUCIAN-MYSTERY-OCCULT_W0QQitemZ280149073200QQcmdZViewItem

I have also suggested that gnostic elements/mystic elements have always been around before & after the gnostc gospels were written & also before some of were rediscovered. Besides the Gospel of Mary was discovered somewhere around the 19th century. Also we already had some idea of gnostic beliefs from early church leaders such as ireaneus and others. Furthermore, outside of these, there have been others who have contributed to such philosophies around about & before this period(the steiner era).

The documention in the following website in appears to be more a better representation of the original than the link following that one.
http://user.cyberlink.ch/~koenig/rsdoc.htm

Previosly mentioned link concerning the same, use the above instead
http://members.aol.com/dilloo/doc.htm

Dar R.,
As I was commenting early on to George, the sources for Jews and Jesus, as all the world religions, were schools that go back many thousands of years. The Tibetans understand this very well because they have preserved so much of their teachings without distortion. Most of the academic research on gnosticism has been by scholars an theologians who haven't practical understanding of the time. They work with texts and other historical materials according to accepted standards , but , as every generation of scholars has, they differ in interpretation and then a new generation replaces them with another set of views to differ on. The monks at Mt Athos, the compilers of the Philokalia and others who understand or understood the practices and teachings could discriminate among teachings were often only somewhat idyosyncratic writings about by some group or another. In sum, much of the interpretation of the varied gospels and so-called gnostic texts often has been a source of confusion or debate.
I mentioned Rudolf Steiner's lectures on the gospels because it is interesting he explained many of the teachings, as that of the Essenes , that later were found in texts discovered many years after his death. His life and movement is another subject. The same could be said of Alice Bailey's books. They can be read for what they contain,
without concern for who she was or wasn't. Gurdjieff is another teacher whose teaching can be studied for what it teaches. There is so much stuff written about all these people that is partial or distorted.

Actually I've most often heard of the Essenes in regards to the dead sea scrolls. But to my knowledge, the term primarily owes its existence to studies of historic documents (of a prominent 1st century Jewish historian, Josephus) beginning in 19th century. I believe there are one or two more early historic references to their existence (pliny &philo perhaps). (Actually Josephus is one of the reasons why the historic details in the 4 gospels can not be taken lightly. His work also includes what is called "Testimonium Flavianum" which even though disputed by some, nevertheless does exist in documented text.)

The group has most often been accredited for much of what has been found among the dead sea scrolls but there is no direct evidence for this since there is no reference in their works that suggests who they are by name, but some may speculate identifying them as such due to the location of the existence of the scrolls & the region associated with earlier references of the Essenes.

What happened of the Essenes is not known; did they fade away like the Pharisees and Sadducees and perhaps together with them merge into one jewish community? Did they break away into early christian communities or Jewish kabalistic ones? No one knows for sure, there are a lot of theories that try to connect the dots. I don't there's any direct link between these and gnostic elements that appeared a century later as documented in 2nd century(+) texts such as the Thomas gospel..
I wasn't aware of Rudolf Steiner's lectures on the Essenes but I'm pretty sure that apart from his contributions here, other scholarship on this group did actually begin somewhere around about in the 19th century.

"There is so much stuff written about all these people that is partial or distorted."
Your absolutely correct, but i try my bet to present the truth/facts about such people as best as i can. Sometimes the links between esotericism, occultism, new age and a new world order appear to get a bit too pronounced. Sometimes they even literally pronounce/announce it. When that's that begins to be the case im not all too shy to document such things. I do not believe too much in political correctness or lies, I just say it the way it is.

"Provided they can overcome inertia they are in a key position, requiring only courage to express goodwill and to initiate action to prepare for the new world order."

"This is a time of preparation not only for a new civilisation and culture in a new world order, but also for the coming of a new spiritual dispensation.....
.....The coming world Teacher will be mainly concerned, not with the result of past error and inadequacy, but with the requirements of a new world order and with the reorganisation of the social structure."

http://www1.lucistrust.org/goodwill/#willto
http://www1.lucistrust.org/goodwill/#prep
I don't mean to dismiss mysticism, esotericism & the occult the way I appear to do. But I've stuck around long enough and watched far too many times the beginning & end results of many such cases and many a times they either tend to lead in the same direction or something not so good comes out of such esoteric practices. I don't think I'm going to elaborate on that.

Dar R.,
To evaluate "esoteric" teachings one has to have the necessary preparation, discipline and experience, which is usually transmitted from those who know. It can't be acquired from "books." The New Age stuff is similar to the popular interest in the 19th century. This popular interest has appeared many times. Most don't know the real thing, although there may be some value in the information. There is a lot written about quantum physics that is based on little sound knowledge in order to correlate it with New Age notions, for example. That doesn't meant there are not correlations between traditional teachings and modern science. But if those who have a partial understanding of one or both write about them, channel or whatever then there is not much value in what the do.

Academics have their own protocols and methods. Few have the practical knowledge and experience of the kind necessary to understand esoteric or even mystic texts. Like the surgeons who know how to treat a condition by surgery, they don't see the condition as treatable in any other way. How many scholars agree on the historical texts of Josephus? Their interpretations may in many cases contribute something useful. For someone who has the clairvoyant faculty to see what the situation was at that time , it is a different matter.

My experience with mystic teachings in different teachings of different times & different eras (such as that pre christ, kabalistic, gnostic, masonic & new age ones) is that they all appear rather open ended with even variation amongst them (sometimes even conflicting).

Whatever the case, one needs to be a little grounded and relatively safe with doctrine. Consideration of what is found in historical text helps add some more perspective. Along with these come certain traditions may not be displayed in texts but these may have a few limitations to some extent.

I hear what you say about practical esoteric know how as opposed to practical knowledge. I also understand what you say the New Age & popular interest which is why i mentioned pioneers of such esoteric knowledge in modern history. There have been many in recent times, but the names i mentioned earlier happen to be amongst the most influential in esoteric teachings in modern history (aside from the facts concerning their masonic associations or their thought regarding a new world order.)

When it comes practical knowledge you speak of, i agree to quite a degree with you here. But there would also need to be verification of consistency & accuracy concerning the claims made by those who say they possess esoteric/occult knowledge. Anyone can say anything, how is one to assess the integrity of any such claim/statement/teaching?

Documentation helps us compare & assess such integrity & consistency and even helps place certain ideas/philosophies in perspective in regards to time/periods eras. Now i know you were not disputing the importance to documentation but speaking of its limitations and i agree here. After all not everything is documented & even when documented certain things may perhaps be open to different interpretations and then the full extent of certain knowledge can not be expressed in documentation. Absolutely...

"Academics have their own protocols and methods. Few have the practical knowledge and experience of the kind necessary to understand esoteric or even mystic texts."
Yes, but i never meant to say academics could understand of any such knowledge or even account for all of it. What i have suggested is that academics can assess to a reasonable degree, the integrity of such knowledge & place its origins to certain specific periods in time with respect to available documentation. Beyond that we can not assume/speculate (for instance in regards to the origins of certain teaching/philosophies) unless there is evidence to the contrary.

Again, does the lack of documentation, nullify the integrity of any accepted history. No not necessarily? It just suggests that we can not prove or disprove anything; it by no means suggests that something is not true. Take for instance belief by catholics that mary stayed a virgin all her life (a question of interpretation and partial silence on the part of the scriptures) or that she ascended into heaven body & soul like jesus(not documented either)

So does it mean that the above claims/beliefs are untrue/false and that there is a pre existing requirement that demands the need for documentation (note that the above, particularly the latter one, are stand alone claims & do not appear in light of existing opposing claims) at the time when such claims are being made? No, but there are situations that documentation & academics are not only essential but should be considered a must. When deciding whether a particular claim/teaching/doctrine requires academic study, i believe we need to consider the following:

1) Is the particular claim/teaching being initiated documented?
2) Is there any other documentation available that supports or contradicts such a claim?
3) How does this latter mentioned documentation (i.e. 2) stand in comparison to the other responsible for the initiation of particular claim (i.e. 1)?
4) What impact does it have on an accepted exiting doctrine/teaching (in its entirety) and are the accepted teachings/doctrine itself reasonably well documented or sound?

In light of the above, when studying the gnostic gospels or later century writings, it is important to understand that academics do not dismiss mystical elements that are presented out there nor is it right to claim that they fully understand them. What they do manage to do at the very least is to present information from perspective that represents both historical accuracy and prevailing cultural & traditional mindsets. Take for instance the gnostic gospels; do they present an understanding of esoteric. mystical philosophies that existed around about that time? Yes. Do they give us a reasonable representation of the historical Jesus or his teachings for that matter? No, the evidence is weak in that regard.

When teaching about a historical christ it is not necessary that the many existing accounts concerning his life should be ignored. They may well be considered & studied, but it is imperative that story of a historical christ and his teachings should ultimately be represented by a historical account of his life. To attribute any other account (which often appears conflicting with views represented by earliest historical accounts) to such a historical figure without any compelling evidence would not only amount to speculation but perhaps deceit as well.

"How many scholars agree on the historical texts of Josephus?"

Josephus' account of history are well respect amongst scholars. He gives an account of first century events from a stand point of a post temple destruction era. His work adds persective & corroborates much that is found in the dead sea scrolls & the new testament scriptures(particularly the gospels). It is his account of jesus in particular that is in dispute. Scholars have not suggested that the discussion on that is a settled one or that a dispute on this matter has in any way comprimised the the rest of his documented work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus

Dar R.,
A basic misunderstanding is because people seek to "verify" how one world works in terms of another. Each world has its own space, time and "physicality." Relations between them exist but unless there is a clear discrimination between the two worlds these cannot be understood and someone can't work with both in a practical way. All the world teachings contain alchemical teachings but they don't "work" and aren't understood until people learn to discriminate between two levels or worlds.Texts may describe a "map" and methods, but it is only through individual effort, discipline and training that practical ability can be acquired. It is similar to developing a new organ or body,which is spoken of in all the teachings. "Ye must be born again." in the NT refers to this. Scientists can investigate telepathy, bilocality, healing at distance, "remote viewing," many "powers" that like the Tibetans learn from childhood. They can study what happens, measure brain waves, develop some techniques that produce certain results and experiences. Some can make money and even form cults because they know some techniques but they mislead people.

I see what you're getting at and I understand you are trying to distinguish living through a system (practical) as opposed to acquiring knowledge about it & perhaps even practicing it (say by reading about it). What I'm getting at is a different point though and concerns say for instance the authority of a given set of documented texts & the limitations, if any, in getting it to represent an alternative view (or for that matter even one that stands by itself enduring scrutiny without comparison) of an historic figure or of history in general.

There really isn't a shortage of esoteric/occult and mystical references, teachings, or practices through out history. Whether it's the Gnostics we've spoken much about who spoke about freeing their true inner selves from their material/physical bodies or 16th century alchemist such as John Dee & Kelley who with the help of financier Rudolf, in an attempt to do what Flamel tried a few centuries earlier, i.e. search for the philosopher's stone, summoned spirits who amongst suggestions stated that they share everything including wives and were unfortunately let down by these unearthly visitors in their search despite their compliance; mystical practices can be found practically through out history.

The Gnostic gospels provide us with a lot of such mystical information but contribute very little towards telling us anything about historic Christ or his teachings. I believe if I were to discriminate here, here's how I would do it. Esotericism appears almost negligible in the synoptic 1st century gospels. There is little to understand about such a mystical culture or of such practices in these texts. These are however visible in Gnostic & later texts and as such these add significant value to the study of such information.

On the other hand texts that concern the story or are biographies of a particular historical figure are of greatest value if written as early as possible (say within 30 yrs – 40 yrs of the concerned person's death) as opposed to stories that are written 100 yrs after and well over. As to which would be preferred & why isn't just a question of academics but an application of good logic as well. Furthermore anyone having played Chinese whispers before would know how legends & myths develop over time if knowledge isn't documented or is passed on verbally without controls placed over them. It isn't just that these texts are relative to each other but also that these are relative to time period these were written during & within.

Dar R.,
I've certainly benefited in my research and field work in the East from various disciplines in the sciences and humanities. While there have been many revisions in the understanding of history since I was a graduate student and later professor in the 60's, the interpretation of art, texts, inscriptions and so on has always varied in depth according to the intelligence and experience of individuals.

There is a need for all the tools available to gain factual material, for there are vast gaps in our understanding of all periods history, including much of the East. The medieval time has many balnks as well as the ancient.

An ancient text may appear that revises our perspective on the origins of a large culture and the movements of peoples. Since the dispersal of groups over vast areas was not unusual, many ancient records and texts and ancient languages themselves sometimes survived in far-flung places long after those languages and cultures had undergone many changes in other regions.