Political Crossfire Forums

Random Evil Guy · Joined: 20 Dec 2005 Posts: 1774

The Comrade wrote: toddytodd wrote: The Comrade wrote: Quote: God told man not to eat from a certain tree. Why was that?

god did not want adam and eve to know the other half of existence as it wouldn't make them perfect.

Quote: Was he afraid or concerned that we would learn something that he didn't want us to know?

he didn't want the knowlege of evil to taint his most perfect creation.

Quote: Was it for our own good, or not?

do you like evil?

of course not. thus, it was meant for our own good.
Surely he must have known what was going to happen to them because of the tree, being it was part of his plan and such. One would think there was another, better way around it then.

did you forget about the serpent of temptation?

the one thing god doesn't have control over is the devil.

god isn't omnipotent?

The Comrade · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 12039 Location: Zagreb

Roman wrote:
wasn't a personal attack, I've always wondered why it was interpreted that way becuz the way you say it was the way I was taught as a child. where is the devil, satan, and lucifer correlated in the Bible? If there is a transition of this diety where does it take place? It is vaguely mention from what I've read but not exactly sure thats why i ask.

i haven't read much of the bible but the parts i have read have always used a different name for the devil.

the tempter just happens to be the one related to adam and eve.
(also for the story of jesus in the desert).

The Comrade · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 12039 Location: Zagreb

Random Evil Guy wrote: The Comrade wrote: toddytodd wrote: The Comrade wrote: Quote: God told man not to eat from a certain tree. Why was that?

god did not want adam and eve to know the other half of existence as it wouldn't make them perfect.

Quote: Was he afraid or concerned that we would learn something that he didn't want us to know?

he didn't want the knowlege of evil to taint his most perfect creation.

Quote: Was it for our own good, or not?

do you like evil?

of course not. thus, it was meant for our own good.
Surely he must have known what was going to happen to them because of the tree, being it was part of his plan and such. One would think there was another, better way around it then.

did you forget about the serpent of temptation?

the one thing god doesn't have control over is the devil.

god isn't omnipotent?

not when it comes to lucifer.

do you think god wanted evil?

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

Roman wrote: toddytodd wrote: The Comrade wrote: toddytodd wrote: The Comrade wrote: Quote: God told man not to eat from a certain tree. Why was that?

god did not want adam and eve to know the other half of existence as it wouldn't make them perfect.

Quote: Was he afraid or concerned that we would learn something that he didn't want us to know?

he didn't want the knowlege of evil to taint his most perfect creation.

Quote: Was it for our own good, or not?

do you like evil?

of course not. thus, it was meant for our own good.
Surely he must have known what was going to happen to them because of the tree, being it was part of his plan and such. One would think there was another, better way around it then.

did you forget about the serpent of temptation?

the one thing god doesn't have control over is the devil.
Fundamental breaking point there - I was taught God has control over everything that was, is and will come. The devil can only act within the boundaries that God allows him to act in.
But forget that - are you saying that the devil/serpent was not part of the plan?

Todd,

The Gnostics may have been right. They beleive we created by an imperfect God which may fill int he blanks for the god of the OT. They also beleive that a perfect God exists, the true God, a God of transidentalism which may be related to the merciful god of the NT. I'm starting to believe this in my own faith, it seems to fill in some of the blanks.
I would agree. Originally, the church's out right angry dismissal of the Gnostic Gospels may have back-fired. The thinking "If the church is so sure of their faith, knowing the church's track record throughout history, as well as history itself and they are so angrily discounting the Gnostics, perhaps there is something there worth looking into...?" entered my mind.

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

The Comrade wrote: Random Evil Guy wrote: The Comrade wrote: toddytodd wrote: The Comrade wrote: Quote: God told man not to eat from a certain tree. Why was that?

god did not want adam and eve to know the other half of existence as it wouldn't make them perfect.

Quote: Was he afraid or concerned that we would learn something that he didn't want us to know?

he didn't want the knowlege of evil to taint his most perfect creation.

Quote: Was it for our own good, or not?

do you like evil?

of course not. thus, it was meant for our own good.
Surely he must have known what was going to happen to them because of the tree, being it was part of his plan and such. One would think there was another, better way around it then.

did you forget about the serpent of temptation?

the one thing god doesn't have control over is the devil.

god isn't omnipotent?

not when it comes to lucifer.

do you think god wanted evil?
Who knows what he wants or thinks. But one thing is for sure: he allowed it

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

Random Evil Guy wrote: The Comrade wrote: toddytodd wrote: The Comrade wrote: Quote: God told man not to eat from a certain tree. Why was that?

god did not want adam and eve to know the other half of existence as it wouldn't make them perfect.

Quote: Was he afraid or concerned that we would learn something that he didn't want us to know?

he didn't want the knowlege of evil to taint his most perfect creation.

Quote: Was it for our own good, or not?

do you like evil?

of course not. thus, it was meant for our own good.
Surely he must have known what was going to happen to them because of the tree, being it was part of his plan and such. One would think there was another, better way around it then.

did you forget about the serpent of temptation?

the one thing god doesn't have control over is the devil.

god isn't omnipotent?
My thought exactly.

The Comrade · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 12039 Location: Zagreb

toddytodd wrote: Who knows what he wants or thinks. But one thing is for sure: he allowed it

like i said, god does no control lucifer(the serpent, the tempter or what have you)like he controls mortals.

considering the harsh punishment god dished out to adam and eve i'm going to have to say those weren't his intentions.

but just to humor you, perhaps it was god himself who let it happen to test man. man's natural curiosity and and naivity led to their breakign the rules and their banishment from the garden

Roman · Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 180

The Comrade wrote: Roman wrote:
wasn't a personal attack, I've always wondered why it was interpreted that way becuz the way you say it was the way I was taught as a child. where is the devil, satan, and lucifer correlated in the Bible? If there is a transition of this diety where does it take place? It is vaguely mention from what I've read but not exactly sure thats why i ask.

i haven't read much of the bible but the parts i have read have always used a different name for the devil.

the tempter just happens to be the one related to adam and eve.
(also for the story of jesus in the desert).

what if the temptor is simply a personification of the individuals ego?

The Comrade · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 12039 Location: Zagreb

Roman wrote: The Comrade wrote: Roman wrote:
wasn't a personal attack, I've always wondered why it was interpreted that way becuz the way you say it was the way I was taught as a child. where is the devil, satan, and lucifer correlated in the Bible? If there is a transition of this diety where does it take place? It is vaguely mention from what I've read but not exactly sure thats why i ask.

i haven't read much of the bible but the parts i have read have always used a different name for the devil.

the tempter just happens to be the one related to adam and eve.
(also for the story of jesus in the desert).

what if the temptor is simply a personification of the individuals ego?

it all depends on how you interpret the bible.

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5147 Location: Boston, MA

toddytodd wrote: Roman wrote: toddytodd wrote: The Comrade wrote: toddytodd wrote: The Comrade wrote: Quote: God told man not to eat from a certain tree. Why was that?

god did not want adam and eve to know the other half of existence as it wouldn't make them perfect.

Quote: Was he afraid or concerned that we would learn something that he didn't want us to know?

he didn't want the knowlege of evil to taint his most perfect creation.

Quote: Was it for our own good, or not?

do you like evil?

of course not. thus, it was meant for our own good.
Surely he must have known what was going to happen to them because of the tree, being it was part of his plan and such. One would think there was another, better way around it then.

did you forget about the serpent of temptation?

the one thing god doesn't have control over is the devil.
Fundamental breaking point there - I was taught God has control over everything that was, is and will come. The devil can only act within the boundaries that God allows him to act in.
But forget that - are you saying that the devil/serpent was not part of the plan?

Todd,

The Gnostics may have been right. They beleive we created by an imperfect God which may fill int he blanks for the god of the OT. They also beleive that a perfect God exists, the true God, a God of transidentalism which may be related to the merciful god of the NT. I'm starting to believe this in my own faith, it seems to fill in some of the blanks.
I would agree. Originally, the church's out right angry dismissal of the Gnostic Gospels may have back-fired. The thinking "If the church is so sure of their faith, knowing the church's track record throughout history, as well as history itself and they are so angrily discounting the Gnostics, perhaps there is something there worth looking into...?" entered my mind.

There was no angry church that "excluded" the so called "gnostic" gospels.

Virtually all of the apocrapha were written well after the 4 primary Gospels (Euaggelion) which were all completed prior to end of the first century and in common use going into the second century.

Most of the apocropha were written by well intentioned Christians who wanted to "fill in the blanks" as they saw found them in the story of Christ. There were literally hundteds of such documents all over the place by 3rd century and all kinds of various spins on Christianity for all sorts of reasons.

This by the way includes the so called "gnostic gospels" which Elaine Pagels professor at Princeton (who coined the phrase "gnostic Gospels" in her book by the same name), changed her mind and says that the documents found in Egypt are NOT gnostic(Including and especially the Gospel of Thomas which she argues is Christian). She would also state inequivocally that these so called gnostic gospels should be considered heretical not only to Christianity but by Judaism as well.

The false repitition of the "Church" excluding these "gnostic" gospels due to the volitile message is simply a perfect example of modern people reinventing a history to match their politics or opinions.

In the first 3 centuries of Christianity there is nothing resembling the centralized hierarchical Catholic church which forms in the later centuries, there is no "conspiracy" to exclude what are wild opposing texts to Christianity, it is like saying there is a conspiracy to keep the New Testament out of the Torah or Qu'ran.

Excerpt from Elaine Pagels 2004 exchange with Ben Worthington

"In the first place, it seems clear to me that there was already a collection of Paul’s letters, as well as a codex collection of the four canonical Gospels, circulating in the early second century A.D. They were apostolic and sacred texts used for teaching and preaching in the church (see 2 Peter 3.15-16). One of the reasons none of the Gnostic documents were ever recognized as canonical or apostolic texts even in the second century (indeed, they were deemed heretical by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and various others) is precisely because they were so out of character with the profoundly Jewish nature and belief system found in the apostolic documents.

We really shouldn’t talk about the "exclusion" of Gnostic documents from the canon, because frankly, they were never seriously considered for inclusion (as Bruce Metzger taught me long ago when I took early church history from him at Princeton). Not a single early canon list, or council, or church Father--not even someone like Origen--lists any of these documents as possible sacred texts for early Christians. By their very non-Jewish and non-early Christian character, they excluded themselves. "

"So first let's talk about "Gnosticism"—and what I used to (but no longer) call "Gnostic Gospels." I have to take responsibility for part of the misunderstanding. Having been taught that these texts were "Gnostic," I just accepted it, and even coined the term "Gnostic gospels," which became the title of my book. I agree with you that we have no evidence for what we call "Gnosticism" from the first century, and have learned from our colleagues that what we thought about "Gnosticism" has virtually nothing to do with a text like the Gospel of Thomas—or, for that matter, with the New Testament Gospel of John which our teachers said also showed "Gnostic influences."

Random Evil Guy · Joined: 20 Dec 2005 Posts: 1774

The Comrade wrote: Random Evil Guy wrote: The Comrade wrote: toddytodd wrote: The Comrade wrote: Quote: God told man not to eat from a certain tree. Why was that?

god did not want adam and eve to know the other half of existence as it wouldn't make them perfect.

Quote: Was he afraid or concerned that we would learn something that he didn't want us to know?

he didn't want the knowlege of evil to taint his most perfect creation.

Quote: Was it for our own good, or not?

do you like evil?

of course not. thus, it was meant for our own good.
Surely he must have known what was going to happen to them because of the tree, being it was part of his plan and such. One would think there was another, better way around it then.

did you forget about the serpent of temptation?

the one thing god doesn't have control over is the devil.

god isn't omnipotent?

not when it comes to lucifer.

do you think god wanted evil?

i dont' know, you tell me.

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Random Evil Guy · Joined: 20 Dec 2005 Posts: 1774

The Comrade wrote:

but just to humor you, perhaps it was god himself who let it happen to test man. man's natural curiosity and and naivity led to their breakign the rules and their banishment from the garden

which would be kind of odd, seeing as god created the humans...

MJB · Joined: 14 Apr 2006 Posts: 594

toddytodd wrote: Opinions needed:
Why would God want to keep the secret of life from man after he was created?
God told man not to eat from a certain tree. Why was that?
Was he afraid or concerned that we would learn something that he didn't want us to know?
Was it for our own good, or not?
Or is there another reason why God didn't want man to eat from that specific tree?

Just curious - discuss?

Given the account we have in Genesis, what can we suppose would have happened if God had told Adam and Eve to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

The Comrade wrote: toddytodd wrote: Who knows what he wants or thinks. But one thing is for sure: he allowed it

like i said, god does no control lucifer(the serpent, the tempter or what have you)like he controls mortals.

considering the harsh punishment god dished out to adam and eve i'm going to have to say those weren't his intentions.

but just to humor you, perhaps it was god himself who let it happen to test man. man's natural curiosity and and naivity led to their breakign the rules and their banishment from the garden

If god has no control over the devil, then he is not all powerful, which is contrary to christian teaching. I do believe he controls mortals (as you put it).
God wouldn't need to test man - there is nothing that man could or couldn't prove to an all knowing being.
All utter rubbish

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote: Roman wrote: toddytodd wrote: The Comrade wrote: toddytodd wrote: The Comrade wrote: Quote: God told man not to eat from a certain tree. Why was that?

god did not want adam and eve to know the other half of existence as it wouldn't make them perfect.

Quote: Was he afraid or concerned that we would learn something that he didn't want us to know?

he didn't want the knowlege of evil to taint his most perfect creation.

Quote: Was it for our own good, or not?

do you like evil?

of course not. thus, it was meant for our own good.
Surely he must have known what was going to happen to them because of the tree, being it was part of his plan and such. One would think there was another, better way around it then.

did you forget about the serpent of temptation?

the one thing god doesn't have control over is the devil.
Fundamental breaking point there - I was taught God has control over everything that was, is and will come. The devil can only act within the boundaries that God allows him to act in.
But forget that - are you saying that the devil/serpent was not part of the plan?

Todd,

The Gnostics may have been right. They beleive we created by an imperfect God which may fill int he blanks for the god of the OT. They also beleive that a perfect God exists, the true God, a God of transidentalism which may be related to the merciful god of the NT. I'm starting to believe this in my own faith, it seems to fill in some of the blanks.
I would agree. Originally, the church's out right angry dismissal of the Gnostic Gospels may have back-fired. The thinking "If the church is so sure of their faith, knowing the church's track record throughout history, as well as history itself and they are so angrily discounting the Gnostics, perhaps there is something there worth looking into...?" entered my mind.

There was no angry church that "excluded" the so called "gnostic" gospels.

Virtually all of the apocrapha were written well after the 4 primary Gospels (Euaggelion) which were all completed prior to end of the first century and in common use going into the second century.

Most of the apocropha were written by well intentioned Christians who wanted to "fill in the blanks" as they saw found them in the story of Christ. There were literally hundteds of such documents all over the place by 3rd century and all kinds of various spins on Christianity for all sorts of reasons.

This by the way includes the so called "gnostic gospels" which Elaine Pagels professor at Princeton (who coined the phrase "gnostic Gospels" in her book by the same name), changed her mind and says that the documents found in Egypt are NOT gnostic(Including and especially the Gospel of Thomas which she argues is Christian). She would also state inequivocally that these so called gnostic gospels should be considered heretical not only to Christianity but by Judaism as well.

The false repitition of the "Church" excluding these "gnostic" gospels due to the volitile message is simply a perfect example of modern people reinventing a history to match their politics or opinions.

In the first 3 centuries of Christianity there is nothing resembling the centralized hierarchical Catholic church which forms in the later centuries, there is no "conspiracy" to exclude what are wild opposing texts to Christianity, it is like saying there is a conspiracy to keep the New Testament out of the Torah or Qu'ran.

Excerpt from Elaine Pagels 2004 exchange with Ben Worthington

"In the first place, it seems clear to me that there was already a collection of Paul’s letters, as well as a codex collection of the four canonical Gospels, circulating in the early second century A.D. They were apostolic and sacred texts used for teaching and preaching in the church (see 2 Peter 3.15-16). One of the reasons none of the Gnostic documents were ever recognized as canonical or apostolic texts even in the second century (indeed, they were deemed heretical by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and various others) is precisely because they were so out of character with the profoundly Jewish nature and belief system found in the apostolic documents.

We really shouldn’t talk about the "exclusion" of Gnostic documents from the canon, because frankly, they were never seriously considered for inclusion (as Bruce Metzger taught me long ago when I took early church history from him at Princeton). Not a single early canon list, or council, or church Father--not even someone like Origen--lists any of these documents as possible sacred texts for early Christians. By their very non-Jewish and non-early Christian character, they excluded themselves. "

"So first let's talk about "Gnosticism"—and what I used to (but no longer) call "Gnostic Gospels." I have to take responsibility for part of the misunderstanding. Having been taught that these texts were "Gnostic," I just accepted it, and even coined the term "Gnostic gospels," which became the title of my book. I agree with you that we have no evidence for what we call "Gnosticism" from the first century, and have learned from our colleagues that what we thought about "Gnosticism" has virtually nothing to do with a text like the Gospel of Thomas—or, for that matter, with the New Testament Gospel of John which our teachers said also showed "Gnostic influences."

Why were the Gnostic gospels not included in the bible?
Who made that decision not to include them?
What affiliation did these people have?

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

MJB wrote: toddytodd wrote: Opinions needed:
Why would God want to keep the secret of life from man after he was created?
God told man not to eat from a certain tree. Why was that?
Was he afraid or concerned that we would learn something that he didn't want us to know?
Was it for our own good, or not?
Or is there another reason why God didn't want man to eat from that specific tree?

Just curious - discuss?

Given the account we have in Genesis, what can we suppose would have happened if God had told Adam and Eve to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil?
I think things that god knows would have been known to them and god doesn't want that. Why? I have my ideas, but these ideas seem to contradict the New Testament God of popular christian belief.
Humans have a belief that good will always win and prevail in everything, eventually. What if that was all backwards? Would we even know?
I think it is a possibility and the only way to find out for sure is through research, soul searching and knowledge - which, coincidentally, is something God seemed to wanted to exclude us from.

The Comrade · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 12039 Location: Zagreb

toddytodd wrote: The Comrade wrote: toddytodd wrote: Who knows what he wants or thinks. But one thing is for sure: he allowed it

like i said, god does no control lucifer(the serpent, the tempter or what have you)like he controls mortals.

considering the harsh punishment god dished out to adam and eve i'm going to have to say those weren't his intentions.

but just to humor you, perhaps it was god himself who let it happen to test man. man's natural curiosity and and naivity led to their breakign the rules and their banishment from the garden

If god has no control over the devil, then he is not all powerful, which is contrary to christian teaching. I do believe he controls mortals (as you put it).
God wouldn't need to test man - there is nothing that man could or couldn't prove to an all knowing being.
All utter rubbish

it all depends on how you believe.

i think we're given our own lives to live. god doesn't know everything we're going to do(because if he did that would get rid of free will).

and there are many stories where god tests man. if god knew what they would do he would not have bothered testing them.

toddytodd · Joined: 20 May 2006 Posts: 2736

The Comrade wrote: toddytodd wrote: The Comrade wrote: toddytodd wrote: Who knows what he wants or thinks. But one thing is for sure: he allowed it

like i said, god does no control lucifer(the serpent, the tempter or what have you)like he controls mortals.

considering the harsh punishment god dished out to adam and eve i'm going to have to say those weren't his intentions.

but just to humor you, perhaps it was god himself who let it happen to test man. man's natural curiosity and and naivity led to their breakign the rules and their banishment from the garden

If god has no control over the devil, then he is not all powerful, which is contrary to christian teaching. I do believe he controls mortals (as you put it).
God wouldn't need to test man - there is nothing that man could or couldn't prove to an all knowing being.
All utter rubbish

it all depends on how you believe.

i think we're given our own lives to live. god doesn't know everything we're going to do(because if he did that would get rid of free will).

and there are many stories where god tests man. if god knew what they would do he would not have bothered testing them.
Quote: and there are many stories where god tests man. if god knew what they would do he would not have bothered testing them. Exactly.
Another biblical contradiction perhpas...:think:

The Comrade · Joined: 16 Jul 2006 Posts: 12039 Location: Zagreb

toddytodd wrote: The Comrade wrote: toddytodd wrote: The Comrade wrote: toddytodd wrote: Who knows what he wants or thinks. But one thing is for sure: he allowed it

like i said, god does no control lucifer(the serpent, the tempter or what have you)like he controls mortals.

considering the harsh punishment god dished out to adam and eve i'm going to have to say those weren't his intentions.

but just to humor you, perhaps it was god himself who let it happen to test man. man's natural curiosity and and naivity led to their breakign the rules and their banishment from the garden

If god has no control over the devil, then he is not all powerful, which is contrary to christian teaching. I do believe he controls mortals (as you put it).
God wouldn't need to test man - there is nothing that man could or couldn't prove to an all knowing being.
All utter rubbish

it all depends on how you believe.

i think we're given our own lives to live. god doesn't know everything we're going to do(because if he did that would get rid of free will).

and there are many stories where god tests man. if god knew what they would do he would not have bothered testing them.
Quote: and there are many stories where god tests man. if god knew what they would do he would not have bothered testing them. Exactly.
Another biblical contradiction perhpas...:think:

i will not deny the contradictions, but there are two explinations.

Fist one is that the bible was written by man, which leads to mistakes. also, it was written by more then one persons interpritation of various events.
secondly is the church itself. they've changed the bible quite a bit to suit their own needs. with that much editing it's only a matter of time before you start to contradict yourself.

Gilbert1908 · Joined: 26 Jan 2005 Posts: 5147 Location: Boston, MA

toddytodd wrote: Gilbert1908 wrote: toddytodd wrote:
I would agree. Originally, the church's out right angry dismissal of the Gnostic Gospels may have back-fired. The thinking "If the church is so sure of their faith, knowing the church's track record throughout history, as well as history itself and they are so angrily discounting the Gnostics, perhaps there is something there worth looking into...?" entered my mind.

There was no angry church that "excluded" the so called "gnostic" gospels.

Virtually all of the apocrapha were written well after the 4 primary Gospels (Euaggelion) which were all completed prior to end of the first century and in common use going into the second century.

Most of the apocropha were written by well intentioned Christians who wanted to "fill in the blanks" as they saw found them in the story of Christ. There were literally hundteds of such documents all over the place by 3rd century and all kinds of various spins on Christianity for all sorts of reasons.

This by the way includes the so called "gnostic gospels" which Elaine Pagels professor at Princeton (who coined the phrase "gnostic Gospels" in her book by the same name), changed her mind and says that the documents found in Egypt are NOT gnostic(Including and especially the Gospel of Thomas which she argues is Christian). She would also state inequivocally that these so called gnostic gospels should be considered heretical not only to Christianity but by Judaism as well.

The false repitition of the "Church" excluding these "gnostic" gospels due to the volitile message is simply a perfect example of modern people reinventing a history to match their politics or opinions.

In the first 3 centuries of Christianity there is nothing resembling the centralized hierarchical Catholic church which forms in the later centuries, there is no "conspiracy" to exclude what are wild opposing texts to Christianity, it is like saying there is a conspiracy to keep the New Testament out of the Torah or Qu'ran.

Excerpt from Elaine Pagels 2004 exchange with Ben Worthington

"In the first place, it seems clear to me that there was already a collection of Paul’s letters, as well as a codex collection of the four canonical Gospels, circulating in the early second century A.D. They were apostolic and sacred texts used for teaching and preaching in the church (see 2 Peter 3.15-16). One of the reasons none of the Gnostic documents were ever recognized as canonical or apostolic texts even in the second century (indeed, they were deemed heretical by Irenaeus, Tertullian, and various others) is precisely because they were so out of character with the profoundly Jewish nature and belief system found in the apostolic documents.

We really shouldn’t talk about the "exclusion" of Gnostic documents from the canon, because frankly, they were never seriously considered for inclusion (as Bruce Metzger taught me long ago when I took early church history from him at Princeton). Not a single early canon list, or council, or church Father--not even someone like Origen--lists any of these documents as possible sacred texts for early Christians. By their very non-Jewish and non-early Christian character, they excluded themselves. "

"So first let's talk about "Gnosticism"—and what I used to (but no longer) call "Gnostic Gospels." I have to take responsibility for part of the misunderstanding. Having been taught that these texts were "Gnostic," I just accepted it, and even coined the term "Gnostic gospels," which became the title of my book. I agree with you that we have no evidence for what we call "Gnosticism" from the first century, and have learned from our colleagues that what we thought about "Gnosticism" has virtually nothing to do with a text like the Gospel of Thomas—or, for that matter, with the New Testament Gospel of John which our teachers said also showed "Gnostic influences."

Why were the Gnostic gospels not included in the bible?
Who made that decision not to include them?
What affiliation did these people have?

Dr. Pagels is very clear on all three of those questions in the excerpts above.

Exclusion is the wrong term according to Dr. Pagels most obviously because the "gnostic gospels" DID NOT EXIST when the Euaggelion became widely used in the late first and early second century. Secondly because had they existed they were obviously in HER words "so out of character with the profoundly Jewish nature and belief system found in the apostolic documents" they would never have been and again according to her later in time were never considered.

The revisionist history which places such importance on gnosticism as a legitimate option to the Christian community and the Church as "angry" is simply a convenient but erroneous assertion to maintain a strongly held prejudice about the nature of Christianity and more specifically Catholicism.