The Controversy Over Christ's Resurrection
In the two chapters, “The Controversy over Christ’s Resurrection: Historical Event or Symbol” and “Who is the True Church,” Eleaine Pagels give us insight into the difference between the Christian faith and those of the Gnostic. Both religions had their interpretation about the resurrection of Christ and whose church was the true church. The differences of the Gnostic and the Catholic belief differed drastically. This was not only in relation to the resurrection of Christ, but also to the acceptable writings such as the four original Gospels and those added by the Gnostics. There was also a dispute concerning spiritual growth and salvation. While one church was considered the chosen the other was the church of the many and considered the
true church.
It was the Gnostic belief in Gnosis, the knowledge of spiritual mysteries that would not only threaten the early church, but also have an influence, that continual spiritual knowledge was the true and only way to experience Jesus and salvation. The Catholic Church would maintain that the four Gospels were the only source and truth of salvation. This included the physical resurrection of Christ. Any elements, writings, and beliefs outside these books were not considered heresy and were not accepted as the true teachings through the apostles.
The physical resurrection of Christ described in the Christian Gospels, that there was life after death physically brought a new hope and transformation of life and death. For the Gnostics, this understanding was absurd and considered misinterpreted. They believed that Christ was not resurrected physically back to life. Their teaching was that one only, “… encounters Christ on a spiritual level.” This would be in the form of visions, dreams and ecstatic trances. But as Pagels points out from Luke’s account in the Gospel, the resurrected Jesus eats with and invites them to touch him to prove that is not a ghost.
One of the issues that the Gnostics had in rejecting the orthodox was that they believed that the resurrection of the soul took place while you were living. The idea that one must die first to be resurrected were a literal interpretation that was absurd. Gnostics taught that the body itself was an evil shell that the true spirit was trapped in. The spit that dwelt within and sought the knowledge of spiritual mysteries, “must receive the resurrection while they are still alive.” For the Christians, this form of thought was considered heresy as one must die before they are resurrected.
There were also disagreements about the Gnostic books written by Mary Magdalene, Philip, Peter and John. These books found Nag Hammadi had been the sources of spiritual knowledge and teaching. The original four Gospel’s were considered writings of the past by the Gnostic rather than for the present and the future for spiritual growth. They added these Gospels and other writings to the four existing Gospels. It was taught by the group that if one read and understood the Gospel of Thomas and the Book of Thomas the Contender, that one would, “discover, like Thomas, that Jesus is his “twin” spiritual “other self.” Most of the writings that were written by the Gnostics, were often interpretations of what an individual experienced during their spiritual encounter. They were, in fact, that person’s so called personal accounts, belief, and understanding that would be accepted without question
true church.
It was the Gnostic belief in Gnosis, the knowledge of spiritual mysteries that would not only threaten the early church, but also have an influence, that continual spiritual knowledge was the true and only way to experience Jesus and salvation. The Catholic Church would maintain that the four Gospels were the only source and truth of salvation. This included the physical resurrection of Christ. Any elements, writings, and beliefs outside these books were not considered heresy and were not accepted as the true teachings through the apostles.
The physical resurrection of Christ described in the Christian Gospels, that there was life after death physically brought a new hope and transformation of life and death. For the Gnostics, this understanding was absurd and considered misinterpreted. They believed that Christ was not resurrected physically back to life. Their teaching was that one only, “… encounters Christ on a spiritual level.” This would be in the form of visions, dreams and ecstatic trances. But as Pagels points out from Luke’s account in the Gospel, the resurrected Jesus eats with and invites them to touch him to prove that is not a ghost.
One of the issues that the Gnostics had in rejecting the orthodox was that they believed that the resurrection of the soul took place while you were living. The idea that one must die first to be resurrected were a literal interpretation that was absurd. Gnostics taught that the body itself was an evil shell that the true spirit was trapped in. The spit that dwelt within and sought the knowledge of spiritual mysteries, “must receive the resurrection while they are still alive.” For the Christians, this form of thought was considered heresy as one must die before they are resurrected.
There were also disagreements about the Gnostic books written by Mary Magdalene, Philip, Peter and John. These books found Nag Hammadi had been the sources of spiritual knowledge and teaching. The original four Gospel’s were considered writings of the past by the Gnostic rather than for the present and the future for spiritual growth. They added these Gospels and other writings to the four existing Gospels. It was taught by the group that if one read and understood the Gospel of Thomas and the Book of Thomas the Contender, that one would, “discover, like Thomas, that Jesus is his “twin” spiritual “other self.” Most of the writings that were written by the Gnostics, were often interpretations of what an individual experienced during their spiritual encounter. They were, in fact, that person’s so called personal accounts, belief, and understanding that would be accepted without question