Gnosticism is contained in the Gospel of Judas
The early Christian church believers practiced Gnosticism whereby there was a general belief associated with personal spiritual and Godly revelation during different times and under varying circumstances. The practice of Gnosticism is well seen in the gospel of Judas. This is traced back to the times when Jesus had his earthly ministry when He preached the good news to believers alongside exercising miracles that were beyond normal human understanding.
In the first scenario of the gospel of Judas, Jesus was engaged in a verbal conversion with his disciples between the significant and spiritual value of thanksgiving and the Eucharist. This dialogue took place when he was with them in Judea. Jesus was amused when he found his followers offering a thanksgiving prayer (Kasser 34). However, the disciples wondered why Jesus was amused by the practice of thanksgiving whereas it was the normal thing they had always done. In his submission, Jesus answered them by saying that the thanksgiving prayer they were undertaking was not within their wish but rather they were doing so to make the gods happy. His disciples in return replied to him by saying that he was indeed a son of God but Jesus vehemently replied to them by saying that no generation would sincerely understand him.
In another incident, Jesus spoke to Judas confidentially. It happened that Jesus knew that Judas was reflecting on a more supreme being. Jesus ordered Judas to set himself apart from the rest so that he would be informed of the great wonders of the kingdom of God (Kasser 36). Judas was further informed that it would be likely to attain the kingdom of heaven but this would not come without pains. Indeed, another person would substitute Judas so that the disciples of Jesus would accomplish their mission with the gods. Judas then inquired from Jesus when he would reveal the great wonders to him as well as the time when the generation will come to understand Him. Nevertheless, Jesus did not answer him at all.
In the second scenario, Jesus spoke to his followers once again. They asked Jesus where he had gone last time he abandoned them.
Jesus replied by saying that he had gone to another awesome and holy people which disciples wondered if there existed another group of believers who were more spiritual than them. Jesus instead laughed and wondered why their hearts were filled with the thought of a mighty people (Streeter 37). He added that no single individual would witness that holy generation and neither will the angels have any control over it. Moreover, not even those individuals who would later die were in a position to see the holy generation. His disciples belonged to the generation of human beings which was merely driven by earthly powers.
This statement made by Jesus left his disciples startled. After some days, his disciples admitted to him that they had encountered him through mighty dreams. However, he asked them why they had decided to conceal themselves (Kasser 38). In this vision, the disciples had visualized a gigantic building with a holy platform in it. There were twelve saints of God inside this holy house alongside other believers who were giving their offerings (Layton 18). The sacrifice was mixed up. Some offered their children and spouses. This was done humbly. The same men who offered these sacrifices were equally filthy in their acts even as they praised the name of the Lord Most High. The disciples were very much disturbed by this vision and they wanted Jesus to help them in its understanding.
In interpreting the vision of the holy house, Jesus reiterated that the priests who invoked his name did so without shame because it was a practice they were used to. Those who were visualized as giving offerings to the temple were the disciples themselves. That was the Supreme Being they were serving. The animal which was due for sacrifice represented the scores of believers who had received misleading teachings. Jesus advised them to do away with the kind of sacrifice they were making to the gods in the pretext of serving the Almighty God in his name.
In another instance, Judas met with Jesus where the former inquired the type of fruit the current generation will give forth. In his reply, Jesus said that every human soul would perish. Upon accomplishing their duties, their flesh will perish completely but their souls will be resurrected to heaven. Another vision that was explained by Judas was that he was being pelted with stones by the fellow followers of Jesus (Kasser 45) alongside being condemned bitterly. Jesus told him that he had misled himself the wrong way and was bound to suffer the consequences. When he inquired about his destiny, Jesus told him that he would be worried greatly upon seeing the heavenly realm and its believers (Layton 251). On the same note, Judas was taught more about the spiritual world and how it could be pursued.
Definition and impact of Arianism on the fourth century Christian Church
Arianism referred to the doctrinal teachings which expounded that Jesus Christ was not the same thing as God himself.
The doctrines further stated that Jesus was only being used as an exalted creature. This system of belief led to a myriad of impacts to the fourth-century Christian church bearing in mind that the Roman Empire was traditionally a kingdom of many gods who were highly regarded and worshipped as well. It should also be noted that Christianity was originally a Jewish way of worshipping God and so it had to go through trying times even as it made attempts to spread throughout Rome (Gardner 158).
Moreover, the name “Christian” was regarded as offensive to the gods who had been worshipped for ages in Rome. This name invoked some kind of a rebellious attitude towards the conventional belief system.
The belief that Jesus was the son of God led to the condemnation which was associated with the doctrine of Arianism. One of the major impacts of this doctrine was how the school of thought among Christians was revolutionized. One line of thought had it that although Jesus had been pronounced as the son of God and so had all the Godly powers; this would be true bearing in mind that several shortcomings had been depicted of him while still on earth.
The council of Ephesus was one of the councils which found itself in the debate towards the condemnation of Jesus as the son of God. This took place even before the fifth century. Most Christians dwelt so much on the issue that it was the main subject of discussion over a long period. There was an open denial to either end of the debate. Firstly, the thought that Jesus was God pretending to be a normal human being was not agreed to unanimously by all parties. Both believers and nonbelievers had varying views. Another confusion that was raised along with Christ as a human being was the belief in God in trinity form.
How could God himself be one yet exist in three beings; is God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? Although different arguments were put forth by believers, all seemed to strike at a common understanding. Despite this controversy, the debate went on a notch higher coupled with skepticism among Christians whose faith was definitely in jeopardy. As the debate raged on, there was a serious misunderstanding among Christian believers. This was inevitable because different lines of thought and external influences led to gross manipulation of the original message as contained in the doctrines.
The Council of Ephesus was affected by some of the external pressures especially those emanating from Cyril. As a result, it developed other ideas. According to this upgrade of ideas, Christ was born of Virgin Mary. This meant that his mother could as well be referred to as the “mother of God” (Gardner 157).
The Council of Chalcedon also found itself through the intrigues of Arianism. The overall outcome of the proposals made by the previous council had an equal impact on the final say of this Council. The hypostatic union was acknowledged in which there a procedure was put in place to countercheck the theoretical approach which was put forward by previous papers written on the same subject. On the same note though, the Cyril line of thinking left an indelible mark here.
There was a general agreement that Christ was both human and God. This council agreed to the resolution that Jesus was to be identified by both descriptions. One effect of this resolution was the settlement of political differences by some of the Clergy who were at the meeting (Gardner 160). Another notable impact was the level of dissatisfaction among the participants who felt that the decisions reached by the council were not appropriate enough.
How could Jesus be human and God at the same time? Moreover, the settlement of leadership differences among the top clergymen who attended the meeting was a clear indication that not all was well especially regarding proper decisions arrived at. In essence, many Christians were left torn between the original biblical doctrines and the resolution passed by these two Councils.
Relationship between the Church and East/West Emperor during the Fourth and Fifth Centuries
There existed mixed reactions between the church and the East-West Emperor during the fourth and fifth centuries. A case in point was the Greco-Roman Pantheons. They modeled their perception of the Supreme Being. They had several gods who had different roles and duties. Both the gods and goddesses were highly worshipped and considered to be pertinent rulers of the land. The Constantine and even the Charlemagne cooperation with the early church did not culminate into the church disappearing completely into secular circles. Both the East and West empires worked for hand in hand with the church.
In the course of this association, there were numerous attempts by the state to interfere with the welfare of the church bearing in mind that it hosted several believers who were equally instrumental in the politics of the states. Both of these empires knew quite well the role and significance of the church. This cooperation was mainly in form of an alliance system. This meant that both organs were out rightly independent from each other and none of them could interfere with the affairs of the other. However, the initial aims and objectives of both the church and the empires were somewhat compromised.
This was possible because as the alliance system was thriving, some level of integrity was compromised. This was evident in some of the literary works by early authors like Eusebius. This cooperation affected how the church runs its affairs. The empires to the east and west also experienced some changes in leadership dynamics.
One aspect of this alliance between the church and the empires was the spiritual and divine sanctification of the church which the empires thrived on. The power of the church was perceived to emanate from the Supreme Being, unlike the empire rule which relied on the power of the people (Pelikan 59). This made it a bit challenging for the top clergy to have a stable stand upon which they could criticize the church leadership. The church authority was p0erceived to be instituted by God himself and therefore no authority whatsoever could question it. The emperor was eventually crowned and authenticated by the church (Gardner 181).
This elicited mixed reactions on the source of power by the church. The most disturbing event in this crowning of the secular leadership by the top clergy was seen as the intervention of the church to secular matters. In the first scenario of the gospel of Judas, Jesus was engaged in a verbal conversion with his disciples between the significant and spiritual value of thanksgiving and the Eucharist. This dialogue took place when he was with them in Judea. Jesus was amused when he found his followers offering a thanksgiving prayer. However, the disciples wondered why Jesus was amused by the practice of thanksgiving whereas it was the normal thing they had always done.
In his submission, Jesus answered them by saying that the thanksgiving prayer they were undertaking was not within their wish but rather they were doing so to make the gods happy. His disciples in return replied to him by saying that he was indeed a son of God but Jesus vehemently replied to them by saying that no generation would sincerely understand him. On the same note, there was a clear indication that the church had entered into more than just an alliance with the state.
For example, there were cases whereby the clergy were adorned with secular fittings which represented the earthly imperial leadership. Moreover, they were also given other official roles which were not to be permanent. Some of the roles they played on behalf of the state included disputes involving land ownership, business concerns among people as well as the financial role of pooling together capital resources. These were duties that had hitherto been reserved for the state and not the church. The fourth and fifth centuries saw the adjustment of some of these secular roles to be performed by the clergy.
In addition, the meaning of politics to the empires was implicated further and transferred to the spiritual realm (Harnack 124). These powers which the church received from the secular leadership could not only generate more friction and misunderstanding among the believers but also be misused at some other times. The very powers generated a lot of confusion in the western empire. This called for readjustments and realignments to help sort out the likely mess which had been created. On the overall scale, the fourth and the fifth centuries witnessed a more harmonious interaction between the church and the east and west empires. How the two cooperated took the form of an alliance.
This meant that none of the powers, be it the church or the empires would outdo or interfere with the operations of the other (McManners 230). There was some kind of separation of powers facilitated by a mutual understanding between the two outstanding organs. Nevertheless, when the church assumed some administrative roles especially in the western empire, not all went right. It brought with it a myriad of confusions that were to be worked out later to return coherent secular leadership.
Importance of institution of monasticism to Christianity
Initially, religious practices among Christians were carried out in temples and sometimes within the family setup. In some cases, a small group of believers could gather together and perform prayer sessions. However, as time went by and Christianity grew by leaps and bounds, there was a need to have centrally located buildings where worship and other ritual activities could be carried out (Pelikan 115).
By the beginning of the fourth century onwards, religious practices were now being conducted in well guarded holy places; localized worship centers, and more so in monasteries which in most cases hosted architects and other elites. A lot of early Christian writings and symbols could be translated into monasteries. Furthermore, it is from the monasteries that the institution of monasticism came into being (Pelikan 117).
The institution of monasticism allowed its members to be secluded from the rest of the society to serve the Almighty God. This took different forms. For example, there were those Christian believers who opted to remain poor as a symbol o0f total service as well as dedication towards God. A case in point is those who opted to reside in monasteries the whole of their lives. In some cases, some renounced the institution of marriage and settled for celibacy. As a result, the institution of monasticism has been valued for a long due to the several fundamental functions it plays in the pursuit and practice of the Christian faith.
By the beginning of the fourth century, the institution of monasticism had already taken root in Christian practice. This institution came a bit late and could be distinguished from that which virginity was highly valued. The latter was in place from ancient times and has been practiced by man as long as humanity has existed. An important significance of the institution of monasticism was the elevation of one spiritual status in the sense that those who had offered themselves to serve in monasteries were ready to give up all life’s endeavors. Indeed, when Christian believers were being persecuted in Rome, some were even killed. They were willing to undergo any form of physical torture to serve God (Pelikan 127).
Self-sacrifice was not always during the period of persecution. When believers were relatively peaceful, another form of the spiritual undertaking was assumed. This involved moving away from both the mind and spirit from the world so that more concentration could be given to matters of faith and holiness. It should also be understood that the institution of monasticism was not a reserve of Christians alone. Other religions practiced monasticism as well. A case in point was the monks among the Buddhists.
Another important point of elevation in the institution of the monastery was how it was regarded to be holy. Earlier on before this institution picked up among the Christians, there was a lot of dissatisfaction and disgust in the way priests conducted the affairs of the church. Generally, the priesthood was considered to be out of place and highly dysfunctional as far as holiness was concerned. Moreover, there were several reported cases of abuse and corruption. As a result, there was a need for the church to identify with some kind of institution which would quench the spiritual thirst of the faithful, and monasticism was incepted. Therefore, this institution represented a place of holiness and total spiritual dedication to biblical teachings and doctrines without any blemish.
Different types of monasteries form the institution of monasticism. Each type formed had its significance to the Christian believers. For example, the anchoritic monasteries were erected by the followers of Jesus. These cells served as centers for communal prayer. The prayer sessions were made special and as a result, they could be conducted only once after seven days. Besides, the Holy Communion was carried out in these eremitic cells.
Another significant practice in these monasteries was the partaking of the liturgy (Harnack 217). Eventually, this institution managed to convince most Christian faithful of its spiritual sanctity and adherence to biblical doctrines. This was later evident in the manner in which the institution spread throughout Rome and to the western world. Similarly, the Asian continent saw some saints practicing monasticism.
Opposition to Christianity and its consequences
Christianity was incepted in the Roman Empire having borrowed a lot in its doctrines from the Jewish and Judaist teachings. Before Christianity came into being, there were other forms of Roman religions which were in place and which were central channels to belief systems. Besides conventional religions, the science of astrology was also valued. As Christianity continued to grow throughout the Roman Empire and elsewhere, some imminent opposition began to be vi9sible.
Apostles like Paul, for instance, did not consent to these traditional religions which manly dwelt on the worship of many gods. Polytheism was openly renounced. This culminated in stiff opposition to Christianity by the existing religions. Despite this opposition, both the traditional and Christian religions had a common focus point. For instance, both ensured that the Roman population lived in harmony as well as succeed in all endeavors. For the Roman emperor, he was the senior priest and an administrative ruler at the same time.
Another wave of opposition emanated from the Roman government itself. This came in the form of the government attempting to create a state of balance between the empire and the upcoming Christian religion. The argument posed forward by the Roman government was the possibility of some religions carrying out themselves in a way likely to destabilize peace in the Roman Empire. Moreover, there could be cases of extortion and the development of cults in disguise of religion. Christianity was perceived as a foreign religion that was filled with superstition. All these factors put together led to the opposition which was witnessed in Rome.
Just like Jews, Christians profess the faith in one God who exists in Trinity. This belief system did not go along well with the existing dominant religions in Rome where many gods were being worshipped for different reasons. This faith among Christians did not permit them to engage in the worship of foreign spiritual beings. The worst form of worship which was detested by Christians by this time was that involving the emperor. He was a traditional ruler who was regarded to possess divine powers and therefore deserved to be exalted by the subjects. When Christians rejected the worship of Roman gods and pursued their new belief system, heavy persecution followed. They were accused of going against the set norms and standards of worshiping gods. As a result, many of them died as Christian saints or martyrs.
Besides opposition from the traditional forms of religion, the Roman Empire visualized Christians as elements of radical change to the state. Their general way of conducting daily businesses was completely different from the rest of the people. As a consequence, Jews were used as excuses as those who professed Christian faith being accused wrongly. Their accusations were void of truth.
Moreover, Christians who were not practicing Roman religion were compelled to go through the tough time of tolerance. The roman administration was intrinsically secular. For this reason, it was required of every Roman citizen to be part and parcel of the rituals so that the empire could receive favor and blessings before the eyes of the reigning gods. Although the predominant religion in Rome did not have it as a prerequisite for believers to be bound by its belief system, it was however a strict requirement by a very Roman citizen to observe the ceremonies (Rokeaḥ 39).
In addition, this religious tolerance was reinforced by the Roman authorities who made sure that all citizens observed the rites and the other religious practices. Apart from this tolerance which Christians had to endure, they were greatly embarrassed at the face of their faith being mocked by both the state authorities and conventional ideals. On the other hand, the roman administration strongly believed that the Roman religion was the cornerstone of the state (Rokeaḥ 41).
Finally, as persecution of innocent Christians went on through the centuries, there was intense harassment that accompanied the bad ordeal they were going through. Needless to say, their counterpart Jews did not go through the same experience. The latter managed to secure some little trust and respect from the Roman Empire. As a consequence, the practice of societal seclusion was vividly evident among Christians (MacMullen 67). There was bias extended to Christian believers. This was perfected by the inclusion of anti-Christian laws which hampered their operation within and outside Rome.
Works Cited
Gardner Gregg, Osterloh Lee Kevin. Antiquity in antiquity: Jewish and Christian pasts in the Greco-Roman world. Ottersweier: Gulde-Druck, 2008.
Harnack von Adolf. The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries. New York: Harper, 1978.
Kasser Rodolphe, Meyer Marvin and Wurst Gregor (Eds.). The Gospel of Judas. 2nd ed., Washington, DC: National Geographic, 2008.
Layton Bentley. The Rediscovery of Gnosticism. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1980–1981. MacMullen Ramsay. Paganism in the Roman Empire. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981.
McManners John. The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.
Pelikan Jan Jaroslav.The Growth of Medieval Theology (600–1300). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978.
Rokeaḥ David. Jews, pagans, and Christians in conflict. Jerusalem: The Magness Press. 1982.
Streeter B. H. The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins. London: Macmillan, 1924.
Vallée Gerard. The Shaping of Christianity: The History and Literature of its Formative Centuries. New York: Paulist Press, 1999.