It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The LIVITICAL CODE IS DEAD, I can prove it!!!

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

All of which can't agree with one another. Violating Christs prayer of Unity. This prayer, specifically.

I understand that prayer. Do you? I'm willing to bet Akragon does too. We evaluate your fruit.

The correct Spirit brings into remembrance of Christ's words, and was also to teach you all things. Whose words? Jesus or Paul? All real believers would follow only Jesus, and his law. A Law so important, it is present in the all the synoptic gospels, and defined as a new commandment in John.

Paul, very slyly like, forgot a part.

The Common Denominator in those 40k denominations? The Pauline epistles are accepted as Canon.

And no, I'm not Muslim lol. Like I said, check your fur.
edit on 7-9-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Not Authorized

Theres only three synoptic gospels...

John is not considered one of them... Its a common mistake




posted on Sep, 7 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Hold over from my fundamentalist days. I will correct. :-)



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 04:15 AM
link   
This from Jesus Christ:


Matthew 7:12
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.


Agrees with this from Paul:


Galatians 5:14
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.


And this from John:


1 John 4:7
Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.


It is true that Jesus is The One True Teacher (Matthew 23:8/Matthew 23:10) and all who came before him were liars and thieves (John 10:8) but that doesn't mean that Paul or anyone else doesn't know any truth at all.

Yes, Trust Jesus First, but that doesn't mean everyone else has no truth at all. It just means to use discernment with the messages others bring.

Start with The Sermon on The Mount, the teachings Jesus gave to the large crowds who came from Galilee, the Decapolis, Jerusalem, Judea and the region across the Jordan followed him (Matthew 4:25), because those are Jesus's Universal Teachings for Everyone - he wasn't just talking to one person or two people or a small group he was talking to large crowds from all over the place. This is who we know it wasn't a specific advice but Jesus intended the Sermon on The Mount for everyone.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Not Authorized



Originally posted by Not Authorized
Funny, I'm Gnostic Christian. Not Muslim lol. I have never read a page of their scripture.


Close lol

In the “Infancy Gospel of Thomas”, the same story of Jesus turning clay into birds, also found it’s was into the Quran…

And in the “Infancy Gospel of James”, the story of Mary and Zachariah, also found it’s way into the Quran…

There seems to be an interesting cross over from some of the Gnostic texts and the Quran. So although you’ve never read the Quran, you may have encountered some of it’s stories, via the Gnostic texts!

I’m kind of a “Gnostic Christian” myself, and have a passion for the their texts…

It’s good too see another “Gnostic Christian” around the forums…


Peace…

- JC



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 08:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft

Lol. I'm starting to get that impression as well. I've been accused of being Muslim twice now.

It is nice to see another as well. Origin of the World fascinated me. :-)
edit on 8-9-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 10:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Not Authorized

The prayer of unity...

Let's see. First, the prayer was directed toward a person, namely, the Father. As the Father is a person, not a unifying force within the body of Jesus Christ, no one can say that the physical body of Jesus contained a physical unity with a congregation. While the congregation, which is the subject of the prayer to the person of The Father, the body of Christ as the church is metaphysical.

However, as there is a person the prayer is directed to about the subject in which Jesus is talking about, bridges the gap between the physical and metaphysical and yet still as a person. Jesus can't be praying to a gnostic idea any more than He could be operating in Sophia, which is the anthromorphological person of Sophia, the goddess of wisdom, also known as Chockmah.

These were personifications of persons, and not a Gnostic reasoning. So one must consider, was John merely addressing the light in Him, rather that He was the light? Either we are going to have to accept Jesus as a real man, addressing the Father about the church or that it was all just a revelation about enlightenment, of which John and none of the other disciples ever taught.

And Sophia, wisdom, is presented as a woman. There were personifications of Sophia (Chockmah) that they were considered at that time to be persons, they were goddesses. If one maintains that Sophic wisdom is enlightening, then it must come through female faculties or reasoning. And since the Gnostic Gospels were written by men, they in essence denied even then the personification of Sophia as a goddess.

And since the text you posted contains several more elements of importance, namely, the glory and before creation. Jesus is saying to the Father that they shared the glory since before creation. Christ was not incarnate man before creation, therefore any glory shared would not have been in that incarnate realm, namely as a physical man that the Gnostics were. And nothing in that statement says that the church was unified yet to the glory of the Father, as incarnate people, that you and I are, we did not share the glory with the Father before creation.

But Sophia was in the beginning and shared the glory also.


James 1:5 [Full Chapter]
If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.


Is this the general wisdom that comes through age and experience, or is this the Sophic wisdom? As the Sophic wisdom comes from God, and God gives to those who ask, then our incarnate persons were never shared at the beginning before creation.

Wisdom is also a spirit.

Exodus 28:3 And thou shalt speak unto all that are wise hearted, whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom, that they may make Aaron's garments to consecrate him, that he may minister unto me in the priest's office.


That spirit has a voice

Proverbs 1:20 Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets:


Was with God at the beginning

Proverbs 3:19 The Lord by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens.


Is relative or related to those who believe in God

Proverbs 7:4 Say unto wisdom, Thou art my sister; and call understanding thy kinswoman:


Exposes ignorance

Proverbs 8:12 I wisdom dwell with prudence, and find out knowledge of witty inventions.


Builds your life

Proverbs 9:1 Wisdom hath builded her house, she hath hewn out her seven pillars:


And she is justified, as Jesus said

Matthew 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.


Therefore, the glory of God and His Son Jesus are shared in wisdom, which is still personified. She is justified. But the eternal God, through His Son Jesus Christ imparts wisdom to the incarnate through the spirit, while yet maintaining that the glory of man and the glory of God are not shared, that is why Jesus was praying to God for that unity.

One might seek or approach the idea of unity with God through an impersonal light, but the Bible has clearly personified God and wisdom and the light. Sophia was a goddess, the Chockmah, as a person, but people couldn't fathom that wisdom would be associated with a feminine person. So, in order to address that, made Sophia into a mere concept of non-abstract, non-concrete, non-essence. Sophia is merely now a depersonification replaced by unity with an enlightening light that really does nothing more than make people think they are more than they actually are.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 10:44 AM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

Too late. I am more interested in the immortal man of light, the one who sourced Sophia herself.



Of course, our intuition tends to recoil at the idea that everything and everyone we know emerged from the event horizon of a single four-dimensional black hole. We have no concept of what a four-dimensional universe might look like. We don't know how a four-dimensional "parent" universe itself came to be.


Told you to check your fur.

PS. It's a long long long way down beyond the Event Horizon into the Singularity back to the source. I call it "The Void".
edit on 8-9-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 10:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft

the infancy gospels aren't considered gnostic literature...

They're apocryphal books... and still in use by the catholic church for various sermons I believe...

Just sayin...




posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Not Authorized
a reply to: WarminIndy

Too late. I am more interested in the immortal man of light, the one who sourced Sophia herself.



Of course, our intuition tends to recoil at the idea that everything and everyone we know emerged from the event horizon of a single four-dimensional black hole. We have no concept of what a four-dimensional universe might look like. We don't know how a four-dimensional "parent" universe itself came to be.


Told you to check your fur.

PS. It's a long long long way down beyond the Event Horizon into the Singularity back to the source. I call it "The Void".


Is that assuming there are only four dimensions? The fourth dimension is time, but even time is relative and time can be warped around black holes.

What dimension is God in?

And I heard something really interesting, man has more empty space than a lot of objects, so therefore man is not even as real as a tree.


Matter exists in four states: solid, liquid, gas and plasma. Plasmas are only found in the coronae and cores of stars. The state of matter is determined by the strength of the bonds between the atoms that makes up matter. Thus, is proportional to the temperature or the amount of energy contained by the matter.


That's why the perfect temperature for humans is 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit. Anything lower or higher leads to illness and possible death.

Temperature is explained in atomic theory as the motion of the atoms (faster = hotter). Pressure is explained as the momentum transfer of those moving atoms on the walls of the container (faster atoms = higher temperature = more momentum/hits = higher pressure).


As long as we maintain the proper core body temperature, we are fine. So it could be argued that even temperatures are in the fourth degree, because temperatures are never seen, but felt, in real time. You feel the core body temperature, so the atoms in the molecules are attracted to one another and keep you as the fourth dimensional creature you are. But between those molecules, there is empty space.

We are only as real as the .1% of atomic space in us, the rest of the 99.9% is empty space. How funny is that? We are the fourth dimension and the event horizon is as only as real as the atomic space it contains. That's why a tree is more real than us. Even a tree is in the fourth dimension, time.

Now, that's the fourth dimension....the Fifth Dimension is a pop group from the 1970s.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 12:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon



Originally posted by Akragon

the infancy gospels aren't considered gnostic literature...

They're apocryphal books... and still in use by the catholic church for various sermons I believe...

Just sayin...


Really…

But even the Nag Hammadi Library are classified as being apocryphal writings…




These gospels are not part of the standard Biblical canon of any mainstream Christian denomination, and as such are part of what is called the New Testament apocrypha.





And…





The texts commonly attributed to the Thomasine school are:
· The Hymn of the Pearl, or, the Hymn of Jude Thomas the Apostle in the Country of Indians
· The Gospel of Thomas
· The Infancy Gospel of Thomas
· The Acts of Thomas
· The Book of Thomas: The Contender Writing to the Perfect
· The Psalms of Thomas
· The Apocalypse of Thomas




If they are all attributed to the same School, then surely they’re all intrinsically linked to Gnosticism…And remember there were different Gnostic traditions, although they shared common beliefs etc…

Also, check out these 2 sources below, the both seem to think those “Infancy Gospels” are Gnostic…

The Top Three Heresies in the Gnostic Gospels


The Gnostics and The Quran


- JC



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 12:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft

Hmm... I've never personally heard of the apocryphal books being called gnostic...

The gnostic texts tend to "reveal" bits of what they call Gnosis... more of a collection of metaphysical stories...

The apocryphal books are supposed to be real events associated with Jesus...

One has to remember that there wasn't an actual religion called the gnostics back then.... they were basically writers without a church or following... they were called gnostics by their opponents, its not something these people called themselves

Plus I don't recall seeing any of the apocryphal books on the gnostic website... who actually consider Gnosticism their religion

www.gnosis.org...




posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

Still a rookie. LOL.

The first 2:20 should answer all your "questions."



BTW, I loved a particular song from the 5th dimension. That age already has been started. Wink.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Joecroft

Hmm... I've never personally heard of the apocryphal books being called gnostic...

The gnostic texts tend to "reveal" bits of what they call Gnosis... more of a collection of metaphysical stories...

The apocryphal books are supposed to be real events associated with Jesus...

One has to remember that there wasn't an actual religion called the gnostics back then.... they were basically writers without a church or following... they were called gnostics by their opponents, its not something these people called themselves

Plus I don't recall seeing any of the apocryphal books on the gnostic website... who actually consider Gnosticism their religion

www.gnosis.org...



The original KJV has the Apocryphal books. They were later removed by a Bible translation company. But if you read the original 1611 KJV, it is in there.

The Apocraphal books are also found in the Wycliffe, but in his version, there is a letter to the Loadicean church that is separate. I don't see them in the Geneva Bible.

I am looking also at The Bishop's Bible, and that one has a bunch of charts you can look at. The Bishop's Bible contains the Apocraphal books as well. Unless one can read that older English, I wouldn't recommend it. But they did attempt to answer a lot of things with all their charts in it. This one was translated by Thomas Cramner.

I think it was a good idea to keep the Bible translations in the current common English vernacular. I use the KJV because I understand the English it was translated in, I also understand Shakespeare, so it isn't difficult for me. But there you go, three Bible translations that seem very much in context with each other and all containing Apocryphal books.


edit on 9/8/2014 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/8/2014 by WarminIndy because: Couldn't count, sorry. Three is what I meant, really.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Not Authorized

Has it started?
I hadn't noticed with all the peace, love and harmony all around.



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

Yes... but when were those books ever considered "gnostic" books?

I've never heard of such things... and see no evidence of them being called gnostic or having gnostic elements within them because I've read all of them several times




posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon



Originally posted by Akragon
Hmm... I've never personally heard of the apocryphal books being called gnostic...



I think it’s just a sub category…In other words, they’re apocryphal, but also in some cases, classified as additionally Gnostic…Although in some other cases, they may just be apocryphal, but not classified as Gnostic…etc

For example, the Gospel of Thomas, belongs to the Apocrypha, and is also classified as a Gnostic text…

And take for example “The Gospel of Judas”…this book was not found at Nag Hammadi…but it is still an apocryphal text (apocryphal just means it didn’t make up official cannon, because those texts weren’t considered authentic), and it’s also classified as being a Gnostic text…




Originally posted by Akragon
The gnostic texts tend to "reveal" bits of what they call Gnosis... more of a collection of metaphysical stories...


I think it may be possible that the Books that have those “revealing elements” tend to get called Gnostic by classification. But surely, just because a book does not reveal bits of Gnosis, does not automatically mean it wasn’t a part of the traditions, of those Gnostic believers. Of course you can’t just say any old apocryphal book, is a Gnostic one, unless there are some key elements, that identifies it with Gnostic traditions etc...




Originally posted by Akragon
The apocryphal books are supposed to be real events associated with Jesus...


Well, the “Gospel of Judas” could also be considered to be associated with real events in Jesus life… but wait a minute, that book is a Gnostic text hmmm…lol



Originally posted by Akragon
One has to remember that there wasn't an actual religion called the gnostics back then.... they were basically writers without a church or following... they were called gnostics by their opponents, its not something these people called themselves


Yeah, absolutely…They were termed Gnostics by their opponents, this is true…But when I say Gnosticism, I’m thinking in terms of all those traditions and beliefs, of the people who wrote those texts.

- JC



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

It has. It is a reflection of me. Someone changed sides recently, and it is starting to propagate. What you see now, is everyone rolling on the floor until the lights go out.

You were not paying attention to the lyrics of music lately? Tsk tsk. The Universe is singing.

Enlil was deleted from the hologram by the way. Oops.

Cosmos is my new dream.

With Love,

The Observer.
edit on 8-9-2014 by Not Authorized because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: WarminIndy

Yes... but when were those books ever considered "gnostic" books?

I've never heard of such things... and see no evidence of them being called gnostic or having gnostic elements within them because I've read all of them several times



They never were Gnostic books. That much I agree on.

The translations didn't just happen, they were based on prior books going all the way back before the Nicean Council. The sole purpose of the Nicean Council was to address the very problem of Gnosticism creeping into the church.

It began as a fight between two pastors that led to the Nicean Council. At that council they had brought with them already written and established as church doctrine books, the Gnostic Gospels were condemned already before that council.

For instance, the Gospel of Thomas, how could Thomas have written that if Thomas was already in India and died there? In Chennai, they have the tradition of Thomas preaching to them, and when Christian missionaries went there, were shocked to find that the people of Chennai had already known the Gospel of Jesus Christ, because of Thomas being there.

I don't think anyone can say that the Nag Hammadi proves the Gospel of Thomas was written by Thomas, because in the Nag Hammadi, even Plato's Republic was found among the books.

Should we now use The Republic as Gospel just because it was found at Nag Hammadi?



posted on Sep, 8 2014 @ 02:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Not Authorized
a reply to: WarminIndy

It has. It is a reflection of me. Someone changed sides recently, and it is starting to propagate. What you see now, is everyone rolling on the floor until the lights go out.

You were not paying attention to the lyrics of music lately? Tsk tsk. The Universe is singing.

Enlil was deleted from the hologram by the way. Oops.

Cosmos is my new dream.

With Love,

The Observer.


OK, maybe you reached The Age of Aquarius.

We can't say the same thing for everyone else.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join