Gnostics, the true Christians

a reply to: ChesterJohn

No, Paul never said that. Jesus said that.

a reply to: windword

Scripture address?

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: windword

Scripture address?

Mark 16:17-18

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: windword

Well then there must not be a whole lot of TRUE followers because their are none of those things happening . Especially the drink poison and you wont die part. Yeah you left out that part of the scripture address. see below whole set of verses

Not only that, do you see the WORK part of that verse? "and is Baptised" Paul never taught a person needed to be baptized to be a saved follower of Jesus. that is because that is part of the Kingdom followers of Christ, this was part of his earthly Ministry of the gospel of the Kingdom to the lost house of Israel. Paul taught the Gospel of the Grace of God for today and for all men

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

I didn't leave anything out for the purpose of omission.

You said that Gnostics believe that nothing that they do in the flesh matters, when it come to their eternal soul.

I argued that I know nothing of any Gnostic texts that suggest any such thing.

Then, you posted that your father claimed such doctrine to justify his bad habits, and he was a self proclaimed Gnostic, according to you.

I said that I know of Christians who claim the same thing, based on the, supposed, words of the risen Jesus Christ, in the book of Mark.

None of this has to do with Paul, however, if you ask me, many of Paul's teaching reek of Gnosticism.

a reply to: windword

No Christian can quote any of Paul's writings to claim they can continue in sin after salvation and I quoted the verse Paul wrote that oppose any so called gnostic flavours

a reply to: ChesterJohn

As far as I have read, there are no such Gnostic scriptures. Can you please cite an example, other than your father's verbal excuse as you remember it, from actual Gnostic scriptures?

a reply to: ChesterJohn

No Christian can quote any of Paul's writings to claim they can continue in sin after salvation

Perhaps that's because most Christians don't actually read their bible, they just sit and listen to their pastor... no critical thinking involved...

Romans
4 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found?

2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

..............
(despite Jesus saying... 19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal:

20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:

21 For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.
...............

5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

(Yet Jesus said, what you did to the least of my brothers you've done to me)


6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,

(david being the one who commited adultery, among other things...
Solid guy )


7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.

8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

To "impute" is to assign a value to something.... Meaning any sin is not given a Value to those who "believe"

Thus... any sin committed even after your "salvation" means nothing to God... it has no value because said "debt" is already paid...

The golden Ticket into heaven.... and of course this isn't the only passage from Paul that says such things

a reply to: Akragon

Yes that doctrine is correct, however no one was meant to remain in a sinful life after salvation.

Grace does not give us a license to sin (we had that before salvation) but rather gives us the power to not sin.

And that is not a Gnostic Teaching.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

Thank you... that's pretty much all I needed to hear...

Perhaps you might actually study gnostic texts instead of listening to what you dad claims to be gnostic...

Sounds to me like he didn't have a clue...

And that is not a Gnostic Teaching.

on the contrary.... Gnostic's held the gospels in high regard... and that IS a teaching Of Jesus

a reply to: ChesterJohn

What about people who are naturally inclined to "do good" (to help others regardless of recompense) and haven't heard of (or don't believe in) your Jesus-is-the-only way "God" guy?

Because -- lots of us were born that way - we help. It doesn't require "faith" in some storybook, or fear of going to hell - it's just what we do.





Yeah, we know what Jesus said - no different than what Buddha or Krishna said....
or many, many others before them and after them:

Treat other people the way you want to be treated (or you'd want your kid or mother or dad to be treated).

Great idea. Worthy of attention.
Not exclusive to "Jesus", and not dependent on saying "I believe in [on?] Jesus."

sigh

a reply to: windword

Let me ask you a gentle question on that.

As I recall, Jesus said something to the effect that not one word of the OT would pass away...which means that if you disavow the OT, then you disavow Jesus.

How do you reconcile this?

This is not a nasty, tricky trap.... I just want to understand how that could work?

And thank you...don't answer if you feel it's not a fair question.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Mind if I answer?

How do you know what law he was referring to?

He didn't say the OT... he said the law

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

The most loving people I have ever met are humanists and Buddhists...hands down.

Its not even a contest.

But that's just my personal experience.

Kev

a reply to: Akragon

I believe he said the law AND the prophets.
That's a clear OT reference.

So no, I won't accept a loop hole attempt.

I see a moral or logical dilemma....but maybe
I'm wrong on this issue.

But thanks for Answering.

Kev

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: Akragon

I believe he said the law AND the prophets.
That's a clear OT reference.

So no, I won't accept a loop hole attempt.

I see a moral or logical dilemma....but maybe
I'm wrong on this issue.

But thanks for Answering.

Kev

LOL... have you ever read James?

its no loophole... its what he was talking about...

Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying,

36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

a reply to: Akragon

I had to memorize huge chunks against my will 40 years ago.

So yes..if you disavow the OT prophets You are disavowing Jesus.

But even if you wish to interpret the text another way somehow....the spirit of my question is obviously intact.

(a House divided against itself cannot stand).

I've met Christians who 100% Will not believe
Anything in the OT.

I don't see how they can call themselves Christians.

That's the most basic question. All textual arguments aside.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

I had to memorize huge chunks against my will 40 years ago.

So yes..if you disavow the OT prophets You are disavowing Jesus.

Perhaps its time to look at it from a different angle then. Especially if it was forced on you...

For one thing, Jesus didn't specifically confirm all the "prophets" in the OT...

And for another, IF we're talking about the "laws of Moses"... Jesus broke a few of them, so he couldn't have been talking about that particular set (the 613 Mitzvah)

And James isn't the OT...

I've met Christians who 100% Will not believe
Anything in the OT.

Funny... I've never met a single one personally

I don't see how they can call themselves Christians.

Theres quite a few threads around here about how people call themselves Christian according to this rule and that...

Even recently...

a reply to: Akragon

Well thanks for your opinion on this. I'd be interested in others.

I read that thread you mentioned yesterday. I tend to read all religious controversy threads as they interest me. I seldom post in them however.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Point being... Jesus was talking about "the royal law" James mentioned...

Good to talk to ya...