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.

 

Gnostic Christianity

page: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 10:15 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

Lets have a look at those passages...

John 15
I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.

2 Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit.

3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

4 Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.

5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

7 If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you.

8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.


Should this be taken literal... So everyone that believes in Jesus is actually a branch on a vine who actually bears fruit... and if they don't bear said fruit, other branches chop them up and toss them in a fire

Or is it a metaphor?

Matthew 24:41?

Part of the "Parable" of the wicked servant... there is another version of this parable in Luke which says specifically...

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me

Shall we take this literally as well?

Luke 17:29

Jesus is referring to something that never actually happened, its a story of myth and legend... same thing as the book of Job... and many other stories in the OT...

And keep in mind who he was speaking to... it was his way of telling the pharisee's of the error of their ways using stories they know.... that doesn't mean they're real... or even that he believed they were real

The kingdom of God does not come with observation...

Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

22 And he said unto the disciples, The days will come, when ye shall desire to see one of the days of the Son of man, and ye shall not see it.

23 And they shall say to you, See here; or, see there: go not after them, nor follow them.

Sound familiar?


edit on 12-2-2016 by Akragon because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon




1 Cor 3:12Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. 14If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. 15If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

Rev 20: 13And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. 14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.


Our works will be judged by fire. For non-believers, it will be the Second Death.

As for claiming that Jesus was using mythology to make His point in Luke 17...well, that is a dangerous ASSumption to make, which will prove itself to be a fatal error in the end.



posted on Feb, 12 2016 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest

I highly doubt that...

And dare ye quote Paul to me.... shame on you brother lol




posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 02:51 AM
link   
I don't know if it is correct to say that the Nag Hammadi Library was definitively Gnostic. It was a collection of writings that were found in Nag Hammadi from seemingly various traditions. One script was Plato - The Republic. I don't know, is that Gnostic too?

What I found interesting: were the parallels to some of the passages in the New and Old Testament which show the corruption in meaning from the original passages.. Also how one of the most important figures Thomas, The Savior's brother, somehow became depicted as 'doubting' Thomas in the new lore. And how Mary Magdalene (possibly his wife, from an upper ruling class family, who he often kissed on the mouth) also one of the most important figures and disciples, somehow became depicted as a prostitute; also both of their gospels were left out of the New Testament. I find some of the ideas, and writing styles foreign to the New Testament gospels, though some are not completely disconnected. I also find parallels to Buddhism in some of the disciples writings, and in the sayings of The Savior.

----

Btw, nowhere in the Nag Hammadi writings does anyone refer to themselves as a Gnostic.
edit on 13-2-2016 by nOraKat because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 04:49 AM
link   
a reply to: nOraKat

All I know is Gnostic was meant to be derogatory. Telestai (from what I have read) was whatthey called themselves.

They can't read Plato? I doubt that it was part of their religion, other than that they were wisdom/knowledge lovers.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 04:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
Good reads.


Gnosticism. The self titled knowers. I wonder what type of wisdom these guys dish out. Socrates would use that word as a quolibet.

The interest in studying gnosticism is the same that can be found studying without prejudice the professed opinions of Ron Hubbard: different perspectives. Augmented by historical value.

Rejecting perspectives that one could set aside as another opinion equally beneficial slows any quest for knowledge down.

Of course, that is so by design, and as soon as the humility takes over the energy spent in false confidence, one starts to see things now unseen.
Don't feel attacked, OP.
I don't want your money or your name and I don't believe correction is a loss. Your confidence is false and you are indeed a gorilla's head, just maybe not "the" gorilla's head: transliteration just defaces entire alphabets. You have the power to change this. God is God by any name, some names are pearls, and all refer to one, who indeed is the most high and the Lah and Jove and even iced cream if you put your heart into it.

Cheers


Ok. Why would I feel attacked?

Hubbard? Horrible analogy. Your angels, fallen angels, Nephilim and demons make that analogy equally accurate to today's Christianity.
edit on 13-2-2016 by Rasalghul because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 05:04 AM
link   
a reply to: wisvol

Self titled knowers?

They didn't call themselves Gnostics, that word was meant to be derogatory like "know it all."

Which could be said of you. You come across as a know it all.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 05:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: wisvol
How is that any different from where Saul of Tarsus claimed his gnosis?

a reply to: windword


Differences aren't substantial enough to be studied by me. If you know, please say.
One does pop to mind though: Saul of Tarsus may have been a self-important scribe, but he didn't name his shop "the knowers" so he'd be less tacky at least.



Neither did they. Gnostics was what their enemies called them.

No one, NO ONE, is more tacky, than Saul of Tarsus. Not to mention misogynist, boastful, and jealous. Or a a bigger liar. Atleast new testament Saul.

I will never rule out that the author of those letters, in that form, was not Saul of Tarsus. But as told in the NT, Saul is the worst type of person.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 07:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rasalghul
a reply to: ChesterJohn

Your sick why would you ask me that? Is that what christians do now?



I am asking to see how literal you take Paul's words



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 07:09 AM
link   
a reply to: Rasalghul

Boy, what a attitude.

You follow Paul but don't follow all his instructions. It is important to know what you practice and why.

A woman's hair grows just as fast as a males sometimes faster because of their hormones.


My question is to get you take on the rest of Paul's teaching.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Rasalghul

why do you believe that Lucifer/Satan works for the mythical Greek god of knowledge Yahweh?



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 07:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: BELIEVERpriest
a reply to: Akragon

Baptism of Fire is a literal future event.



12His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.


The Baptism by fire is JUDGEMENT



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 07:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rasalghul
a reply to: nOraKat

All I know is Gnostic was meant to be derogatory. Telestai (from what I have read) was whatthey called themselves.

They can't read Plato? I doubt that it was part of their religion, other than that they were wisdom/knowledge lovers.



And you got that from the same teachers who said the name Christian was meant to be derogatory.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 07:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Rasalghul
No one, NO ONE, is more tacky, than Saul of Tarsus. Not to mention misogynist, boastful, and jealous. Or a a bigger liar. Atleast new testament Saul.
I will never rule out that the author of those letters, in that form, was not Saul of Tarsus. But as told in the NT, Saul is the worst type of person.


from you post in the first thread page

Like when Paul says "knowledge puffs up" . Very convenient for the early church. Don't learn, learnings evil, it makes you arrogant. No it makes you smart, they don't want that.


So you will quote Paul to make points but you slam him when you don't agree with him.

Sounds a little psychotic or you have a personality disorder when it comes to the Bible.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: ChesterJohn

originally posted by: Rasalghul
No one, NO ONE, is more tacky, than Saul of Tarsus. Not to mention misogynist, boastful, and jealous. Or a a bigger liar. Atleast new testament Saul.
I will never rule out that the author of those letters, in that form, was not Saul of Tarsus. But as told in the NT, Saul is the worst type of person.


from you post in the first thread page

Like when Paul says "knowledge puffs up" . Very convenient for the early church. Don't learn, learnings evil, it makes you arrogant. No it makes you smart, they don't want that.


So you will quote Paul to make points but you slam him when you don't agree with him.

Sounds a little psychotic or you have a personality disorder when it comes to the Bible.


If he didn't want to be quoted he shouldn't have wrote it.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Rasalghul

Ras, you still haven't answered my question.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: BELIEVERpriest


No.



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Rasalghul

you must realize there is no pick and choose of God's words. You either believe them all or none at all. There is no middle ground.


edit on 13-2-2016 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 05:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ChesterJohn


I must do no such thing. I've been given what I got from who gave it. I don't have to sheep around like some unlearned fool, you go ahead with that frame of mind, you aint gonna learn hsti


edit on 13-2-2016 by Rasalghul because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2016 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Rasalghul

you do not know who gave it. You said yourself you are not a Christian. As far as we know you got it from a demon.




top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join