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.

 

One myth leads to another

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 01:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Heresiarch

Whoops, the War Scroll mentions the covenant, perhaps the Damascus covenant was different than the new covenant by John, that one has me baffled.




posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 02:15 AM
link   
a reply to: UFOdanger

Interesting stuff. The Bible I use was the first to use the DSS in translation and is from the 60's

One of the interesting things is that the DSS have "coat of long sleeves" over "coat of many colors" which is apparently a Greek or Masoretic fib.

The Essenes seem vehemently Yahwistic as opposed to Elohistic or priestly, "sons of yesha" means sons of salvation and incorporates Yah into salvation theology.

That is why I side with the Gnostics.


edit on 27-3-2016 by Heresiarch because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 02:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Heresiarch
It is believed that Paul was talking about Gnosticism. ' Gnosis, falsely so called', is a more accurate translation.


That would be only half a translation (I also don't like your syntax choice), since in the Christian Greek Scriptures there are two words commonly translated “knowledge,” gnoʹsis and e·piʹgno·sis. Both are related to the verb gi·noʹsko, which means “know; understand; perceive.”

If you use "Gnosis," you're leaving it in the Greek and not translating it to a word every English reader would understand, obscuring the clarity of the Scriptures or otherwise preventing some people from understanding what it's saying (or trying to use it to give people the impression that this verse exclusively applies to those who refer to themselves as Gnostics, exonerating oneself from a thorough self-analysis whether they may have fallen victim to the contradictions that are falsely called "knowledge", or "gnoʹsis" when talking Greek; and/or possibly to derail from the main points in the OP and the comment you were responding to with endless talk about gnosticism, Paul and the Essenes containing too much misinformation for me, especially about Paul with a little help from another poster, to even feel like beginning to adress, then again, that might have been somewhat inadvertently influenced by both of your preferences for this type of information, and again related to 2 Timothy 4:3,4 as described in the OP where this preference is described). The Latin word used is "scientia", which is why the KJB has "science" (as that is how the english word "science" was understood back when the KJB was being produced, as a synonym for "knowledge").

KNOWLEDGE


Knowledge (gnoʹsis) is put in a very favorable light in the Christian Greek Scriptures. However, not all that men may call “knowledge” is to be sought, because philosophies and views exist that are “falsely called ‘knowledge.’” (1Ti 6:20) The recommended knowledge is about God and his purposes. (2Pe 1:5) This involves more than merely having facts, which many atheists have; a personal devotion to God and Christ is implied. (Joh 17:3; 6:68, 69) Whereas having knowledge (information alone) might result in a feeling of superiority, our knowing “the love of the Christ which surpasses knowledge,” that is, knowing this love by experience because we are personally imitating his loving ways, will balance and give wholesome direction to our use of any information we may have gained.—Eph 3:19.
edit on 27-3-2016 by whereislogic because: addition



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 03:49 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

I disagree. Gnosis is exactly the right word and was exactly the issue. The church wanted a monopoly on spiritual knowledge and that is what they got.

You are derailing the thread more than I with your excessive defining and complaining about something I said. The OP wants to discuss the topic, I am just clarifying what is meant. Gnosis, falsely called, is a known and direct jab at Gnosticism, an early competitor of Christianity. But it is also exactly the same way Paul claims to have received his knowledge, through contact with the dead and risen Messiah.

And Gnosticism does not ever mention in any writing having a beef with this Paul character, so I don't know what his problem could be with them. It would be apparent that they had no knowledge of this comment made by him. They have 2 works attributed to Paul, none mention this.

I would have to say that the church added quite a bit to the story of Paul over the years.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 03:53 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

You can complain all you like, it is relevant because it is exactly the issue he is believed to be addressing. You probably didn't know that, and are upset over it. Take it easy, it's not a big deal and it's a crappy thread topic that is not going to last long anyway. That is why it has veered from what you would like it to be about.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 04:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Heresiarch
a reply to: whereislogic

Gnosis, falsely called, is a known and direct jab at Gnosticism, an early competitor of Christianity. But it is also exactly the same way Paul claims to have received his knowledge, through contact with the dead and risen Messiah.
...
I would have to say that the church added quite a bit to the story of Paul over the years.


You are demonstrating 2 Timothy 4:3,4 to the point of even trying to discredit all of Paul's writings so you can ignore, dismiss, trivialize or twist what he was inspired by God to write down, i.e. you don't want to hear it, it's not tickling your ears.

So I think it would be wiser for me to not keep trying to get through, it's up to you and those who might read and then recognize what you and UFOdanger are doing (and a large number of other threads in this subforum). Might it have something to do with Paul saying so many things about it (this behaviour)?

Your disdain for Paul shines through quite well when you said:


a reply to: UFOdanger

100% on the same page re: Paul, it is easy to see he was an upstart instigator and reject if you're paying attention.


Remember the phrase "not put up with" from my quotation of 2 Timothy 4:3 which relates to the word "disdain" used in my sentence above.

Btw, my OP stands for Original Post.
edit on 27-3-2016 by whereislogic because: addition



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 06:48 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

I hope my disdain shines like the sun. I have no intention of appearing otherwise. Paul was inspired by glory. He wanted people to follow HIM, not Christ. Which is why he said:

"Be imitators of ME"

And not:

"Be imitators of Christ"

He doesn't follow Christ or teach the same thing, so following him is not following Christ by default either.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 06:56 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

I don't know what you expected when concocting the thread topic, but Paul really doesn't have anything valuable to say and any thread about his writings is either going to veer into a discussion about something else or get little to no response because he is a complete lowlife and fraud.

The Essenes would agree, and the Gnostics would have rejected his teachings if they had these types of remarks in them at the time. They either rejected them as forgeries not written by Paul or just didn't read them at all.

Paul is a liar and hypocrite.


edit on 27-3-2016 by Heresiarch because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 07:05 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

I don't need another apologist explaining what other apologist think of Justin Martyr's apologetic essay/letter. I cited from his actual work, in his own words, his logic for his "Diabolical Mimicry" theology. If you want to refute that his theology was of "Diabolical Mimicry", please do so by quoting from Justin Martyr's actual essay.

www.newadvent.org...



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

Hello, I added you as friend..



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

If you doubt that " Gnosis, falsely called" is referring to the Gnostics I would point you in the direction of Irenaeus AD 130-200 Bishop of Lyons who wrote Exposure and refutation of the falsely so called gnosis. He doesn't seem to agree with you.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 08:21 PM
link   
a reply to: UFOdanger


James was the leader of the first catholic church, in this case catholic is just a definitive term and not what it came out to be. Every sect, Zealot to Pharisee agreed with and respected James for that he did not judge and loved everybody, high to low. The Essenes (Nazarenes) were the peace loving ascetics who had deep eastern type beliefs and lived alone praying in the mountains with a white robe and scandals going back to the time of Elijah. The community at Qumran were called the Osseans, but they were still Essenes in general.

Not true at all. Nazarene's or also known as Ebionite's are and were any sect of Jew or embraced Gentile who is or was a Christian or known follower of Jesus. The Roman Catholic organization had nothing to do in formation or practicing liturgy of the Nazarene Jerusalem synagogue. Greek, Latin, nor any other languages were allowed to influence this first Nazarene Synagogue except for Hebrew and or Aramaic. In fact the Roman Catholic organization did not come into prominence till after they slaughtered the remaining true Christians in 135 CE. and presented it as their own form of a religion.

James the Just was elected by Jesus to be the Nasi of this new sect and he had complete charge of this first so called church for well over three decades when he was then murdered. John was second in command and Peter was third in command of this new sect. The word Catholic was born long after Rome stole and murdered their way into their form of Christianity.

By law James formed the Nazarene sect and it was approved by Roman law to flourish as a legitimate Jewish religion. In fact James was allowed to use the Jerusalem Temple as the Nazarene Nasi. Even though this infuriated the house of Annas there was nothing he could do to stop it short of murder and that is exactly what he did. Catholics had nothing to do with James the brother of Jesus.



posted on Mar, 27 2016 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

I think the Ebionite were John the Baptist loyalists and didn't embrace Jesus as God and remain the only surviving Essene branch to this day. I will have to check but I am pretty sure about that.

I take that back. They pretty much disappear with Islam but left their influence in that Jesus is not God in Islam. The Ebionites accepted Jesus as Messiah but not God or born of a virgin and they don't accept the New Testament with the exception of Matthew starting at Jesus baptism.
edit on 27-3-2016 by Heresiarch because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 06:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Heresiarch
a reply to: whereislogic

If you doubt that " Gnosis, falsely called" is referring to the Gnostics I would point you in the direction of Irenaeus AD 130-200 Bishop of Lyons who wrote Exposure and refutation of the falsely so called gnosis. He doesn't seem to agree with you.


Oh my...

Irenaeus in appealing to the Scriptures makes no fewer than 200 quotations from Paul’s letters.

And the Paul-basher is telling me to go read his stuff to get a proper understanding of what is true. You hate Paul, but apparently have no issue in referring me to Irenaeus for a proper understanding and interpretation of Paul. A man who would not agree with you and UFODanger even in the slightest regarding all the negative things you and others in this subforum continue to say about Paul to discredit him.

This is my last comment here again, ATS = BCH.

Biggest Collector of Hypocricy by those accusing others of being hypocrites as they find ways to diss the bible, diss Paul in particular (at least on this subforum) and diss God in favor of their own myths and interpretations of the bible or reality, appealing to ancient fallible philosophers like Ireneaus in the process (evolution, God is a trinity, God does not exist, God has many names, Yahweh = Satan, El is a name, Elohim is a name, 3=1, 0≠0, and on and on it goes), who were never inspired by God as Paul was. And nice trick to ignore my mention of "Well, not exclusively..." in my 2nd comment in this thread, which counts as much for your statement or implication, before you dodge and claim you never made that statement, but only said "It is believed", as if it matters what Irenaeus or other apologists or Church Fathers believed regarding 1 Timothy 6:20, such as your implication that it's only applying to gnostics or gnosticism as well as the other person perhaps 'hoping' the 2 bible verses used in my OP are only applying to another religion (so he can diss it and not consider if it might apply to him).

quoting you again:


I don't know what you expected when concocting the thread topic,...


Well, you can spot that from my OP, a demonstration of 2 Timothy 4:3,4, exactly what I got.

Quoting windword:


I don't need another apologist explaining...


Translates to:

I don't put up with the healthful or beneficial teaching of another person (since I or the ones maintaining his page on wikipedia aren't apologists). Ironically, you are referring me to an apologist and so-called Church Father: Irenaeus. Even after my 2nd comment pointing to the article about the Church Fathers:


Jesus Christ himself ruled out the use of the religious title “Father” when he said: “Do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One.” (Matthew 23:9) The use of the term “Father” to designate any religious figure is unchristian and unscriptural. The written Word of God was completed about 98 C.E. with the writings of the apostle John. Thus, true Christians do not need to look to any human as the source of inspired revelation. They are careful not to ‘make the word of God invalid’ because of human tradition. Letting human tradition take the place of God’s Word is spiritually lethal. Jesus warned: “If . . . a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”—Matthew 15:6, 14.

edit on 28-3-2016 by whereislogic because: addition, spelling error



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 07:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Heresiarch
a reply to: whereislogic

If you doubt that " Gnosis, falsely called" is referring to the Gnostics I would point you in the direction of Irenaeus AD 130-200 Bishop of Lyons who wrote Exposure and refutation of the falsely so called gnosis. He doesn't seem to agree with you.


Oh my...

Irenaeus in appealing to the Scriptures makes no fewer than 200 quotations from Paul’s letters.

And the Paul-basher is telling me to go read his stuff to get a proper understanding of what is true. You hate Paul, but apparently have no issue in referring me to Iranaeus for a proper understanding and interpretation of Paul. A man who would not agree with you and UFODanger even in the slightest regarding all the negative things you and others in this subforum continue to say about Paul to discredit him.

This is my last comment here again, ATS = BCH.

Biggest Collector of Hypocracy by those accusing others of being hypocrites as they find ways to diss the bible, diss Paul in particular (at least on this subforum) and diss God in favor of their own myths and interpretations of the bible or reality, appealing to ancient fallible philosophers like Iraneaus in the process (evolution, God is a trinity, God does not exist, God has many names, Yahweh = Satan, El is a name, Elohim is a name, 3=1, 0≠0, and on and on it goes), who were never inspired by God as Paul was. And nice trick to ignore my mention of "Well, not exclusively..." in my 2nd comment in this thread, which counts as much for your statement regarding 1 Timothy 6:20 only applying to gnostics or gnosticism as well as the other person perhaps 'hoping' the 2 bible verses used in my OP are only applying to another religion (so he can diss it and not consider if it might apply to him).


So go read it, you must think I am trying to convert you. I'm definitely not, I don't think you know what you're talking about to begin with and your opinion is all you have to confirm Paul's being an Apostle. No Apostle, and nobody with the lone exception ofLuke, calls Paul an Apostle in scripture. That's including Jesus, Paul's self confirmation and lie about seeing Jesus do not count.



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: whereislogic

And you spelled hypocrisy wrong, which is not good when you are trying to insult people with that very word. I haven't been a hypocrite once so it doesn't affect me, other than the 2 seconds it takes to point out your spelling error.



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: Heresiarch
In defense of the Saul/Paul of the NT, i do not understand why the need for destroying his image as a Christ Follower. Saul/Paul was an apostle of the Sanhedrin before his conversion to the Nazarene sect. Now by Apostle of the Sanhedrin is meant that Saul/Paul was given authority and license by both the Sanhedrin and Roman representatives to do as he had done to the Nazarene's. In other words Saul/Paul was one who was sent out by those who gave the authority and that is all that is required to be an Apostle. Almost all religions and cults had Apostles whether divine or corrupt is another matter of ones judgment.

Regardless of whether Saul/Paul saw the Christ or visioned the Christ or any other means of communications is beside the point. He was one who was sent out by his own claim and that claim was accepted by the congregation of the Jerusalem Synagogue of James. They represented the authority of rejection or approval.

Now how can we prove this? We can prove this by the body of Nazarene's themselves. After the death of Jesus the apostles and disciples of that first congregation were in the upper room which became the first house of God. They were endowed with the fire of the Holy Spirit and were given nine to thirteen gifts of God to use and build as well as protect the sect. Among these gifts was the gift of discernment and that is the shield of protection against evil coming into the congregation.

One can argue that it is old fashioned or that we don't use that anymore or any number of other reasons but the truth in this matter is of the utmost importance to consider. Saul/ Paul came to the established congregation and spent well over several weeks in the based liturgy of that first congregation. If Saul/Paul were to have been a liar or deceiver by any means it would have have been shown then. Now if we cannot accept that part of the NT then we cannot accept any part of the NT because that is the most important tool that God gave the Synagogue.

Luke wrote and praised Saul/Paul 132 times in the NT without once raising any sort of doubt and he was in the first congregation. Peter praised Paul in his work of 2nd Peter. Stephanas, Fortunatus, Achaicus, and Timotheus also praised Paul in 1st Corinthians. Titus and Lucas praised Paul in 2nd Corinthians. Eph'siym and Tychicus praised Paul in Ephesians. Epaphroditus Praised Paul in Philippians. Tychicus and Onesimus praised Paul in Colossians. Timotheus praised Paul in Hebrews and Onesimus praised Paul in Philemon.

And now we must also consider the source of this man Saul/Paul. He was not of the congregation nor did he influence the congregation in any manner. He was not an Apostle of divine origin but only a messenger of crude understanding. He was a babe in Christ and not a seasoned veteran such as those who walked, talked and slept with the Christ Jesus. He was not privy to the truth till a good five years after Jesus was put to death and his mission was to evangelize to strange people with strange gods. Not to the Jews in a organized manner but vagabond heathens who would slice your neck at a whim. He was brilliant as a Sanhedrin member with a brilliant mind in the torah but that was useless in this world of which he was an Apostle to the gentile only. He did preach to Jews at times but his mission was to the heathen.

Saul/Paul was not a disciple without doubts or faults. He had many of both and he confessed both doubts and faults to fellow Christians throughout the world. He very well could not have written letters of condemnation but chose to openly show his corruption to the world. He was an imperfect man doing an imperfect work. He had physical problems and was never healed either by Jesus or man. Jesus refused to make him whole in knowing that he would revert back to the old Saul of the Sanhedrin if He had done so.

Now for those who judge this man into condemnation, be reminded that nothing Paul taught took from any man being saved from destruction. One can disagree and when in disagreement consider that perhaps it is we who do not understand and not the many who do understand. To deny the gift of discernment is to deny God's baptism to men and women on the day of Pentecost and to deny Paul as one sent out to propagate the word of God is to deny that any of the NT can be shown as truth.



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

I laugh at any attempts to defend Saul. No sell. He is clearly opposed to the real Apostles and you clearly are choosing sides with a false prophet.



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede

A Nazarene is one sect of the Essenes. Essenes probably is an outsiders term, Ebionites and Zaddikim along with the Alexandrian Theraputae are all considered a part of "the Essenes" who were definitely exterminated throughout Palestine and most likely went to Alexandria and mixed in with the various Gnostics and Serapis worshippers.



posted on Mar, 28 2016 @ 08:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Heresiarch


a reply to: Seede I laugh at any attempts to defend Saul. No sell. He is clearly opposed to the real Apostles and you clearly are choosing sides with a false prophet.

That is your prerogative to laugh at any attempt to defend the grace of God but for the grace of God there is repentance for all people. There are none who are not salvageable and what transpires between man and God is not ours to judge. In this matter of Saul/Paul if we had the original autographs then that would clear up a lot of the misconceptions that are accepted from the Greek manuscripts. There are some that believe the seven letters penned by Paul were penned in Hebrew may very well be the case at hand and more evidence is emerging in that sense. That in itself could reflect an altogether different account in our modern English thinking.

But returning to the matter of discernment, then you are denying that the first congregation used that gift in the synagogue of James? Now if Saul /Paul had not the gifts of the Holy Spirit then either the entire congregation were all wrong or God was wrong. It has to be one or the other and there is no middle ground to consider. Either James was a liar or stupid or God was wrong. You can not have middle ground in this particular case and you have shown that you take no middle ground. You have judged this man by your standards. So in this case what I have been shown by many ATS members is that God really does not know or is incapable of foreknowledge. You have not realized the repercussions of your judgment. You have judged God.
God Bless



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join