posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 01:37 PM
HELEN, i respect you and what you have to say, but here's the thing, you always back up your points with only what the Bible says as a reference.
My main question on this thread is how do we know that the "gnostic" texts do not contain "truth" or or even contain more of the "truth" then
the Bible as we know it.
You have to remember that the Bible is a cannon of texts that were put together by the Roman church by Constantine around 300AD. Also the Roman empire
was not in the best of shapes power wise then.
The "Gnostic" texts were also around at that time and were believed in by early Christian sects at that time. The roman church deemed the
"gnostic" text's as heresy and did not include then in the cannon that they put together which we now know as the Bible.
How do we know the "gnostic" texts do not cantain truths or even more truth then the New Testament books? The truth is i find it confusing that the
God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament seem to be so different.
For instance Jesus taught love and tolerance for the fellow man and said if your enemy slaps your cheek, then you should turn the other cheek.
Yet the God of the Old testament is full of jealousy, wrath, and seems to approve murder all over the place. A small example is how everyone was
stoning others to death (a horrible way to die) in the Old Testament. Yet in the New Testament, when a crowd was ready to stone a prostitute, Jesus
stopped them and said let him without sin cast the first stone.
Now if God was always talking to Moses and others in the Old Testament and lying down the laws, why would he let them stone people to death and not
step in and say what Jesus said if they were the same God? This is just a small example of something i do not understand, I could give more.
Now the Roman church declared alot of books heresy or did not include them in the cannon they made which became the Bible. Yet the Gospel of Thomas
(not included by the roman church) says a lot of the same things that Mark, Matt., Luke, and John say. however there are then other things in the
Gospel of Thomas that the roman church did not agree with. So how do we know that the gospel of Thomas or other early Christian texts do not contain
possible truth? Just because the roman church said they did not?
The Roman church has been full of hippocricy, corruption , and has always shown how it wanted to wield power over the masses. So how can we know that
the books they chose not to include in the cannon they put together (which we now call the Bible) are even books that contain all the truths of the
early Christians? How do we even know that the Roman church did not alter, take away, or add to the books in the current bible?
HELEN, you say that the Old Testament talks about a coming Messiah, and it does, but it never mention the name of that person being Jesus. The main
reason the Jews do not believe Jesus was the Messiah that the Old Testament talks about, is that the Jews say that Jesus did not fulfill all the
things that the Old Testament said the coming Messiah was supposed to fulfill. I am not saying he was or was not the Messiah, but just showing an
example of something.
Even on the topic of Hell. There is no mention of a hell of everlasting torment and fire and punishment in the Old Testament, only in the New (correct
me if i am wrong). And even then there are those that say the Roman church made that all up to keep power over the people. In the earlier texts of the
New Testament, Jesus spoke of GHEANNA (spelling?), not hell. Now Gehhenna was an actually valley in those times where trash was burned in a fire that
was always burning. They also threw dead theives, rapist's and other criminals into that fire (again, correct me if i am wrong). It's then said that
the roman church took this and then took it further and created the notion of Hell out of what Jesus talked about (Please correct me if i am off with
the above account as i may not have all the facts, but from what i have read this is how i have understood a lot of it).
Even in the Old Testament, Satan is not really considered to be "evil" in the way he is portrayed in the New Testament. Satan means "adversary"
and in the Old testament that is what he was to God. In the book of Job, it says there was a meeting of the angels with God and Satan was among them.
And God was telling Satan of his great servant of a man name Job. Satan then told God to basically prove that Job was so loyal by telling God to make
bad things happen to Job that among other things KILLED all of Jobs family.
So here you actually have Satan of all people, telling God of all people, to do bad things to a man named Job and God does it (or did God give
permission to Satan to do those things to Job, i'm not positive, but i think God actualy did those things, please correct me if i am wrong as i do
not want to give false info.). Also when God asked Satan where he has been , Satan replies that he has been walking on and in the Earth, not that he
was hanging out in Hell or something.
now to take the concept of Hell further, only does the 4 gospels of the New Testament mention Hell and only Jesus talked about it or actually
Gehhenna. But no where in any of the other books of the New Testament is Hell mentioned. the books that were written by Paul, who it seems the roman
church promote so much do not even mention hell. Would you not think that something as important as your soul going to a place called hell forever,
would not be at least mentioned by Paul or the other aposles who wrote the other books in the New Testament?
Also i could be wrong, but i don't think it actually says anywhere in the Bible that the serpet of genesis was Satan. I think it is just interpreted
to be that way. but does it actually say that anywhere in the bible? Maybe it does say that somewhere, but i don't think it does.
some of the "gnostic" texts from those days though say that the serpent was actually Jesus in another form before he was Jesus and that he was
trying to enlighten man to the fact of the God or Gods that were ruling over man.
By eating the "apple" it is said that then Adam and Eve then knew the difference between good and evil. Why though would this be such a bad thing
for them to know in the eyes of God? Then it says the God or Gods (as i actually think it talks about gods in the plural sense) then said let us not
let man eat of the tree of life or then man would then to become immortal like the God(s). It's like they are saying that man actually had the chance
to become immortal like the God or Gods of the Old Testament unless the God or Gods of the Old Testament did something to stop man from becoming
immortal. It seems that that God or Gods is actually showing some type of fear that man might become like the God or Gods themselves.
That does not sound the same as the God of the New Testament to me, you know?
The God of the New Testament seems to wants us to become immortal like him and live with him in his heavenly realms. It seems to me that the God the
Father that Jesus speaks about, wants us to choose good over evil so that we can be more like him and more like Jesus.
These are but a few examples of things that do not make sense to me. It has to be questioned, could the Roman church have added things, taken away
things to the cannon they put together that became the Bible as we know it? Then it has to be questioned could the other early christian texts of
those thims that the Roman church labeled heresy, acyually contain truths that the roman church did not want the masses of people to know because it
could affect the power of the roman church?
[edit on 1-8-2005 by GREGNOW]