Did Gnosticism try and Usurp Christianity or is it the Real Message of Christ. , page 10

privacy

Pages: << 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 15 times

reply posted on 9-12-2008 @ 01:30 PM by Eleleth

Originally posted by ghaleon12
There are a lot of websites out there that are based around the teachings of Samael Aun Weor. He developed his own ideas around the 70's about gnosis. Some of his ideas make sense, but he has some strange ideas or interpriations of some of the gnostic myths/texts. Within the gnostic community, he isn't looked at very highly, that's the gist I get. For one, he believes that males can't do a certain activity and basically says that the way to "enlightenment" is white tantra. It is just sort of strange to tie gnosticism to certain sexual actions which is what he proposes. Everyone has to find their own truth of course, but just a warning about that lol. Most gnostics don't agree with that but unfortunatly, his teachings are some of the most popular when it comes to gnosticism; he sort of has developed a "brand". He has the right idea about sexuality playing a role, but it isn't a physical thing but a sort of metaphor perhaps about our attitude to everything in life, not just sex and it has nothing to do with sex. Both gnosticism and Kabbalah point in this direction.

Yeah, Samael Aun Weor and his school has basically "usurped" Gnosticism. I would be a little bit peeved if it wasn't so wonderfully ironic.

The Naassenes may have practiced a form of tantra, but if they did, it would have to have been flamingly gay, as they strictly forbade sex with women! So clearly that contradicts Weor's teachings about homosexuality.

The Valentinians, at least, considered sex to be a sacred act. But the rest is necessarily left to the imagination.

[edit on 9-12-2008 by Eleleth]

reply posted on 9-12-2008 @ 01:46 PM by ghaleon12

reply to post by Eleleth

I would say its more of a misrepresentation of gnosticism, but like I said, someone might say that it is exactly what gnosticism is. So it depends on the person.

Early Christianity was very diverse so to say that gnosticism usurped Christianity isn't really the case. If anything, you could say early Christianity (and early Christians) usurped gnosticism. Gnostic Christianity was what the majority of Christians early on choose from what I've read. Then orthodoxy developed and they killed fellow christians and destroyed the gnostic texts. You wouldn't think that gnosticism could be so bad as to make the orthodox church violate one of its own commandments..

[edit on 9-12-2008 by ghaleon12]

reply posted on 9-12-2008 @ 02:24 PM by Eleleth

Originally posted by ghaleon12
I would say its more of a misrepresentation of gnosticism, but like I said, someone might say that it is exactly what gnosticism is. So it depends on the person.

Early Christianity was very diverse so to say that gnosticism usurped Christianity isn't really the case. If anything, you could say early Christianity (and early Christians) usurped gnosticism. Gnostic Christianity was what the majority of Christians early on choose from what I've read. Then orthodoxy developed and they killed fellow christians and destroyed the gnostic texts. You wouldn't think that gnosticism could be so bad as to make the orthodox church violate one of its own commandments.

Haha, I wasn't saying that was the case.

There is much evidence, however, that the Gnostic Ophites had an intimate knowledge of Kundalini of some sort or another, and I highly suspect that this is what much of the New Testament is actually about. Which might explain why they considered themselves the only true Christians!

[edit on 9-12-2008 by Eleleth]

reply posted on 5-12-2010 @ 03:33 AM by gnostician

l just found this thread in the archives and l'm bumping it because l think there are some real gems in it.

What do you think about gnosticism?

Some month ago l stumbled across this topic and l was really fascinated.

l was kind of flabbergasted when l read about Gnosticism and what the teachings of 'Jesus' really meant. l'm aware that this figure of 'Jesus' is controversial and some say he is just a myth, even if there are indications to prove otherwise: Yeshu

en.wikipedia.org...

So there was a figure 'Yehoshua Ha-Notzri' which the translation is exactly 'Jesus the Nazarene', and this figure was a member of a gnostic sect called the 'Nazarenes':

en.wikipedia.org...

And most members of those 'Nazarenes' converted to Christianity.... ring ring a bell... And to this very day in Hebrew the Jews call the Christians the 'Nazarenes'....? Well to me at least this ring sounds very loud.

What do you think about this all?

edit on 5-12-2010 by gnostician because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 8-12-2010 @ 06:31 AM by NOTurTypical

reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

Keep in mind also, the middle ground: Not that the Canonized message of Christ is more or less true then the Gnostic message of Christ; they were both the messages of Christ. I am not saying this reflects my stance, but it may for some?

No, Gnostic gospels were written in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD. Not to mention they were more than pseudo-gospels, the gnostics falsified their authorships to give them the appearance of legitimacy.

Video "Gnosticism Exposed"

Video "How We Got ur NT" ~ Missler (starts at 1:16 mark)

reply posted on 8-12-2010 @ 07:09 AM by autowrench

Originally posted by Mr Anunnaki
Gnosticism also recognizes the sacred feminine. Something the church does not do. Remember every thing has it's opposite. Gnostics also do not categorize Mary Magdalen as a whore, but rather as Jesus' wife. Remember Jesus was a teacher and a devout Jew. He would have been married according to Rabbinic law. Peter and Paul were notorious women hater's, and have influenced the church towards this view as well. I think Jesus did not share their view on this. There are many more reasons why I think gnosticism deserves another look.IMHO

Yes, I agree with Mr Anunnaki here. We are all adults, this is the 21st. Century, and we are well educated...right? Can we not accept what is truth, and recognise that the bloodline exists, and has been perverted, and turned into something monstrous? Actually, who was there that can say for certain that the person we know as Jesus was not a woman, after all? Not a scrap was written about Christ until 70 years had gone by, a lot of things can happen in 70 years.
I spent 10 years of my life searching for the Grail, and discovered that the Grail is the actual bloodline of Christ. It exists even today in the world leaders and bankers. they are direct descendants, and figure they have a right to do whatever they wish.

reply posted on 8-12-2010 @ 08:08 AM by LeoVirgo

reply to post by gnostician

I think its important to look at the gnostic writings as personifications that resemble/reflect the dualities of this world and experience. Mankind has always been trying to explain 'good and bad' as well as wanting to make a 'man god'.

One thing I find of importance from the gnostic point of view is the 'creation' of the world. The view was not 'something came from nothing'....but more of a emanation of sorts, that something always comes from a former something....never 'nothing' being. I think emanation describes a cascading effect of energy that came from 'to and fro' and we are a long line down on that cascading effect of emanation.

Something else of interests on this line of thought is the word 'bara' in the Bible, in Genesis. It is translated into 'created'. But...other uses in the Bible of this word do not mean created (in fact its argued that in the Hebrew language there is NO word that means/defines created ) but it means a 'filling and fattening'. So one could translate the line of Genesis about the heavens and the Earth to "God filled and fattened the heavens and the Earth".

reply posted on 8-12-2010 @ 08:49 AM by NewlyAwakened

Originally posted by autowrench
Yes, I agree with Mr Anunnaki here. We are all adults, this is the 21st. Century, and we are well educated...right? Can we not accept what is truth, and recognise that the bloodline exists, and has been perverted, and turned into something monstrous? Actually, who was there that can say for certain that the person we know as Jesus was not a woman, after all? Not a scrap was written about Christ until 70 years had gone by, a lot of things can happen in 70 years.
I spent 10 years of my life searching for the Grail, and discovered that the Grail is the actual bloodline of Christ. It exists even today in the world leaders and bankers. they are direct descendants, and figure they have a right to do whatever they wish.

That's a hell of a story. Can you elaborate on this "search for the Grail"? I've heard speculation about a Jesus bloodline but never that it's the same bloodline as the alleged Illuminati (for the latter you usually hear of several bloodlines).

reply posted on 8-12-2010 @ 11:28 AM by NOTurTypical

reply to post by autowrench

Ummm, no, another great attack on the historical Jesus Christ. Dan Brown wrote FICTION. You will find "Da Vinci Code" in the "fiction" section of Barnes and Noble.

Missler ~ "Exposing the Da Vinci Code" 1/7

reply posted on 8-12-2010 @ 11:29 AM by NOTurTypical

reply to post by NewlyAwakened

Hold on a sec friend.

Watch the 7 part video series I linked a post above.

reply posted on 8-12-2010 @ 05:01 PM by autowrench

reply to post by NewlyAwakened

That's a hell of a story. Can you elaborate on this "search for the Grail"? I've heard speculation about a Jesus bloodline but never that it's the same bloodline as the alleged Illuminati (for the latter you usually hear of several bloodlines).

Sure. A very distant relative of mine was said to have been a Templar Knight. This was told me as a child, and it intrigued me to no end. The real quest though, began with the book, "The Templars and the Grail: Knights of the Quest," by Karen Ralls, it was sent me by a friend who thought I would like it. she was very correct. I must have read 20 or 30 books on the Templar Knights and the Holy Grail, including "The Knights of the Holy Grail: The Secret History of the Knights Templar" by Tim Wallace-Murphy, and "Holy Blood, Holy Grail: The Secret History of Jesus, the Shocking Legacy of the Grail" by Michael Baigent, Henry Lincoln, and Richard Leigh. I went into the research thinking that the Grail was a cup, but no, I discovered that it is a Bloodline. Such a bloodline would have to be protected, the Church would go to any lengths to prevent people from knowing that Jesus was just a man, and had a wife, and had borne children who were living even in those early days of Christianity. Also there was the way the Templars were dealt with, the tortures. I would say the Priests that were conducting these tortures wanted some information from them, wouldn't you?

Now I know the local Christians will be all over this, after all, the secrets still have to be kept from the people. The Mercovian Bloodline is a very real thing, whether one likes it or not.

"After the Crusades, it was rumored that the Templars had discovered treasure underneath the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem that could debunk the Catholic Church's doctrine," said BLOODLINE director Bruce Burgess, of the unprecedented discovery of what appears to be an intact Knights Templar tomb. "This treasure was believed to be priceless relics -- documents, the Holy Grail, even the embalmed remains of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene -- which was then brought to southern France, and hidden."

Tomb Discovered in France Considered Knights Templar

Here, thanks to David Icke, are many of the Reptilian/Satanic/Illuminati bloodlines that originated with Christ and Magdalene.

THE Van Duyn Bloodline

The Russell Bloodline

The Rothschild Bloodline

The Rockefeller Bloodline

The Reynolds Bloodline

The Onassis Bloodline

The Li Bloodline

THE KENNEDY FAMILY

The Freeman Bloodline

THE DuPONTS

THE COLLINS BLOODLINE

The Astor Bloodline

The 13th Bloodline is, of course, the Bloodline of Christ and Magdalene. It is believed that they bore at lease one child, a girl named Sarah. "Sarah" means "Princess" in Hebrew, thus making her the forgotten child of the "sang réal", the Blood Royal of the King of the Jews.

And, for a through read up on these parasites, look no further....

THE RULE OF THE ORDER History of the parasitic class and their techniques of control

reply posted on 8-12-2010 @ 06:08 PM by LeoVirgo

reply to post by autowrench

Hi auto

I hope you and yours are well!

I too went through similar searches due to family history.

What I feel in my heart of it all....is that this bloodline is out of Egypt. Literally, a 'line of Pharaohs' still exists (at least some of these people think so).

In the end though, I figure that there is no bloodline of any importance really....its just a pride thing that has a history.

I think there is alot more to the story of Abraham and his sons....then we have in our mainstream books today and I think Abraham fathered a son that held this bloodline. Course the battle over which son it was...well just look at the two main religions of the world today, its still going strong. I dont think we have an accurate story left to us....for we have 2 books and they both give a different name to of whom Abraham was going to sacrifice unto God.

reply posted on 19-12-2010 @ 04:24 AM by gnostician

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy

Keep in mind also, the middle ground: Not that the Canonized message of Christ is more or less true then the Gnostic message of Christ; they were both the messages of Christ. I am not saying this reflects my stance, but it may for some?

No, Gnostc gospels were written in the 3rd and 4th centuries AD. Not to mention they were more than pseudo-gospels, the gnostics falsified their authorships to give them the appearance of legitimacy.

No, that is simply not true. Gnostic gospels were written in the first and second centuries AD.

en.wikipedia.org...

Long before the First Council of Nicaea

en.wikipedia.org...

But you did not answer my question about this in the first place:

Originally posted by gnostician
l was kind of flabbergasted when l read about Gnosticism and what the teachings of 'Jesus' really meant. l'm aware that this figure of 'Jesus' is controversial and some say he is just a myth, even if there are indications to prove otherwise: Yeshu

en.wikipedia.org...

So there was a figure 'Yehoshua Ha-Notzri' which the translation is exactly 'Jesus the Nazarene', and this figure was a member of a gnostic sect called the 'Nazarenes':

en.wikipedia.org...

And most members of those 'Nazarenes' converted to Christianity....

Who were those 'Nazarenes' ?

edit on 19-12-2010 by gnostician because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 19-12-2010 @ 07:58 AM by NOTurTypical

reply to post by gnostician

Do you even READ the links you present as counter-points???

The manuscript of the Coptic text, found in 1945 at Nag Hammadi, Egypt, is dated at around 340. It was first published in a photographic edition in 1956.[14] This was followed three years later (1959) by the first English-language translation, with Coptic transcription.[15] In 1977, James M. Robinson edited the first complete collection of English translations of the Nag Hammadi texts.[16] The Gospel of Thomas has been translated and annotated worldwide in a wide variety of languages.

In case you're mistaken, "340 AD" is the '4th Century'. The pseudo-gospels were created much later than the apostolic Gospels to promote the Gnostic heresy. They used false authorship to make them appear genuine. the early church rejected them all.

reply posted on 21-12-2010 @ 01:55 AM by gnostician

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by gnostician

Do you even READ the links you present as counter-points???

Yes of course l did, but l just detected the post l replied to by LucidLunacy was made in 2008

stupid me...

The manuscript of the Coptic text, found in 1945 at Nag Hammadi, Egypt, is dated at around 340.

Yes, the hiding of those manuscripts is dated at around 340, not the writing of them.. for example the Gospel of Thomas is thought to be written even before the canonical Gospels by some scholars:

en.wikipedia.org...

TextScholars generally fall into one of two main camps: an "early camp" favoring a date for the "core" of between the years 50 and 100, before or approximately contemporary with the composition of the canonical gospels and a "late camp" favoring a date in the 2nd century, after composition of the canonical gospels

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
TextIn case you're mistaken, "340 AD" is the '4th Century'. The pseudo-gospels were created much later than the apostolic Gospels to promote the Gnostic heresy. They used false authorship to make them appear genuine. the early church rejected them all.

That's the point when l say: This is simply not true. What you're calling the 'pseudo-gospels', they were written in the exact same time as the canonical Gospels. "They used false authorship to make them appear genuine" is simply not true, you could have stated exactly the same opposite in favour for the so called 'gnostic' Gospels.

edit on 21-12-2010 by gnostician because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 21-12-2010 @ 02:01 AM by LeoVirgo

A site you all may enjoy or learn something from....called 'The Nazarene Way'...

It has a TON of stuff to read....lots and lots of stuff. Weigh it for yourself.

www.thenazareneway.com...

reply posted on 21-12-2010 @ 02:38 AM by gnostician

reply to post by LeoVirgo

WOW, LeoVirgo, thanks so much for this link!