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

page: 12
15
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


None of the Gnostic churches I have looked into teach anything like what you describe. First of all, there is no returning to the one God, he sent tiny pieces of himself throughout the world because he wants them out there. The highest level of the Gnostic Church believe in an evolutionary path. It is similar to Buddhism, in that you advance yourself by opening your mind, but unlike Buddhism, you don't become god. At the highest levels of Gnosticism you penetrate the veil and see the world for the way it truly is. This allows you to ascend to a higher level, dimension, what ever you want to call it, when your life on Earth ends. Anyone can follow the path that leads to this higher plain. There are many ways, and no one has a monopoly.


Unlike what your Gnostic church may teach, today in 2010, the founders of the Gnostic faith did not believe that the way was for everyone, or that the truth was for everyone, or that anyone but a small group was capable of being saved. That is elitism, defined.


Gnosticism was never a unified church, and still isn't today. I am sure there are some sects who believe as you describe, just as there are plenty of Paulist sects who hold similar beliefs. This certainly is nothing like anyone would glean from the Gospel of Thomas. You seem a bit too set against the whole Gnostic philosophy, a bit twisted by what you have been taught.

The Paulists and even the Orthodox Church are not as cuddly as you describe. If you don't do the things here on Earth that they think should be done, and if you do things which they don't approve of, then they see you as damned, and have no problem taking your life here on Earth to send you to eternal damnation.

While the Gnostics at there worst might be complete snobs, the Paulists, at their worst, conduct witch trials and burn people at the stake.




posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by adjensen
 


None of the Gnostic churches I have looked into teach anything like what you describe.


That's because they are Gnostic in name only. They're just "mystery religions" of one sort or another. What you describe is characteristic of a variety of Eastern religions, as if someone has determined that people in the West will accept Buddhism more readily if they slap a "Gnostic" tag on it.

I don't know if you are just being stubborn, or you flat out don't understand. Gnostic Christianity, and Gnostic religions the were in the same timeframe had very specific beliefs and understandings of the world. Regardless of what the people that you are talking about call themselves, they are not Gnostic if they do not share those beliefs, period. Same way that someone who calls himself a Christian but doesn't believe in God is not a Christian.


While the Gnostics at there worst might be complete snobs, the Paulists, at their worst, conduct witch trials and burn people at the stake.


Once again, you are making statements in ignorance. You have clearly never read Paul's writings, or you would realize that he taught no such thing, much to the contrary, in fact. Were he alive today, Paul would most likely not even be a Catholic, because of the difference between his teachings on salvation and theirs.

Have people committed atrocities in the name of God in the past? Of course. Have they committed atrocities outside of anything to do with God? Of course... secular governments killed more people in the 20th century than the church killed since its creation. The obvious conclusion to be drawn there is that the common denominator is man, not God, and that, even if the church were abolished tomorrow, it wouldn't reduce evil one bit.

Claiming that behaviour from centuries past, such as burning people at the stake, condemns the church today is a foolishly weak statement, and there is all likelihood that if the Gnostics (the real ones, from 200AD) had won out, they would have acted in a similar manner, particularly as they viewed the vast majority of humankind to be animals.

Set aside your irrational hatred of Paul and the church and perhaps you'll be able to see things a bit differently.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Sorry, but no one knows what the true teachings of Christ were, and you are just trying to pigeonhole one group in a narrow manner so that you can raise another group above them.

If you are a true Christian, then you know that all you have to do is look into your heart to find the true God.

Believe what you must, but I see a lot more wisdom in Gnosticism than current mainstream Christianity.

You can continue to cling to the teachings of the Apostle Paul, but I will stick with the real thing.



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by hawkiye
Indeed Gnosticism in its original purity was the true teachings of Christ


You honestly believe that the true teachings of Christ are:

1) The Judaic God is one of many divine entities
2) Said Judaic God is actually a flawed divinity who "screwed up" while creating the world
3) A separate divine being was broken apart, which resulted in certain humans containing a "divine spark"
4) Said divine sparks have been imprisoned in the "evil" material plane, as human beings
5) With the proper knowledge, those beings are allowed to return to the "good" spiritual realm
6) Lacking that, these few (numbers vary, but it probably doesn't include you) will be reincarnated over and over until they figure out of the truth
7) There is no resurrection of the body, there is only release of the spirit, because the body is inherently evil, and the only good comes from that which is spirit? Despite all claims to the contrary, Jesus, post crucifixion, was a ghost, and all claims to the contrary are lies.

These are a few of the teachings of the "original purity" Gnostics. Do you honestly believe that a Jew would claim ANY of them to be true, when they are all complete blasphemy to a first century Jew (apart from #7, which is a little iffy)?

If so, I guess that the "Dan Brownization" of America is complete. People will believe anything, so long as it is contrary.



Well no of course I do not believe your skewed subjective definitions of the original pure gnosticism of the Christ. General I do not believe anything I only know certain things and other things I reserve for contemplation until I either know them as truth or error



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 



General I do not believe anything I only know certain things and other things I reserve for contemplation until I either know them as truth or error


Tis a philosophy I follow myself.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 08:37 AM
link   
I'm reading a book right now called THE JESUS MYSTERIES - WAS THE "ORIGINAL JESUS" A PAGAN GOD, by Timothy Freke and Peter Grandy. It came out in 1999, and I guess it stirred up some excitement back at that time and sold some copies. Its focus is appearing more and more to be on proving that Paul - the original Christian evangelist - was the original Christian Gnostic, and to be honest, these two guy do a fairly good job with their presentation. I haven't finished the book yet, so I haven't gotten to the effort of debunking everything in it yet. That means that I'm not able to defend or attack its central premise yet. However, if even 50% of this stuff holds up, it's pretty significant evidence that Christianity began as the Hebrew's edition of the Mediterranean Hellenistic Mystery Religion craze (complete with the Jewish Messiah filling in for their lack of a lesser deity to accept the role traditionally offered to a middle-management god in those theologies that had such deities lying around), and that the Roman elite hijacked this version and repackaged it to eventually serve as a soft landing (complete with elevated positions of authority and tons of money potential for the upper echelon) for the great, great, great grandkids, as they envisioned their slowly decaying empire someday become unavailable to those decedents.

To be honest, if I'd been one of the Roman elite, I'd have been completely onboard with the scheme. If true, then the Literalist's version of Christianity has been the most elaborate and successful conspiracies of the entire human period on this planet. Sheer genius.

As for the Gnostics losing the PR war, it's extremely hard to sell a theology that can't adequately explain itself in any real, concrete terms. Even after 2,000 years, there's no bullet-point description of what these people see as the bottom line in Gnosticism - well, beyond Gnosis itself, which might seem like a bottom line for some folks, but believe me, for the rest of us, it just sounds like a "we're on the IN and because you don't know what the f*ck we're talking about, you're on the OUT, and what do you think about that?" sort of secret handshake sorority panty party among the kinds of guys who can't get girlfriends. The whole "Jesus died to save you" sales campaign, with associated action items that include divinely approved means and methods of ensuring eternal bliss, is a no-brainer for the average idiot, and when trying to sell reality, landing the average idiot is where the real numbers are.

Frankly, I think that the Gnostics have a better handle on the strategy behind the way the NT was actually crafted, but they run right off a cliff with it all once they wrap their arms around what they've got. Like all human beings, at all stages of human history, they just can't imagine that they don't have all the pertinent information in their laps as they begin fitting the pieces together. Even as they all agree that the last group of folks to attempt this sort of thing was obviously ignorant of the fact that they were cobbing the incomplete pieces that they'd been presented with, and that this is why those folks failed.

(good grief)

As if these guys were absolutely correct that God had given THEM the complete and final edition. How fortunate they must've felt. That they weren't like that last bunch; shoe-horning together bits of undercooked data, and coming up with craziness, as opposed to allowing for the possibility that there was more that they'd missed that might've gelled what they had into a completely different end configuration. After all, these guys - the Gnostics - were (naturally) the last version of knowing human beings. Just like the newest version of knowing human beings are. Just like the next round of enlightened human beings will be. And the next batch that'll show up after them.

I think that there is a truth that's being suggested within all of this, but I honestly believe that unless you marry it with the mundane crap that 10 yr olds learn in 5th grade - the kind of stuff that deals with protozoan dreams coming true - then you'll be running off your own cliffs with whatever madness you've manufactured of the information that's been left to you. If a premise represents what's real, then it has to completely connect with everything else that's real - and from the very bottom to the very top, with linkage to everything in between. If not, then you really do have to start over again.

Or, I guess you don't.

Hell, no one else has ever bothered to, so why should you be any better? Just don't expect to be any closer to being right than they were. Which is okay too. Just so long as you don't hurt anybody with what you come up with. After all, it's no sin to be wrong. Seriously. It's not.

Oh.....and Merry Christmas. Whatever that actually means.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Yepper, the whole Christ concept came from Zoroastrianism. Christ was essentially Mithra.

www.edwardjayne.com...


Both Mithraism and Christianity became popular in Rome during the second century, A.D. As a Persian religion, Mithraism was far older and more venerable at the time, having been practiced as early as 1500, B.C. during the Aryan migration into both Persia and India. This was when the early Vedic god Mitra, similar to Mithra, began to be worshipped in India. During the sixth century, B.C., the Persian mystic Zarathustra (Zoroaster, as described in Greece) subordinated the story of Mithra to a grand epic struggle between a god (Ahura Mazda) and a devil (Ahriman) that supposedly culminates in judgment day, when all souls can expect to be consigned either to heaven or hell. Whether perceived as the primary god in his own right or subordinated to Ahura Mazda, Mithra was worshipped across Asia from the Indus River to the Black Sea when his religion finally arrived in Rome in a version that first emerged perhaps a hundred years before Christ.


Christianity succeeded because it was an easy sell, and allowed the elite total control of the masses once turned into its current belief system under Catholicism. The persecution of Christians was exaggerated, and the persecution by Christians was ignored.


The Emperor Julian the Apostate (361-63) tried but failed in his effort to resurrect Mithraism, and the Emperor Theodosius (379-95) consolidated Christian dominance once and for all with his 380 decree, "We brand all the senseless followers of the other religions with the infamous name of heretics, and forbid their conventicles assuming the name of churches." A series of fourteen edicts followed, one per year, that both outlawed all pagan creeds in competition with Christianity and mandated the destruction of their temples. The most notorious of the measures against pagan religions imposed by Theodosius, in either 389 or 391, was the destruction of the Temple of Serapis located in Alexandria. The grand metal and bejeweled statue of Serapis was totally smashed, and the famous and irreplaceable library of Alexandria adjacent to the temple was also destroyed at the same time.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Yepper, the whole Christ concept came from Zoroastrianism. Christ was essentially Mithra.

www.edwardjayne.com...


Thanks for the link to the atheist who makes a case for why he doesn't believe in Christ, lol.

Christianity's association with Mithraism largely stems from the writings of Ernest Renan, whose work was more speculative and associative than it was actually scholarly. Zoroastrianism is also a deeply dualistic religion, as with Gnosticism, while Judaism and Christianity are not.

Similarities between religions in general is not surprising, given that there are universal truths that most faiths aspire to (such as "be good to each other") and there is nothing to say that God has not revealed himself to others. But there is only one Christ, by necessity.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



Zoroastrianism is also a deeply dualistic religion, as with Gnosticism, while Judaism and Christianity are not.


Say what? Christianity is as dualistic as it gets, heaven or hell.

Mithra and Christianity are clearly linked. There are numerous sources for this information.

www.near-death.com...

www.vexen.co.uk...


“During the 1st century BC, a cult of Mithra, made much progress in Rome, after enduring persecution, when some Emperors adopted the religion... Mithra became very popular among the Roman legionaries and later even among the Emperors. The worship of Mithra was first recognized by Emperor Aurelian and he instituted the cult of "Sol Invictus" or the Invincible Sun. Emperor Diocletian also a worshipper of Mithra, the Sun God, burned much of the Christian scriptures in 307 A.D.

This enabled Emperor Constantine to merge the cult of Mithra with that of Christianity that was developing much. He declared himself a Christian but at the same time maintained his ties to the Mithra cult. He retained the title "Pontifus Maximus" the high priest. On his coins were inscribed: "Sol Invicto comiti" which means, commited to the invincible sun. This new blend of the two faiths, he officially proclaimed as Christianity. Christianity spread all over the Roman empire and Eastern Europe by massive persecution and brought and end to a variety of religions that flourished there. [...]


This last link is much more scholarly, and provides references that give more evidence about Mithra. The idea of a savior, son of God, is clearly a Zoroastrian concept.

www.cais-soas.com...
edit on 25-12-2010 by poet1b because: Add last link



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by adjensen
 



Zoroastrianism is also a deeply dualistic religion, as with Gnosticism, while Judaism and Christianity are not.


Say what? Christianity is as dualistic as it gets, heaven or hell.


That isn't dualism. The struggle between good and evil is ours, not God's. God has no equal, God has no peer, God is the one.


This last link is much more scholarly, and provides references that give more evidence about Mithra. The idea of a savior, son of God, is clearly a Zoroastrian concept.


Well, you trust yours, endorsed by sources such as that, and I'll trust mine. The truth will bear out and it is, of course, of far more importance than a forum post or web page can possibly foretell.



posted on Dec, 25 2010 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


There is a lot of truth in your post. The gnosis was never meant to be marketed to the masses like Christianity. The Concrete mind cannot grasp the true Gnosis of the Chirst fully so Christianity and other religions and esoteric disciplines and faiths Like in the east were crafted to stimulate the thinking of humanity to the possibilities. So when they reached the point in thier evolution where they could began to grasp the Gnosis and discover the intuitive mind and a make a connection to the soul or kingdom within and raise thier consciousness to a higher level of seeing and understanding etc.

Indeed it does appear as elitism to the concrete mind and of course the religions were co-opted and distorted for control purposes etc. However the gnosis of the Christ is available to all humanity and all will eventually come to knowledge of it when they are ready. It is not something that can just be taught and boom you know and understand. it is a struggle and it comes in increments as the aspirant claws his/her way up the mountain so to speak. IOW you have to have reached a point where you realise there is something more then the concrete mind conceives and seek to find it and really want to know. And you have periods of doubt and will abandon the quest many times thinking it is all BS till you resolve to focus on it till you find it. Then one day comes a paradigm shift and new vistas and ways of seeing things opens up that you never imagined. And then you know and realize this is only one of many more shifts in conciousness you will attain to

As the Ancient wisdom teaches "when the Student is ready the teacher will appear". Until one is ready they will sometimes ridicule those that have moved forward on the path so to speak. All are at their out point on the path and some are a little farther then others but none are any better or more elite then others all have the same potential and will progress in thier own time. This is what is meant by the straight and narrow path. No one else can walk your path or you theirs.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 03:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by adjensen
 


None of the Gnostic churches I have looked into teach anything like what you describe.
.....

While the Gnostics at there worst might be complete snobs, the Paulists, at their worst, conduct witch trials and burn people at the stake.


You're so right, l don't think the Gnostics were complete snobs or elitists. lf you look at eastern philosophies like Buddhism there always was a master and a pupil. Would you call this elitist? No, they tried to protect the pupil because they knew some of this knowledge could even be dangerous for them. The pupils had to be ready for the knowledge. The early church fathers misunderstood this very much, Irenaeus in the first place, he did so much damage to Christianity.

en.wikipedia.org...

The early church fathers did not understand this because they were never part of the 'inner circle' so to speak and they just tried to spread what they believed was the message of the Messiah.

But fortunately in our times the Nag Hammad scriptures were found so we can make up our own mind, finally.

Just one last question: lf you believe the Gnostics were elitists, what's about the hierarchy of the Christian church, huh? This is not elitist? l for myself believe this is much more elitist than the Gnostics ever intended.
edit on 26-12-2010 by gnostician because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 04:24 AM
link   
adjensen


Exactly. Gnosticism did not come out of the Jewish part of the early church, as one would assume if it really reflected the truth about Christ, but it came out of the Greek Gentiles, who came later (with the ministry of Paul.) Dualism is contrary to Jewish beliefs, but is core to the Platonic school of philosophy. So it seems likely that not only the nature of Gnostic beliefs, but the entirety of their view of reality, arose out of some early Christian converts thinking that Jesus was cool and all, but being unwilling to depart from long held core beliefs.

I don't know if we're in agreement here or not. Big-G Gnosticism was fairly diverse. As a movement, it seems to have found the Jews as natural foils for centuries. So, by the turn of the Common Era, there were Gnostics aplenty who were well practiced in debating Jews.

Enter Jesus. Jesus who was both the observant Jew and the accomplished debater of Jews. I don't think Paul needed to "convert" anybody. The Gnostics were already there and established. Jesus, as viewed through their own lens, already fit Gnostics' conceptions of a great teacher. Just lose the observant Jew part. About that bit of editing, you and I do seem to agree.

To write a "Gnostic gospel," you need only spin a novel in which a wandering rabbi named Jesus spouts what Gnostic teachers had been saying for centuries. Throw in a little local color, Judean and Galilean place names, and disciple characters with disciple names - and we're done. Oh, yeah, catchy title. { Acts, Gospel, ... } of { Peter, Mary, Andrew, ... }.

If that's too much like work, then do what seems to have happened in the Coptic manuscript of Thomas. Take some real sayings of Jesus, ensure that something gets lost in the translation, and add a few sayings of your own. That works, too.

Whether you believe Secret Mark or not, that's the mechanism discussed there. The Gnostics against whom Clement supposedly complains simply adopted and adapted some version of Mark's Gospel. A little light frosting, and they're there. There's nothing at all about the elaborate theology of Paul, and nothing that suggests traffic with Paul.

I don't know if Secret Mark is authentic or not, of course, but that's what I think the mechanism of the "Gnostic Christian" phenomenon was. So, I would be surprised if "Gnostic Christians" (which makes about as much sense as "agnostic atheists" or "Roman Catholic Protestants") really had anything much to do with Paul, except maybe as competition.

poet1b


The Gnosticism I learned teaches that we all have a tiny piece of God in us, and so we all have a touch of the divine.

Hell's bells, poet, that's the common heritage of the Indo-European culture area. It's in Heraclitus, for crying out loud. It's in Indian folk tales. It's in the Gospel of John.

Nobody owns that little bit of theology.

-
edit on 26-12-2010 by eight bits because: to err is human.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by eight bits
I don't know if we're in agreement here or not. Big-G Gnosticism was fairly diverse. As a movement, it seems to have found the Jews as natural foils for centuries. So, by the turn of the Common Era, there were Gnostics aplenty who were well practiced in debating Jews.


Well, we probably are. I tend to drop the "Christian" bit from "Christian Gnostic" (agreed, a bit of a oxymoron) but my point of contention is with the group that developed in the second century that excise Christ from the Judaeo-Christian context, where there is continuity and sensibility, into a context where Christ is still sort of Christ, but Judaism is completely wrong, which makes no sense at all.

Jesus' complaints with Judaic authority were regarding the application of the Law, not the existence or validity of it, which is what the Gnostics would argue against. Jews regarded the Law as pure and perfect, Gnostics argued that, if the Law came from the numbskull who had created the material world, it would be anything but pure and perfect, a view that Christ directly refuted.

Nag Hammadi contains a lot of stuff, but people tend to latch onto the Christian Gnostic writings. I suppose that a lot of people have Christianity drummed into their heads, but they decide that they don't like organized religion very much, so when something comes along, like the Coptic Apocalypse of Peter or the Gospel of Thomas, which seem to support Jesus, but thumb their nose at the Church, that's appealing.

Because of my orthodox and apologetic nature, I tend to point out the failings of such views, but Gnostics in general who leave Christ out of it? Meh, knock yourselves out. Along with every other belief and non-belief that doesn't seek to appropriate or misrepresent Christianity, I've nothing against it.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by gnostician
Just one last question: lf you believe the Gnostics were elitists, what's about the hierarchy of the Christian church, huh? This is not elitist? l for myself believe this is much more elitist than the Gnostics ever intended.


Can you be granted salvation, though Christianity, outside of the Church? Yes, of course you can. Christ teaches that if you love God, and love everyone else, you will have eternal life. I have long held that our relationship to God is has three parts -- personal faith, religion and theology. The first is the most important, and is really all you need, but the other two are important also, because they validate the first.

But religion is not simply the church -- it is scripture, tradition and community, as well, so if you don't like the structure of, say, the Roman Catholic church, you can try a home church or a denomination that is congregational, like the Baptists. No Pope there. Not really much of a hierarchy at all, in fact.

Gnosticism, on the other hand, relies on you either figuring out the Divine Knowledge on your own, through repeated readings of ancient texts that might or might not contain anything beyond the obvious, or have an Gnostic teach you what these secrets are. What's your validation? Nothing, because it's "hidden knowledge", so whether you come to a conclusion or your own, or you have one handed to you, there's nothing to look back on to give you confidence that there is truth in what you've learned.

What's the response of the "Master" if you question him? "Sorry that you can't understand this, maybe someday you will be enlightened." (A simplification, of course, but that's the essence.) Some sects taught that most people couldn't get it, that they lacked the Divine Spark, or the will or intelligence or whatever to be able to ascertain the knowledge, so they were doomed, period, no sense in even wasting your time on them.

If you don't see the chasm of elitism that Gnosticism erects, and the inherent risk in placing your confidence in that sort of faith, then you have a much different view of things than most.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


I believe there is no "middle ground" to Christianity and what Christ taught. It seems pretty straight forward to me.

Also, we as children of our heavenly father have a we all are given the spirit of "knowledge" with the gift of the Holy Spirit. We have CHRIST'S KNOWLEDGE and that is all we need.

Peace to you,

Grandma



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


The struggle of good and evil is dualism. In modern mainstream Christianity is it Christ verses Satan. This is a clear concept embraced by modern mainstream Christianity, it is completely dualistic, and primarily comes from Zoroastrianism. This is completely different than what Judaism preaches. For you to pretend different is to embrace denial.

Gnosticism isn't the real God verses the false God of the Jews, there is no conflict there.

As you said -


God has no equal, God has no peer, God is the one.


That is how Gnostic's view things. They just see a much bigger version of God.

Gnosticism is about piercing the veil and seeing the world as it truly is. There is no hell or eternal damnation in Gnosticism, there is either going back through the loop, or moving on to higher plains of existence.

As others have pointed out, we are all evolving from a Gnostic perspective.

I trust my sources by levels of uncertainty, they only offer so much, where as you seem to trust your sources completely, as if they are beyond reproach. I don't see the world in that type of absolute.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 


Gnostics look at Christ as their greatest teacher, so that would make them Christians. Where as in my opinion most mainstream modern Christians have made the Apostle Paul as their main teacher.

The Gnosticism I learned teaches that we all have a tiny piece of God in us, and so we all have a touch of the divine.


Hell's bells, poet, that's the common heritage of the Indo-European culture area. It's in Heraclitus, for crying out loud. It's in Indian folk tales. It's in the Gospel of John.


Umm, yepper seems to be a piece of the truth. The idea being that we all eventually will find salvation.

A heck of a lot better than the mainstream modern false Christian view ( and Muslim view ) that if you don't do what the self appointed priests tell you to do you are doomed.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



Gnosticism, on the other hand, relies on you either figuring out the Divine Knowledge on your own, through repeated readings of ancient texts that might or might not contain anything beyond the obvious, or have an Gnostic teach you what these secrets are. What's your validation? Nothing, because it's "hidden knowledge", so whether you come to a conclusion or your own, or you have one handed to you, there's nothing to look back on to give you confidence that there is truth in what you've learned.


No, that isn't how it works. Gnostics teach you what they know. None of them claim to know the way to God. Everyone must find their own way, and one is no better than the other. Those who seem to have a better vision, or a better way of explaining their vision are looked upon as teachers.

Yes, you have to figure our your own way, because everyone must find their own way, and this is what Christ teaches. You either embrace it or you don't.



posted on Dec, 26 2010 @ 08:12 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


Well put, I agree with your perspective.

Learning to move beyond seeing things in absolutes seems to be one of the biggest steps people need to make.





new topics
top topics
 
15
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join