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

page: 13
15
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by eight bits
adjensen

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, ... }.

You have no idea what you are talking about. The Gnostic Gospels were written at the same time as the 'canonical Gospels' or better said 'the biblical' Gospels. Stop pretending you know better.

Your philosophy is as bogus as those of the Gnostics. You just don't know so please stop pretending you know. You are just parroting what they told you from your childhood on.




posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 06:46 AM
link   

You have no idea what you are talking about. The Gnostic Gospels were written at the same time as the 'canonical Gospels' or better said 'the biblical' Gospels. Stop pretending you know better.

Please direct my attention to where in my post I commented on when the Gnostic Gospels were written. Perhaps you were thinking of another poster.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 08:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by gnostician
You have no idea what you are talking about. The Gnostic Gospels were written at the same time as the 'canonical Gospels' or better said 'the biblical' Gospels.


Scholarly, as opposed to speculative, consensus is that the canonical Gospels and Acts were written mid to late 1st Century, most likely prior to the Fall of Jerusalem in 70AD, as the significance of that event would not have been excluded. The Epistles are all, by necessity, dated prior to that date, as well, and reference beliefs found in the four Gospels (generally, it is held that the Epistles were written prior to the Gospels, but the harmony in the two indicates consistency in teaching, regardless of source.)

In addition, it is odd that Acts would not include the martyr deaths of Paul and Peter, given the inclusion of previous deaths, the focus in the book on those two people, and the glory viewed in such an end. So it is generally assumed that Acts was written around 65AD, and it references Luke's Gospel, so that helps to put that work into the same time period.

On the other hand, the majority of Gnostic works are held, again, by scholars, not nincompoops like Dan Brown, to have been written from mid 2nd Century through the early 4th Century, when the movement ran out of steam (the sects that argued against marriage and procreation helping that along
) I have not seen a credible scholar who claims that anything other than the Gospel of Thomas was contemporary to the canonical Gospels, and even that is a minority opinion that has little support -- the majority view is that it was written after 150AD.

The difference between scholarly conclusions and speculative conclusions in dating is that historical scholars put the text in context. References from other, dated sources (such as a the books of Irenaeus), as well as a view of when and how such a movement developed in the context of other schools of thought, and what the state of the community of believers was.

The real stickler for Gnostic Christians is that, by being removed from Christ by over a hundred years, how did the Divine Knowledge get from him to them? By its own testimony, the Gospel of Thomas was not written by Thomas the Apostle, as most casual observers think, and it represents a fairly early and less developed Gnosticism, so if it was an early work, and from someone who really did have the secret teachings of Christ, he either did a poor job of relaying them, or later writers were a bit flamboyant in their interpretations.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


All you need to do then, is post some links to back up your claims.

Let's take a look at how solid that evidence is.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
reply to post by adjensen
 


All you need to do then, is post some links to back up your claims.

Let's take a look at how solid that evidence is.


Yeah, because scholars generally put their publications up on random websites


Try cracking a book, Ace.

The Canon of the New Testament
Can We Trust the Gospels?
The Gnostic Gospels

On the other hand, if you insist on seeing it on the Internet, here's some writing to that effect, the evolution of Sethian Gnosticism and the adaption of the Christian Gnostic view (complete with dates.) jdt.unl.edu.... Googling "Dating the Gnostic Gospels" returns 24,000 results, you're welcome to pick through them as you like.

Enjoy.



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


*zing*

lol



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


I have cracked a few books, which is why I know you are in over your head. The connection between Christianity and Zoroastrianism is quite clear and the dualistic nature of Mainstream traditional Christianity as we have come to know is there to see for anyone who cares to open their eyes.

The whole time scale of measuring our years as BC and AD wasn't even developed until around the 8th century, if memory serves me right, which is why your claims of when this was written and that was written is all based on very loose theory.

Lastly, your sources are every bit as biased and weak as those you ridicule among the Gnostics. How many of them believe in Creationism?



posted on Dec, 27 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
The whole time scale of measuring our years as BC and AD wasn't even developed until around the 8th century, if memory serves me right, which is why your claims of when this was written and that was written is all based on very loose theory.


What on earth does that have to do with anything? I eat lunch after I eat breakfast, whether I have a watch or not. No, the Gospel of Luke doesn't have a "Copyright, Luke the Apostle, 65AD" stamped on it, but that doesn't prevent historians from placing it into a reasonable timeframe, based on historical evidence. Do you think that the Jews, Romans, Greeks, and any other ancient people had no way of discerning what year it was, regardless of what their system was?

Either you are grasping at straws, or you have a really weak grasp of history and historical research. The Gregorian calendar is not necessary to determine whether the Christian Gnostic Gospels came a hundred years after the canonical ones.


Lastly, your sources are every bit as biased and weak as those you ridicule among the Gnostics. How many of them believe in Creationism?


Who said I ridicule Gnostic sources? Geez, one of those books is written by someone who borders on being a Gnostic panderer, and she still dates their writings similarly to the others (who are scholars, with Doctoral degrees, they're not religious hacks.)

I said that the claim made in this thread that the Gnostic Gospels were contemporary to the canonical ones was wrong, and that the guy (who is not you) making that claim saying that Eightbits "didn't know what he was talking about" provided sufficient evidence that HE didn't know what he's talking about, by making such an erroneous comment.

No, the sources I cited are neither biased, nor are they weak. They are representative of scholarly, peer reviewed research, not random web pages or foolish, offhand statements made in a forum such as this.

But stick with confusing conspiracy theories with facts, if that's the way that you want to view reality.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 05:06 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Glad to hear that you are able to keep track of when you had breakfast, and when you had lunch, but the rest of your claims don't improve your grasp of events. While you are having breakfast, other people are getting ready for bed.

Yes, there are many other Calendars before the current Gregorian calendar which we currently use. Many that start and stop, and the dates have to be put together like a patchwork. Not a whole lot is known about the early Christians. Oral traditions still existed because paper, or what ever they were using, is expensive, and must be stored. Written records are few and still open to interpretation. It is a whole lot of guess work based on what was or was not said or written.

Maybe Acts doesn't include the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, or the deaths of Paul and Peter simply because they were a distraction from the narration. They might have been included in other chapters, that the people who put the bible together didn't feel should be included. There might have even been deliberate intention to deceive, and that is the most likely reality.

These scholars you want to put on a pedestal are often Christian scholars who aren't legitimate researchers, because they seek to prove what they have been taught, as a historical reality. While there are many legitimate researchers who doubt the very existence of Jesus Christ.

You have been knocking Gnosticism since you started posting on this thread, so don't try to claim different now. However, things are not as cut and dry as you want to claim.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 05:40 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Gnostic Christianity didn't "run out of steam", it was more popular than anything else in early Christianity. The power of orthodoxy was given by Constantine to a select few, and many schools including philosophy schools were shut down.

Some of the Gnostic writers were said to have been taught by the apostles Even the books John, Mark, Matthew, and Luke weren't written right after Jesus was crucified. The earliest "proof" of when the books were written are actually a good deal after the death and resurrection of Jesus.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
There might have even been deliberate intention to deceive, and that is the most likely reality.


Based on what? What evidence is there to support such a claim? What gives you the confidence to say that this is "the most likely reality"?


These scholars you want to put on a pedestal are often Christian scholars who aren't legitimate researchers, because they seek to prove what they have been taught, as a historical reality. While there are many legitimate researchers who doubt the very existence of Jesus Christ.


So, is it your claim that a person who has a PhD in Religious Studies received that degree dishonestly, and that his dissertation, regardless of what it is on, should be dismissed because he has a belief? What would the religious make up of your "legitimate researchers" who don't believe in the existence of Christ most likely be? If one is an atheist, should we arbitrarily dismiss their findings on that basis?

A person's beliefs are not germane to true scholarship. Peer reviewed research that has an historical basis can stand on its own, and that is where the basis for claims of dating come from, not Dan Brown novels or idle speculation from those who do, in fact, wish something to be true, regardless of whether it is or not, because they've built their perspective, in total, on such a conclusion.


You have been knocking Gnosticism since you started posting on this thread, so don't try to claim different now.


What are you talking about? As I have said, both here and elsewhere, my complaint with Gnosticism is the attempt to misrepresent Christ. I do not believe that any form of Gnosticism is correct, but if you do, and that's what you want to pin your hopes to, feel free. But stop claiming that the "Real Message of Christ" (from the subject of the thread) is this nonsense that a basic understanding of Judaism, Hellenistic philosophy and Christ's teachings demonstrate it could not possibly be.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghaleon12
reply to post by adjensen
 


Gnostic Christianity didn't "run out of steam", it was more popular than anything else in early Christianity. The power of orthodoxy was given by Constantine to a select few, and many schools including philosophy schools were shut down.


Oh, for pity's sake. First, there is no evidence that Gnostic Christianity was particularly popular, much less more popular than Christianity. It was an offshoot of an older belief system, and was one of many sects of Christianity in the first three centuries. They were more prolific writers than other sects like the Marcianites or the Ebionites, but that doesn't mean that their following was huge.

Secondly, Constantine had nothing to do with Gnosticism, nothing to do with the determination of what the books of the Bible would be, and far less to do with the makeup of the Church than conspiracy theorists claim.

Here's some concrete dates that might help:

~33AD - Jesus' ministry, death and resurrection
~67AD - Death of Peter and Paul, leaving John one of the few (if not only) Apostles left
~150AD - Gnosticism rises to significance, centered around the teachings of Valentinus
~160AD - Irenaeus names Matthew, Mark, Luke & John as the four canonical Gospels
~170AD - Gnosticism declared as heresy by the Church
~200AD - Origen of Alexandria lists the books of the New Testament, lacking only four epistles added later

272AD - Constantine born

Now, if you would like to claim that Constantine was a time traveller, in order to influence events that took place over a hundred years prior to his birth, feel free to show evidence of such.


Some of the Gnostic writers were said to have been taught by the apostles


Non self-stated evidence of this, please? Another case of time travel, given that the Gnostic writers lived a hundred years or more after the Apostles were dead?



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


I base my claim that the the people who built the Church as we know it have a long history of deception, and this is well recorded. The fact of the matter is that the Church has a very long and ugly history since the time that they put together the Biblical Cannon. If you want to pretend that the people who put together the Biblical Cannon aren't people who had numerous ulterior motives, then you are extremely naive or deliberately being deceptive.

A person who obtained a degree in religious studies, who practices that religion is simply not a reliable historical source for that religion. Obviously the person has biases.

Yes, a person who has a strong negative bias towards religion and the belief in God would also not be a good candidate or source for research on religious history.

People with strong biases tend not be be good sources for research. I think we have already covered this.

I believe Dan Brown is a fiction writer, why do you keep trying to bring him into this conversation?

I thought we were here to explore "the Real Message of Christ", not try to put it in a box as you seem to want to do.

After all, this is a conspiracy sight where we discuss alternative theories and possibilities.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
People with strong biases tend not be be good sources for research. I think we have already covered this.


People with strong biases are not good sources for subjective claims. Objective historical claims that can be verified are not the same thing. Hence, the term "peer reviewed."


I believe Dan Brown is a fiction writer, why do you keep trying to bring him into this conversation?


Because far too many people believe that Brown's books represent veiled fact, not fiction, or they have picked up conspiracy claims from his books without even realizing it. The selection of canonical books for the New Testament is well known, and yet, time and again, people claim that Constantine made that determination. Any guesses where that might come from?


"The Bible is a product of man, my dear. Not of God. The Bible did not fall magically from the clouds. Man created it as a historical record of tumultuous times, and it has evolved through countless translations, additions, and revisions. History has never had a definitive version of the book...more than 80 gospels were considered for the New Testament, and yet only a relative few are chosen for inclusion-- Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John among them... the Bible, as we know it today, was collected by the pagan Roman emperor Constantine the Great."

-- Dan Brown, the Davinci Code


Fiction, yes, but presented as fact, and bought, hook, line and sinker by those who desperately want to hate the Church that Christ established.


I thought we were here to explore "the Real Message of Christ", not try to put it in a box as you seem to want to do.

After all, this is a conspiracy sight where we discuss alternative theories and possibilities.


The stated purpose of this site is to "deny ignorance", not to embrace it.

The "Real Message of Christ" is nicely documented in the New Testament, so to claim that it is not, that it was something entirely unrelated, contrary to his Jewish faith, and would only emerge from a merger of Greek and Christian beliefs well over a hundred years after he died is ignorance, defined.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
Read a book recently, "HERESY", (author's name escapes me)- excellent book, fairly knocks any notion of the gnostics being the true "oppressed" way out of the equation.


Some people, especially in modern times, like to root for the underdog or attack the "establishment", nothing really to report



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


The historical claims on early Christians are not that easily verified, nor established as fact. You want to pretend that this is not true, but anyone who has looked into the facts, knows this to be true.

The connections between Zoroastrianism, Gnosticism, and Christianity are clearly evident, and none of our claims begin to prove that this is not true. Most non-biased sources point to Gnostic origins in the first century, which puts it in the margin of error for being contemporary with the early formation of the Christian Church. Even the one link you provided to gives evidence on the web backs up this claim.

The only people who believe Brown's book are people who have not bothered to dig any further into the subject, or have any prior knowledge. Actually, Gnostics claim that Mary Magdalene traveled by herself to England, not France, fleeing from those who would deny her a part in the advancement of Christ's teaching, possibly with Romans. Is this possible, sure. Did it happen? There really isn't any physical evidence, only claims made by people who claim to follow a Gnostic religion that claims it has survived since the time Christ walked the Earth. The discovered Gospel of Thomas and Mary Magdalene however does give some credence to these claims. How likely is it that the Catholics and Orthodox churches covered up the truth to promote their own agenda? Very likely, sorry you do not care to face the reality.

Actually, Christ's teaching are very much in line with Zoroastrian teachings, and Mithra. The whole turn of the Jewish faith towards the Christ concept is in line with Zoroastrian beliefs. Obviously the evidence of this is something you choose to ignore. I would have to agree the idea that Christ respected a woman, and that MM was probably one of his disciples would point to a acknowledgment of Christ, that women deserve to be respected, and that could be clearly described as a Hellenistic belief. Maybe this was a huge part of Christ's wisdom.

It is your choice if you want to embrace the truth.



posted on Dec, 28 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by poet1b
It is your choice if you want to embrace the truth.


If you happen to run across any, be sure to let us know! While Christians have 2,000 years of tradition and a constant and consistent history to draw on, you're left with a handful of inconsistent texts, most of which are demonstrable to be forgeries (in the sense that they were not written by who they claim to have been written by, so they begin with a fraud, hardly a sign of "divine knowledge".)

As I have repeatedly said, you're welcome to believe what you like, but if you misrepresent Christianity, don't expect not to be questioned, and you'd best come up with better evidence than you've provided thus far, because you've so far shown none.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 02:45 AM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


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

short and nothing too long winded here...

if it was the real message of Christ then one wouldn't believe on his name and in essence then loose the knowledge of the truth.

for Gnosticism to be valid relating to Christianity it has to believe on his name to keep the knowledge of the Truth alive and ongoing.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   
I decided not to start a thread with this update, but to those who honestly believe that the Christian Gnostics were the ones with the truth concerning the relationship between God the Father and humanity, and ones with the real identity of The Christ, I may have some good news for you.

I still need to get this looked at by a wide variety of disinterested theologians, as well as metaphysicians who haven't got book deals or any other obvious dogs in the fight, but if it holds up, the Gnostics may prove to be the last group with a detailed allegory to survive the 6,000+ years of effort by the human race to accurately figure out the truth of human existence. And the only group that got it right - even if the modern Gnostics don't realize what it is that they have.

I had no idea, until I began really studying the allegories of the Mediterranean Mystery Religions, that when examined in the way they were meant to be examined - as allegories - that there is a consistent metaphoric formula, employed within the Bible itself, that teases out the entire overview of why humanity exists as it does and what God's endgame was when initiating this contextual environment. Of course, you have to have the "Rosetta Stone" to properly translate all of this, but it seems likely that I do have it, and have had it for some time now. What I found the most amusing during this phase of my research was how the conscripted editors of the Nicene biblical compilation snuck a lot of this Gnostic stuff in and right under the noses of the Roman Literalists that were overseeing the project. Like the US soldiers in N. Korea blinking in morse code while parroting their "confessions" on film for broadcast. Brilliant stuff.

I'm a little bit startled, since I initially discovered this as I translated the Sophia Myth (which is the Gnostic myth that relates to the fall and redemption of man, and introduces The Christ and The Logos) last night, and just finished up aligning the specifics to associate point-to-point with a 35,000 foot overview of physical existence that the folks 2,000 years ago could never have imagined. The alignment is flawless, and it sure looks like a smoking gun to me.

I may have finally found the linkage I've been hunting down for quite a few years now. Who knew? I always figured that The Gnostics were head-in-the-clouds elitists. Nice folks and all, but they couldn't even agree on exactly what gnosis means. Well, it looks as if they were carrying around the keys to everything without even realizing how to fit them into the locks.

This is one crazy world.



posted on Dec, 31 2010 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by hawkiye
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.

Those are such wise words, there is nothing l could add.... humbly.

lf you're really interested in Gnostics, Elaine Pagels can teach you a lot. She's a great religious scholar.

www.amazon.com...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1293781299&sr=8-1



Gnosticism's Christian form grew to prominence in the 2nd century A.D. Ultimately denounced as heretical by the early church, Gnosticism proposed a revealed knowledge of God ("gnosis" meaning "knowledge" in Greek), held as a secret tradition of the apostles. In The Gnostic Gospels, author Elaine Pagels suggests that Christianity could have developed quite differently if Gnostic texts had become part of the Christian canon. Without a doubt: Gnosticism celebrates God as both Mother and Father, shows a very human Jesus's relationship to Mary Magdalene, suggests the Resurrection is better understood symbolically, and speaks to self-knowledge as the route to union with God. Pagels argues that Christian orthodoxy grew out of the political considerations of the day, serving to legitimize and consolidate early church leadership. Her contrast of that developing orthodoxy with Gnostic teachings presents an intriguing trajectory on a world faith as it "might have become." The Gnostic Gospels provides engaging reading for those seeking a broader perspective on the early development of Christianity. --F. Hall



top topics
 
15
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join