The Bible Is A Forgery

Hi Guys,

For anyone interested The Nag Hammadi online library has a huge amount of information.

Anyone who is Christian or interested in Christianity really should check it out IMO as these are unedited documents probably getting as close to the source as we will find.

www.gnosis.org...

Maybe I'll post the readers digest on Gnosticism...

Best Wishes

When you use unreliable sources for your arguments, you defeat yourself. And, when you quote yourself, you make a mockery of your intent. Your reply indicates your ignorance to the search for truth. If you use false information to base your treatise on, then it becomes false, no matter how much you quote.

As pointed out by other posters, you have made a conglomeration of points taken out of context, ie Bible scripture, and postulated your own rendition of what you believe is the truth. False truth = False truth.


signature:




You appear to be incapable of independent thought.

You seem to see only what you want to see.

You appear only believe only what you are told.

I define that a tragic.

Jesus also thought for himself and tried to free man.

Thats why they killed him.

Originally posted by Frater
Hi Guys,

For anyone interested The Nag Hammadi online library has a huge amount of information.

Anyone who is Christian or interested in Christianity really should check it out IMO as these are unedited documents probably getting as close to the source as we will find.

www.gnosis.org...

Maybe I'll post the readers digest on Gnosticism...

Best Wishes

Excellent.

Thanks for the link.

reply to post by Gibborium

As pointed out by other posters, you have made a conglomeration of points taken out of context, ie Bible scripture, and postulated your own rendition of what you believe is the truth. False truth = False truth.

Shhhhhhhhh!!!! Let him continue to dig his own grave, it's much more hilarious this way.

Originally posted by Frater
Hi Guys,

For anyone interested The Nag Hammadi online library has a huge amount of information.

Anyone who is Christian or interested in Christianity really should check it out IMO as these are unedited documents probably getting as close to the source as we will find.

www.gnosis.org...

Maybe I'll post the readers digest on Gnosticism...

Best Wishes

Yeah, we don't want 4th century texts to study what Jesus said when we have 1st century texts from eyewitnesses/apostles.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Frater
Hi Guys,

For anyone interested The Nag Hammadi online library has a huge amount of information.

Anyone who is Christian or interested in Christianity really should check it out IMO as these are unedited documents probably getting as close to the source as we will find.

www.gnosis.org...

Maybe I'll post the readers digest on Gnosticism...

Best Wishes

Yeah, we don't want 4th century texts to study what Jesus said when we have 1st century texts from eyewitnesses/apostles.

Oh really.

Where ?

Were they authenticated by Jesus or God ?

reply to post by leejohnbarnes

Were they authenticated by Jesus or God ?

Nope, authenticated from Wikipedia. The pinnacle of authenticators.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by leejohnbarnes

 

Were they authenticated by Jesus or God ?

Nope, authenticated from Wikipedia. The pinnacle of authenticators.

Excellent.

They may have some ccredibility then.

Unlike these 'texts' that you keep talking about and providing those pesky things like ;

1) links to them

2) evidence they exist other than as figments of your imagination

Originally posted by Frater
Anyone who is Christian or interested in Christianity really should check it out IMO as these are unedited documents probably getting as close to the source as we will find.

Do you also read physics text books to get a better understanding of Shakespearean sonnets?

I'd like to know why you think texts written about 100 years after the books of the New Testament, about a belief system that has nothing to do with Christianity, apart from appropriating the central figure of the religion, have useful insights for Christians? And what makes you think that they are unedited? The Gospel of Thomas has obviously been edited, and it's all been translated from Greek into Coptic anyway.

There is one significant finding for early Christianity in Nag Hammadi, though you're likely not aware of it. Most of what we know of early heresies comes from the Christian apologists and critics who wrote documents denouncing the heresy. The texts (Marcion's edited version of the Gospel of Luke, for example) have long since been lost. As a result, many Christian naysayers denounced the denouncers, saying that critics like Tertullian were demonizing and improperly representing the views of the heretics in their polemics.

The discovery of Nag Hammadi, however, showed that this wasn't the case -- for the most part, Tertullian's portrayal of the Gnostics and their beliefs was pretty well spot on. A claim was made that the Gnostics, who hated the material form, had a very licentious view of the body, but it turns out that the majority were actually ascetics (as was Tertullian, perhaps why he chose to overlook that aspect of their world view.) Beyond that, though, the denunciation was grounded in facts, verified by the texts of Nag Hammadi.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by leejohnbarnes

 

Were they authenticated by Jesus or God ?

Nope, authenticated from Wikipedia. The pinnacle of authenticators.

lol.

Perhaps the gnosis that the Divine Messenger brought is in there, too!

I'm still waiting for our pseudo-Gnostic OP to explain what he thinks the gnosis was. Tough to be a Gnostic when you're not in on the secret, but I guess that if it's not in Wikipedia, it's out of reach.

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
Unlike these 'texts' that you keep talking about and providing those pesky things like ;

1) links to them

2) evidence they exist other than as figments of your imagination

Since you're apparently too lazy to find them yourself, here you go, a whole web site full of them. Lots of non-Canonical stuff, too, even Gnostic texts.

www.earlychristianwritings.com...

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by leejohnbarnes

 

Were they authenticated by Jesus or God ?

Nope, authenticated from Wikipedia. The pinnacle of authenticators.

lol.

Perhaps the gnosis that the Divine Messenger brought is in there, too!

I'm still waiting for our pseudo-Gnostic OP to explain what he thinks the gnosis was. Tough to be a Gnostic when you're not in on the secret, but I guess that if it's not in Wikipedia, it's out of reach.

I could explain it to you - but as you are a Hylic, you are unable to achieve it - hence I shall do as Jesus did and deny you access to it.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Frater
Anyone who is Christian or interested in Christianity really should check it out IMO as these are unedited documents probably getting as close to the source as we will find.

Do you also read physics text books to get a better understanding of Shakespearean sonnets?

I'd like to know why you think texts written about 100 years after the books of the New Testament, about a belief system that has nothing to do with Christianity, apart from appropriating the central figure of the religion, have useful insights for Christians? And what makes you think that they are unedited? The Gospel of Thomas has obviously been edited, and it's all been translated from Greek into Coptic anyway.

There is one significant finding for early Christianity in Nag Hammadi, though you're likely not aware of it. Most of what we know of early heresies comes from the Christian apologists and critics who wrote documents denouncing the heresy. The texts (Marcion's edited version of the Gospel of Luke, for example) have long since been lost. As a result, many Christian naysayers denounced the denouncers, saying that critics like Tertullian were demonizing and improperly representing the views of the heretics in their polemics.

The discovery of Nag Hammadi, however, showed that this wasn't the case -- for the most part, Tertullian's portrayal of the Gnostics and their beliefs was pretty well spot on. A claim was made that the Gnostics, who hated the material form, had a very licentious view of the body, but it turns out that the majority were actually ascetics (as was Tertullian, perhaps why he chose to overlook that aspect of their world view.) Beyond that, though, the denunciation was grounded in facts, verified by the texts of Nag Hammadi.

Thats is a very convoluted way to say you only believe what is written in the Bible.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
Unlike these 'texts' that you keep talking about and providing those pesky things like ;

1) links to them

2) evidence they exist other than as figments of your imagination

Since you're apparently too lazy to find them yourself, here you go, a whole web site full of them. Lots of non-Canonical stuff, too, even Gnostic texts.

www.earlychristianwritings.com...

What ones did Jesus write ?

What ones did Jesus sign and authenticate ?

What ones did God authenticate ?

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
I could explain it to you - but as you are a Hylic, you are unable to achieve it - hence I shall do as Jesus did and deny you access to it.

Since you've already demonstrated fairly complete ignorance on the subject of Gnosticism (as well as history, Christianity, Judaism and a few other subjects,) do you honestly believe that anyone is still taking you seriously? Do you believe that lying furthers your case?

The wise thing would be to admit that you don't know, take your lumps, and try to formulate a reasonable argument that backs up what you apparently are desperate to believe. That will not be found in Wikipedia, nor will it be found in snarky comments like this. Heck, if you had the backbone to just say "I don't know what the gnosis was", I'd have been happy to tell you.

Go then - tell me what the Gnosis is.

I will be interested to know seeing as you are one of the people who worship the religion of the priests of the 'Temple' in their great house with the altar in it ;

www.nationalgeographic.com...

Still waiting.

Originally posted by leejohnbarnes
Still waiting.

I'm still waiting for you to admit that you lied earlier and that you haven't the foggiest idea.

As for what religion I am, that's not really the topic at hand, but I'm not Catholic.

reply to post by adjensen


It's so refreshing to see someone with your extensive knowledge take those with extensive bluster to the woodshed, with both patience and credible sources. I've had similar run-ins with some KJVOs, most of whom have no experience with translating and simply parrot the writings of a few discredited but zealous souls such as Riplinger et al. They respond the same way, too. And as the OP is finding much common ground with Gnosticism and the typical rationale of atheism in hating the Word of God, it speaks volumes concerning the ultimate source of such vitrole. Nicely done.

I am off to bed now.

I shall log back in tomorrow morning in the hope of reading the Gnosis from you.

Night all.