false apostle Paul is the 1st AntiChrist! Christians quote Paul to counter radical teachings of Jes

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Correct, to a Jew calling oneself the Great I AM was on par with saying He was YHVH. Same thing. With us being Western, non-Semitic readers run the risk of missing something vital to the Hebrews the Pharisees bail us out. Anytime they get raging mad and we don't know why there's the evidence we missed a vital truth.

reply to post by ahnggk

From my own research, the Gospel of Jesus is NOT to change. It was the same thousands of years earlier in the Book of Enoch up to Jesus, so why would it suddenly change upon the having Paul in the scene?

By "Gospel of Jesus", do you mean the The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ by Levi H. Dowling?
I don't know where you get the evidence to support the Book of Enoch being around "thousands of years" before Jesus, since only one part of it is thought to be older than the first century AD.

amazing... This speaks volumes about some peoples reading skills.... i've said many times i only use "the gospels" meaning all 4 of them... Luke, being a follower of paul is suspicious but not left out of the useful information.

And the only reason i don't bother pulling up other info is because of the crowd im dealing with... Christians automatically reject any source from outside the bible, so its pointless bringing up words from Gnostic scripture, or Buddhist, or even hindu...

Oh and by the way you three... unlike you i don't hang my faith in God on a book.

God isn't in a book...

Originally posted by Akragon
And the only reason i don't bother pulling up other info is because of the crowd im dealing with... Christians automatically reject any source from outside the bible, so its pointless bringing up words from Gnostic scripture, or Buddhist, or even hindu...

While I've studied all three of those, I did it to learn about the Gnostic, Buddhist and Hindu faiths, not to learn about Christianity. To do so would be as irrational as reading an automobile repair manual in order to learn how to repair a bicycle.

Oh and by the way you three... unlike you i don't hang my faith in God on a book.

If you're counting me in with "you three", you may need to modify that count -- I am not a fundamentalist, and I didn't come to my faith in God through the Bible.

reply to post by adjensen

While I've studied all three of those, I did it to learn about the Gnostic, Buddhist and Hindu faiths, not to learn about Christianity. To do so would be as irrational as reading an automobile repair manual in order to learn how to repair a bicycle.

Who said anything about learning about Christianity?

Christianity is the simplest of the bunch...

If you're counting me in with "you three", you may need to modify that count -- I am not a fundamentalist, and I didn't come to my faith in God through the Bible.

Is this not your comment?

I'm surprised that Akragon doesn't ditch the Gospel of John, as well, given that it's the strongest statement of Christ's divine nature and oneness with God, a testament to the Trinity. Though then all one is left with is Matthew and Mark, a mighty thin canon to hang one's faith on.

Just so you know i don't "ditch" any of the bible... but most of it is useless...

And as i've said, i don't hang my faith on a book as you three seem to

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by adjensen

 

While I've studied all three of those, I did it to learn about the Gnostic, Buddhist and Hindu faiths, not to learn about Christianity. To do so would be as irrational as reading an automobile repair manual in order to learn how to repair a bicycle.

Who said anything about learning about Christianity?

Then what was the point of saying "Christians automatically reject any source from outside the bible, so its pointless bringing up words from Gnostic scripture, or Buddhist, or even hindu..."

Why would you bring up words from the Gnostics to Christians, then? I think Gnosticism is fine for Gnostics, just like Buddhism is fine for Buddhists, but what does any of that have to do with Christianity?

Is this not your comment?

I'm surprised that Akragon doesn't ditch the Gospel of John, as well, given that it's the strongest statement of Christ's divine nature and oneness with God, a testament to the Trinity. Though then all one is left with is Matthew and Mark, a mighty thin canon to hang one's faith on.

Sure it is, but what is the relevance to my statement that I don't "hang my faith on the Bible"? That would imply that I rely on it, and it alone, which I do not. My statement there was that if one was to excise everything in the Bible that is in conflict with your beliefs, you'd have a pretty thin tome to point to in order to back up your beliefs.

The antithesis to the "hanging one's faith on the Bible" statement that you seem to find so offensive is "hanging one's faith on one's own faith", which seems a less tenable, in my opinion.

reply to post by adjensen

Then what was the point of saying "Christians automatically reject any source from outside the bible, so its pointless bringing up words from Gnostic scripture, or Buddhist, or even hindu..."

This had something to do with it...

For someone who only has 3 books to go on, Akragon sure doesn't pay attention to the moods of the people around Jesus and their reactions to what he says to them in those 3 gospels or he wouldn't be confused about who God is.

and

Though then all one is left with is Matthew and Mark, a mighty thin canon to hang one's faith on.

and

Or if he affirms John why he would reject 1, 2, and 3rd John as well as Revelation which were written at roughly the same time

Why would you bring up words from the Gnostics to Christians, then?

As evidence for things that Christianity rejects... And for this thread... to get the idea across that Paul had some very gnostic terminology... It makes one wonder if he might have hung around with a gnostic sect or two in his day...

Sure it is, but what is the relevance to my statement that I don't "hang my faith on the Bible"? That would imply that I rely on it, and it alone, which I do not.

Thats interesting... bible aside, what else do you use to affirm your faith in God?

My statement there was that if one was to excise everything in the Bible that is in conflict with your beliefs, you'd have a pretty thin tome to point to in order to back up your beliefs.

I disagree... If i used only the bible, the four books would be more then enough... Tecnhnically one could hack out all of the OT, and 90% of the new and still have a solid foundation to base his / her faith on...

The antithesis to the "hanging one's faith on the Bible" statement that you seem to find so offensive is "hanging one's faith on one's own faith", which seems a less tenable, in my opinion.

Im not offended in the least... I'd just like to know how I became the topic of conversation?

I don't see the words "the false appostle Akragon" in the title, do you?

reply to post by Akragon

And as i've said, i don't hang my faith on a book as you three seem to

I don't hang my faith on a book, i use the book to study my faith. I came to my faith bone weary, tired of life and ready to die to end my pain and my misery. I went to church as a kid, but never read the bible. If i tried to read a few verses i would get sleepy and passout, maybe because i thought it was boring i dunno. Then 6 months after i asked Jesus to come into my life. I asked him to show me who he is and then i started getting reveletions. Verses would pop into my head i had never even read, so i grabbed the Gideon Bible my brother left behind when he moved to Atlanta that he had gotten from an Army Chaplain while he was in Iraq stationed in Mosul as a combat medic and i started looking up these verses. I didn't even know where to look but somehow i found those chapters. The first chapter i came to was John 8 and i do not know what came over me to direct me there but i read John 8 and thats when i came to:

John 8:56-59

56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.”

57 Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?”

58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.”

59 Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.

Then i thought to myself "wait a minute, Jesus is saying he existed before Abraham was born? The jews asked him how he had seen Abraham when he wasn't even 50 years old...and when he confimed it they tried to kill him". Then i started finding him all over the OT, sometimes buried in the hebrew symbolism, sometimes in prophecies, and sometimes he was literally standing there with Abraham. Then came the revelation that i could see the hebrew symbolism and understand it and then came the revelation that the jewish Feast Days of Yahweh were the dress rehearsals for future prophetic fulfillments spoken of in the NT.

And then came the revelation that

Passover = Christ's crucifiction
Shavuot = Pentecost
Rosh Hoshana = Harpazo
Yom Kippur = Second Coming of Christ
Sukkot = Millenial Reign

And then it's done, Creation is restored. I came to the revelation that christianity is mirroring judaism, that we walked in their footsteps, shadowing them from the very beginning, that everything was coming around again fullcircle and yes, Paul was right, what came before in the Torah and Tenach was a foreshadowing of things to come and then i understood what he was talking about. So you see, i didn't come to these revelations on my own, i didn't even know the jewish feastdays ever existed muchless their prophetic fulfillments. Things were being made known to me that i never knew before, and it was because i asked for it. This stuff didn't come to me until i asked for it, and told Yah i wanted to know, i felt like there were things i needed to know that i didn't know and i asked for it.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Interesting story... sounds simliar to mine actually... but i came to reject Christianity because i've found that its full of liars/hypocrites and people looking to profit from it... Obviously not everyone involved, but even one ruins the whole batch. Not to mention if one looks at what was "rejected" from said religions scriptural canon... and the obvious reasons behind it, and the utter corruption even from the beginning before Jesus even existed...

So after all that combined with the statement that you don't "hang your faith on the bible"... what ever gave you the idea that i hang my Faith on three... much less two books from the bible?

I appreciate you guys talking about me whilest im not present... Its nice to know i intrigue people... but at least get the facts straight...

reply to post by Akragon


Do you even know WHY the Gnostic texts are universally rejected?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


lol of course i do... Theres lots of reasons...

But in order to reject them one has to believe that the "founding fathers" of said religion were correct... And i don't entirely agree with that idea... There was clearly an agenda behind the rejection of many texts... I've read tons of texts from people who were labeled Heretics... And i find it sad that some of the knowledge was rejected.

Though not being Christian there is no loss for me... They're the people missing out...

reply to post by Akragon


The biggest two reasons were dating and pseudographical authorship. The writers of the Gnostic books used names of long-dead saints to help their books gain notoriety that the author didn't have on his own. Not to mention they date to periods of time when the people who they claimed wrote them were long-dead. Another reason is there is no historical data that can be independently verified and the contents are not merely unBiblical but anti-Biblical.

That's a start. The Gospel of Thomas is mentioned by 12 different church fathers and not one of them says "Maaaan, we gotta find Thomas, everyone's saying that book is great!". No, the quotes basically say " Beware of this book floating around that goes by Thomas, it's a fake they cooked it up, be watchful."

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by Akragon

 

The biggest two reasons were dating and pseudographical authorship. The writers of the Gnostic books used names of long-dead saints to help their books gain notoriety that the author didn't have on his own. Not to mention they date to periods of time when the people who they claimed wrote them were long-dead. Another reason is there is no historical data that can be independently verified and the contents are not merely unBiblical but anti-Biblical.

That's a start. The Gospel of Thomas is mentioned by 12 different church fathers and not one of them says "Maaaan, we gotta find Thomas, everyone's saying that book is great!". No, the quotes basically say " Beware of this book floating around that goes by Thomas, it's a fake they cooked it up, be watchful."

Yes that is the basic Christian perspective...

I consider the possibility that the material might have been from the actual authors or people who were close to them... The material might have been handed down though generations as an oral tradition... then finally written down. Or even copied from eariler texts which were destroy though the obvious church persecutions of various sects of so called "heretics".

The church went so far out of its way to destroy any beliefs that oppose their agenda... im supprized anything survived, and of course lets not forget the various libaries around the world that keep information hidden from the pubic, namely the Vatican... I would get they have the notorious Q document which would probably shed a lot of truth on who Jesus actually was... and would likely destroy the entire religion which is why they keep it locked up. Just a theory of course... but i believe its true.

As to the founding fathers opinion on Thomas... why should i trust their opinion, when i don't trust writing from far earlier? Opinions of men... *shrug* These are the same people who worship Jesus as God, and i find that to be "anti-gospel"

reply to post by Akragon


I would read into why the early church rejected the Gnostic texts. From competent scholars, not Gnostics.

Originally posted by Akragon

Why would you bring up words from the Gnostics to Christians, then?

As evidence for things that Christianity rejects... And for this thread... to get the idea across that Paul had some very gnostic terminology... It makes one wonder if he might have hung around with a gnostic sect or two in his day...

I've heard that many times before, but fail to see any real evidence of it. Paul was talking to Greeks, of course, so he would probably tend to state his points in a manner that they would appreciate and understand, but there is nothing Gnostic in his teaching. Again, he's not in conflict with Christ, or he wouldn't be in the Bible.

Sure it is, but what is the relevance to my statement that I don't "hang my faith on the Bible"? That would imply that I rely on it, and it alone, which I do not.

Thats interesting... bible aside, what else do you use to affirm your faith in God?

Mine is a reasoned faith, not a discovered or taught one. I came to know God through my study of the natural world as a scientist, and I came to Christianity by reading what other rational theists had to say about it.

Many Christians find their initial enlightenment in the Bible, I found mine while reading a book on the history of Greek mathematics, lol.

reply to post by adjensen


You're the best expert I have personally met on Gnosticism, please explain to our friend here why their texts were rejected.

Originally posted by Akragon
I consider the possibility that the material might have been from the actual authors or people who were close to them... The material might have been handed down though generations as an oral tradition... then finally written down. Or even copied from eariler texts which were destroy though the obvious church persecutions of various sects of so called "heretics".

As far as the Gnostics go, their texts are fairly readily dated as being mid-Second Century by examining what Gnostics believed, and when. The Christian-Gnosticism that is represented by the texts in Nag Hammadi is a late, more robust version of Gnosticism than that which existed in the First Century, and which is addressed in several New Testament books. Gnosticism pre-dated Christ by a couple of hundred years, but the particular brand that people point to as an "alternate Christianity" followed him by at least a hundred years.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen

 

You're the best expert I have personally met on Gnosticism, please explain to our friend here why their texts were rejected.

Well, they weren't rejected so much as they were never considered for inclusion in canon.

The dating problem meant that none of them were written by anyone with an Apostolic connection, they were not in widespread use, and they clearly were in significant conflict with existing scripture, so they failed the orthodoxy tests on all accounts.

In reality, the only thing that the Gnostic texts have in common with the Christian texts is that they include someone named "Jesus". Attempting to reconcile Gnostic and Christian theology is a nightmare and requires one to discard wide swaths of the New Testament and the whole of the Old Testament, which, in turn, results in the deletion of the rest of the New Testament, as claiming that Jesus wasn't Jewish kind of makes the whole thing pointless.

All this to allow for a dualistic religion with a bizarre mythology and impassable route to salvation. Not much point to that.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


What didn't you understand when i said i know why they were rejected?



And i've read various opinions on gnostic scripture from "competant scholars"... You're assumptions are astounding sometimes eh...

reply to post by adjensen

In reality, the only thing that the Gnostic texts have in common with the Christian texts is that they include someone named "Jesus". Attempting to reconcile Gnostic and Christian theology is a nightmare and requires one to discard wide swaths of the New Testament and the whole of the Old Testament, which, in turn, results in the deletion of the rest of the New Testament, as claiming that Jesus wasn't Jewish kind of makes the whole thing pointless

Maddness!

Have you read any of the gnostic texts or just opinions of them from various "christian" scholars?

They're rejection of the OT God is completely understandable, and comprehending gnostic scripture does not require rejection of the NT what so ever... as a matter of fact Paul has some very gnostic undertones as i've said...