When you become a God, will you use evil the way God does?

Originally posted by greyer
We have to ask ourselves what is the process for doing magic? Magic is a power, it is not good or bad. The person behind the magic will reflect the shade.

It may start with meditation and focus, maybe even chanting to the universe, maybe an out of body experience. Being calm, and taking your consciousness away from your percecption, could that be some kind of hypnosis we put ourselves into reaching the magic.

To execute a miracle would take a force outside of the body, as if energy in the air was produced, people may witness a visible force outside of ourselves.

I believe this is possible.

Beliefs are a dime a dozen.

The proof is in the doing.
If even one of us could do miracles, the whole world would know it, see it and could not deny it.

Show us what you can do.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Greatest I am
There are as many Gnostic sects as there are Christian ones.

Not ancient ones, there weren't (well, not that we have any evidence of, at any rate.)

I'm not aware of any ancient Gnostic group that professed that Jesus was married to Mary, just latter day (post 18th century) ones. Are you referring to a group contemporary to the early church, or one which emerged in the past couple of hundred years? If the former, I would very much appreciate a pointer to your sources, as I have a keen interest in that doctrine, in that era.

Some scholars think that Gnosticism predated Christianity but they cannot prove it.

As to Gnostic Jesus.

en.wikipedia.org...

“Others adamantly deny that the supreme being came in the flesh, claiming Jesus to be merely a human who attained divinity through gnosis and taught his disciples to do the same”

www.pbs.org...

This last speaks to the variety of ways Gnostics thought of Jesus.

My bottom line on the divinity of Jesus is that most did not believe he divine and this view is bolstered by the fact that the Trinity concept was not enacted till 300 odd years after his death and Constantine basically forced that concept down his churches throat.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Greatest I am
There are as many Gnostic sects as there are Christian ones.

Not ancient ones, there weren't (well, not that we have any evidence of, at any rate.)

I'm not aware of any ancient Gnostic group that professed that Jesus was married to Mary, just latter day (post 18th century) ones. Are you referring to a group contemporary to the early church, or one which emerged in the past couple of hundred years? If the former, I would very much appreciate a pointer to your sources, as I have a keen interest in that doctrine, in that era.

Some scholars think that Gnosticism predated Christianity but they cannot prove it.

Oh, it most certainly did predate Christ, by a couple of hundred years. Gnostic Christianity, however, did not -- it arose out of the teachings of Valentinus (among others) in the Second Century.

My bottom line on the divinity of Jesus is that most did not believe he divine and this view is bolstered by the fact that the Trinity concept was not enacted till 300 odd years after his death and Constantine basically forced that concept down his churches throat.

The Doctrine of the Trinity was formed out of the need to explain why early Christians and their writings WERE worshiping Christ like he was God, not the other way around (people starting to worship Christ after Augustine came up with the doctrine.) There is sufficient historical evidence to indicate that the earliest Christians really did view Christ as divine, but had no idea how to reconcile that.

On the Gnostics, though, as I said, you have it backwards. There were three competing views on the nature of Christ -- purely man, man and divine together, and purely divine (or matter, matter and spirit, and pure spirit.) The Christian Gnostics fell squarely in the "purely divine" camp -- they wrote of Christ's human form being an illusion, not an actual form.

The belief that Christ was a man, got married to Mary, and survived the crucifixion are things that are contrary to Christian Gnosticism, for whom it was important that Christ NOT be a man, NOT be embroiled in licentious behaviour, and NOT be a physical presence on the Earth.

reply to post by adjensen


I think the worship of Christ happened when He was alive. Several places in the gospels people worship Him. That predates Augustine by a few centuries.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen

 

I think the worship of Christ happened when He was alive. Several places in the gospels people worship Him. That predates Augustine by a few centuries.

Which sort of begs the question as to why they didn't ask him to explain how that was possible. Maybe it didn't occur to them, or the answer, to someone in his presence, was just obvious. Or maybe they did ask, and it was one of the things that is referred to as "secret teaching to the Apostles only."

Hard to say, but you're right -- worship of Christ clearly predated Augustine (as well as Constantine, who was BEFORE Augustine, not after him -- Emperor or not, he'd have a hard time enforcing Augustinian theology from the grave.)

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Beliefs are a dime a dozen.

The proof is in the doing.
If even one of us could do miracles, the whole world would know it, see it and could not deny it.

Show us what you can do.

Regards
DL

Every word you say has like an ounce of wieght in doubt, all I am asking for is a little faith.

Let me put you in on something, I enjoy creative writing.

Where did I claim I would do anything today? I said I believe it is possible.

Unbelievable, that you would challenge me for something I did not claim I would do. Believable, faith and magic is because I just have more belief and faith, in what? In the possibility of its existence.

Faith in possibility is not faith in n actuality. You indicated actuality.

Regards
DL

reply to post by adjensen


Constantine gets a bad rap though, contrary to popular belief he didn't make Christianity the state religion of the Empire, his 2nd successor Theodosius I did that. Constantine only gave an edict legalizing it.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen

 

Constantine gets a bad rap though, contrary to popular belief he didn't make Christianity the state religion of the Empire, his 2nd successor Theodosius I did that. Constantine only gave an edict legalizing it.

I don't have anything against him, and hey, old "Const" is the closest thing this side of Heaven to omnipotence -- I think I've seen him credited with everything but discovering Florida, lol.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen

 

Constantine gets a bad rap though, contrary to popular belief he didn't make Christianity the state religion of the Empire, his 2nd successor Theodosius I did that. Constantine only gave an edict legalizing it.

I don't have anything against him, and hey, old "Const" is the closest thing this side of Heaven to omnipotence -- I think I've seen him credited with everything but discovering Florida, lol.

Haha.. nope, saw that charge against him back in the summer of 97.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen

 

I think the worship of Christ happened when He was alive. Several places in the gospels people worship Him. That predates Augustine by a few centuries.

Jesus worshipped:

Matt. 2:11
Matt. 8:2
Matt. 9:18
Matt. 15:25
Matt. 28:9
Matt 28:17
John: 9:38
John 20:28
Heb. 1:6

For someone who people claim wasn't God, there were alot of people who thought he was. Which kinda makes the arguement that some people flaunt that Jesus wasn't Divine until the Council of Nicea moot and in Christ's time, worshipping a man was punishable by death under the law and for people who were doing it openly. Well, i'll let the afore mentioned passages speak for themselves.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Lots of people have an erroneous idea of Nicaea. They didn't vote to make Him God, they voted on how to define His deity. Whether He preexisted as God before incarnation or was God at creation. Otherwise known as the Arian heresy.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Lots of people have an erroneous idea of Nicaea. They didn't vote to make Him God, they voted on how to define His deity. Whether He preexisted as God before incarnation or was God at creation. Otherwise known as the Arian heresy.

Actually, it was an even finer point than that. The question was whether God the Father had ever existed without God the Son. Meaning that the Son was created (and, thus, a creature, even if divine,) and thus somewhat less divine than the Father. The whole "begotten, not made" part of the Nicene Creed reflects that -- Arias taught that he was "made, not begotten."

Of course, the Catholics got into it themselves when they inserted "and the Son" into the creed 700 years or so later, ticking off the Eastern church and resulting in the Great Schism, though that was more of a "we've had enough of you Roman snobs and your papal primacy" kickback than it was really about the Filioque.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

Lots of people have an erroneous idea of Nicaea. They didn't vote to make Him God, they voted on how to define His deity. Whether He preexisted as God before incarnation or was God at creation. Otherwise known as the Arian heresy.

Actually, it was an even finer point than that. The question was whether God the Father had ever existed without God the Son. Meaning that the Son was created (and, thus, a creature, even if divine,) and thus somewhat less divine than the Father. The whole "begotten, not made" part of the Nicene Creed reflects that -- Arias taught that he was "made, not begotten."

Of course, the Catholics got into it themselves when they inserted "and the Son" into the creed 700 years or so later, ticking off the Eastern church and resulting in the Great Schism, though that was more of a "we've had enough of you Roman snobs and your papal primacy" kickback than it was really about the Filioque.

People often choke on the word "begotten" and think of it in human terms, and in Isaiah 55 he already said his ways and thoughts are not like ours. People also choke on him being the WORD. Jesus is God's Glory, his VOICE and the Voice crying in the Wilderness. Or rather, i should say Yahweh, or Yehweh, or whatever his name really is (which i don't think anyone truly knows exactly). The number one all time proof i have found in both OT and NT of his Identity is:

Isaiah 44:5-6 and Revelation 1:10-18 which is to say, the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last and also in Revelation 1 Jesus shows up looking mightily familiar and a similar description as the Ancient of Days in Daniel 7. In Isaiah 63 God "tramples the winepress" and gets his robes all bloodied and then shows up looking like he opened up a can of whoopass on some people at Armageddon and looks even more like the Ancient of Days. Seriously, this stuff adds up, and people have to be totally blind not to be able to make these connections, that or they just don't read their bibles or think the OT is obsolete/irrelevant.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen

 

Constantine gets a bad rap though, contrary to popular belief he didn't make Christianity the state religion of the Empire, his 2nd successor Theodosius I did that. Constantine only gave an edict legalizing it.

Look again for the first time.

Originally Posted by animefan48
Well, the reality is most Christians do buy into the trinity doctrine because of persecution of the early Gnostics and non-Trinitarians, and the religious councils were dissenters were forced to agree to a Trinitarian theology. Many Unitarian and Universalist theologies argue that when Jesus said he was the way, he meant that he was an example of how to live to be united/reunited with God. As for the name, God does give other names for himself including the Alpha and Omega, as well as some believe a name that should not be written (or even spoken I believe). Honestly, I think using the name I Am That I Am would just be confusing and convoluted, seriously. I seriously do not believe that it is a continuation of Gnostic/mystical/Unitarian suppression. Even the Gnostic and mystical traditions within Islam and Christianity do not tend to use that name, and among the 99 Names of Allah, I did not find that one. Also, many Rastafarians believe that the Holy Spirit lives in humans and will sometimes say I and I instead of we, yet they don't seem to use the name I Am for God/Jah either, so I really don't think it can be related to suppressing mystical and Gnostic interpretations. I think that originally oppressing those ideas and decreeing them heretical are quite enough, the early Church did such a good job that after the split many Protestant groups continued to condemn mystical and later Gnostic sects and theologies.



Yup, the bishops voted and it was settled for all time!!1 (Some say the preliminary votes were 150 something to 140 something in favor of the trinity)

But then Constantine stepped in: After a prolonged and inconclusive debate, the impatient Constantine intervened to force an end to the conflict by demanding the adoption of the creed. The vote was taken under threat of exile for any who did not support the decision favored by Constantine. (And later, they fully endorsed the trinity idea when it all happened again at the council of Constantinople in AD 381, where only Trinitarians were invited to attend. Surprise! They also managed to carry a vote in favor of the Trinity.)

home.pacific.net.au...


Even a Trinitarian scholar admits the Earliest & Original beliefs were NOT Trinitarian!

The trinity formulation is a later corruption away from the earliest & original beliefs!

"It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity, as a doctrine, formed no part of the original message. St Paul knew it not, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed".
Dr. W R Matthews, Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, "God in Christian Thought and Experience", p.180

"In order to understand the doctrine of the Trinity it is necessary to understand that the doctrine is a development, and why it developed. ... It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament".
R Hanson: "Reasonable Belief, A survey of the Christian Faith, p.171-173, 1980

The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament.
New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 306.

"The formulation ‘One God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective"
New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299.

"The formulation ‘One God in three Persons' was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299).

"Fourth-century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary a deviation from this teaching" (The Encyclopedia Americana, p. 1956, p. 2941).

Was Jesus God to Paul and other early Christians? No. . . . .
(Source: How the Bible became the Bible by Donald L. O'Dell - ISBN 0-7414-2993-4 Published by INFINITY Publishing.com)

www.youtube.com...

Regards
DL

reply to post by Greatest I am


I'm not sure what your point is -- I've never seen anyone claim that the Doctrine of the Trinity is IN the Bible. As I pointed out, it is a human explanation of WHY early Christians behaved the way that they did, and WHY the Bible refers to Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the manner that it does. Not believing in it doesn't make someone evil or anything, it just means that they're not a Christian.

So if you don't want to believe in it, bully for you, you've plenty of company in the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Unitarians. But then, like them, you've got to sort out an alternative explanation for that behaviour, or just chuck the whole of the Bible and invent a Jesus that meets your expectations.

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by Greatest I am

 

I'm not sure what your point is -- I've never seen anyone claim that the Doctrine of the Trinity is IN the Bible. As I pointed out, it is a human explanation of WHY early Christians behaved the way that they did, and WHY the Bible refers to Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the manner that it does. Not believing in it doesn't make someone evil or anything, it just means that they're not a Christian.

So if you don't want to believe in it, bully for you, you've plenty of company in the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Unitarians. But then, like them, you've got to sort out an alternative explanation for that behaviour, or just chuck the whole of the Bible and invent a Jesus that meets your expectations.

I have chucked the bible and have no need to invent a new Jesus.
I have moved on and so should so called believers.

Jesus spoke for a father. I am the father. So to speak of course.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
I have chucked the bible and have no need to invent a new Jesus.
I have moved on and so should so called believers.

Jesus spoke for a father. I am the father. So to speak of course.

So, you basically made up a Jesus that meets your expectations, slapped a "Gnostic" sticker on him, and that's it? That's fine, I guess, though its not likely to resonate with anyone other than you (making posting about it on ATS somewhat redundant.)

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by Greatest I am
I have chucked the bible and have no need to invent a new Jesus.
I have moved on and so should so called believers.

Jesus spoke for a father. I am the father. So to speak of course.

So, you basically made up a Jesus that meets your expectations, slapped a "Gnostic" sticker on him, and that's it? That's fine, I guess, though its not likely to resonate with anyone other than you (making posting about it on ATS somewhat redundant.)

Christianity has made up their Jesus and so have Gnostics. All the Gods and archetypes are thought of as myth to us until apotheosis is reached.
Gnostics recognize that they have created him and that Jesus is just an archetypal good man, while foolish Christians do not recognize that the church did the same thing.

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Gnostics recognize that they have created him and that Jesus is just an archetypal good man

Once again, you're confusing Gnostics with some other philosophy, though since you don't seem to want show your sources, I have no idea who it is. The Gnostics, most assuredly, did not think that they'd invented Jesus, and he absolutely was not "an archetypal good man" in their view.