Alternate View on Christianity

How many of you out there have ever really taken into account that religion might just be all garbage. Think about it, i mean all religious books have flaws and missing information and are all in my opinion incoherent. This seems to me to be deliberate and intentional to keep people from really uncovering the truth about their existance and is in fact a way of forming a class based society, those who make the rules, and those who follow the rules. One book The Gospel of Thomas which was not included in the holy bible gives you much more insight into the way Jesus (whom christianity is supposedly based on) really taught. Jesus as a philosopher instead of Jesus as merely a sacrifice for our sins. Why in the Bible does it not talk more about what Jesus taught, instead it gives us cestpool of useless information from other religions of the time. Through all of the reading i have done it seems that i have not found at any time Jesus speaking about converting people to a religion to follow his way of thinking, it seems that he wanted everyone to be free thinkers and actually question thier own being. I doubt that jesus wanted masses of people to be led around like dogs and told what to believe and how to live, and if you decide you want to question the institutions beliefs you are deemed an enemy of god. Jesus as i have come to find out like the Buddah was about giving people knowledge so that they might learn and think about more than what is simply visible to them in the material world.

here are some quotes to think about from the gospel of thomas

a link here --www.gospels.net...

--Jesus said, "I took my place in the midst (company) of the world, and I appeared to them in flesh. I found all of them intoxicated; I found none of them thirsty. And my soul became afflicted for the sons of men, because they are blind in their hearts and do not have sight; for empty they came into the world, and empty too they seek to leave the world. But for the moment they are intoxicated. When they shake off their wine, then they will repent."

--His disciples said to him, "Is circumcision beneficial or not?"
He said to them, "If it were beneficial, their father would beget them already circumcised from their mother. Rather, the true circumcision in spirit has become completely profitable."

now if jesus really wanted people to circumcise their children for the sake of following "his religion christianity" why would he have said this?

--His disciples said to him, "Who are you, that you should say these things to us?"
"You do not realize who I am from what I say to you, but you have become like the Jews, for they (either) love the tree and hate its fruit (or) love the fruit and hate the tree."

--Jesus said, "Do not be concerned from morning until evening and from evening until morning about what you will wear."

and yet people go to church wearing suits and fancy clothes and driving luxurious cars, going to church it seems has become more of a way to show status rather than to find faith.

--Jesus said, "You see the mote (blindness) in your brother's eye, but you do not see the beam in your own eye. When you cast the beam out of your own eye, then you will see clearly how to cast the mote from your brother's eye."

--Jesus said, "If a blind man leads a blind man, they will both fall into a pit."

--Jesus said, "Recognize what is in your sight, and that which is hidden from you will become plain to you . For there is nothing hidden which will not become manifest."

Some of these do appear in the bible in a much more watered down version of course, but one must also understand that the Roman Catholic Church waged many wars over information as to consolidate their religion for control of the population effectively making them into drones more or less. Many think that this brainwashing and indoctrining may have started in the past few centuries, but in reality this has been going on since before the time of Jesus. Which is one among the many reasons that he was crucified, he was teaching people to open thier eyes and think outside the box. Now if you still feel like (enter name of religious book here --->)_____ is in fact the word of God and that it is absolutely true then I'm sorry to say you are still blind.

There is a Gnostic text the Pistis Sophia which goes further into detail about the teachings of Jesus on a spiritual level and for those interested in the study of magic the esoteric teachings as well.

also a link --www.athanatonsoma.com.ar...

The Pistis Sophia recounts his teachings after he is raised from the dead, it is said that Jesus after he was raised that he stayed on Earth eleven more years preaching to his disciples (and by the way Mary Magdalene according to Jesus in the Pistis Sophia is a disciple) before ascending to heaven not just leaving right after, and goes much more in depth about the cycle of life, death, rebirth and how to ascend to heaven while still alive on Earth, the expansion of the universe and much more. These teachings seem to mirror those of Buddhism besides the esoteric side of them. Jesus apparently recognizes ancient Greek, Egyptian, an Babylonian gods and their places in the Heavenly Spheres, as well as the demons and lower gods of hell which he continuously reffers to as the dragons of the outer darkness and the Devil which is called the Lion Faced. Reading this book is a major eye opener to anyone with the time and if you also study secret societies Jesus gives definitions to some of the symbols that they use.

I can see studying the texts you mention as an antithesis, but I can't see giving them any more or less credence than I would the bible, or the Koran, or the Bhagavad Gita, for that matter. All religious texts are ambiguous.

Interesting thread. S&F.

Yes, this is an "Alternate View on Christianity", which is called Gnostic Christianity.

It is derived from Gnosticism, which is the religious perspective on Platonic philosophy, and which existed for a couple hundred years before Christ.

Gnostic Christianity was started by a man named Valentinus around the middle of the Second Century (around 120 years after Christ's death.) Valentinus was an orthodox Christian, who was passed up for the Bishop of Rome (essentially, the leader of the church) and went off to form his own religion, which became Gnostic Christianity. Valentinus is generally accepted to have written The Gospel of Truth, which lays out the mythology of Gnostic Christianity (you can read it here.)

The Gospel of Thomas is notoriously unreliable as a "Christian text", because while it has things that we know (or suspect) Jesus actually said, it also includes things that he clearly did not say (all the Gnostic stuff.) It was never considered for inclusion in the Bible for that reason.

reply to post by adjensen


You beat me to it.

I apologize OP, but I did laugh a little when I read your title and then went on to read the content. I've yet to see a thread started about Christianity here that wasn't an alternate view on Christianity. In fact, there are so many alternate views presented, I'm beginning to seriously doubt if most folks around here even know what the orthodox view of Christianity is.

Originally posted by LeSigh
I've yet to see a thread started about Christianity here that wasn't an alternate view on Christianity. In fact, there are so many alternate views presented, I'm beginning to seriously doubt if most folks around here even know what the orthodox view of Christianity is.

Oh, there's no doubt about that... it's the reason that I joined ATS in the first place -- I was amazed at the amount of ignorance that the subject of Jesus seems to bring out in people. He's probably the most talked and written about person in the world, and yet the only books that we are reasonably certain were written by people who knew him are routinely dismissed in favour of texts written centuries later by people whose agendas have nothing to do with Christ at all, but merely hijack him in order to ride that wave of popularity.

There is no doubt that "orthodox Christianity" is crafted after an author who never met Jesus and had a questionable agenda of his own. Paul, or Saul pf Tarsus, was a pharisee and a tax collector who persecuted the original Christians, who were in all probability Gnostics, as was Jesus.

Paul's words directly contradict the teaching of Jesus, and he injects his personal religious views and opinions as he attempts to waft philosophical along lines that Jesus never inferred. The Roman Catholic Church further perverted and corrupted the teaching of Jesus to realize their agenda of control of the masses. Anyone who thinks that the church should be trusted to have had the best interest of the souls of the peons they ruled are just deluded.

Is it any wonder that these days, with more and more educated and spiritually curios people, that alternatives to the true meaning of the life and teachings of Jesus would emerge and the RCC would come under scrutiny? Alternatives to the "official story" and convoluted apologies of the RCC naturally meets opposition from other credible sources.

Originally posted by windword
There is no doubt that "orthodox Christianity" is crafted after an author who never met Jesus and had a questionable agenda of his own. Paul, or Saul pf Tarsus, was a pharisee and a tax collector who persecuted the original Christians, who were in all probability Gnostics, as was Jesus.

lol, case in point...

Jesus was not a Gnostic, that's ludicrous. If he was a Gnostic, why wouldn't he have repudiated Judaism the moment he could speak the words? No, he was an Orthodox Jewish Rabbi, not a mystic, not a Gnostic, and not the Bringer of Gnosis.

The "original Christians" were Jews, not Gentiles, so they most assuredly would not have been Gnostics. I don't get why some people think that Jews sat around on the street corner, debating religion and philosophy with Greeks, Celts and Indians. Judaism is an exclusive religion -- almost none of them gave two hoots about any world view other than their own, and the Apostles would be no different.

Paul's words directly contradict the teaching of Jesus, and he injects his personal religious views and opinions as he attempts to waft philosophical along lines that Jesus never inferred

You are welcome to back up this nonsense with actual instances where Paul directly contradicts Jesus in a meaningful way. Every time I ask for that, all that comes back are passages taken out of context, things that are clearly not contradictions, and other fallacies. Which is usually because people google, rather than read, and come up with the same lame examples over and over.

Gospel of thomas contains a lot of interesting sayings but it was discovered in 1945, so this is a rather modern discovery considering the gnostics were an actual group around ~150-200 AD at least (Plotinus talks about their ideology, he opposed them but saw similarities with his own.) If this was an oral tradition, why didn't other gnostics write it down? There are hundreds of different versions of the bible, why would there be only one text of the gospel of thomas, especially considering if this was outlawed, as the gnostics were persecuted for their beliefs, there would have been many copies floating around, or at least some record of the catholic church burning them.

However, if this gospel is true, then without a doubt it is strong indication that Jesus studied Buddhism due especially to the term 'emptiness' and the reference to drunkenness (but remember Jesus drank too and turned water into wine!), this leads me to believe that the gospel is a forgery that contains truth, of course, but attributed to Jesus to make it more famous and renowned.

Bottom line is, it doesn't really matter as it is an interesting read regardless and truth should not depend on the speaker.

reply to post by adjensen


Ah, Jesus did repudiate Judaism by nullifying the law. He worked on the sabbath, he overturned the law of eye for an eye, he simplified the hundreds of laws into Love God, and Love your Neighbor. He drove the merchants and money changers out of the temple with a whip, John 2:15, and he scolded the elders every chance he could get, which was why they conspired to kill him.

Jesus never repudiated Judaism, that's seriously too funny. Of course he was a rabbi, because 'priest' hadn't been invented yet. He was technically not a "Jew" (Judahite) but a Gallilean, but was a "Jewish" rabbi, although Judaism technically didn't even exist yet. No book of Moses ever uses the term Jew or Judaism, only Hebrew.

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by adjensen

 

Ah, Jesus did repudiate Judaism by nullifying the law. He worked on the sabbath, he overturned the law of eye for an eye, he simplified the hundreds of laws into Love God, and Love your Neighbor. He drove the merchants and money changers out of the temple with a whip, John 2:15, and he scolded the elders every chance he could get, which was why they conspired to kill him.

None of that is repudiating Judaism. Gnostics are polytheist dualists, Judaism is a non-dualistic monotheistic religion, so if he was a Gnostic, he wouldn't be Jewish, get it?

Christianity isn't technically a new religion, it is a Jewish sect.

reply to post by adjensen


No, Catholicism is a jewish sect, Christianity (the belief in what Jesus actually did and said) is closer to gnosticism than catholicism which views the old testament jewish laws as divine. If Jesus was a Jew, he didn't follow any of the Jewish laws! That's like saying an anarchist is a republican because they live in the united states. Catholicism is jewish because it clings to the Torah roots, and sadly many "christians" fall into this category.

Gnosticism has been around at least since 500 BC. There was a sort of "renascence" of philosophy that emerged with the mystery schools of Pythagoras, Plato and contemporaries Lao Tzu and Buddha. Some 200+ years later, Alexander the Great created a melting pot of a civilized, far reaching society that found complimentary mythologies, belief systems and philosophies.

By the time Jesus arrived on the scene, the religion of Abraham was unrecognizable. Abraham may have actually been one of the first gnostics. Being from Ur, of Sumerian ancestry. Abraham gave homage to Melchizedek, an antediluvian nephilim, according the 2nd Book of Enoch. Melchizedek's history falls along the mythologies of Hermes Trismegistus, the Emerald Tablets and the secret teaching and mysteries of the pyramids, sacred geometry and gnostic teachings.

Mythologies infer that a race of nephilim survived the flood, became the infamous Brahmans of the eastern highlands, and are said to have dispensed Hinduism, Zoroastrianism and the Abrahamic religions. (A Brahman)

The Vedas call the one great creator God "Brahma," and his priest were the highest caste, the Brahmans. In Judaism, the highest priestly "caste "were the Levites.

Originally posted by filosophia
reply to post by adjensen

 

If Jesus was a Jew, he didn't follow any of the Jewish laws!

Really?

Was he circumcised? Was he presented at the Temple? Did he quote Torah? Did he teach from the Torah?

Are you saying that he broke the Ten Commandments? Or just that he taught that they need not be followed?

Commandment 1 "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and the great commandment" (Mat 22:37).

Commandment 2 "You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve" (Mat 4:10).

Commandment 3 "Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men" (Mat 12:31)

Commandment 4 "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Therefore the Son of Man is also Lord of the Sabbath'" (Mk 2:27)

Commandment 5 "Honor your father and your mother" (Mat 19:19)

Commandment 6 "You know the commandments:...Do not murder" (Luke 18:20)

Commandment 7 "You shall not commit adultery" (Mat 19:18)

Commandment 8 "You shall not steal" (Mat 19:18)

Commandment 9 "You know the commandments:...Do not bear false witness" (Luke 18:20)

Commandment 10 "Do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, nor about your body, what you will put on" (Mat 6:25)

"I have kept My Father's commandments" (John 15:10).

(Source)

Seems pretty dang Jewish to me. What are these "real teachings" that you think you've found that say Jesus didn't follow or teach Torah?

Or are you saying that Jesus was a liar?

Originally posted by windword
Abraham may have actually been one of the first gnostics.

What?



And where did Abraham get his time machine from, which enabled him to go study under Plato, who wasn't born until 1,500 years after Abraham died?

That is one of the dumbest things I've seen you post. If you're just going to make stuff up, at least apply a modicum of common sense to avoid crazy and obvious impossibilities like "Abraham was a Gnostic."

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by windword
Abraham may have actually been one of the first gnostics.

What?

And where did Abraham get his time machine from, which enabled him to go study under Plato, who wasn't born until 1,500 years after Abraham died?

That is one of the dumbest things I've seen you post. If you're just going to make stuff up, at least apply a modicum of common sense to avoid crazy and obvious impossibilities like "Abraham was a Gnostic."

I grow weary of your obtuse mockery, tired insults and closed minded approach to the spiritual perspective of others that don't follows you narrow view of Catholicism and your mainstream view of what Judaism was supposedly about.

Gnosticism is AT LEAST dated back to 500BC . But it may, in fact date back much farther to the secret teaching of the mythical Brahman. The legendary teachings of Hermes Trismegistus are most probably gnostic in nature, teaching enlighten through the pursuit of wisdom and light. The fact that Abraham is said to have paid homage to the Sumerian king/deity Melchizedek, who according to Enoch was an antediluvian nephilim, as was Hermes Trismegistus, heralds the origin of Judaism back to an age of mystic knowledge, gnosis.

The caste system set forth by the Brahman is echoed in the tribal caste system of the Hebrews. The religion of A(Brahman) was most likely in sync with the original doctrines of Hindu and Zoroastrianism. By the time of Jesus, these religions were unrecognizable.

It is written that Jesus was of the "Order of Melchizedek" which means he was likely a mystic who heralded from some ancient secret school of wisdom, gnosis. Jesus taught of the light of the world, which is wisdom, Sophia, gnosis. John 1 is also a gnostic teaching. In order to understand the true meaning of the teachings of Jesus one must look to gnosis.

Originally posted by windword
Gnosticism is AT LEAST dated back to 500BC . But it may, in fact date back much farther to the secret teaching of the mythical Brahman.

Here's your problem. You're lumping everything that you consider to be mysticism into Gnosticism. They are not the same thing. Period. Gnosticism is Greek, it is derived from Plato's philosophy and other Greek teaching, so to claim that anyone who died in 1800BC could have been a Gnostic is irretrievably stupid.

It doesn't take Catholic doctrine to know that, just simple history and common sense.

It is written that Jesus was of the "Order of Melchizedek" which means he was likely a mystic who heralded from some ancient secret school of wisdom, gnosis.

No, that's not what it means.

Jesus taught of the light of the world, which is wisdom, Sophia, gnosis.

No, he didn't. And you apparently have no idea what the gnosis was.

John 1 is also a gnostic teaching.

No, it is not. It is anti-Ebionite, but it is, in no way, Gnostic.

In order to understand the true meaning of the teachings of Jesus one must look to gnosis.

As I said, you have no idea what that is. Gnosis is what you work toward, it is not a tool.

reply to post by adjensen


Gnosis is a Greek word for knowledge, wisdom and light. The Greeks did not invent the concept of mystical enlightenment, nor were they first to have the debate about the difference between book knowledge and experiential knowledge. The desire to understand the harmonious functions of cosmic machine is not unique to the Greeks and the intellectual pursuit of "gnosis" didn't begin with the Greeks, but much, much earlier than 500BC.

As I previously stated, around 500 BC there was a renaissance of philosophy. It was a renewal of spirituality, not the beginning. Believing that the Greeks, ie Plato, invented gnosis is like believing that Italy, ie. Michelangelo invented art.

reply to post by windword


You are making an intellectually dishonest argument.

Regardless of what you equate to enlightenment, the Gnostics were a specific group, which did not exist prior to 500BC. Saying that any mystic or knowledge seeker or whatever is a Gnostic is patently false -- it's akin to saying that the ancient Greeks were Americans, because they happened to exercise Democracy.

reply to post by adjensen

There is geometry in the humming of the strings, there is music in the spacing of the spheres.


I swear it by him who has transmitted into our souls the Sacred Quaternion, the source of nature, whose cause is eternal.

Pythagoras

Read more at www.brainyquote.com...

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1

This not anti gnostic, but actually GNOSTIC!

Originally posted by windword

Is it any wonder that these days, with more and more educated and spiritually curios people, that alternatives to the true meaning of the life and teachings of Jesus would emerge and the RCC would come under scrutiny? Alternatives to the "official story" and convoluted apologies of the RCC naturally meets opposition from other credible sources.

edit on 12-10-2012 by windword because: grammer

No, there is no wonder. The love of sin hardens the heart towards the Creator and His commands.
All the "teachers and leaders" - the men of reknown of our day - had to do was introduce it and promote it.
Voila - a population that rejects the true gospel of God - "Follow me" and "go and sin no more".