A voice from above?

reply to post by EnochWasRight

Essentially, you are accusing God of taking as a thief.

Prove it. Bring verses to our attention that demonstrate this and I will show you the foundation for this verse: "You must be born again."

In case you've never noticed, the OP never claims to be a Christian. You quote New Testament scriptures as if to imply that you are a Christian. But are you? The Christians should take very careful note of verses like this:

John 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world didn’t recognize him. 11 He came to his own, and those who were his own didn’t receive him. 12 But as many as received him, to them he gave the right to become God’s children, to those who believe in his name: 13 who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 The Word became flesh, and lived among us. We saw his glory, such glory as of the one and only Son of the Father, full of grace and truth. 15 John testified about him. He cried out, saying, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me has surpassed me, for he was before me.’” 16 From his fullness we all received grace upon grace. 17 For the law was given through Moses. Grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ. 18 No one has seen God at any time. The one and only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.

What is the author saying?

The Law (Torah) did not precede Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is not the Torah made flesh. Grace and Truth are not from the Torah. The new birth is not through the Torah. The Torah god has been seen many times. The actual God has not.

Do you really need for some one to point out all the sightings of the Torah god? Have you not read the Torah? Have you not read of the god who visited Abraham in the flesh? Have you not read "9 Then Moses, Aaron, Nadab, Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up. 10 They saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was like a paved work of sapphire stone, like the skies for clearness. 11 He didn’t lay his hand on the nobles of the children of Israel. They saw God, and ate and drank."Exodus 24?

Are we to believe that the author of the Gospel of John was as ignorant of the contents of the Torah as are some Torah followers today? Nicodemus was a Pharisee member of the Sanhedrin "teacher of Israel". One should assume that he must have been knowledgeable about the Torah. Jesus told him he must be born again. How? By reading the Torah just a little bit more? No. "John 3:14 As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have eternal life. "

reply to post by EnochWasRight

You mean the same God that killed the Pagans sacrificing children to Moloch, only to give them renewed life again in another generation? You mean the same souls that are now alive in a world where billions now live in peace? The same God that took 200 million souls and produced billions of new souls that adhere to some form of moral code and sentience that shares your values of right and wrong? The same God that transformed barbarism in the larger world into a form of light shown to them by the Hebrew people and the Torah. That God? The same one that gives us HIS Spirit to use as our mind as a loan we did not earn? The Father that gives us an inheritance we did not earn ourselves?

You speak of two different Gods my friend...

You are raising your own sense of moral justice over the God that brought you that sense of moral foundation. This is the very God that allowed this to be written on your heart from generations of life that came before. Your soul has been refined by that very God in by the trials of free will that was a gift to you and everyone else. You must be born again and God took you from law to love. The journey to get there required His harsh choices along the way or we would not arrive at a Holy Consciousness in the end.

i don't consider the OT God to have any sense of Moral Justice... As i've said i do not, and can not support anything that destroys life... The God i know Gives life, and has no need to take it from us... We do that fine on our own...

You have some imagined fantasy that sentience can be developed in the masses by simply allowing man to be free.

I have no such belief... Though we are free to do as we will without God interviening... obviously!

If you were God, you would somehow be able to manage free will apart from law and justice.

I don't know...

God protects the law abiding, and not the law breakers.

The OT God supports those that break his own laws, and even commands his followers to break said laws when it is convienent...

You claim God was evil for moving masses of people from one generation to the next.

No...

I claim the OT God is evil... for the evil he has commited, which is documented in said book...

Apart from knowing the living conditions of those generations and the genetic problems caused by the divine beings in Genesis 6, you have no foundation for taking the higher ground.

I have every reason to take said "moral high ground"... And if this God was Moral, he/she/it would also take the same path, which he/she/it does not...

God was working us toward a new genetic direction and his will can only give or receive.

I agree... unfortunatly the OT God takes at his own leisure...

Essentially, you are accusing God of taking as a thief.

I believe Jesus said "all that came before me are thieves and robbers"... correct?

Prove it. Bring verses to our attention that demonstrate this and I will show you the foundation for this verse: "You must be born again." God cannot take anything that he does not then use to give as a higher gift and calling toward truth in the end. Bring the verses and I will then show you the larger context of what we being demonstrated for those souls later in other generations when God allowed this:

Sure...

www.evilbible.com...

Browse at your leisure....

You are speaking from a foundation that ignores the truth and places your moral insight of a few years of life over God's moral understanding as ancient of days. God can only give and receive. To say otherwise fulfills this verse:

1 John 1

5 This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all.

And we'll stop right there.... Lets hear from the OT on this matter... only one can be correct, so which do you believe?

Isaiah 45...
7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

If you are not for God, you are against.

Im sorry... i am Against this God...

This is not my God, nor the words of Our Father...

Originally posted by Akragon

But you have this convenient detachment... Christ clearly is rooted in Torah based Judaism, he frequently quotes scripture from the Hebrew Bible, he taught it in the synagogues...

Its by no means convienent my friend... Have you actually noticed exactly what he quotes from the Torah?

Truely it isn't much... i would even call it cherry picking honestly... More over i would say he corrected people that read the hebew bible... and didn't teach from it. The authors of the gospels stated he "taught" from the torah... and i fully disagree.

Seriously? Two thousand years on, and you're the expert on Jesus and what he taught, over the people who were actually around him? Yeah, sure.

And yet he somehow thinks it's all bunk, and that the "real" God isn't the one portrayed in those books?

I believe there are hints of the true God in those books.... which are fully masked by the "imposter"

Your view of other cultures apparently is tainted by your insistence on imposing yourself and your own perspective on them. No, there are no "hints of the true God" in those books -- what they contain is the Israelite view of their God, who he was, what he was, and what he expected from his chosen people.

Anyone who taught otherwise was subject to stoning. Immediate, ask no questions, you're going to die. If Jesus even hinted at what you claim he fully believed (solely without evidence,) he wouldn't have lasted long enough to take another breath.

It is purely ignorant to claim that ancient Jewish religious leaders and Rabbis wandered around, looking for other points of view, incorporating things that they liked from other religions and debating the finer points of Judaism with Roman scholars. They are an inclusive religion, they're not interested in your opinion, and they're even less interested in your beliefs.

Face it, the earliest Christians, those closest to Christ, believed in a much different and orthodox Christianity than you would prefer them to. It was only in the ensuing centuries that people with a nonexistent connection to Christ or the Apostles, like Marcion, Valentinus or yourself, popped up, saying "I don't like the church, so here's my view, which is obviously correct."

I honestly don't care what early Christians said, even though i do study their material just for fun and my own curiosity.

If you don't care what they said, then why are you always quoting their writings? Everything that you know about Jesus comes from the texts that those early Christians that you don't care about wrote.

The same church fathers which are responsible for the death of many many so called "heretics"... and what did i say previously about people (or Gods) that demand death and destruction?

Again with the ignorance of history... the penalty for heresy in the early church was simple -- you got kicked out. No burning at the stake, no murder... like Marcion did, you left the church, and if you could convince people to follow you, you started your own church, with your own doctrines and sacred texts.

The church fathers that you cite were themselves persecuted by the Romans until the Fourth Century, and most of them whose opinions you dismiss with such disdain died horribly at the hands of the government for said same opinions.

reply to post by adjensen

Seriously? Two thousand years on, and you're the expert on Jesus and what he taught, over the people who were actually around him? Yeah, sure.

I don't believe i ever claimed to be an "expert" on anything aside from myself being an expert on Myself... And this is the first time i've ever made that claim...

Edit:

Heres my chance to quote Thomas

3 Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is within you and it is outside you.

When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."


5 Jesus said, "Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you.


80 Jesus said, "Whoever has come to know the world has discovered the body, and whoever has discovered the body, of that one the world is not worthy."

Your view of other cultures apparently is tainted by your insistence on imposing yourself and your own perspective on them. No, there are no "hints of the true God" in those books -- what they contain is the Israelite view of their God, who he was, what he was, and what he expected from his chosen people.

Sounds good to me

There are NO hints of the true God in the OT...

Anyone who taught otherwise was subject to stoning. Immediate, ask no questions, you're going to die. If Jesus even hinted at what you claim he fully believed (solely without evidence,) he wouldn't have lasted long enough to take another breath.

Uhmm... Jesus didn't last long did he?

Approx. 3 years if im not mistaken?

And how many times did people try to stone him in the gospels?

Yet somehow he managed to escape until the right time....

As i've said to Enochwasright... Did he not say "all that came before me were theives and robbers"?

It is purely ignorant to claim that ancient Jewish religious leaders and Rabbis wandered around, looking for other points of view, incorporating things that they liked from other religions and debating the finer points of Judaism with Roman scholars. They are an inclusive religion, they're not interested in your opinion, and they're even less interested in your beliefs.

I don't believe i wrote this thread for them... Kinda tells you how much i care about their opinions as well...

If you don't care what they said, then why are you always quoting their writings? Everything that you know about Jesus comes from the texts that those early Christians that you don't care about wrote.

I quote from 4 books... 5 if you include Thomas but that is rare because using non-Christian material when dealing with Christians is pointless... and rarely if ever do i quote the authors of said books narration...

Can i not take the stance of the Christian by saying... Do you not believe God is powerful enough to keep his word intact over all these years?

Again with the ignorance of history... the penalty for heresy in the early church was simple -- you got kicked out. No burning at the stake, no murder... like Marcion did, you left the church, and if you could convince people to follow you, you started your own church, with your own doctrines and sacred texts.

Fair enough... im no historian...

unfortunatly that point is irrelevant... IF it was as simple as that.... why was Marcion's work completely destroyed? Why would the church feel the need to destroy the work of Gnostic leaders if they just "let them go" as you claim?

The church fathers that you cite were themselves persecuted by the Romans until the Fourth Century, and most of them whose opinions you dismiss with such disdain died horribly at the hands of the government for said same opinions.

yup... i've read the book of Martyrs quite a few times

reply to post by DISRAELI


Im sorry my friend, i seemed to have overlooked your last reply...

You assumed, or disingenuously pretended to assume, that Christian belief led to that conclusion. The evidence is in the attached quote from the OP;

Actually the only assumption i made in the OP was that Christians believe Jesus was God in the flesh...

I don't assume "all christians" believe anything... theres just do many diferenciating beliefs

That question only arises on the premise "If God is on earth, he cannot be in heaven.".
So in asking that question, you were necessarily making that assumption
As you know.

Fortunatly it isn't an assumption... HE called himself "the son of God"... Not God in the flesh...

Yes, it is a Christian belief that Father and Son are in union in one sense, and yet separate entities in a different sense.
And you go through all this rigmarole just to announce your agreement with Christian belief on that point?

Yet this is the perspective of your version of Christianity...

I've heard differently from others... even a specific friend in particular... So i'll ask you the same question as i asked him....

When you pass and stand before God... What do you picture?

My friend said it will be Jesus sitting on the throne... the bible says God sits on the thone and Jesus is at his right hand... And i've heard several variations of this from other people as well...

So what do you picture when you stand before God?

A little thought piece for those who are in a group calling themselves followers of Jesus. Take particular notice of the way John uses the word us in verse 38.

Mark 9:35 He sat down, and called the twelve; and he said to them, "“If any man wants to be first, he shall be last of all, and servant of all.”" 36 He took a little child, and set him in their midst. Taking him in his arms, he said to them, 37 "“Whoever receives one such little child in my name, receives me, and whoever receives me, doesn’t receive me, but him who sent me.”"

38 John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone who doesn’t follow us casting out demons in your name; and we forbade him, because he doesn’t follow us.”

39 But Jesus said, "“Don’t forbid him, for there is no one who will do a mighty work in my name, and be able quickly to speak evil of me. 40 For whoever is not against us is on our side. 41 For whoever will give you a cup of water to drink in my name, because you are Christ’s, most certainly I tell you, he will in no way lose his reward. 42 Whoever will cause one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for him if he were thrown into the sea with a millstone hung around his neck.

Read the above as many times as you need to. Ask yourself, "Do I really want to impose Old Testament ideas about the gods upon any body?"

Also meditate on this:

John 10 The wolf snatches the sheep, and scatters them. 13 The hired hand flees because he is a hired hand, and doesn’t care for the sheep. 14 I am the good shepherd. I know my own, and I’m known by my own; 15 even as the Father knows me, and I know the Father. I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep, which are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will hear my voice. They will become one flock with one shepherd.

This is only a suspicion on my part, mind you, but I suspect that there just may be some people in a flock who haven't heard the voice of Jesus. I know that it's a terrible thing to even suspect. But it is theoretically possible that some people may be in the flock as followers of the flock and not following the shepherd.

Originally posted by Akragon

Again with the ignorance of history... the penalty for heresy in the early church was simple -- you got kicked out. No burning at the stake, no murder... like Marcion did, you left the church, and if you could convince people to follow you, you started your own church, with your own doctrines and sacred texts.

Fair enough... im no historian...

unfortunatly that point is irrelevant... IF it was as simple as that.... why was Marcion's work completely destroyed? Why would the church feel the need to destroy the work of Gnostic leaders if they just "let them go" as you claim?

I would say that the most obvious explanation is that Marcion's church fell apart after his death, his followers scattered, going back to the orthodox church, over to Valentinus or something else, and without a church to maintain the few copies of his writings, they were just lost. Again, stop projecting yourself and our society into these times... without mass reproduction, there were probably a few dozen copies of Marcion's writings, not thousands or millions.

The Gnostic texts, on the other hand, were in general circulation until the Fifth Century when the church, through the Roman government, ordered them destroyed. But that church was a much different thing that the one you're accusing in the Second Century.

reply to post by adjensen

Again with the ignorance of history... the penalty for heresy in the early church was simple -- you got kicked out. No burning at the stake, no murder... like Marcion did, you left the church, and if you could convince people to follow you, you started your own church, with your own doctrines and sacred texts.

I don't think that the OP was ever a church elder or preacher. I was. Let's see. Left, Left, Left, kicked out, left. Worked a few miracles in the name of Jesus during that time. You won't catch me bad mouthing Jesus any time soon. I didn't start my own sect because I believe that the followers of Jesus who are not "of the flock" do not need a flock. There is only one shepherd after all.

Over a twenty year period as a churchman, it was gradually dawning upon me just how many doctrines were really not important.

1) Did Jesus have to be virgin born in order to be Christ? No. Why is it taught? Because of a really lousy interpretation of an Old Testament verse.

3) Did Jesus really have to be of the blood line of David in order to be Christ? There's the kicker isn't it? Doesn't Christ mean Messiah? Doesn't Messiah mean anointed king? But wait! Moses spoke of a prophet like him. What was that? 400 years or so before David was even born? Didn't Samuel tell the people that Yahweh wanted to be their only king? "Don't be like the surrounding people?" So who is David? Second draft player for the people's hardness of heart, seems to me.

4) Does Jesus need a throne to sit on? What for? So he can be the king of the world ruling with an iron scepter to smash the unruly Gentiles? Why? Because the Old Testament set the mold, based on David, the second draft pick for the hardness of the people's hearts.

My conclusion was: As long as Christianity has the name Christianity because of an OT Messianic framework (which doesn't even appear at all in the Torah, by the way), then I will not claim to be a Christian.

So, am I an apostate?

reply to post by Akragon


Of all the people on ATS, you are the one person that might just get this. You are so close and I know enough about you that there may be a glimmer of hope you will understand what I will say here. I have hinted at it hoping you could get it from the bones I have thrown you. One more time. This time, more clarity.

Jesus is this:

1 Colossians 1:
15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Now go in order of the cast members.

1) God - ALL GOOD. You believe this. You have stated this.

2) Jesus - First born IMAGE of God. The Son that the Father raises. The one that is a prodigal Son leaving his inheritance behind. The one returning to the Father. The one willingly being baptized to rise again. The stamp for our clay. The Spirit for our soul. The one taking on our sin to himself, only to crucify it for us. Willingly involving so we could evolve. Being raised by God as a Son.

3) Angels. Some Elect and some fallen. Keep this in mind. Angels were before men.

4) Creation of Paradise Genesis 1 by the Elohim. Creation of Adam (First Born Father). The Father of man falls.

5) Mankind - The ones created by the Lord in Genesis 2. Adam after the fall. Involution to Evolution. All chapters that follow are a description of the Lord's struggle to raise his own children as a reflection of God raising him at the same time. You are condemning the Adam that fell as the Spirit of the LORD (Jesus and first born image) raises us from child to adult. The prodigal son returns with his family to the first Father (God).

You now have the order. Consider what it means that we are cut from ONE loaf. We are all part of the Lord's Spirit and ultimately God's (Father's) Spirit where the Son comes from.

When we return to your version, you are condemning the evil God as you say. The one that gave you life and saved you along the way from the error. The LAST Adam. You are condemning yourself. We are all cut from the same loaf and the Bible is OUR chronicle. Adam is the first soul and died on a cross for the error. You are Him in multiplicity and he died for you, willingly giving His soul to produce and raise ours.

Do you get it yet?

When he says, "I and the Father are one," what does this suggest. When he is called the last Adam, what does this suggest? When he suffered for us, what does this suggest? When it says he is the LORD and first soul created in the image of God, what does this tell you? When it states clearly that we originate with fallen Adam and rise with Christ, what does this tell you about the pattern you follow by following Adam as he is the firstfruits of what we become through HIM?

reply to post by Akragon


Define God!

How do you envision Him/Her? One Person? A Spirit that encompasses all beings and of which we are infinite parts of Infinite God, that Unites Us All?

reply to post by Unity_99


Interesting question...

I've had people ask me... what is God?

My answer is usually.... "Tell me, what isn't God"?



reply to post by EnochWasRight


I'll get back to you tomorrow on this....

your reply requires a little thought... but a star for you, and everyone else on this page...

Thank you for your contributions

Originally posted by Akragon
"Yes, it is a Christian belief that Father and Son are in union in one sense, and yet separate entities in a different sense."
Yet this is the perspective of your version of Christianity...
When you pass and stand before God... What do you picture?

It is not "my" version of Christianity.
It is the standard version of Christianity, as defined by the Council of Chalcedon.
If people start leaving the highway and creating their own shortcuts across the fields and bogs and crags, you can't take their path as representative of where the highway goes.
Part of the definition is that God is "incomprehensible", not fully accessible to the human mind.
I don't try to picture God because I don't try to do what cannot be done (that mistake is what leads some people astray).

Originally posted by pthena
My conclusion was: As long as Christianity has the name Christianity because of an OT Messianic framework (which doesn't even appear at all in the Torah, by the way), then I will not claim to be a Christian.

So, am I an apostate?

Once one starts throwing out bits and pieces of the New Testament that one doesn't like, it invalidates the whole thing, in my mind.

Does Mary need to be a virgin? Well, to tie back to the prophets, yes. Does she need to be a perpetual virgin? Even though I'm Catholic, I'd say no, though she probably was. But all that debating doesn't change the fact that the Gospels say that she was a virgin -- the only text that we have that is reasonably contemporaneous to her life says that she was a virgin, so why not just accept that she was?

Because the danger that one falls into by slicing pieces out of the text to conform to their view of Christ is that the result is going to be in congruence with what one wants to believe, but is highly unlikely to be an accurate representation of who he really was. It's the reason that Schweitzer dismissed his own Quest for the Historical Jesus in the 1800s -- he realized that they weren't finding the historical Jesus, since the only historical evidence of who he was is in the New Testament and the non-canonical works of the First and Second Century, in reality they were finding the Jesus who supported their existing views (Liberal Theology, in the case of the 19th Century German historians.)

The text that we have clearly indicates that Jesus was a conventional traveling Rabbi whose "unorthodox" teachings were against the rigid doxology of the Pharisees, not heretic teachings as the OP claims they were, so to dismiss the Hebrew Bible as a whole is to inherently dismiss Jesus, as well.

But let's consider it from another angle -- let's say that the "real" God is the OP's theoretical god, who was taught by Christ as being a completely separate entity from the God of the Israelites, as depicted in the Hebrew Bible.

Now, as part of his supporting framework, OP frequently makes the claim that Paul the Apostle took the true story that Jesus taught and misrepresented it as being in support of the Hebrew God, thus misdirecting all of Christianity throughout the ages -- we're worshipping an evil god in our misbelief that the God of the Israelites is the Father that Christ refers to in the Gospels, and only the occasional enlightened person, such as himself, sees the real truth.

What are the ramifications of this? The claim is that the omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent creator of the universe sent Jesus to be tortured and killed, with the full knowledge that, within a few decades, his whole message would be corrupted by Paul, and billions of "believers" down through the centuries would be deluded by the lies fostered on them.

How uncaring does the god need to be who would allow that, or how feeble would he need to be to not be able to overcome the words of one man?

Either way, hardly a "god" worth following.

reply to post by adjensen

Originally posted by adjensen
There were various groups of Gnostics, yes, which Ehrman does point out, and there were subgroups of Gnostic Christians, though most seem to have arisen out of the Valentinus school of thought. But they didn't all hold to the same beliefs, and that is the instance I cited earlier -- some groups were licentious, while others were not, and it was the former who were condemned by the early anti-heretical writers. However, I'd suggest that, while the condemnation is reasonable, declaring it universal (and thus implying that said condemnation is intended to portray the Gnostic Christians immoral across the board,) is not.

First of all, I’m glad I saw your follow up post above, before responding to your initial reply.

And secondly, well said, especially the last part, that I have highlighted above.

Originally posted by adjensen
Once again, it needs to be noted that, while Ehrman and we have the luxury (such as it is) of looking at those times with the knowledge and methods that we have today, it would be a mistake to put ourselves into the context of those times (something that I find Ehrman frequently guilty of) or taking the people of that time out of it (so not recognizing that Christian misrepresentation of Marcion or Valentinus would be easily countered by the people of that time who supported those views.)

I think you raise an excellent point, about us having the luxury to look back with the knowledge we now have etc…Although even today, defining what a Gnostic was, is not an exact science. But we know that there was a clear split in Gnosticism, between those who believed in Jesus, and those who did not.

I think this fact made things extremely difficult for the early RCC, in deciding who believed what and how etc…And added to that, they had the problem of trying to decipher, just what the Gnostics were talking about, as most of their texts, were clearly seeped in coded language and metaphors. So for the large part, the RCC just didn’t get what the Gnostics believed at all, (how could they?) and IMO most of their judgments, were essentially based upon literal interpretations of the Gnostic texts, which they clearly didn’t understand.

And regarding Valentinus, he almost became a bishop of Rome, and much of his writings were only classified as heretical, roughly 30 years after his death. So historically at least, it doesn’t appear as though there was a huge objection, or outcry to Valentinus writings, until much later, in the early third century.

- JC

reply to post by pthena

Originally posted by
I just placed an order after watching the trailer for the BBC Documentaries. It's been decades since I've read a decent history of Christianity.

1 "History of Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years"
Diarmaid MacCulloch; DVD; $71.99

1 "Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years"
MacCulloch, Diarmaid; Paperback; $16.50

Yes, there are some excellent BBC documentaries out there. IMO the BBC has produced some of the most impartial, and non-biased documentaries that I’ve ever seen!

If your interested in Documentaries in general, then I can recommend this website. It also has some excellent lectures and talks, on a number of subjects, which are available to watch online.

- JC

Originally posted by Joecroft
And regarding Valentinus, he almost became a bishop of Rome, and much of his writings were only classified as heretical, roughly 30 years after his death. So historically at least, it doesn’t appear as though there was a huge objection, or outcry to Valentinus writings, until much later, in the early third century.

Actually, from the timeline it is clear that Valentinus' "wandering off message" happened after he was denied the Bishopric, so the question arises whether said denial was a result of Valentinus' Gnostic beliefs, or whether the beliefs arose as a result of his being rejected for a leadership position. I would come down on the latter, because if he was publicly avowing the claims he later made in the Gospel of Truth, he never would have been seriously considered for that position.

What he came up with was close enough to the previously deemed heretical works of both Marcion and the Docetists that there's pretty much zero chance of him achieving any leadership role, were he openly espousing those beliefs. People who erroneously claim that Gnostic texts, such as the Gospel of Thomas were ever considered for canon don't seem to realize that the orthodox church had been coalescing around the theology which is defined in the four Gospels and Paul's Epistles long before the Gnostic Christians came along, so their beliefs, which significantly varied in numerous aspects from orthodoxy (call it proto-orthodoxy if you like,) would be rejected without argument.

reply to post by Akragon


From what I can gather, the people that God told the Israelites to destroy (yes, men women and children) were not fully human, but the offspring and decendants of fallen angels.

If that is the case, do you still condemn the actions of the Israelites?

reply to post by adjensen

Once one starts throwing out bits and pieces of the New Testament that one doesn't like, it invalidates the whole thing, in my mind.

There was no canon of New Testament at the time of Marcion. The idea of a need for a canon arose after Marcion was determined to be a heretic. No writing as expressing a person's views should invalidate any other writing. (no book burning required). Any association of people can post a list of recommended reading. That's as close to a canon that I feel comfortable with. Personally, if I were to choose a "canon", it would exclude Luke, 2 Peter, Jude, the addition to Mark (16:9-20), Revelation, 1&2 Timothy, Titus . It would include the Gospel of Thomas. Recognized secondary sources would be Pseudo-Paul, ie. Ephesians, Colossians, and Matthew and Acts.

But none of that reading should be considered as anything other than recollected sayings of Jesus, and an attempt to explain the implications of those sayings in as universal manner as possible. The only concept that is invalidated is the concept of some sort of verbal inspiration (as if dictated by some deity)

.But all that debating doesn't change the fact that the Gospels say that she was a virgin -- the only text that we have that is reasonably contemporaneous to her life says that she was a virgin, so why not just accept that she was?

I underlined the significant phrase for you. The fact that it is used as a test question in order to pin down whether some one does or does not view every statement of a document as authoritative and inerrant. The question in and of itself is not relevant to me. If Jesus came to be as the result of rape, incest, illicit sex, or recognized marriage union, or miracle, he himself is not invalidated as a person. To me that is more important than whether or not he was born of a virgin.

Because the danger that one falls into by slicing pieces out of the text to conform to their view of Christ is that the result is going to be in congruence with what one wants to believe, but is highly unlikely to be an accurate representation of who he really was.

There's not much we can do about that. The people best suited to know how exactly Jesus interacted with the milieu he found himself in never quite understood what he was getting at."He asked them, "Don’t you understand, yet?”" Mark 8:21 I doubt that even if each of his followers sat down and wrote a paper on what they thought Jesus was really all about, they would not totally agree.

My assumption is this: If Jesus is alive today, as Christians teach, then he has been maturing. If Jesus has been maturing and growing in wisdom then he isn't exactly the same person he was in the past. I would like to believe that he is quite the universalist as depicted in Gospel of John. If however, it is determined that he is a violent bigoted racist such as Rabbi Akiba or his Messiah Simon bar Kokhba, then I'm afraid we will have to part company.

The text that we have clearly indicates that Jesus was a conventional traveling Rabbi whose "unorthodox" teachings were against the rigid doxology of the Pharisees, not heretic teachings as the OP claims they were, so to dismiss the Hebrew Bible as a whole is to inherently dismiss Jesus, as well.

There was no "conventional traveling Rabbi" model until after the work of R. Akiba and his associates came up with the model by compiling the Mishnahs and Targums that led to the Talmud. This was during the period between the first and second rebellions of the Jews against Rome.

If you believe that Jesus lived, and lives today, then how can any position regarding the Old Testament be a dismissal of Jesus? Dismissing the Old Testament merely dismisses the idea that a tribal religious text regarding the violent global domination of one tribe over all other tribes in the world should be regarded as of any real value other than mythology. Like I implied above, if Jesus turns out to be an agent of the OT in bringing about such an agenda, then I want no part of him. But, as of yet, he remains a mystery to me, even though it appears to me that he rejected notions of holy cities and holy mountains and holy priests.

Now, as part of his supporting framework, OP frequently makes the claim that Paul the Apostle took the true story that Jesus taught and misrepresented it as being in support of the Hebrew God, thus misdirecting all of Christianity throughout the ages -- we're worshipping an evil god in our misbelief that the God of the Israelites is the Father that Christ refers to in the Gospels, and only the occasional enlightened person, such as himself, sees the real truth.

[out of space, must continue]

reply to post by adjensen
[ continued ]
Concerning Paul:

Paul is much misunderstood, I don't fault anyone for that. There are forces in the world today that are fostering hatred for Paul. The OP does not seem to me to be falling for that particular agenda. His objections seem to be his own rather than what is currently being spoon fed into modern culture by well funded and well organized and politically powerful entities. Paul is blamed for anti-semitism, and even blamed for the holocaust.

As the OP has stated regarding Jesus, words used in speaking of God are purposely ambiguous. As with Jesus, so also with Paul. All we have are some letters by Paul. We don't have any lecture notes, or transcripts of sermons. Paul does not seem to be a monotheist, but rather a monaltrist, as were the early Hebrews right up to the post exilic period. To assume that the God ( the one Paul chose, or who chose him ) is the same as the post exilic Yahweh who claimed to be the only god, is merely an assumption. see

1 Corinthians 8: there is no other God but one. 5 For though there are things that are called “gods,” whether in the heavens or on earth; as there are many “gods” and many “lords;” 6 yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and we live through him. 7 However, that knowledge isn’t in all men.

Now that I look at it, I find it rather hard to explain. It has to do with the difference between a statement of faith and a metaphysical statement. I'll have to think about that some more.

There is a distinct difference between Paul's language and that of Epistle of Barnabas (blatantly Yahwistic).

I suppose I'll take a break for a while.

Originally posted by 1PLA1
reply to post by Akragon

 

From what I can gather, the people that God told the Israelites to destroy (yes, men women and children) were not fully human, but the offspring and decendants of fallen angels.

If that is the case, do you still condemn the actions of the Israelites?

IF this was the case... that would require proof that Humans that wern't fully human existed...

Sounds like a fairy tale to me, similar to a talking snake... or even these reptilian people that are supposed to live among us...

Honestly i prefer to deal in reality... not fairytales from the bible

I'll be back later tonight to offer more replies... Gotta work, but i'll be following this threads progress

Take care everyone