It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by adjensen
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.
Originally posted by adjensen
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.
Originally posted by adjensen
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.
Originally posted by adjensen
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,
Originally posted by Joecroft
You use the phrase "wandering off message" above, but as Bart Ehrman has pointed out, there was no set specific form of Christianity, back in that time period; there were only competing versions of Christianity. There were many agreements and disagreements ,and it’s not as black and white as most people seem to make out.
And actually, it’s not clear if Valentinus wrote the “Gospel of truth” or not. There’s no conclusive proof of this, it’s only considered most likely by historians, for one reasons or another. So your reason for leaning towards the later, might not be correct.
Well, in that event, he shouldn’t have even been considered for the role, which is surprising in itself, if his beliefs were well known at that time, and people were opposed to it etc.
And it doesn’t make any logical sense, for him to be even considered for the role of Bishop, if his views and Beliefs were somehow not known!
Marcion, as far as I am aware, didn’t accept that the “Gospel of Thomas” should be part of Cannon, but it’s well known that he refused to accept any parts of the Old Testament. He did however accept Corinthians 1 and 2 and Romans and the book of Luke, and a few others…
Originally posted by adjensen
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,
This is very debatable and also, what Orthodox church, are you talking about???.
Many historians are of the opinion, that first Christians, were the “Gnostic Christians!” And according to Elaine Pagels work, they simply called themselves “Christians”
For example the “Gospel of Thomas” is dated somewhere between 40 AD – 140 AD…but most Scholars believe that it is written in a style, which is how the original gospels would have looked, long before they were Chronologicalised, and put into a story style format, like we have with the 4 Gospels.
Ex 17:14 Yahweh said to Moses, “Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under the sky.” 15 Moses built an altar, and called its name Yahweh our Banner. 16 He said, “Yah has sworn: ‘Yahweh will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.’”
Deuteronomy 25:17 Remember what Amalek did to you by the way as you came forth out of Egypt; 18 how he met you by the way, and struck the hindmost of you, all who were feeble behind you, when you were faint and weary; and he didn’t fear God. 19 Therefore it shall be, when Yahweh your God has given you rest from all your enemies all around, in the land which Yahweh your God gives you for an inheritance to possess it, that you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under the sky; you shall not forget.
Yitzchak Ginsburgh
In 1994, Ginsburgh received widespread criticism for his article "Baruch Hagever"[17] in which he praised Baruch Goldstein who had massacred 29 Arab worshippers at the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron.[18][19] Rabbi Ginsburgh wrote that it is possible to view Baruch Goldstein's act as following five Halachic principles, namely "sanctification of God's name", "saving life" (referring to testimonies that he had allegedly received regarding a planned Arab massacre of Jews[20]), "revenge", "eradication of the seed of Amalek" and "war".[21] Motti Inbari commented on this:
In his writings, Ginzburg gives prominence to Halachic and kabbalistic approaches that emphasize the distinction between Jew and non-Jew (Gentile), imposing a clear separation and hierarchy in this respect. He claims that while the Jews are the Chosen People and were created in God's image, the Gentiles do not have this status.... Ginzburg stated that, on the theoretical level, if a Jew requires a liver transplant to survive, it would be permissible to seize a Gentile and take their liver forcefully. From this point only a small further step is required to actively encourage and support the killing of non-Jews, as Ginzburg did in the case of Goldstein
Originally posted by Akragon
It is believed by most of the Christian faith that Jesus was "God in the flesh" as John stated in the first chapter of his gospel.
So i have a question for those of the christian faith to ponder...
There is three instances in the gospels where a "voice" from above was documented... The first instance comes in Matthew 3 at the first meeting of John the baptist, and Jesus...
13 Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan unto John, to be baptized of him.
14 But John forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and comest thou to me?
15 And Jesus answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him.
16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
.............
This verse can also be cross referenced in Mark 1...
10 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:
11 And there came a voice from heaven, saying, Thou art my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
........
And in Luke 3
Luke 3:22
And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
.............
The second instance comes later in the book of Matthew in chapter 17 during the "transfiguation"... witnessed by Peter, James, and John his brother...
4 Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.
5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
...................
Which can also be cross referenced with in Mark 9
5 And Peter answered and said to Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.
6 For he wist not what to say; for they were sore afraid.
7 And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
.............
And in Luke 9
33 And it came to pass, as they departed from him, Peter said unto Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias: not knowing what he said.
34 While he thus spake, there came a cloud, and overshadowed them: and they feared as they entered into the cloud.
35 And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
..............
Clearly these books all agree with each other...
Now the final instance is found in the book of John...
26 If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my Father honour.
27 Now is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save me from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour.
28 Father, glorify thy name. Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both glorified it, and will glorify it again.
29 The people therefore, that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others said, An angel spake to him.
30 Jesus answered and said, This voice came not because of me, but for your sakes.
...........................
So here is the question....
IF Jesus was God in the flesh.... And God was apparently here on earth as the christian Faith dictates....
Who was this voice from above that was documented in all these cases?
Please discuss rationally everyone...
I look forward to your replies
Simply put... he is not talking about the
so called God of the OT... The God he
speaks of... his father, is kind and
merciful, forgiving and generous. The
God of the OT makes these claims but
shows nothing of the sort. Any God that commands his children
to kill... is a false God. Lets not even get
into the killing of women and
children... heaven forbid
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.
Creation of Paradise Genesis 1 by the Elohim.
Mankind - The ones created by the Lord in Genesis 2. Adam after the fall.
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.
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?
One remembers how R. Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, the old traditionalist at the end of the 1st century A.D., was overruled by R. Akiba and his colleagues in his opinion regarding the possibility of a purification of the 'Aknai Tannur (oven). R. Eliezer called on the course of nature to reverse to prove his point was right. He called for a heavenly voice to witness to the correctness of his opinions. The course of nature was reversed;[pthena note: evidently gravity was suspended ] the heavenly voice testified; but R. Akiba was not impressed. R. Joshua b. Hananiah said that the Law was not in heaven, but is with men.
The bible is a book written by men about what they believed was the true God, but it wasn't... it was an imposter posing as God to those that didn't know any better...
Matthew 5:17 “Don’t think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn’t come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 For most certainly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished.
‘When Moses ascended into heaven, he saw God occupied in making little crowns for the letters of the Torah. Upon his inquiry as to what these might be for, he received the answer, "There will come a man, named Akiva ben Joseph, who will deduce Halakot from every little curve and crown of the letters of the Law." Moses' request to be allowed to see this man was granted; but he became much dismayed as he listened to Akiva's teaching; for he could not understand it’ (Men. 29b). This story gives a picture of Akiva's activity as the father of Talmudical Judaism.
Akiva ben Joseph
Matthew 7: 15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves. 16 By their fruits you will know them. Do you gather grapes from thorns, or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree produces good fruit; but the corrupt tree produces evil fruit. 18 A good tree can’t produce evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree produce good fruit. 19 Every tree that doesn’t grow good fruit is cut down, and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore, by their fruits you will know them.
Originally posted by EnochWasRight
reply to post by Akragon
Who is tampering with this verse then?
"You search the scriptures because in them you think you have eternal life; it is these that bear witness of me" (Jn 5:39).
Also, it is very clearly outlined HERE.
This is a brilliant thread! I'd give it another flag if I could!
Orthodox people, Jewish and Christian like to claim that "God is incomprehensible", then turn around and set up all kinds of limiting definitions for God. Just how ridiculous is that!
I may be a bit retarded when it comes to spiritual matters, but I understand Yahweh completely. Why? Because he only really exists in the book, completely defined, with all his thoughts and motives completely revealed, no mystery whatsoever. That should be proof enough that he is not God.
What about that book? Jesus said, and people like to quote this verse:
Matthew 5:17 “Don’t think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn’t come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 For most certainly, I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not even one smallest letter or one tiny pen stroke shall in any way pass away from the law, until all things are accomplished.
It is quoted to give some sort of blanket approval of the book.
Do you believe he meant the law of the Torah?
Or perhaps he meant the laws he gave which have always been in effect? ... The LAW of Love
John 13: 31 When he had gone out, Jesus said, "“Now the Son of Man has been glorified, and God has been glorified in him. 32 If God has been glorified in him, God will also glorify him in himself, and he will glorify him immediately. 33 Little children, I will be with you a little while longer. You will seek me, and as I said to the Jews, ‘Where I am going, you can’t come,’ so now I tell you. 34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, just like I have loved you; that you also love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”"
John16:2 They will put you out of the synagogues. Yes, the time comes that whoever kills you will think that he offers service to God. 3 They will do these things because they have not known the Father, nor me.
I think that he was referencing stuff that he really shouldn't have even known about ( pre knowledge?) How would he have known what Akiva and the other Tannaim would do in his future time? There wasn't even a canon yet. How did he know about the Massoretic diacritic markings? Was he mistaken, or did he know and was making a parody of the canon that didn't exist yet?
I don't know, it seems Jesus has more mystery about him than the OT god.
But anyway, instead of pulling out a pen, and making changes to the text, he just said things in words that people could hear. "You have heard it said...but I tell you..." he was directly challenging the other teachers who were quoting from the scriptures they had at the time.
My gut reaction to " until all things are accomplished." is horror, because I am well aware of all the horrendous dooms pronounced in the book. I feel like falling down and asking that the cup be taken away. I think it can be taken away. All that war and disaster can and should be averted.
I suspect that Jesus is greater than Moses.
I believe that where Love is in conflict with Moses (the book) that Love ought to be allowed to triumph.
John16:2 They will put you out of the synagogues. Yes, the time comes that whoever kills you will think that he offers service to God. 3 They will do these things because they have not known the Father, nor me.
You have heard that you must ever remember to seek out Amalek for destruction, that it is a mitzvah (service to god), but I tell you, forget about it, you don't have to genocide anyone
Age, which some versions translate as "world".
Jesus said there IS a world to come...
But...
Notice Jesus said "the scriptures bear witness of me"... Truth
He does not say anything like "the scriptures are inspired from God"...
IF he existed before his time on earth would he not have "pre knowledge"?
He was the Son of God after all... He did make that claim specifically..
1 He entered into a boat, and crossed over, and came into his own city. 2 Behold, they brought to him a man who was paralyzed, lying on a bed. Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the paralytic, "“Son, cheer up! Your sins are forgiven you.”"
3 Behold, some of the scribes said to themselves, “This man blasphemes.”
4 Jesus, knowing their thoughts, said, "“Why do you think evil in your hearts? 5 For which is easier, to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven;’ or to say, ‘Get up, and walk?’ 6 But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins...”" (then he said to the paralytic), "“Get up, and take up your mat, and go up to your house.”"
7 He arose and departed to his house. 8 But when the multitudes saw it, they marveled and glorified God, who had given such authority to men.
Age, which some versions translate as "world".
I don't think Jesus meant that we are going to a different world but he was initiating a new age through his teachings.
He was confronted by Satan and used the OT to confirm his one reasoning behind his choices:
Matthew 4:4
4 But He answered and said, “It is written, ‘a Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.’ ”
7 Jesus said to him, “On the other hand, it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord your God to the test.’ ”
10 Then Jesus said to him, “Go, Satan! For it is written, ‘You shall worship the Lord your God, and serve Him only.’ ”
As a Hebrew, who was He referring to?
And here:
"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished
And here: 35 “If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken)
Jesus appealed to Scripture when correcting false doctrine stating, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God," (NASB, Matt. 22:29).
He may as well be speaking to you here. I am your friend and what I am showing you is true. Not only is it true, so is the OT.