A voice from above?

page: 6
7
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 





Originally posted by adjensen
Contrary to what Ehman implies, there wasn't a cornucopia of differing views in existence in the First Century -- there was the developing orthodox church, comprised of the churches founded by the apostles (including Paul) and a series of heresies that arose as differences came about in the different churches.


Well, believe it or not, I actually go along with another of Elaine Pagels ideas, in that the apostle Paul, was most likely a Gnostic Christian!!!, and there are a few sources and potential tie ins, which suggests this could be the case.

As for historical proof that “there wasn't a cornucopia of differing views in existence in the First Century” this is very difficult to say. But it’s easy to state it, when going on surviving historical texts.

Thinking about this logically though, I don’t believe that Gnostic Christianity, just suddenly sprouted up, sometime around the 2nd century. It seems more likely that it would have had a much earlier oral tradition and possible texts. I say possible texts, because most of the Gnostic texts were destroyed by the early RCC, so there’s no way to really know for sure. All we have to go on now are the surviving copies.



Originally posted by adjensen
That's my point in saying that I think he started his offshoot church as a result of losing that vote.



Which in itself means Christianity was not yet fixed or well defined. And the fact that it went to a vote, must have meant some people accepted some of the Valentinian doctrines at that time.

I think this is partly what Bart Erhman was meaning by “competing for orthodoxy”




Originally posted by adjensen
No, I think that the timeline regarding the establishment of Christian Gnostics has been pretty well nailed down, so even if one accepts very late dating of the Gospels, one is still left with those texts, along with Paul's letters, as preceding the GCs by 30-90 years….



The timeline has only been nailed down, by relying on surviving texts.

Interestingly enough, Marcion who came from this “orthordoxy” you speak of, rejected certain other letters and writings of Paul, because he believed they were heavily edited by the RCC. And yet surprisingly, he accepted other texts like Corinthians and Romans etc…

And speaking of surviving texts, we don’t have any originals of Paul Letters, to verify if any editing has taken place. In most cases, all we have is the surviving copies, most of which date to around the 2nd and 3rd centuries.



Originally posted by adjensen
I have never been impressed with Pagels' work, and I have never seen a reputable NT scholar who said that the first Christians were Gnostics. We don't need to get into details as to why I think that impossible, but you're going to need to cite a source that says that.


History is currently on the side of the RCC, but it is still a highly debated topic among Scholars.



Gnosticism was primarily defined in a Christian context.[1][2] Some scholars have claimed that gnosticism pre-dated Christianity.


Source

And from the same source…



Although some scholars still postulate pre-Christian gnosticism, no evidence has been found to date. It is now generally accepted that gnosticism developed into a coherent movement only in the second century CE


No evidence has been found, due a lack of surviving texts, thanks largely to the RCC.

This is a topic that is still hotly debated between scholars today, and IMO there is lot of “between the lines” evidence, with which to try to form a conclusion.



Originally posted by adjensen
The problem with Thomas is that it is a forgery, and is written intentionally to make it impossible to determine what Christ actually might have said, because real sayings are jumbled up with things he could not have said, because they are derived from Valentinus beliefs.


Do you mean it’s a Gnostic work, therefore it’s a forgery. Or do you mean its too old to be an authentic piece of work, therefore it’s a forgery?

You say it is “written intentionally to make it impossible to determine what Christ actually might have said”. But I really don’t think it was written back then, with any kind of hidden agenda attached to it. And it’s not as if there existed this standard “orthodoxy”, with which it was competing with.


- JC




posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 


He means its a forgery because "thomas" didn't actually write it... Which is likely true

However it is possible that the contents of said gospel consists of sayings handed down though an oral tradition, from followers of Thomas




posted on Nov, 10 2012 @ 07:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft


I don’t believe that Gnostic Christianity, just suddenly sprouted up, sometime around the 2nd century. It seems more likely that it would have had a much earlier oral tradition and possible texts. I say possible texts, because most of the Gnostic texts were destroyed

In Bowman's book, which I mentioned in a previous post, he gives a date of approximately AD 90 for the Gospel of John. Part of the reason given for writing John was to address the issue of one Cerinthus(died about AD 100), a somewhat Ebionite leaning gnostic, possibly the author of Revelation (which I consider thoroughly Ebionite)


According to Catholic Encyclopedia: Caius: "Additional light has been thrown on the character of Caius's dialogue against Proclus by Gwynne's publication of some fragments from the work of Hippolytus "Contra Caium" (Hermathena, VI, p. 397 sq.); from these it seems clear that Caius maintained that the Apocalypse of John was a work of the Gnostic Cerinthus."
Cerinthus



And speaking of surviving texts, we don’t have any originals of Paul Letters, to verify if any editing has taken place. In most cases, all we have is the surviving copies, most of which date to around the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

I think that there is evidence of redaction in 1 Corinthians, and possibly Romans. Personally, I reject anything purporting to be from Paul, as from Paul, if it contradicts Galatians. Speaking of Galatians, another note about Cerinthus, his main area of influence was Galatea.

Cerinthus seemed of the opinion that OT Yahweh was the ultimate God, and the demiurges were angels. That the Torah was still mandatory. A strange mix of doctrine to be sure.

Galatians 2:19 For I, through the law, died to the law, that I might live to God. 20 I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I that live, but Christ living in me. That life which I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself up for me. 21 I don’t make void the grace of God. For if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nothing!”
Chapter 3
1 Foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you not to obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ was openly set forth among you as crucified? 2 I just want to learn this from you. Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by hearing of faith? 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now completed in the flesh?

Paul implies that OT Yahweh is not God, without actually saying it. After all, the OT Yahweh is defined by the Law (Torah). Logical step, as in Hebrews "if there is a change in priesthood, there must be a change of the Law", I say, that if you leave the Law (Torah) which defines who Yahweh is, then you of necessity have left Yahweh.

Because of the death penalty in the law for suggesting that "lets follow another god than Yahweh", Jesus never would have lived a single second in Judea if he had said it outright. Paul wouldn't have either. Yet it seems extremely evident to me, that if they had had 1st Amendment protections they would have.
edit on 10-11-2012 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 11 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 


Pagels is one of those people that I point to as an example of the difficulty of being an academic in a field that doesn't really have much in the way of new research opportunities. With the need to publish and make a name for oneself, the likely path is to come up with a wild theory, and then pick apart the evidence to find anything that supports it.

Paul, a Gnostic? That's simply a foolish notion, and it is based on the paltry evidence of a few passages here and there that might be seen as being dualistic. And what Pagels fails to point out is that, while Paul is not a Greek, he is writing to Greek churches, so it is hardly surprising that some of his arguments would be written in such a way as to cater to that audience.

Personally, I find her argument that the Gospel of John was written as a refutation to the Gospel of Thomas as being laughable.

Again, orthodox Christianity (please take care not to confuse that with the Roman Catholic Church, as you seem to do,) grew out of the Apostolic churches in the Eastern Mediterranean, which for at least a number of years, was entirely Jewish in its composition. That is not an environment that would be friendly to Gnosticism (which, again, predates Christianity by several centuries -- it was the religious application of Platonic philosophy.)


Do you mean it’s a Gnostic work, therefore it’s a forgery. Or do you mean its too old to be an authentic piece of work, therefore it’s a forgery?


Forgery, when applied to ancient documents, has a very specific meaning -- it was written by someone other than the stated author. If you read the OP in the thread that I posted, you'll see what I mean -- in this case, the text was claimed to have been written by a fictional person, Jesus' twin brother, Judas.


You say it is “written intentionally to make it impossible to determine what Christ actually might have said”. But I really don’t think it was written back then, with any kind of hidden agenda attached to it. And it’s not as if there existed this standard “orthodoxy”, with which it was competing with.


Again, I would reference my earlier thread on Thomas, but the author of the text that we have (which may be an edited version of an earlier, non-Gnostic text) has taken things that Jesus is known to have said, things that he might have said but we have no confirmation of, and things that he most assuredly did not say, and mixed them together in such a way as to make it impossible to determine the validity of things that we don't know he said, but that he might have.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 12:56 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 




Originally posted by pthena

According to Catholic Encyclopedia: Caius: "Additional light has been thrown on the character of Caius's dialogue against Proclus by Gwynne's publication of some fragments from the work of Hippolytus "Contra Caium" (Hermathena, VI, p. 397 sq.); from these it seems clear that Caius maintained that the Apocalypse of John was a work of the Gnostic Cerinthus."
Cerinthus


Wow…nice find!

I started a thread a while back, stating that the Book of the Revelations, was most likely a Gnostic text. And I used other similar apocalyptic Gnostics texts, to try to show that there were clearly many parallels, like metaphoric language and symbolism etc …but I wasn’t aware of the evidence you found above.

As I was saying to adjensen, we know there was a split in Gnosticism between, those who believed in Jesus and those who did not. But there was also a kind of semi-split, between those who accepted Jesus and the OT, and those that accepted Jesus, but did not accept the OT. And I guess Valentinus would be fitting somewhere in the middle, of those two latter groups.

Getting back to the Book of the Revelations, I’ve always believed it was written by a Gnostic that was Jewish, who believed in Jesus, and was loyal to the Old Testament. This would roughly seem to fit the description of Cerinthus.

Although oddly enough, I’m having trouble getting my head around his (Cerinthus) actual beliefs, because on the one hand he believed in the demiurge, but on the other, he taught that it was good, which is completely opposite to what most other Gnostics believed in…So how his belief in Jesus, and God the Father, fits into all that… I have absolutely no idea!!!




Originally posted by pthena
I think that there is evidence of redaction in 1 Corinthians, and possibly Romans. Personally, I reject anything purporting to be from Paul, as from Paul, if it contradicts Galatians. Speaking of Galatians, another note about Cerinthus, his main area of influence was Galatea.


I’m starting to lean the same way, regarding much of Paul’s supposed writings (not that some of Pauls writings aren’t still intact etc). And you could be right about Corinthians and Romans, because although Marcion accepted them at that time, who don’t know if any editing has taken place later. The 2nd and 3rd century texts that we have now, simply can’t be verified with the originals.

I’m curious though…what makes you trust Galatians, over the others?




Originally posted by pthena
Paul implies that OT Yahweh is not God, without actually saying it. After all, the OT Yahweh is defined by the Law (Torah). Logical step, as in Hebrews "if there is a change in priesthood, there must be a change of the Law", I say, that if you leave the Law (Torah) which defines who Yahweh is, then you of necessity have left Yahweh.



Interesting thoughts…

My own view is that the God that Jesus represents gave us the Ten Commandments, and that many of the other evil atrocities, committed in Gods name in OT, did not come from God/Father, but from imperfect men, or from another evil source.

Jesus clearly fulfils the Ten Commandments, that were given to Moses, and this can be seen throughout Jesus teachings, in the 4 Gospels. It’s what follows after the Ten Commandments, which Jesus is opposed too. This is essentially the whole reason why it was prophesied that Jesus would come to fulfill the law; so the difference betweens men’s Laws, and Gods laws, could be established. For God knew in advance, that men would add too and edit/corrupt the laws.

I kind of go along with much of what Ptolemy wrote below…

(Ptolemy was a Velentinian teacher)

Here are some extracts from, Ptolemy's Letter to Flora…



The Law was ordained through Moses, my dear sister Flora, has not been understood by many persons, who have accurate knowledge neither of him who ordained it nor of its commandments. I think that this will be perfectly clear to you when you have learned the contradictory opinions about it.



On the other hand, one cannot impute the Law to the injustice of the opposite, God, for it is opposed to injustice. Such persons do not comprehend what was said by the Savior. For a house or city divided against itself cannot stand [Matt 12:25], declared our Savior....

...

First, you must learn that the entire Law contained in the Pentateuch of Moses was not ordained by one legislator - I mean, not by God alone, some commandments are Moses', and some were given by other men. The words of the Savior teach us this triple division. The first part must be attributed to God alone, and his legislation; the second to Moses...



Source


- JC



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft

I was just looking at the thread you started.


I'll have to break up my reply.


Getting back to the Book of the Revelations, I’ve always believed it was written by a Gnostic that was Jewish, who believed in Jesus, and was loyal to the Old Testament. This would roughly seem to fit the description of Cerinthus.

Although oddly enough, I’m having trouble getting my head around his (Cerinthus) actual beliefs, because on the one hand he believed in the demiurge, but on the other, he taught that it was good, which is completely opposite to what most other Gnostics believed in…So how his belief in Jesus, and God the Father, fits into all that… I have absolutely no idea!!!

The main problem that I've had with Gnostic ideas is the dualism of Spirit=good/physical=bad. If you drop the concept of created reality is bad, then you have the concept of "And God saw all that He had made, and it was very good". That explains the praise for the Creator in Revelation.

I would like to see a form of Marcionism which drops the idea that a temporal godling (angel) is the ultimate creator. Matter is not evil, it's matter. Bodies aren't evil, they're bodies. Nothing wrong with that. Evil and corruption are spiritual maladies not physical. We need not "escape the physical into the spiritual", that is not salvation. Salvation is caring for the physical needs of those around you, ie. Love.

The primary thing for Marcionism should not be dualism, but rather the realization that Yahweh is only an angel, and a very confused one at that, if he thinks he is the one and only god (that's the only gnosis I claim).

Revelation seems to be a non-dualist, simple, Ebionism which even uses some of the Rabbinic definitions of the time between the first and second destruction of Jerusalem. eg. the use of "the Spirit of Prophecy".

edit on 13-11-2012 by pthena because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 





Originally posted by adjensen
Paul, a Gnostic? That's simply a foolish notion, and it is based on the paltry evidence of a few passages here and there that might be seen as being dualistic.


Actually it’s more than just a few passages. There’s also the historical, evidence of Valentinus; who stated that Theudas, was a disciple of Paul the apostle, and that Paul had, imparted secret knowledge to him. There’s also reference made to Paul’s vision of Jesus, on the road to Damascus, as a reference point.

If Theudus was a disciple of Paul, and Velantinus was a disciple of Theudus, then this is evidence, which adds weight to Paul either being a Gnostic Christian himself, or at least accepting certain elements, of Christian Gnosticism.




Originally posted by adjensen
Forgery, when applied to ancient documents, has a very specific meaning -- it was written by someone other than the stated author. If you read the OP in the thread that I posted, you'll see what I mean -- in this case, the text was claimed to have been written by a fictional person, Jesus' twin brother, Judas.



To avoid dragging this further of topic, I will look at your thread and try to get back to discussing the trinity here…

Although in passing, we know Jesus had brothers, so I don’t think it’s beyond the realms of possibility that he had a twin brother.


- JC



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 





Originally posted by Akragon
He means its a forgery because "thomas" didn't actually write it... Which is likely true


What makes you think that…?

And, if Thomas is a forgery, because Thomas didn’t write it, then I guess, Mathew, Mark, Luke and John could be forgeries too! because no one knows who wrote them either…

Just making a point…




Originally posted by Akragon
However it is possible that the contents of said gospel consists of sayings handed down though an oral tradition, from followers of Thomas


Well said…


This is what I believe, because it seems the more likely.

The fact that it’s a Coptic copy, adds weight to the fact that it must have been part of even earlier tradition. Just how far back it went, is not known…


- JC



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Now that you have seen me, will you do that ever again? Thus, the Lord.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joecroft
If Theudus was a disciple of Paul, and Velantinus was a disciple of Theudus, then this is evidence, which adds weight to Paul either being a Gnostic Christian himself, or at least accepting certain elements, of Christian Gnosticism.


No it isn't. "Evidence" would be the writings of Paul, not the writings of someone who claimed to follow someone who claimed to follow Paul. That would be the old "appeal to authority" -- saying that unorthodox views were taught by someone a hundred years in the grave who can't defend himself.

Again, Gnosticism existed in the time of Paul, Christian Gnosticism did not. All early Christians were Orthodox Jews, and they had no interest in incorporating Greek philosophy in their religion.


Although in passing, we know Jesus had brothers, so I don’t think it’s beyond the realms of possibility that he had a twin brother.


He had a twin brother in Syriac Christianity, where his story was presented with a number of unique parallels to the Roman/Greek mythical figure Hercules. Again, not a part of Orthodox Judaism.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen


All early Christians were Orthodox Jews, and they had no interest in incorporating Greek philosophy in their religion.

How do you define early? Pre-Pentecost? Then Paul wasn't an Early Christian,
How do you define Orthodox Jew?

Orthodox Judaism is the approach to religious Judaism which adheres to the interpretation and application of the laws and ethics of the Torah as legislated in the Talmudic texts by the Sanhedrin ("Oral Torah") and subsequently developed and applied by the later authorities known as the Gaonim, Rishonim, and Acharonim.
en.wikipedia.org...

The beginning of Talmud weren't started until after the destruction of the temple in A.D. 70.

The Talmud has two components: the Mishnah (Hebrew: משנה, c. 200 CE), the first written compendium of Judaism's Oral Law, and the Gemara (c. 500 CE), en.wikipedia.org...

What you would think of as Judaism was a fairly wild and woolly free for all before the Rabbinic school of the Tannaim started their work on the Mishnah.

"Acts 11: 25 Barnabas went out to Tarsus to look for Saul. 26 When he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. It happened, that for a whole year they were gathered together with the assembly, and taught many people. The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch."

That was after a lot of Samaritans believed in Christ, after a prominent Ethiopian believed and was baptized. After Cornelius, centurion of the Italian Regiment was baptized along with a group of his people.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft


I’m curious though…what makes you trust Galatians, over the others?

It was written in the passion of the moment. That moment being that some people were attempting to convince Gentiles to follow the Law (as in Torah). Paul was saying "forget about it", it didn't do the Jews much good, it certainly doesn't bring life. "Now look", says Paul, "If there's a single scrap of good to be derived from the Law, you've already got it in the simple rule of love your brother."


My own view is that the God that Jesus represents gave us the Ten Commandments, and that many of the other evil atrocities, committed in Gods name in OT, did not come from God/Father, but from imperfect men, or from another evil source.

Paul picked up on a common idea about the Law (10 Commandments), that it was given by angels.
"Galatians 3:19 What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the seed should come to whom the promise has been made. It was ordained through angels by the hand of a mediator. 20 Now a mediator is not between one, but God is one."

Angels? What? It wasn't one god on the mountain? It was angels?

"Exodus 32: 33 Yahweh said to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book. 34 Now go, lead the people to the place of which I have spoken to you. Behold, my angel shall go before you. Nevertheless in the day when I punish, I will punish them for their sin.”

The angel Yahweh is sending his angel with the people, not to worry, he says in another place, "for my name is in him. Ex 23:21" So two angels with the name Yahweh. That's who gave the Law. Why did the Sadducees deny the existence of angels? The didn't want to admit such things.

The moral commands in the 10 commandments are not a problem, as long as they are stripped of the "I am the LORD your God" part.

More later. I have to go watch a movie.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by pthena
reply to post by adjensen


All early Christians were Orthodox Jews, and they had no interest in incorporating Greek philosophy in their religion.

How do you define early? Pre-Pentecost? Then Paul wasn't an Early Christian,
How do you define Orthodox Jew?


I'm using it as shorthand for "standard" -- non-Essenne, non-Saduccee, non-other-mystical-sect, just run of the mill Jews of the time. And no, not pre-Pentecost, but rather pre-Pauline.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 10:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Joecroft
 



What makes you think that…?


Well thats really up for debate... Many scholars believe Thomas to be dated in the 3rd or 4th century... On the other hand i've also heard some say it was written in the 1st century, perhaps even before the gospels in the bible...


And, if Thomas is a forgery, because Thomas didn’t write it, then I guess, Mathew, Mark, Luke and John could be forgeries too! because no one knows who wrote them either…


I personally don't believe Thomas is a forgery... but i've heard Adjenson say it was before, which is why i said that... He believes there was malicious intentions in calling the text "Thomas"... Basically trying to give the gospel more weight then it should have... i don't believe that though

My personal believe is exactly as i replied... Thomas was likely written by people that were followers of him... but not by him specifically. Though i could be wrong...


Originally posted by Angle
reply to post by Akragon
 


Now that you have seen me, will you do that ever again? Thus, the Lord.


I have not seen you... Nor do i know you, or what you're talking about...

And you are not "the lord"...

Thus sayeth the purple kitteh...

edit on 14-11-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon
Well thats really up for debate... Many scholars believe Thomas to be dated in the 3rd or 4th century... On the other hand i've also heard some say it was written in the 1st century, perhaps even before the gospels in the bible...


There is little doubt in my mind that some of the text in Thomas stems from the First Century, though almost assuredly from a source that was not called "The Gospel of Thomas". The original source appears to be a "sayings list" that was likely also used by Luke, and possibly Mark and Matthew.


He believes there was malicious intentions in calling the text "Thomas"... Basically trying to give the gospel more weight then it should have... i don't believe that though


I don't know that I'd use the word "malicious" (and it's spelled adjensEn
) but the text claims to have been written by Didymos Judas Thomas (who is not the Apostle Thomas, hence the little regard I have for Pagels' claim that John was written to dispute Thomas,) who, according to Syriac Christianity (and no other) is the twin brother of Jesus, wholly human, while Jesus was wholly divine. Compare and contrast the Hercules/Iphicles myth and tell me that Thomas isn't a forgery.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 02:41 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



There is little doubt in my mind that some of the text in Thomas stems from the First Century, though almost assuredly from a source that was not called "The Gospel of Thomas". The original source appears to be a "sayings list" that was likely also used by Luke, and possibly Mark and Matthew.


I agree...


I don't know that I'd use the word "malicious" (and it's spelled adjensEn )


Sorry... slip of the finger



but the text claims to have been written by Didymos Judas Thomas (who is not the Apostle Thomas, hence the little regard I have for Pagels' claim that John was written to dispute Thomas,) who, according to Syriac Christianity (and no other) is the twin brother of Jesus, wholly human, while Jesus was wholly divine.


I don't know much about Miss pagels... or her claims. Not the kind of stuff i read honestly...


Compare and contrast the Hercules/Iphicles myth and tell me that Thomas isn't a forgery.


I don't think forgery is the correct word though...

As i've stated, im more of the opinion that Thomas is a collection of sayings heard by the man in person, and passed down to his followers through several generations... which were eventually written down, and given the name Thomas because of the person who originally heard the sayings.

edit on 15-11-2012 by Akragon because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Akragon

Compare and contrast the Hercules/Iphicles myth and tell me that Thomas isn't a forgery.


I don't think forgery is the correct word though...


While the term forgery may have some unfortunate connotations, due to its modern use, it is the proper term that historians use to describe texts which are attributed to a false source, and it has no bearing on the actual content of the text.

Forgery is commonly used, I suppose, because the technical term, pseudepigrapha, doesn't exactly slide off the tongue, lol.



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 04:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon


passed down to his followers through several generations... which were eventually written down,

Not several generations, two at most. I re-read the Gospel of Thomas since the topic seems to have slipped from the "voice from above?". Thomas gets my vote as personal favorite Gospel.

Now about the voice from heaven: Here's a little something that never seems to be brought up. Jesus was being baptized in the Jordan River. The spirit descending like a dove was a pre-designated sign that John was to look for. Then there is a voice from heaven (not specified as to source).

Question: If the voice is identified as God the Father, then who the hell is the character in the temple in Jerusalem?



posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 


I agree with you... Thomas is one of my favorite books as well...

I believe everything in this topic relates to the "Voice from Above"... As i've stated previously... i draw attention to the seperation between said voice and the "God man" on earth.

Thomas is supposed to be sayings from Jesus... so its definatly related

Which passage are you refering to in the temple?




posted on Nov, 15 2012 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon


i draw attention to the seperation between said voice and the "God man" on earth

The Trinitarians also draw that distinction. From Thomas you get none of the Messiah as Davidic ruler sitting on a throne, which that voice would imply

"Yet I have set my King on my holy hill of Zion.
I will tell of the decree.

Yahweh said to me, “You are my son.
Today I have become your father."
Psalm 2:6,7

I regard Psalm 2 as the heart and soul of Messianic Zionism, which I don't approve of whatsoever.

It was a different thread where I mentioned Jesus saying "don't swear at all. Ye or nay is sufficient. Anything else comes from evil"

Compare:


Matthew 23:20 He therefore who swears by the altar, swears by it, and by everything on it. 21 He who swears by the temple, swears by it, and by him who was living in it. 22 He who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God, and by him who sits on it.


If you say the voice is God from his throne, then that implicitly supports a spiritualized (heavenated) form of Messianic Zionism (Christianity to be precise) with God on a throne and his Messiah, Despot of the World, sitting on a throne next to him.

God is not on a throne, and neither is the Son of God (The Son of Man). There are no thrones.(in my humble opinion)

John 5:16 For this cause the Jews persecuted Jesus, and sought to kill him, because he did these things on the Sabbath. 17 But Jesus answered them, "“My Father is still working, so I am working, too.”"
edit on 15-11-2012 by pthena because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
7
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join