Paul was a murderer

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Right, like the purposeful removal of The Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter, not to mention books like Enoch, Jubilees and Jasher!

All of which I have anyway. Tell us why these were rejected...just right off the top of your head.

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Perhaps instead you can explain a sect dedicated to doceticism would teach that a man who never had a body in fact resurrected in that body that they denied existed to even be resurrected.

Im unsure if Gnosticism is as easily defined as you seem to think... Like Christian sects, there are various beliefs that are not shared across the spectrum of gnostic texts... While the idea that the material world is corrupt was one of the main themes... they did believe Jesus had a body

Well you should now that if the case were taken to a court of law that there is enough diffrence in the two to deem them unlike. Calling them just another christain sect is non sequitur. It doesnt matter how alike they appear otherwise or even if the use same terms, when they disregard the primary foundation, the resurection, they simply are not what they may look like to those unskilled and unenlightened enough to tell the dif.

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by windword


Jesus reinterpreted the Law, teaching that loving God and your neighbor was the most important commandment. Please show me where in the Old Testament, Yahweh required his people to love their neighbors.

Thats in the law....how to treat ones neighbor. Thats why Jesus called His teaching here "the whole of the law".

Again what planet are you from? Sure you know what you are talking about.

Please show me where, in the Law, it says to love your neighbor as yourself.

For you to even ask this question and for me to respond I have to set back and wonder why I am even talking to you. You should know where the law and the prophets take about our relationship with our neighbor.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Logarock

 

Jesus was against sacrifice, however, here's an answer to that:

In Mark 1:44, why did Jesus command the man he cured of leprosy to offer "sacrifices" that Moses commanded for his cleansing as a testimony to them?

See that you don't tell this to anyone. But go, show yourself to the priest and offer the sacrifices that Moses commanded for your cleansing, as a testimony to them.

In reading this verse, it is clear that Jesus specifies that it was Moses and not his Father who commanded the Jews to offer sacrifices for cleansing. But Jesus is against sacrifice! So one would ask, why? Why did Jesus command/encourage the leper whom he healed to continue in performing a sacrifice? Jesus states "as a testimony to them". Perhaps, this was the reason he commanded the leper to perform the sacrifice? But why would Jesus choose to show testimony of God's cleansing by using men's terms (sacrifice) instead of the Father's terms (mercy)? For surely this is why the leper was healed...the Father's mercy on him! Surely Jesus was using this leper to show the high priests that it is mercy and not sacrifice that the Father desires, and thus the leper was healed before performing his sacrifice in front of the high priests?

MY ANSWER

The leper was forced to live under the restrictions of the Law until the priest certified him as cleansed. He could not return to a normal life in his home or with his family or friends. The relevant law is in Leviticus:
www.voiceofjesus.org...

Oh I love this I love this! Read carefully.

When the leper was healed he was no longer under the laws of sepertation. How can a non leper be under leper laws? He cant.

Jesus had then go to the priest as a testomony to HIMSELF. You think the preist wouldnt ask why a non leper would come and ask for the rights of cleansing when they didnt need cleansing? The fact is the priest probably tossed them out as they wouldnt do a cleansing rite on someone that didnt need it......thereby confirming that they were no longer under the the restrictions of the leper law. At the same time this was known then it was also known that Jesus was claiming power within himself as total and final sacrifice, the power of same being demonstrated before the act.

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Right, like the purposeful removal of The Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Peter, not to mention books like Enoch, Jubilees and Jasher!

All of which I have anyway. Tell us why these were rejected...just right off the top of your head.

All of which you only have because of their recent discovery.

6 Little did he realize that he had found an extraordinary collection of ancient texts, manuscripts hidden a millennium and a half before -- probably by monks from the nearby monastery of St. Pachomius seeking to preserve them from a destruction ordered by the church as part of its violent expunging of heterodoxy and heresy.

How the Nag Hammadi manuscripts eventually passed into scholarly hands is a fascinating story too lengthy to relate here. But today, now over fifty years since being unearthed and more than two decades after final translation and publication in English as The Nag Hammadi Library, 7 their importance has become astoundingly clear: These thirteen papyrus codices containing fifty-two sacred texts are representatives of the long lost "Gnostic Gospels", a last extant testament of what orthodox Christianity perceived to be its most dangerous and insidious challenge, the feared opponent that the Church Fathers had reviled under many different names, but most commonly as Gnosticism. The discovery of the Nag Hammadi texts has fundamentally revised our understanding of both Gnosticism and the early Christian church.
gnosis.org...

Regarding "The Gospel of Thomas":

We have two versions of the Gospel of Thomas today. The first was discovered in the late 1800's among the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, and consists of fragments of a Greek version, which has been dated to c. 200. The second is a complete version, in Coptic, from Codex II of the Nag Hammadi finds.
www.sacred-texts.com...

Regarding the "Gospel of Peter":

The Gospel of Peter ... is one of the non-Canonical gospels which were rejected by the Church Fathers and the Catholic Church's synods of Carthage and Rome, which established the New Testament canon, as apocryphal.[1] It was the first of the non-canonical gospels to be rediscovered, preserved in the dry sands of Egypt.

A major focus of the surviving fragment of the Gospel of Peter is the passion narrative, which is notable for ascribing responsibility for the crucifixion of Jesus to Herod Antipas rather than to Pontius Pilate.

a letter publicly circulated by Serapion in 190–203, who had found upon examining it that "most of it belonged to the right teaching of the Saviour," but that some parts might encourage its hearers to fall into the Docetist heresy.
en.wikipedia.org...

Im unsure if Gnosticism is as easily defined as you seem to think... Like Christian sects, there are various beliefs that are not shared across the spectrum of gnostic texts... While the idea that the material world is corrupt was one of the main themes... they did believe Jesus had a body

Well you should now that if the case were taken to a court of law that there is enough diffrence in the two to deem them unlike. Calling them just another christain sect is non sequitur. It doesnt matter how alike they appear otherwise or even if the use same terms, when they disregard the primary foundation, the resurection, they simply are not what they may look like to those unskilled and unenlightened enough to tell the dif.

It seems that you have already explained the reason for the destruction of some texts. There is no doubt that there was movement to destroy the writings that conveyed a different perspective on the Christian religion, and that there was an effort protect and hide these texts from them. They were considered heretical teachings by the all knowing, orthodoxy.

I'll get into the suppression of Enoch, Jubilees and Jasher in my next post.

reply to post by windword


The books that were banned by the early church, including Enoch, Jubilees and Jasher were still sacred texts to the Judaic Christian sects that believed that angels handed the "Law" to Moses and guided and protected the prophets and saints. Early Christian assemblies, such as the Essenes, who still held the Judaic Sabbath, still honored angels and their protection and guidance. These books name the angels, their positions and duties.

Certain hours of the day, however, were devoted to the study of the mysteries of nature and of revelation, as well as of the powers of the celestial hierarchies, the names of the angels, etc.
www.gnosis.org...

And why not? Angels announced and attended the birth of Jesus, ministered to him in the desert, provided him with strength and, supposedly, rolled his tomb open,

Luke 22:41 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, 42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.

These Judaic Christians were a threat to the belief systems that the orthodox church was attempting to install. Since they had biblical ordination for the basis of their style of worship, that may effect the opinion of church's members, the church leaders worried that their members may also attempt to find their own personal truth though personal prayer and meditation and that they may also be visited and instructed by angels. They may come to believe things other than limited orthodox teachings.

Therefore, the church did everything they could to isolate, destroy, kill, suppress, etc. anyone or anything that could allow for the entrance of conflicting doctrine or methods of finding spirituality that was outside of their purvey, including banning the reading of heretical books.

www.synaxis.org...

CANONS OF THE SYNOD OF LAODICEA IN PHRYGIA PACATIANA 364 A.D.

CANON IX.

THE members of the Church are not allowed to meet in the cemeteries, nor attend the so-called martyries of any of the heretics, for prayer or service; but such as so do, if they be communicants, shall be excommunicated for a time; but if they repent and confess that they have sinned they shall be received.

While the "Church" was murdering those that they couldn't convert, they were forbidding their members to attend the funerals of their friends and families, who were their victims. They admonished their members that any prayers offered for them would result in excommunication.

CANON XXXIV.

No Christian shall forsake the martyrs of Christ, and turn to false martyrs, that is, to those of the heretics, or those who formerly were heretics; for they are aliens from God. Let those, therefore, who go after them, be anathema.

CANON XXXV.

CHRISTIANS must not forsake the Church of God, and go away and invoke angels and gather assemblies, which things are forbidden. If, therefore, any one shall be found engaged in this covert idolatry, let him be anathema; for he has forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and has gone over to idolatry.

CANON XXXIII.

No one shall join in prayers with heretics or schismatics.

The "Church" made it illegal to pray with non Christians.

CANON XXXVII.

IT is not lawful to receive portions sent from the feasts of Jews or heretics, nor to feast together with them.

CANON XXXVIII.

IT is not lawful to receive unleavened bread from the Jews, nor to be partakers of their impiety.

CANON XXXIX.

IT is not lawful to feast together with the heathen, and to be partakers of their godlessness.

CANON LX. THESE are all the books of Old Testament appointed to be read:

1, Genesis of the world; 2, The Exodus from Egypt; 3, Leviticus; 4, Numbers; 5, Deuteronomy; 6, Joshua, the son of Nun; 7, Judges, Ruth; 8, Esther; 9, Of the Kings, First and Second; 10, Of the Kings, Third and Fourth; 11, Chronicles, First and Second; 12, Esdras, First and Second; 13, The Book of Psalms; 14, The Proverbs of Solomon; 15, Ecclesiastes; 16, The Song of Songs;17, Job; 18, The Twelve Prophets; 19, Isaiah; 20, Jeremiah, and Baruch, the Lamentations, and the Epistle; 21, Ezekiel; 22, Daniel.

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by windword


Jesus reinterpreted the Law, teaching that loving God and your neighbor was the most important commandment. Please show me where in the Old Testament, Yahweh required his people to love their neighbors.

Thats in the law....how to treat ones neighbor. Thats why Jesus called His teaching here "the whole of the law".

Again what planet are you from? Sure you know what you are talking about.

Please show me where, in the Law, it says to love your neighbor as yourself.

For you to even ask this question and for me to respond I have to set back and wonder why I am even talking to you. You should know where the law and the prophets take about our relationship with our neighbor.

You got me! I am completely ignorant to any Old Testament "Law" given to Moses, or any "Laws" given to prophets, that command the Hebrews to "Love their neighbors as they love themselves" or to "Do unto others they would have others do unto them." It seems to me that these were new and revolutionary concepts to the Hebrews.

Please show me where they are, as you seem to claim that you know.

reply to post by windword


Just thought I'd chime in and say I'm really enjoying your research. Keep up the great work!

Originally posted by windword

It seems that you have already explained the reason for the destruction of some texts. There is no doubt that there was movement to destroy the writings that conveyed a different perspective on the Christian religion, and that there was an effort protect and hide these texts from them. They were considered heretical teachings by the all knowing, orthodoxy.

I'll get into the suppression of Enoch, Jubilees and Jasher in my next post.

edit on 5-3-2013 by windword because: Citation

Anyone with half a brain can study the rejected text up against the others and see what the problems are. Dont need to flow with the orthodoxy.

reply to post by windword

Hi Windward

You wrote

QUOTE

"I am completely ignorant to any Old Testament "Law" given to Moses, or any "Laws" given to prophets, that command the Hebrews to "Love their neighbors as they love themselves" or to "Do unto others they would have others do unto them." It seems to me that these were new and revolutionary concepts to the Hebrews.

Please show me where they are, as you seem to claim that you know...."

UNQUOTE

Check out the Holiness Code in Leveticus, which is part of the Hebrew Torah (as revised by Ezra c. 440 BCE) chapter 19 - the term neigbour refers to other Israelites in this original context, and probably also referred to Qol Yisrael in the context of Rabinnic quotations from the 1st century AD onwards - basically it seems to mean, 'treat your fellow Israelite neighbours as if they were family' but naturally they had a different attitude altogehter when it came to goyim/gentiles/nonJews, as the 1st canonical Greek gospel shows

(see Matt chapter 15: when addressing a Syro Phoenecian gentile femaile:

'Lady, the Bar Enasha was sent ONLY to the Elect of the Lost Sheep of the House of Yisroel and anyway, since when would it be right to take the bread out of their children's mouth and throw it to the dogs (i.e. gentiles) under the table ?'

Here is the original Torah command from Leveticus 19: see v. 18 which is found is most of the major texts e.g. the Masoretic, the LXX Septuaginta, in Aquila, and in Symmachus and in Theodotion as well as in the Dead Sea Scroll fragments and in the targums as well:

“‘I am YHWH –Do not hate a fellow Israelite in your heart. You may rebuke your neighbour openly so you will not share in their guilt but you will not seek revenge or let your anger tear against any fellow Israelite (v. 18) = but you will love your neighbor as yourself.

I am YHWH and you will keep my decrees. You will not mate different animal species, nor plant two kinds of seed in the sam field and you will not wear any clothes woven from two kinds of thread…”

Did you not know these verses were from the Hebrew Scriptures? Did you really think that R. Yehoshua made stuff up rather than 'midrashing the scriptures' he knew (which certainly must have included Dead Sea Scrolls books like the Wisdom of Ben Sirach or the Testaments of the 12 and 1 Henoch from the language placed into his mouth in the canonical Greek gospels...

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Perhaps instead you can explain a sect dedicated to doceticism would teach that a man who never had a body in fact resurrected in that body that they denied existed to even be resurrected.

Im unsure if Gnosticism is as easily defined as you seem to think... Like Christian sects, there are various beliefs that are not shared across the spectrum of gnostic texts... While the idea that the material world is corrupt was one of the main themes... they did believe Jesus had a body

Well you should now that if the case were taken to a court of law that there is enough diffrence in the two to deem them unlike. Calling them just another christain sect is non sequitur. It doesnt matter how alike they appear otherwise or even if the use same terms, when they disregard the primary foundation, the resurection, they simply are not what they may look like to those unskilled and unenlightened enough to tell the dif.

Ye know... there seems to be a ton of psudo-professionals on gnostic writing on ATS these days.... its starting to get annoying...

I'll ask you the same thing I asked my friend on this thread... Apparently you missed that post a few pages back...

Show me where gnostic scripture rejects the resurrection...

And by the way, IF such a case was taken into court... the first question the judge would ask would be why did you people destroy all their writing?

And it wouldn't be a Christian judge either...

reply to post by Sigismundus


Thanks Sig!

I did know about the commandment against sowing seeds and wearing different fabrics, but I was not aware of the one that commanded the Israelites to love one another.

I never really thought that Jesus "made stuff up," including "Love your neighbor." I just thought that some of his teachings were inspired or came from obscure texts and teachings, some of which may have been outside of Judaism. For example "Do unto others" is something that Buddhism promoted.

reply to post by Logarock

Anyone with half a brain can study the rejected text up against the others and see what the problems are. Dont need to flow with the orthodoxy.

Well, apparently the church leaders of the day didn't credit their followers with "half a brain" to discern what was "correct" doctrine and what wasn't. Otherwise they wouldn't have needed to destroy the texts, kill it's supporters and threaten their members with excommunication for even associating with these heretical people!

It sounds like you're condoning their destruction and the murder of those believers, because they might influence less than fully brained individuals to stray from their limited doctrine.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Logarock

 

Anyone with half a brain can study the rejected text up against the others and see what the problems are. Dont need to flow with the orthodoxy.

Well, apparently the church leaders of the day didn't credit their followers with "half a brain" to discern what was "correct" doctrine and what wasn't. Otherwise they wouldn't have needed to destroy the texts, kill it's supporters and threaten their members with excommunication for even associating with these heretical people!

It sounds like you're condoning their destruction and the murder of those believers, because they might influence less than fully brained individuals to stray from their limited doctrine.

They believe in a Jealous God my dear...

Can you expect any less?

They support what their Father tells them to support... That being the OT God

John 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

reply to post by Akragon


Sounds a lot like Paul in my opinion!

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Logarock

 

Anyone with half a brain can study the rejected text up against the others and see what the problems are. Dont need to flow with the orthodoxy.

Well, apparently the church leaders of the day didn't credit their followers with "half a brain" to discern what was "correct" doctrine and what wasn't. Otherwise they wouldn't have needed to destroy the texts, kill it's supporters and threaten their members with excommunication for even associating with these heretical people!

It sounds like you're condoning their destruction and the murder of those believers, because they might influence less than fully brained individuals to stray from their limited doctrine.

Here is more proof that you are simply someone with an ax to grind. And maybe a lier....yes yes a lier.

If you came to your conclusion based on what i said then you are certainly someone that shouldnt even get the time of day.

Like I said I dont let anyone simply tell me whats up with these issues and that includes your brand of witch hunting.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by Sigismundus

 

Thanks Sig!

I did know about the commandment against sowing seeds and wearing different fabrics, but I was not aware of the one that commanded the Israelites to love one another.

I never really thought that Jesus "made stuff up," including "Love your neighbor." I just thought that some of his teachings were inspired or came from obscure texts and teachings, some of which may have been outside of Judaism. For example "Do unto others" is something that Buddhism promoted.

Its something that the prohets promoted and christ came to fullfill the prophets.....not the words of buda.

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by Logarock

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Perhaps instead you can explain a sect dedicated to doceticism would teach that a man who never had a body in fact resurrected in that body that they denied existed to even be resurrected.

Im unsure if Gnosticism is as easily defined as you seem to think... Like Christian sects, there are various beliefs that are not shared across the spectrum of gnostic texts... While the idea that the material world is corrupt was one of the main themes... they did believe Jesus had a body

Well you should now that if the case were taken to a court of law that there is enough diffrence in the two to deem them unlike. Calling them just another christain sect is non sequitur. It doesnt matter how alike they appear otherwise or even if the use same terms, when they disregard the primary foundation, the resurection, they simply are not what they may look like to those unskilled and unenlightened enough to tell the dif.

Ye know... there seems to be a ton of psudo-professionals on gnostic writing on ATS these days.... its starting to get annoying...

I'll ask you the same thing I asked my friend on this thread... Apparently you missed that post a few pages back...

Show me where gnostic scripture rejects the resurrection...

And by the way, IF such a case was taken into court... the first question the judge would ask would be why did you people destroy all their writing?

And it wouldn't be a Christian judge either...

What gnostic scriptures were destroyed? I have a fair amount of them here that seemed to have made it out of the dark ages. Maybe they have been corrupted by gnostic leaders anyway.

reply to post by Logarock


Oh good!


That means you can answer my question...

reply to post by Akragon


I wouldn't count on that. He's infamous for avoiding questions and ignoring them.