Can you reject Paul and still be a "Christian"?

reply to post by adjensen
Thank you for your response.

But once again, relative to spiritual ascension, how do you explain what Jesus is teaching Nicodemus specifically when he speaks of everyone needing to be born from above? What else does that mean other than spiritual communion with the Divine above - i.e., an ascension from gross body identification into spirit or what is beyond the flesh?

>
International Standard Version

3Jesus replied to him, “Truly, I tell you emphatically, unless a person is born from above he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

4Nicodemus asked him, “How can a person be born when he is old? He can’t go back into his mother’s womb a second time and be born, can he?”

5Jesus answered, “Truly, I tell you emphatically, unless a person is born of water and Spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of God.

6What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit.

7Don’t be astonished that I told you, ‘All of you must be born from above.’

edit on 29-3-2013 by bb23108 because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
And Adj is literally the foremost expert on Gonsticism in this forum. I suggest listening to his expertise.

Nothing against adjensen of course... But that is a rather bold claim

And i do not recall him making that claim either...

There seems to be a lot of self proclaimed experts around here on that subject... And i've yet to see anyone prove such a claim...

reply to post by adjensen


How can you reject the Gospel of Thomas because it was written by someone who never met Jesus, yet accept the word of Paul who also never met Jesus? That's called a double standard.

How am I acting like an idiot?

Please explain what Jesus meant by saying nothing would pass from the law until heaven an Earth passed away and all had been accomplished? He didn't come to abolish (end) the law, so you are arguing against yourself here. You are supporting two opposite standpoints and seeing both of them as right.

Either nothing passes from the law until Earth disappears or Jesus was wrong and he ended the law with his death. Which one is it?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Peter was illiterate, so how do you suppose he wrote 2 Peter when he didn't know how to write?

reply to post by Akragon


Foremost expert on how to reject gnosticism would be more like it.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


What did he mean by heaven and Earth disappearing then? If that isn't about the end of the world then I don't know what is.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Akragon

 

Foremost expert on how to reject gnosticism would be more like it.

Don't get me wrong, adjensen is more knowledgable them most on gnostic writing... Though he also has a very christian bias towards them as well.

NuT just agrees with his interpretation more then others... "formost expert" is a bit much..

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen

 

How can you reject the Gospel of Thomas because it was written by someone who never met Jesus, yet accept the word of Paul who also never met Jesus? That's called a double standard.

I wasn't aware that a) Paul claimed to be an original source of sayings and stories of Jesus' life or b) that it had been proven that Paul's experience on the road to Damascus to be false -- the common Christian view of that is that he met the resurrected Christ.

I was also unaware that Paul's books, written in 50-65AD, were, in fact, reflective of theology that didn't exist for another 100 years, which is what Thomas is. There are plenty of reasons to reject Thomas, but the primary one is that it is bad theology.

How am I acting like an idiot?

Okay, I'll give this one last try. Make an effort to not be an idiot.

The Law still exists. Go get a Bible, turn to Leviticus or Deuteronomy and you will see the Law. Because the Law still exists, if you would like to, you are welcome to live by it and be judged by it.

However, as Jesus fulfilled the Law, Christians believe that salvation is through him, not through the Law. What Paul, and Jesus, argue is not that the Law no longer exists, but that Christ is the incarnation of the Law, and your path to God is through him, not the Law.

Either nothing passes from the law until Earth disappears or Jesus was wrong and he ended the law with his death. Which one is it?

See above.

bb23108

Welcome aboard.

If I understand adj's point, then the "challenge" was to find a contradiction comparing like with like, between Paul and Jesus within the same tradition. Obviously, the Gnostic tradition conflicts with the Apostolic tradition as a whole, so pick your Jesus from one and your Paul from the other, and they will conflict.

Here's a Gnostic Paul:

gnosis.org...

See how nicely Gnostic Paul fits in with Gnostic Jesus?

Adj has a preference for which tradition is correct. So sue him. If the issue is whether the traditions are compatible, then they are not, simply as a matter of fact. Adj is a consistent witness for that fact here. He doesn't need to the best in the county, he just needs to have his facts right when he posts. He does.

You were treated fairly, and you got to air your views in the bargain. Settle for justice.
-

Originally posted by bb23108
reply to post by adjensen

 

Thank you for your response.

But once again, relative to spiritual ascension, how do you explain what Jesus is teaching Nicodemus specifically when he speaks of everyone needing to be born from above? What else does that mean other than spiritual communion with the Divine above - i.e., an ascension from gross body identification into spirit or what is beyond the flesh?

Once again, you are reading this text with an intent to find Gnostic leanings in it, and that is not the case. Jesus is teaching a strict Jew about the Kingdom of God. How does a strict Jew (at least one in Jesus' time) believe that they join the Kingdom of God, exemplified in the concept of Abraham's Bosom?

They were born a Jew.

Punishment, that was a temporary thing (I've known Jews who've told me that they don't worry too much about their behaviour, because they'll spend a year after they die paying for it, then be accepted into heaven,) but unless one was cursed by God, a member of the tribes of Israel was in like Flynn.

So what is Christ saying here? He's explicitly rejecting the view that simply being born of the (Jewish) flesh got you a Golden Ticket. You also needed to be born of the spirit, becoming a new person who picked up their cross and followed Christ.

So this isn't a lesson in duality, it's the case that there are two types of births, but they are complimentary, not contradictory, as the Gnostics taught.

Originally posted by adjensen
I wasn't aware that a) Paul claimed to be an original source of sayings and stories of Jesus' life or b) that it had been proven that Paul's experience on the road to Damascus to be false -- the common Christian view of that is that he met the resurrected Christ.

No, he didn't claim to be an original source on Jesus' teachings, but he did claim to be the authority on the meaning of Jesus' gospel.

I didn't know that Paul's vision had been proven. It's based entirely on Paul's word, which is VERY convenient in my opinion.

I was also unaware that Paul's books, written in 50-65AD, were, in fact, reflective of theology that didn't exist for another 100 years, which is what Thomas is. There are plenty of reasons to reject Thomas, but the primary one is that it is bad theology.

There are some scholars who believe it was composed as early as 40 CE. What makes your chosen scholars opinions of the second century any more relevant than theirs?

It Is your opinion that it is bad theology, that doesn't make it true.

Okay, I'll give this one last try. Make an effort to not be an idiot.

The Law still exists. Go get a Bible, turn to Leviticus or Deuteronomy and you will see the Law. Because the Law still exists, if you would like to, you are welcome to live by it and be judged by it.

But you believe the law ended with Jesus' death, correct? Meaning it no longer matters. Paul said that, not Jesus. Jesus even said the complete opposite when he said nothing will pass (end) the law until heaven and Earth disappear. Earth continued to "not disappear" after Jesus' death, meaning the law has not ended according to Jesus.

What is so hard to understand about that? Would YOU stop acting like an idiot? It's pretty simple.

However, as Jesus fulfilled the Law, Christians believe that salvation is through him, not through the Law. What Paul, and Jesus, argue is not that the Law no longer exists, but that Christ is the incarnation of the Law, and your path to God is through him, not the Law.

Paul taught salvation through Jesus on the cross, not Jesus himself.

So since Jesus is the incarnation of the law, that means salvation does not lie within the law? Is that what you're saying here? Wouldn't that also mean that salvation doesn't lie within Jesus since he was the law incarnate?

"The law doesn't bring salvation, but the law does" is basically you're argument here.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
There are some scholars who believe it was composed as early as 40 CE. What makes your chosen scholars opinions of the second century any more relevant than theirs?

Because the Gnostic theology that is reflected in Thomas (in the Gnostic bits, I've never claimed that there aren't authentic statements of Jesus in there -- see my thread on the Gospel of Thomas) could not have been formulated before about the middle of the Second Century, because the mythos didn't exist until then.

It Is your opinion that it is bad theology, that doesn't make it true.

It is bad Christian theology, that's not my opinion, it's an historical fact. It's good Gnostic theology, but I'm not a Gnostic.

Okay, I'll give this one last try. Make an effort to not be an idiot.

The Law still exists. Go get a Bible, turn to Leviticus or Deuteronomy and you will see the Law. Because the Law still exists, if you would like to, you are welcome to live by it and be judged by it.

But you believe the law ended with Jesus' death, correct?

Okay, I give up. You obviously don't get it and lack either the desire or intelligence to understand a very basic concept.

reply to post by eight bits

Originally posted by eight bits
Welcome aboard.

Thank you!

Originally posted by eight bits
If I understand adj's point, then the "challenge" was to find a contradiction comparing like with like, between Paul and Jesus within the same tradition. Obviously, the Gnostic tradition conflicts with the Apostolic tradition as a whole, so pick your Jesus from one and your Paul from the other, and they will conflict.

I think part of the misunderstanding is due to it being assumed that I was defending a Gnostic point of view which was certainly not my intention.

Along with studying various other spiritual texts, I read the Bible and find various passages that indicate that Jesus was teaching as a Spiritual Master and transmitting his Blessing to his disciples - very much in the same way that some great Spiritual Masters have done in other traditions. Certain verses from the Bible also align with spiritual processes that are very well-documented in other traditions - e.g., relative to the psycho-physical anatomy of the body-mind when considering the subtle body.

Actually, relative to adjensen's challenge, he added a hint about thinking beyond the usual arguments that he had already encountered/countered. Of course, I don't know what those are, but I don't think bringing up this argument relative to the esotericism that can be found in the Bible, including Jesus being a Spiritual Master who taught non-separation from the Divine and called his followers to be one with him, is going beyond the limits of the challenge adjensen invited us to. But if it is, then okay.

But until I hear otherwise...

Jesus was clearly a great Spiritual Master who taught his disciples to commune with God through him. That is the ancient method used by all true Spiritual Masters. Through the Master's realization of communion/oneness with the Divine, the disciple receives his Blessing Transmission and so too directly communes with the Divine. Via such communion, some such Masters moved their disciples into the Divine Light above the body-mind, demonstrating to the disciple that they are not just of the flesh.

There are many references to this process in the Bible, including the ascent beyond the physical body-mind also described in great detail in various eastern traditions - and that is clearly the essence of the quote I asked adjensen and any one else to comment on.

Jesus' two great commandments are also similar to the required moral, self-transcending preparation of the body-mind true Spiritual Masters have traditionally required before granting their Blessing esoterically. And such commandments are able to be taken on if the aspirant assumes their inherent unity with the Divine through their Master from the beginning.

That is how Jesus fulfilled the Law - he showed everyone that they are not inherently separate from the Divine. He was living proof of that because he offered everyone direct and immediate relationship to him! This was in stark contrast to the assumption of the times that the individual is already separate from the Divine, sinful, even evil.

Jesus never assumed this traditional presumption of the times (that everyone is inherently separate from God) that Paul apparently assumed. Paul's writings typically indicate that a Christian's salvation was sometime in the future via believing in Jesus - not immediately upon assuming a direct and spiritual relationship with Jesus.

The immediacy is Jesus' great gift, and only that will allow the body-mind to be infilled with the Divine to the point of being able to fulfill an otherwise impossible set of commandments to always love fully. Only one full of the Divine in any given moment could possibly do that.

I also see adjensen responded to that quote, so I will continue there now... Thank you again.

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
And Adj is literally the foremost expert on Gonsticism in this forum. I suggest listening to his expertise.

Nothing against adjensen of course... But that is a rather bold claim

And i do not recall him making that claim either...

There seems to be a lot of self proclaimed experts around here on that subject... And i've yet to see anyone prove such a claim...

I don't think it's bold at all. I've been around here for quite some time and haven't met someone else as knowledgeable on the subject.

reply to post by wildtimes


Everything There Is and The Being That Contains It

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Peter was illiterate, so how do you suppose he wrote 2 Peter when he didn't know how to write?

Close. Peter was illiterate as a disciple of Christ, but he had learned to read and write by the time of his martyrdom 20+ years later. He wrote 2 Peter from a Roman prison cell shortly before his crucifixion.

Originally posted by adjensen
Because the Gnostic theology that is reflected in Thomas (in the Gnostic bits, I've never claimed that there aren't authentic statements of Jesus in there -- see my thread on the Gospel of Thomas) could not have been formulated before about the middle of the Second Century, because the mythos didn't exist until then.

What mythos did they create by quoting Jesus' words? Where is proof that said mythos didn't exist until the second century? What quotes do you disagree with? All of the ones not already in the bible?

It is bad Christian theology, that's not my opinion, it's an historical fact. It's good Gnostic theology, but I'm not a Gnostic.

So you go from saying it's bad theology in general to limiting it to only Christian theology. Quit backtracking.

Okay, I give up. You obviously don't get it and lack either the desire or intelligence to understand a very basic concept.

You are the one misunderstanding the concept, you are confusing the law existing with the laws relevance. I never said the law didn't exist, it obviously does. What we are disagreeing on is not its existence but it's relevance.

You agree with Paul when he says that Jesus was the end of the law, correct? Paul saying Jesus ended the law means that the law was no longer relevant after Jesus' crucifixion. Jesus disagrees with that, saying that the law will not end (become less relevant) until the heavens and Earth disappear.

You changed the topic from the laws relevance to its existence. Why did you do that?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Akragon

 

Foremost expert on how to reject gnosticism would be more like it.

Do you even know what education and background he has on the subject?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


And where is your proof of Peter's literacy? Are you just making that up to fit it in with your conclusion? Sounds like it to me.

What I find funny is that when I threw out the idea of Paul and Peter being the same person in another thread, you countered that by saying Peter was illiterate and unable to write Paul's epistles. Which do you believe? Was he literate or illiterate?

You are now a certified flip-flopper. This isn't the first time you've contradicted yourself either.

Originally posted by Akragon

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Akragon

 

Foremost expert on how to reject gnosticism would be more like it.

Don't get me wrong, adjensen is more knowledgable them most on gnostic writing... Though he also has a very christian bias towards them as well.

NuT just agrees with his interpretation more then others... "formost expert" is a bit much..

I see no discrepancies with Adj's understanding and knowledge than say a Craig A. Evans, PH.D.