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.

 

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

page: 17
11
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 11:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
I'm beginning to think that your facts might be made up.

Believe what you like.

I'm the one with the academic training in historical research.

You're the one who has claimed that Jesus was a woman and Paul and Peter were the same person, among other ridiculous claims.




posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


So why not put it to rest once and for all?


By the way, there is nothing wrong with thinking outside the box. Thinking outside the box is what has given you the computer in front of you and any other technology you may use.
edit on 29-3-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by adjensen
 


So why not put it to rest once and for all?

Because you're not interested in facts, or not able to comprehend them. If I told you that 2 + 2 = 4 or that the sun would rise in the east tomorrow, you couldn't help but argue.

Seriously, you've "ignoranced yourself" out of my scope. Whether it's actual ignorance or feigned, in the interest of being a troll, I have lost all interest in attempting to educate you.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 11:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


His opinion is that the Gnostic texts are not legitimate. His opinion does not equal truth, neither does mine nor yours. Opinions are opinions, not truths.


Do you even know why people take that position? Especially people like Dr. Evans?



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 11:23 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



But I haven't run across anyone on ATS who has whizzed away as much of their lives on the Gnostics as I have,


I agree. That's why I said you were our resident expert here on ATS.



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Ditto to you buddy.
You ignore the obvious and cling to flawed logic, all while taking Paul's word over Jesus'.

I would never accuse you of being a troll because I know you really do believe that a murderer and liar was chosen by the man he had murdered. Makes perfect sense.


ETA: I didn't realize asking for the evidence someone says they have was considered trolling.


edit on 29-3-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 11:26 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Do you even know why some scholars believe it could have been written as early as 40 CE, at least 20 years before the earliest canonical gospel?



posted on Mar, 29 2013 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Do you even know why some scholars believe it could have been written as early as 40 CE, at least 20 years before the earliest canonical gospel?


Are you going to answer my question first?



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 05:57 AM
link   
My suggestion to anyone interested in the 'gnostic' writings is to read chapter 3 of,
Revelations: Visions, Prophecy, and Politics in the Book of Revelation by Elaine Pagels.
She is one of the prominent experts on the Gnostics, so of course when she does a book on Revelation, she is going to bring up the question of alternatives to that.
She goes over all the basics everyone should understand about how 'orthodoxy' came about and the war over books.
I think this conversation would be on a much higher level if everyone involved had at least read this one book.
It is available in a Kindle version for not very much money.
You could download it right now and have it read by the end of the day.
edit on 30-3-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 06:34 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Dr. Evans raises some serious problems and points of contention with both Pagels' scholarship and subsequent conclusions. I find his presentation, especially about Thomas, quote compelling in chapter 1 of "The Case for the Real Jesus".
edit on 30-3-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 07:49 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

I find his presentation, especially about Thomas . . .
I'm not even getting into this business of assessing the worth of these, since it is up to the reader if they get anything out of it or not.
You can't have a book telling you that if you read this gospel you are supposed to somehow be better from it and you are supposed to know this or that.
People back in those days did not have radio or TV or practically any kind of media other than what they could write themselves, basically.
So if you were a monk, sitting out in the desert or whatever, you are going to want a bunch of religious type writings to occupy your time with and as something to help you focus on the divine, or whatever you are out there trying to do.
If you are not in that situation, then I don't know how valuable those things are when you can go on YouTube and listen to nonstop preachers going on and on, all day long if you want.

What I am interested in is what is being said about the history of things and Pagels is good at that and you don't know what is going on with her behind the scenes when she is writing something like her book on Revelation.
She has all these connections in the world of academia that consult with her and she is going to have all that history I was talking about down, and is not going to make a mistake and is not going to be going off on fantastic tangents.

. . . compelling in chapter 1 of "The Case for the Real Jesus".
I found that book rather uncompelling.
edit on 30-3-2013 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 09:37 AM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


Well I didn't say the "book", I said Evan's presentation in chapter 1 about Thomas. :up



edit on 30-3-2013 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 10:30 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I don't feel the need to answer the question, both sides (early and late) have compelling arguments that support their cases.

To say one is absolutely right and the other absolutely wrong shows confirmation bias on your part. I don't claim to know when it was written, but I do think it's possible that it was written before any of the other gospels. There is evidence that supports that, just as their is evidence that supports it being written in the second century.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by bb23108
 

Sorry, I've read through your post several times and I can't make heads or tails of it. I have little to no interest in eastern philosophy, which is what you seem to be equating that passage to, so maybe you want to "dumb it down" a little for the likes of me.
Okay, I will give this another try. It might help to also read my response to eight bits if you did not already. It might have been too long-winded though.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

To develop the logic I will have to repeat some very obvious things, so please bear with me.

Jesus was a Spiritual Master to his followers. They called him Master and his closest followers directly recognized him to be what he said he was: The Son of God, One with the Father.

Jesus offered his followers a direct relationship to the Divine through him. The disciples in their recognition of this Truth, could feel Jesus' inherent non-separation from the Divine. They therefore could not help themselves in their worship of and surrender to Jesus - such was their hearts' response upon truly recognizing the Divine. They dropped their worldliness and followed Jesus.

Jesus gave two core commandments of love - to first love the Lord with the whole being, and secondly (and subsequently) to love one neighbor's as oneself. These commandments required the disciples to always practice their surrender to the Divine through Jesus - for to do such practices is not possible without already feeling the Divine in each moment. So always being in direct relationship to Jesus was the basis for living these commandments and life itself. Also, to love one's neighbor as oneself requires that one already assume non-separation (union) with the Divine and all his children.

As you pointed out, adjensen, these disciplines are impossible for an individual to fully do. The disciples, because of their direct relationship with Jesus on a daily basis, practiced them and thus became purified of selfishness or sin (which fundamentally is the assumption that we are separate from the Divine) - through self-transcending love as expressed in their relationship with Jesus and perfectly exemplified by him.

Jesus did not teach that we are inherently separate from the Divine. This is in sharp contrast to the traditions of the time and also what is assumed in much of the New Testament. Jesus spoke of the Father and his children based on the understood idea of inheritance in the Jewish laws.

This gift was not meant to be a "golden ticket" to heaven, but an inheritance of one being blessed with non-separation from the Divine. This was not a means of being let off the hook to not practice self-transcending love - instead it was the direct means or basis for being able to practice self-transcending love.

Again, this is in sharp contrast to what was understood and presumed at the time and also in contrast to what Paul went on to teach and write relative to believing in Jesus so that some time in the future one would be saved via eventual re-union with the Divine.

Jesus' asserting, exemplifying, and proving that this inheritance of one's non-separation from the Divine through him was his way of fulfilling the Law.

With adherence to Jesus' commandments, his most devout followers' body-minds were purified through practice of self-transcending love. Once this gross level of sin (the assumption of separation from the Divine at all levels of the body-mind) was purified sufficiently in relationship to their Master, Jesus would initiate them in the esoteric spiritual process of ascending to the Divine Spirit Light Above - i.e., to be "born from above". On this basis the disciples could see that they were saved or spiritually reborn in the sense that they were not just the mortal fleshy body/mind.

It does seem that both the exoteric and esoteric teachings of Jesus must be the daily consideration and even discipline of all Christians for true Christianity to be rediscovered and lifted out of the confusion caused by various assumptions about what Jesus was actually teaching - a great message of moment to moment practice in direct relationship to him and acceptance of his gift of being able to express the joys of this relationship through self-transcending abidance in real love.

I hope this further explanation helps, adjensen.
edit on 30-3-2013 by bb23108 because:



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


I don't feel the need to answer the question, both sides (early and late) have compelling arguments that support their cases.

To say one is absolutely right and the other absolutely wrong shows confirmation bias on your part. I don't claim to know when it was written, but I do think it's possible that it was written before any of the other gospels. There is evidence that supports that, just as their is evidence that supports it being written in the second century.


Well, then, I likewise won't answer your questions.

That's simple enough I suppose.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


It was more of a rhetorical question anyway. I only asked it to bring up a point, and that is that no one can agree on when it was written.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


It was more of a rhetorical question anyway. I only asked it to bring up a point, and that is that no one can agree on when it was written.


Well, many people do agree, but that's not a good argument either way. Would you like for me to share why scholars reject Thomas and date it to around 200 AD?



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 


Feel free, but remember that I can pull up why scholars believe it was written in the first century as well. One persons academic opinion is not greater than anothers when it comes to the unknown.

By the way, they give its composition a date of between 40 and 140 CE, nowhere in the third century as you suggest.



posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


I think both of you should bust out some info... since we are so far off topic anyways...

and just so you know elightened... Thomas exists in three Greek fragments and one Coptic manuscript...

all of which have different dating... I'd like to think it was written close to the gospels but somehow I doubt it was




posted on Mar, 30 2013 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Thanks for the info.


I'm not any kind of expert on Gnostic writings so I don't claim to know when any of them were written. It just kinda ticks me off when someone says that their opinion is fact then refuses to provide any evidence for their claim.







 
11
<< 14  15  16    18  19 >>

log in

join