The Origins of Gnosticism

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Akragon
reply to post by adjensen
 


Where are you getting this password thing?
I don't recall anything about passwords or the like in any gnostic texts...
I tend to think the gnosis they speak of was actually written within the gospels... but thats me.


Maybe there is some confusion regarding the 'freemason secret handshake'. Because initiates arrive at the 'temple' naked and in total darkness, the handshake told of what their (those initating) standing was; or degree. Passwords? thats childsplay. Ive not read anything within gnostic texts refering either. I completely agree Akragon, all gnosis is written within the words of the bible; right before anyones open eyes and just dont grok it (see it).
edit on 11-2-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 05:15 PM
link   
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 


There are quite a number of references to so called "passwords" actually, but as you've stated... the understanding of the idea seems very infantile if one approaches it from a "Christian" perspective...

Again its not as if the writers are saying "speak the word and you may enter" like the scene in Lord of the Rings at the mines of Moria... "Speak the word Friend and enter"


Take a look at a passage from the Apocryphon of James... the idea is given again, that Jesus told them what to say to the archons...

In this the writer specifically references the gospels in the bible...

its not a "password"... its "the way, the truth, and the life" as Jesus said...


"Do not allow the kingdom of heaven to wither; for it is like a palm shoot whose fruit has dropped down around it. They (i.e., the fallen fruit) put forth leaves, and after they had sprouted, they caused their womb to dry up. So it is also with the fruit which had grown from this single root; when it had been picked (?), fruit was borne by many (?). It (the root) was certainly good, (and) if it were possible for you to produce the new plants now, would find it."

"Since I have already been glorified in this fashion, why do you hold me back in my eagerness to go? For after the labor, you have compelled me to stay with you another eighteen days for the sake of the parables. It was enough for some to the teaching and understand 'The Shepherds' and 'The Seed' and 'The Building' and 'The Lamps of the Virgins' and 'The Wage of the Workmen' and the 'Didrachmae' and 'The Woman.'"

"Become earnest about the word! For as to the word, its first part is faith; the second, love; the third, works; for from these comes life. For the word is like a grain of wheat; when someone had sown it, he had faith in it; and when it had sprouted, he loved it, because he had seen many grains in place of one. And when he had worked, he was saved, because he had prepared it for food, (and) again he left (some) to sow. So also can you yourselves receive the kingdom of heaven; unless you receive this through knowledge, you will not be able to find it."

"Therefore, I say to you, be sober; do not be deceived! And many times have I said to you all together, and also to you alone, James, have I said, 'Be saved!' And I have commanded you to follow me, and I have taught you what to say before the archons. Observe that I have descended and have spoken and undergone tribulation, and carried off my crown after saving you. For I came down to dwell with you, so that you in turn might dwell with me. And, finding your houses unceiled, I have made my abode in the houses that could receive me at the time of my descent."

"Therefore, trust in me, my brethren; understand what the great light is. The Father has no need of me, - for a father does not need a son, but it is the son who needs the father - though I go to him. For the Father of the Son has no need of you."

"Hearken to the word, understand knowledge, love life, and no one will persecute you, nor will anyone oppress you, other than you yourselves."





posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 



Slavish adherence to Hebraic Law? This notion is absolutely laughable.

I forgot that you are one of those people who believes that they're entitled to their own version of reality, like your previous claim that Jesus spoke Coptic a hundred years before the language existed.

Yes, they were strict in their beliefs, that's what ascetic means. Good grief, they wouldn't even go to the bathroom on the Sabbath, hardly in keeping with Jesus' "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" teaching.


Essene theology was basically Jewish. The name of Moses was revered and blasphemy against either God or Moses was punishable by death. The Sabbath was strictly observed and they did as little as possible, not even moving dishes or going to the bathroom if it could be helped. (Source)



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


Well, I don't know what to tell you -- every academic that I've seen who refers to the Gnosis that got you past the Archons refers to it as passwords.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 


It appears the Christian iconography/in all good religiousity is the last/bottom form on the 'belief system' totem pole; the one given the best (most recent) tools western; (Jesus) and does not understand any of those higher tenents that came before to define it; meanings that are sitting as its figurehead definition; (as if in an open boat on blue water without any wind or oars to paddle). Nice post.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 06:29 PM
link   
adjensen
reply to post by veteranhumanbeing
 



VHBSlavish adherence to Hebraic Law? This notion is absolutely laughable.



adjensenI forgot that you are one of those people who believes that they're entitled to their own version of reality, like your previous claim that Jesus spoke Coptic a hundred years before the language existed.


You are thinking modern day 16th century. The Coptic language was a descended language from the ancient Egyptions; (an extinct forgotten) language unspoken until the 16th century. What? someone just invents a language out of thin air just when The Egyption Christian Coptic Church comes into being in 1840 using monotheism and ancient Coptic language as part of its litergy?


AdjensenYes, they were strict in their beliefs, that's what ascetic means. Good grief, they wouldn't even go to the bathroom on the Sabbath, hardly in keeping with Jesus' "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" teaching.
Essene theology was basically Jewish. The name of Moses was revered and blasphemy against either God or Moses was punishable by death. The Sabbath was strictly observed and they did as little as possible, not even moving dishes or going to the bathroom if it could be helped.


So you are telling me that Hassidic/orthodox Jews were Essenes originally? Nonsense. The Pharasees in league with the Romans attempted to murder destroy them in Qumran in 70AD, guess what? They had prior knowlege and went elsewhere to destinations KNOWN (no one was murdered they escaped unharmed); and left behind their legacy hidden; "The Dead Sea Scrolls" the Gnostic scriptures.
edit on 11-2-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 06:40 PM
link   
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 



You are thinking modern day 16th century. The Coptic language was a descended language from the ancient Egyptions; (an extinct forgotten language) unspoken until the 16th century.

You specifically said that Jesus spoke Hebrew, Greek and Coptic. When I pointed out that, in his time, the Egyptians were still speaking Demotic and that Coptic didn't exist until the Second Century, you responded with some gibberish about Jesus "imagining Coptic into existence" or something like that.


So you are telling me that Hassidic/orthodox Jews were Essenes originally?

No, I'm not telling you that. I can't begin to fathom how you came to that conclusion.

I'm telling you to stop being so clueless and go read a book on the Essenes. You can start with Josephus, who talked about them extensively, in the time that they existed.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 07:11 PM
link   
adjensen
reply to post by veteranhumanbeing
 



VHBYou are thinking modern day 16th century. The Coptic language was a descended language from the ancient Egyptions; (an extinct forgotten language) unspoken until the 16th century.



adjensenYou specifically said that Jesus spoke Hebrew, Greek and Coptic. When I pointed out that, in his time, the Egyptians were still speaking Demotic and that Coptic didn't exist until the Second Century, you responded with some gibberish about Jesus "imagining Coptic into existence" or something like that.


And why not? I said it and stand by it, he also spoke Aramaic (you are forgetting he was a fully 9 dimensional being) that could perform miracles physical and also decifer languages. He studied in Egypt as a boy and would have had access to Coptic nomenclature/ancient.


VHBSo you are telling me that Hassidic/orthodox Jews were Essenes originally?



adjensenNo, I'm not telling you that. I can't begin to fathom how you came to that conclusion. I'm telling you to stop being so clueless and go read a book on the Essenes. You can start with Josephus, who talked about them extensively, in the time that they existed.


You were saying the Essenes were the most extreme (self righteous/egotistical/cruel) of sects. This is simply not true; women were given equal power (education) no one was ostricied within this community. Why do you think Mary Magdeline was so revered and treated as an equal as the 13th disciple, (secret number) because Jesus studied at Qumran and was in fact an Essene. Why do you think he was crucified; he was a renegade trying to change a system. Explain to me the reason for the CRUCI-FICTION in the first place. To self martre knowingly is a sin.
edit on 11-2-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 07:21 PM
link   
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 



You were saying the Essenes were the most extreme (self righteous/egotistical/cruel) of sects.

No, that is not what I said. I said that they were extreme ascetics, and the reason I said that is that all evidence is that they were.


Why do you think Mary Magdeline was so revered and treated as an equal as the 13th desciple, because Jesus studied at Qumran and was in fact an Essene.

There is absolutely no evidence for any of those statements. Mary Magdalene is not a central character until the Passion narrative, and in that, she seems to be a leader of the female disciples (not Apostles) of Jesus. There is no evidence in either Christian, Essene or third party writings that Jesus "studied at Qumran", and, as I pointed out earlier, Jesus taught a significantly different view of Jewish Law than the Essenes did, so he clearly was not one of them (or, if he was, he was a terrible student and follower.)

Those are the facts, as the evidence presents them. Relying on fantasy, as you seem to, or on the teachings of 20th Century "Christian Essenes", as others do, is hardly likely to result in an accurate picture of Christ or the Essenes.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 08:00 PM
link   
adjensen
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 



VHBYou were saying the Essenes were the most extreme (self righteous/egotistical/cruel) of sects.



adjensenNo, that is not what I said. I said that they were extreme ascetics, and the reason I said that is that all evidence is that they were.


They were kaballist/spiritualists; not lawyers dicifering and redefining jewish law to new ridiculous extremes.


VHBWhy do you think Mary Magdeline was so revered and treated as an equal as the 13th desciple, because Jesus studied at Qumran and was in fact an Essene.



adjensenThere is absolutely no evidence for any of those statements. Mary Magdalene is not a central character until the Passion narrative, and in that, she seems to be a leader of the female disciples (not Apostles) of Jesus. There is no evidence in either Christian, Essene or third party writings that Jesus "studied at Qumran", and, as I pointed out earlier, Jesus taught a significantly different view of Jewish Law than the Essenes did, so he clearly was not one of them (or, if he was, he was a terrible student and follower.)


He never claimed to be a Rabbi, and if so claimed as unmarried at 33 would have been thought to be an 'oddball' and stoned. Mary was not a Apostle, she was the 13th disciple. Of course there are no writings of Jesus being in Qumran, just as there are no writings of his LOST YEARS (greatest disapearing act of all time) between the ages 13 and 30.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by vethumanbeing
 


Okay, I guess that there's no purpose to continuing to participate in this thread. You don't have the foggiest understanding of the Essenes or Christ, you're not interested in learning, and I see nothing but you persisting in your completely baseless fantasies on both subjects. And whoever is starring your posts is as clueless as you are.

Have a good night.



posted on Feb, 11 2014 @ 08:34 PM
link   

adjensen
reply to post by veteranhumanbeing
 


Okay, I guess that there's no purpose to continuing to participate in this thread. You don't have the foggiest understanding of the Essenes or Christ, you're not interested in learning, and I see nothing but you persisting in your completely baseless fantasies on both subjects. And whoever is starring your posts is as clueless as you are.
Have a good night.


Starring my posts? George Carlin, Houdini, Mary Magdeline; or Jesus himself I suspect (most likely all are readers of the back and forth commentary).
edit on 11-2-2014 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 




Yes, they were strict in their beliefs, that's what ascetic means. Good grief, they wouldn't even go to the bathroom on the Sabbath, hardly in keeping with Jesus' "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" teaching.


Essene theology was basically Jewish. The name of Moses was revered and blasphemy against either God or Moses was punishable by death. The Sabbath was strictly observed and they did as little as possible, not even moving dishes or going to the bathroom if it could be helped. (Source)



You should know better than this. You should be able to argue your position without having to bring bathroom habits into the discussions. But, since you did, the Essenes would walk a good distance to relieve their bowels, privately and away from camp. They dug a hole, covered themselves, even from the rays of the sun, and then buried their "duty". Because, even though it was natural, they saw pooping as a "defilement" and ritually bathed afterward, and since "the Sabbath was made for man" any purification ritual on the Sabbath would be sinful, they saw fit to abstain, if possible, from the pooping ordeal on the Sabbath.

I recall watching an interview with Jackie Chan, in which he explained that his training in marshal arts required learning extreme control over his bowels and his urge to urinate. The Essenes, being self possessed enough to exert metal control over their physical emissions, such as bowels movements, is not an indication that they we "anal retentive" about the law, but that they refused to be slaves to anything physically laborious or unclean on the Sabbath.


Uncleanness in the Camp
Deuteronomy 23:12
"You shall also have a place outside the camp and go out there, 13and you shall have a spade among your tools, and it shall be when you sit down outside, you shall dig with it and shall turn to cover up your excrement. 14"Since the LORD your God walks in the midst of your camp to deliver you and to defeat your enemies before you, therefore your camp must be holy; and He must not see anything indecent among you or He will turn away from you.


So, while we're on the subject, "What were Jesus' bathroom habits"? Did Jesus use servants to change his pot? Did he walk to a private and excluded place, use a spade and bury his poop? Did he allow the sunshine to kiss his a$$? Were two or three shakes appropriated for the Sabbath?


Essene theology was basically Jewish. The name of Moses was revered and blasphemy against either God or Moses was punishable by death.


Of all the sites there are about the Essenes, I'm not surprised that you would find one that is intellectually dishonest. The Essene did not put anyone to death.


Their judgements were just, not being passed by a court of less than a hundred, and usually permanent. If anyone was guilty of sin he was cast out eating only grass since he could accept no succour from anyone without the permission of the guardian and thus he wasted away to die of starvation. Excommunication therefore meant death because no Essene would forgo his vows even though excommunicated. In practice the community accepted them again when they felt they had been punished enough. They obeyed their elders and accepted majority decisions. Josephus
www.thenazareneway.com...


And, oh yeah, from your "source":


The Essene custom of ritual washing in water for purification may have been the source of John the Baptist's ministry of baptizing for the remission of sin. There is no baptism to be found in the Old Testament. Many of the Essene writings, especially the Manual of Discipline, contain statements, which are strikingly similar to the teachings of Jesus and early Christianity. This has led to speculation that Christianity may have had its beginnings with the Essene movement. Some even suggest that Jesus and John the Baptist were Essenes, or at least well acquainted with their teaching.




Jesus taught a significantly different view of Jewish Law than the Essenes did, so he clearly was not one of them (or, if he was, he was a terrible student and follower.)


No he didn't. As a matter of fact, more of what Jesus taught was exactly what the Essene taught and lived, than not.

Referring again to your statement: " hardly in keeping with Jesus' "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" teaching."

Again, you should know better than that! Or, are you as ignorant and as arrogant as the pharisees that accused Jesus of sinning?

Jesus Defends Disciples Who Pluck Grain on the Sabbath.


a 3 But {b 25 And} c Jesus answering them a said unto them, Have ye not read {b Did ye never read} c even this [There is a touch of irony here. The Pharisees prided themselves upon their knowledge of Scriptures, but they had not read (so as to understand them) even its most common incidents], what David did, b when he had need, and was hungry, he, and they that were with him?

...........................

a 5 Or have ye not read in the law, that on the sabbath day the priests in the temple profane [i. e., degrade and put to common use] the sabbath, and are guiltless? [Having cited a passage from the prophets, Jesus now turns to the law--the final authority. He also turns from a parallel argument concerning sacred food to a direct argument concerning the sacred day. The Sabbath was the busiest day in the week for the priests. They baked and changed the showbread; they performed sabbatical sacrifices ( Numbers 28:9 ), and two lambs were killed on the sabbath in sacrifice. This involved the killing, skinning, and cleaning of the animals, and the building of the fire to consume the sacrifice. They also trimmed the gold lamps, burned incense, and performed various other duties. The profanation of the Sabbath, however, was not real, but merely apparent.

Jesus cites this priestly work to prove that the Sabbath prohibition was not universal, and hence might not include what the disciples had done. The fourth commandment did not forbid work absolutely, but labor for worldly gain. Activity in the work of God was both allowed and commanded.


edit on 12-2-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2014 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Rex282
 



Yahoshua never said "everyone" could do what he did.He ONLY told the disciples that


Because they were the ones hanging around him to hear more. He knew that not all of them understood what he was talking about - and we see it on ATS every day. Some people just don't get it; and in this lifetime, may never. But that doesn't mean he wasn't speaking the truth.



posted on Feb, 13 2014 @ 04:01 PM
link   

wildtimes
reply to post by Rex282
 



Yahoshua never said "everyone" could do what he did.He ONLY told the disciples that


Because they were the ones hanging around him to hear more. He knew that not all of them understood what he was talking about - and we see it on ATS every day. Some people just don't get it; and in this lifetime, may never. But that doesn't mean he wasn't speaking the truth.



Here is the short abbreviated version of my reply(it was pages long!!.if I posted everything I wrote in response to posts at ATS I'd crash the server.....on that note..(this is still long)

My point was when Yahoshua said YOU will do many things that I have done he was speaking directly and exclusively to the disciples however Christianity(and others) has extrapolated that to mean "Christians" or "me" .That general method of Christianity (and all religions) is to cherry pick and create doctrines and creeds to apply to their Belief System(BS).

The point to your new point is Yahoshua knew NONE understood what he was talking(proclaiming/preaching) about.He clearly stated this in the preamble to the explanation of the parable of the seed and soils.One of the reasons of the parables were not to "teach" they were to proclaim/preach the "deafness and blindness"...and that is the basis of my point.Yahoshua was not a Gnostic or an Essene or even a JEW!! or anything anybody thinks he was.He clearly stated he did not receive ANY thing(teachings) from man yet many speculate with wild fantasies he did.

The fact is none are "getting" it.There are BILLIONS that believe he started a new religion(with 30,000 and counting sects).There are many that believe he was a great teacher when the fact is they haven't understood one thing he said by what he meant and he said so very clearly.As the great songwriter Paul Simon wrote(for those that don't hate Paul)..."a man only hears what he wants to hear..and disregards the rest."

The TRUTH he was speaking was proclamation..NOT teaching.Christianity has proven how array that will go.I have to admit I find it amazing so many cannot see those words written so clearly.Yet the same "conundrum" holds true for almost every religious doctrine.It is so clear yet it blinds the blind. Yahoshua's name(the name above EVER name) means Yahweh(the creator God the Father) IS salvation.A name is the character and nature of the thing named YET..billions believe their "Jesus" is going to condemn multiple BILLIONS to the eternal punishment of hell!!

The fact is teaching doesn't work for the Truth.It HAS to be revealed and that isn't a guarantee of anything.Simon Peter got revealed to yet he was still thick as a brick!The "things" most people believe "Jesus" taught was common sense.You don't need Jesus to know that just common sense!The REAL point is Yahoshua wasn't here to TEACH....he only proclaimed Truth that's it...and what he REALLY did is so far beyond comprehension no teaching could even begin to explain it.

Bottom line.If someone wants to believe in Gnosticism...best of luck.However it is 100% incorrect to think Yahoshua was a Gnostic or Essene or anything religious at all.He was not "teaching" a religion or even a morality or ethic.It was 100% proclamation of Truth that NONE can understand...now there's a conundrum for ya!
edit on 13-2-2014 by Rex282 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 08:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Rex282
 



Bottom line.If someone wants to believe in Gnosticism...best of luck.However it is 100% incorrect to think Yahoshua was a Gnostic or Essene or anything religious at all.He was not "teaching" a religion or even a morality or ethic.It was 100% proclamation of Truth that NONE can understand...now there's a conundrum for ya!


100% incorrect, eh? What's to "believe in"? When I use the term, I define it as personal knowledge, acquired independently, by introspection rather than 'revealed to others'. It means looking within - knowing oneself, and recognizing our place - whatever it is - in the cosmos.

I do not think Jesus was trying to start a "religion." I agree with you on that point. He was outspoken about the priests and temples - and encouraged people to SEEK WITHIN.

This clip is from wiki's entry (therefore, take it for what it is: it's just wiki)

Gnosticism (from gnostikos, "learned", from Ancient Greek: γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) describes a collection of ancient religions that taught that people should shun the material world created by the demiurge and embrace the spiritual world.[1]

Did Jesus teach that? Yes indeedy.


Gnostic ideas influenced many ancient religions[2] that teach that gnosis (variously interpreted as knowledge, enlightenment, salvation, emancipation or 'oneness with God') may be reached by practicing philanthropy to the point of personal poverty, sexual abstinence (as far as possible for hearers, completely for initiates) and diligently searching for wisdom by helping others.[3]


Again, sounds like Jesus's teachings.


However, practices varied among those who were Gnostic.


Now. Following the links and resources from that (lengthy) wiki page, I see that there are two 'schools' of "Gnosticism" -
Syrian-Egyptian

The Syrian-Egyptian school derives much of its outlook from Platonist influences. Typically, it depicts creation in a series of emanations from a primal monadic source, finally resulting in the creation of the material universe. As a result, these schools tend to view evil in terms of matter that is markedly inferior to goodness—evil as lacking spiritual insight and goodness, rather than to emphasize portrayals of evil as an equal force.

These schools of gnosticism may be said to use the terms "evil" and "good" as being relative descriptive terms, as they refer to the relative plight of human existence caught between such realities and confused in its orientation, with "evil" indicating the extremes of distance from the principle and source of goodness, without necessarily emphasizing an inherent negativity.


...and the Persian:

The Persian Schools, which appeared in the western Persian province of Babylonia (in particular, within the Sassanid province of Asuristan), and whose writings were originally produced in the Aramaic dialects spoken in Babylonia at the time, are representative of what is believed to be among the oldest of the Gnostic thought forms. These movements are considered by most to be religions in their own right, and are not emanations from Christianity or Judaism.


Pre-Christian Gnosticism, the New Testament and Nag Hammadi in recent debate

b. Defining Gnosticism

Scholars continue to experience difficulty in agreeing upon a definition of 'Gnosticism'.[18] Some such as H.-M. Schenke, K. Rudolph and G. Strecker have objected to the distinction urged at Messina in 1966 between 'proto-Gnosticism' and 'Gnosticism'.[19] They would prefer what I call the 'broad' definition of Gnosticism, emphasizing links of continuity over stages of development.[20]

On the other hand, Hans Jonas has insisted that an anti-cosmic dualism is the essential ingredient of Gnosticism. The same point has been stressed recently by K.-W. Tröger: 'Primarily the Gnostic religion is an anti-cosmic religion'.[21]

To underline the distinction between the apparently inchoate phenomena in the first century and the fully articulated systems in the second century Wilson has been urging that we use the term 'Gnosis' for the former and reserve 'Gnosticism' for the latter.[22]



It appears that we on this thread are not working under the same "schools", therefore we are not understanding one another.

I believe that Jesus is said to have taught solitude, inward-seeking, poverty, altruism, tolerance and charity. He did not tell people to go to church/temple/synagogue - instead he taught them to seek for themselves. This sounds fundamentally like at least ONE of the definitions listed above...

as for Archons and all that stuff - which is apparently what adjensen was referring to - that is something other than what I was talking about.


edit on 2/14/14 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 09:27 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 



people should shun the material world created by the demiurge and embrace the spiritual world.[1]

Did Jesus teach that? Yes indeed.

Actually, no, he didn't.

The "demiurge" of the Gnostic Christians was the God of the Israelites, the one that Jesus referred to as his Father. The Gnostics were dualists -- they taught that you should shun the material world because it was evil. Jesus, on the other hand, emphasized the spiritual life because it was better -- not a "good versus evil" thing (dualism,) but a striving toward the better thing (non-dualism.)

There is no getting past the fact that Gnosticism and Judaism are two radically different religions, and all evidence is that Jesus was a practicing Jew. He was Jewish, his parents were Jewish, his followers were Jewish, everything associated with him is Jewish, and the fact that Gnosticism didn't latch onto him until Christianity was growing in popularity among non-Jews, over a hundred years after his death, should make it ridiculously obvious that Jesus was not a Gnostic, regardless of what "school" you'd like to associate with him.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


First of all, I am not talking about Gnostic Christians. I'm talking about the 'gnosis' that already existed, for centuries, before he arrived.
That one can 'find' the Truth within.

But
Okay, we'll go with your version, Mr Historian.


Did Jesus not teach to look within? Regardless of the "demiurge" being an underling (an idea I had not come across before) -
did he not teach that one should not worry about material things? Did he not criticize the priests?

I'm sorry, d, but I just don't see convincing evidence that he was 100% "not teaching" gnosis - seeking within oneself rather than following "publicly promoted doctrine".

Do you think he meant to establish a 'religion'?


edit on 2/14/14 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 10:02 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 



Did Jesus not teach to look within? Regardless of the "demiurge" being an underling (an idea I had not come across before) -
did he not teach that one should not worry about material things? Did he not criticize the priests?

Yes, but that's not the point -- the Gnostics believed that the material world was fundamentally flawed, evil and had been created by a bumbling fool, the demiurge. Jesus taught none of that.


Do you think he meant to establish a 'religion'?

Of course he did.


And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. (Matthew 16:18 NIV)

Jesus didn't come prattling a new sort of philosophy, or some vague notions of inner peace -- he established a radically new form of Judaism. At its core, the foundations of Christianity are rooted in Judaic teachings and thought, not on Greek philosophy.



posted on Feb, 14 2014 @ 10:16 AM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 



Yes, but that's not the point -- the Gnostics believed that the material world was fundamentally flawed, evil and had been created by a bumbling fool, the demiurge. Jesus taught none of that.


You see, you're still sticking on the point of a "demiurge" - and I am not.

I am referring to the ancient notion of looking within... it was not 'new stuff' that Jesus taught. It was a reworking - a syncretic picture.

Can you agree with that??





new topics
top topics
 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join