Why believe in a religion created by Politicians?

Lately ive been reading up on the ancient Gnostic text which have been really interesting.

Before I begin, im not religious but I love reading religious and creation stories, their art work is pretty cool too.
Well I was a Christian for around 7 - 8 years as a youth but not anymore.

Im not going to knock Christianity in this thread nor do I want this thread to have nasty comments about people that do believe. Im am merely curious as to the answers of the believers.

My question is this:
'Why believe in the Bible when there are other earlier versions that almost totally contradicts it? The Bible created by Roman Politicians, politicians, politicians.'

If Malcolm Turnbull the Australian Prime Minister or Barak Obama the President of the USA took the Bible and modified it to their liking, then destroys and slaughters all who believe otherwise within that [Christian] religion, would you put faith in their new creation/religion? Or if the Queen of England did it? and so on.

---

Ok, now im going to talk as if the Gnostic teachings are correct. (dare I say it, Devils Advocate)

Where to begin....

Say the Demiurge is the Devil, although a few texts says that the Devil is a child of one of the Aeons who can perceive the higher heavens that the Demiurge cannot, being ignorant of where he came from. Lets go with the common belief that the god of the material realm, aka the Demiurge who is called by three names, Yaldabaoth, Saklas and Samael, is the Devil. The one who refuses to let the spirit of man, which is a portion of the spirit of Sophia his mother reconnect to the upper heavens called Pleroma, or Monad (also called the name of the virginal spirit referring to the All Father or true Supreme Being, I will call him/it Monad from here on out and the higher heavens Pleroma.

Let say the Devil knows his pretty much screwed but refusing to believe it, so what does he do to prevent the spirit of man reconnecting with Pleroma and Monad? Especially when Yeshi (Yeshua Ha'mashiach) came to Earth and tried to but failed to convince people their worshiping the wrong god (OT and other gods), and then spending 40 days and nights in the desert trying to convince Yeshi that he is the true god and to bow down and worship him as opposed to Yeshi's true father Monad.

First thing I would do if I was him is try to eradicate all knowledge surrounding the ascension process Yeshi taught. Say create a Bible eradicating all teachings then destroying all other manuscripts and slaughter all who would not follow the new Bible. Which is what the new Christians did. (Gnostics were called Gnostic by the new Christians, where as the Gnostics called themselves Christians.)

Another thing I would do is change the name of Yeshua so when people pray to him he does not hear them, say change it to Jesus, one of the seven blasphemous names of the Devil. That way when people pray to Yeshi their really praying to the Devil, who wants to keep the spirit of Monad that was trapped in the material realm by the Devils mother Sophia when she breathed life into the first man thereby diminishing her essence.

Ahh got a visitor so will have to stop. But really curious as to the Christians of today their thoughts on this.

Also lets be adults here. Not in the mood for a religious argument, just an honest adult discussion.

Coomba98 - Mikha'el

People are indoctrinated into believing in religion, it starts with persecution of an existing religious group then creation of a new one to replace it. They kill or forcibly convert people to their new religion then force children into believing it through repetition. After enough time has passed, those children begin teaching their children the same thing and those in power no longer need to do the leg work, their puppets do it for them.

People do not "choose" to believe in religion the majority of the time, they were indoctrinated into it as a child. What better way to convince people to believe something than to teach them a place like hell exists where non-believers go when they die? Just like with Santa Claus, children will believe anything until you tell them otherwise, and with religion they are never told otherwise.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

People do not "choose" to believe in religion t

I was indoctrinated to nothing as a child and came to
believe in Jesus Christ. I'd follow him anywhere. Despite
religion.

a reply to: randyvs

Which is why I said the "majority" of the time, implying there are cases where people choose to believe it on their own accord. I'm not knocking you for it either, if it gives you the answers you're looking for then more power to you

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

So I was in confirmation to your reply.
And thanks for that L1ght.

a reply to: coomba98

My signature is my response to all "religion" I have so far learned.

We are our own priests. The world is our temple. Our heart is our religion. Our spirit is the bond we share with humanity. We are our own souls keeper and that is our covenant with all creation.

We never really need to learn to have spirituality....they only teach you how....interesting dont you think. It gets more interesting once you realize why: You can do it all yourself. Spirituality is between you and _____. Religion is a community function with hierarchy and leadership. Tribute and service to a group. Even a leader and a whole class of elite.....something spirituality is not conducive to since that creates imbalance and suffering.

Religion codifies society as it does its own ideas, making them empty and corpse like. Spirituality liberates entire peoples and gives rise to new ideas. Spirituality can be the very essence of life while religion can make people rally under symbols and trivial differences.

That being said, it is all a little mixed and convoluted sometimes. Mainly religion, that is, the codified spirituality of a group, can function optimally with a couple people being allowed to do what ever the hell makes them happy. Their limited size compared to the whole group they are part of stops them from imposing their will on others so no imbalance is created. Its worth mentioning that small sects or splinter groups of any religion can have religion become a source of growth and progress, but usually only if the larger whole doesnt interfere with the individual spirituality of the smaller communities and their members. Ultimately all sects and sub groups compose a macro religion together so they prosper when they just work together in the name of balance and order.

Christianity or Islam, like any other "religion", are branches on a tree that has not stopped growing. Is it all flowers or is there any fruit to it all?

a reply to: coomba98

The Old Testament Septuagint was translated around 300 years before Christ.

Most of the The New Testament Gospels were written sometime between 40 - 60 AD. The "Gnostic" stuff was decades later, they were written from the 2nd to the 4th century AD. They specifically preach that "man can be like gods" which has always been the theme of the occult / satanism. They are all obviously "mystery religion" style and are completely different in principle than the books from the disciples time (combining Pagan Mystery Religion with stories of the authors of Christianity).

www.pbs.org...

The Gospel of Philip, which attributes to Jesus acts and sayings quite different from those in the New Testament

Apocryphon (literally, "secret book") of John, which opens with an offer to reveal "the mysteries [and the] things hidden in silence"

The Gospel of Truth and the Gospel to the Egyptians, which identifies itself as "the [sacred book] of the Great Invisible [Spirit]." Another group of texts consists of writings attributed to Jesus' followers, such as the Secret Book of James, the Apocalypse of Paul, the Letter of Peter to Philip, and the Apocalypse of Peter. (Which of course were not written by them).

Another text, mysteriously entitled The Thunder, Perfect Mind, offers an extraordinary poem spoken in the voice of a feminine divine power. These diverse texts range, then, from secret gospels, poems, and quasi-philosophic descriptions of the origin of the universe, to myths, magic, and instructions for mystical practice.

Although they claim to offer secret teaching, many of these texts refer to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and others to the letters of Paul and the New Testament gospels. Many of them include the same dramatic personae as the New Testament--Jesus and his disciples. Yet the differences are striking.

Orthodox Jews and Christians insist that a chasm separates humanity from Its creator: God is wholly other. But some of the gnostics who wrote these gospels contradict this: self-knowledge is knowledge of God; the self and the divine are identical.

Second, the "living Jesus" of these texts speaks of illusion and enlightenment, not of sin and repentance, like the Jesus of the New Testament. Instead of coming to save us from sin, he comes as a guide who opens access to spiritual understanding. But when the disciple attains enlightenment, Jesus no longer serves as his spiritual master: the two have become equal--even identical.

Third, orthodox Christians believe that Jesus is Lord and Son of God in a unique way: he remains forever distinct from the rest of humanity whom he came to save. Yet the gnostic Gospel of Thomas relates that as soon as Thomas recognizes him, Jesus says to Thomas that they have both received their being from the same source:

Jesus said, "I am not your master. Because you have drunk, you have become drunk from the bubbling stream which I have measured out.... He who will drink from my mouth will become as I am: I myself shall become he, and the things that are hidden will be revealed to him."

Does not such teaching--the identity of the divine and human. the concern with illusion and enlightenment, the founder who is presented not as Lord, but as spiritual guide sound more Eastern than Western? Some scholars have suggested that if the names were changed, the "living Buddha" appropriately could say what the Gospel of Thomas attributes to the living Jesus. Could Hindu or Buddhist tradition have influenced gnosticism?

carm.org...

Acts does not include the accounts of "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65). Acts also fails to mention the incredibly significant events of A.D. 70.

The earliest quotation of Matthew is found in Ignatius who died around A.D. 115. Therefore, Matthew was in circulation well before Ignatius came on the scene. The various dates most widely held as possible writing dates of the Gospel are between A.D. 40-140. But Ignatius died around A.D. 115, and he quoted Matthew. Therefore, Matthew had to be written before he died. Nevertheless, it is generally believed that Matthew was written before A.D. 70 and as early as A.D. 50.

Mark was not an eyewitness to the events of Jesus' life. He was a disciple of Peter and undoubtedly it was Peter who informed Mark of the life of Christ and guided him in writing the Gospel known by his name. "Papias claimed that Mark, the Evangelist, who had never heard Christ, was the interpreter of Peter, and that he carefully gave an account of everything he remembered from the preaching of Peter."7 Generally, Mark is said to be the earliest Gospel with an authorship of between A.D. 55 to A.D. 70.

Luke was not an eyewitness of the life of Christ. He was a companion of Paul, who also was not an eyewitness of Christ's life. But, both had ample opportunity to meet the disciples who knew Christ and learn the facts not only from them but also from others in the area. Some might consider this damaging to the validity of the Gospel but quite the contrary. Luke was a Gentile convert to Christianity who was interested in the facts. He obviously had interviewed the eyewitnesses and written the Gospel account as well as Acts.

Luke speaks of "them," of those who had personal encounters with Christ. Luke is simply recounting the events from the disciples. Since Luke agrees with Matthew, Mark, and John and since there is no contradictory information coming from any of the disciples stating that Luke was inaccurate and since Luke has proven to be a very accurate historian, we can conclude that Luke's account is very accurate.

As far as dating the Gospel goes, Luke was written before the book of Acts and Acts does not mention "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D. 64 or the deaths of James (A.D. 62), Paul (A.D. 64), and Peter (A.D. 65)."8 Therefore, we can conclude that Luke was written before A.D. 62. "Luke's Gospel comes (Acts 1:1) before the Acts. The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63).

The writer of the Gospel of John was obviously an eyewitness of the events of Christ's life since he speaks from a perspective of having been there during many of the events of Jesus' ministry and displays a good knowledge of Israeli geography and customs.

The John Rylands papyrus fragment 52 of John's Gospel dated in the year 125-135 contains portions of John 18, verses 31-33, 37-38. This fragment was found in Egypt. It is the last of the Gospels and appears to have been written in the 80's to 90's.

a reply to: coomba98

Why believe in a religion created by Politicians?

As another member said, most people believe in the religion of their family... indoctrinated as a child and brought into said religion before they even understand anything about it.

Why believe in Christianity... that I don't know, but the message Jesus gave is an amazing one... unfortunately Christianity is more based around Paul... and in some cases Christians don't even know what Jesus actually said aside from a few passages here and there.

The idea of the demiurge has always been fascinating to me... mainly because from an overall biblical perspective, it actually makes more sense then the OT god being the Father of Jesus

The world is a mess... and a "Perfect" creator couldn't have designed it to be as it is... but looking at the Apocryphon of John, which says basically the creator of this world is a screw up... and hes a jealous, envious, wrathful creator... it actually falls perfectly in line with the personality of the OT god

Makes more sense to me... but what do I know

a reply to: Akragon

... but what do I know

If it isn't much, then it doesn't take much to impress me.

a reply to: randyvs

shh...

even the kitty cat can be modest at times...

tadaman,
that's pretty much what I believe, im not religious but id be a fool to say im not spiritual. in a non-hippy way.

infolurker,
Interesting read.
I agree that the new testament books were created around 50AD to around 110AD. However the Gnostics also accepted the gospels of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which dated back to around 150BC with some scriptures dating back no later than 200BC.
Such as the Book of Watchers, with The Apocryphon of John obviously written well after the death of Yeshi.
Subsequently, a 1st or 2nd century date of composition circa 80 AD or earlier has been proposed for the lost Greek originals of the Gospel of Thomas.
Although all the works that eventually became incorporated into the New Testament seem to have been written no later than around 150 AD.
Zoroastrianism, a form of Gnostics is estimated to date back to two thousand years BC. Or the common accepted date is around 440BC.
The Nag Hammadi library is one of the few Gnostic records to survive the new Christian movement. Being hidden in a cave for almost two thousand years. Given the almost total destruction of the Gnostics it is difficult to pin point an exact date of origin. But it is clear from Zoroastrianism that it was way before 'Christianity'.

With regards to man becoming gods, this is in genesis. All we need to do if eat of the tree of life and we would become gods like the ones that created us. (again talking in the sense that this religion is true).

Akragon,
Yeah im currently reading The Nag Hammadi library, fascinating read and from an ex-Christian stand point way more believable than a book created by roman politicians. I recommend Christians or other interested parties to read the Apocryphon of John.
gnosis.org...
gnosticteachings.org...

Coomba98

a reply to: coomba98

I recommend you read Pistis Sophia...

Its very long, but well worth the read... and it covers things such as reincarnation, and what happens to a person that commits certain sins in this life

Very interesting... but be careful with gnostic material...

some of it is just wrong...

gnosis.org...

By the way, asking a Christian to read material outside of their book is similar to asking one of them to kick their pastor in the knackers

a reply to: Akragon
That's one that I was going to read after the Nag Hammadi library. Don't get me wrong I don't believe this stuff but do find it interesting. Tsnot like I believe Game of Thrones or Shannara books to be real. But I do find them entertaining.

By the way, asking a Christian to read material outside of their book is similar to asking one of them to kick their pastor in the knackers

Not really. They don't need to believe it but they also don't need to blindly accept the words of their priest.

Like Yeshi said in Jerusalem when he approached the Rabbis, aka priests pastors etc etc. The ones we go to for religion knowledge, and we then preach the knowledge bestowed upon us to others.
If the priests worship the Devil and we listen to the priests....

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.”

Original Bible it took 3 or 4 creations to get to mankind as we are now. The last creation had Sophia breath her essence which is Monad into man who then became sentient. Death was known back then. No point arguing that the OT god has a kill count in the quazillions what about lies?
The OT god said Adam and Eve would surly die if they ate from the two special trees being Knowledge and Life. This threat is implied they would die straight away, like if your parent says don't eat that its poison and you would surly die.
However they did not die, Adam lived to a long life dying at the age of 930.

Coomba98

If everyone around Jesus was Jewish and believed in The Old Testament, and Jesus said this to them:

Matthew 11:27 King James Version (KJV)

27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

Then isn't this proof that the Old Testament , is not of The Father since they never knew The Father until Jesus, The Son, revealed him?

Yet "Christians" believe in The Old Testament over Jesus Christ.

a reply to: arpgme

Wouldn't this also imply that no one knows the Father right now either since only the Son (Jesus) knows him? I never really picked up on this before. I guess this means that those who claim to know God (the Father) are also claiming to be the Son? Very interesting.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

The Son is not the only one who knows The Father, but also those who he revealed The Father to through his teachings (which anyone can read and follow or ignore).

The name of the son is Yeshua, Ha'mashiach. Not Jesus.

The name Jesus is a misdirection, to prevent the prayers and thoughts from reaching the true Ha'mashiach.

Remember revalation speak of two gods and two Christs (Ha'mashiach).

What is the name of the anti-Christ? Jesus.
Not the true Christ called Yeshua Ha'mashiach.

Names dont ttanslate between languaged. Acsents do though but Jesus and Yeshua are totally different.

Like calling Lucifer the Devil. Which is incorrect as the true word is Haylel which is a description not a name. The last one to be called Lucifer is Yeshua the true Christ/Ha'mashiach.

Coomba98 - Mikha'el

a reply to: coomba98

The problem is, most people say Jesus when they mean yahweh/jehovah.

One person I spoke to quoted a verse from Leviticus claiming that it was from The Christ (they said "Jesus") even though he wasn't even born in this world yet. They took that name "Jesus" for yahweh instead and now they are taking the name "Christian" even though they follow the old testament and not Christ's words.

But The Christ already warned that there will be many false people coming in his name out to deceive many , so that is not a surprise how they try to take every name and word associated with Christ to apply it to yahweh/jehovah's old testament.

And yes, Yeshua is the original name before being written with the Greek and Latin letters (they had trouble spelling and pronouncing Yeshua in their languages).

originally posted by: arpgme

If everyone around Jesus was Jewish and believed in The Old Testament, and Jesus said this to them:

Matthew 11:27 King James Version (KJV)

27 All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

Then isn't this proof that the Old Testament , is not of The Father since they never knew The Father until Jesus, The Son, revealed him?

Yet "Christians" believe in The Old Testament over Jesus Christ.

Christians don't believe in the Old Testament over the New Testament or Jesus Christ. Christians believe that Jesus is the God of the Old Testament. Essentially that's what that Matthew 11:27 is telling you, but without it being revealed by the Holy Spirit to the person reading it, as Matthew 11:15 is trying to tell you, you'll never recognize it or understand it. As Jesus told everyone all along, the Father and Son are One.

Damn it, did a long reply on my phone but accidently deleted it prior to posting. Nooooo.

...

arpgme,
When people pray to the one who is the Devil but meaning someone else does not mean that said prayers reach the intended person.

If you knew someone named Paul and called him Luke, would he respond or even acknowledge you.
(Given an environment where Paul did not know you were present and your voice was unknown to him [Re: Does Yeshua know the sound of your voice])

Also names don't translate, only the different language barrier sounds different. Like Asians saying I love lock and loll.
No offence.

Michael in Hebrew is pronounced Mee-kay-el but written from Hebrew to English as Mikha'el. And Mikha'el is never translated from one language to another as something like Ichigo or Nathan. Something completely different to the sound of the name. Again names don't translate between languages only other words.

So if the Devil wanted to refuse or stop prayers from reaching the proper person the best thing he would do is change the name of the one people are praying too.

Like I said before...

If the priests worship the Devil and we listen to the priests....
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.”

Like saying Lucifer is the Devil. When the Hebrew word for Lucifer is Heylel, which is a description not the name of a person. Only two people have been called Lucifer in 'The Bible', one in the Hebrew Bible with is the word Heylel (Torah)
The first one called 'Lucifer' in both is the King of Babylon in Isaiah, the other and last Lucifer is in the Christian Bible, who is non other than Yeshua himself, who he calls himself Lucifer in Revelation. So calling the Devil Lucifer is actually calling the Devil the Light Bringer, or bringer of light. Mainly referred to as the Morning Star Venus being the brightest star in the heavens. A metaphor of Yeshua being the brightest being second to Monad the Supreme Being.

Ok re-read that and the Lucifer section is a bad analogy. But will leave it there as there is a point to be made.

Another thing is there is absolutely no mention that the Devil is an angel in the Bible. Even more confusing is if the Devil was an angel how could he rebel if he had no free will? The Devil may have his own angels but they are not the angels of Monad the Supreme Being. Nor does it say the Devil and his angels fell from heaven, this war in heaven has not happened yet. The occurrences of Revelation is still to occur at some unknown date.

Coomba98