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.
Originally posted by greyer
We have to ask ourselves what is the process for doing magic? Magic is a power, it is not good or bad. The person behind the magic will reflect the shade.
It may start with meditation and focus, maybe even chanting to the universe, maybe an out of body experience. Being calm, and taking your consciousness away from your percecption, could that be some kind of hypnosis we put ourselves into reaching the magic.
To execute a miracle would take a force outside of the body, as if energy in the air was produced, people may witness a visible force outside of ourselves.
I believe this is possible.
Originally posted by adjensen
Originally posted by Greatest I am
There are as many Gnostic sects as there are Christian ones.
Not ancient ones, there weren't (well, not that we have any evidence of, at any rate.)
I'm not aware of any ancient Gnostic group that professed that Jesus was married to Mary, just latter day (post 18th century) ones. Are you referring to a group contemporary to the early church, or one which emerged in the past couple of hundred years? If the former, I would very much appreciate a pointer to your sources, as I have a keen interest in that doctrine, in that era.
Originally posted by Greatest I am
Originally posted by adjensen
Originally posted by Greatest I am
There are as many Gnostic sects as there are Christian ones.
Not ancient ones, there weren't (well, not that we have any evidence of, at any rate.)
I'm not aware of any ancient Gnostic group that professed that Jesus was married to Mary, just latter day (post 18th century) ones. Are you referring to a group contemporary to the early church, or one which emerged in the past couple of hundred years? If the former, I would very much appreciate a pointer to your sources, as I have a keen interest in that doctrine, in that era.
Some scholars think that Gnosticism predated Christianity but they cannot prove it.
My bottom line on the divinity of Jesus is that most did not believe he divine and this view is bolstered by the fact that the Trinity concept was not enacted till 300 odd years after his death and Constantine basically forced that concept down his churches throat.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen
I think the worship of Christ happened when He was alive. Several places in the gospels people worship Him. That predates Augustine by a few centuries.
Originally posted by Greatest I am
Beliefs are a dime a dozen.
The proof is in the doing.
If even one of us could do miracles, the whole world would know it, see it and could not deny it.
Show us what you can do.
Regards
DL
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen
Constantine gets a bad rap though, contrary to popular belief he didn't make Christianity the state religion of the Empire, his 2nd successor Theodosius I did that. Constantine only gave an edict legalizing it.
Originally posted by adjensen
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen
Constantine gets a bad rap though, contrary to popular belief he didn't make Christianity the state religion of the Empire, his 2nd successor Theodosius I did that. Constantine only gave an edict legalizing it.
I don't have anything against him, and hey, old "Const" is the closest thing this side of Heaven to omnipotence -- I think I've seen him credited with everything but discovering Florida, lol.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen
I think the worship of Christ happened when He was alive. Several places in the gospels people worship Him. That predates Augustine by a few centuries.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
Lots of people have an erroneous idea of Nicaea. They didn't vote to make Him God, they voted on how to define His deity. Whether He preexisted as God before incarnation or was God at creation. Otherwise known as the Arian heresy.
Originally posted by adjensen
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
Lots of people have an erroneous idea of Nicaea. They didn't vote to make Him God, they voted on how to define His deity. Whether He preexisted as God before incarnation or was God at creation. Otherwise known as the Arian heresy.
Actually, it was an even finer point than that. The question was whether God the Father had ever existed without God the Son. Meaning that the Son was created (and, thus, a creature, even if divine,) and thus somewhat less divine than the Father. The whole "begotten, not made" part of the Nicene Creed reflects that -- Arias taught that he was "made, not begotten."
Of course, the Catholics got into it themselves when they inserted "and the Son" into the creed 700 years or so later, ticking off the Eastern church and resulting in the Great Schism, though that was more of a "we've had enough of you Roman snobs and your papal primacy" kickback than it was really about the Filioque.
Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by adjensen
Constantine gets a bad rap though, contrary to popular belief he didn't make Christianity the state religion of the Empire, his 2nd successor Theodosius I did that. Constantine only gave an edict legalizing it.
Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by Greatest I am
I'm not sure what your point is -- I've never seen anyone claim that the Doctrine of the Trinity is IN the Bible. As I pointed out, it is a human explanation of WHY early Christians behaved the way that they did, and WHY the Bible refers to Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the manner that it does. Not believing in it doesn't make someone evil or anything, it just means that they're not a Christian.
So if you don't want to believe in it, bully for you, you've plenty of company in the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses and Unitarians. But then, like them, you've got to sort out an alternative explanation for that behaviour, or just chuck the whole of the Bible and invent a Jesus that meets your expectations.
Originally posted by Greatest I am
I have chucked the bible and have no need to invent a new Jesus.
I have moved on and so should so called believers.
Jesus spoke for a father. I am the father. So to speak of course.
Originally posted by adjensen
Originally posted by Greatest I am
I have chucked the bible and have no need to invent a new Jesus.
I have moved on and so should so called believers.
Jesus spoke for a father. I am the father. So to speak of course.
So, you basically made up a Jesus that meets your expectations, slapped a "Gnostic" sticker on him, and that's it? That's fine, I guess, though its not likely to resonate with anyone other than you (making posting about it on ATS somewhat redundant.)
Originally posted by Greatest I am
Gnostics recognize that they have created him and that Jesus is just an archetypal good man