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.
>
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.
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Akragon
Foremost expert on how to reject gnosticism would be more like it.
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.
How am I acting like an idiot?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Thank you!
Originally posted by eight bits
Welcome aboard.
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.
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.
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...
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?
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.
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 give up. You obviously don't get it and lack either the desire or intelligence to understand a very basic concept.
Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Akragon
Foremost expert on how to reject gnosticism would be more like it.
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..