Debating the Issues

[Narrow Path]

Gnostics generally believe that Christ rose SPIRITUALLY and did not actually have a human side. They do not believe that he actually suffered on the cross but TRANSCENDED his physical body because He is after all, God.

Gnostic text is considered heretical because it does not refer to earlier Bible books and seems to be drawn out of "thin air".

Gnostic text also draws upon

1. truth in reincarnation
2. truth in subjective experience rather than the Word
3. The non Physical death and resurrection of Christ
4. "Becoming" Christ yourself

Number four is really where you can see why the Church rejected the validity of these books so greatly. Early Gnosticism was influenced by PATHIESTIC and MYSTICAL cults from the east as the Church was attempting to take root.

There are many more reasons why the books of the Gnostic were not in the cannon but the nagging question still remains?

Would a Perfect all Loving God allow His Truth to be "hidden" from the masses for the last 1500 years? Or was it "hidden" and "destroyed" by the early Church because it was false information that would have led to the sowing of "weeds" in the Body of Christ rather than of "wheat"?

Read the book of Collosians to get a better grasp on the early attempts of "mystical" false teachers as they tried to downplay the Physical resurrection of Christ.

Paul, Peter, and John are all very CLEAR in the fact that it was a PHYSICAL ressurection. Very, very, clear.

2   Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3   And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

[Narrow Path]

Taken from the Gospel of Philip

.....God created humaity; but now human beings create God. That is the way it is in the world - human beings make gods, and worship their creation. It would be appropriate for the gods to worship human beings.

Hmmmmmmm. Does not really correlate with the monothiestic viewpoints of Paul I guess.

[Narrow Path]

Oh yes one more thing about Gnostics

Since your Spirit transcends the flesh you technically NEVER sinned and are above the Law!!!!

Wow, how could the Church say that is heretical??

I dont know, they must have been smoking dope to not let that one in the excepted doctrine.

[Tab]

quote:Originally posted by Narrow Path

Early Gnosticism was influenced by PATHIESTIC and MYSTICAL cults from the east as the Church was attempting to take root.

Uh and early Christianity was (highly) influenced by paganistic Sun and Moon cults. The only difference I see is one was blindly anthropomorphic and exoteric while the other was mystical and esoteric. Oh gee, which could possibly be more meaningful. Wait, let me think.

quote:Would a Perfect all Loving God allow His Truth to be "hidden" from the masses for the last 1500 years?

Right.. would a perfect all loving god do all of this crap?
So much for that.

[Beth]

Narrowpath:

The quote you pulled from the Gospel of Philip states:
 

quote:.....God created humaity; but now human beings create God. That is the way it is in the world - human beings make gods, and worship their creation. It would be appropriate for the gods to worship human beings.

And you wrote:
 

quote:Hmmmmmmm. Does not really correlate with the monothiestic viewpoints of Paul I guess.

You are TOTALLY missing the writer's point.  It is called IRONY.  I will help you here--according to Websters: Irony is  (1): incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2): an event or result marked by such incongruity.  In case you don't know already: Incongruity is:  a: not harmonious : INCOMPATIBLE b:inconsistent within itself.

The writer is pointing out the irony, that although God created US in the divine image, we have in turn CREATED GOD in the HUMAN IMAGE.  Think Anthropomorphism here. The writer is NOT very happy about this turn of ironic events!

I have a question for you.  Do you not read scripture in its entirety?  Do you just go though and pick out parts here and there that tick you off?  Do you draw your conclusions that easily?  Apparently so--and that is a shame.  You miss SO MUCH when you do it that way.  

I encourage you to do your homework.  And you cannot copy from anyone else's homework. THAT IS CHEATING.  Try thinking for yourself. So far, you have been working from a very well-worn cheat sheet.

[Narrow Path]

quote:You are TOTALLY missing the writer's point. It is called IRONY. I will help you here--according to Websters: Irony is (1): incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result (2): an event or result marked by such incongruity. In case you don't know already: Incongruity is: a: not harmonious : INCOMPATIBLE b:inconsistent within itself.

The writer is pointing out the irony, that although God created US in the divine image, we have in turn CREATED GOD in the HUMAN IMAGE. Think Anthropomorphism here. The writer is NOT very happy about this turn of ironic events!

I have a question for you. Do you not read scripture in its entirety? Do you just go though and pick out parts here and there that tick you off? Do you draw your conclusions that easily? Apparently so--and that is a shame. You miss SO MUCH when you do it that way.

I encourage you to do your homework. And you cannot copy from anyone else's homework. THAT IS CHEATING. Try thinking for yourself. So far, you have been working from a very well-worn cheat sheet.

Uhhhhhhh,

Oh so suddenly I know more about the Gnostics than the Gnostics themselves!!!!

Wow that is great Beth. What I have put down here is what they TEACH. What there BELIEF SYSTEM IS. It is not some statement that I just blew out my butt to sound smart.

My interpretation of the Gnostic bears little or NO Truth to what they actually believe or practice.

Just like when you take the Bible and spread false doctrines on it because you think your mind is stronger than God's Church!

Please point out where I put down misleading info on what the Gnostics believe I am curious.

[Tab]

She's referring to the "Man created God in his image" quote which flew right over your head. Maybe that flew over your head too. Apparently a lot of things do. Like the scripture. :3

[Beth]

timeless,

Hey there![]

The biggest problem we have with all of this, is that we are so long removed from the time period.

First of all,  

quote:"Says Tacitus around 115 A.D., in Annals, XV, 44: "Christus [the Latin spelling of "Christ"], from whom the name [Christians] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty [crucifixion] during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate...."

this quote could have been written for at least 3 reasons. 1) written at a later date to "provide evidence" that Jesus was really crucified, 2) to justify more persecutions by Roman rule (they didn't learn it the first time kinda thing) or 3) to try and stop Nero from further persecutions (which were totally devestating and beyond our comprehension today) by establishing that the error had already been corrected. BUT--bottom line, we don't know which it was...

Next,  

quote:is an anagram (a word made by transposing letters) for the Greek word "parthenos" meaning "virgin"!

Perhaps, but still "virgin" did not necessarily mean "without having the hymen breached" but rather, just an "unmarried woman."  Priestesses in the temple were "virgins" but were often used in "procreating" a certain bloodline.  So while they were certainly protected from intercourse with just anybody, they were more importantly unwed.  

During ancient times, there were not laws protecting the rights of women.  The raping of women was very commonplace, and yet was also a serious source of shame for them.  But, as a usual rule, there was no real punishment for a rapist, even if he did get brought before the governors.  

So, "virgin" was a "protected" woman, usually kept safe in religious temples.

quote:Jewish idiom into PANDERA

That may also be true, but in the Hebrew language a combination word can be formed from this: PAN="for the aversion of" and DERA="object of abhorrence"
SO, PANDERA could also mean "aversion for an object of abhorrence", i.e. Jesus as the Messiah.

This does not prove or disprove the existence of Jesus.  But back to your initial question, there is NO physical evidence that Jesus as a man ever existed.

It is important to state here, that there were many Jews around this time claiming to be the Messiah--which in Greek is "Christos."  So, the first quote could be talking about any of these messiahs, and there were even two (that we know of) differenet messianic figures that were known as "Jesus."  People oftentimes took "names" that would fit their calling, or lend credence to their words, and this was no exception...Jesus means "salvation" or perhaps better put in its verbal form "to save, or to deliver" and all messianic figures were offering that...

Peace,
Beth

[Beth]

This thread has been set up specifically for debating the issues brought forth in this section of World Religions.

Please keep all debates in this thread, so the individual threads can remain open for discussions!

Thank you!

Beth