Gnostic vs. Christianity

Sometimes that too ! Rare, but it happens.

 

Actually it was not until after 1000AD that the celebacy thing for Popes became the rule.

This is one of the reasons why the Eastern Orthadox Church split and their priests have wives to this day. Another reason for the split is because this is when the Popes really started to ramp up the "Speaking for God" thing.

Pontifex Maximus .. Gods emmissary on Earth almost the equivalent of Jesus.

 

Many of the writings attributed to Paul (Ephesians, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Timothy, and Titus) are thought by Biblical Scholars to be fake - not written by Paul, .. but these are still in the Bible.

 

Who knows all this (*)(*)(*)(*). Are there millions of gnostics running around these days? I have not met any. From what I have read they have some crazy ideas. Are you a gnostic?

 

No I am not...

 

You post like a child, “No I don’t…” or “uh uhhhh, Bobby did it…” and your overbearing internet ego is not my style. I don't like dishonest posters which you are.

You are on ignore until you can play nice with the other kids on the playground...

 

Have you got links to those?

 

Run away, DBM. Run away!

 

I always find it funny when people try to offend others over the internet. It's like they are so bored, or so out of touch with life that they think others really care what someone posts on the internet. Has life turned for the worst for some? Is this the only interaction some get? I don't know... Some of you need a hug or therapy!!

WKA - you have never picked up a Bible - I was right and you have not said anything otherwise. And even if you did - I wouldn't believe you regardless, you have already lied like three times... Why would I entertain a liar? On the internet at that? There are PLENTY of others that would take real pleasure in giving me a hard time!!!

Even though I do call them the Peanut Gallery, at least I respect them. I do not respect you. I wouldn't even degrade the Peanut Gallery by putting you within their ranks. Even though we have differences, they do not lie nor decieve. They name call, but it's all in fun (to me)... It's the internet.

They have integrity!!

 

I didn't know you had it in you to be critical of yourself! That's amazing.

 

I know - you forgot the part at the end when it states, "It's all in fun"... Did you see the part about "not taking it serious"... Any of that?

Come on Peanut - if you are going to ATTEMPT to post something about me - at least try to get it right... I mean, it just takes the color out of your Kool Aid when your comment is just wrong, ya know?

Well, you are a Gallery member, so I guess you probably didn't even think about that did you Freeware?

 

Oh, so you could not be critical of yourself? All is good again, then.

 

Funny... I am the only person who has posted that I have made mistakes and posted them. I apologized to kmisho...

You are an unsalted Peanut from a Gallery of NUTS!!!

 

Glad we agree.

Apologizing for a mistake is of course not self-critique. It's regret. With a bit of self-critique you could avoid making mistakes in the first place.

 

See that is what gets you in trouble Freeware. You "think", as do the other Peanuts within the Gallery, that you do not make mistakes and are flawless. You have made, as so the other members, several mistakes. Following complete lunacy to the fatal end and still think that you were right. How is this accomplihsed? Seeing when the boat is sinking and jumping ship for a couple months hiding and not posting thinking that people will forget your incredible blunder.

Weren't you on the alligator bandwagon or was it THE Fail? I could find a grip if I were to look, but I am too lazy...

All I would have to do is go back and find some Grasping posts... You remember Grasping don't you?...

I thought so...

 

A search on the terms 1) "Deutero-Pauline Epistles," and 2)"Pastoral Epistles will produce hundreds of links.

Here the general wiki summary which is quick and easy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_of_the_Pauline_epistles

 

.....and many have disagreed with Vatican II but I give credit to the participants for excluding the nonsense while retaining that which is internally consistent. The excluded gospels should be credited as historical works of literature but there are legitimate questions about dates and authorship, more so than with the included gospels.

Val

 

The only reason it's not cannon is because the people who put the bible together did not see woman as equal. They saw them as nothing but property. So them not wanting it in the bible means nothing......They were already biased, and that is the ONLY reason it was not included.

 

I was thinking the same thing. As St. Peter suggested... He didn't like the thought of letting Mary in, but the other Apostles were like, it's not your choice, it was that of Jesus.

Mary wrote her own book. Within that book she had the closest relationship with Jesus. She also talks about Heaven in detail... What I understand it the Gnostic folks looked at women as equals, as did Jesus...

 

Gnostic doctrine held that the material world was inherently evil; it would stand to reason that people who believed that would also eschew acceptance of divisions based on material differences. In other words, if you believe that the material world is a trap created by an evil god to confuse humanity, why on earth would you suppress people based on physical differences? Differences in core theological concepts can lead to very different results in society.

 

No person featured in any biblical document wrote it themselves. None of the books were actually written by the people named in the title. Even the earliest were written many decades after the death of everyone who was allegedly involved. Gnostics were quite aware of that, by the way, and had a habit of writing "lost books" designed to explain and build support for their theological positions. That was very, very common among philosophers and theologians at the time. That's not to say that there's anything wrong with that particular method of writing, but you should take it with a pound of salt. The authors of such works never seemed to intend for them to be actual historical records.

 

AGREED!!!

I assume that Gnostic followers would hold no positions of power but, look at each other as equal.

It is the Christians who use The Word to gain power and supress others...

 

"Long Since Debunked"? A lot of gnostic works weren't even known to exist until a cache of them were found in 1945. In terms of biblical criticism, that's recent history. Not a lot is known about early Christian gnostics, or their precise practices and theology. It's unlikely that we'll ever be able to build a complete picture of their religious beliefs--we're limited to the incredibly rare examples of their writing that survived. We know for a fact that some works existed because they were referenced by other books, but no copies are known to exist today.

Characterizing the knee-jerk reactions of theologians who don't like the implications is a far cry from "old fake gospels that have long since been debunked". The entire New Testament is historically dubious; these works, while they may be allegorical, are at least as valid an understanding as those books accepted at Nicea. These works represent a fascinating insight into the evolution of Christian theology, and the ways in which the early church branched off.

Correction; they did insert them into Christianity. You just don't accept them. There's a difference between what you accept and the sum total of Christianity. Christianity is many different things to many different people, and it has never been practiced consistently between groups and regions. No one group of Christians owns Christianity, or has the authority to decide what is truly Christian and what is not. That's up to the individual.

That's pretty much what happened. Those books you like to call the New Testament were written by people who pretty much just wrote their own gospel. They attached it to the names of some biblical figures to try to gain credibility, but ultimately these constructed works were either accepted or rejected on the basis of their utility for church leaders. Where would Christianity be if Christians wrote their own Bibles? It would be exactly where it is today, because that's how Christians got the New Testament.

Even the Catholics accept that as true, with their nonsense about divine inspiration behind the authors, even though they were far removed from the events of the story both in time and space.

It's only "obvious" because you've grown accustomed to a particular biblical viewpoint. Many of those works express a more diverse view on Christianity, and it shows in their tone and subject matter. I have to wonder how different Christianity would have been had the early Christians accepted religious diversity rather than seeking absolute theological dominance.

You can pick pretty much any religion and receive that benefit. Maybe you all agree on the name of your god (the rather bland and generic name God), but the nature of God varies substantially by denomination and location.

 

Nowhere in the conventional Gospels does it say or even imply that Mary was a whore.

 

People are people. They'll develop hierarchies. I would venture a guess that gnostics would divide themselves based on understanding and acceptance of gnostic doctrine, not based on physical characteristics so much. "I know more than you do, so I deserve authority," rather than "You're a woman, so you're inherently inferior."