Which version of Christianity is the right one?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
01-03-2014, 01:45 PM
RE: Which version of Christianity is the right one?
(01-03-2014 11:28 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  From the idea that people had that life eminated from the sun you get words like "origin" and from the colour of the sun you get "orange" and "aura".

Right, I'm too lazy to check everything you just said, but this here? This I know off-hand.

That isn't true.

The word 'orange' comes from a Dravidian word meaning 'fruit'. The reference to colour comes from the fruit, replacing the old English word yellow-red. So there's that. No connection whatsoever to 'origin'; no connection whatsoever to 'aura'; no connection whatsoever to the sun.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 01:52 PM
RE: Which version of Christianity is the right one?
OMG.
Another "connecting the imaginary dots" guy.
Weeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 04:07 PM
RE: Which version of Christianity is the right one?
(01-03-2014 11:18 AM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  The Gospel of John did surface around the time of the Gospels of Thomas, James and Philip, works that date to approximately 2 AD.

While previously disregarded as heretical, these documents are as hotly debated as the Q Source was in the 60's and late 70's, when the Nag Hammadi scriptures were translated, having been discovered in 1945.

Canon or not, they're still relevant to the canonization of early Christian orthodoxy. The fact that they're lesser known and popularly considered of questionable legitimacy is telling as well, as they were not included due to a schism in doctrine, and have been relegated to the fringes of Christianity. Which is ironic, since they're legitimate sources, and studied by well-respected researchers such as Marvin Meyer http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Meyer

The idea of "God as a verb" in Coptic texts comes from the early Christian ideas in which God was a word explaining the universe. Seraphim were short phrases, Cherebub short sentences, and on down. It was thought that the more knowledge one attained, the closer they became to knowing God.

It's unfortunate this idea has largely been discarded.

I think you meant the second century, did you not?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 04:36 PM
RE: Which version of Christianity is the right one?
(28-02-2014 08:47 PM)Drich Wrote:  
(28-02-2014 04:08 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "A primary source is a document or physical object which was written or created during the time under study. These sources were present during an experience or time period and offer an inside view of a particular event. Some types of primary sources include:
ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS (excerpts or translations acceptable): Diaries, speeches, manuscripts, letters, interviews, news film footage, autobiographies, official records
CREATIVE WORKS: Poetry, drama, novels, music, art
RELICS OR ARTIFACTS: Pottery, furniture, clothing, buildings" (Prineton University)

"What is a secondary source?
A secondary source interprets and analyzes primary sources. These sources are one or more steps removed from the event. Secondary sources may have pictures, quotes or graphics of primary sources in them. Some types of seconday sources include:
PUBLICATIONS: Textbooks, magazine articles, histories, criticisms, commentaries, encyclopedias
Examples of secondary sources include:
A journal/magazine article which interprets or reviews previous findings
A history textbook
A book about the effects of WWI " (Princeton University)

Yes, my references are secondary sources, yet they quote primary sources.
Ahhh, no.Laugh out load
Oh, wait you forgot one:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


A tertiary source is an index and/or textual condensation of primary and secondary sources.[1][2][3]

Some examples of tertiary sources are almanacs, guide books, survey articles, timelines, and user guides. Depending on the topic of research, a scholar may use a bibliography, dictionary, or encyclopedia as either a tertiary or a secondary source.[1]

As tertiary sources, encyclopedias and textbooks attempt to summarize and consolidate the source materials into an overview, but may also present subjective commentary and analysis (which are characteristics of secondary choices).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertiary_source

So EVERY Time one of your "Secondary Sources" quotes another source It makes it a Tertiary source. Tertiary sources are commentary/Speculation on actual reference material.

That means websites like :
Infidels.org
Bible.ca
Nazareneway.com
WIKI
Wordpress
NTCannon.org
Blogs
The Real Chruch.com
New Advent.com
Firstnt.com
Carm.org
ccel.org

are all Tertiary sources. Like it or not. (Which is why I suspected you left that particular definition out of your argument, even though I clearly identified the vast majority of your source material as tertiary in my last post.)

You playing to your peers to try and save face. Your hoping that they are as ignorant as you were coming into this argument which is why I suspect that you left the definations for them.

You my friend are what we call (as witnessed by your actions and not just name calling) Intelectually dishonest.

The two secondary sources you have are Catholicism.Org (which does not work, but I am giving you the benfit of the doubt that the link was not tied to some commentary) and the link at Stanford.Edu which did not actually support your personal conclusions.. (In that you did not personally think that a philospher could not be a student of the sciences, and hold fast to religious beliefs) This ignorance does not take into account the subjects time period. again the article you quoted did not support your commentary, only that the subject was not a student of the sciences.. (Which BTW 'sciences' were little more than an Anti God movement in the subjects time, and have very little crediblity.)

Your sources have failed, and all your work is meaningless in this discussion as it does not address ANY of the points I made with my Tertiary arguments. You are simply comparing notes. and hoping not to get called on a verbosity fallacy.

Quote:If you actually read my article, you'll see there are at least 50 primary source quotes.
Laugh out load Your a fool or your hopping I'm one. Don't let the spelling fool you old sport. It's a tool to help flush out dishonest people.

Quote:Most of your secondary source references are inferior in quality and, what's more, don't back up your claims.
Laugh out loadLaugh out load Then please by all means lets go point by point. (oh and they are not all secondary sources, most of what has been quoted I Identified as tertiary sources..) That is how a wise argument is constructed. Establish an idea or foundation with commentary then add supporting data to consolidate the assertions when questioned.
Something you don't want/can't do
Quote:"Argumentum verbosium is a form of Argument from Intimidation - in this case, by being incredibly verbose, using a plethora of complex words to make one's self sound incredibly smart, and dazzle the opposition. The opposing side will struggle to understand what is being said, and appear to "lose" the debate."

My article is a five minute read on what is a complicated topic. If you feel intimidated by it, that's only because you lack the intellectual capacity to digest anything complex.

So much for your pathetic effort at "raising the bar" by doing a few random google searches!
What makes your commentary a logical fallacy is your differal to needless complexity. You are not only quoting tertiary sources you are attempting to present your own mess as if your mess were some standard in of itself. which is laughable. Why? Because your tertiary sources ALREADY Quote secondary and Primary source material. Your mess if a 4th level or incarnation removed from the actual 'proof.' Youre making a copy, of a copy (with commentary,) of a copy(with more commentary) adding your own spice and still have the chutzpah to pretend that your garbage is not some personal abomination or rant against the bible/Church/God... That it has some sort of legitmate angle to it..

Again, No.

I rightly identified your fail sources in the beginning. I rightly identified the Argumentum verbosium that you have employed to try and save face and I even challenged you to go line by line and dispel my tertiary material rather than backing your dump truck, and dumping of logical fallacy all over my thread.. Your response?

To call me names and pray your peers are idiots and that you will 'win' this debate based on popular opinion.
Drinking Beverage

You have tried to turn a discussion about the origin and legitimacy of the Bible into a discussion of what is a primary, secondary or tertiary source...you're just avoiding discussing the real issues. You're also lying by implying your spelling mistakes are deliberate. You also can't be bothered fixing, or getting someone to fix, your grammatical errors.

If you start to stick to the topic, correct your spelling and grammar so we don't have to guess what you're trying to say, and start being honest, we can debate. Otherwise....sod off.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Mark Fulton's post
01-03-2014, 04:53 PM
RE: Which version of Christianity is the right one?
(01-03-2014 10:06 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(24-02-2014 03:37 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  No.

You're no representative of "biblical Christianity." You're just spouting your own feel good nonsense. You appear to know nothing of the history.

The bible was written to control people. That'a all there is to it. It's propaganda. Promise the plebs heaven, threaten them with hell, and then tax their income. It's a licence to make money.

The reason there are so many denominations is that over the years many people didn't like being controlled by other Christians, so created their own little empires.

You're repeating the pattern with "your" (terribly unoriginal) interpretation, and your patronising, narcissistic attitude..."If you want to ask me a question feel free to Pm me or E/M me. I will not speak of it to anyone." You think you're a shining light, yet you're just another thoroughly brainwashed sheep desperate for some recognition.

While I agree with you that the bible was written for political purposes I think it can be interesting, if one is interested at all in such things, to look at it once it has been demystified. I happen to agree with Joe Atwill, as you know, that it was written by Jospephus (and possibly others) and I also believe (it appears, controversially) that if it was written as Joe Atwill says, after the conclusion of the Roman war against the Jews was concluded, that the figure of Jesus of Gamala is the most likely candidate as the priest who was crucified and taken down from the cross.

I think this is significant because of what is said a the beginning of the Gospel of John, that the notion of "god" is the same as the "word". This suggests a religion which actually doesn't preach what is typically said of it. I think the NT is written very cryptically. For instance, I sat down a while ago and did what Joe Atwill did with the resurrection stories in the gospels and it blew me away. It is obvious this is someone playing games because each one is completely different and in very central ways. Christianity supposed to be a proseletysing religion. In one Gospel Jesus tells the disciples to go abroad and spread the word. In another he tells them not to and to "tarry" in Jerusalem. The stories are mutally exclusive. In one Mary sees Jesus, in another she doesn't. Regardless of the intertextual theory of Atwill, whoever "put" this together knew that these were different.

My guess is different from Atwill. He says the Flavians knew the joke. I don't think so. I think the joke was on them. I believe, although I haven't had time to research this, that Josephus was a friend of Jesus of Gamala and he deliberately wrote these contraditions into the bible to say to people who could figure it out, that it wasn't to be taken as truthful at all. It was written in such a way that eventually it would all unravel. That is why it was only possible to read the bible in Latin until the reformation.

Anyway, the part about "the word" is significant. There is a psychological theory called "logotherapy" attributed to Viktor Frankl who was a concentration camp survivor http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/frankl/frankl.html

Frankl was a camp psychiatrist and helped prisoners by getting them to look at their "purpose". He had a 100 % success rate in preventing suicides which is a paradox considering where he was...

The point is that this concept of examining one's purpose, one's meaning, one's logic or logos may, I theorize, be at the center of the teachings which are in the NT. Pagan gnosticism ideas are similar to Buddhistic/Vedic ideas in that in Buddhism the starting point is to understand that at the center of our understanding of the human condition is "anxiety" and that the path out of anxiety...about life, about anything, is to be mindful, to consider one's condition, to examine one's purpose.

Perhaps that is simplistic but if one looks at the NT idea of the "word" as being central, it is a very profound message and one worth considering on its merits rather than as being bound to a godman and resurrection. Some things one has to put down to simple ignorance but the idea of dealing with one's anxiety by embracing and loving one's purpose in life is very profound. I think by writing the bible the way it is so that intelligent people would eventually see it was a fiction, whoever (Josephus) wrote it anticipated that we would discover that he was only talking about a real person and a philosophy of life that he shared with that person, ie., gnostic vedism in which one found release from anxiety by way of embracing one's purpose and loving others as one loves oneself.

RE
"I sat down a while ago and did what Joe Atwill did with the resurrection stories in the gospels and it blew me away. It is obvious this is someone playing games because each one is completely different and in very central ways."

I think you, and Joe, have failed to grasp an important point, which is this.

Numerous people, mostly anonymous, edited each Gospel, during at least a 200 year period, so it’s impossible to genuinely accredit one person with the sole authorship of any of the canonical accounts. There was no such thing as a printing press, so in the first few hundred years of each Gospel’s existence, translators, editors, in- terpreters, and interpolators altered the original writings by adding or subtracting whatever they thought might be useful. So the dates that are commonly given for the authorship of each Gospel (rang- ing from 70 CE to 180 CE) are only of limited usefulness, as they can only be thought of only as when the first drafts were composed. (http://www.maplenet.net/~trowbridge/NT_Hist.htm). It was only in the later fourth century that the Gospels finished evolving.

So if you're going to nitpick the wording of the four resurrection stories and put them together into a coherent whole, as Atwill has tried to do, you're going to have to to assume that the resurrection stories were seriously edited in the fourth century. That may have been the case, but Atwill doesn't admit that.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mark Fulton's post
01-03-2014, 04:58 PM
RE: Which version of Christianity is the right one?
(01-03-2014 10:06 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(24-02-2014 03:37 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  No.

You're no representative of "biblical Christianity." You're just spouting your own feel good nonsense. You appear to know nothing of the history.

The bible was written to control people. That'a all there is to it. It's propaganda. Promise the plebs heaven, threaten them with hell, and then tax their income. It's a licence to make money.

The reason there are so many denominations is that over the years many people didn't like being controlled by other Christians, so created their own little empires.

You're repeating the pattern with "your" (terribly unoriginal) interpretation, and your patronising, narcissistic attitude..."If you want to ask me a question feel free to Pm me or E/M me. I will not speak of it to anyone." You think you're a shining light, yet you're just another thoroughly brainwashed sheep desperate for some recognition.

While I agree with you that the bible was written for political purposes I think it can be interesting, if one is interested at all in such things, to look at it once it has been demystified. I happen to agree with Joe Atwill, as you know, that it was written by Jospephus (and possibly others) and I also believe (it appears, controversially) that if it was written as Joe Atwill says, after the conclusion of the Roman war against the Jews was concluded, that the figure of Jesus of Gamala is the most likely candidate as the priest who was crucified and taken down from the cross.

I think this is significant because of what is said a the beginning of the Gospel of John, that the notion of "god" is the same as the "word". This suggests a religion which actually doesn't preach what is typically said of it. I think the NT is written very cryptically. For instance, I sat down a while ago and did what Joe Atwill did with the resurrection stories in the gospels and it blew me away. It is obvious this is someone playing games because each one is completely different and in very central ways. Christianity supposed to be a proseletysing religion. In one Gospel Jesus tells the disciples to go abroad and spread the word. In another he tells them not to and to "tarry" in Jerusalem. The stories are mutally exclusive. In one Mary sees Jesus, in another she doesn't. Regardless of the intertextual theory of Atwill, whoever "put" this together knew that these were different.

My guess is different from Atwill. He says the Flavians knew the joke. I don't think so. I think the joke was on them. I believe, although I haven't had time to research this, that Josephus was a friend of Jesus of Gamala and he deliberately wrote these contraditions into the bible to say to people who could figure it out, that it wasn't to be taken as truthful at all. It was written in such a way that eventually it would all unravel. That is why it was only possible to read the bible in Latin until the reformation.

Anyway, the part about "the word" is significant. There is a psychological theory called "logotherapy" attributed to Viktor Frankl who was a concentration camp survivor http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/frankl/frankl.html

Frankl was a camp psychiatrist and helped prisoners by getting them to look at their "purpose". He had a 100 % success rate in preventing suicides which is a paradox considering where he was...

The point is that this concept of examining one's purpose, one's meaning, one's logic or logos may, I theorize, be at the center of the teachings which are in the NT. Pagan gnosticism ideas are similar to Buddhistic/Vedic ideas in that in Buddhism the starting point is to understand that at the center of our understanding of the human condition is "anxiety" and that the path out of anxiety...about life, about anything, is to be mindful, to consider one's condition, to examine one's purpose.

Perhaps that is simplistic but if one looks at the NT idea of the "word" as being central, it is a very profound message and one worth considering on its merits rather than as being bound to a godman and resurrection. Some things one has to put down to simple ignorance but the idea of dealing with one's anxiety by embracing and loving one's purpose in life is very profound. I think by writing the bible the way it is so that intelligent people would eventually see it was a fiction, whoever (Josephus) wrote it anticipated that we would discover that he was only talking about a real person and a philosophy of life that he shared with that person, ie., gnostic vedism in which one found release from anxiety by way of embracing one's purpose and loving others as one loves oneself.

RE
"My guess is different from Atwill. He says the Flavians knew the joke. I don't think so. I think the joke was on them. I believe, although I haven't had time to research this, that Josephus was a friend of Jesus of Gamala and he deliberately wrote these contraditions into the bible to say to people who could figure it out, that it wasn't to be taken as truthful at all."

Have another think about this. It doesn't make sense, because Josephus was the Flavians number one fan boy. Josephus would not have played a joke on his friends and patrons.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 05:12 PM (This post was last modified: 01-03-2014 06:16 PM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: Which version of Christianity is the right one?
(01-03-2014 10:06 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  
(24-02-2014 03:37 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  No.

You're no representative of "biblical Christianity." You're just spouting your own feel good nonsense. You appear to know nothing of the history.

The bible was written to control people. That'a all there is to it. It's propaganda. Promise the plebs heaven, threaten them with hell, and then tax their income. It's a licence to make money.

The reason there are so many denominations is that over the years many people didn't like being controlled by other Christians, so created their own little empires.

You're repeating the pattern with "your" (terribly unoriginal) interpretation, and your patronising, narcissistic attitude..."If you want to ask me a question feel free to Pm me or E/M me. I will not speak of it to anyone." You think you're a shining light, yet you're just another thoroughly brainwashed sheep desperate for some recognition.

While I agree with you that the bible was written for political purposes I think it can be interesting, if one is interested at all in such things, to look at it once it has been demystified. I happen to agree with Joe Atwill, as you know, that it was written by Jospephus (and possibly others) and I also believe (it appears, controversially) that if it was written as Joe Atwill says, after the conclusion of the Roman war against the Jews was concluded, that the figure of Jesus of Gamala is the most likely candidate as the priest who was crucified and taken down from the cross.

I think this is significant because of what is said a the beginning of the Gospel of John, that the notion of "god" is the same as the "word". This suggests a religion which actually doesn't preach what is typically said of it. I think the NT is written very cryptically. For instance, I sat down a while ago and did what Joe Atwill did with the resurrection stories in the gospels and it blew me away. It is obvious this is someone playing games because each one is completely different and in very central ways. Christianity supposed to be a proseletysing religion. In one Gospel Jesus tells the disciples to go abroad and spread the word. In another he tells them not to and to "tarry" in Jerusalem. The stories are mutally exclusive. In one Mary sees Jesus, in another she doesn't. Regardless of the intertextual theory of Atwill, whoever "put" this together knew that these were different.

My guess is different from Atwill. He says the Flavians knew the joke. I don't think so. I think the joke was on them. I believe, although I haven't had time to research this, that Josephus was a friend of Jesus of Gamala and he deliberately wrote these contraditions into the bible to say to people who could figure it out, that it wasn't to be taken as truthful at all. It was written in such a way that eventually it would all unravel. That is why it was only possible to read the bible in Latin until the reformation.

Anyway, the part about "the word" is significant. There is a psychological theory called "logotherapy" attributed to Viktor Frankl who was a concentration camp survivor http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/frankl/frankl.html

Frankl was a camp psychiatrist and helped prisoners by getting them to look at their "purpose". He had a 100 % success rate in preventing suicides which is a paradox considering where he was...

The point is that this concept of examining one's purpose, one's meaning, one's logic or logos may, I theorize, be at the center of the teachings which are in the NT. Pagan gnosticism ideas are similar to Buddhistic/Vedic ideas in that in Buddhism the starting point is to understand that at the center of our understanding of the human condition is "anxiety" and that the path out of anxiety...about life, about anything, is to be mindful, to consider one's condition, to examine one's purpose.

Perhaps that is simplistic but if one looks at the NT idea of the "word" as being central, it is a very profound message and one worth considering on its merits rather than as being bound to a godman and resurrection. Some things one has to put down to simple ignorance but the idea of dealing with one's anxiety by embracing and loving one's purpose in life is very profound. I think by writing the bible the way it is so that intelligent people would eventually see it was a fiction, whoever (Josephus) wrote it anticipated that we would discover that he was only talking about a real person and a philosophy of life that he shared with that person, ie., gnostic vedism in which one found release from anxiety by way of embracing one's purpose and loving others as one loves oneself.

RE
"The point is that this concept of examining one's purpose, one's meaning, one's logic or logos may, I theorize, be at the center of the teachings which are in the NT. Pagan gnosticism ideas are similar to Buddhistic/Vedic ideas in that in Buddhism the starting point is to understand that at the center of our understanding of the human condition is "anxiety" and that the path out of anxiety...about life, about anything, is to be mindful, to consider one's condition, to examine one's purpose."

I think to say that it is at the centre of the teachings in the new Testament is taking things a little too far, although I will grant you that Gnostic ideas did make their way into the new Testament. Permit me a little indulgence. I'll share with anyone interested what I've written about gnosticism. It is a bit long but I do think it's interesting (if you're into this sort of thing) (Valentinus was a key second century proponent of Gnosticism)

Valentinus and Gnosticism

The term “Gnostic” is a convenient one for historians, as it packages some very diverse groups into a neatly labeled whole, yet things weren’t that simplistic. The term means “one who knows,” rather than designating a distinct doctrine.

It’s a common misconception that Gnosticism began during the Christian era, yet people who are now considered to be Gnostics existed thousands of years beforehand. Gnostics were, in fact, very eclectic, as they tried to interpret many religious ideologies and philosophies. The Greek philosopher Pythagorus was a “Gnostic,” as was the Jewish philosopher Philo. Mandaeanism was a form of Gnosticism dating from the 4th century BCE that tried to bridge Judaism with Zoroastrianism, and it was very influential on Christianity.

During the Christian era, “Gnosticism” became more of a monolithic movement associated with Christianity, although the term itself was never used until the modern era.

Edward Gibbon wrote that the Gnostics were distinguished as the most polite, learned, and the wealthiest of the early Christians, and that their principal founders were natives of Syria or Egypt. They blended their faith in Christ with many “sublime but obscure tenets,” which they derived from oriental philosophy and even from the re- ligion of Zoroaster, (628–551 BCE) an ancient Iranian prophet, phi- losopher and poet, and others. There were many groups of them, all of which can be considered as proto-Christians. Instead of the four Gospels eventually adopted by the church, the Gnostics produced a multitude of histories in which the actions and discourses of Christ and his apostles were discussed.

Valentinus was a deep thinker. Like Marcion, he believed that Yahweh was a “mistake,” and even thought of him as evil. He be- lieved that the supreme God, who had sent Christ, was someone different, and androgynous.

One of the most important differences between Gnosticism and Catholicism was the removal of the intercessor between God and man. Catholics (even today) are told that they need a priest to per- form absolution from sin and other functions like baptism, communion, blessings, and burials. Gnostics didn’t. As a result, the priesthood felt threatened because the Gnostics did them out of an income and diminished their importance.

The Valentinians participated in the public life of the Catholic Church, yet also held their meetings separately from them. These meetings were open to all interested parties and served to attract potential converts to the movement. Women held positions of authority within his community. Anybody who came to a meeting was seen as potentially spiritual and was made welcome. Tertullian reported:

“They all have access equally, they all listen equally, they all pray equally—even pagans if they happen to come...They also share the kiss of peace with all who come.” (Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter 41.)

Valentinus’ ideas on how things are might be summarized as fol- lows: people from all walks of life recognized that there was some- thing wrong with their lives. Catholic Christians, as well as Jews, recognized that there was a “wrongness” in human existence too, but they accounted for it chiefly in terms of the effects of human sin; that whatever was wrong with the world was the result of human disobedience to the creator. This meant that all evil, discomfort, and terror in their lives and in history were somehow man’s fault. So a theme of “Mea Culpa” ran through this worldview, which perma- nently affixed an element of guilt to the human psyche. Valentinus, in opposition to this, shifted the blame for wrongness in the world from humanity to divinity. That God the creator could be at fault in anything was tantamount to blasphemy in Catholic eyes. Yet Valentinus didn’t view the creator with the worshipful eyes of the Judeo-Christian believer, but rather saw the creator, along with oth- er divinities, as man’s mythical creations. Consider this quote from the Gospel of Philip (http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/gop.html, part of the Nag Hammadi library):
“God created man and man created God. So is it in the world. Men make gods and they worship their creations. It would be fitting for the gods to worship men” (Logion 85: 1–4.)

He believed humans had the potential to resolve the wrongness of their existence by using “Gnosis,” or self-knowledge. He thought that because human minds had lost their self-knowledge, we lived in a world that was lacking in integrity. Knowledge of self was the real resurrection - resurrection from the death of ignorance.

Valentinus would say there was no need for guilt, or for repentance from sin. Nor was there a need for belief in salvation by way of the death of Jesus. We didn’t need to be saved; we needed to be transformed, by Gnosis, the activation of self-knowledge.

The proposition that the human mind lives in a largely self-created world, from whence only Gnosis can rescue it, is common to Buddhism. According to Buddha, the world of apparent reality consists of ignorance and the lack of authentic selfhood.

Valentinus didn’t negate or diminish the importance of Jesus in his teachings, and he claimed to possess a secret oral tradition from Jesus himself, but his Jesus never was the character in today’s gos- pels. Unlike the master/sheep relationship of Christianity, for the Valentinians, Christ was like a brother, a wise teacher who helped them work things out. The great devotion and reverence shown for Jesus is manifest in the Gospel of Truth from Nag Hammadi, (http:// http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/got.html) which in its original form was authored by Valentinus himself. Jesus is indeed a savoir, but the term needs to be understood in the meaning of the original Greek word “soter,” meaning healer, or bestower of health. “Soteria” meant healthiness, deliverance from imperfection, and becoming whole.

The Valentinians believed that all wrongness in the world has one common root: ignorance. We’re ignorant of the authentic values of life, and substitute inauthentic ones for them. These inauthentic values are either physical or of the mind. We believe that we need things (such as money, symbols of power, prestige or physical pleasures) in order to be happy or whole. Similarly, we fall in love with the ideas and abstractions of our minds. The rigidities and the hardness of our lives is due to our attachment to things and concepts. The Gnostics called the sickness of materialism “hyleticism,” (worship of matter) while the sickness of abstract intellectualism and moralizing was known as “psychism,” (worship of the mind/emotional soul.)

Jesus, the soter, the healer-savior, the spiritual maker of wholeness, could exorcise the sicknesses of hyleticism and psychism by bringing knowledge of the “pneuma” (spirit.) They could not say what “pneuma” was, but could indicate what it did. It brought a flexibility and courage to life, so that the soul ceased to be fascinated and confined by material things and ideas and could address itself to life. The obsessive state of material and mental attachments was replaced by spiritual freedom; the inauthentic values of the former were made to give way to more authentic ones.
I thank Stephan A. Hoeller for providing the above insights into Gnosticism.

Wow! The above takes some effort to understand and appreciate, but the ideas expressed are real and powerful. It’s refreshing to realize that nearly 2000 years ago there were people whose thinking was this deep. There are clever minds at work here. These ideas have a very non-Jewish flavor to them. I find it difficult to imagine a Jewish peasant from Galilee such as Jesus entertaining them.

Some decades after Valentinus’ death, Irenaeus began his massive work “Adversus Haereses,” with a highly colored and negative view of Valentinus and his teachings that occupies most of the book.

The Gnostic philosophy was popular, but they were labeled and suppressed as heretics by a Catholic Church more interested in the pursuit of power than in personal profundities. It’s a pity that Valentinus’ Jesus was forced out of circulation. Imagine Christian society today if a Gnostic Jesus story had won the propaganda battle. The focus would be on self-discovery and the acceptance of alternative views! There are good websites and numerous books on Gnosticism for anyone interested (http://www.gnosis.org/nag- hamm/nhlintro.html).
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 05:25 PM
RE: Which version of Christianity is the right one?
(01-03-2014 10:55 AM)toadaly Wrote:  
(01-03-2014 06:39 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  I have come to "believe" that Christianity is much older than the Jesus story and that the clue to it is in the name. The idea of crucifying someone wasn't invented for Jesus. It has a symbolism, otherwise the whole episode would have been incomprehensible. Linguistically, christ is just two syllables, a rolled, deep throat "Chrrr" followed by "Is" with a final "t" which denotes a condition "of" whatever proceeds it as in "colored". for instance. This word is in all language and is the same as "haris" in Sanskrit, "aris" in Greek etc. It simply denotes an old god who the Egyptians called Horus but goes back even further.

Is this your own idea, or is there some source for this? On its face, it makes little sense at all.

Quote:I think it is more important to look at the history of the time, independently of the NT and see what happened and when. For my part, I am satisfied, for the time being, that the Christianity of the new testament is a from of gnosticism which was circulating amongst a Jewish sect at the time and that the NT is a fictionalization of some events involving the Jewish high priest, Jesus of Gamala, who was a real person and who is similar in some ways to Jesus but whose timeline is later than the NT Jesus: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/1st-cen...2013-03-04

It's possible. I'm of the opinion, that the Jesus of the NT is a constructed character composed to undermine the memories of several leaders of the Jewish rebellions. For this to hold, you have to date the Gospels (in finished form) to no earlier than about 132CE. But there isn't anything prohibitting such a dating.

...pay your taxes, obey authority, no need for sacrifices or the temple you would perform them at, your kingdom is not of this earth - this is obvious Roman propaganda addressed to undermine the causes of the Jewish uprisings.

RE
"I'm of the opinion, that the Jesus of the NT is a constructed character composed to undermine the memories of several leaders of the Jewish rebellions. For this to hold, you have to date the Gospels (in finished form) to no earlier than about 132CE. But there isn't anything prohibitting such a dating."

I have the same opinion. The problem is proving it. All we have is circumstantial evidence and "gut feeling."
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-03-2014, 10:32 PM
RE: Which version of Christianity is the right one?
(01-03-2014 01:52 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  OMG.
Another "connecting the imaginary dots" guy.
Weeping

He's a Ralpheite. Or is that an Ellision?

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
01-03-2014, 11:34 PM
RE: Which version of Christianity is the right one?
(01-03-2014 05:25 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  I have the same opinion. The problem is proving it. All we have is circumstantial evidence and "gut feeling."

Most court cases are decided on circumstantial evidence. At any rate, at this point in time, history is not a science, but the art of critical storytelling.

Softly, softly, catchee monkey.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes toadaly's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: