Paul was a gnostic

[lifegazer]

It is really hard to have a discussion with you lifegazer. You lack so many fundamentals yet you come here and act as if you are some expert. You don't even understand the definition of faith. You don't comprehend that different religions are different faiths. You don't have a rudimentary understanding of the history of theology. And that is fine if you want to come here and a have a discussion with a non-authoritative perspective. The problem is that you do have that perspective so from the start we have to deal with your ignorance. And you won't even make the attempt to educate yourself on the issues you are discussing. You simply make unfounded assumptions. Whatever gazer.

Yeah whatever.
You haven't go a clue what a gnostic is. I can assure you now that ~faith~ plays no part in a true initiate of gnosticism.
Stop lecturing me about what I know and what I don't know. You play the same tune every thread.

This thread invites discussion on whether the true message of Jesus was that given by gnostics or literalists. It also invites discussion on the ramifications for [literal] christianity given that gnostic christianity was what was meant to be preached.

If you aren't interested, then don't take part. Simple.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Address the X & Y scenario seriously and you'll have your answer. True christianity was given as 'X' - not 'Y'.

So because you've discovered an old form of "true" Christianity we should all ignore the very real existence of the current forms of Christianity and their very real influence on the world around us? And yes, I realize what 'X' and 'Y' represented.

Evasive. The scenario served a constructive purpose.

What would that be? It only illustrated a concept of religious morphology found in many textbooks. Have I denied at any point that Christianity has changed over the centuries since Jesus? (See thread Misquoting Jesus) Again, this argument doesn't explain why modern Christianity and its influence should not be addressed, or why Gnosticism is any more "true" than orthodox Christianity. If 'X' were a flying pink unicorn and 'Y' was a flying purple unicorn then 'X' would be a more accurate description of what Lg said. But it doesn't follow that 'X' is real and 'Y' is unreal.

Gnostics believe in just one god.

Please provide some evidence of this.

Evasive and irrelevant remark.

No, just sarcastic.

Immature remark.

I thought it was spot on.

You don't have to talk to me about this subject if you don't want to.

I want to, but it seems you will only accept complete agreement as valid discussion.

I really can't be bothered unless you keep it serious.

Hence "retard".

Steven

 

[RandFan]

I can assure you now that ~faith~ plays no part in a true initiate of gnosticism.

Wow, now there is killer argument. You sure shut me up. Never mind the dictionary definitions. Your assertion that gnosticism is not a religious belief is silly (faith is belief see definition)

Stop lecturing me about what I know and what I don't know. You play the same tune every thread.

No, I only play the same tune with YOU! Ever wonder why that is?

This thread invites discussion on whether the true message of Jesus was that given by gnostics or literalists. It also invites discussion on the ramifications for [literal] christianity given that gnostic christianity was what was meant to be preached.

There are a number of assumptions in that paragraph that most of us quite rightly feel are unwarranted. There is a large body of work on the early Christian church that suggest there is no "true message". On the contrary, there are a number of messages that are given by those who wrote the New Testament.

See Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why and also Who Wrote The Bible. The last link is a video that deal with both the New Testament as well as the Old Testament.

If you aren't interested, then don't take part. Simple.

I have every right to involve myself. I have every right to critique you. Put me on Ignore if you don't like it. If you can grow up and and get over yourself we can have a good discussion.

 

[SezMe]

This thread invites discussion on whether the true message of Jesus was that given by gnostics or literalists. It also invites discussion on the ramifications for [literal] christianity given that gnostic christianity was what was meant to be preached.

There are a number of assumptions in that paragraph that most of us quite rightly feel are unwarranted. There is a large body of work on the early Christian church that suggest there is no "true message". On the contrary, there are a number of messages that are given by those who wrote the New Testament.

RandFan is spot on here. In addition to questioning "true" I would also like to question "Jesus". There is precious little evidence for the existence of the traditional notion of the Jesus of the Christian religion.

So, lifegazer, there is a lot of fundamental groundwork to be done in this thread before we can get on the the topic you want to pursue. Get to it.

 

[lifegazer]

So because you've discovered an old form of "true" Christianity we should all ignore the very real existence of the current forms of Christianity and their very real influence on the world around us? And yes, I realize what 'X' and 'Y' represented.

On the contrary. I think you should all help to destroy this influence by spreading the news that their religion is flawed... and explain why.

Again, this argument doesn't explain why modern Christianity and its influence should not be addressed, or why Gnosticism is any more "true" than orthodox Christianity.

Gnosticism was the message trying to be conveyed. Orthodoxy is misrepresentation of that message.
If orthodoxy doesn't even report the actual message reported by christ and his followers, then it's claim to be the mediator of Christ's "good news" is rubbish. Simple as that.

If 'X' were a flying pink unicorn and 'Y' was a flying purple unicorn then 'X' would be a more accurate description of what Lg said. But it doesn't follow that 'X' is real and 'Y' is unreal.

The X & Y scenario has nothing to do with 'Lg'. It's an allegory to a more meaningful truth related to the actual content of this thread.

Regretfully, I don't see the point in discussing this further with you. You're just being repeatedly difficult (least offensive word I could think of) - a reflection of inherent anger. Though I have tried my best with you.
Adios.

 

[RandFan]

...there are a number of messages that are given by those who wrote the New Testament.

I should note that there are a lot of things written about Christ that didn't even make it into the bible. Looking at the body of all of the writings it is obvious that there is a lot of contradiction and diversity of belief. Even that which ended up in the Bible is contradictory and has been the source for much controversy. The notion that there exists some text that would be above the controversy and that could somehow show us the "true" meaning of Christs message is silly.

And I have to agree with SezMe. Assuming the man even lived there is no way we can know that he did and said what was attributed to him. And let's keep in mind that much of what is attributed to him was said by others, IIRC.

 

[lifegazer]

RandFan is spot on here. In addition to questioning "true" I would also like to question "Jesus". There is precious little evidence for the existence of the traditional notion of the Jesus of the Christian religion.

So, lifegazer, there is a lot of fundamental groundwork to be done in this thread before we can get on the the topic you want to pursue. Get to it.

A gnostic doesn't even have to believe in the actual existence of Jesus. That's the beauty of gnosticism. In fact, pagan gnosticism (gnostics existed all around the Med. Sea long before Jesus supposedly was alive) was all myth-based stories used as allegories which pointed towards spiritual truth.
Indeed, the book I mentioned in the OP argues that the story of Jesus was just that - a myth.
I actually happen to think that he did live, but that's a different argument for another thread... and isn't relevant here.

At the end of the day, I'm not asking any of you atheists to join a religion; I'm merely informing you of facts that should have an impact upon the way you think and act in the future.

I don't mind if you don't take christian-literalists seriously... but since you know very little about gnosticism or biblical allegory, you should watch your step if you ever encounter a gnostic.

Do you know that most of the Greek philosophers were gnostics? No bull.

 

[Foster Zygote]

And let's keep in mind that much of what is attributed to him was said by others, IIRC.

And let's keep in mind that Paul never actually met Jesus so it's difficult to assert that his version was the "true" Christianity.

Steven

 

[lifegazer]

I should note that there are a lot of things written about Christ that didn't even make it into the bible. Looking at the body of all of the writings it is obvious that there is a lot of contradiction and diversity of belief. Even that which ended up in the Bible is contradictory and has been the source for much controversy. The notion that there exists some text that would be above the controversy and that could somehow show us the "true" meaning of Christs message is silly.

What a fool.
Now shut up and listen and learn...
What's included in the NT is a consequence of biblical literalists being the authority on such things.
What's not included in the bible are mostly GNOSTIC texts which allude to a truth which literalists claim is heretical.
The reason why there is some contradiction amongst the included text, is that the text is allegorical and NOT historical.

WTF do you think I've been trying to say all evening?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Meffy]

since you know very little about gnosticism or biblical allegory

Verily, it is written that since you know very little (next to nothing, actually) about what any of us knows or does not know, maybe it's you who should watch your step, lest thy shoes become soiled with thine own spoutings.

WTF do you think I've been trying to say all evening?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Something along the lines of "I'm right! You're a buncha reee-tards." Why not throw in a racial epithet along with the infantile insults next time?

 

[Foster Zygote]

I'm tempted to take the OP to a Christian forum and watch their reactions... but I really can't be bothered tonight.
Was hoping for some extensive decent discussion from this. I guess atheists really don't give a ****. Sobeit.

Man, I would pay to see that! I'm sure you would get lots of extensive, decent discussion from them. You'll no doubt soon convince them of their error and then they'll convert in large numbers. Please let us know if you do this so we can watch.

Steven

 

[lifegazer]

And let's keep in mind that Paul never actually met Jesus so it's difficult to assert that his version was the "true" Christianity.

Steven

Paul met Christ in his mind... where Christ actually exists.

Anyone who claims to know about such things would surely know that meeting Christ isn't a case of meeting a bloke down at the pub for a pint of lager and a packet of crisps.

 

[Meffy]

I met Godot. It's true!

 

[RandFan]

What a fool.
Now shut up and listen and learn...

Riiight, your telling ME to learn?

What's included in the NT is a consequence of biblical literalists being the authority on such things.

The authors and editors were not monolithic and most certainly not in agreement.

What's not included in the bible are mostly GNOSTIC texts which allude to a truth which literalists claim is heretical.

There was no monolithic Gnostic movement. There is no Gnostic text that unifies or clarifies Christian beliefs. The underlying themes might seem unified in their difference to the text that is included in the Bible but that is the extent of it.

The reason why there is some contradiction amongst the included text, is that the text is allegorical and NOT historical.

It's not that simple. Much of it wasn't written allegorically. Unlike the OT much of the NT about Christ's life was supposed to be historical. The Gnostic writing simply contradict much of the other writings. There is nothing to demonstrate that they are significantly more important or more in-line with what Christ believed.

WTF do you think I've been trying to say all evening?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If you would get over yourself perhaps you could learn something.

 

[lifegazer]

Wow, now there is killer argument. You sure shut me up. Never mind the dictionary definitions. Your assertion that gnosticism is not a religious belief is silly (faith is belief see definition)

A true initiate of gnosticism does not 'believe' that he knows the truth... nor does he have 'faith' that what he knows is true. He just KNOWS that it is true.
You're trying to argue that absolute faith & absolute knowledge mean the same thing. It doesn't wash.
And I don't give a monkies what dictionaries say. Since when were the publishers of dictionaries the absolute authority upon everything?
What's important is that a literal christian has faith that Christ lived and can save him... whereas a gnostic christian knows christ lives [within his own being] and that he has been saved.

If you cannot fathom the distinction, then that's your problem. I'm not wasting precious time arguin the toss with you.

There is a large body of work on the early Christian church that suggest there is no "true message".

Cite that work - and the relevant text - and I will address it.

I have every right to involve myself. I have every right to critique you. Put me on Ignore if you don't like it. If you can grow up and and get over yourself we can have a good discussion.

We can't have a good discussion if you parrot the same negative conclusions in every thread.

Regardless, it's apparent you need to do some homework if you want to be serious about this thread. It's obvious to me that you know nothing of gnosticism, save dictionary definitions.

 

[RandFan]

A true initiate of gnosticism does not 'believe' that he knows the truth... nor does he have 'faith' that what he knows is true. He just KNOWS that it is true.

Based on what theory? Is this knowledge objective? If it isn't then it doesn't mater what the hell he thinks or believes that he knows it is still belief.

You're trying to argue that absolute faith & absolute knowledge mean the same thing. It doesn't wash.

No, I'm arguing no such thing. However, to clarify, there is objective truth and belief. I don't deal in absolutes.

And I don't give a monkies what dictionaries say. Since when were the publishers of dictionaries the absolute authority upon everything?

So you are making it up as you go along? How can we communicate if words only mean what you want them to mean?

What's important is that a literal christian has faith that Christ lived and can save him... whereas a gnostic christian knows christ lives [within his own being] and that he has been saved.

Sure, you bet. Can you prove that a Gnostic Christian knows that Christ lives?

If you cannot fathom the distinction, then that's your problem. I'm not wasting precious time arguin the toss with you.

What distinction? A belief is a belief. Believing that you know the truth is still a belief.

Regardless, it's apparent you need to do some homework if you want to be serious about this thread. It's obvious to me that you know nothing of gnosticism, save dictionary definitions.

You haven't demonstrated ANY knowledge of gnosticism. Just some claim that Gnostics "knew" the truth. Can you prove that they "knew" the truth? Aside from that you haven't told us little if anything about Gnostics.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Paul met Christ in his mind... where Christ actually exists.

Wow! That's where I met the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Steven

 

[CapelDodger]

I find it hard to care about the politico/religious affiliations of a 1st century tent maker turned hit man turned born again evangelist. We have enough fatheads like that in the here and now.

I feel much the same about Bronze Age goatherds, Neolithic farmers and New Age crystal-huggers. It's all bollocks.

 

[SezMe]

A true initiate of gnosticism does not 'believe' that he knows the truth... nor does he have 'faith' that what he knows is true. He just KNOWS that it is true.

I have to join RandFan - slain by a killer argument. Just.Blown.Away.

And I don't give a monkies what dictionaries say. Since when were the publishers of dictionaries the absolute authority upon everything?

Here I agree with you - linguists are not absolute authorities on everything. But that is irrelevant to this thread.

Words (oh and smilies, I guess) are the only means we have to communicate here, lifegazer. In order for that communication to be a precise and accurate, it is important to use words in a way that has consistent usage between all of us. In turn, that is why dictionary definitions are so important for forum conversations like this. They give us a common ground upon which to build our arguments.

You ought to care about good word usage - says a lot that you don't.

 

[Foster Zygote]

A true initiate of gnosticism does not 'believe' that he knows the truth... nor does he have 'faith' that what he knows is true. He just KNOWS that it is true.

This seems to be a new theological direction for you. Have you converted to Gnosticism? Is this conversion related to the experiments you ran a while back? I've only heard this mentioned by others so I wonder if you could describe those experiments and reveal their results?

Steven