Faith

[raw_thought]

The Gnostic gospels were just as legitimate as any other. Then they got repressed because the ones selected ( by men, not God) facilitated hierarchy and bureaucracy. Something the elites ( Constantine) wanted. The elites did not want the sayings of Jesus that advocated a personal experience of God. They wanted only gospels that preached obedience to authority.

[Greatest I am]

Tell that to Pagels and many other scholars.

If you knew much about the scholarship on Gnosticism, you'd know that a lot of it is highly skeptical of Pagels. And with good reason. Her work on Gnostics has some merit, but her glosses on Christianity are really badly wide of the mark. But you'd actually have to read her -- and to know Christianity -- to know that.

Strawman. Yes, the issue as to whether Jesus was a Gnostic is contentious. I was merely objecting to your accusation that anyone that claimed that Jesus was a Gnostic was ignorant.
Thanks for the ad hominum I actually read her.

She and her books are what got me interested in looking into what else Christianity has lied about and argued against over the years.

Looking into that is what helped me recognize the immorality of the Christian religion.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

The Gnostic gospels were just as legitimate as any other. Then they got repressed because the ones selected ( by men, not God) facilitated hierarchy and bureaucracy. Something the elites ( Constantine) wanted. The elites did not want the sayings of Jesus that advocated a personal experience of God. They wanted only gospels that preached obedience to authority.

I agree completely. Constantine did not want thinking goats, only unthinking sheep.

If you are tracking the jihadists, they are doing exactly what the early church and Inquisition did. With their own style of course.

Regards
DL

[David Handeye]

The Gnostic gospels were just as legitimate as any other. Then they got repressed because the ones selected ( by men, not God) facilitated hierarchy and bureaucracy. Something the elites ( Constantine) wanted. The elites did not want the sayings of Jesus that advocated a personal experience of God. They wanted only gospels that preached obedience to authority.

This is what gnostics always report. Expeling the merchants out of the Temple actually didn't preach obedience to authority.
Constantine did what his mother Elena told him to do, as she converted to Christianity. If she converted to Buddhism, Constantine supported buddhists.

[Immanuel Can]

The Gnostic gospels were just as legitimate as any other.

Nope. You need to read up on textual history. Not only that, you need to read the source material in question. Read The Gospel of Thomas, for example, and then read The Gospel of Matthew. You'll need no great erudition to detect that Thomas is, at most, derivative, and that they actually articulate incompatible structures, purposes and theologies.

Constantine, syncretism, the Pogroms, the Crusades, The Inquisition...those are all issues to take up with the Catholic hierarchy or other members of the political structure. Be my guest.

They have zero to do with actual Christianity.

[raw_thought]

Many academically credentialed scholars disagree with you. Some agee with you. Neither position is ignorant.
Some scholars even say that Thomas predates the other gospels. One reason they give is that Thomas does not include myths and stories. It is only what Jesus said.
To claim that it is not a gospel of Jesus because it is different then the 4 gospels that Constantine let into the Bible is not an argument for its illegitimacy.

[raw_thought]

Constantine and his favourite bishops chose the 4 gospels. That effects ALL of what took over Christianity. It is not just about Catholicism. Read some history.

[Immanuel Can]

You won't know what you're observing unless you have some idea what your subject (i.e. "Christianity") actually involves. If you think Gnosticism is even potentially part of it, you simply don't.

[Greatest I am]

You won't know what you're observing unless you have some idea what your subject (i.e. "Christianity") actually involves. If you think Gnosticism is even potentially part of it, you simply don't.

I agree that Gnostic Christianity can never become a part of the Christianity we suffer today.

It is to that immoral creed to recognize it's errors and return to embracing it's older roots, that being a moral Gnostic Christianity.

Gnostic Christians do not want to be like Christians. We would never lower our moral standards to what Christianity has become. Genocidal son murdering God are not worthy of spit.

Regards
DL

[raw_thought]

I differentiate between true Christianity (what Christ taught) from what it became,Constantine Christianity.

[Greatest I am]

I differentiate between true Christianity (what Christ taught) from what it became,Constantine Christianity.

The jury is still out on the miracle working son of God but if a God then the sacrifice was a scam as God cannot die and Jesus as a part of the Trinity would not be stupid enough to condemn us and then turn around and suicide to reverse his initial condemnation.

I think that Jesus wanted our God to be a son of man.

Who but a man or woman is fit to rule men and women?

That is natural and we are a part of nature.

Regards
DL

[Immanuel Can]

DL:
You only publicly confirm what I said. There is no "Christian" Gnosticism. They're two different beliefs entirely...and as you say, you believe that God as He is described in the Bible is, to use your words, "not worthy of spit."

The defence rests.

[Greatest I am]

DL:
You only publicly confirm what I said. There is no "Christian" Gnosticism. They're two different beliefs entirely...and as you say, you believe that God as He is described in the Bible is, to use your words, "not worthy of spit."

The defence rests.

Your defence is not worth spit.

You go ahead and re-write the history books all you like.

Christianity took the Universality and the demiurge out of the original Catholic/Universal religion and ended up adoring a genocidal son murdering p****.

Regards
DL

[thedoc]

The crucifixion was a show put on by God because mankind was incapable of understanding the sin, repentance, forgiveness and reconciliation thing that had been offered. This gave mankind something to believe in, the book of Job illustrates man's inability to get past the sin/punishment mentality, so God tried to give mankind something they could understand. The failing here is that God constantly over estimates man's ability to comprehend and understand the lessons being taught. God gave man a brain to think with and man constantly fails to use it.

[Immanuel Can]

DL:

Your anger against me is misplaced. I see your arguments, and I know them very well. I have read the sources that have led you to your position. I think they're erroneous. The bottom line: I just don't agree with you. That is all. No hard feelings, as we do not know each other beyond this disembodied voice in cyberspace.

However, regarding what we say against God, the Scriptures you purport to respect say this: "...every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment." (Jesus Christ, Matthew 12: 36)

You may not be willing to hear that from me, but it isn't to me your accounting shall be made.

We shall leave it there, then.