Is the Vatican Jesus different from the Gnostic Jesus?

[dogsgod]

"Authentic" in a religious sense depends on what religion. As for historical, yes some gospels are clearly more historical.

Yes, clearly, those would be the more clearly historical factual gospels, as evidenced by the clearly historical facts contained clearly within. That's why it's called religion.

 

[Oberon]

Thats because they aren't all that interested in History...

They were interested in promoting their particular belief systems (nothing wrong with that) and they used Jesus as a mouthpiece (nothing wrong with that either). But they are hardly useful for determining what Jesus actually said and did (with the exception of Thomas).

if you were studying Hinduism, you would conclude ancient indians had blue skin and rode on flying chariots and were perpetually at war

Funny. My views are in line with scholarly consensus, and you think them worthless, so you give this analogy. Yet I don't see scholars saying the ancient indians had blue skin.

 

[Mr Cheese]

So I guess that counts Marcion out at least, and a few other groups often counted as gnostic.

In the end the whole premise of Gnosticism is that one must gain Gnosis for themselves....

no need for an intermediary, besides agents of the divine...

no church
no priests
Just God

Although Gnostics had/have priests, so they performed a different role...
like mandaean priests, they are keepers of the lore primarily and initiators...
Ultimatly though, the priest is a door opener, it is the initiate that must walk through

We see this allusion in many places, quite clearly in Buddhism where it tells you to abandon your friends and family, as they will hold you back

The Gospel of Thomas of course says the same thing

 

[Oberon]

Yes, clearly, those would be the more clearly historical factual gospels, as evidenced by the clearly historical facts contained clearly within. That's why it's called religion.

And yet, somehow, people who aren't christian still use these gospels as historical sources. Possibly because they aren't completely dependent on google like you and VinDino are.

 

[Mr Cheese]

Funny. My views are in line with scholarly consensus, and you think them worthless, so you give this analogy. Yet I don't see scholars saying the ancient indians had blue skin.

no, because they arent stupid as you.... they know when to look beyond the literalism you seek

Take Mani, his history is known, he was related to the mandaeans in an obscure sect. What is clear though, is Mani's history is secondary...the history of mani is to show who he was, spiritually, not that he had purple socks and said he liked fried rice and mushrooms.

But again, that is something you'll never get, you're stuck like a man who goes to a store, buys a candy bar, studies it...but refuses to eat it.

Words, texts, are great.... but one must go beyond them.

But there is no point, once again, you must gain Gnosis yourself, that is not somethign I can do for you

.........

You yourself must be purifiers and redeemers of your soul, which is established in every place, so that you may be reckoned in the company of the Fathers of Light…of the Kingdom in the New Aeon, in the place of Joy.


–Mani

 

[VinDino11]

One major reason:

Gnosticism clearly says, you dont need the church or priests....

bit of a bummer for them, then!

Nice!

Please can you find the verse?

 

[Mr Cheese]

The same Empire that persecuted Christians compiled their New Testament!

Its History.

:clapIrony doesnt even begin to describe it

 

[Mr Cheese]

Nice!

Please can you find the verse?

here's one....

there are others....

from Thomas (read it all for yourself...)

3. Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you.

When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

34. Jesus said, "If a blind person leads a blind person, both of them will fall into a hole."

42. Jesus said, "Be passersby."

Philip:

The slave seeks only to be free, but he does not hope to acquire the estate of his master. But the son is not only a son but lays claim to the inheritance of the father. Those who are heirs to the dead are themselves dead, and they inherit the dead. Those who are heirs to what is living are alive, and they are heirs to both what is living and the dead. The dead are heirs to nothing. For how can he who is dead inherit? If he who is dead inherits what is living he will not die, but he who is dead will live even more.

 

[dogsgod]

And yet, somehow, people who aren't christian still use these gospels as historical sources. Possibly because they aren't completely dependent on google like you and VinDino are.

Oh, people who aren't Christian still use the gospels as historical sources and those using google instead of the gospels have it all wrong. Religion, gottaluvit.

 

[VinDino11]

here's one....

there are others....

from Thomas (read it all for yourself...)

3. Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you.

When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."

Thanks. I shall read it, all.

 

[Oberon]

Oh, people who aren't Christian still use the gospels as historical sources and those using google instead of the gospels have it all wrong. Religion, gottaluvit.

I use Herodotus and Livy to understand history to, even though they contain myth. Ancient history has to be approached from a critical standpoint with the proper methodology. That's why some people actually spend years studying, and other people just go with whatever they can find on google.

 

[Mr Cheese]

I use Herodotus and Livy to understand history to, even though they contain myth. Ancient history has to be approached from a critical standpoint with the proper methodology. That's why some people actually spend years studying, and other people just go with whatever they can find on google.

History in the end is just opinion....

Watch Rashamon...

 

[Oberon]

History in the end is just opinion....

Watch Rashamon...

It isn't "just" an opinion. It is an informed opinion based on an ongoing interaction between people who have devoted their careers to studying particular parts of it.

It is my opinion that reality exists, and I'm not just dreaming all of what I see and hear and so on. However, it is an opinion formed by sensory data which I happen to trust. History is not as precise as science (good science, anyway). However, it also adheres to methodology, and utilizes particular tools in order to discern the most likely scenerio given the evidence. The historical Jesus is not Jesus as he lived. It is a reconstruction based on examining the evidence and determining what is most likely. How this evidence is judged differs from scholar to scholar, but it is the ongoing interaction that enables progress. And it certainly isn't "just" opinion.

 

[sojourner]

Stop it, this only makes you sound naive and ill-informed! ROTF

Are you trying to bad mouth and belittle Societies such as the Nag Hammadi library?
And that only in their written books do they publish the facts?
Nag Hammadi Library

Can you not see how naive and ill-informed you're sounding? LOL

I suggest you disembark from your comatose ramble trying to diminish your credibility and resume cognitive behavior.

This response was copied outright from your post #60, directed to Oberon. Can't you at least come up with something new?

 

[Oberon]

This response was copied outright from your post #60, directed to Oberon. Can't you at least come up with something new?

That's not fair! The spelling is corrected! At least give VinDino credit for that.

 

[sojourner]

In the end the whole premise of Gnosticism is that one must gain Gnosis for themselves....

no need for an intermediary, besides agents of the divine...

no church
no priests
Just God

Although Gnostics had/have priests, so they performed a different role...
like mandaean priests, they are keepers of the lore primarily and initiators...
Ultimatly though, the priest is a door opener, it is the initiate that must walk through

The Church isn't an "intermediary." The Church is the body of the faithful. BTW, priests really aren't intermediaries, either, in my tradition. But if they "open the door," as you say, wouldn't that put them in an intermediary position?

 

[sojourner]

That's not fair! The spelling is corrected! At least give VinDino credit for that.

funny...
I thought in a subsequent post, in response to your having pointed that out, he disagreed, saying the first spelling was correct.:foot:

 

[Oberon]

funny...
I thought in a subsequent post, in response to your having pointed that out, he disagreed, saying the first spelling was correct.:foot:

Between those two posts, a international council consisting of every linguistic expert in the world gathered and determined that it should be spelt cognitive. As his first post was prior to that council, he was correct. He changed the spelling in light of the new ruling (which you can find with the proper google search).

 

[sojourner]

Between those two posts, a international council consisting of every linguistic expert in the world gathered and determined that it should be spelt cognitive. As his first post was prior to that council, he was correct. He changed the spelling in light of the new ruling (which you can find with the proper google search).

Yeah, but the old spelling is the "gnostic" spelling.:slap:

 

[Mr Cheese]

The Church isn't an "intermediary." The Church is the body of the faithful. BTW, priests really aren't intermediaries, either, in my tradition. But if they "open the door," as you say, wouldn't that put them in an intermediary position?

I'm aware of what the church is...

the key is in exotercism priests are given positions of key holders

In what I am proposing they do not hold keys, for example not letting the masses read the bible..... only perfoming eucharist themselves, not the masses by themselves

etc.

Gnosticism differs in that it allows the lay people to be priests

As we must gain Gnosis for ourselves, not through another