Why has this site seen a huge turn towards Christian shit? It smells waaay off. Like, Russel Brand and all these other influencers turn Christian and this forum becomes overrun with worshippers of the Lord God of Israel via the Jesus psy op.
Why have TPTB decided to shove Christianity down everyones throats and flood boards with Christian bots etc?
Are they trying to strengthen their grip over us spiritually by reinforcing their original deception or what?
There’s good reason to think the opposite actually, that the Gnostic texts (some atleast - the label has been distorted into covering a huge swath of ideologies and groups at this point) predate and color the synoptic/NT texts
Firstly the two largest sources of Gnostic texts are the Dead Sea (Qumran) and Nag Hammadi troves, with the DS Scrolls being provably among the oldest extant manuscripts and secondly the Q Source hypothesis which posits that the 4 synoptic gospels are expansions and elaborations on the original “Sayings Gospel” or Q Source, which has as its most likely candidate the Gospel of Thomas
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source
I don’t know if you quite need to toss out the NT, but you definitely need the ears to hear and the eyes to see from the suggested perspective, which is something Jesus says repeatedly
Jesus does say that repeatedly, but he is paraphrasing the many times YHWH said these things through the prophets, as in:
Deut 29:4 Isaiah 6:9-10 Ezekiel 12:2 Jeremiah 5:21
This (amongst many many other sayings) just corroborates Jesus being the subject/disciple/son of / influenced or inspired by YHWH.
I would just ask you to double check your claim that Gnostic formed part of the Dead Sea Scrolls. References I have checked state that they don't. In fact, http://www.gnosis.org/library/dss/dss.htm would even seem to pit the Qumran and Nag Hammadi finds as competitors on some level. I'm not seeing such a claim on the wikipedia article you linked either..
My rationale for calling the DSS Gnostic is its prominent inclusion of the (lowercase g, “gnostic”) Book of Enoch, otherwise wiped from Church history, bar the Ethiopian Church
There is also the Essene hypothesis which further supports the claim of “gnosticism” wrt the DSS
isn't Enoch apocryphal rather than gnostic?
It seems to predate gnosticism by hundreds of years - perhaps it is a seminal text?
You are correct! Although the term "Deuterocanonical" is helpful to introduce here, as apocrypha is also used in ways that don't pertain to Enoch and that makes everything confusing. Deuterocanon simply means second Canon, which is appropriate.
Additionally, most of the difficult sayings of Jesus quote the book of Enoch. This is important because it tells us that Jews of His day read Enoch, enough to be VERY familiar with it.
Parts of Enoch make it impossible to miss that Jesus was the Promised Messiah, and these parts were written more than 150 years before He was born. It then becomes significant why Jews felt it necessary to remove Enoch from their Canon.
Define apocryphal as you’re using it, because I don’t think those two words are mutually exclusive? Apocryphal just means “not included in the canon”, and considering who selected that canon, it seems logical that {they} would exclude the gnostic texts
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Enoch
Specifically id point you towards:
Edit4edit:
Yeah hence my use of “lowercase g, gnostic” - I don’t mean to link it to the neoplatonists or anything like that
Has nothing to do with gnosticism.
You perpetuate your ignorance.
We know you by your fruit