The modern Jews have no legitimate claim to the Israelite bloodline. They claim to have maternal lineage, but that's nothing according to the Torah, which says paternal lineage.
The Pharisees had the closest theology and nearly perfect bloodline.
Paul is an apostle of Christ, is from the tribe of Benjamin and was Roman citizen, Saul was a pharisee and Jesus set him straight. The bible, written by God through men, tells us all that and hides nothing, where do you get your false accusation?
Interesting question. Let me tell you a story, I was travelling from Jerusalem to Damascus one day. And all of a sudden I was blinded for three days after seeing a blinding light. So, my journey was interrupted when I saw this blinding light, and I started communicating directly with a divine voice. And the voice told me Paul "the apostle of Christ" was born Saul of Tarsus in 5 AD in Tarsus, Cilicia, then part of the Roman Empire (now South central Turkey).
And I was amazed. Then I heard another voice which said to me never mind about Paul, aka Saint Paul, aka Paul the Apostle, aka Saul of Tarsus... it's just a fictitious character. It was all made up.
What Paul did changed so many lives for the better.
What a wonderful World we have, and you're telling me we all should give thanks to Paul.
OK. Thanks Paul for a genocide happening right in front of our eyes, for an ongoing war in Eastern Europe where millions of Slavs (most of them Christians) have been killed or maimed, for Burkina Faso where violence has continued to be a massive problem for followers of Jesus, for the killings in Nigeria where attacks on Christians are rampant.
And before I forget, thanks Paul for the situation in Middle East where Israel has bombed 5 countries, in addition to leveling Gaza and destroying or taking over a lot of the West Bank, and where US has sent an armada next to the shores of Iran. Where another war is about to start.
Thanks Paul for Venezuela, Argentina and Chile where the countries are falling into chaos. Thanks for Europe where people can't afford to stay warm in the winter and are freezing to death. And the list can go on and on and on... but enough thanks for time being.
a genocide happening right in front of our eyes, for an ongoing war in Eastern Europe where millions of Slavs (most of them Christians) have been killed or maimed, for Burkina Faso where violence has continued to be a massive problem for followers of Jesus, for the killings in Nigeria where attacks on Christians are rampant. the situation in Middle East where, in addition to leveling and destroying stuff, and where US has sent an armada next to the shores of Iran. Where another war is about to start. Venezuela, Argentina and Chile where the countries are falling into chaos. Europe where people can't afford to stay warm in the winter and are freezing to death.
All because adam and eve broke the ONE AND ONLY rule they had. Everything you list is because humans don't like believing and following God and loving others.
Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both.
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
It seems you have some choice to make.
Either you believe God and the info He gave us or you believe the devils who do nothing but accuse.. I've made my choice.
What is false? and assuming you're saying Paul was not born Saul of Taurus, how do you know it's false? What historical or archeological evidence do you even have this man ever existed?
How about this: Paul of Tarsus, the so-called apostle to the Gentiles, the man credited with spreading Christianity across the Roman Empire, was not simply a convert or a missionary. What if I were to suggest to you he was an intelligence asset working on behalf of Roman imperial interests to neutralize the most dangerous threat the empire had ever faced, Jewish fanaticism?
The Catholic Church and the Jewish people of the Old Testament are one and the same.
The Jews were probably people who originate from what was now known as Switzerland, and once they move into the Middle East they start fighting instantly. The tribe that comes out to the top is the one that renounced polytheism in favor of monotheism and has mastered the art of deception to call themselves "Holy Men"
Israel/yisra'el - "he that striveth with God" aka the struggle of each Christ (life) within all of God (inception towards death).
Is it a state in the Middle East?
A state (life) in the middle (inception towards death) with the free will of choice to incline north; east; west; south. To tempt choice off-center others suggest NEWS to draw ones inclination into circumference.
The people of the Old Testament?
a) God implies singularity...hence each being within implying person aka per (by) son/sonos (sound). Others suggest plurality (people) to tempt ones choice into bondage to a chosen one.
b) New and old imply the test of mind (testament) to ignore the middle aka NOW...ones perception within all perceivable can only work NOW...not before or after.
The kingdom of the Israelites?
There cannot be a plural (isrealite) within the dominating king (singularity)...only each ones FREE will of choice within DOM-inance.
The perpetuation of oneself through another by inter-course for off-spring implies KIN(g) aka the throne aka the SEAT/SEED of God.
Modern jews?
No modern vs future...only presence. No jews (plural)...only jew/you (singular).
I'm open to hearing lots of stuff I disagree with, it's just that if I have a lot of evidence otherwise I don't tend to move because I tend to share the evidence I have. Please speak your peace!
He taught when you do evil, evil comes into you and corrupts your soul. When you do good, good comes into you and brightens your soul and you brighten the world with it. He said the answer is the spark in you.
Why do you say that's contradictory to being all things to all men while remaining subject to Jesus's law?
Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All.". Show me one place where Paul teaches any of these.
Seek, find, troubled, astonished, rule:
"To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life" (Rom. 2:7).
"If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God" (Col. 3:1).
"But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me. The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou knowest very well" (2 Tim. 1:17-18). Not perfect, but reflects the principle.
"We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair" (2 Cor. 4:8).
"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel" (Gal. 1:6). So Paul doesn't use this word much in this sense; but this is probably the most ambiguous word in this verse in Thomas.
"If we suffer, we shall also reign with him" (2 Tim. 2:12); this is probably the closest to the meaning of trouble and astonish.
So a quick check shows it's pretty close. Paul certainly doesn't say you won't find, be troubled, be astonished, or rule. Why would you see the disparity there? I don't want to be obtuse about it. Are you taking the Scriptures about "faith saves" and then assuming that nothing accompanies faith? Some theologians do that, but when Paul says faith saves he stresses all the holy living that accompanies faith too.
I showed you that Paul preaching faith in Jesus was the same as Jesus preaching it
No you didn't. Again here we have a strong disagreement.
Um, maybe you think "believe" and "have faith" are different? Jesus says to believe in him John 14:1, Paul says to believe in Jesus Rom. 3:26. Why do we have disagreement on this?
Why is belief more important than behavior?
Nobody teaches one is more important, they must accompany each other. Professing Christians who act like belief is more important are oversimplifying, and other Christians call that easy believism, greasy grace, and sloppy agape. If you believe, you behave, they always accompany each other. But if you believe like the thief, and have no opportunity to behave other than to do that very important work of confessing, you still get credit for believing and behaving, because you turned from your sins as Ezekiel says.
Why would a loving God send good people to hell just because they were born in the wrong culture and never heard of Jesus?
I answered that's not Christianity according to Rom. 1.
Why does there need to be a second coming if Jesus already accomplished his mission?
Why did Jesus say he would come back, Matt. 24:30? Same answer.
And why do we have to worship Jesus if salvation is supposed to be about God's grace, not about our actions?
I've pointed out that the word "worship" isn't applied to Jesus the same way it's applied to God the Father. The meaning of worship in most cases is the same kind of respect that created beings receive; in a couple cases the meaning of worship is indeed that which is due to God alone, but it is offered to God in Jesus. Here's my deep dive. It's not about "having to" worship Jesus, it's that people are so grateful that they give him a dozen kinds of ordinary respect, and worship God in him. They "get to" worship, it's a joy.
And the standard Christian answer to all these questions is miracle, mystery, and magic.
I apologize on behalf of standard Christians. Our bad. I will be happy to make it up to you.
What's the purpose of exploring Church doctrine. You're not going to convince me of anything that way.
I'm mostly avoiding doctrine and just sticking to interpretation of texts. I gave you two texts about "believing in Jesus", and I presume you see that the same words are talking about the same thing, that doesn't have to become a doctrinal rarefaction.
He who can understand the present, could understand the past.
The present is indeed always capable of interpreting the past (retconning), which is why we are sharing with each other in the present.
They should strive for Mosaic purity so much more that they realize it can't be done except supernaturally (as Jesus and gnostics both agree).
Again I disagree. A lot of Jesus's teachings go against Jewish religious authority.
Correct, and not against Mosaic purity. Jesus and Moses always agree, he proves it's the authorities that are the outliers.
And these Jewish priests teach people to follow the law, to follow the Sabbath, meaning do not work on Saturdays, to obey the law of Moses, to keep all the customs and traditions of the Jewish faith. But according to the Bible, Jesus says, "No, what's important is not following the letter of the law, but following the spirit of God. What matters is the condition of your heart, not whether you perform the correct rituals."
The first is accurate. Jesus said don't work on Sabbath. The second is not, IMHO. He said no letter of the law will depart until everything be fulfilled, Matt. 5. He did disagree with the leaders about what is work on Sabbath, and pointed out that in one sense the Father "works" on Sabbath, meaning that the leaders' view of what "work" is was suspect; but the leaders had added to Moses in a known way (Moses said no labor, the leaders said spitting is labor because it creates mud, that was a spurious, scrupulous addition). I pointed out that Jesus said follow both the letter of tithes and the spirit of mercy, Matt. 23:23. Jesus affirmed temple rituals and told people to follow them, such as cleansing after healing. So Jesus upheld purity, and among the Jews Paul upheld purity too. Do you see texts otherwise? I mean, Hezekiah said something like the last part, but he wasn't quoted on this.
Jesus is essentially rebelling against the authority of the Jewish priests.
I don't see that he ever rebels against their authority; he tells people to obey their rulings but not to mimic their behavior, Matt. 23:2-3. When he disagrees with them it's about questions where people are free to judge opinions, and they called him a rebel because he showed up when their opinions were sometimes foolish.
Nothing wrong with Paul going along with the system.
Then when Jesus goes along with Caesar's tax system, is he shilling for Rome too? Why is it okay when Jesus affirms Rome but not when Paul does? It seems they're both right, they both teach obedience insofar as conscience permits. If Jesus were poor and Paul rich, that shouldn't make a difference as to their message.
And the message he preached served Roman interests perfectly. It neutralized the most dangerous threat Rome faced. It turned potential rebels into peaceful citizens. It transformed a movement that could have ignited empire wide Jewish revolt into a religion of personal salvation that taught submission to earthly authority. Whether Paul was consciously working as an asset or whether he was unwitting tool, the result was the same.
This sounds speculative. Jesus already taught submission to earthly authority, both Jewish and Roman, as I showed. Paul didn't improve on that, he only spread the same message; granted that more efficient spread benefited Rome in some ways, but it also created many more who rejected Caesar worship, which was no benefit to them. But Jesus's preaching of paying Caesar was enough catalyst to "benefit of Rome" that the benefit had already begun. And of course Jesus successfully quelled rebellion for a long time, by taking all the blame for it on himself, literally.
So I still hear a narrative that someone has templated over historical facts that doesn't fit all of them very well. I appreciate your continuing despite my inability to make it click. Maybe there are things you don't like about the Biblical Jesus (or Paul) that you doubt are the real teachings? We can weigh these things according to probability, but that would need to be applied across the board so it might not have the effect desired. But to hear how obvious it is to you that Paul contradicted Jesus, and then not to see it in your statements when there are easy Biblical references otherwise, well, that approach hasn't yet carried the case for me. I appreciate you hearing my sincere questions.
Jesus mission was not to bring a Law, but to demonstrate it. He came to end the need for religion by showing the direct path to divine consciousness. He didn't die for your sins. He died to show sin is illusion. Death is illusion. Separation is illusion. He didn't perform miracles. He demonstrated natural laws that include consciousness as a creative force.
But, Jesus has a message, a message of three components wrapped into one package: recognition, authority and declaration. Jesus said you must know what you are, not believe. His message clearly says: you are a divine spark temporarily housed in a material body. You are not your fears. You are not your failures. You are not the story the world has told you about yourself. You carry the light of the Monad. You do not ask. You do not beg. You do not request. You speak as what you are. As a declaration of what is already true at the deepest level of existence. This is the revolution that Jesus started. This is the truth that has been hidden. This is the power that has always been ours.
On the other hand Paul's teachings are on belief: Faith in Jesus, Predestination (he argues that faith is a gift from God, not something self-generated), Conversion and Belief in the Resurrection.
maybe you think "believe" and "have faith" are different?
Maybe you misunderstood what I said. There were enormous consequences from what Paul did. He radically changed the meaning of faith and religion itself. Before Paul, faith meant lived experience. Faith meant your relationship with the divine that you cultivated through practice, through study, through ethical living. Faith was something you experienced directly. But Paul introduced a new concept. Faith became belief. Faith became accepting certain propositional claims. Jesus is the son of God. Jesus died for your sins. Jesus was resurrected. If you believe these things, you're saved. If you don't believe them, you're damned. This is radically different. This makes debate about theological positions not about lived spiritual experience. Paul also introduced a concept of miracles as explanatory devices. If something doesn't make logical sense, it's a miracle. How was Jesus born of a virgin? Miracle. How did Jesus walk on water? Miracle. How was Jesus resurrected? Miracle. The function of miracles in Paul's theology is to explain away contradictions and inconsistencies. Don't question the logical problems. Don't try to understand it rationally. Just accept it as miraculous. Another major innovation was elevating tradition above scripture. Paul's church, which eventually became the Catholic Church, taught that tradition, the teachings passed down through church authority is more important than the Bible itself. In fact, for most of Christian history, ordinary people were not allowed to read the Bible. The Bible was kept in Latin, which most people didn't understand. Only priests could read it and interpret it because the church taught that if ordinary people read the Bible, they might misinterpret it. They don't have the spiritual authority to understand it correctly. So religious truth comes not from direct study of sacred text but from submission to church authority. The church tells you what to believe and you believe it. That's faith.
among the Jews Paul upheld purity too. Do you see texts otherwise?
Like I said in my previous message Paul's mission was assimilation but not assimilation that destroys Jewish identity. To that extent I agree Paul upheld purity. But, all his innovations serve institutional power. So there 's no issue for Rome. They make religion about control, about hierarchy, about obedience to authority rather than about direct spiritual experience. Now, let me address another question you might have. If Paul was controversial, if there were people who saw through what he was doing, then who wrote the Acts of the Apostles, which presents such a positive picture of Paul? Great question. We don't know for certain who wrote Acts, but we do know that whoever wrote Acts also wrote the Gospel of Luke. They're written by the same author in the same style as part one and part two of a continuous narrative.
Acts is very poor Paul. It presents Paul in the most sympathetic light possible. It shows him as a heroic figure persecuted by Jews, protected by Romans, spreading the faith despite hardships. Now, why would someone write this? Because at this time, there were many people, especially Jewish Christians, who hated Paul. They believed Paul had corrupted the teachings of Jesus. They believe Paul was a traitor who had sold out to Rome.
Jesus already taught submission to earthly authority, both Jewish and Roman
Jesus taught the exact opposite of submission to any authority. Earthly or otherwise. Like I said before, Paul takes Jesus’s message of spiritual autonomy from the Monad and reconstructs it as a message of spiritual submission... a slave of sorts. Let me put this in other words, and I'm going to use a strong word just to highlight the intent, Paul hijacks Jesus's message. Paul took Jesus's message of spiritual autonomy and reconstructed it as a message of spiritual submission. Jesus says “listen to my words”, Paul says “believe me of who Jesus is”.
Later the Roman Empire's adoption of Christianity under Constantine wasn't the triumph of spiritual truth over paganism that Church teaches today. It was the hijacking of a liberation movement and its transformation into a control system. Constantine needed a version of Christianity that would support imperial authority, not undermine it. The Gnostic teachings with their emphasis on individual direct experience and their rejection of external religious authority were completely incompatible with maintaining an empire built on hierarchy and control. The Council of Nicaea in 325 CE wasn't really about establishing the correct doctrine. It was about eliminating any version of Christianity that could make people spiritually independent.
A mystical Christianity teaching direct access to divine power was dangerous. It had to be replaced with submission, with waiting, with placing all power in priests and institutions. The Gospel of Thomas was rejected because it taught the kingdom is within you. The Gospel of Philip was rejected because it taught techniques for transformation. These were not rejected for being false. They were rejected for being too practical, too liberating.
But to hear how obvious it is to you that Paul contradicted Jesus, and then not to see it in your statements
I have never said Paul contradicted Jesus. He is too cleaver to do that. In this reply I used the word hijacked, and I think you can clearly see this in my statements. You are free to disagree with me. But, whether you agree with my interpretation or not, you should at least see that the official narrative has significant problems. Yet, I have a feeling you're going to say "I don't see any problems.".
Jesus mission was not to bring a Law, but to demonstrate it.
Okay, to fulfill what was already brought, yes.
He came to end the need for religion by showing the direct path to divine consciousness.
James 1:26-27 promoted true religion. Jesus contrasted that with vain religion (vain worship), Matt. 15:9, Mark 7:7. The word itself is neutral. I think what Jesus ended is more rightly called legalism.
He didn't die for your sins.
When 1 Cor. 15:3 says "I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures", scholars are agreed that "received" means an oral creed "Christ died for our sins" was circulating formally among the apostles 2-5 years after the resurrection. 1 Peter 2:24 has it, "His own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." There are several theological theories on the meaning, but in addition to nullifying sin he certainly also removed sin from us, bearing the illusion away. These distinctions sound semantic.
He didn't perform miracles. He demonstrated natural laws that include consciousness as a creative force.
Yeah, mostly, because the meaning of miracle has changed. The Bible calls them miracles in the sense of "unexplained". When people know the natural laws he used, they become more "explained", more commonplace and less wondrous. So both he and we perform the unexplained in our eras.
Jesus said you must know what you are, not believe.
I showed you John 14:1 and I don't know your thoughts on it. When Jesus speaks of knowing yourself it's in more of a negative sense, Luke 9:55, but it doesn't contradict the much greater emphasis he places on knowing him, John 17:3 etc. Why would knowing yourself contradict Jesus's statement to believe in God and in himself?
His message clearly says: you are a divine spark temporarily housed in a material body.
Calling it a "spark" isn't clear at all; he obviously taught on the "image" of God in man, Matt. 22:20 ff. He constantly affirmed the covenant reliance on the resurrection of the body and on the difference between this age and the coming age, and those two traditions balanced the temporal and the everlasting. Yes, 2 Peter 1:13-14 speaks of putting off this tabernacle without speaking of what is to come, but I acknowledged the mystery by pointing out that there may not be a conflict between the Christian tradition of general resurrection and the power to manifest as spiritual instead of material-pragmatic. So framing the message this way doesn't seem the "clearest" form.
You are not your fears. You are not your failures. You are not the story the world has told you about yourself. You carry the light of the Monad. You do not ask. You do not beg. You do not request. You speak as what you are. As a declaration of what is already true at the deepest level of existence. This is the revolution that Jesus started. This is the truth that has been hidden. This is the power that has always been ours.
Okay.
On the other hand Paul's teachings are on belief: Faith in Jesus, Predestination (he argues that faith is a gift from God, not something self-generated), Conversion and Belief in the Resurrection.
Jesus taught faith (believing) in himself. The apostles taught predestination, Acts 4:28, in accord with the tradition saying all is foreknown and determined and yet free will is given. Now, you make a distinction between faith being a gift (not the literal language of Eph. 2 though) and faith being something one does, but those are two sides of the same coin. You can't have faith without believing, and you can't have faith without the gift of God being involved (none come unless the Father draws them, John 6:44). So the two always manifest together, implying they are the same thing. Jesus taught conversion, Matt. 18:3, and he taught that he was the resurrection, John 11:25. So I see that if you think that believing and being given faith are contradictory, you'd have a problem, but why would they be contradictory? Whatever man does, God is doing the work of ensuring man does it.
He radically changed the meaning of faith and religion itself.
Still looking.
Before Paul, faith meant lived experience. Faith meant your relationship with the divine that you cultivated through practice, through study, through ethical living. Faith was something you experienced directly.
Faith is tied to that but isn't precisely synonymous. Lately this might be called "faith walk" or "working faith". James 2:18 says we show faith by what we do, so they are different. Yet he emphasizes faith always accompanies this relationship and experience.
But Paul introduced a new concept. Faith became belief. Faith became accepting certain propositional claims. Jesus is the son of God. Jesus died for your sins. Jesus was resurrected. If you believe these things, you're saved. If you don't believe them, you're damned. This is radically different. This makes debate about theological positions not about lived spiritual experience.
"Pistis" is translated both faith and belief. Now, I agree with the criticism that faith is more than propositional trust but involves personal trust in the individual; James 2:19-20 agrees too. And I agree with the idea that it shouldn't be oversimplified, although 1 John gives several simple tests distinguishing saved from damned that are very propositional. But these tests work because they rightly reflect whether the person has the whole relationship or not. What we've corrupted that into is the idea that saying the words is a free ticket and lifestyle is irrelevant, but in the culture your words would be proven by your lifestyle. And Paul didn't change that, it came much later. Debate about theological position isn't very effective (unless it distinguishes the god one believes in from another); experience in Christ's body is indeed everything. But that's why I'm working with you experientially (even as I present texts to you as I experience them).
So on this point, I agree there is a difference between propositional faith and the personal faith Jesus taught, but taking everything Paul said he is not teaching mere propositional faith in Eph. 2 and should not be taken as if he is.
Paul also introduced a concept of miracles as explanatory devices. If something doesn't make logical sense, it's a miracle. How was Jesus born of a virgin? Miracle. How did Jesus walk on water? Miracle. How was Jesus resurrected? Miracle. The function of miracles in Paul's theology is to explain away contradictions and inconsistencies. Don't question the logical problems. Don't try to understand it rationally. Just accept it as miraculous.
Well, the disciples accepted "miracles" in the sense "unexplained", throughout the gospels and indeed as a mark of Jesus's character in secular sources. Obviously some things happen that we don't have explanation for, and even good scientists admit that despite the fullness of the known laws of physics. It would be silly to say Jesus did nothing unexplained because we've found all the explanations, or worse to say it's because Jesus couldn't possibly have used deeper laws we haven't explained yet. It's unclear what you're going for. If you're saying any account of Jesus doing something inexplicable is spurious, that would mean we should talk about whether we understand all the laws of the world or whether there are still unknowns. But if Jesus did rise from the dead bodily, then there's no problem in saying so and calling it a miracle, and raising people from the dead bodily ourselves.
Another major innovation was elevating tradition above scripture. Paul's church, which eventually became the Catholic Church, taught that tradition, the teachings passed down through church authority is more important than the Bible itself.
The Bible was still open canon then. Peter and Jude followed the same rules by which their Hebrew Bible was approved, saying that new Scriptures might arise that were equal to the old; only John was able to discern when the canon closed. Thus if it was passed down from authority (as the OT was) and accepted by many generations of believers, it became a Scriptural teaching; if it didn't, like the Didache (which is very good teaching), it was treated as secondary and often forgotten. Paul rejects mere human tradition, Col. 2:8, like Mark 7:13, but I see he also affirms received tradition, 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:6. But this word, which means "received" or "delivered", also refers to what Jesus received from the Father to share with us, Matt. 11:27, 25:14. I don't see anything about tradition transcending the Bible. After creeds were formed, an impression could be taken that they were regarded as more important than Biblical texts, but good churches affirm they are merely summaries of the inspired Bible. So this sounds like a criticism of medieval Christianity, not of Paul.
In fact, for most of Christian history, ordinary people were not allowed to read the Bible. The Bible was kept in Latin, which most people didn't understand. Only priests could read it and interpret it because the church taught that if ordinary people read the Bible, they might misinterpret it. They don't have the spiritual authority to understand it correctly.
That was a major medieval error, but hardly "most of Christian history" because the disuse of Latin only crept in maybe about the 8th or 9th century, and vernacular Bibles were published from maybe the 12th century on. That really has little to do with Paul.
So religious truth comes not from direct study of sacred text but from submission to church authority. The church tells you what to believe and you believe it. That's faith.
Do you submit to what direct study of sacred text reveals? I've cited much sacred text. We all have personal duty to interpret rightly. But, as with math, the same text gives the same core answers to everyone. If you doubt the view of the majority, you stand on your conscience while also seeking whether a miscommunication or semantic difference might solve the disharmony. Again, the Reformation happened because the medieval church abused the personal duty to interpret (i.e. prohibiting personal interpretation), but the other direction of abuse (i.e. wrong interpretation) is also a problem.
But, all his innovations serve institutional power. So there 's no issue for Rome. They make religion about control, about hierarchy, about obedience to authority rather than about direct spiritual experience.
Reformers have always agreed that institutional power and hierarchy are easily corrupted and need regular auditing.
Because at this time, there were many people, especially Jewish Christians, who hated Paul. They believed Paul had corrupted the teachings of Jesus. They believe Paul was a traitor who had sold out to Rome.
Yes, and those who did believed the same of the other apostles, and treated them the same.
Jesus taught the exact opposite of submission to any authority.
Why did he say to honor everything that comes from Moses's seat, and everything belonging to Caesar?
Paul takes Jesus’s message of spiritual autonomy from the Monad and reconstructs it as a message of spiritual submission.
Autonomy means law unto oneself. Jesus and Paul taught we are judged by a law external to oneself. We have managerial (limited) autonomy in the sense of responsibility, and, when we take the law into our own hands rather than uphold the external we've received, that's where our responsibility and limited autonomy fails as a result of the total autonomy of the Monad. Once again you're getting this word "autonomy" that isn't in the text, and I don't know why you speak as if your words not in the text are better summaries than the text itself.
Jesus says “listen to my words”, Paul says “believe me of who Jesus is”.
Paul appeals to Jesus's words just as other apostles do. They all experienced Jesus's words and invite others to experience them, initially mediated by them as teachers until we are mature enough to experience them immediately for ourselves. Paul said, "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ" (1 Cor. 11:1), meaning that when he fails to follow Christ we are not to follow him (Gal. 1:8). Paul never says "believe me" (though he might affirm that Isaiah 52 says "believe me"). Why do you say this?
Later the Roman Empire's adoption of Christianity under Constantine wasn't the triumph of spiritual truth over paganism that Church teaches today. It was the hijacking of a liberation movement and its transformation into a control system. Constantine needed a version of Christianity that would support imperial authority, not undermine it.
Okay.
The Gnostic teachings with their emphasis on individual direct experience and their rejection of external religious authority were completely incompatible with maintaining an empire built on hierarchy and control. The Council of Nicaea in 325 CE wasn't really about establishing the correct doctrine. It was about eliminating any version of Christianity that could make people spiritually independent.
Gnosticism had essentially disappeared before then; it had migrated into Montanism, Ebionitism, and other more sustainable systems. These forms did persist after Nicea and were not persecuted over experience or conscientious disagreement with other authorities; the only deprecation was over teaching a different Jesus or different gospel, but disagreements between churches were routinely hammered out by focus on unity (until the bishop of Rome started the idea of demanding submission, which was some time after Nicea). Nicea didn't "eliminate" any version of Christianity except by deprecating Arianism, which survived for centuries in western Europe anyway. Yes, independence was lost over time, I agree with you in mourning that, but that's why we had a Reformation. It's not related to Paul.
The Gospel of Thomas was rejected because it taught the kingdom is within you.
They weren't rejected, they just never rose to become Scripture. The "kingdom within" was accepted as gospel.
the official narrative has significant problems
I agree. What it doesn't show is how to correct the narrative or how blaming Paul does any good. The whole true narrative can be shown without any reference to Paul, because people were already showing the whole true narrative before Paul came.
I showed you John 14:1 and I don't know your thoughts on it... Jesus taught faith (believing) in himself
The word used here πιστεύω (pisteúō) means to obey. Strong 4100 pisteúō (from 4102 pístis). John seems to use active tense pisteuō rather than pistis in his gospel. Suggests most of the translations in John are about obeying in Jesus rather than simply obeying him[John] or any other earthly authority.
When Jesus speaks of knowing yourself it's in more of a negative sense, Luke 9:55
Like I said before we don't know for certain who wrote the Gospel according to Luke, but we do know whoever wrote it was sympathetic of Paul. Most likely a follower of Paul. "The gospels are written by men and it seems to me that it perhaps shouldn't be as problematic as people claim it might be to just say look I still believe in the thrust of the story but Luke just got this bit wrong. I know well it'd be much easier for people just to do that and a lot of people do of course. I was trained at Princeton Theological Seminary..." - Bart Ehrman
Calling it a "spark" isn't clear at all; he obviously taught on the "image" of God in man
It's very clear to me. The Gnostics called it the divine spark. A fragment of the original light not trapped in your body like a prisoner but radiating through your body like light through a window. The window is not the light. But without the window, the light does not enter the room. All you have to do is create a space within your mind. That's what Buddhists do, just pay attention. In that gap lives your freedom. In that gap the spark becomes perceptible. The Gnostic teachers called this gap the bridal chamber. This bridal chamber in the Gospel of Philip is a metaphor for a divine union. The place where the divided reunites. The Gospel of Thomas says, "When you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, then you will enter the kingdom.". This is not riddle. This is instruction. When your inner attention becomes as vivid as your outer attention, when you can perceive inwardly with the same clarity you perceive outwardly, the barrier dissolves. The kingdom you have been seeking outside reveals itself to have been accessible from within all along.
Remember I was talking about Jesus's message, recognition, authority and declaration. First comes recognition. You are not creating this spark. You are not imagining it. You are simply noticing what was always there. A part of you already knows this. A part of you remembers this. That knowing is not coming from your brain. Your brain never learned this. That knowing is coming from the spark itself. It recognizes its own path home. Next is the loosening of fear. Fear is fundamentally an outward orientation. It is concern about what might come from outside to harm you. When you establish yourself inwardly, you find a place that cannot be threatened. The body can be touched, the mind can be disturbed, but the spark is beyond reach. It existed before this body and will exist after. From that place, fear becomes information rather than prison. You can feel it without being controlled by it. This is not denial of fear. This is transcendence of fear. The spark knows things your mind does not. When you establish connection with it, you begin to receive direction. Not as audible voices, not as visions, as knowing. You simply know to go here, to avoid there, to speak now, to stay silent. The more you trust this guidance, the more accurate it becomes. Jesus's mission was not to glorify this world but to expose its counterfeit nature and to awaken the divine spark trapped within humanity. According to Gnostics this spark serves as the navigator for the voyage homeward. It doesn't proclaim loudly, it murmurs softly. The more attentively you heed, the more potent it grows. Igniting the divine spark means reclaiming your true identity. Not solely a vessel or a consciousness, but an entity forged from the Monad's infinite substance.
The apostles taught predestination, Acts 4:28, in accord with the tradition saying all is foreknown and determined and yet free will is given
I agree that's what it says. Also, Paul teaches predestination and he argues that faith is a gift from God rather being something self-generated. But, I'm not saying to "make a distinction between faith being a gift and faith being something one does". You don't need faith, all you need is recognition, that is recognize the divine spark in you. And once you do that you know you have authority. Lucifer did not create your divine spark. He created the cage that surrounds it. And he appointed the archons to guard that cage and keep you from remembering what you truly are.
If you doubt the view of the majority
I always doubt the view of the majority. It's probably the most important lesson I have learned in life, the majority is most of the time wrong. Jesus said the majority still go on the broad way to destruction (Mat 7:13).
Why did he say to honor everything that comes from Moses's seat, and everything belonging to Caesar
Jesus's message is about compassion of forgiveness. Not about Moses or Caesar. Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven because if you're poor you are defying the material reality to win in this game created by Lucifer you yourself have to become a monster therefore the wealthy the powerful are evil people. If you're poor you don't participate in this evilness and therefore you're you are blessed by God.
They weren't rejected, they just never rose to become Scripture.
Okay. To me that's just another way of defining censorship.
how to correct the narrative or how blaming Paul does any good
It's not just Paul. IMO, it's everything that served the imperial interests since Paul.
The word used here πιστεύω (pisteúō) means to obey.
Don't know where you're getting that, pisteuo is the verb and pistis is the noun of the same thing, and the cluster of concepts is faith, belief, trust. Obedience is allied to these, and theologically manifests alongside them, but it's not the same thing. The actual Greek for hearken or obey is hypakouo G5219, which Jesus doesn't use about our relation to him. But Paul uses the same pisteuo G4100 as Jesus uses in the same way, Acts 16:31, 19:4, Gal. 2:16, Phil. 1:29, 1 Tim. 1:16. So even if there were distinction between pisteuo and pistis, Paul and Jesus are saying the same thing with pisteuo.
Ehrman is credentialed but not the guy you want for history as he has an axe to grind. However, if you choose to take his view against those who count Luke the most exact and accurate historian of the era, the message of Jesus can be proven without Luke, Acts, Paul, or Hebrews, if you like.
The Gnostics called it the divine spark.
So did the kabbalists, who informed Talmudism. But unless there's evidence they were more inspired than Matthew, Mark, and John, I stick with the direct testimony of what Jesus said, and he said "image" to reflect the language of Genesis. It's not that relevant what it's called, as long as we are clear on what it is.
But without the window, the light does not enter the room. All you have to do is create a space within your mind. That's what Buddhists do, just pay attention. In that gap lives your freedom. In that gap the spark becomes perceptible. The Gnostic teachers called this gap the bridal chamber.
I.e., the union of Christ and his bride. This doesn't happen without the will of both Christ and the bride. Thomas similarly describes the union of Self and Other (though this is partial). The kingdom manifests both within and without at the same time. (And, all of that seems the same in Jesus and in Paul.)
You are simply noticing what was always there.
Yes, always there but inactive until awoken.
It existed before this body and will exist after.
The divine nature preexisted; the image or "spark" is newly manifested at conception but its preexistence is in the divine plan, which is a little different but compatible.
Not as audible voices, not as visions, as knowing.
That's a fair way of saying it's internal. When guidance comes externally, it must be tested as it may be divine or it may be creaturely and brought to you as a test.
Igniting the divine spark means reclaiming your true identity.
I'll affirm that because it reminds me Jesus and Paul did use lots of fire language. One that comes to mind, often ignored, is 2 Tim. 1:6, "Stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands"; that's definitely a fire reference.
You don't need faith, all you need is recognition, that is recognize the divine spark in you.
What is your meaning for "faith" here? When I recognize something, I believe it. Perhaps you mean no further propositions are needed for "belief" than a core recognition of the divine? Oh, but that's Heb. 11:6, which interestingly doesn't mention Jesus.
Lucifer did not create your divine spark. He created the cage that surrounds it. And he appointed the archons to guard that cage and keep you from remembering what you truly are.
I don't attribute any creation or appointment to him. I don't count the physical as any prison; 1 Peter 3:19 said that death (separation) was the prison. The whole idea of the physical being a mistake comes from that cosmology, informed by Egypt and Greece, that attempts to get the Monad off the hook for evil existing but just complicates the narrative, as I've said. If John the Baptist can begin to testify from the womb, it seems that the fictive prison threats and guards are not able to convince everyone they are real. What good does it do to your system to give them any credit instead of just to say that all their pretense at control is just part of their deception? Why should we make lucifer out to be more powerful than Jesus says he is?
Jesus's message is about compassion of forgiveness. Not about Moses or Caesar.
I quoted you how he applied it to Moses and Caesar. He said to submit to both of them what is their due. The spiritual message you cite, poverty of spirit, doesn't contradict that.
To me that's just another way of defining censorship.
Censorship is active, official suppression. There's no evidence church leaders suppressed all the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha; they relied heavily on Maccabees, Odes of Solomon, Didache, and quoted and circulated many others, including uncountable patristics. It's just that known apostolic books got quoted and circulated much more. I'm trying to think of a way where a lower level of attention (by leaders who were regularly persecuted) somehow connotes active, official animus, and I don't see it. I do see that Constantine personally censored Arius in 325 as a civil matter, requiring his works to be burned up on pain of death, but Arius was no gnostic and this has nothing to do with texts that circulated with public approval.
Summary: I've been looking for support for your distinctives and not finding it, while I'm happy to agree with a number of statements you make that are found in more systems than your own and often in the Bible or in Thomas. If you want to deprecate Luke and Paul, they're gravy but we can learn the truth without them (of course, Peter says Paul is Scripture, but that's a point that need not be made tendentious). If you want to glorify lucifer and the archons, you're free to do that but I don't participate and I think in the long run it's unhelpful to you. About my only concern is that I'm seeing a trend of the way you see things not lining up with the texts or with the history as we have them. When that's the case, the texts and history might be wrong, but it takes a good preponderance of evidence to overcome them. And by evidence I mean that which manifests to the spirit (the image or "spark"), because one word of truth dispels a multitude of lies. To tell people that I perceive this to be true and I perceive a massive, intersupportive collection of evidence to be all false, I need to present extraordinary evidence. (I do this all the time when I defend young earth against evolutionists, or lightspeed decay against physicists, or conspiracy facts against journalists.) It's not enough for me to perceive it, because I must test my own perception too when it might be deceiving me. When I do this, I agree that there are unrepaired difficulties in the mainstream narrative of Christian development, but I disagree that they affect the core. There are unresolved concerns in gnostic texts, but they can be harmonized without need of rejecting tradition. So I think you are on a good track, while it's those unsupported assertions that seem unnecessary that appear to me to be dampers on the robustness of your message. And, I'll repeat for my own sake, it may well be that the "spiritual body" has the freedom both to use and to eschew the material, and that Origenist harmony seems like it might address a core concern of gnostics from the very start.
The actual Greek for hearken or obey is hypakouo G5219
I know that. Just read carefully what I wrote "John seems to use active tense". Anyway, I don't want to discuss this any longer.
Ehrman is credentialed but not the guy you want for history as he has an axe to grind. However, if you choose to take his view against those who count Luke the most exact and accurate historian of the era
I don't judge or dismiss anyone, and that includes Bart Ehrman. And I don't care how many credentials one has. I'm interested in the message and Ehrman is absolutely correct here and many other places where he talks about obvious errors and contradictions in the Bible. That's exactly what I found on my own.
I don't really have an issue with you considering "Luke the most exact and accurate historian of the era", however, it's important to note that Luke's historical accounts include both solid data and imaginative reconstructions.
So did the kabbalists, who informed Talmudism
Since you mentioned kabbalists I'm curious to know your view on Kabbalah.
the message of Jesus can be proven without Luke, Acts, Paul, or Hebrews, if you like
Proving Jesus's message? why?
Like I said before Jesus came to teach a message of love and forgiveness and spiritual transformation. There's nothing to prove here. And who needs any proof anyway?
But unless there's evidence they were more inspired than Matthew, Mark, and John, I stick with the direct testimony of what Jesus said
And it doesn't matter what Thomas, Philip, Judas or Mary Magdalene had to say. Hmmm...
You say Matthew, Mark, and John, but I'm sure you mean Luke as well. This takes me back to the council of Nicaea in 325 AD, where Emperor Constantine and the bishops chose which gospels would be canonized and which would be hidden or destroyed. The alternative gospels, Gospel of Thomas a collection of sayings of Jesus given secretly to the apostles, those that gave Mary Magdalene her true power, The Gospel of Philip, The Gospel of Truth, The Gospel of the Egyptians and many more were rejected, their teachings suppressed for centuries. These gospels were branded heresy. Their wisdom was forbidden. And the memory blurred until only fragments remained. But those fragments, those forbidden lines and half buried stories, refuse to die.
There's no evidence church leaders suppressed
I'm getting used to this phrase, "there's no evidence". I've seen it so many times in your replies...
I'm trying to think of a way where a lower level of attention (by leaders who were regularly persecuted) somehow connotes active, official animus, and I don't see it. I do see that Constantine personally censored Arius in 325 as a civil matter, requiring his works to be burned up on pain of death, but Arius was no gnostic
Yes, Gnostics were subjected to censorship. However, it is known that efforts to destroy Gnostic texts were largely successful, resulting in the survival of very little writing by Gnostic thinkers and theologians. And yes, Gnostics were persecuted. Gnostic groups were often persecuted as a result of being declared a heresy. The response of orthodoxy to gnosticism significantly defined the evolution of Christian doctrine and church order. After gnostic and orthodox Christianity parted, Gnostic Christianity continued as a separate movement in some areas for centuries. There's no denial the persecution of Gnostics took place, for example, during the Inquisition and the Albigensian Crusade.
of course, Peter says Paul is Scripture
Okay. Since you brought up Peter tell me who do you think he was.
Personally I would like to talk about Mary Magdalene. She was not an outcast, as we were led to believe, but was Jesus's closest companion, the one he trusted most with his deepest teachings, the one Peter envied. We could talk about Peter some other time if you wish, I'm still curios on your pov. Mary Magdalene's name is almost always listed first among the women in the gospels, a subtle, powerful signal of her leadership. Just as Peter stands at the head of the male disciples, Mary is the one who leads among the women. Mary wasn't just a disciple, but a mirror for the divine feminine and perhaps one of the most important parts of this sacred story. A story they've quietly hidden from all of us. So why was she silenced? Why for generations did powerful forces work so hard to erase her legacy, twist her image, and bury her wisdom deep within layers of dogma and denial?
All the verses I quoted for pisteuo are active verbs. John 14:1 and Acts 19:4 are both imperative. The only difference is plural versus singular, and Paul uses the aorist which refers to a state of being rather than an immediate action, i.e., "be believing". But it's rare that one needs tense to interpret accurately what a text says.
On my own, I looked at all the classic discrepancies alleged in the Bible, and found that 100% of them rely upon assuming one knows better rather than looking into the culture to see if the person could have had a consistent meaning. The same is true of other holy books like the Quran; if you give the source credit you can resolve every charge of contradiction. The same is not true of any major narrative franchise or cinematic universe proposed nowadays: they all have admitted irreconcilable narrative gaps that are spotted by fans; some of them are retconned by special pleading, and some just ignored. Watson told Holmes he was shot in the arm, then later he was shot in the leg, with no evidence he was shot in both places, and the fans all know that and accept it. But the tensions in long-accepted texts are accepted by fans because they do have reconciliations, not because they are judged irreconcilable; that comes from a contrary spirit. This is why I'm so open to apocrypha and pseudepigrapha: because most of the time they really are reconcilable (and on occasion, when the fans themselves did point out a true impossibility, that remains known and accepted as a reason for the text to have lesser status than others). All the 19th-century skepticism against the Bible rejected the text as culturally transmitted and stood against it to fight it; in prior eras nobody could mass together to do that.
Kabbalah means "received" and should have meant any formal teaching. I pointed out that the same word, in Greek, was used for the confession of the resurrection in the 30s, as evidenced later. It was used by proto-orthodox, by gnostics, by rabbinicals, and by Essenes for their formal creeds and symbols. Only the rabbinical strand retained it as the word "kabbalah", so nowadays it means a narrative containing ten core attributes, the withdrawal of light and the divine spark, and the return of human superpowers, very much like gnosticism with its aeons. Its only problem is if it denies the nature of God while getting sidetracked with its human advancement.
Like I said before Jesus came to teach a message of love and forgiveness and spiritual transformation. There's nothing to prove here.
If it's not proven to someone that love is the way, the message doesn't click. Love requires both the spirit and the mind; if I fail by losing focus on either, I apologize.
This takes me back to the council of Nicaea in 325 AD, where Emperor Constantine and the bishops chose which gospels would be canonized and which would be hidden or destroyed. The alternative gospels, Gospel of Thomas a collection of sayings of Jesus given secretly to the apostles, those that gave Mary Magdalene her true power, The Gospel of Philip, The Gospel of Truth, The Gospel of the Egyptians and many more were rejected, their teachings suppressed for centuries. These gospels were branded heresy. Their wisdom was forbidden. And the memory blurred until only fragments remained.
Didn't happen, fren. There's no Nicene action about the Scriptural canon. I find that Jerome mentioned that Nicea used Judith in its deliberations, but canonization happened later. There was no suppression of any document there except the writings of Arius, there was no branding any of these as heresy, there was no forbidding their reading. The Gospel of Thomas found was dated 340; its use was noted by Cyril in the 4th century and continued by Manichaeans in the 5th. The Gospel of Mary didn't circulate enough to get much notice from the church, it appears to be 2nd-century origin from its framing, and only has a couple Coptic and Greek manuscripts. The Gospel of Philip also circulated into later in the 4th century, though its origin may be 3rd-century in Syriac thought. The Gospel of Truth which we have may have been one rejected by Irenaeus, or may have been written in the 4th century, but it had enough literary merit that it circulated quite awhile and was knowably related to (but distinct from) Valentinian gnosticism. The Gospel of the Egyptians (Coptic), with five ogdoads, Sakla creating archons, is also late in Nag Hammadi but I don't see its immediate provenance (it sounds quite late with its developments).
So, trying to make the best reconciliation of your statement, what I find is: (1) Constantine did make up a list, exact contents unknown, of books to be included in 50 Bibles he ordered for printing for Constantinople; this is not likely equal to the dual canon that arose later. (2) There are no acts through the 4th century calling for destruction of old texts circulating among Christians besides those of Arius. (3) Nag Hammadi did take it on itself to protect (and lose track of) a number of the alternative books, which very few others were able to do; yet this was not active suppression or rejection. (4) There were individuals who deprecated individual books in exactly the same way any opinion was raised against any book, including some of the canonical books like Hebrews, 1-3 John, and Revelation. (5) The boundary between heresy and orthodoxy was pretty straightforward at this time, with the only blurry one being that Valentinus was condemned 200 years later (I can't prove that his works were burned) and some of the circulating works echo Valentinianism.
To paint a narrative in which a coordinated power actively suppressed and rejected apocrypha and pseudepigrapha would go against the fact that when there was active suppression and rejection we have clear marks of it. Now we could try the conspiracy theory that the powers subtly coached Christians toward accepting some and forgetting about others, without overt action, which is indeed a general trend that happens over centuries, but that potential framing doesn't agree with yours. What actually happens is that leaders either condemn books on their own initiative as voices in a continuum, or groups give formal condemnation in the cases of clearly defined heresies like that of Arius, or certain books are promoted to the neglect of other books. But for the most part Christian leaders allowed ideas to circulate so that they could be proven right or wrong, and only judged heresies after long periods of circulation. The idea that Christian emperors secretly judged writings to be detrimental to their retaining power is belied by their not taking formal action against them; I wouldn't have a problem with counting these emperors as engaging an informal war of attrition against them when noticed, but the manuscripts were too weakly supported already to be worthy of formal imperial attention.
But those fragments, those forbidden lines and half buried stories, refuse to die.
I'm all for going to all the sources, there's tremendous much in Egyptology for instance. They give alternatives of what was thought at the time. It rarely means that those at the time were all wrong and the hidden text was all correct; it usually only means that our current understanding has occasional neglected aspects. Considering all the uncovered stories we've now accessed, I don't see that much in the way of significant error. I'm pretty active about one such error, the loss of 7th-day Sabbath, but after 25 years of investigation I was finally able to reconcile church practice with the actual meaning of the 7th day, and I think such reconciliation is available for any gnostic tension.
When I say there's no evidence, it's an invitation for evidence (manuscripts and archaeology) to be produced. I greatly appreciate your producing narrative, which I judge on the likelihood of its fit to the known evidence.
Yes, Gnostics were subjected to censorship. However, it is known that efforts to destroy Gnostic texts were largely successful, resulting in the survival of very little writing by Gnostic thinkers and theologians. And yes, Gnostics were persecuted. Gnostic groups were often persecuted as a result of being declared a heresy. The response of orthodoxy to gnosticism significantly defined the evolution of Christian doctrine and church order. After gnostic and orthodox Christianity parted, Gnostic Christianity continued as a separate movement in some areas for centuries.
I don't see it. I see that Irenaeus ridiculed Valentinus, and Hippolytus condemned Naassenes, which would obviously chill some gnostic speech locally, but that is not censorship. There was no hierarchical structure and Irenaeus worked by voluntaryism and bridge-building, not authoritarianism. I don't see efforts to destroy gnostic texts. I see that gnostic teachers had a bad habit of mostly not committing to writing texts. As I said, Manichaeanism was the chief surviving aspect of gnosticism because it contained reconcilable elements instead of being a personality cult. Tertullian rehabilitated it, and then Augustine claimed what could still be retained of its usefulness. I might grant you that Theodosian I created a "parting of ways" in 381 or 382 (not under the name gnosticism but Manichaeanism), but I see nothing about suppression of the gnostic system in those edicts, only about generic (loosely enforced) deprecation of teachings against trinitarianism. There was no formal schism event for gnosticism that I see, and I try to find all the schism events!
There's no denial the persecution of Gnostics took place, for example, during the Inquisition and the Albigensian Crusade.
I didn't think we were talking about medieval times because that isn't about the Roman empire's fears but about the HRE's fears, which is quite different.
Peter the fisherman has a career described in the gospels and the two letters attributed to him. Why would I doubt his place as a unique leader among the disciples? Maybe you're trying to ask if I think him supreme as opposed to primary?
I also have no problem with greater study on the role of every Mary and other woman in the NT. It is very traditional to regard the Virgin Mary as a mirror for the divine feminine, and there's evidence this also transfers to Mary Magdalene (though some gnostics transferred it to their own love interests, which was generally regarded as a warning sign because demonstrably abused much more than used). I don't think Magdalene was silenced. The oral tradition that went into the Gospel of Mary was not strong, but now we have it and it fits with the rest. But what's overlooked is that the diatesseron gospels, whose glorification and ennoblement of women is now banally familiar to us, were cutting-edge at the time in their promotion of the feminine and contradicted the suppression of women in most other contemporary Hebrew, Greek, or Latin texts. So Mary was not silenced, but she was given a nonpareil place as first witness of the resurrection and her influence was demonstrated in hundreds of cases of Christian promotion of femininity. The fact that the Gospel of Mary is within that trend, and has a few unique aspects not found elsewhere, is not a real loss of any doctrine of femininity.
Similarly, Christians made exceeding much of the character of Sophia as depicted in their sourcetexts like Proverbs 8. They overcame Greek abstractions by presenting a real power compatible with the many prior indications in Judaism, and this overlapped with their high view of the Virgin and others. This is why they didn't neatly accept a message that Sophia ever erred, or indeed that the Virgin Mary ever did. It seems to me that every case that can be made, saying that something about females is neglected, can be answered by demonstration from orthodox tradition that it was not neglected but promoted. The primary contribution of the Gospel of Mary is the mystic experience, which is echoed in later anchorite traditions of gnosis and theoria; that experience developed from the first century but was only hinted at it in small bits and has taken centuries for any movement to get well-established views about. So I don't see much there for a story of silencing. We could certainly theorize together that certain truths were omitted or sidelined, but if they are really truths they can be tested objectively!
I looked at all the classic discrepancies alleged in the Bible, and found that 100% of them rely upon assuming one knows better rather than looking into the culture to see if the person could have had a consistent meaning. The same is true of other holy books like the Quran
Personally, I don't need to look, I would expect discrepancies and errors in the Bible. Many different writers, most likely by people who never met Jesus, the books were written over a relatively long period of time, etc. As for translations, all the Bibles, every single one out there today require translation. Every single word you've read in the Bible is a translation. And every translation is an interpretation. And many are mistranslations. Some could not have been avoided, however many were deliberate. And I don't care how hard you try to convince me of the contrary, it won't work. I studied people all my life, I know how they work and behave. And I use critical thinking and know how to connect the dots.
Also, there are many misinterpretations. The Bible is hard to understand and in most cases requires some assistance. Just ask the jews. They have a tremendous respect for learning and for literacy. That said, there are certain problems with the tradition. The first is it's contradictory. When you read the Bible, it's always contradicting itself. It's almost schizophrenic. You could say it's very hard to pick out a definite message from the Bible. And that's why the oral tradition called the Oral Torah is actually much more important. And so Jews have to go to the synagogue all the time where the rabbi will explain to them the meaning of the Bible because if you read it by yourself, it's almost impossible to understand.
All the 19th-century skepticism against the Bible rejected the text as culturally transmitted and stood against it to fight it; in prior eras nobody could mass together to do that
Personally I'm more concerned about what's being omitted, as I said in the past. Let me give you an example. Take the two back-to-back statements of the Apostles Creed namely that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost born of the Virgin Mary and that he was crucified died and was buried and on the third day he rose again from the dead. It is striking to me that this oldest and most foundational Christian Creed jumps from Jesus's birth to his death and Resurrection entirely skipping over his life. How did it happen that the way Jesus came into the world and how he left Christmas and Easter came to Define Christianity itself? where did this emphasis on the entrance and exit points of Jesus's heavenly existence come from? and how did it achieve such centrality even above that of Jesus's life and teachings?
Kabbalah... containing ten core attributes, the withdrawal of light and the divine spark, and the return of human superpowers, very much like gnosticism with its aeons. Its only problem is if it denies the nature of God while getting sidetracked with its human advancement
IMO, it has more than one problem. Just the fact that Kabbalah is studied and practised by so many world leaders today is a red flag for me. Also, I can't get a straight answer to any Kabbalah question from any of the popular AI engines out there. Like I said, I'm a very strong believer in connecting the dots. You may or may not be aware Donald Trump is a self-confessed kabbalist. Quote from his 2004 book 'The Way to the Top', page 188 "..my Kabbalah teacher, Eitan Yardeni..".
If it's not proven to someone that love is the way, the message doesn't click. Love requires both the spirit and the mind;
IMO, if you have to prove to any human being that love is the way, we've lost the war for Humanity. But, I do agree with you love it's a spiritual thing. That's why an AI robot, IMO, could never feel love. AI can pretend to feel love. AI can say, "I love you.". And if you challenge it to describe how love feels, AI can provide the best verbal description in the world. AI can read countless love poems and psychology books and can then describe the feeling of love much better than any human poet, psychologist or lover. But these are just words. In the Bible the spirit of love is much more important than the letter of the law. This tension between spirit and letter existed in every religion, every legal system, even every person. Now this tension will be externalized. It will become the tension not between different humans. This will be the tension between humans and AIs, the new masters of words.
If we read the Divine Comedy, Dante's categorical imperative is very simple. Love someone. Doesn't matter who, could be your wife, it could be your mother or it could be your child. It could be your best friend. But love that person and when you love that person then all these three things are true: do not manipulate people, do not use people, treat people with respect. It means you are now going to be your best. It means you are treating this person with respect. It means that you're choosing to love this person. So love is the unifying force of the universe. That's what Dante is really saying.
Didn't happen, fren. There's no Nicene action about the Scriptural canon.
Neither you nor I were alive in 325 AD, or the 4th and 5th century. And we both have to rely on what's being documented about these times and events. For instance when it comes to the Gospel of Thomas, I could say the same thing you often say "Don't know where you're getting that". According to Wikipedia "Assigning a date to the Gospel of Thomas is very complex because it is difficult to know precisely to what a date is being assigned (then why are you saying "it was dated 340", why not 339 or 341? I'm aware some have dated the Gospel of Thomas discovered at Nag Hammadi to 340 AD, but that's just picking a number out of the air). Scholars have proposed a date as early as 60 AD or as late as 140 AD"
But, me as a critical thinking person I'm asking "Why the Gospel of Thomas isn’t in the Bible?". And I think it's a reasonable question to ask in 2026 AD. Then as you say "The Gospel of Mary didn't circulate enough to get much notice from the church", my question is "Why not?". When archaeologists finally deciphered The Gospel of Mary Magdalene in 1896 when they could finally read the entire text they understood why the Vatican demanded it never see the light of day. Why? What was in the manuscript discovered in Cairo that so terrified the most powerful church in the world? What truth had to remain hidden at any cost? Because according to this lost gospel, Mary Magdalene wasn't a repentant prostitute. That was a lie invented centuries later. She wasn't a mere follower walking behind the apostles. That was a deliberate distortion of her true role. She wasn't who the church told us she was for 2,000 years. That was an unprecedented historical manipulation. She was the guardian of a secret. A secret Jesus revealed to her and only her. A secret the other apostles knew nothing about. A secret about how the human soul can become immortal. Mary Magdalene was in many of the texts found at Nag Hammadi the embodiment of that direct unmediated divine knowledge. In the Gospel of Mary, she shares visions with the disciples that they cannot comprehend. When Peter and the others argue, caught up in jealousy and fear. It's Mary who stands as a bridge, a voice of wisdom.
I'm all for going to all the sources, there's tremendous much in Egyptology for instance
I'll have to respond to the rest of your message some other time. I can't now. But, you're raising an interesting subject Egyptology.
Nag Hammadi did take it on itself to protect (and lose track of) a number of the alternative books, which very few others were able to do; yet this was not active suppression or rejection. (4) There were individuals who deprecated individual books in exactly the same way any opinion was raised against any book
Let me ask you a question. Do the Dead Sea Scrolls, or the Nag Hammadi texts, do they also include Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? the answer is No, the Nag Hammadi texts and the Dead Sea Scrolls do not contain the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The Nag Hammadi Library, consists of 52 ancient texts written in Coptic, including the Gospel of Thomas, but none of the canonical Gospels. The Dead Sea Scrolls, found in the caves of Qumran, contain biblical, sectarian, and apocryphal texts, but not the Gospels of the New Testament.
According to experts the Gospels are generally considered to have been written after the Epistles, with the following approximate dates: Mark around 66 AD, Matthew 80–90 AD, Luke 100 AD, John 96 AD. In contrast, the Epistles to the Corinthians and Galatians are believed to have been written earlier, 1 Corinthians around 50 AD, Galatians around 50 AD. So, Paul wrote his letters or if his letters were published or written down, before the Gospels, 20 to 50 years before Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. Why would the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, which claim to be the first person eyewitness accounts of the actions and sayings of Jesus, why on earth would they have been written down 20 to 50 years after the letters attributed to Paul were written down?
Paul remember, he was Jewish also. His name was Saul and he was a heretic hunter. He hunted down followers of Christ and other heretics according to the Sadducee official narrative. What the Sadducees thought was orthodoxy. So he worked for the Sadducees and anybody who challenged the Sadducees orthodoxy, and the Sadducees controlled the temple. So, really the whole Christianity is Paul's work. And the Gospels were written after Paul. There's no explanation for that other than the fact that they were written, because Paul (actually Rome) had this idea, or he was working with a whole bunch of sects that existed at the time, which he was persecuting. And Saul (Romans), started what has now become known as Christianity.
Israel is a terrorist fake state. Israel practices terrorism... Israel has been a terrorist state from its beginning, and has its foundations in terrorism.
Matthew 23:9 "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."
Are you saying that the Catholic Church are the new Pharisees?
The jews are the new (and old) Pharisees.
The modern Jews have no legitimate claim to the Israelite bloodline. They claim to have maternal lineage, but that's nothing according to the Torah, which says paternal lineage.
The Pharisees had the closest theology and nearly perfect bloodline.
“the Torah does not specifically state anywhere that maternal descent should be used to determine who is a Jew”. But the western Talmud written by the Ashkenazi western Jews does specify the Semitic maternal lineage as a condition to... https://gulfnews.com/opinion/op-eds/the-forbidden-truth-about-ashkenazis-1.1290955
Paul, the false apostle, was known as Saul of Taurus. He was devout Jew and a Pharisee.
Paul is an apostle of Christ, is from the tribe of Benjamin and was Roman citizen, Saul was a pharisee and Jesus set him straight. The bible, written by God through men, tells us all that and hides nothing, where do you get your false accusation?
Interesting question. Let me tell you a story, I was travelling from Jerusalem to Damascus one day. And all of a sudden I was blinded for three days after seeing a blinding light. So, my journey was interrupted when I saw this blinding light, and I started communicating directly with a divine voice. And the voice told me Paul "the apostle of Christ" was born Saul of Tarsus in 5 AD in Tarsus, Cilicia, then part of the Roman Empire (now South central Turkey).
And I was amazed. Then I heard another voice which said to me never mind about Paul, aka Saint Paul, aka Paul the Apostle, aka Saul of Tarsus... it's just a fictitious character. It was all made up.
What Paul did changed so many lives for the better. Let's see what good things you think atheism is supposed to bring.
What a wonderful World we have, and you're telling me we all should give thanks to Paul.
OK. Thanks Paul for a genocide happening right in front of our eyes, for an ongoing war in Eastern Europe where millions of Slavs (most of them Christians) have been killed or maimed, for Burkina Faso where violence has continued to be a massive problem for followers of Jesus, for the killings in Nigeria where attacks on Christians are rampant.
And before I forget, thanks Paul for the situation in Middle East where Israel has bombed 5 countries, in addition to leveling Gaza and destroying or taking over a lot of the West Bank, and where US has sent an armada next to the shores of Iran. Where another war is about to start.
Thanks Paul for Venezuela, Argentina and Chile where the countries are falling into chaos. Thanks for Europe where people can't afford to stay warm in the winter and are freezing to death. And the list can go on and on and on... but enough thanks for time being.
All because adam and eve broke the ONE AND ONLY rule they had. Everything you list is because humans don't like believing and following God and loving others.
The Road Not Taken by Robert Frost
Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both.
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;
Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,
And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.
I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.
It seems you have some choice to make.
Either you believe God and the info He gave us or you believe the devils who do nothing but accuse.. I've made my choice.
Are you and guywholikesDjtof2024 working together? part of the same team? which denomination do you belong to?
I'm with no denomination, I'm a follower of the Way of Jesus Christ. I hope you think on my words to you.
??? can you be more specific.
False? How do you know? What's your standard of what is true or false?
What is false? and assuming you're saying Paul was not born Saul of Taurus, how do you know it's false? What historical or archeological evidence do you even have this man ever existed?
How about this: Paul of Tarsus, the so-called apostle to the Gentiles, the man credited with spreading Christianity across the Roman Empire, was not simply a convert or a missionary. What if I were to suggest to you he was an intelligence asset working on behalf of Roman imperial interests to neutralize the most dangerous threat the empire had ever faced, Jewish fanaticism?
I meant when you called Paul "false".
We have more evidence of it than evidence for the belief natural-only abiogenesis happened.
Reductionistic argument. Also the Biblical Account doesn't line up with that. Romans attacked Christians, but God protected them from Romans.
The Catholic Church and the Jewish people of the Old Testament are one and the same.
The Jews were probably people who originate from what was now known as Switzerland, and once they move into the Middle East they start fighting instantly. The tribe that comes out to the top is the one that renounced polytheism in favor of monotheism and has mastered the art of deception to call themselves "Holy Men"
Israel/yisra'el - "he that striveth with God" aka the struggle of each Christ (life) within all of God (inception towards death).
A state (life) in the middle (inception towards death) with the free will of choice to incline north; east; west; south. To tempt choice off-center others suggest NEWS to draw ones inclination into circumference.
a) God implies singularity...hence each being within implying person aka per (by) son/sonos (sound). Others suggest plurality (people) to tempt ones choice into bondage to a chosen one.
b) New and old imply the test of mind (testament) to ignore the middle aka NOW...ones perception within all perceivable can only work NOW...not before or after.
There cannot be a plural (isrealite) within the dominating king (singularity)...only each ones FREE will of choice within DOM-inance.
The perpetuation of oneself through another by inter-course for off-spring implies KIN(g) aka the throne aka the SEAT/SEED of God.
No modern vs future...only presence. No jews (plural)...only jew/you (singular).
This Catholic church?
No.
u/InevitableDot, continuation:
I'm open to hearing lots of stuff I disagree with, it's just that if I have a lot of evidence otherwise I don't tend to move because I tend to share the evidence I have. Please speak your peace!
Why do you say that's contradictory to being all things to all men while remaining subject to Jesus's law?
Seek, find, troubled, astonished, rule:
"To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life" (Rom. 2:7).
"If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God" (Col. 3:1).
"But, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me. The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day: and in how many things he ministered unto me at Ephesus, thou knowest very well" (2 Tim. 1:17-18). Not perfect, but reflects the principle.
"We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair" (2 Cor. 4:8).
"I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel" (Gal. 1:6). So Paul doesn't use this word much in this sense; but this is probably the most ambiguous word in this verse in Thomas.
"If we suffer, we shall also reign with him" (2 Tim. 2:12); this is probably the closest to the meaning of trouble and astonish.
So a quick check shows it's pretty close. Paul certainly doesn't say you won't find, be troubled, be astonished, or rule. Why would you see the disparity there? I don't want to be obtuse about it. Are you taking the Scriptures about "faith saves" and then assuming that nothing accompanies faith? Some theologians do that, but when Paul says faith saves he stresses all the holy living that accompanies faith too.
Um, maybe you think "believe" and "have faith" are different? Jesus says to believe in him John 14:1, Paul says to believe in Jesus Rom. 3:26. Why do we have disagreement on this?
Nobody teaches one is more important, they must accompany each other. Professing Christians who act like belief is more important are oversimplifying, and other Christians call that easy believism, greasy grace, and sloppy agape. If you believe, you behave, they always accompany each other. But if you believe like the thief, and have no opportunity to behave other than to do that very important work of confessing, you still get credit for believing and behaving, because you turned from your sins as Ezekiel says.
I answered that's not Christianity according to Rom. 1.
Why did Jesus say he would come back, Matt. 24:30? Same answer.
I've pointed out that the word "worship" isn't applied to Jesus the same way it's applied to God the Father. The meaning of worship in most cases is the same kind of respect that created beings receive; in a couple cases the meaning of worship is indeed that which is due to God alone, but it is offered to God in Jesus. Here's my deep dive. It's not about "having to" worship Jesus, it's that people are so grateful that they give him a dozen kinds of ordinary respect, and worship God in him. They "get to" worship, it's a joy.
I apologize on behalf of standard Christians. Our bad. I will be happy to make it up to you.
I'm mostly avoiding doctrine and just sticking to interpretation of texts. I gave you two texts about "believing in Jesus", and I presume you see that the same words are talking about the same thing, that doesn't have to become a doctrinal rarefaction.
The present is indeed always capable of interpreting the past (retconning), which is why we are sharing with each other in the present.
Correct, and not against Mosaic purity. Jesus and Moses always agree, he proves it's the authorities that are the outliers.
The first is accurate. Jesus said don't work on Sabbath. The second is not, IMHO. He said no letter of the law will depart until everything be fulfilled, Matt. 5. He did disagree with the leaders about what is work on Sabbath, and pointed out that in one sense the Father "works" on Sabbath, meaning that the leaders' view of what "work" is was suspect; but the leaders had added to Moses in a known way (Moses said no labor, the leaders said spitting is labor because it creates mud, that was a spurious, scrupulous addition). I pointed out that Jesus said follow both the letter of tithes and the spirit of mercy, Matt. 23:23. Jesus affirmed temple rituals and told people to follow them, such as cleansing after healing. So Jesus upheld purity, and among the Jews Paul upheld purity too. Do you see texts otherwise? I mean, Hezekiah said something like the last part, but he wasn't quoted on this.
I don't see that he ever rebels against their authority; he tells people to obey their rulings but not to mimic their behavior, Matt. 23:2-3. When he disagrees with them it's about questions where people are free to judge opinions, and they called him a rebel because he showed up when their opinions were sometimes foolish.
Then when Jesus goes along with Caesar's tax system, is he shilling for Rome too? Why is it okay when Jesus affirms Rome but not when Paul does? It seems they're both right, they both teach obedience insofar as conscience permits. If Jesus were poor and Paul rich, that shouldn't make a difference as to their message.
This sounds speculative. Jesus already taught submission to earthly authority, both Jewish and Roman, as I showed. Paul didn't improve on that, he only spread the same message; granted that more efficient spread benefited Rome in some ways, but it also created many more who rejected Caesar worship, which was no benefit to them. But Jesus's preaching of paying Caesar was enough catalyst to "benefit of Rome" that the benefit had already begun. And of course Jesus successfully quelled rebellion for a long time, by taking all the blame for it on himself, literally.
So I still hear a narrative that someone has templated over historical facts that doesn't fit all of them very well. I appreciate your continuing despite my inability to make it click. Maybe there are things you don't like about the Biblical Jesus (or Paul) that you doubt are the real teachings? We can weigh these things according to probability, but that would need to be applied across the board so it might not have the effect desired. But to hear how obvious it is to you that Paul contradicted Jesus, and then not to see it in your statements when there are easy Biblical references otherwise, well, that approach hasn't yet carried the case for me. I appreciate you hearing my sincere questions.
Jesus mission was not to bring a Law, but to demonstrate it. He came to end the need for religion by showing the direct path to divine consciousness. He didn't die for your sins. He died to show sin is illusion. Death is illusion. Separation is illusion. He didn't perform miracles. He demonstrated natural laws that include consciousness as a creative force.
But, Jesus has a message, a message of three components wrapped into one package: recognition, authority and declaration. Jesus said you must know what you are, not believe. His message clearly says: you are a divine spark temporarily housed in a material body. You are not your fears. You are not your failures. You are not the story the world has told you about yourself. You carry the light of the Monad. You do not ask. You do not beg. You do not request. You speak as what you are. As a declaration of what is already true at the deepest level of existence. This is the revolution that Jesus started. This is the truth that has been hidden. This is the power that has always been ours.
On the other hand Paul's teachings are on belief: Faith in Jesus, Predestination (he argues that faith is a gift from God, not something self-generated), Conversion and Belief in the Resurrection.
Maybe you misunderstood what I said. There were enormous consequences from what Paul did. He radically changed the meaning of faith and religion itself. Before Paul, faith meant lived experience. Faith meant your relationship with the divine that you cultivated through practice, through study, through ethical living. Faith was something you experienced directly. But Paul introduced a new concept. Faith became belief. Faith became accepting certain propositional claims. Jesus is the son of God. Jesus died for your sins. Jesus was resurrected. If you believe these things, you're saved. If you don't believe them, you're damned. This is radically different. This makes debate about theological positions not about lived spiritual experience. Paul also introduced a concept of miracles as explanatory devices. If something doesn't make logical sense, it's a miracle. How was Jesus born of a virgin? Miracle. How did Jesus walk on water? Miracle. How was Jesus resurrected? Miracle. The function of miracles in Paul's theology is to explain away contradictions and inconsistencies. Don't question the logical problems. Don't try to understand it rationally. Just accept it as miraculous. Another major innovation was elevating tradition above scripture. Paul's church, which eventually became the Catholic Church, taught that tradition, the teachings passed down through church authority is more important than the Bible itself. In fact, for most of Christian history, ordinary people were not allowed to read the Bible. The Bible was kept in Latin, which most people didn't understand. Only priests could read it and interpret it because the church taught that if ordinary people read the Bible, they might misinterpret it. They don't have the spiritual authority to understand it correctly. So religious truth comes not from direct study of sacred text but from submission to church authority. The church tells you what to believe and you believe it. That's faith.
Like I said in my previous message Paul's mission was assimilation but not assimilation that destroys Jewish identity. To that extent I agree Paul upheld purity. But, all his innovations serve institutional power. So there 's no issue for Rome. They make religion about control, about hierarchy, about obedience to authority rather than about direct spiritual experience. Now, let me address another question you might have. If Paul was controversial, if there were people who saw through what he was doing, then who wrote the Acts of the Apostles, which presents such a positive picture of Paul? Great question. We don't know for certain who wrote Acts, but we do know that whoever wrote Acts also wrote the Gospel of Luke. They're written by the same author in the same style as part one and part two of a continuous narrative.
Acts is very poor Paul. It presents Paul in the most sympathetic light possible. It shows him as a heroic figure persecuted by Jews, protected by Romans, spreading the faith despite hardships. Now, why would someone write this? Because at this time, there were many people, especially Jewish Christians, who hated Paul. They believed Paul had corrupted the teachings of Jesus. They believe Paul was a traitor who had sold out to Rome.
Jesus taught the exact opposite of submission to any authority. Earthly or otherwise. Like I said before, Paul takes Jesus’s message of spiritual autonomy from the Monad and reconstructs it as a message of spiritual submission... a slave of sorts. Let me put this in other words, and I'm going to use a strong word just to highlight the intent, Paul hijacks Jesus's message. Paul took Jesus's message of spiritual autonomy and reconstructed it as a message of spiritual submission. Jesus says “listen to my words”, Paul says “believe me of who Jesus is”.
Later the Roman Empire's adoption of Christianity under Constantine wasn't the triumph of spiritual truth over paganism that Church teaches today. It was the hijacking of a liberation movement and its transformation into a control system. Constantine needed a version of Christianity that would support imperial authority, not undermine it. The Gnostic teachings with their emphasis on individual direct experience and their rejection of external religious authority were completely incompatible with maintaining an empire built on hierarchy and control. The Council of Nicaea in 325 CE wasn't really about establishing the correct doctrine. It was about eliminating any version of Christianity that could make people spiritually independent.
A mystical Christianity teaching direct access to divine power was dangerous. It had to be replaced with submission, with waiting, with placing all power in priests and institutions. The Gospel of Thomas was rejected because it taught the kingdom is within you. The Gospel of Philip was rejected because it taught techniques for transformation. These were not rejected for being false. They were rejected for being too practical, too liberating.
I have never said Paul contradicted Jesus. He is too cleaver to do that. In this reply I used the word hijacked, and I think you can clearly see this in my statements. You are free to disagree with me. But, whether you agree with my interpretation or not, you should at least see that the official narrative has significant problems. Yet, I have a feeling you're going to say "I don't see any problems.".
Okay, to fulfill what was already brought, yes.
James 1:26-27 promoted true religion. Jesus contrasted that with vain religion (vain worship), Matt. 15:9, Mark 7:7. The word itself is neutral. I think what Jesus ended is more rightly called legalism.
When 1 Cor. 15:3 says "I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures", scholars are agreed that "received" means an oral creed "Christ died for our sins" was circulating formally among the apostles 2-5 years after the resurrection. 1 Peter 2:24 has it, "His own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed." There are several theological theories on the meaning, but in addition to nullifying sin he certainly also removed sin from us, bearing the illusion away. These distinctions sound semantic.
Yeah, mostly, because the meaning of miracle has changed. The Bible calls them miracles in the sense of "unexplained". When people know the natural laws he used, they become more "explained", more commonplace and less wondrous. So both he and we perform the unexplained in our eras.
I showed you John 14:1 and I don't know your thoughts on it. When Jesus speaks of knowing yourself it's in more of a negative sense, Luke 9:55, but it doesn't contradict the much greater emphasis he places on knowing him, John 17:3 etc. Why would knowing yourself contradict Jesus's statement to believe in God and in himself?
Calling it a "spark" isn't clear at all; he obviously taught on the "image" of God in man, Matt. 22:20 ff. He constantly affirmed the covenant reliance on the resurrection of the body and on the difference between this age and the coming age, and those two traditions balanced the temporal and the everlasting. Yes, 2 Peter 1:13-14 speaks of putting off this tabernacle without speaking of what is to come, but I acknowledged the mystery by pointing out that there may not be a conflict between the Christian tradition of general resurrection and the power to manifest as spiritual instead of material-pragmatic. So framing the message this way doesn't seem the "clearest" form.
Okay.
Jesus taught faith (believing) in himself. The apostles taught predestination, Acts 4:28, in accord with the tradition saying all is foreknown and determined and yet free will is given. Now, you make a distinction between faith being a gift (not the literal language of Eph. 2 though) and faith being something one does, but those are two sides of the same coin. You can't have faith without believing, and you can't have faith without the gift of God being involved (none come unless the Father draws them, John 6:44). So the two always manifest together, implying they are the same thing. Jesus taught conversion, Matt. 18:3, and he taught that he was the resurrection, John 11:25. So I see that if you think that believing and being given faith are contradictory, you'd have a problem, but why would they be contradictory? Whatever man does, God is doing the work of ensuring man does it.
Still looking.
Faith is tied to that but isn't precisely synonymous. Lately this might be called "faith walk" or "working faith". James 2:18 says we show faith by what we do, so they are different. Yet he emphasizes faith always accompanies this relationship and experience.
"Pistis" is translated both faith and belief. Now, I agree with the criticism that faith is more than propositional trust but involves personal trust in the individual; James 2:19-20 agrees too. And I agree with the idea that it shouldn't be oversimplified, although 1 John gives several simple tests distinguishing saved from damned that are very propositional. But these tests work because they rightly reflect whether the person has the whole relationship or not. What we've corrupted that into is the idea that saying the words is a free ticket and lifestyle is irrelevant, but in the culture your words would be proven by your lifestyle. And Paul didn't change that, it came much later. Debate about theological position isn't very effective (unless it distinguishes the god one believes in from another); experience in Christ's body is indeed everything. But that's why I'm working with you experientially (even as I present texts to you as I experience them).
So on this point, I agree there is a difference between propositional faith and the personal faith Jesus taught, but taking everything Paul said he is not teaching mere propositional faith in Eph. 2 and should not be taken as if he is.
Well, the disciples accepted "miracles" in the sense "unexplained", throughout the gospels and indeed as a mark of Jesus's character in secular sources. Obviously some things happen that we don't have explanation for, and even good scientists admit that despite the fullness of the known laws of physics. It would be silly to say Jesus did nothing unexplained because we've found all the explanations, or worse to say it's because Jesus couldn't possibly have used deeper laws we haven't explained yet. It's unclear what you're going for. If you're saying any account of Jesus doing something inexplicable is spurious, that would mean we should talk about whether we understand all the laws of the world or whether there are still unknowns. But if Jesus did rise from the dead bodily, then there's no problem in saying so and calling it a miracle, and raising people from the dead bodily ourselves.
The Bible was still open canon then. Peter and Jude followed the same rules by which their Hebrew Bible was approved, saying that new Scriptures might arise that were equal to the old; only John was able to discern when the canon closed. Thus if it was passed down from authority (as the OT was) and accepted by many generations of believers, it became a Scriptural teaching; if it didn't, like the Didache (which is very good teaching), it was treated as secondary and often forgotten. Paul rejects mere human tradition, Col. 2:8, like Mark 7:13, but I see he also affirms received tradition, 2 Thess. 2:15, 3:6. But this word, which means "received" or "delivered", also refers to what Jesus received from the Father to share with us, Matt. 11:27, 25:14. I don't see anything about tradition transcending the Bible. After creeds were formed, an impression could be taken that they were regarded as more important than Biblical texts, but good churches affirm they are merely summaries of the inspired Bible. So this sounds like a criticism of medieval Christianity, not of Paul.
That was a major medieval error, but hardly "most of Christian history" because the disuse of Latin only crept in maybe about the 8th or 9th century, and vernacular Bibles were published from maybe the 12th century on. That really has little to do with Paul.
Do you submit to what direct study of sacred text reveals? I've cited much sacred text. We all have personal duty to interpret rightly. But, as with math, the same text gives the same core answers to everyone. If you doubt the view of the majority, you stand on your conscience while also seeking whether a miscommunication or semantic difference might solve the disharmony. Again, the Reformation happened because the medieval church abused the personal duty to interpret (i.e. prohibiting personal interpretation), but the other direction of abuse (i.e. wrong interpretation) is also a problem.
Reformers have always agreed that institutional power and hierarchy are easily corrupted and need regular auditing.
Yes, and those who did believed the same of the other apostles, and treated them the same.
Why did he say to honor everything that comes from Moses's seat, and everything belonging to Caesar?
Autonomy means law unto oneself. Jesus and Paul taught we are judged by a law external to oneself. We have managerial (limited) autonomy in the sense of responsibility, and, when we take the law into our own hands rather than uphold the external we've received, that's where our responsibility and limited autonomy fails as a result of the total autonomy of the Monad. Once again you're getting this word "autonomy" that isn't in the text, and I don't know why you speak as if your words not in the text are better summaries than the text itself.
Paul appeals to Jesus's words just as other apostles do. They all experienced Jesus's words and invite others to experience them, initially mediated by them as teachers until we are mature enough to experience them immediately for ourselves. Paul said, "Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ" (1 Cor. 11:1), meaning that when he fails to follow Christ we are not to follow him (Gal. 1:8). Paul never says "believe me" (though he might affirm that Isaiah 52 says "believe me"). Why do you say this?
Okay.
Gnosticism had essentially disappeared before then; it had migrated into Montanism, Ebionitism, and other more sustainable systems. These forms did persist after Nicea and were not persecuted over experience or conscientious disagreement with other authorities; the only deprecation was over teaching a different Jesus or different gospel, but disagreements between churches were routinely hammered out by focus on unity (until the bishop of Rome started the idea of demanding submission, which was some time after Nicea). Nicea didn't "eliminate" any version of Christianity except by deprecating Arianism, which survived for centuries in western Europe anyway. Yes, independence was lost over time, I agree with you in mourning that, but that's why we had a Reformation. It's not related to Paul.
They weren't rejected, they just never rose to become Scripture. The "kingdom within" was accepted as gospel.
I agree. What it doesn't show is how to correct the narrative or how blaming Paul does any good. The whole true narrative can be shown without any reference to Paul, because people were already showing the whole true narrative before Paul came.
The word used here πιστεύω (pisteúō) means to obey. Strong 4100 pisteúō (from 4102 pístis). John seems to use active tense pisteuō rather than pistis in his gospel. Suggests most of the translations in John are about obeying in Jesus rather than simply obeying him[John] or any other earthly authority.
Like I said before we don't know for certain who wrote the Gospel according to Luke, but we do know whoever wrote it was sympathetic of Paul. Most likely a follower of Paul. "The gospels are written by men and it seems to me that it perhaps shouldn't be as problematic as people claim it might be to just say look I still believe in the thrust of the story but Luke just got this bit wrong. I know well it'd be much easier for people just to do that and a lot of people do of course. I was trained at Princeton Theological Seminary..." - Bart Ehrman
It's very clear to me. The Gnostics called it the divine spark. A fragment of the original light not trapped in your body like a prisoner but radiating through your body like light through a window. The window is not the light. But without the window, the light does not enter the room. All you have to do is create a space within your mind. That's what Buddhists do, just pay attention. In that gap lives your freedom. In that gap the spark becomes perceptible. The Gnostic teachers called this gap the bridal chamber. This bridal chamber in the Gospel of Philip is a metaphor for a divine union. The place where the divided reunites. The Gospel of Thomas says, "When you make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside, then you will enter the kingdom.". This is not riddle. This is instruction. When your inner attention becomes as vivid as your outer attention, when you can perceive inwardly with the same clarity you perceive outwardly, the barrier dissolves. The kingdom you have been seeking outside reveals itself to have been accessible from within all along.
Remember I was talking about Jesus's message, recognition, authority and declaration. First comes recognition. You are not creating this spark. You are not imagining it. You are simply noticing what was always there. A part of you already knows this. A part of you remembers this. That knowing is not coming from your brain. Your brain never learned this. That knowing is coming from the spark itself. It recognizes its own path home. Next is the loosening of fear. Fear is fundamentally an outward orientation. It is concern about what might come from outside to harm you. When you establish yourself inwardly, you find a place that cannot be threatened. The body can be touched, the mind can be disturbed, but the spark is beyond reach. It existed before this body and will exist after. From that place, fear becomes information rather than prison. You can feel it without being controlled by it. This is not denial of fear. This is transcendence of fear. The spark knows things your mind does not. When you establish connection with it, you begin to receive direction. Not as audible voices, not as visions, as knowing. You simply know to go here, to avoid there, to speak now, to stay silent. The more you trust this guidance, the more accurate it becomes. Jesus's mission was not to glorify this world but to expose its counterfeit nature and to awaken the divine spark trapped within humanity. According to Gnostics this spark serves as the navigator for the voyage homeward. It doesn't proclaim loudly, it murmurs softly. The more attentively you heed, the more potent it grows. Igniting the divine spark means reclaiming your true identity. Not solely a vessel or a consciousness, but an entity forged from the Monad's infinite substance.
I agree that's what it says. Also, Paul teaches predestination and he argues that faith is a gift from God rather being something self-generated. But, I'm not saying to "make a distinction between faith being a gift and faith being something one does". You don't need faith, all you need is recognition, that is recognize the divine spark in you. And once you do that you know you have authority. Lucifer did not create your divine spark. He created the cage that surrounds it. And he appointed the archons to guard that cage and keep you from remembering what you truly are.
I always doubt the view of the majority. It's probably the most important lesson I have learned in life, the majority is most of the time wrong. Jesus said the majority still go on the broad way to destruction (Mat 7:13).
Jesus's message is about compassion of forgiveness. Not about Moses or Caesar. Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven because if you're poor you are defying the material reality to win in this game created by Lucifer you yourself have to become a monster therefore the wealthy the powerful are evil people. If you're poor you don't participate in this evilness and therefore you're you are blessed by God.
Okay. To me that's just another way of defining censorship.
It's not just Paul. IMO, it's everything that served the imperial interests since Paul.
Don't know where you're getting that, pisteuo is the verb and pistis is the noun of the same thing, and the cluster of concepts is faith, belief, trust. Obedience is allied to these, and theologically manifests alongside them, but it's not the same thing. The actual Greek for hearken or obey is hypakouo G5219, which Jesus doesn't use about our relation to him. But Paul uses the same pisteuo G4100 as Jesus uses in the same way, Acts 16:31, 19:4, Gal. 2:16, Phil. 1:29, 1 Tim. 1:16. So even if there were distinction between pisteuo and pistis, Paul and Jesus are saying the same thing with pisteuo.
Ehrman is credentialed but not the guy you want for history as he has an axe to grind. However, if you choose to take his view against those who count Luke the most exact and accurate historian of the era, the message of Jesus can be proven without Luke, Acts, Paul, or Hebrews, if you like.
So did the kabbalists, who informed Talmudism. But unless there's evidence they were more inspired than Matthew, Mark, and John, I stick with the direct testimony of what Jesus said, and he said "image" to reflect the language of Genesis. It's not that relevant what it's called, as long as we are clear on what it is.
I.e., the union of Christ and his bride. This doesn't happen without the will of both Christ and the bride. Thomas similarly describes the union of Self and Other (though this is partial). The kingdom manifests both within and without at the same time. (And, all of that seems the same in Jesus and in Paul.)
Yes, always there but inactive until awoken.
The divine nature preexisted; the image or "spark" is newly manifested at conception but its preexistence is in the divine plan, which is a little different but compatible.
That's a fair way of saying it's internal. When guidance comes externally, it must be tested as it may be divine or it may be creaturely and brought to you as a test.
I'll affirm that because it reminds me Jesus and Paul did use lots of fire language. One that comes to mind, often ignored, is 2 Tim. 1:6, "Stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands"; that's definitely a fire reference.
What is your meaning for "faith" here? When I recognize something, I believe it. Perhaps you mean no further propositions are needed for "belief" than a core recognition of the divine? Oh, but that's Heb. 11:6, which interestingly doesn't mention Jesus.
I don't attribute any creation or appointment to him. I don't count the physical as any prison; 1 Peter 3:19 said that death (separation) was the prison. The whole idea of the physical being a mistake comes from that cosmology, informed by Egypt and Greece, that attempts to get the Monad off the hook for evil existing but just complicates the narrative, as I've said. If John the Baptist can begin to testify from the womb, it seems that the fictive prison threats and guards are not able to convince everyone they are real. What good does it do to your system to give them any credit instead of just to say that all their pretense at control is just part of their deception? Why should we make lucifer out to be more powerful than Jesus says he is?
I quoted you how he applied it to Moses and Caesar. He said to submit to both of them what is their due. The spiritual message you cite, poverty of spirit, doesn't contradict that.
Censorship is active, official suppression. There's no evidence church leaders suppressed all the apocrypha and pseudepigrapha; they relied heavily on Maccabees, Odes of Solomon, Didache, and quoted and circulated many others, including uncountable patristics. It's just that known apostolic books got quoted and circulated much more. I'm trying to think of a way where a lower level of attention (by leaders who were regularly persecuted) somehow connotes active, official animus, and I don't see it. I do see that Constantine personally censored Arius in 325 as a civil matter, requiring his works to be burned up on pain of death, but Arius was no gnostic and this has nothing to do with texts that circulated with public approval.
Summary: I've been looking for support for your distinctives and not finding it, while I'm happy to agree with a number of statements you make that are found in more systems than your own and often in the Bible or in Thomas. If you want to deprecate Luke and Paul, they're gravy but we can learn the truth without them (of course, Peter says Paul is Scripture, but that's a point that need not be made tendentious). If you want to glorify lucifer and the archons, you're free to do that but I don't participate and I think in the long run it's unhelpful to you. About my only concern is that I'm seeing a trend of the way you see things not lining up with the texts or with the history as we have them. When that's the case, the texts and history might be wrong, but it takes a good preponderance of evidence to overcome them. And by evidence I mean that which manifests to the spirit (the image or "spark"), because one word of truth dispels a multitude of lies. To tell people that I perceive this to be true and I perceive a massive, intersupportive collection of evidence to be all false, I need to present extraordinary evidence. (I do this all the time when I defend young earth against evolutionists, or lightspeed decay against physicists, or conspiracy facts against journalists.) It's not enough for me to perceive it, because I must test my own perception too when it might be deceiving me. When I do this, I agree that there are unrepaired difficulties in the mainstream narrative of Christian development, but I disagree that they affect the core. There are unresolved concerns in gnostic texts, but they can be harmonized without need of rejecting tradition. So I think you are on a good track, while it's those unsupported assertions that seem unnecessary that appear to me to be dampers on the robustness of your message. And, I'll repeat for my own sake, it may well be that the "spiritual body" has the freedom both to use and to eschew the material, and that Origenist harmony seems like it might address a core concern of gnostics from the very start.
I know that. Just read carefully what I wrote "John seems to use active tense". Anyway, I don't want to discuss this any longer.
I don't judge or dismiss anyone, and that includes Bart Ehrman. And I don't care how many credentials one has. I'm interested in the message and Ehrman is absolutely correct here and many other places where he talks about obvious errors and contradictions in the Bible. That's exactly what I found on my own.
I don't really have an issue with you considering "Luke the most exact and accurate historian of the era", however, it's important to note that Luke's historical accounts include both solid data and imaginative reconstructions.
Since you mentioned kabbalists I'm curious to know your view on Kabbalah.
Proving Jesus's message? why?
Like I said before Jesus came to teach a message of love and forgiveness and spiritual transformation. There's nothing to prove here. And who needs any proof anyway?
And it doesn't matter what Thomas, Philip, Judas or Mary Magdalene had to say. Hmmm...
You say Matthew, Mark, and John, but I'm sure you mean Luke as well. This takes me back to the council of Nicaea in 325 AD, where Emperor Constantine and the bishops chose which gospels would be canonized and which would be hidden or destroyed. The alternative gospels, Gospel of Thomas a collection of sayings of Jesus given secretly to the apostles, those that gave Mary Magdalene her true power, The Gospel of Philip, The Gospel of Truth, The Gospel of the Egyptians and many more were rejected, their teachings suppressed for centuries. These gospels were branded heresy. Their wisdom was forbidden. And the memory blurred until only fragments remained. But those fragments, those forbidden lines and half buried stories, refuse to die.
I'm getting used to this phrase, "there's no evidence". I've seen it so many times in your replies...
Yes, Gnostics were subjected to censorship. However, it is known that efforts to destroy Gnostic texts were largely successful, resulting in the survival of very little writing by Gnostic thinkers and theologians. And yes, Gnostics were persecuted. Gnostic groups were often persecuted as a result of being declared a heresy. The response of orthodoxy to gnosticism significantly defined the evolution of Christian doctrine and church order. After gnostic and orthodox Christianity parted, Gnostic Christianity continued as a separate movement in some areas for centuries. There's no denial the persecution of Gnostics took place, for example, during the Inquisition and the Albigensian Crusade.
Okay. Since you brought up Peter tell me who do you think he was.
Personally I would like to talk about Mary Magdalene. She was not an outcast, as we were led to believe, but was Jesus's closest companion, the one he trusted most with his deepest teachings, the one Peter envied. We could talk about Peter some other time if you wish, I'm still curios on your pov. Mary Magdalene's name is almost always listed first among the women in the gospels, a subtle, powerful signal of her leadership. Just as Peter stands at the head of the male disciples, Mary is the one who leads among the women. Mary wasn't just a disciple, but a mirror for the divine feminine and perhaps one of the most important parts of this sacred story. A story they've quietly hidden from all of us. So why was she silenced? Why for generations did powerful forces work so hard to erase her legacy, twist her image, and bury her wisdom deep within layers of dogma and denial?
All the verses I quoted for pisteuo are active verbs. John 14:1 and Acts 19:4 are both imperative. The only difference is plural versus singular, and Paul uses the aorist which refers to a state of being rather than an immediate action, i.e., "be believing". But it's rare that one needs tense to interpret accurately what a text says.
On my own, I looked at all the classic discrepancies alleged in the Bible, and found that 100% of them rely upon assuming one knows better rather than looking into the culture to see if the person could have had a consistent meaning. The same is true of other holy books like the Quran; if you give the source credit you can resolve every charge of contradiction. The same is not true of any major narrative franchise or cinematic universe proposed nowadays: they all have admitted irreconcilable narrative gaps that are spotted by fans; some of them are retconned by special pleading, and some just ignored. Watson told Holmes he was shot in the arm, then later he was shot in the leg, with no evidence he was shot in both places, and the fans all know that and accept it. But the tensions in long-accepted texts are accepted by fans because they do have reconciliations, not because they are judged irreconcilable; that comes from a contrary spirit. This is why I'm so open to apocrypha and pseudepigrapha: because most of the time they really are reconcilable (and on occasion, when the fans themselves did point out a true impossibility, that remains known and accepted as a reason for the text to have lesser status than others). All the 19th-century skepticism against the Bible rejected the text as culturally transmitted and stood against it to fight it; in prior eras nobody could mass together to do that.
Kabbalah means "received" and should have meant any formal teaching. I pointed out that the same word, in Greek, was used for the confession of the resurrection in the 30s, as evidenced later. It was used by proto-orthodox, by gnostics, by rabbinicals, and by Essenes for their formal creeds and symbols. Only the rabbinical strand retained it as the word "kabbalah", so nowadays it means a narrative containing ten core attributes, the withdrawal of light and the divine spark, and the return of human superpowers, very much like gnosticism with its aeons. Its only problem is if it denies the nature of God while getting sidetracked with its human advancement.
If it's not proven to someone that love is the way, the message doesn't click. Love requires both the spirit and the mind; if I fail by losing focus on either, I apologize.
Didn't happen, fren. There's no Nicene action about the Scriptural canon. I find that Jerome mentioned that Nicea used Judith in its deliberations, but canonization happened later. There was no suppression of any document there except the writings of Arius, there was no branding any of these as heresy, there was no forbidding their reading. The Gospel of Thomas found was dated 340; its use was noted by Cyril in the 4th century and continued by Manichaeans in the 5th. The Gospel of Mary didn't circulate enough to get much notice from the church, it appears to be 2nd-century origin from its framing, and only has a couple Coptic and Greek manuscripts. The Gospel of Philip also circulated into later in the 4th century, though its origin may be 3rd-century in Syriac thought. The Gospel of Truth which we have may have been one rejected by Irenaeus, or may have been written in the 4th century, but it had enough literary merit that it circulated quite awhile and was knowably related to (but distinct from) Valentinian gnosticism. The Gospel of the Egyptians (Coptic), with five ogdoads, Sakla creating archons, is also late in Nag Hammadi but I don't see its immediate provenance (it sounds quite late with its developments).
So, trying to make the best reconciliation of your statement, what I find is: (1) Constantine did make up a list, exact contents unknown, of books to be included in 50 Bibles he ordered for printing for Constantinople; this is not likely equal to the dual canon that arose later. (2) There are no acts through the 4th century calling for destruction of old texts circulating among Christians besides those of Arius. (3) Nag Hammadi did take it on itself to protect (and lose track of) a number of the alternative books, which very few others were able to do; yet this was not active suppression or rejection. (4) There were individuals who deprecated individual books in exactly the same way any opinion was raised against any book, including some of the canonical books like Hebrews, 1-3 John, and Revelation. (5) The boundary between heresy and orthodoxy was pretty straightforward at this time, with the only blurry one being that Valentinus was condemned 200 years later (I can't prove that his works were burned) and some of the circulating works echo Valentinianism.
To paint a narrative in which a coordinated power actively suppressed and rejected apocrypha and pseudepigrapha would go against the fact that when there was active suppression and rejection we have clear marks of it. Now we could try the conspiracy theory that the powers subtly coached Christians toward accepting some and forgetting about others, without overt action, which is indeed a general trend that happens over centuries, but that potential framing doesn't agree with yours. What actually happens is that leaders either condemn books on their own initiative as voices in a continuum, or groups give formal condemnation in the cases of clearly defined heresies like that of Arius, or certain books are promoted to the neglect of other books. But for the most part Christian leaders allowed ideas to circulate so that they could be proven right or wrong, and only judged heresies after long periods of circulation. The idea that Christian emperors secretly judged writings to be detrimental to their retaining power is belied by their not taking formal action against them; I wouldn't have a problem with counting these emperors as engaging an informal war of attrition against them when noticed, but the manuscripts were too weakly supported already to be worthy of formal imperial attention.
I'm all for going to all the sources, there's tremendous much in Egyptology for instance. They give alternatives of what was thought at the time. It rarely means that those at the time were all wrong and the hidden text was all correct; it usually only means that our current understanding has occasional neglected aspects. Considering all the uncovered stories we've now accessed, I don't see that much in the way of significant error. I'm pretty active about one such error, the loss of 7th-day Sabbath, but after 25 years of investigation I was finally able to reconcile church practice with the actual meaning of the 7th day, and I think such reconciliation is available for any gnostic tension.
When I say there's no evidence, it's an invitation for evidence (manuscripts and archaeology) to be produced. I greatly appreciate your producing narrative, which I judge on the likelihood of its fit to the known evidence.
I don't see it. I see that Irenaeus ridiculed Valentinus, and Hippolytus condemned Naassenes, which would obviously chill some gnostic speech locally, but that is not censorship. There was no hierarchical structure and Irenaeus worked by voluntaryism and bridge-building, not authoritarianism. I don't see efforts to destroy gnostic texts. I see that gnostic teachers had a bad habit of mostly not committing to writing texts. As I said, Manichaeanism was the chief surviving aspect of gnosticism because it contained reconcilable elements instead of being a personality cult. Tertullian rehabilitated it, and then Augustine claimed what could still be retained of its usefulness. I might grant you that Theodosian I created a "parting of ways" in 381 or 382 (not under the name gnosticism but Manichaeanism), but I see nothing about suppression of the gnostic system in those edicts, only about generic (loosely enforced) deprecation of teachings against trinitarianism. There was no formal schism event for gnosticism that I see, and I try to find all the schism events!
I didn't think we were talking about medieval times because that isn't about the Roman empire's fears but about the HRE's fears, which is quite different.
Peter the fisherman has a career described in the gospels and the two letters attributed to him. Why would I doubt his place as a unique leader among the disciples? Maybe you're trying to ask if I think him supreme as opposed to primary?
I also have no problem with greater study on the role of every Mary and other woman in the NT. It is very traditional to regard the Virgin Mary as a mirror for the divine feminine, and there's evidence this also transfers to Mary Magdalene (though some gnostics transferred it to their own love interests, which was generally regarded as a warning sign because demonstrably abused much more than used). I don't think Magdalene was silenced. The oral tradition that went into the Gospel of Mary was not strong, but now we have it and it fits with the rest. But what's overlooked is that the diatesseron gospels, whose glorification and ennoblement of women is now banally familiar to us, were cutting-edge at the time in their promotion of the feminine and contradicted the suppression of women in most other contemporary Hebrew, Greek, or Latin texts. So Mary was not silenced, but she was given a nonpareil place as first witness of the resurrection and her influence was demonstrated in hundreds of cases of Christian promotion of femininity. The fact that the Gospel of Mary is within that trend, and has a few unique aspects not found elsewhere, is not a real loss of any doctrine of femininity.
Similarly, Christians made exceeding much of the character of Sophia as depicted in their sourcetexts like Proverbs 8. They overcame Greek abstractions by presenting a real power compatible with the many prior indications in Judaism, and this overlapped with their high view of the Virgin and others. This is why they didn't neatly accept a message that Sophia ever erred, or indeed that the Virgin Mary ever did. It seems to me that every case that can be made, saying that something about females is neglected, can be answered by demonstration from orthodox tradition that it was not neglected but promoted. The primary contribution of the Gospel of Mary is the mystic experience, which is echoed in later anchorite traditions of gnosis and theoria; that experience developed from the first century but was only hinted at it in small bits and has taken centuries for any movement to get well-established views about. So I don't see much there for a story of silencing. We could certainly theorize together that certain truths were omitted or sidelined, but if they are really truths they can be tested objectively!
Personally, I don't need to look, I would expect discrepancies and errors in the Bible. Many different writers, most likely by people who never met Jesus, the books were written over a relatively long period of time, etc. As for translations, all the Bibles, every single one out there today require translation. Every single word you've read in the Bible is a translation. And every translation is an interpretation. And many are mistranslations. Some could not have been avoided, however many were deliberate. And I don't care how hard you try to convince me of the contrary, it won't work. I studied people all my life, I know how they work and behave. And I use critical thinking and know how to connect the dots.
Also, there are many misinterpretations. The Bible is hard to understand and in most cases requires some assistance. Just ask the jews. They have a tremendous respect for learning and for literacy. That said, there are certain problems with the tradition. The first is it's contradictory. When you read the Bible, it's always contradicting itself. It's almost schizophrenic. You could say it's very hard to pick out a definite message from the Bible. And that's why the oral tradition called the Oral Torah is actually much more important. And so Jews have to go to the synagogue all the time where the rabbi will explain to them the meaning of the Bible because if you read it by yourself, it's almost impossible to understand.
Personally I'm more concerned about what's being omitted, as I said in the past. Let me give you an example. Take the two back-to-back statements of the Apostles Creed namely that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Ghost born of the Virgin Mary and that he was crucified died and was buried and on the third day he rose again from the dead. It is striking to me that this oldest and most foundational Christian Creed jumps from Jesus's birth to his death and Resurrection entirely skipping over his life. How did it happen that the way Jesus came into the world and how he left Christmas and Easter came to Define Christianity itself? where did this emphasis on the entrance and exit points of Jesus's heavenly existence come from? and how did it achieve such centrality even above that of Jesus's life and teachings?
IMO, it has more than one problem. Just the fact that Kabbalah is studied and practised by so many world leaders today is a red flag for me. Also, I can't get a straight answer to any Kabbalah question from any of the popular AI engines out there. Like I said, I'm a very strong believer in connecting the dots. You may or may not be aware Donald Trump is a self-confessed kabbalist. Quote from his 2004 book 'The Way to the Top', page 188 "..my Kabbalah teacher, Eitan Yardeni..".
IMO, if you have to prove to any human being that love is the way, we've lost the war for Humanity. But, I do agree with you love it's a spiritual thing. That's why an AI robot, IMO, could never feel love. AI can pretend to feel love. AI can say, "I love you.". And if you challenge it to describe how love feels, AI can provide the best verbal description in the world. AI can read countless love poems and psychology books and can then describe the feeling of love much better than any human poet, psychologist or lover. But these are just words. In the Bible the spirit of love is much more important than the letter of the law. This tension between spirit and letter existed in every religion, every legal system, even every person. Now this tension will be externalized. It will become the tension not between different humans. This will be the tension between humans and AIs, the new masters of words.
If we read the Divine Comedy, Dante's categorical imperative is very simple. Love someone. Doesn't matter who, could be your wife, it could be your mother or it could be your child. It could be your best friend. But love that person and when you love that person then all these three things are true: do not manipulate people, do not use people, treat people with respect. It means you are now going to be your best. It means you are treating this person with respect. It means that you're choosing to love this person. So love is the unifying force of the universe. That's what Dante is really saying.
Neither you nor I were alive in 325 AD, or the 4th and 5th century. And we both have to rely on what's being documented about these times and events. For instance when it comes to the Gospel of Thomas, I could say the same thing you often say "Don't know where you're getting that". According to Wikipedia "Assigning a date to the Gospel of Thomas is very complex because it is difficult to know precisely to what a date is being assigned (then why are you saying "it was dated 340", why not 339 or 341? I'm aware some have dated the Gospel of Thomas discovered at Nag Hammadi to 340 AD, but that's just picking a number out of the air). Scholars have proposed a date as early as 60 AD or as late as 140 AD"
And according to SacredTexts "We have two versions of the Gospel of Thomas today. The first was discovered in the late 1800's among the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, and consists of fragments of a Greek version, which has been dated to c. 200. The second is a complete version, in Coptic, from Codex II of the Nag Hammadi finds.".
But, me as a critical thinking person I'm asking "Why the Gospel of Thomas isn’t in the Bible?". And I think it's a reasonable question to ask in 2026 AD. Then as you say "The Gospel of Mary didn't circulate enough to get much notice from the church", my question is "Why not?". When archaeologists finally deciphered The Gospel of Mary Magdalene in 1896 when they could finally read the entire text they understood why the Vatican demanded it never see the light of day. Why? What was in the manuscript discovered in Cairo that so terrified the most powerful church in the world? What truth had to remain hidden at any cost? Because according to this lost gospel, Mary Magdalene wasn't a repentant prostitute. That was a lie invented centuries later. She wasn't a mere follower walking behind the apostles. That was a deliberate distortion of her true role. She wasn't who the church told us she was for 2,000 years. That was an unprecedented historical manipulation. She was the guardian of a secret. A secret Jesus revealed to her and only her. A secret the other apostles knew nothing about. A secret about how the human soul can become immortal. Mary Magdalene was in many of the texts found at Nag Hammadi the embodiment of that direct unmediated divine knowledge. In the Gospel of Mary, she shares visions with the disciples that they cannot comprehend. When Peter and the others argue, caught up in jealousy and fear. It's Mary who stands as a bridge, a voice of wisdom.
I'll have to respond to the rest of your message some other time. I can't now. But, you're raising an interesting subject Egyptology.
Let me ask you a question. Do the Dead Sea Scrolls, or the Nag Hammadi texts, do they also include Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? the answer is No, the Nag Hammadi texts and the Dead Sea Scrolls do not contain the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The Nag Hammadi Library, consists of 52 ancient texts written in Coptic, including the Gospel of Thomas, but none of the canonical Gospels. The Dead Sea Scrolls, found in the caves of Qumran, contain biblical, sectarian, and apocryphal texts, but not the Gospels of the New Testament.
According to experts the Gospels are generally considered to have been written after the Epistles, with the following approximate dates: Mark around 66 AD, Matthew 80–90 AD, Luke 100 AD, John 96 AD. In contrast, the Epistles to the Corinthians and Galatians are believed to have been written earlier, 1 Corinthians around 50 AD, Galatians around 50 AD. So, Paul wrote his letters or if his letters were published or written down, before the Gospels, 20 to 50 years before Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. Why would the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, which claim to be the first person eyewitness accounts of the actions and sayings of Jesus, why on earth would they have been written down 20 to 50 years after the letters attributed to Paul were written down?
Paul remember, he was Jewish also. His name was Saul and he was a heretic hunter. He hunted down followers of Christ and other heretics according to the Sadducee official narrative. What the Sadducees thought was orthodoxy. So he worked for the Sadducees and anybody who challenged the Sadducees orthodoxy, and the Sadducees controlled the temple. So, really the whole Christianity is Paul's work. And the Gospels were written after Paul. There's no explanation for that other than the fact that they were written, because Paul (actually Rome) had this idea, or he was working with a whole bunch of sects that existed at the time, which he was persecuting. And Saul (Romans), started what has now become known as Christianity.
Israel is a terrorist fake state. Israel practices terrorism... Israel has been a terrorist state from its beginning, and has its foundations in terrorism.
Says the AI slop master 🤣