Gnostics don't see Jesus Christ as the almighty Creator in the flesh
Why would they? when Jesus's mission was of spiritual liberation, not creating a new religion. Jesus and Christ are not the same thing. Jesus was the man. Christ is the consciousness he achieved. Jesus became the Christ, but Christ consciousness existed before Jesus and remains available after Jesus. This isn't diminishing Jesus. It's understanding his true accomplishment. And Gnostics knew that.
The Church is telling you, don't listen to what actually Jesus teaches. Believe us, Jesus is God the "Creator in the flesh". And many people fall for it. What does this even mean? first thing, the Church made Jesus part of what they call the Trinity. Why? because the Jews believe Yahweh created this material world we live in. So, Jesus had to become God (Yahweh), although Jesus never said he was God. Trinity means God exists as three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But these three are somehow also one God. Now this already is very confusing, because if Jesus is the Son of God, then how is he also God? And if he's both Son and Father, then what does that even mean? This is the kind of logical paradox that has caused theological debates for 2,000 years, and we still don't have a clear answer. So, remember before the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, the first ecumenical council of the Christian Church, societies were paganistic or polytheistic. Then with emperor Constantine God became the Holy Trinity. The Holy Trinity is the weirdest idea in human history. The Holy Trinity is this God is nothing and everything. And what this means is God is both real and not real. God is a symbol and reality itself. And because of this idea, people are now forced to think abstractly about the world. And it gives rise to money, nation state and science. Serves perfectly the imperial interests and now the Church is an important part of the Empire. People are now forced to think abstractly about the world. Whereas people before could think very concretely about the world.
they follow false doctrines of demons according to the Holy Scriptures
After Jesus's death there were many groups and movements who considered themselves Christians, Gnostics being one of them. Not many people know that the first Christian state was not Catholic Rome, but a Gnostic one, Osroene, with its capital at Edessa in modern Turkey near the Syrian border. The Gnostic teacher, Bardesanes (or Bardaisan), converted King Abgar IX, who ruled 177-212. Bardesanes was credited by church fathers with inventing the Christian hymn and wrote 150 songs that were popular for generations. The most famous is the “Hymn of the Pearl,” a beautiful allegory of the soul being lost in the world and returning to God, found in The Acts of Thomas, an early 3rd century text. However, Roman empire made sure to use propaganda against Gnostics as heretics, which led Gnostics to be persecuted, killed and others to ran away. A small number of Gnostics survived such relentless persecutions. Once the Catholic faction received the official support of the Roman Emperor Constantine in 325, persecution of heretics intensified and the Gnostics went underground and faded away.
This is the kind of logical paradox that has caused theological debates for 2,000 years, and we still don't have a clear answer.
If we took a little effort to compare it to the paradoxes of what gnostics actually taught, your head would be spinning so fast you'd beg for the simplicity of diverse unity.
I accept that the church (I) must back out some significant language that we've encrusted onto the Scripture. I've done that. If you want to say Jesus never said he was God and is never called "Creator in the flesh", fine. That doesn't change who he is and who he said he is, which can be stated without any such language. I believe I linked you my article written as a concession to antitrinitarians, but I don't recall you commenting.
Do you believe the maxim of the law that the testimony of two or three is one? Because the Jews all knew this, and knew the concept of corporate unity, and their problem was not with those points. Millions of Jews accepted the Christian revelation in the first century, and millions of Jews rejected it on the grounds of fear that Jesus's apostles would upend their comfy synagogue lifestyles of sin. Jesus was not tried as an idolator but as a rabblerouser ("inciter").
The Holy Trinity is the weirdest idea in human history.
Coming from a gnostic who believes that a Monad emanated fifteen male-female dyads, the last female of which birthed an evil demiurge without marital support but also without sin, that's projection. I told you that idea was Egyptian and literally comes from Kek, but you continue to take it seriously.
All you need to do is admit that the Monad is incomprehensible as a pure monism and recognize that the point of the first emanation, Logos, is to reveal something equal in every way to the Monad except where they are poles on one spectrum. If you accept that much, you believe in unity and diversity as well as, or better than, many trinitarians who don't know what they believe.
If we took a little effort to compare it to the paradoxes of what gnostics actually taught, your head would be spinning so fast
I don't blame you for looking at the Gnostics teachings this way. Not many people wouldn't. Let's look at at the Gospel of Thomas. If your head doesn't spin it might be something wrong with you. Saying 7, "Jesus said, Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human, and foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion will still become human.". This saying presents a paradox to illustrate a spiritual concept. The lion symbolizes the wild, bestial nature or the passions, while the human represents the higher, rational, and spiritual self. When the human eats the lion, the lower nature is consumed and transformed into the higher, a fortunate spiritual victory. Conversely, if the lion eats the human, the higher self is overcome and absorbed by the passions. This is a foul or wretched outcome, yet the text adds a twist. The lion will still become human, suggesting that even in this degradation, the divine spark within the human ultimately elevates the lower nature, though through a tragic process. Unfortunately most people have never heard of Gospel of Thomas. Or, rejected because their heads are spinning.
Millions of Jews accepted the Christian revelation in the first century, and millions of Jews rejected it
This may be an exaggeration on your part. According to Theodor Mommsen, in the first century CE there about 1,000,000 Jews in Egypt. The Census of David is said to have recorded 1,300,000 males over twenty years of age, which would imply a population of over 5,000,000. The number of exiles who returned from Babylon is given at 42,360. Tacitus declares that Jerusalem at its fall contained 600,000 persons; Josephus, that there were as many as 1,100,000, of whom 97,000 were sold as slaves. It is from the latter that most European Jews are descended. Also note there were many jews at that time who didn't care one way or another about Jesus.
I told you that idea was Egyptian and literally comes from Kek, but you continue to take it seriously
You told me a lot of things, keep telling me more. I read a lot, listen and watch a lot... but believe little. And I question everything, coming from everybody. Something I'm certain will never change in me.
All you need to do is admit that the Monad is incomprehensible as a pure monism
You see, I don't look at it this way. Not any more. For instance, why are we arguing about belief? take the Muslims, we all acknowledge that Abraham is our forefather and Abraham came before the Bible. He came before the OT and the NT. So why argue? You argue about things you know, but why do you argue about things you do not know? Allah knows and you do not know. Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian. But he was a monotheist, a Muslim. So this is what Muhammad is saying. A Muslim is someone who believes in God as the only true God. And that includes Jews and Christians and he was not of the polytheists.
Pardon me, I meant contradiction, I have nothing against Thomas 7 because it's similar to the paradoxes Jesus taught in the gospels.
This may be an exaggeration on your part.
No, I included all generations of the first century, which would get us several million, and I take Josephus's number of a million dead in the war along with another million or two for rabbinical Jews (not just the Alexandrians), and messianic Jews peaked at a million late in the century (I'll need to dig up that cite) so they can be attributed another million over time too. But I'll grant sometimes I frame my narrative numbers a little fast for those who wish to check the math skeptically.
Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian. But he was a monotheist, a Muslim.
Oh, that's a rich apologetic you've been listening to. I'll try not to be too sarcastic here, but your speed in tacking from gnostics to Muslims is not something I've witnessed before. Anyway, if Abraham was a Muslim because he was a man of "peace", he was certainly a Jew as a man of "praise" and certainly a Christian as a man of "anointing". If he wasn't one of the above, he wasn't any. They're all monotheists. Also, Abraham preserved Hebrew Scriptures (Gen. 1-11) and added to them.
If you want me to be a Muslim now because I believe "in God as the only true God", I won't argue about belief. I will, however, point out that I know what other Muslims would likely say about my profession and I'm not confident they will happily take yours either. They'll be happy to take your jizya but they won't be happy if you raise a question of conscience about it nor if you ask too many questions about the differing schools about the nature of tawhid. So I don't think "Muslim" means what you think it means.
Anyway, if Abraham was a Muslim because he was a man of "peace", he was certainly a Jew as a man of "praise" and certainly a Christian as a man of "anointing".
Are you familiar with The Apocalypse of Abraham? it's a manuscript dated after 70 AD (text must post-date 70 due to its knowledge of the destruction of the temple) and before 150 AD. The Apocalypse of Abraham belongs to a body of Abraham literature flourishing about the time of Christ. "The Book is essentially Jewish," wrote George H. Box, with "features... which suggest Essene origin." From the Essenes it passed, he suggested, to Ebionite circles ... and thence, in some form, found its way into Gnostic circles," though "Gnostic elements in our Book are not very pronounced." -- Dr. Hugh Nibley (Abraham in Egypt)
That in fact a book known as The Apocalypse of Abraham existed in his time is explicitly stated by Epiphanius where, in speaking of the Gnostic sect called “the Sethians,” he says they possessed a number of books “written in the name of great men,” seven in the name of Seth, and among others one “in the name of Abraham which they also declare to be an apocalypse,” and which is “full of all wickedness”.
So I don't think "Muslim" means what you think it means
Nothing wrong with a bit research into the subject. I enjoy studying and learning new things.
Why would they? when Jesus's mission was of spiritual liberation, not creating a new religion. Jesus and Christ are not the same thing. Jesus was the man. Christ is the consciousness he achieved. Jesus became the Christ, but Christ consciousness existed before Jesus and remains available after Jesus. This isn't diminishing Jesus. It's understanding his true accomplishment. And Gnostics knew that.
The Church is telling you, don't listen to what actually Jesus teaches. Believe us, Jesus is God the "Creator in the flesh". And many people fall for it. What does this even mean? first thing, the Church made Jesus part of what they call the Trinity. Why? because the Jews believe Yahweh created this material world we live in. So, Jesus had to become God (Yahweh), although Jesus never said he was God. Trinity means God exists as three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. But these three are somehow also one God. Now this already is very confusing, because if Jesus is the Son of God, then how is he also God? And if he's both Son and Father, then what does that even mean? This is the kind of logical paradox that has caused theological debates for 2,000 years, and we still don't have a clear answer. So, remember before the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, the first ecumenical council of the Christian Church, societies were paganistic or polytheistic. Then with emperor Constantine God became the Holy Trinity. The Holy Trinity is the weirdest idea in human history. The Holy Trinity is this God is nothing and everything. And what this means is God is both real and not real. God is a symbol and reality itself. And because of this idea, people are now forced to think abstractly about the world. And it gives rise to money, nation state and science. Serves perfectly the imperial interests and now the Church is an important part of the Empire. People are now forced to think abstractly about the world. Whereas people before could think very concretely about the world.
After Jesus's death there were many groups and movements who considered themselves Christians, Gnostics being one of them. Not many people know that the first Christian state was not Catholic Rome, but a Gnostic one, Osroene, with its capital at Edessa in modern Turkey near the Syrian border. The Gnostic teacher, Bardesanes (or Bardaisan), converted King Abgar IX, who ruled 177-212. Bardesanes was credited by church fathers with inventing the Christian hymn and wrote 150 songs that were popular for generations. The most famous is the “Hymn of the Pearl,” a beautiful allegory of the soul being lost in the world and returning to God, found in The Acts of Thomas, an early 3rd century text. However, Roman empire made sure to use propaganda against Gnostics as heretics, which led Gnostics to be persecuted, killed and others to ran away. A small number of Gnostics survived such relentless persecutions. Once the Catholic faction received the official support of the Roman Emperor Constantine in 325, persecution of heretics intensified and the Gnostics went underground and faded away.
If we took a little effort to compare it to the paradoxes of what gnostics actually taught, your head would be spinning so fast you'd beg for the simplicity of diverse unity.
I accept that the church (I) must back out some significant language that we've encrusted onto the Scripture. I've done that. If you want to say Jesus never said he was God and is never called "Creator in the flesh", fine. That doesn't change who he is and who he said he is, which can be stated without any such language. I believe I linked you my article written as a concession to antitrinitarians, but I don't recall you commenting.
Do you believe the maxim of the law that the testimony of two or three is one? Because the Jews all knew this, and knew the concept of corporate unity, and their problem was not with those points. Millions of Jews accepted the Christian revelation in the first century, and millions of Jews rejected it on the grounds of fear that Jesus's apostles would upend their comfy synagogue lifestyles of sin. Jesus was not tried as an idolator but as a rabblerouser ("inciter").
Coming from a gnostic who believes that a Monad emanated fifteen male-female dyads, the last female of which birthed an evil demiurge without marital support but also without sin, that's projection. I told you that idea was Egyptian and literally comes from Kek, but you continue to take it seriously.
All you need to do is admit that the Monad is incomprehensible as a pure monism and recognize that the point of the first emanation, Logos, is to reveal something equal in every way to the Monad except where they are poles on one spectrum. If you accept that much, you believe in unity and diversity as well as, or better than, many trinitarians who don't know what they believe.
I don't blame you for looking at the Gnostics teachings this way. Not many people wouldn't. Let's look at at the Gospel of Thomas. If your head doesn't spin it might be something wrong with you. Saying 7, "Jesus said, Lucky is the lion that the human will eat, so that the lion becomes human, and foul is the human that the lion will eat, and the lion will still become human.". This saying presents a paradox to illustrate a spiritual concept. The lion symbolizes the wild, bestial nature or the passions, while the human represents the higher, rational, and spiritual self. When the human eats the lion, the lower nature is consumed and transformed into the higher, a fortunate spiritual victory. Conversely, if the lion eats the human, the higher self is overcome and absorbed by the passions. This is a foul or wretched outcome, yet the text adds a twist. The lion will still become human, suggesting that even in this degradation, the divine spark within the human ultimately elevates the lower nature, though through a tragic process. Unfortunately most people have never heard of Gospel of Thomas. Or, rejected because their heads are spinning.
This may be an exaggeration on your part. According to Theodor Mommsen, in the first century CE there about 1,000,000 Jews in Egypt. The Census of David is said to have recorded 1,300,000 males over twenty years of age, which would imply a population of over 5,000,000. The number of exiles who returned from Babylon is given at 42,360. Tacitus declares that Jerusalem at its fall contained 600,000 persons; Josephus, that there were as many as 1,100,000, of whom 97,000 were sold as slaves. It is from the latter that most European Jews are descended. Also note there were many jews at that time who didn't care one way or another about Jesus.
You told me a lot of things, keep telling me more. I read a lot, listen and watch a lot... but believe little. And I question everything, coming from everybody. Something I'm certain will never change in me.
You see, I don't look at it this way. Not any more. For instance, why are we arguing about belief? take the Muslims, we all acknowledge that Abraham is our forefather and Abraham came before the Bible. He came before the OT and the NT. So why argue? You argue about things you know, but why do you argue about things you do not know? Allah knows and you do not know. Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian. But he was a monotheist, a Muslim. So this is what Muhammad is saying. A Muslim is someone who believes in God as the only true God. And that includes Jews and Christians and he was not of the polytheists.
Pardon me, I meant contradiction, I have nothing against Thomas 7 because it's similar to the paradoxes Jesus taught in the gospels.
No, I included all generations of the first century, which would get us several million, and I take Josephus's number of a million dead in the war along with another million or two for rabbinical Jews (not just the Alexandrians), and messianic Jews peaked at a million late in the century (I'll need to dig up that cite) so they can be attributed another million over time too. But I'll grant sometimes I frame my narrative numbers a little fast for those who wish to check the math skeptically.
Oh, that's a rich apologetic you've been listening to. I'll try not to be too sarcastic here, but your speed in tacking from gnostics to Muslims is not something I've witnessed before. Anyway, if Abraham was a Muslim because he was a man of "peace", he was certainly a Jew as a man of "praise" and certainly a Christian as a man of "anointing". If he wasn't one of the above, he wasn't any. They're all monotheists. Also, Abraham preserved Hebrew Scriptures (Gen. 1-11) and added to them.
If you want me to be a Muslim now because I believe "in God as the only true God", I won't argue about belief. I will, however, point out that I know what other Muslims would likely say about my profession and I'm not confident they will happily take yours either. They'll be happy to take your jizya but they won't be happy if you raise a question of conscience about it nor if you ask too many questions about the differing schools about the nature of tawhid. So I don't think "Muslim" means what you think it means.
Are you familiar with The Apocalypse of Abraham? it's a manuscript dated after 70 AD (text must post-date 70 due to its knowledge of the destruction of the temple) and before 150 AD. The Apocalypse of Abraham belongs to a body of Abraham literature flourishing about the time of Christ. "The Book is essentially Jewish," wrote George H. Box, with "features... which suggest Essene origin." From the Essenes it passed, he suggested, to Ebionite circles ... and thence, in some form, found its way into Gnostic circles," though "Gnostic elements in our Book are not very pronounced." -- Dr. Hugh Nibley (Abraham in Egypt)
That in fact a book known as The Apocalypse of Abraham existed in his time is explicitly stated by Epiphanius where, in speaking of the Gnostic sect called “the Sethians,” he says they possessed a number of books “written in the name of great men,” seven in the name of Seth, and among others one “in the name of Abraham which they also declare to be an apocalypse,” and which is “full of all wickedness”.
Nothing wrong with a bit research into the subject. I enjoy studying and learning new things.