Jesus was a Gnostic

a reply to: chr0naut

Don't blame the website. That is low. It is a word for word copy of the book. Written by one of the leading Scroll scholars.

Word for word you sneaky cheat. You have no credibility now.

You will do some dirty crap to avoid admitting you were wrong.

Your tactics are so obvious.

Your are escalating.

That is deplorable. People have problems with being wrong. Instead of learning something if they didn't figure it out it is wrong. No chance of ever appreciating that finding out you are wrong is equal to learning.

I'm disgusted with that.

originally posted by: LenatasataneL
If only Gnostic Jesus were around today to see what people act like while playing Christian.

I imagine he would say:

" Of course I am Gnostic, I know God. I tried to tell you about him but you treated me as a human sacrifice so you can get away with being a sinner with much hate in your heart for anything you don't understand."

" And while I am here could the adults of ATS act like it and stop talking about off topic matters like you have absolutely nothing better to do than make up lies about someone you disagree with. It is really weird."

Jesus was not a Gnostic. They arose after Jesus had died, weren't monotheistic and didn't believe in the God of the Torah.

Jesus 'knew' God because He was God. He had descended from Heaven. No human had done that. He knew the Father because he was the Son. The book of John starts by explaining that "the Word was God", "the Word became flesh", 'the Word was the Son of God' and that 'Jesus was the Son of God'. This means the Word = Jesus the Son of God and God in the flesh.

Jesus even said He was God: "Before Abraham was 'I Am'." Just in case you are unsure of actually what Jesus was saying there, look at the reaction of the Pharisees. They were in no doubt that He had just called Himself God.

originally posted by: LenatasataneL
a reply to: chr0naut

Don't blame the website. That is low. It is a word for word copy of the book. Written by one of the leading Scroll scholars.

Word for word you sneaky cheat. You have no credibility now.

You will do some dirty crap to avoid admitting you were wrong.

Your tactics are so obvious.

Your are escalating.

Anyone visiting the web page can see that it has far more commentary than the actual translations. Anyone with any knowledge of the documents knows that the title given: "The Hymns of the Poor" is arbitrary, neither supported by the text or its context.

My credibility is not at issue. It doesn't matter if I am credible or not. What I was saying is that website is not entirely credible. This is something which can be checked out by comparison of the DSS (which is online from credible sources). It is clear that the commentary drags in all sorts of other stuff, out of place historically and thematically, and provides a long commentary not supported by the texts it does quote. That much is apparent on the single page you linked to.

originally posted by: chr0naut
They were in no doubt that He had just called Himself God.

Jesus was a man, possessed by a spirit calling itself God.

That's why sometimes he speaks like a man, and sometimes he speaks like a God.

The Pharisees thought the spirit that possessed Jesus was the chief of devils,

"But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils." -- KJV, Matthew 12:24

Their reasoning was quite simple. Devils don't obey God. That's why they are called devils. But, these devils obeyed Jesus. That was a mystery that defied the religious logic of the Pharisees. It meant there aren't "two" forces in the universe, opposing each other, god and his adversary, just "one" being.

The clearest indication that Jesus was just a man, is when he cries out on the cross,

"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" -- KJV, Matthew 27:46

The spirit deliberately withdrew from the man Jesus, just at that critical moment, so that we would all know that Jesus was really only just a man.

Lest we might be confused, given all the miracles Jesus seemed to perform during his walkabout. It wasn't he Jesus doing the miracles. He was just the mouthpiece.

Now according to The Gospel of Barnabas, this mysterious cry on the cross is explained another way. Jesus didn't actually die on the cross, but used magic to make Judas appear to look like Jesus, so the Romans then arrested the wrong guy, and nailed Judas to the cross. That's why the guy on the cross cries out "My Lord, why have you forsaken me?". The guy on the cross is crying out to Jesus, asking him why he let the Romans nail him up there. That would change the whole view of Jesus, however. So, that Gospel is tossed out. Supposedly, it's a Muslim forgery. Putting Judas on the cross, fit the ideas of justice prior to the coming of Jesus. The one who sought to betray, was himself betrayed, the same "eye for an eye" that per-existed before. So, it fit in with the religious ideas of long tradition.

But, if we take the bible at its word, as it is written today, then it was really Jesus on the cross, and the spirit deserted him temporarily, to let us know Jesus was just a man. The mystery is solved by recognizing "Christ" as the spirit, who is really the son of another spirit called God. Jesus was a man, who was bonded to the spirit of Christ during his ministry on earth. So, we really have to speak of "Jesus Christ" to give recognition to both the man and the spirit doing the work together.

originally posted by: AMPTAH

originally posted by: chr0naut
They were in no doubt that He had just called Himself God.

Jesus was a man, possessed by a spirit calling itself God.

That's why sometimes he speaks like a man, and sometimes he speaks like a God.

The Pharisees thought the spirit that possessed Jesus was the chief of devils,

"But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils." -- KJV, Matthew 12:24

Their reasoning was quite simple. Devils don't obey God. That's why they are called devils. But, these devils obeyed Jesus. That was a mystery that defied the religious logic of the Pharisees. It meant there aren't "two" forces in the universe, opposing each other, god and his adversary, just "one" being.

The clearest indication that Jesus was just a man, is when he cries out on the cross,

"And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" -- KJV, Matthew 27:46

The spirit deliberately withdrew from the man Jesus, just at that critical moment, so that we would all know that Jesus was really only just a man.

Lest we might be confused, given all the miracles Jesus seemed to perform during his walkabout. It wasn't he Jesus doing the miracles. He was just the mouthpiece.

Now according to The Gospel of Barnabas, this mysterious cry on the cross is explained another way. Jesus didn't actually die on the cross, but used magic to make Judas appear to look like Jesus, so the Romans then arrested the wrong guy, and nailed Judas to the cross. That's why the guy on the cross cries out "My Lord, why have you forsaken me?". The guy on the cross is crying out to Jesus, asking him why he let the Romans nail him up there. That would change the whole view of Jesus, however. So, that Gospel is tossed out. Supposedly, it's a Muslim forgery. Putting Judas on the cross, fit the ideas of justice prior to the coming of Jesus. The one who sought to betray, was himself betrayed, the same "eye for an eye" that per-existed before. So, it fit in with the religious ideas of long tradition.

But, if we take the bible at its word, as it is written today, then it was really Jesus on the cross, and the spirit deserted him temporarily, to let us know Jesus was just a man. The mystery is solved by recognizing "Christ" as the spirit, who is really the son of another spirit called God. Jesus was a man, who was bonded to the spirit of Christ during his ministry on earth. So, we really have to speak of "Jesus Christ" to give recognition to both the man and the spirit doing the work together.

That Jesus only carried the spirit of God is a possible interpretation (for example, Luke 4:18). But His sinlessness, required to allow Him to be a substitutionary sacrifice for us, would indicate that He was 'God' well before the Spirit came upon Him at that time.

Jesus was clearly God incarnated in the canonical gospels. Taken along with many other references, I would agree that the Nicene creed is closer to the mark than other interpretations and descriptions written in other works (some of them known fakes).

I happen to believe that the sacrifice of His life that Jesus gave, is less powerful and glorious if He were just a guy who died (or worse still tricked others to kill one of His associates).

In regard to Judas, if he died on the cross, then who was the one who committed suicide in "The Field of Blood", also previously called "The Potters Field"?

originally posted by: LenatasataneL
The greatest Gospel of all time is the Gospel of Thomas. Over 100 quotes from Jesus for the faithful and capable.

And the decision to parody Yahweh as the demiurge who is comically inept and can't do anything good or right because he is just totally inept and thinks he creates what his Mother or the Savior create from above because he can't do it in ingenious.

If you choose to worship the demiurge makes no difference to me. But I see him as the villain of the Bible and why we needed Jesus.

It is not that I think God is evil, just the Biblical character of Yahweh. I see the beauty in pointing to folly and appreciate the idea.

To each their own god I say.

The Gospel of Thomas had a Manichean source as attested on several occasions by Cyril of Jerusalem. It was originally written in Syraic, which it would if it came from a Manichean writer. Mani had three main disciples, one of which was Thomas and Cyril attributes the work to Thomas the disciple of Mani and specifically points out that it wasn't written by the Thomas who was a disciple of Jesus.

Additionally the word "Gospel" means "good news". It has come to mean that the good news is that we have been redeemed by the sacrificial grace of Christ. The 'gospel of Thomas' has no mention of Jesus being the Messiah, Jesus' death, resurrection or final Judgement of all. As such it lacks the gospel message and therefore isn't a "Gospel".

The 'gospel' of Thomas also lacks any narrative content and is just a series of 'sayings' without order or context.

Most authorities place its authorship as being about 200 years after Christ.

originally posted by: LenatasataneL
a reply to: chr0naut

He certainly did have a great following among the "Gnostics" and I am glad that the Church declared him a Gnostic because that is the real Jesus and it is good it is true. Retroactive or not if the Nazarenes and Ebionites were Gnostic then the Apostolic Church was too and I am following the true religion of Jesus.

So if anyone faults me I become the persecuted one. It's a virtue.

I wonder if you realize you are persecuting people by getting them banned through their IPs? Why are you lying about your membership here? Is that the Gnostic way? Join one more time and be civil. This board is for discussion on points brought up and to be a member here you have to answer the points made. Maybe consider posting in some lighter topics to get the hang of it.

STM

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: Akragon

You do know this is Gnosisisfaith/ ././././Szarah in one of his dozens of personas?

This topic is old as he started it months ago but was banned and keeps popping up reposting the same old nonsense.

i know said person's incarnations...

Lots of people like to pretend.... right?



By the way Gnosisfaith wasn't banned last time i checked... he just hasn't returned

a reply to: chr0naut

ChrOnaut that commentary is in the book and the words of the Scholar who translated it.

Give up you got nothing.

But your inability to admit that you are wrong makes this no surprise.

You are all about arguing your version of the truth.

Not the truth.

Why is it more important that you think you are right than the truth?

Why do you say things that show you will create any reason to avoid admitting you were wrong?

There is true proof that you are wrong but you use one after another tactic to deny it.

Commentary written by the Scholar who translated it is based off the work, his words and in the book.

The website didn't add it. It is a complete digital version of the book Dead Sea Scrolls uncovered and nothing more or less.

As such you have no credibility.

a reply to: chr0naut

And Jesus was definitely a Gnostic. He knew God.

a reply to: chr0naut

Additionally you are also not anyone who can be trusted to speak the truth and could use all the words in every language to argue your opinion and would still be wrong.

You actually disappoint me, I thought you were someone cool.

All you are is an agenda having disinformationist who wishes to stunt intellectual exploration into Christianity.

An oppressor.

a reply to: Akragon
I suspect some of the incarnations are abandoned after being post-banned.
If we know that someone is a conscious deceiver for self-entertainment purposes ("pretending"), doesn't that rather deflate the value of anything he says?

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: Akragon
I suspect some of the incarnations are abandoned after being post-banned.
If we know that someone is a conscious deceiver for self-entertainment purposes ("pretending"), doesn't that rather deflate the value of anything he says?

Excuse me but is this the "spread lies about people we don't like thread?"

Have you such a boring life and a massive will to oppress freedom of expression?


Does your mission in life include fooling people into believing that the Gnostic thought movement is limited to one individual who is essentially every individual with this philosophy on ATS?

That is nutty. And deplorable. And typical of Christian indoctrinated sociopaths.

Not saying you ARE a sociopath, just that what you are doing is typical among Christians who are sociopaths with no morals.

a reply to: LenatasataneL
Not every individual. Just every individual who displays the same writing style and temperament. We know you every time you appear, because your posting style is as recognisable as my handwriting. Even your denials of being the same person always come in the same form.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: LenatasataneL
a reply to: chr0naut

Don't blame the website. That is low. It is a word for word copy of the book. Written by one of the leading Scroll scholars.

Word for word you sneaky cheat. You have no credibility now.

You will do some dirty crap to avoid admitting you were wrong.

Your tactics are so obvious.

Your are escalating.

Anyone visiting the web page can see that it has far more commentary than the actual translations. Anyone with any knowledge of the documents knows that the title given: "The Hymns of the Poor" is arbitrary, neither supported by the text or its context.

As anyone who is not trying to deceive people will notice, the commentary is the words of the translating scholar himself, part of the book, and quite necessary to explain the text.

Not added by the website, or at all a reason to dismiss the very fact that the texts are talking about the Ebionites.

You spoke without knowledge, got caught, and are desperately backpedaling to deny anyone the truth about you being a dishonest.

My credibility is not at issue.

To anyone who knows your tactics it is a fact that you have none. This has been proven and you know it.

The only reason your credibility would not be an issue is because you don't have any to make it a possible issue.

It doesn't matter if I am credible or not. What I was saying is that website is not entirely credible. This is something which can be checked out by comparison of the DSS (which is online from credible sources). It is clear that the commentary drags in all sorts of other stuff, out of place historically and thematically, and provides a long commentary not supported by the texts it does quote. That much is apparent on the single page you linked to.

And you have proven my case by accusing a third party that simply made the book freely available, and added nothing nor took anything from the Scholar and Professor who did the work, of being responsible for HIS WORDS.

Showing you didn't fully investigate the matter before pronouncing that it was not reliable. That the websites reputation has anything to do with the content of a legitimate and available to anyone translation of an ancient document is worth ridiculing you for suggesting, though I won't.

The book is published and nobody in the Scholarly community of Scroll translation disputes what you are disputing about the Ebionites because they all know that the Scrolls definitely feature the Ebionim.

But you are of course more qualified than them, and are a a Dead Sea Scrolls Scholar yourself so you every right to dispute them because of your vast knowledge of Hebrew, Aramaic and the land of Palestine circa 200 BC to 68 AD. Right?

Commentary serves to explain difficult to understand without certain knowledge issues and every Bible has commentary to varying degrees for this reason.

But, FACT: The Ebionim are one of the most prominent sects mentioned in the DSS. They were a sect then and later. You are denying facts and just to avoid having to admit you were wrong.

Credibility? You don't have it. And that IS a credible statement for you have hung yourself with your own rope.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I have said what I said and don't care about it any further.

It was a message, not an invitation to converse or debate. Your words make you.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: LenatasataneL
Not every individual. Just every individual who displays the same writing style and temperament. We know you every time you appear, because your posting style is as recognisable as my handwriting. Even your denials of being the same person always come in the same form.

And you have just told a lie. Proving what I said earlier is true. You are trying to fool people that similarities between people of the same philosophy having similar characteristics is somehow a reason to lie and tell people that they are all the same person who is trying to deceive.

Psychology speaking you are merely projecting the fact that you are a mega deceiver by applying your faults to whoever you can.

This is very common among people who don't want to realize the truth about themselves or acknowledge it. Making someone else the culprit makes you the hero in your mind.

But you are deceived and deceiving because misery needs company.

a reply to: LenatasataneL
I thought you said you weren't offering to converse or debate on the point, because you "don't care about it any further"? So why are you continuing?

originally posted by: seentoomuch

originally posted by: LenatasataneL
a reply to: chr0naut

He certainly did have a great following among the "Gnostics" and I am glad that the Church declared him a Gnostic because that is the real Jesus and it is good it is true. Retroactive or not if the Nazarenes and Ebionites were Gnostic then the Apostolic Church was too and I am following the true religion of Jesus.

So if anyone faults me I become the persecuted one. It's a virtue.

I wonder if you realize you are persecuting people by getting them banned through their IPs? Why are you lying about your membership here? Is that the Gnostic way? Join one more time and be civil. This board is for discussion on points brought up and to be a member here you have to answer the points made. Maybe consider posting in some lighter topics to get the hang of it.

STM

Yeah..., last I checked false accusations are lies, and you have made a few.

I don't control anyone and don't persecute either. People getting banned is their fault and unrelated to me in any way.

I am not lying about anything. Work on and worry about your life, I will do the same with mine.