The "Gnostic" texts "heresy"? Old Testament God different then New Testament God? Roman church?.

If you dismiss the idea that the Bible is God's infallible word, and accept it as merely one groups expression of spirituality, and the evolution of those ideas. well, then it will give you some leeway. Read it as if you are looking at it from the people's perspective. IT wasn't so much that a God told the Isrealites to commit genocide, as it was the people believed that God told them to do it...or more than likely that t he Priests and Tribal elders conned them into believing it.
There is a definate change between the old testament and the new testament. Jesus turned over the tables so to speak. Where before, the power originated from the Priests and Kings, susposedly ordained by God--seems to do wonders when it comes to the peons questioning your commands, thus so much easier to con them into things that are ungodly. Jesus wrote a "new law"into the hearts of his followers. The meek would inherit the earth. those of power would serve the lesser. ect......DEMOCRACY!!! Still subject to error, but less likely to be conned by the ruling elite! and, well, eventually, we kind of got the idea that God wouldn't apporve of mass genocide in his name!

anyone find the ones that have the apostles being run out of town because they would take their wives from the men??

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII
Genesis 1: 27 states that God made man in his own image, male and female he made them. That could mean that the first people he made were androgynous, asexual.
Then Genesis 2: 7 states he made man out of the dust of the earth.
Then Genesis 2: 21 says he made a deep sleep fall over Adam, or basically anaesthetized him and performed surgery. Then the following verse he uses the surgically removed rib to create woman.
So, to my way of thinking, first he made asexual humans, then later made man and woman. Or he just repeats himself for some other reason, giving two different accounts of the same creation of man.

This also would explain, the missing link. right? our DNA is alot different from early man. I say the dirt mankind had relations with the spirit kind. Dirt man had no hope they were put here to work. till the ground. spirit people(ets) gave hope to these dirt people. does this sound like what could have happen. its just a theory. science have proved that early man has not the same DNA as were have today correct me if I am wrong.

I think Gen 1 is when spirit beings were created. then you have in Gen 2 Man being formed of the dirt. and there is a Name thing going on with The Elohim in gen ch 1 then chapter 2 gen you have Lord God, who formed a man of the dirt. could this of been The Adversary playing God, the one who wants to be as God?

This should be about the Gnostic texts. not about creation. sorry GREGNOW.

the word heresy/heretic/heretical all come from the same root which means
"to choose". and were (as I recall) first applied to those people who chose
no to accept the compilation of writings submitted to Constantine.

Constantine. I would not trust anything that went through this man. he scares me

Originally posted by GREGNOW
MAUISTACY, i am really not sure you are correct in your post. Maybe you were part of a group that were calling theselves "gnostic" and did things there way.
I am talking about the real gnostics of early Christain sects and the texts they wrote which were at odds with the texts in the Bible put together by the Roman church.
I am pretty sure they did not worship the sun. It seems to me they talk about an ultimate spirit (the Holy Spirit?) that is above the God of the new Testament. Also i am pretty sure there is no mention of drug use in the gnostic texts.

I'm not gnostic. I just did a little research on it. Hope you find what you are looking for.

HELEN, i respect you and what you have to say, but here's the thing, you always back up your points with only what the Bible says as a reference.
My main question on this thread is how do we know that the "gnostic" texts do not contain "truth" or or even contain more of the "truth" then the Bible as we know it.
You have to remember that the Bible is a cannon of texts that were put together by the Roman church by Constantine around 300AD. Also the Roman empire was not in the best of shapes power wise then.
The "Gnostic" texts were also around at that time and were believed in by early Christian sects at that time. The roman church deemed the "gnostic" text's as heresy and did not include then in the cannon that they put together which we now know as the Bible.

How do we know the "gnostic" texts do not cantain truths or even more truth then the New Testament books? The truth is i find it confusing that the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament seem to be so different.
For instance Jesus taught love and tolerance for the fellow man and said if your enemy slaps your cheek, then you should turn the other cheek.
Yet the God of the Old testament is full of jealousy, wrath, and seems to approve murder all over the place. A small example is how everyone was stoning others to death (a horrible way to die) in the Old Testament. Yet in the New Testament, when a crowd was ready to stone a prostitute, Jesus stopped them and said let him without sin cast the first stone.
Now if God was always talking to Moses and others in the Old Testament and lying down the laws, why would he let them stone people to death and not step in and say what Jesus said if they were the same God? This is just a small example of something i do not understand, I could give more.

Now the Roman church declared alot of books heresy or did not include them in the cannon they made which became the Bible. Yet the Gospel of Thomas (not included by the roman church) says a lot of the same things that Mark, Matt., Luke, and John say. however there are then other things in the Gospel of Thomas that the roman church did not agree with. So how do we know that the gospel of Thomas or other early Christian texts do not contain possible truth? Just because the roman church said they did not?
The Roman church has been full of hippocricy, corruption , and has always shown how it wanted to wield power over the masses. So how can we know that the books they chose not to include in the cannon they put together (which we now call the Bible) are even books that contain all the truths of the early Christians? How do we even know that the Roman church did not alter, take away, or add to the books in the current bible?

HELEN, you say that the Old Testament talks about a coming Messiah, and it does, but it never mention the name of that person being Jesus. The main reason the Jews do not believe Jesus was the Messiah that the Old Testament talks about, is that the Jews say that Jesus did not fulfill all the things that the Old Testament said the coming Messiah was supposed to fulfill. I am not saying he was or was not the Messiah, but just showing an example of something.

Even on the topic of Hell. There is no mention of a hell of everlasting torment and fire and punishment in the Old Testament, only in the New (correct me if i am wrong). And even then there are those that say the Roman church made that all up to keep power over the people. In the earlier texts of the New Testament, Jesus spoke of GHEANNA (spelling?), not hell. Now Gehhenna was an actually valley in those times where trash was burned in a fire that was always burning. They also threw dead theives, rapist's and other criminals into that fire (again, correct me if i am wrong). It's then said that the roman church took this and then took it further and created the notion of Hell out of what Jesus talked about (Please correct me if i am off with the above account as i may not have all the facts, but from what i have read this is how i have understood a lot of it).
Even in the Old Testament, Satan is not really considered to be "evil" in the way he is portrayed in the New Testament. Satan means "adversary" and in the Old testament that is what he was to God. In the book of Job, it says there was a meeting of the angels with God and Satan was among them. And God was telling Satan of his great servant of a man name Job. Satan then told God to basically prove that Job was so loyal by telling God to make bad things happen to Job that among other things KILLED all of Jobs family.
So here you actually have Satan of all people, telling God of all people, to do bad things to a man named Job and God does it (or did God give permission to Satan to do those things to Job, i'm not positive, but i think God actualy did those things, please correct me if i am wrong as i do not want to give false info.). Also when God asked Satan where he has been , Satan replies that he has been walking on and in the Earth, not that he was hanging out in Hell or something.
now to take the concept of Hell further, only does the 4 gospels of the New Testament mention Hell and only Jesus talked about it or actually Gehhenna. But no where in any of the other books of the New Testament is Hell mentioned. the books that were written by Paul, who it seems the roman church promote so much do not even mention hell. Would you not think that something as important as your soul going to a place called hell forever, would not be at least mentioned by Paul or the other aposles who wrote the other books in the New Testament?

Also i could be wrong, but i don't think it actually says anywhere in the Bible that the serpet of genesis was Satan. I think it is just interpreted to be that way. but does it actually say that anywhere in the bible? Maybe it does say that somewhere, but i don't think it does.
some of the "gnostic" texts from those days though say that the serpent was actually Jesus in another form before he was Jesus and that he was trying to enlighten man to the fact of the God or Gods that were ruling over man.
By eating the "apple" it is said that then Adam and Eve then knew the difference between good and evil. Why though would this be such a bad thing for them to know in the eyes of God? Then it says the God or Gods (as i actually think it talks about gods in the plural sense) then said let us not let man eat of the tree of life or then man would then to become immortal like the God(s). It's like they are saying that man actually had the chance to become immortal like the God or Gods of the Old Testament unless the God or Gods of the Old Testament did something to stop man from becoming immortal. It seems that that God or Gods is actually showing some type of fear that man might become like the God or Gods themselves.
That does not sound the same as the God of the New Testament to me, you know?
The God of the New Testament seems to wants us to become immortal like him and live with him in his heavenly realms. It seems to me that the God the Father that Jesus speaks about, wants us to choose good over evil so that we can be more like him and more like Jesus.

These are but a few examples of things that do not make sense to me. It has to be questioned, could the Roman church have added things, taken away things to the cannon they put together that became the Bible as we know it? Then it has to be questioned could the other early christian texts of those thims that the Roman church labeled heresy, acyually contain truths that the roman church did not want the masses of people to know because it could affect the power of the roman church?


[edit on 1-8-2005 by GREGNOW]

This seems to be a good page to start atwhy christians invented Hell It does have some good readings here. It talks about the Job story. Think you might like this gregnow

You need to go here and read all you can. There is alot of good info for you if you take the time to search this out. I know its alot. I still have not got through it allforbidden knowledge I think some of your answers are in here.

For some resond this address didnt show up in here. hmmm.

forbidden knowledge it helps to know how to spell.

Too much thinking as I cannot do this now..

IX
helen

[edit on 8/1/2005 by helen670]

Originally posted by GREGNOW
My main question on this thread is how do we know that the "gnostic" texts do not contain "truth" or or even contain more of the "truth" then the Bible as we know it.

I have to applaud you for being willing to question. But here's the rub. You can't know which is more true than the other, or if both are total fabrications.

Someone mentioned earlier that the gnostics worshiped the sun, and they are likely correct, but you know what? There are striking symbolisms of sun worship buried within Christianity as well.

2000 years ago saw the dawning of the age of Pisces (the fish). Is it coincidence that the symbol of Jesus is the fish?

The sun "dies" each evening and is "resurrected" each morning. This is the basis of resurrection myths that preceded Christianity.

Jesus had 12 disciples - there are twelve signs of the zodiac.
Jesus is the good shepherd - the sun shepherd the 12 signs.
The three wise men are the three stars of Orion's belt, which 2000 years ago pointed to the location of the rising sun.

You can go through the gospel stories and see astrological symbolism in the order that characters are introduced as well.

So which do you pick? Isn't the prudent course to reject both?

spamandham... this is what I have came to as far as my research was going and now I didnt know if this is a good thing or a bad thing. I was confused with all this because like you said they really are the same thing. why doesnt anyone else see this? I`m starting to figure out more and more and as far as i can say it seems to of all came out of Egypt

Originally posted by spamandham
I have to applaud you for being willing to question. But here's the rub. You can't know which is more true than the other, or if both are total fabrications.

It's true that you cannot if you leave out God as a resource.

Originally posted by spamandham
Someone mentioned earlier that the gnostics worshiped the sun, and they are likely correct, but you know what? There are striking symbolisms of sun worship buried within Christianity as well.

With the hundreds of gods the greeks, romans, norse, and egyptians had, I'm sure you can find some kind of parallels somewhere...

Originally posted by spamandham
2000 years ago saw the dawning of the age of Pisces (the fish). Is it coincidence that the symbol of Jesus is the fish?

Let's check this, shall we?

Pisces


Icthus:


Hm...they don't look similar at all. The only thing that they have in common is they both represents fish. EGADS! That means it must be pagan! :-p

Originally posted by spamandham
The sun "dies" each evening and is "resurrected" each morning. This is the basis of resurrection myths that preceded Christianity.

Christ doesn't die each evening and is resurrected each morning. Taking a stretch on the terms too. Egyptians said that it is birthed, not resurrected. Big difference in my mind.

Originally posted by spamandham
Jesus had 12 disciples - there are twelve signs of the zodiac.

Numerology. Great for superstitions, useless in calculus.

Originally posted by spamandham
Jesus is the good shepherd - the sun shepherd the 12 signs.

Maybe I can learn something new here. Can you help point out where this is?

Originally posted by spamandham
The three wise men are the three stars of Orion's belt, which 2000 years ago pointed to the location of the rising sun.

What makes a star magi? How did these stars travel and give gifts. Did they only travel overnight then?

Originally posted by spamandham
You can go through the gospel stories and see astrological symbolism in the order that characters are introduced as well.

I can find symbolism in a rock. A rock is composed of many minerals and a sheet of music is composed of many notes. Therefore 'rock-and-roll' came from the idea that a rock itself is a composition.

Pray, train, study,
God bless.

[edit on 2-8-2005 by saint4God]

SPAMANDHAM, i have never read anywhere were the gnostics worship the sun so i wish people would stop saying that if they do not even have evidnce of this. From what i have read they whorship the "Father" that Jesus spoke of which when describe seems to be more of the almighty Holy Spirit of all and that they believe he is different from the God of the OLD Testament who they believe was not "the almighty god of all", but that he (God of the Old testament) was actually an "ignorant and imperfect" "God" that had no knowledge of the real almighty God above him and all else.
That has nothing to do with worshipping the sun, so unless you actually have evidence on that being the case please do not spread misinformation on the gnostics, which then does nothing but confuse this thread, thanks.
i am trying to cut through some confusing things as it is without misinformation being thrown in on top of that.

Also with the other points you bring up about Christianity (which may or may not have truth in what you say), you are talking about Christainity as it was accepted to be and formed to be by the Roman church. That does not mean that that is what the "gnostic" Christians believed and that is the point of me making this thread in the first place.


[edit on 2-8-2005 by GREGNOW]

Here is a link below i found about how the bible as we know it was put together and how there are different versions since then that say different things. although in the article it mentions about once "gnostic" christian sect that may (or may not ) have whorship the sun in a sense, it does not speak for all of the differnent "gnostic" sects and what they believed. It also has some good info. on Constantine and the Roman church.
Although it seems pretty detailed and well researched, more investigation should always been done before anyone can draw solid conclusions.
www.hissheep.org...

Originally posted by GREGNOW
SPAMANDHAM, i have never read anywhere were the gnostics worship the sun so i wish people would stop saying that

You're correct. They didn't, and that wasn't what I meant to say, so I retract that. What I meant to say was that their beliefs look like they evolved directly from sun worship, just as Christianity looks like it did.

Grrrr. This is my third attempt to address your post saint. I blame the flash animations at the top that keep causing the mouse to click over the wrong buttons. My frustration level over these animations has almost reached the boiling point.

If you really want to know more about the origin of the Vesica Pisces, you're just a google away. There's no end to the amount of information available on this including photos of ancient statues, the Ichthus symbol within Egyptology, etc.

There's tons of on-line info about the astrological symbolism of the birth story as well.

I had two nice posts already and lost them both. I'm unwilling to waste more time on it.


[edit on 2-8-2005 by spamandham]