|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 12:50 pm
Voldemort point two -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden Semiremis -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden Voldemort point two rmcdra I looks like someone is leading up to disprove genesis. Honestly learn something about symbolism in Judaism and re-read it interpreting the symbols. It makes much more sense that way than to see it as a historical telling of who we are. It's an allegory about who we are. If you don't like that story check out the gnostic text, On the Origin of the World. It puts a radical twist on Genesis. He's asking Christians. Gnostic text =/= Christian text. Gnostics texts are the texts that were removed/banned from the Bible. They are Christian in nature. neutral They were never in the bible to begin with. Your point? Neither are the Dead Sea Scrolls? Does that make them heretical in nature as well? neutral The Dead Sea Scrolls were bits of the Old Testemant. Last I checked, the Old Testemant was in the Bible. However as historical/cultural reference. They are still Jewish Law. neutral
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 1:09 pm
Voldemort point two Soulgazer the Gnostic Voldemort point two rmcdra I looks like someone is leading up to disprove genesis. Honestly learn something about symbolism in Judaism and re-read it interpreting the symbols. It makes much more sense that way than to see it as a historical telling of who we are. It's an allegory about who we are. If you don't like that story check out the gnostic text, On the Origin of the World. It puts a radical twist on Genesis. He's asking Christians. Gnostic text =/= Christian text. I'm sorry, I don't understand "=/=". I am sorry--brain fart! Of course it is christian! Just not catholic christian. Catholic and protestant catholic dogma says that it is not biblical and when they say biblical, they mean the western bible; and that is true. There are many other kinds of christians in the world, and several different bibles. =/= means isn't. On that track, Catholics aren't always Christians. They aren't mutually exclusive, and they're not the same thing. While we're at it, are we going to define Christians? Is it people who say they are? People who vaguely follow some of the things that self-professed prophets have added to the Bible? Or are you going to call them people who have felt God's call on their hearts and have been saved? It makes a huge difference to the discussion. And, by Biblical, I talk about things accepted by the Council of Nieca. Basically, the things that are true. So, the Gnostic texts, which hadn't all been written by the time the Council of Nieca brought together the Bible (those 66 books had been considered higher than the others before that; they weren't just making it up at Nieca.) By Christian, I mean anyone that purports to follow Jesus, however they perceive him, which is pretty much the opinion of professional scholastics. I explained the various councils in the above threads. All of the Gnostic scriptures were written before 200CE; only one of the Gnostic writings was accepted. Only one of the Apocalyptic writings. A couple of the Judaic writings. The letters of Paul, even though they were considered Marcionite were in comon usage, so of coarse they had to be accepted. And then there were a few particular books that were written with the express purpose of tying everything together under one doctrine. Don't forget that these writings were so diverse that they had to be harmonized, a process that took years. Of the fifty volumes that Constantine ordered written, fifty very fine gold embroidered bound volumes, some of the very finest ever compiled, none exist today! People get all annoyed about the council of nicene, but they did the very best they could under a great deal of duress. The Roman emperor was still god on earth, and had commanded that christianity be united under one banner, and the representatives of the various sects and churches were literally under close imperial scrutiny until they accomplished their task. The greatest resistance to this was from the Marcionites, and later Manichaens who held on until the sixth century, often under a great deal of physical and emotional persecution. On a personal level, Baptist aren't always christians. Methodist aren't always christian. Church of Christ has been under a cult watch for nearly twenty years. I balance any personal prejudices that I might have with other denominations by remembering Mark 9:39 I am very very steeped in the bible. As a pastor I have to be. I also have to know everything that I can about early christian faith as it relates to modern christianity. Nobody nit picks like a young Gnostic looking for answers. Modern christianity often overlooks verses to prove their doctrine with other verses. We all have to do that, because there is such a rich diversity of doctrine in the bible. The Gnstic Christian is always encouraged to question everything, so that when they find the answers themselves, they will know it is true. The Gnostic god of blind faith is "Samael"---we want him to have as few followers as possible. I am quite comfortable answering you, because you ask questions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 1:23 pm
-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden Voldemort point two -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden Semiremis -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden Gnostics texts are the texts that were removed/banned from the Bible. They are Christian in nature. neutral They were never in the bible to begin with. Your point? Neither are the Dead Sea Scrolls? Does that make them heretical in nature as well? neutral The Dead Sea Scrolls were bits of the Old Testemant. Last I checked, the Old Testemant was in the Bible. However as historical/cultural reference. They are still Jewish Law. neutral Yes, but you just said that they were never in the Bible. If it's in the Bible, there's a reason for it, and there's something that God can say to you through it. Are you saying your church doesn't use Psalms, or Proverbs, or Ecclesiastes, or Genesis? The New and the Old Testemant are of equal importance, because they're in the Bible. Not the whole Old Testemant is the Law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:08 pm
Voldemort point two -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden Voldemort point two -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden Semiremis -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden Gnostics texts are the texts that were removed/banned from the Bible. They are Christian in nature. neutral They were never in the bible to begin with. Your point? Neither are the Dead Sea Scrolls? Does that make them heretical in nature as well? neutral The Dead Sea Scrolls were bits of the Old Testemant. Last I checked, the Old Testemant was in the Bible. However as historical/cultural reference. They are still Jewish Law. neutral Yes, but you just said that they were never in the Bible. If it's in the Bible, there's a reason for it, and there's something that God can say to you through it. Are you saying your church doesn't use Psalms, or Proverbs, or Ecclesiastes, or Genesis? The New and the Old Testemant are of equal importance, because they're in the Bible. Not the whole Old Testemant is the Law. Did God order blood sacrifices, according to the old testament, or didn't He? Jeremiah 7:21-22 (King James Version) 21Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel; Put your burnt offerings unto your sacrifices, and eat flesh. 22For I spake not unto your fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt, concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices: On another note, and totally unrelated to the first; Everyone can relax about Gnostic text. There is a Gnostic Text in the bible. The Gospel of John, which first surfaced around 140, surfaced within the circle of Nasseene, who purportedly were the circle of disciples of John, and very much Gnostic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:32 pm
Voldemort point two Soulgazer the Gnostic Voldemort point two rmcdra I looks like someone is leading up to disprove genesis. Honestly learn something about symbolism in Judaism and re-read it interpreting the symbols. It makes much more sense that way than to see it as a historical telling of who we are. It's an allegory about who we are. If you don't like that story check out the gnostic text, On the Origin of the World. It puts a radical twist on Genesis. He's asking Christians. Gnostic text =/= Christian text. I'm sorry, I don't understand "=/=". I am sorry--brain fart! Of course it is christian! Just not catholic christian. Catholic and protestant catholic dogma says that it is not biblical and when they say biblical, they mean the western bible; and that is true. There are many other kinds of christians in the world, and several different bibles. =/= means isn't. On that track, Catholics aren't always Christians. They aren't mutually exclusive, and they're not the same thing. While we're at it, are we going to define Christians? Is it people who say they are? People who vaguely follow some of the things that self-professed prophets have added to the Bible? Or are you going to call them people who have felt God's call on their hearts and have been saved? It makes a huge difference to the discussion. And, by Biblical, I talk about things accepted by the Council of Nieca. Basically, the things that are true. So, the Gnostic texts, which hadn't all been written by the time the Council of Nieca brought together the Bible (those 66 books had been considered higher than the others before that; they weren't just making it up at Nieca.) Catholics are always Christian, Christians just aren't always Catholic. The council of Nicaea did not confirm 66 books, from what I know it didn't even touch on the subject. The councils at Hippo and Carthage (end of the 4th century/beginning of the 5th) is where you get the first declaration by the Church of what was scripture (the 72 books of the Catholic bible).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:41 pm
Zslone2 Anyone know if he knows all and sees all?
*AHEM!*
No one can know that.
I believe it, but it is impossible to know it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 2:42 pm
Semiremis Voldemort point two Soulgazer the Gnostic Voldemort point two rmcdra I looks like someone is leading up to disprove genesis. Honestly learn something about symbolism in Judaism and re-read it interpreting the symbols. It makes much more sense that way than to see it as a historical telling of who we are. It's an allegory about who we are. If you don't like that story check out the gnostic text, On the Origin of the World. It puts a radical twist on Genesis. He's asking Christians. Gnostic text =/= Christian text. I'm sorry, I don't understand "=/=". I am sorry--brain fart! Of course it is christian! Just not catholic christian. Catholic and protestant catholic dogma says that it is not biblical and when they say biblical, they mean the western bible; and that is true. There are many other kinds of christians in the world, and several different bibles. =/= means isn't. On that track, Catholics aren't always Christians. They aren't mutually exclusive, and they're not the same thing. While we're at it, are we going to define Christians? Is it people who say they are? People who vaguely follow some of the things that self-professed prophets have added to the Bible? Or are you going to call them people who have felt God's call on their hearts and have been saved? It makes a huge difference to the discussion. And, by Biblical, I talk about things accepted by the Council of Nieca. Basically, the things that are true. So, the Gnostic texts, which hadn't all been written by the time the Council of Nieca brought together the Bible (those 66 books had been considered higher than the others before that; they weren't just making it up at Nieca.) Catholics are always Christian, Christians just aren't always Catholic. The council of Nicaea did not confirm 66 books, from what I know it didn't even touch on the subject. The councils at Hippo and Carthage (end of the 4th century/beginning of the 5th) is where you get the first declaration by the Church of what was scripture (the 72 books of the Catholic bible). You are correct, of course, I did mix the two councils.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 3:28 pm
Voldemort point two -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden Voldemort point two -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden Semiremis -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden Gnostics texts are the texts that were removed/banned from the Bible. They are Christian in nature. neutral They were never in the bible to begin with. Your point? Neither are the Dead Sea Scrolls? Does that make them heretical in nature as well? neutral The Dead Sea Scrolls were bits of the Old Testemant. Last I checked, the Old Testemant was in the Bible. However as historical/cultural reference. They are still Jewish Law. neutral Yes, but you just said that they were never in the Bible. If it's in the Bible, there's a reason for it, and there's something that God can say to you through it. Are you saying your church doesn't use Psalms, or Proverbs, or Ecclesiastes, or Genesis? The New and the Old Testemant are of equal importance, because they're in the Bible. Not the whole Old Testemant is the Law. The OT. Not the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls more than likely hold more information than that of the OT. The Church should not use the OT as law. It is not their law but the law of the Jews. Therefore Christians have no business following Jewish law. neutral As I said the reason the OT is put in the Bible is because it's a historical/cultural reference. That is it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 4:36 pm
-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden Voldemort point two -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden Voldemort point two -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden Your point? Neither are the Dead Sea Scrolls? Does that make them heretical in nature as well? neutral The Dead Sea Scrolls were bits of the Old Testemant. Last I checked, the Old Testemant was in the Bible. However as historical/cultural reference. They are still Jewish Law. neutral Yes, but you just said that they were never in the Bible. If it's in the Bible, there's a reason for it, and there's something that God can say to you through it. Are you saying your church doesn't use Psalms, or Proverbs, or Ecclesiastes, or Genesis? The New and the Old Testemant are of equal importance, because they're in the Bible. Not the whole Old Testemant is the Law. The OT. Not the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls more than likely hold more information than that of the OT. The Church should not use the OT as law. It is not their law but the law of the Jews. Therefore Christians have no business following Jewish law. neutral As I said the reason the OT is put in the Bible is because it's a historical/cultural reference. That is it. A lot of Christians do use the OT as law, but draw a distinction between cultural and moral laws. I disagee with you and think that the OT is part of God's Word and pefectly acceptable to use. Jesus did, so if you follow Him, why wouldn't you follow His example in that regard as well?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 5:19 pm
xxEternallyBluexx -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden Voldemort point two -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden Voldemort point two -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden Your point? Neither are the Dead Sea Scrolls? Does that make them heretical in nature as well? neutral The Dead Sea Scrolls were bits of the Old Testemant. Last I checked, the Old Testemant was in the Bible. However as historical/cultural reference. They are still Jewish Law. neutral Yes, but you just said that they were never in the Bible. If it's in the Bible, there's a reason for it, and there's something that God can say to you through it. Are you saying your church doesn't use Psalms, or Proverbs, or Ecclesiastes, or Genesis? The New and the Old Testemant are of equal importance, because they're in the Bible. Not the whole Old Testemant is the Law. The OT. Not the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls more than likely hold more information than that of the OT. The Church should not use the OT as law. It is not their law but the law of the Jews. Therefore Christians have no business following Jewish law. neutral As I said the reason the OT is put in the Bible is because it's a historical/cultural reference. That is it. A lot of Christians do use the OT as law, but draw a distinction between cultural and moral laws. I disagee with you and think that the OT is part of God's Word and pefectly acceptable to use. Jesus did, so if you follow Him, why wouldn't you follow His example in that regard as well? That is something only the Pharisees would do. If you look at Matthew 5:19-20, it clearly states that only the Ten Commandments is applicable. Acts 15 says that the OT laws are unneeded. And Galatians 3:24-25 says that we are no longer under supervision of that law since we now have Christ. neutral Again, my point stands.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 5:57 pm
xxEternallyBluexx Jesus did, so if you follow Him, why wouldn't you follow His example in that regard as well? Which Mosaic laws did He keep?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 6:13 pm
-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden Acts 15 says that the OT laws are unneeded. And Peter said specifically, Quote: God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them [Christian Gentiles] by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9He made no distinction between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of the disciples a yoke that neither we nor our fathers have been able to bear?(Bold mine, 'course. NIV.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:02 pm
In Medias Res IV Semiremis -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden Voldemort point two rmcdra I looks like someone is leading up to disprove genesis. Honestly learn something about symbolism in Judaism and re-read it interpreting the symbols. It makes much more sense that way than to see it as a historical telling of who we are. It's an allegory about who we are. If you don't like that story check out the gnostic text, On the Origin of the World. It puts a radical twist on Genesis. He's asking Christians. Gnostic text =/= Christian text. Gnostics texts are the texts that were removed/banned from the Bible. They are Christian in nature. neutral They were never in the bible to begin with. Neither were the Dead Sea Scrolls, does this make them any less valid? Ever heard of the Council of Nicea? Yeah, not everything made it into the NT, there are many books that should be in consideration. Which one and what about it? Tsukiyo said that the gnostic texts were removed from the bible, they were not. So I responded that they weren't in there to begin with since they weren't. It was a matter of clarification.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:04 pm
-Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden Semiremis -Tsukiyo-Moon Maiden Voldemort point two rmcdra I looks like someone is leading up to disprove genesis. Honestly learn something about symbolism in Judaism and re-read it interpreting the symbols. It makes much more sense that way than to see it as a historical telling of who we are. It's an allegory about who we are. If you don't like that story check out the gnostic text, On the Origin of the World. It puts a radical twist on Genesis. He's asking Christians. Gnostic text =/= Christian text. Gnostics texts are the texts that were removed/banned from the Bible. They are Christian in nature. neutral They were never in the bible to begin with. Your point? Neither are the Dead Sea Scrolls? Does that make them heretical in nature as well? neutral My point is that the gnostic texts weren't ever included in the bible so they couldn't have been removed from something they were never a part of to begin with.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:10 pm
I'm still not exactly sure. I'm not saying we have to follow the laws of the OT to be saved (of course not. Jesus did that), but I still think some of the OT laws are a good guide and it helps give a greater understanding of God, and I really don't think the OT is just a historical/cultural reference. If you're saved by Him, then in any case I believe the Holy Spirit is guiding you, but reading the Word is a part of that. You can't just disregard half of it. I really wasn't trying to focus on obeying the OT laws, just the importance of the OT. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
