DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
afaik, thats a manichean gnostics view and the various other gnostic sects thought different
The Gnostic Gospels and Gibbon
- Thread starter DotCommunist
- Start date
afaik, thats a manichean gnostics view and the various other gnostic sects thought different
Mmm, though arguably it merely moves the problem back. If the Supreme Being's so clever, how come he let Jehovah fuck things up so royally in the first place
There is no supreme being in Gnosticism, there are two: one good and one evil.
Depends on which Gnosticism you're dealing with. Jehovah is not even necessarily evil, merely flawed.
tim
EXPLODED TIM! (Help me!!!)
Really? Why?
two sheds
Least noticed poster 2007
Thanks for the link, interesting stuff:
They said to Him, "Shall we then, as children, enter the
Kingdom?"
Jesus said to them, "When you make the two one, and when you
make the inside like the outside and the outside like the inside,
and the above like the below, and when you make the male and the
female one and the same, so that the male not be male nor the
female female; and when you fashion eyes in the place of an eye,
and a hand in place of a hand, and a foot in place of a foot, and
a likeness in place of a likeness; then will you enter [the
Kingdom]."
Because the history of orthodox, state-sponsored Christianity is a blood-soaked catalogue of horrors, basically. The Gnostics appear to have been tolerant, non-hierarchical and non-proselytizing, as well as far more theologically subtle and coherent. In all probability it was those very qualities that ensured they lost the battle against the Orthodox.
Much of all world religions at least touches Manicheism, but to say the the Gnostic Gospels are "Manichean" is stretching things. Especially since only fragments are known of the Manichean original writings. Although there is a lot that is hidden and I know of the rumours that early copies of original texts are preserved, maybe even original texts.(at a remote spot in China and I have very good reasons to see this as a valid assertion because of knowing from where it comes and from whom)
I think if it were not for men like Irenaeus, the Gnostic would be considered as valid as all the rest.
It is of course interesting to notice that when you read in Al Qur'an that Jesus was not crucified, this is confirmed by Irenaues when he mentions in his "Adversus haereses" the same being said by "heretics ", reference to Christians who read and believe the Gnostic Gospels.
salaam.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
Gibbon identifies 5 diferent gnostic sects, one of which was manichean.
his is the only source I have on the subject, other than my equally biased mother
Jesus claiming to be son of God isn't even a big feature of the canonical gospels in fact. The closest I think is in John, where he says I am the way the truth and the life, -- whereas in the synoptic gospels, he usually calls himself the son of Man, and admonishes anyone who says he's the messiah to keep it secret.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
there's the bit where he goes missing as a kid and his mother and stepdad find him in the temple and ask why he had worried them so by disappearing
Luke 2:48-50 (New International Version)
48When his parents saw him, they were astonished. His mother said to him, "Son, why have you treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you."
49"Why were you searching for me?" he asked. "Didn't you know I had to be in my Father's house?" 50But they did not understand what he was saying to them.
Well fair enough, but if I wished to be pedantic, I would point out that that passage doesn't make an exclusive claim of sonhood.
In any case as an infancy narrative it's slightly questionable what the source of the story is. tbf what you say is a fair point, but the infancy narratives are notoriously dubious.
I do rate the gospel of Thomas, but I also really rate the gospel of John.
I do think there is something to be said for the gnostic point of view that this a substandard creation, possibly controlled by a cruel or inept sort of god, and that true god tries to liberate us from it, or give us the means to transform it.
I always liked the one in the gospel of thomas where jesus says,
"If matter came from spirit it's a wonder, but if spirit came from matter, it's a wonder among wonders, and when I see so much wealth amidst so much poverty, it makes me wonder."
Which tbh is as as succinct and insightful a commentary on life, on the mind-body problem, and also on politics, as i've ever come across.
In any case as an infancy narrative it's slightly questionable what the source of the story is. tbf what you say is a fair point, but the infancy narratives are notoriously dubious.
I do rate the gospel of Thomas, but I also really rate the gospel of John.
I do think there is something to be said for the gnostic point of view that this a substandard creation, possibly controlled by a cruel or inept sort of god, and that true god tries to liberate us from it, or give us the means to transform it.
I always liked the one in the gospel of thomas where jesus says,
"If matter came from spirit it's a wonder, but if spirit came from matter, it's a wonder among wonders, and when I see so much wealth amidst so much poverty, it makes me wonder."
Which tbh is as as succinct and insightful a commentary on life, on the mind-body problem, and also on politics, as i've ever come across.
Snotty brat, wasn't he?
It strikes me as pretty banal, tbh.
That says more about you than anything else.
On the question of Yeshua of Nazareth claiming to be the Christ, when Pilate directly asks him that question he replies "you say that I am."
Scholars have argued for milliennia about what he meant (as he doubtless intended). But the most widely accepted theory today is that the pharse was a resounding affirmative, a bit like: "you said it, bub."
Personally I'm not convinced. I think it would have been literally impossible for a first-century Jew to conceive of himself as the incarnation of Yahweh.
The gospels have Jesus being clear in claiming to be the messiah, son of God. A good example is Mark 14 61-62, where Jesus has been arrested and is being questioned by the high priest:
61 But he kept quiet and said nothing. Again the high priest questioning him said, Are you the Christ, the son of the Holy One?
62 And Jesus said, I am: and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.
61 But he kept quiet and said nothing. Again the high priest questioning him said, Are you the Christ, the son of the Holy One?
62 And Jesus said, I am: and you will see the Son of man seated at the right hand of power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
yeah, ma cited his conversations with the pharisees as explicit utterances of his son-of-godhood
plus she cites this
John:
John 10:34-42 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain
34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
37If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
38But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
plus she cites this
John:
John 10:34-42 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
Public Domain
34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
36Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
37If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
38But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
All things being equal, this stuff leaves me stone cold, I must say...
I reckon understanding christian theology is a vital plank in understanding the hows and whys of western european morality, and also the laws and mores which dominate western european society. And to certai extent, such understanding can inform study of American society. Although you have to remember that they are the land of religious misfits and unchallenged heresy
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
Of course, it's a personal thing [my comment]..
Personal? I dunno. I think christian theology has been so very pervasive and instrumental to western european history and shared history, that to ignore it or even to write off debates about it, is foolhardy. This philosophy remains as the underwritten lynchpin of western european philosophy and indeed morality. Ye can't take the Christian out of the philosophical western discourse, cause it's erasmus and an indigestion on that diet of wyrms
gorski
customised free radical
Misunderstood: I studied it for a while, found out about it and now it leaves me cold - it's a personal thing, my choice, after the "informing myself of the essential issues" process was completed, as it were. I am not pleading for ignoring it, not educating oneself, forgetting all about it and so forth...
Yep. That's why people like In Bloom, who sneer and scoff at such discussions, are so ignorant. You can't understand *anything*--certainly not Marxism--unless you understand Christian theology.
That is undeniable. But only when approached within the context of Western history. Many of these ideas were and are simply universal.
salaam.
Phil, are you familiar with the term "fail"?Me said:
The quote in question doesn't really say anything particularly interesting, once you look past the poncey verbiage. Skepticism towards materialism and a vague condemnation of poverty, how very fucking novel
Phil, are you familiar with the term "fail"?
The quote in question doesn't really say anything particularly interesting, once you look past the poncey verbiage. Skepticism towards materialism and a vague condemnation of poverty, how very fucking novel
You know nothing about such things, In Bloom. How do I know? Because you always accuse me of being a Christian, when anyone who had the faintest idea about theology would know that I am obviously not. So I fear it is who who are made of fail and wank.
Christ, it's like watching one of my Uncles dance to DnB.
Christ it's like watching a snotty teenager who thinks it's cool to laugh at the silly old vicar. No, actually, it *is* watching a snotty teenager who thinks it's cool to laugh at the silly old vicar. Do some reading and get back to us when you know something.
Phil, are you going to spend your entire evening following me around making feeble personal attacks? Only I'm off out in an hour or two, maybe you could spend all that spare time you seem to have actually adressing people's arguments rather than avoiding discussion via a mixture of obfustication and personal abuse?
Similar threads
