1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why Not?

Discussion in 'Christianity DIR' started by Buttons*, Apr 14, 2006.

  1. Buttons*

    Buttons* Glass half Panda'd

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2005
    Messages:
    16,111
    Ratings:
    +1,263
    so the people who knew him first hand: Judas, Thomas, Mary, Phillip, etc... were rejected. However, Paul's letters, Luke's testimony, and the final Revelations written by people who never met Yeshua have more authority on the subject?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. lunamoth

    lunamoth Will to love

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    9,871
    Ratings:
    +1,630
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    Oh, I like to read the gnostic gospels, and all kinds of other things as well. There's no law against being inspired by things outside the canon. But as for my religion? K.I.S.S. :D

    I figure religion is like an airplane. If it's already flying you don't need to add another wing.

    peace,
    lunamoth
     
  3. Buttons*

    Buttons* Glass half Panda'd

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2005
    Messages:
    16,111
    Ratings:
    +1,263
    and i think thats really cool! :D

    This question was more for the people who dont do any exploration of their own beliefs.... *shrugs*

    many things "work" but arent perfect. NOT saying there's a perfect religion!!!! It's not really a matter of if it works... I'm just wondering if people really wanted to know about the life of their savior, why they wouldn't read books that discuss it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. lunamoth

    lunamoth Will to love

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    9,871
    Ratings:
    +1,630
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    Well, I think you just answered your own question. Many people do not feel a need to explore or question their religion. So, what's wrong with that? To each her own. :D


    I could completely agree with you on this one!

    I would guess that they already know all they need to about the life of their Savior. Some like to question and explore (and spend way too much time online talking about it, :D ), some don't care, and others are too busy getting on with the business of living the life. The airplane is flying, now let's get busy delivering these medicines and food to those who need them!

    BTW, you've revived choodianism? Has there been a new revelation?

    luna
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Buttons*

    Buttons* Glass half Panda'd

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2005
    Messages:
    16,111
    Ratings:
    +1,263
    very true. There's nothing wrong with a persons individual involvement in their religion... i was just curious i suppose. :)

    *nods* this is also true.
    if only that was humanities focus!!!! What a great place Earth would be!

    no, actually i just felt like being silly :D
     
  6. lunamoth

    lunamoth Will to love

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    9,871
    Ratings:
    +1,630
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    Well,being silly is good for the soul. :D

    I'll always remember with fondness my days as an Orthodox Choodianist (or at least the days I was sober). I had my boobie tassels bronzed.

    Now, take two chocolate Easter bunnies and call me in the morning! (As the RF Villiage offical lawn mower I sideline as a neurosurgeon. Lawnmowing is fulfilling, but it just does not pay what it used to.)

    Sister luna
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,563
    Ratings:
    +1,321
    Religion:
    Christian
    Catholic ;)

    Jesus established a Church on Peter.

    The Apostles and the people they taught...

    That is if the attributed actually authored the works...
     
  8. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,196
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    The letter kills.

    The Spirit gives life!

    So many think that to "study" the scriptures is the means to understanding God and how to "be" a Christian. In doing so we rob the Spirit of his role in our lives: counselor and guide.

    We try to neuter the Spirit because we don't believe him to be that powerful. In doing so we dismiss God's power here on earth.

    Does it matter if we have ALL of the scriptures or only one or two lines? Not to the Spirit. The Spirit convicts us of right and wrong: not the letters on a page. Do I need to concern myself with which scriptures to include or not? Nope. The Spirit will be sure to use anything at it's disposal, including secular literature, to make my heart change to love and serve God.

    The way I look at it, I have mastered less than %10 of this whole "Love God and Love Everyone Else" thing. Probably a LOT less. After I get those two precepts down pat, I'll be moving on to other scriptures and perhaps even those "other" gospels. :D
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Buttons*

    Buttons* Glass half Panda'd

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2005
    Messages:
    16,111
    Ratings:
    +1,263
    *smiles* I think thats really an awesome outlook on it NetDoc!

    I never saw it that way!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Buttons*

    Buttons* Glass half Panda'd

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2005
    Messages:
    16,111
    Ratings:
    +1,263
    ....are you Catholic? :p You sly devil, never knew!!!!


    Could you quote that in scripture? (i'm too lazy to conduct the search.... which is kind of ironic since I'm bothering you all about not looking things up.... :rolleyes: oh well, its 4:30 AM... gimmie a break! ... of that kit kat bar!!!)


    more passaging por favor?


    The Bible's current four weren't even written by the people whose names are on them
     
  11. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,563
    Ratings:
    +1,321
    Religion:
    Christian
    Converting :D

    Matt 16:18-20

    What kind of passaging are you looking for, I am not sure I understand...

    You want me to deny that the Biblical gospels were not written by the attributed authors, but to accept that Thomas, Mary, and Judas wrote those gospels?
    Also, evidence?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. Buttons*

    Buttons* Glass half Panda'd

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2005
    Messages:
    16,111
    Ratings:
    +1,263
    so is my little brother Warren!!! How cool!!!!


    you got me there, frubals! :D


    dont mind that, i wrote it EARLY in the morning


    touche!!!

    I just saw something on the Discovery channel as far as matt, mark, luke, and john not being written by their actual authors because of the fact that they were written so long after yeshua's death.

    Unfortunatley, i havent read or seen anything yet that either proves or disproves thomas, mary, or judas' gospels if they were written by the actual authors or not... so I really dont know.

    I'm not asking you to accept anything, I'm just asking why not look into them. Lunamoth let me realize that to each their own and not everyone feels like they need more in-depth exploration... so if this was too invasive i'm sorry.

    I was mostly just curious.
     
  13. lunamoth

    lunamoth Will to love

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    9,871
    Ratings:
    +1,630
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    Oh, you are alright Buttons. :) If one doesn't ever ask such questions what would we all have to talk about?

    So...why do you feel you need more than the canon to believe?

    peace,
    lunamoth
     
  14. Buttons*

    Buttons* Glass half Panda'd

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2005
    Messages:
    16,111
    Ratings:
    +1,263
    I dont believe the canon actually....

    But the reason i looked into Gnosticism in the first place is because i picked up a book that discussed Gnostic texts.... and I felt like i'd been lied to all my life because books like Mary and Thomas were not in the Bible... it just felt wrong to me not to give them a look-see.
     
  15. Bishka

    Bishka Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    18,945
    Ratings:
    +1,494
    I agree, those do have much good in them (so I have heard, haven't gotten the chance to read them yet). You already pretty much know what the LDS view on more teachings on Christ is. =)

    I'm sure one day that the LDS Church will take a stand on those books, but for the time being it's not pro or con. I've been told though (by my Christian History teacher) that many of those gospels have things that the LDS Church already believes in and is already in our canon, so I think that means they wouldn't need to incorporate them into our canon.

    I agree, why wouldn't the people closest to Christ know about Him and His teachings?

    I'll have to reed those gospels and get back to you on that Ashley!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. lunamoth

    lunamoth Will to love

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    9,871
    Ratings:
    +1,630
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    That is interesting. Did you lose faith in the canon/Christianity before you discovered the Gnostic texts, or after?

    Also, I don't know a lot about it, you probably know more, but much of the NT was accepted by the eary Christian gnostics. Some people interpet Paul as being gnostic (although I see it differently). I think it was Marcion that put together a gnostic version of the canon that had some of the current NT books in it (although apprently he redacted them)

    http://www.christianorigins.com/marcion.html

    cheers,
    lunamoth
     
  17. Buttons*

    Buttons* Glass half Panda'd

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2005
    Messages:
    16,111
    Ratings:
    +1,263
    Before.

    I had attended the Episcopal church all my life and loved it. But we moved when I was 14 and we went to the non-denominational christian church across the street. It really bothered me because it was JUST a social hang out. People lifted their hands to rock music... there's nothing wrong with worshiping that way.... but it never suited me because I was raised differently.

    At any rate, the fact that Christians, including myself at the time not only treated their deity like crap, they looked down their nose at others. The LDS friends I had in public school my Freshman year were teased mercilessly by kids i went to church with. One LDS girl told me that I didnt care if my best friend, who was wiccan, went to hell because i didnt convert her. It just bothered me.

    I assumed disassociating myself with Christianity on the whole would be better for me. The hypocracy just got to me.... But my wiccan friend mentioned that there was a goddess in Christianity... so i went looking for it and then stumbled upon this book by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy Jesus and the Lost Goddess and that was all she wrote. It covered gnostic topics and early Christianity. I thought I understood, at last, what It meant to be Christian. I thought, "if we wanted to follow the faith, why dont we go back to the roots?"

    yes, some gnostics thought that about Paul, but Halcyon and I strongly disagree... he says things that are VERY non-gnostic.
     
  18. lunamoth

    lunamoth Will to love

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2006
    Messages:
    9,871
    Ratings:
    +1,630
    Religion:
    Episcopalian
    Mmm, yeah. I personally find the non-denoms to be almost like a different religion. Lots of diversity in the Body of Christ (and that's my more polite way of putting it for some cases).

    Well, I disagree that gnosticism is going back to the roots, but it is another path. I don't know enough about it to say all of what I might agree with or what I would disagree with. With respect to the God/Godess thing, well, I think God actually is beyond all gender, despite the paternalistic language historically used in Christianity. Esp in the OT you can find some nice phrases honoring the female/mother traits of God. So that never really bothered me. Now, the overt sexism and oppression agains women carried out by organized Christian religion, that's a different story... (grrrr).

    I still do not have a very clear picture of what your beliefs are. Not to pressue you into creating a box for yourself or anything, but if you ever are interested in doing a thread on it I for one would read it (respectfully).

    cheers,
    lunamoth
     
  19. Buttons*

    Buttons* Glass half Panda'd

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2005
    Messages:
    16,111
    Ratings:
    +1,263
    *nods*

    i know, Gnosticism was around before Christianity and stuff...
    This is true, and its not about actual gods and goddesses... its about the source.... its really difficult to explain without getting into mythology...


    Well, maybe a little bit later. As for now I'm working really hard to get through that secret Gospel of John... so maybe after that I'll make a thread for it. If not, I can PM you with it sometime... but it is a bit hard to explain....
     
  20. Tom Davidson

    Tom Davidson Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Messages:
    56
    Ratings:
    +4
    The discussion of apocryphal texts is a complex one.

    If you look at the teachings of the gnostics (ie the 2nd century sects, not the 'principle' of gnosis as such) they invariably try and 'hi-jack' Christian teachings and lead them off somewhere else.

    Christ taught about love, and a one-on-one relationship with the Father - he told people to call God 'Abba'.

    Gnostics teaching is utterly different - its all about 'knowledge', not love, so gnosis isn't who you are, but what you know ... in gnostic teachings there are inumerable intermediate levels that separate man from God ... syzergies, archons ... and to pass from one to the next you need 'keys' (knowledge again)...

    Scripture, and Christ, taught that the world is essentially 'good' - the gnostic view is the world is essentially evil and the soul is trapped here ...

    So 'basic' gnostic teaching is anti-Christian at almost every step.

    A favourite technique of the gnostics was to write a 'gospel' in which Christ is utterly devisive, and imparts a 'secret teaching' to one, but not the others. So in one Judas is the 'specially chosen', in another it's Mary Magdalene, in another its Thomas ...

    Another technique was to insist that although they never met Jesus, the gnostic teachers actually understood what Christ was teaching, whilst the poor old disciples were too stupid and hadn't got a clue ... that fact that 'their' Christianity bears a stunning resemblance to Zoroastrianism/Manicheanism and is nothing like the orthodox canon, nor the Old Testament, speaks for itself.

    The most we know is from Irenaeus, who wrote a refutation of everything they taught. Irenaeus was a student of Polycarp, who was a student of St John, and it is likely that Irenaeus was in communication with people who had actually met Jesus personally, or who 'knew someone who knew him' (and I'll admit that allows for a lot of rumour and misinformation)

    But Irenaeus argued that wherever Christianity was taught, the message was the same, in Rome, Alexandria, in Gaul (he was in Lyon) in Antioch ... and yet all those Christians had all got it wrong, and yet wherever gnostics taught, and a 'rule' of gnosticism is that each teacher should make the message his own, and thus no two gnostic teachers taught precisely the same thing, they were all right!

    His last argument was that Christ could not have been much good if he hadn't managed to teach even one of his disciples the right message.

    And remember that it is axiomatic to gnostic teachings that only a very, very few are saved, because the vast majority of humanity do not have a soul...

    Lastly, if you don't believe the Christians, read up on the Greek Philosophers. The Stoics especially ripped into the gnostics at every opportunity for what they saw was very bad philosophy - a lack of reason, logic and intellectual rigour - whilst they acknowledged that they might not believe in the Christian God, Christians argued the case perfectly.

    The point is that some gnostics were Christians who tried to express what they thought through what they already knew, others were not Christian at all, but simply wanted to get on the bandwagon (Christianity was spreading like wildfire).

    Personally, I am Catholic, but a Christian Neoplatonist, for me Platonic philosophy is far more a 'real gnosis' than the oooh-er mystery stuff the gnostics churn out, but it's tough reading. Gnostics always aimed at popularity, rather than reality.

    And if I were to bang my gong, I'd want to know if people want to know the 'real deal' on gnosis, why, Catholics especially, aren't they reading Athenasius, Basil, Clement, Dionysius the Areopagite, Ephrem the Syrian, Eriugena or Eckhart, Gregory of Nyssa, or Nazianzus, (I know, I skipped the 'F'), Hilary of Poitiers, Ignatius, John Damascene or John of the Cross ... Katherine of Siena (I cheated, should be a 'C') ... can't think of an 'L', hang on, Leo the Great! ... Maximus the Confessor (who re-ordered Platonism - my hero!) ...

    Hey ... where'd you all go... ?


    Thomas
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...