Gnosticism (split from theo201)

[eudyptes]

You are seeking to "know" God. This is the goal of the Gnosic.



From what I've read of Gnosticism, this is an oversimplification of the belief. To say that someone trying to know God is a Gnostic is therefore a misrepresentation.

Yes, gnosis/gnostic is from the Greek word for knowledge - and yes gnostics believe that "special knowledge" was the way to "reach" God, however there was a lot more that went with that belief. In the basic gnostic beliefs (and there are enough variations out there for me to have to state that this is an overall view and not all encomposing) is that flesh is an illusion and evil - and our spiritual side is incapable of sin. It's obtaining and understanding that "special knowledge" that frees the spirit from the bonds of the evil flesh.

They denied the diety of Christ, seeing Him as one who was a great teacher in how to leave the evil flesh behind an "ascend" to the spiritual.

This type of "knowledge seeking" is a whole lot different than someone wanting to know God through scripture in order to deepen one's relationship with Him.

[VFarris01]

From what I've read of Gnosticism, this is an oversimplification of the belief. To say that someone trying to know God is a Gnostic is therefore a misrepresentation.

Yes, gnosis/gnostic is from the Greek word for knowledge - and yes gnostics believe that "special knowledge" was the way to "reach" God, however there was a lot more that went with that belief. In the basic gnostic beliefs (and there are enough variations out there for me to have to state that this is an overall view and not all encomposing) is that flesh is an illusion and evil - and our spiritual side is incapable of sin. It's obtaining and understanding that "special knowledge" that frees the spirit from the bonds of the evil flesh.

They denied the diety of Christ, seeing Him as one who was a great teacher in how to leave the evil flesh behind an "ascend" to the spiritual.

This type of "knowledge seeking" is a whole lot different than someone wanting to know God through scripture in order to deepen one's relationship with Him.You need to read more and post less...

[eudyptes]

You need to read more and post less...

I will try to do better in the future - would you be so kind as to point out what I may have missed in my post? Thank you.

[Xavier]

I will try to do better in the future - would you be so kind as to point out what I may have missed in my post? Thank you.
Fret not... You were correct and anyone with a moderate amount of Christian History knows that... :hehe:

Even the wikipedia article on Gnostism would be a start for this guy.

[eudyptes]

Fret not... You were correct and anyone with a moderate amount of Christian History knows that... :hehe:

Even the wikipedia article on Gnostism would be a start for this guy.

Was pretty sure I was, I've done a modest amount of research on the topic.

Since his comment was umm...blunt, and lacking in any information, I wanted to give him the opportunity to show where he felt I went wrong.

[VFarris01]

I will try to do better in the future - would you be so kind as to point out what I may have missed in my post? Thank you.You made an assumption about my intent when referring to Gnosticism. Contrary to the attempts of its (Gnosticism's) detractors to label the beliefs of the ancient Gnostics as "heretics" the opposite may indeed be true. This is off topic for this thread, so we should drop this discussion before I am labeled.

[eudyptes]

You made an assumption about my intent when referring to Gnosticism. Contrary to the attempts of its (Gnosticism's) detractors to label the beliefs of the ancient Gnostics as "heretics" the opposite may indeed be true. This is off topic for this thread, so we should drop this discussion before I am labeled.

Guilty as charged on the assumption - the references to "Gnostics" and the goal of "Gnostics" in your posts seemed - to me, and therefore the reason for my assumption -- to be referencing Gnosticism in the way I addressed in my post.

I don't remember that I've run across a reference to "Gnostics" and belief that referenced any other concept or group. I apologize if I misrepresented what you were saying. But I must also confess to now being confused as to what you meant by your references to "Gnostics"?

[VFarris01]

Because it does not "flow" with the rest of the passage.Are you suggesting it shouldn't be in scripture?Are you sure the phrase is not a later addition? Any quotation in the Bible which does not seem to fit should be looked on with a bit of suspicion.

You are seeking to "know" God. This is the goal of the Gnosic.Yes I am. Do you think it's an attainable goal for a Christian?While, as pointed out by eudy-, the stated "goal of the Gnostics" is somewhat abbreviated, "knowing" God is not unattainable by anyone seeking His enlightenment. Contrary to popular belief, the Gnostics were Christians too.

Exactly! (This is the answer xy would have given had he been without {what appears to be} an "agenda.")So, do you intend to answer it?xy made a statement in the form of a question. It requires no "answer."

Sorry, I cannot/will not do for you what you will not do for yourself.Ok VFarris, as you wish. I have no problem doing my homework on the issue, but I suppose I thought because you brought it up you had a purpose for doing so. And I thought perhaps that purpose was to help me see my flaws, etc.I made an observation. Nothing more.

[VFarris01]

You made an assumption about my intent when referring to Gnosticism. Contrary to the attempts of its (Gnosticism's) detractors to label the beliefs of the ancient Gnostics as "heretics" the opposite may indeed be true. This is off topic for this thread, so we should drop this discussion before I am labeled.Guilty as charged on the assumption - the references to "Gnostics" and the goal of "Gnostics" in your posts seemed - to me, and therefore the reason for my assumption -- to be referencing Gnosticism in the way I addressed in my post.

I don't remember that I've run across a reference to "Gnostics" and belief that referenced any other concept or group. I apologize if I misrepresented what you were saying. But I must also confess to now being confused as to what you meant by your references to "Gnostics"?I am frequently taken out of context by those who would defend the "orthodox" religions of Catholicism and Orthodoxy (I am almost virulently anti-RC), thus, my aversion to being labeled as anything other than a Christian regardless of the details.

Early Christianity was probably more diverse than anything we would come across today calling itself "Christianity." We have been "locked-down" to accept the "orthodox" view of Christianity, when, in fact, the early Christians (1st and 2nd century) held views quite different than modern Christians (after the 3rd century).

A thorough reading of this book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195141830/104-9292546-3451156?v=glance) might catch you up on what you have been missing.

[seer]

I am frequently taken out of context by those who would defend the "orthodox" religions of Catholicism and Orthodoxy (I am almost virulently anti-RC), thus, my aversion to being labeled as anything other than a Christian regardless of the details.

Early Christianity was probably more diverse than anything we would come across today calling itself "Christianity." We have been "locked-down" to accept the "orthodox" view of Christianity, when, in fact, the early Christians (1st and 2nd century) held views quite different than modern Christians (after the 3rd century).

A thorough reading of this book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195141830/104-9292546-3451156?v=glance) might catch you up on what you have been missing.

What are we missing? Confusion? Denying the Old Testament?

[Xavier]

What are we missing? Confusion? Denying the Old Testament?
My bet is on the Dualism... You know the whole good God versus bad God deal.

[seer]

My bet is on the Dualism... You know the whole good God versus bad God deal.

Yes,body bad,spirit good. No incarnation...

[VFarris01]

What are we missing? Confusion? Denying the Old Testament?My bet is on the Dualism... You know the whole good God versus bad God deal.Yes,body bad,spirit good. No incarnation...What part of, "A thorough reading of this book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195141830/104-9292546-3451156?v=glance) might catch you up on what you have been missing" did you two not understand? This book is about history not doctrine.

[seer]

What part of, "A thorough reading of this book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195141830/104-9292546-3451156?v=glance) might catch you up on what you have been missing" did you two not understand? This book is about history not doctrine.

I have studied the history - so what am I missing?

[Xavier]

What part of, "A thorough reading of this book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195141830/104-9292546-3451156?v=glance) might catch you up on what you have been missing" did you two not understand? This book is about history not doctrine.
I've got better things to do with my time than read a revisionist take on Church History. From the two or three ones that I've already read, Gnostism is a heresy as defined.

[VFarris01]

I have studied the history - so what am I missing?The real history... not history as defined by your crutch.

[VFarris01]

I've got better things to do with my time than read a revisionist take on Church History. From the two or three ones that I've already read, Gnostism is a heresy as defined.As defined by whom, your crutch?

[Xavier]

As defined by whom, your crutch?
My "crutch" is a crutch according to who, YOUR CRUTCH?

[VFarris01]

I've got better things to do with my time than read a revisionist take on Church History. From the two or three ones that I've already read, Gnostism is a heresy as defined.As defined by whom, your crutch?My "crutch" is a crutch according to who, YOUR CRUTCH?It appears you are RC. Your crutch defined what was not "orthodox," not mine. Your insistence on allowing your crutch to tell you what to believe, when it was believed, why it was believed, how it was to be practiced and where it is to be practiced shows me you are very easily led.

I noted earlier this is off topic. As a mod you should know better than to carry on a discussion outside of the thread topic. I guess the rules are only applied to non-administrators.

Do you not have "better things to do with (your) time" than to defend the heresy of Roman Catholicism?

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

It appears you are RC. Your crutch defined what was not "orthodox," not mine. Your insistence on allowing your crutch to tell you what to believe, when it was believed, why it was believed, how it was to be practiced and where it is to be practiced shows me you are very easily led.

I noted earlier this is off topic. As a mod you should know better than to carry on a discussion outside of the thread topic. I guess the rules are only applied to non-administrators.

Do you not have "better things to do with (your) time" than to defend the heresy of Roman Catholicism?


You're apparently very good at making cryptic authoritarian pronouncements and putting on airs of superiority. If this kind of thing pleases you, I suppose it could be seen as an end in itself; you have your reward.

But, if you have something legitimate to say which might purport to help others find their way out of what you genuinely perceive to be their misguided thinking, you might do better in taking the trouble to address them in love and actually explain your position---rather than directing them to read a book or slinging random insults. What you're doing now is only contentious and useless....

[seer]

The real history... not history as defined by your crutch.

Let's get specific about doctrine... What do you believe that I don't...

[Armor of God]

What part of, "A thorough reading of this book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195141830/104-9292546-3451156?v=glance) might catch you up on what you have been missing" did you two not understand? This book is about history not doctrine.

So if I take the time to read through this one book, I will have a completely unbiased and accurate history of early Christianity?

Tell me, what separates it from other books that claim that they have the historically correct angle?

[VFarris01]

It appears you are RC. Your crutch defined what was not "orthodox," not mine. Your insistence on allowing your crutch to tell you what to believe, when it was believed, why it was believed, how it was to be practiced and where it is to be practiced shows me you are very easily led.

I noted earlier this is off topic. As a mod you should know better than to carry on a discussion outside of the thread topic. I guess the rules are only applied to non-administrators.

Do you not have "better things to do with (your) time" than to defend the heresy of Roman Catholicism?You're apparently very good at making cryptic authoritarian pronouncements and putting on airs of superiority. If this kind of thing pleases you, I suppose it could be seen as an end in itself; you have your reward.Apparently, the phrase "off topic" has the same amount of meaning to "gym debate veterans" as it does to "administrative assistants;" none.

I made no "cryptic authoritarian pronouncements." If you believe I did, I do not really care; your opinion matters about (=) much to me.

Who is "putting on airs of superiority" by chastizing my posts? You maybe? You have your reward... congratulation... are you pleased?

But, if you have something legitimate to say which might purport to help others find their way out of what you genuinely perceive to be their misguided thinking, you might do better in taking the trouble to address them in love and actually explain your position---rather than directing them to read a book or slinging random insults. What you're doing now is only contentious and useless....What does agape have to do with it? I did not start the "contentious" exchange; the person who should know better... the "administrative assistant" did (post #47). My insults were far from "random;" they were, in a pin-point, directed at Roman Catholicism.

[VFarris01]

The real history... not history as defined by your crutch.Let's get specific about doctrine... What do you believe that I don't...Well, I know something you do not... Asking me about anything other than the topic of this thread is a no-no. "Off topic" has no meaning to "charter members" either I see.

[VFarris01]

What part of, "A thorough reading of this book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195141830/104-9292546-3451156?v=glance) might catch you up on what you have been missing" did you two not understand? This book is about history not doctrine.So if I take the time to read through this one book, I will have a completely unbiased and accurate history of early Christianity?

Tell me, what separates it from other books that claim that they have the historically correct angle?What part of, "A thorough reading of this book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195141830/104-9292546-3451156?v=glance) might catch you up on what you have been missing" did you not understand? Seriously, some people...

[Xavier]

What part of, "A thorough reading of this book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195141830/104-9292546-3451156?v=glance) might catch you up on what you have been missing" did you not understand? Seriously, some people...
Just read the Book of Mormon and pray.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Apparently, the phrase "off topic" has the same amount of meaning to "gym debate veterans" as it does to "administrative assistants;" none.

And your posts are strictly on topic???


I made no "cryptic authoritarian pronouncements." If you believe I did, I do not really care; your opinion matters about (=) much to me.

Well, it's good to see you care....


Who is "putting on airs of superiority" by chastizing my posts? You maybe? You have your reward... congratulation... are you pleased?

I'm dazzled by the blazing glory of your humility.


What does agape have to do with it?

Didn't Tina Turner ask that first?


I did not start the "contentious" exchange; the person who should know better... the "administrative assistant" did (post #47). My insults were far from "random;" they were, in a pin-point, directed at Roman Catholicism.

I don't think X is an RC. But again, how very on topic you are!

[Xavier]

THERE...

Now, we're on-topic... Time to face facts.

[Armor of God]

What part of, "A thorough reading of this book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195141830/104-9292546-3451156?v=glance) might catch you up on what you have been missing" did you not understand? Seriously, some people...
The only thing I don't understand is your attitude. Whoever it was that made the "air of superiority" comment was spot on.

My questions were simple and sincere. I don't have a lot of time to do extra reading, so all I was asking you is what makes this book different? You seem to be claiming that you gained some new insight from it. I'm just trying to figure out if it's worth a read or not.

[seer]

Well, I know something you do not... Asking me about anything other than the topic of this thread is a no-no. "Off topic" has no meaning to "charter members" either I see.

Ok V, here we are - tell me something about the person of Christ or God that I don't know...

[eudyptes]

Jeesh, a little work gets in the way of tweb for a couple of hours and things go sortof 90 degrees.

VFarris....
In catching up on this thread, I got the impression that if I question if Gnostics were Christian or not you'd consider me in the RC camp? (As per your post to Xavier) I just want to clarify if I've understood your stand or not...

[Xmansmommy]

Well, I know something you do not... Asking me about anything other than the topic of this thread is a no-no. "Off topic" has no meaning to "charter members" either I see.

For anyone seeking clarification, as the thread starter, I told VFarris that I didn't mind going on a journey with him in that thread (see post # 20 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1233521&postcount=20)). I am not one that feels confined to the OP when I start a thread. Going off topic wasn't an issue, so the complaint here that VFarris brings is unfounded and unfair.

[gnosticmary]

I am not sure if you all are interested in learning about gnosticism, but since comments are frequently made on this forum indicating a lack of understanding, I thought I would join and share a bit of information and be available to answer any questions.

I call myself a gnostic because this spiritual category fits best, but like most others calling themselves the same in today's world, I do not belong to any organized religion or spiritual group. A gnostic looks first to their inner connection with the Father and doing so makes them a loner, a true stranger and alien in this world, although they do find joy in connecting with others who have the same inner connection - which gives birth to peace and love.

A gnostic is a follower of the life and teachings of Jesus, seeking to do as He commanded. And a gnostic knows that Jesus is the Son of God, Christ incarnate, hence deity manifested in flesh.

A gnostic seeks right understanding at all costs (Prov 4:7).

More from Proverbs...

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom, And the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding.

The heart of him who has understanding seeks knowledge, But the mouth of fools feeds on foolishness.

The knowledge that is acquired though, does not fill a gnostic, but leads to the understanding that is necessary for true repentance, for emptying, for leaving one's life behind, and following in the footsteps of Jesus.

A gnostic comes to know that anything that is not of God is false, separate, and by letting go of all that is false, only God's Kingdom will remain. However, while the mind is necessary in acquiring this understanding, it is the heart, or the connection with the Father, that discerns. This is not easy, which is why Jesus tells us that the path is steep and the gate is narrow and that few are able to enter in. And so before one begins the journey to salvation, one must count the cost.

On the path to the kingdom, a gnostic comes to know that everything in this world is false. For this reason John said that any who love anything in this world do not have the Love of the Father in them, any who love - or are filled with - what is false, cannot have God and His Love in them.

And according to a gnostic's understanding, it is not that this world is bad, or that flesh is evil, for good and bad are concepts originating with the tree of knowledge of good and evil, it is that this world is not of the Tree of Life, it is separate from God, hence we can only partake of the Tree of Life if we let go of it, if we chose Life over death.

From a Divine perspective, as a gnostic understands it to be, there is no good or evil, everything is either Life or death, connected to God through the Tree of Life, or not, hence fallen, separated. And to reconnect, to partake of the Tree of Life, to be spiritually reborn, to have the Father’s Love in us, we must let go of all that is false, all that is not True or of God.

Jesus: I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man cometh unto the Father but by Me. I am One with the Father, the Body of Christ, the Tree of Life. One must partake of Me, of true Manna, to connect with the Father and His Divine Creation.

Gnostics, then, seek the understanding that leads to repentance, to the forsaking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, to join back into God’s Kingdom through partaking of the Tree of Life, and being brought back in unity with the Body of Christ.

I am eager to answer any questions...



Mary

[seer]

A gnostic is a follower of the life and teachings of Jesus, seeking to do as He commanded. And a gnostic knows that Jesus is the Son of God, Christ incarnate, hence deity manifested in flesh.

Mary, why have soooo many gnostics through the ages denied Christ's physical incarnation and physical resurrection? Why have you come to a different conclusion?

[studyhound]

A gnostic is a follower of the life and teachings of Jesus, seeking to do as He commanded. And a gnostic knows that Jesus is the Son of God, Christ incarnate, hence deity manifested in flesh.

Mary, why have soooo many gnostics through the ages denied Christ's physical incarnation and physical resurrection? Why have you come to a different conclusion?
To be honest she sound like a neo-gnosstic, not so much in touch with the gnostics of the second and third century, they were basicly greek mystery religions mixed with a touch of christian verbage to sound legit.

:sh:

[gnosticmary]

A gnostic is a follower of the life and teachings of Jesus, seeking to do as He commanded. And a gnostic knows that Jesus is the Son of God, Christ incarnate, hence deity manifested in flesh.

Mary, why have soooo many gnostics through the ages denied Christ's physical incarnation and physical resurrection? Why have you come to a different conclusion?

Greetings Seer,

In my journey I have found that man eventually messes up everything - even God's light - because man is driven by his selfish nature and makes judgments based on his own ideas and not on inspiration from God.

That is why each person must find their own connection with the Father so as not to be deceived.

Consequently, there are a lot of spiritual groups who have called or who do now call themselves Gnostic, but who are false and preach a distortion version of God's truth. In fact, I have found that just like the diversity we have among all religious traditions, Gnostic groups do not agree among themselves!

Thus, I do not call myself gnostic because I am in agreement with any specific Gnostic tradition, but because this definition of man best describes my journey in seeking that which is true.

Two individuals from Christian history whose teachings indicate that they also fit this same definition are Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint John of the Cross.

And let it be understood that I consider Jesus and all His disciples to be gnostic by the same definition.

There is also the possibility, Seer, that you are misunderstanding the Gnostic teachings you have encountered or you are assuming things about my understanding that are not correct.

Perhaps if you have specific questions?


Mary

[Xavier]

Mary,

Do you hold to any of the dualisms commonly associated with Gnostism? (e.g. Good God versus Evil God, Material versus Spiritual, etc.)

Yours,
Xavier

[seer]

Consequently, there are a lot of spiritual groups who have called or who do now call themselves Gnostic, but who are false and preach a distortion version of God's truth. In fact, I have found that just like the diversity we have among all religious traditions, Gnostic groups do not agree among themselves!

Thus, I do not call myself gnostic because I am in agreement with any specific Gnostic tradition, but because this definition of man best describes my journey in seeking that which is true.


This is my question Mary. If you and another sincere gnostic comes to a different conclusion about the nature of Christ - who is correct? How would we know?

[studyhound]

Greetings Seer,

In my journey I have found that man eventually messes up everything - even God's light - because man is driven by his selfish nature and makes judgments based on his own ideas and not on inspiration from God.

That is why each person must find their own connection with the Father so as not to be deceived.

I find these two statements oddly in conflict with one another. How can you be sure your “path to the father” is not corrupted by yourself.

Consequently, there are a lot of spiritual groups who have called or who do now call themselves Gnostic, but who are false and preach a distortion version of God's truth. In fact, I have found that just like the diversity we have among all religious traditions, Gnostic groups do not agree among themselves!

Thus, I do not call myself gnostic because I am in agreement with any specific Gnostic tradition, but because this definition of man best describes my journey in seeking that which is true.

Perhaps you might look to use the other greek word for knowldge, thus removing yourself for the group of anicent sect of heretics?

Two individuals from Christian history whose teachings indicate that they also fit this same definition are Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint John of the Cross.

I have enjoyed these men work also, yet I think they would just call themselves christians

[gnosticmary]

Mary,

Do you hold to any of the dualisms commonly associated with Gnostism? (e.g. Good God versus Evil God, Material versus Spiritual, etc.)

Yours,
Xavier

Greetings Xavier,

Dualism, for a gnostic, is referring to the duality of existence in a fallen realm - good and bad, happy and sad, nice - mean, etc. Both extremes are necessitated in the fallen worlds by God's Law but do not exist in the unfallen Kingdom where there is only Life, no dualities, all Good - but not the same good found in this world that is the polar opposite of dualistic bad or evil.

What you may be asking about, Xavier, is one of two things both commonly found among the Gnostic traditions. One is referred to as the demiurge, a force or energy that is considered in these traditions to be responsible for the present physical, emotional, and spiritual states of this fallen world. Once humanity stepped out of the Garden, out of the Divine Kingdom, they also stepped into the fallen kingdom where there were already many fallen beings and energies and became vulnerable to their influence and manipulation.

Gnostics feel that what was originally created by God, that which He declared Good, is still there, just hidden, crystallized, behind heavy densities. Heavy densities only exist in the realms of death and so they are not Life or of the Divine.

Or you could be asking about the false god that according to Gnostic traditions began to influence Israel once they broke the covenant. It is thought by some that the Old Testament is confusing because what is there presently is a combination of the original revelations and teachings given to Israel and distortions that were created by the false god.

Your questions were regarding if I personally held to these things. My own inner guidance led me to an understanding that is not inconsistent with these two ideas, although I have no personal knowing of what exactly occurred in the past.

And I have found that knowledge regarding such details is not necessary to walk the path of liberation. One just needs to discern what is True here and now from what is false. One just needs to let go of the world around them and the things in it, making room for Christ. One cannot serve two masters.

The next logical question, which I will go ahead and answer, is regarding my thoughts of the Old Testament.

In my journey, the OT was essential in guiding me into many truths. It was like a guidebook, a story book, with deeper meanings, much like the parables of Jesus.

Once I allowed God to teach me, the Old Testament never felt confusing. I just thought that it had been written a long time ago, for a different culture, in a different language, (I studied Hebrew for several years to help in understanding) and for a different purpose than the New Testament and found, as Paul stated, that the laws and rituals were never meant as rules to follow to please God, but a means by which he taught His chosen people.

There is ample evidence in the Old Testament revealing that the sacrifices and other rituals were not for God's pleasure or some requirement for forgiveness or salvation, but merely to teach His chosen people higher truths.

I hope this answers your question.


Mary

[gnosticmary]

Consequently, there are a lot of spiritual groups who have called or who do now call themselves Gnostic, but who are false and preach a distortion version of God's truth. In fact, I have found that just like the diversity we have among all religious traditions, Gnostic groups do not agree among themselves!

Thus, I do not call myself gnostic because I am in agreement with any specific Gnostic tradition, but because this definition of man best describes my journey in seeking that which is true.


This is my question Mary. If you and another sincere gnostic comes to a different conclusion about the nature of Christ - who is correct? How would we know?

Greetings again Seer,

Sincere gnostics do not disagree in this way. They recognize the flow and radiance of God’s Love in and through each other, and as they surrender to this Love, their hearts are joined and together they see Truth clearly and evidently.

Where two or more are gathered in My Name, there I will be also.

Sincere gnostics are humble children in the presence of Christ.

There are, however, many false Gnostics out there, but these are easily recognized by the sincere, for even if they speak of Truth, without the presence of God’s Love it is obvious that they their knowledge is based on a faulty foundation and as such not trustworthy.

For those who are still attached to this world and so do not have the Love of the Father in them nor are able to recognize It in another, they will be unable to discern what is True from what is false and are then left with nothing but their own logic and reason which is certainly faulty. Even the Bible will be of limited help, for if the Love of God does not exist in them they are then serving a different master, as are their thoughts, ideas, and opinions. They will then see the Bible through their master’s ‘eyes’.

For these reasons, belief in Christ which is obedience to Jesus’ commandments is critical for right understanding.

One can never be certain who or what is correct if Christ is not their sole Master.


Mary

[gnosticmary]

I find these two statements oddly in conflict with one another. How can you be sure your “path to the father” is not corrupted by yourself.

This is a good question, studyhound. As long as we are serving two masters, anything that comes from us, every thought, word, and deed, can be corrupted.

But we do have to begin somewhere with following our inner guidance - just be sure that we don't hold to it too tightly, because we might later learn that the guidance was corrupted. As we journey, Christ will reveal our attachments to this world, what needs to be let go of , more of self that needs to be denied, so that more of God's Love can find room in us.

As we become less, and He greater, the corruption will lessen and lessen. But meanwhile, it is always good to have someone in whom God's Love is strong, someone who knows His Will who can offer us help and assistance in finding the same within our selves.

Remember though, that Jesus said we would be carrying a cross as we followed Him. The journey is not an easy one. It is one filled with tension which Paul accurately described, and St. John of the Cross.


Perhaps you might look to use the other greek word for knowldge, thus removing yourself for the group of anicent sect of heretics?


You feel that the condemners were correct and those condemned wrong?

Given what Jesus said, why would you think that? He who was condemned said that the world would hate his disciples just as it hated him. And he certainly did not teach violence against false teachers, but sworded them cleanly and precisely with His Words.

Those who respond with violence, either physically or verbally, usually do so out of fear and if we are walking in fear, we are not walking in Truth.


Mary

[seer]

Sincere gnostics do not disagree in this way. They recognize the flow and radiance of God’s Love in and through each other, and as they surrender to this Love, their hearts are joined and together they see Truth clearly and evidently.

That is an assertion Mary. How do you know that they are not sincere? Perhaps you are the insincere one. If you knowledge of Christ is based on personal experience alone then we can not know who is right or wrong...

[Harald]

I haven't read the whole of this thread. But I want to say something on "gnostics". The GNT does not have a word equivalent to "gnostic(s)", nor for "gnosticism". The closest one finds in the Greek is what Paul wrote in 1Tim. 6, "the knowledge (Gr. gnôsis) falsely-so-called". This "THE knowledge (falsely-so-called)", mark well an article in the Greek, was a faction within the realm of the professing community of Paul's last days. John the apostle also referred to the same faction in his 1st epistle, and probably also in the 2nd. So, the primary information concerning what sort of "gnosticism" it was that plagued Paul's and John's converts must primarily be gleaned from Paul's epistles and John's, not from "church history" accounts. It appears from the Pauline corpus that at least the Colossians and the Ephesians (Laodiceans ?) had some troublous encounter with "gnosticism" (i.e. "THE gnosis" faction). Both these epistles were written about 62 AD. I discern some hints about "gnosticism" already in 1Cor., which was written some years earlier. And 1Timothy was written about 65 or 66 AD, and "gnosticism" is still around and going strong. From the Spirit-inspired epithet given to this faction, viz. "the gnôsis", one gleans that "knowledge" of some sort was the main emphasis of this faction. And from reading John 1 it becomes clear that it was a sort of experiential knowledge.

It is interesting to note that Paul increasingly, towards the end of his ministerial career, went on to use the noun EPIGNÔSIS instead of its cognate, GNÔSIS, which he mainly uses in the earlier epistles. This may be due to the fact that this in-and-of-itself good noun took on a negative connotation on account of "the gnôsis" faction surfacing.

According to Paul some features of this "the gnôsis" faction were:

- emphasis on (experiential) knowledge (falsely-so-called)
- oppositions against Paul's distinct message, primarily against his teachings re. the mystery/Body
- failure to attain to a thorough knowledge of Paul's total message, cp. "aimed amiss as touching the faith" (1Tim. 6:21)

From John's epistles one, furthermore, learns some more features of said faction:

- it was an experiential knowledge of Christ and of God
- love for God was professed
- hate towards genuine saints of God while professing love towards them and God
- some sort of denial respecting Jesus of Nazareth's being the promised/prophesied Messias of the Jews, probably including a denial of the prophesied literal Davidic millenial kingdom of Messias.
- some kind of denial of the sin nature or principle residing in themselves

More could probably be gleaned from Paul and John, this was not an attempt at exhaustiveness.


Harald

[Sparko]

from what I have read of Mary, she is just a liberal type Christian with new-agey influences thrown into the mix who is using the word "Gnostic" in some unrelated way to the "Gnostic" heresy of the early Church.

Whatever she is, and however unorthodox she is, her use of Gnostic seems to be unrelated to historical Gnosicism and is just confusing the issue here. Perhaps she or those who believe like her want to be confused with the historical Gnostics so they can co-opt their historicity, while adhering to an entirely modern set of beliefs?

In any case, her coming in here trying to tell us what Gnosticism is, is completely bogus. What she believes is not the historical Gnosticism at all as many others have pointed out.

[gnosticmary]

Sincere gnostics do not disagree in this way. They recognize the flow and radiance of God’s Love in and through each other, and as they surrender to this Love, their hearts are joined and together they see Truth clearly and evidently.

That is an assertion Mary. How do you know that they are not sincere? Perhaps you are the insincere one. If you knowledge of Christ is based on personal experience alone then we can not know who is right or wrong...

Greetings once again Seer.

You had used the word sincere in asking about gnostics. I thought it a good word and assure you that true gnostics are able to recognize those gnostics who are sincere from those who are self seeking (which is the opposite of gnosis, or seeking God).

I feel that you, Seer, are a sincere traditional Christian, seeking to understand as best you can given where you are now on your journey.

And can only suggest that you consider this while you are studying scriptures...

Your question above sounds very much like the questions coming from the Pharisees at the time of Jesus. They confirmed each other's interpretation of their scripture, concluding that Jesus was not the Christ, while those who had personal experience of Christ within Jesus gave no heed to their religious leaders' instructions and followed Him anyways.

Regarding this, Jesus is recorded in John 5 as saying to these leaders...

37 And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. 38 But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. 39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

It was those responding to their personal experience, even though it was counter to the religious instruction of the day, that went to Him. True gnostics are those who have the Word abiding in them, which is Gnosis.


Mary

[studyhound]

You feel that the condemners were correct and those condemned wrong? Yes theologicaly they were not followers of Jesus or the disciples, they were part greek mystery religion that adopted jewish and christian overtones to attract followers.

Given what Jesus said, why would you think that? He who was condemned said that the world would hate his disciples just as it hated him. And he certainly did not teach violence against false teachers, but sworded them cleanly and precisely with His Words.
Regardless of HOW they were treated, they were still wrong, John's first epistle is judgement on them, rejecting their view of the incarnation and views of the flesh. Also Jesus own words were condemning them for their belief.

You may see your own type of gnostism in their words but that is far from what the orginal gnostics believed.

Those who respond with violence, either physically or verbally, usually do so out of fear and if we are walking in fear, we are not walking in Truth.

Hardly, ANE did not do things that way, they (ANE) were to remove all forms of false belief from their lives. Look at the OT, when the jews returned to God they destoried all the "high places" or false alters and religious centers. While we fine it distasted full in our "inlighten modern" senses it was status quo for them.

:sh:

[seer]

Greetings once again Seer.

You had used the word sincere in asking about gnostics. I thought it a good word and assure you that true gnostics are able to recognize those gnostics who are sincere from those who are self seeking (which is the opposite of gnosis, or seeking God).

I feel that you, Seer, are a sincere traditional Christian, seeking to understand as best you can given where you are now on your journey.

And can only suggest that you consider this while you are studying scriptures...

Your question above sounds very much like the questions coming from the Pharisees at the time of Jesus. They confirmed each other's interpretation of their scripture, concluding that Jesus was not the Christ, while those who had personal experience of Christ within Jesus gave no heed to their religious leaders' instructions and followed Him anyways.

Regarding this, Jesus is recorded in John 5 as saying to these leaders...

37 And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. 38 But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe. 39 You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. 40 But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.

It was those responding to their personal experience, even though it was counter to the religious instruction of the day, that went to Him. True gnostics are those who have the Word abiding in them, which is Gnosis.


Mary

Let me put it this way Mary. I have been following Christ for a number of years. Years filled with personal experience of God... So tell me something that you discovered that I haven't. Something true about the person of Christ or the nature of God...

Thanks...

[VFarris01]

For anyone seeking clarification, as the thread starter, I told VFarris that I didn't mind going on a journey with him in that thread (see post # 20 (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1233521&postcount=20)). I am not one that feels confined to the OP when I start a thread. Going off topic wasn't an issue, so the complaint here that VFarris brings is unfounded and unfair.For anyone seeking clarification, I DID NOT ask a mod to intervene on the (aforementioned) thread... that was done WITHOUT my knowledge. Since I DID/DO NOT know Xmom's "feelings" about keeping a thread on track, what I requested WAS NOT "unfounded" or "unfair." But, as it appears, Xmom wants to be a witch, she should keep up the good work, she is doing a fine job.

[gnosticmary]

I haven't read the whole of this thread. But I want to say something on "gnostics". The GNT does not have a word equivalent to "gnostic(s)", nor for "gnosticism". The closest one finds in the Greek is what Paul wrote in 1Tim. 6, "the knowledge (Gr. gnôsis) falsely-so-called". This "THE knowledge (falsely-so-called)", mark well an article in the Greek, was a faction within the realm of the professing community of Paul's last days. John the apostle also referred to the same faction in his 1st epistle, and probably also in the 2nd. So, the primary information concerning what sort of "gnosticism" it was that plagued Paul's and John's converts must primarily be gleaned from Paul's epistles and John's, not from "church history" accounts. It appears from the Pauline corpus that at least the Colossians and the Ephesians (Laodiceans ?) had some troublous encounter with "gnosticism" (i.e. "THE gnosis" faction). Both these epistles were written about 62 AD. I discern some hints about "gnosticism" already in 1Cor., which was written some years earlier. And 1Timothy was written about 65 or 66 AD, and "gnosticism" is still around and going strong. From the Spirit-inspired epithet given to this faction, viz. "the gnôsis", one gleans that "knowledge" of some sort was the main emphasis of this faction. And from reading John 1 it becomes clear that it was a sort of experiential knowledge.

Greetings Harald.

Can you share what you are meaning in your reference to John 1? 1 John actually speaks of true gnosis and is recommended reading for any who are interested.

It is interesting to note that Paul increasingly, towards the end of his ministerial career, went on to use the noun EPIGNÔSIS instead of its cognate, GNÔSIS, which he mainly uses in the earlier epistles. This may be due to the fact that this in-and-of-itself good noun took on a negative connotation on account of "the gnôsis" faction surfacing.

Yes, he indeed feels to be referring to a false gnostic faction, of which there have been many. In fact, it is likely that any grouping calling itself Gnostic is false. By definition, true gnosticism is a private affair, between the individual and God. Perhaps we can call true gnosis Wordism - meaning a faith based on His Word abiding within - to differentiate?

According to Paul some features of this "the gnôsis" faction were:

- emphasis on (experiential) knowledge (falsely-so-called)
- oppositions against Paul's distinct message, primarily against his teachings re. the mystery/Body
- failure to attain to a thorough knowledge of Paul's total message, cp. "aimed amiss as touching the faith" (1Tim. 6:21)

From John's epistles one, furthermore, learns some more features of said faction:

- it was an experiential knowledge of Christ and of God
- love for God was professed
- hate towards genuine saints of God while professing love towards them and God
- some sort of denial respecting Jesus of Nazareth's being the promised/prophesied Messias of the Jews, probably including a denial of the prophesied literal Davidic millenial kingdom of Messias.
- some kind of denial of the sin nature or principle residing in themselves

More could probably be gleaned from Paul and John, this was not an attempt at exhaustiveness.


Harald

Most of your above description of Gnostics, Harald, fits Paul and the other followers of Jesus. Their faith was based on personal experiencing of Christ and not on the teachings of the day. They were harsh on hypocrites - those claiming to know God through intellectual knowledge but failing to reveal a presence of God’s Word within them - even if they were called Priests and Saints.

It is my intent that through these posts perhaps a greater understanding will be had by those who limit their knowledge of Gnosis and gnostics to the historical groupings who claim that name. So please do ask any questions that you have.

History proves the cycle of religion. The origins of most are typically founded in personal experiential knowing of God’s Word, which is Gnosis. Among those attracted are many who have no inner knowing but choose to trust those who have. Eventually the true gnostics of the religion die away, their teachings become more and more distorted as they are handed down through generations of believers who have no inner knowing, or contact with the One True Teacher themselves.

A true gnostic’s or wordic’s :wink: heart is in constant prayer with God, always invoking His Word - His Love and Wisdom and Truth - into each and every issue and situation, holding loosely to his present understanding, as a child, in innocence and trust, allowing God to elevate him to something higher, according to God’s Will.

God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son and who ever believes in Him, will find eternal Life.


Mary

[seer]

For anyone seeking clarification, I DID NOT ask a mod to intervene on the (aforementioned) thread... that was done WITHOUT my knowledge. Since I DID/DO NOT know Xmom's "feelings" about keeping a thread on track, what I requested WAS NOT "unfounded" or "unfair." But, as it appears, Xmom wants to be a witch, she should keep up the good work, she is doing a fine job.

The important thing Farris, is that we are still all together... ; ) Ok, back to our discussion. You were going to tell me something about the nature of God that I do not know...

[VFarris01]

Let me put it this way Mary. I have been following Christ for a number of years. Years filled with personal experience of God... So tell me something that you discovered that I haven't. Something true about the person of Christ or the nature of God...You asked me a similar question earlier... Since I do not know what you know about the person of God I cannot adequately answer with something you (possibly) do not know. How about giving me a list of EVERYTHING you know about God; we can work for there.

You may see your own type of gnostism in their words but that is far from what the orginal gnostics believed.You are making quite the jump Sh. We do not know exactly what the gnostics believed. Almost all we have to go on is the word of their detractors. The little written information we have from them is far from complete and only actually gives us a smattering of what the "original gnostics believed." As I understand gnosticism theirs was anything but a type of Christianity "written in stone."

In any case, her coming in here trying to tell us what Gnosticism is, is completely bogus. What she believes is not the historical Gnosticism at all as many others have pointed out.Baloney... see above.

That is an assertion Mary. How do you know that they are not sincere? Perhaps you are the insincere one. If you knowledge of Christ is based on personal experience alone then we can not know who is right or wrong...Just bad logic seer... perhaps you would do better to belittle someone elses faith...

This is my question Mary. If you and another sincere gnostic comes to a different conclusion about the nature of Christ - who is correct? How would we know?It does not matter. The "nature" of "the anointed one of God" is irrelevant to gnostic belief as I understand it.

I am not a Gnostic though I have looked extensively into their beliefs. From my point of view I believe everyone's (except Mary's) perception of the form of Christianity practiced by the Gnostics is quite biased in favor of their own belief systems. Who is to say exactly who has the "correct" belief? You seer? You Studyhound? You Sparky? The pope? The patriarch? Martin Luther? Jerry Farwell? ... Me?

[gnosticmary]

from what I have read of Mary, she is just a liberal type Christian with new-agey influences thrown into the mix who is using the word "Gnostic" in some unrelated way to the "Gnostic" heresy of the early Church.

Whatever she is, and however unorthodox she is, her use of Gnostic seems to be unrelated to historical Gnosicism and is just confusing the issue here. Perhaps she or those who believe like her want to be confused with the historical Gnostics so they can co-opt their historicity, while adhering to an entirely modern set of beliefs?

In any case, her coming in here trying to tell us what Gnosticism is, is completely bogus. What she believes is not the historical Gnosticism at all as many others have pointed out.


Hello to you Sparko,

Since you have not asked any questions, I am not sure that you are looking for a reply, although I do feel that all can benefit by shining a little light in here providing each with an opportunity for more clarity.

Gnosis is the connection with the Father that Jesus claims was worthy of blessing.

The religions called Gnostic, like all religions, are man made traditions some of which did begin with Gnosis but became distorted as man's selfish nature eventually triumped.

Christianity also began with Gnosis.


Mary

[seer]

It does not matter. The "nature" of "the anointed one of God" is irrelevant to gnostic belief as I understand it.

I am not a Gnostic though I have looked extensively into their beliefs. From my point of view I believe everyone's (except Mary's) perception of the form of Christianity practiced by the Gnostics is quite biased in favor of their own belief systems. Who is to say exactly who has the "correct" belief? You seer? You Studyhound? You Sparky? The pope? The patriarch? Martin Luther? Jerry Farwell? ... Me?

It sounds to me like you don't have any relevant information about God Farris.

Just bad logic seer... perhaps you would do better to belittle someone elses faith...

Actually no. There are competing views about the nature of God that contradict each other - they can't all be correct. Classic theism and pantheism can't be both true. God can not be both a personal being and an impersonal being, etc,etc,etc...

[gnosticmary]

It does not matter. The "nature" of "the anointed one of God" is irrelevant to gnostic belief as I understand it.

I am not a Gnostic though I have looked extensively into their beliefs. From my point of view I believe everyone's (except Mary's) perception of the form of Christianity practiced by the Gnostics is quite biased in favor of their own belief systems. Who is to say exactly who has the "correct" belief? You seer? You Studyhound? You Sparky? The pope? The patriarch? Martin Luther? Jerry Farwell? ... Me?

It sounds to me like you don't have any relevant information about God Farris.

Just bad logic seer... perhaps you would do better to belittle someone elses faith...

Actually no. There are competing views about the nature of God that contradict each other - they can't all be correct. Classic theism and pantheism can't be both true. God can not be both a personal being and an impersonal being, etc,etc,etc...


God cannot be known with the mind, Seer. God can only be known with the heart.

All that can be accomplished with thinking is determining what God is not. And I will tell that He is none of the things you listed above. edited to add: The human words that best describe God is that He is a Burning Fire. To the pure in heart His Fire is Mercy, Bliss, to the selfish, His Fire is Judgment, Purgation. All though are Divine Love.

Only those who can be as child, pure, innocent, trusting, open, can know God. If we hold to a pre conceived idea of Him, it becomes a wall, a barrier to truly knowing Him.


Mary

[studyhound]

You are making quite the jump Sh. We do not know exactly what the gnostics believed. Almost all we have to go on is the word of their detractors. The little written information we have from them is far from complete and only actually gives us a smattering of what the "original gnostics believed." As I understand gnosticism theirs was anything but a type of Christianity "written in stone."


It is no jump, we have not only what they believed from their "detractors" but numerous writings from the second and third century, does the "Gospel of Thomas" ring a bell. What they believed is clearly established, and anyone how thinks other wise is fooling themselves...like you.

And as for you understanding of anything,as has been seen throughtout the forum is about as useful as a one legged man in a 100 yard dash.

As for your little book you like pushing, I have read it and several like it, they are only useful for showing how NOT church history. So dont try and throw that at me as anykind of useful information. Try reading the GoT or other Gnostic works and you will see the heresy for what it truely was.

:sh:

[VFarris01]

It does not matter. The "nature" of "the anointed one of God" is irrelevant to gnostic belief as I understand it.


I am not a Gnostic though I have looked extensively into their beliefs. From my point of view I believe everyone's (except Mary's) perception of the form of Christianity practiced by the Gnostics is quite biased in favor of their own belief systems. Who is to say exactly who has the "correct" belief? You seer? You Studyhound? You Sparky? The pope? The patriarch? Martin Luther? Jerry Farwell? ... Me?

It sounds to me like you don't have any relevant information about God Farris.Perhaps I do... now about that list...

Just bad logic seer... perhaps you would do better to belittle someone elses faith...

Actually no. There are competing views about the nature of God that contradict each other - they can't all be correct. Classic theism and pantheism can't be both true. God can not be both a personal being and an impersonal being, etc,etc,etc...How do you know your belief system is the correct one? Why can they not all be true? Because your belief system says they cannot? I believe they can and are. You will be needing to do a whole lot better than this to convince me your belief system is the right one.

You are making quite the jump Sh. We do not know exactly what the gnostics believed. Almost all we have to go on is the word of their detractors. The little written information we have from them is far from complete and only actually gives us a smattering of what the "original gnostics believed." As I understand gnosticism theirs was anything but a type of Christianity "written in stone."It is no jump, we have not only what they believed from their "detractors" but numerous writings from the second and third century, does the "Gospel of Thomas" ring a bell. What they believed is clearly established, and anyone how thinks other wise is fooling themselves...like you.A few writings (GoT included) tell the whole story... right. What they believed IS NOT "clearly established, and anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves... like you (sorry, returning the favor could not be helped).

And as for you understanding of anything,as has been seen throughtout the forum is about as useful as a one legged man in a 100 yard dash.Ooh, the dreaded ad hominem... I believe you need a sharper butter knife. To borrow from another, "Pot, meet Kettle." Why must you resort to this form of argument?

As for your little book you like pushing, I have read it and several like it, they are only useful for showing how NOT church history. So dont try and throw that at me as anykind of useful information. Try reading the GoT or other Gnostic works and you will see the heresy for what it truely was.Been there, done that... not true. I see you have your head up your rear... how unlike you sh; usually (on occasion) your insights are right on the money (this I mean sincerely). A "heresy" exists because your belief system excludes Gnosticism... not because a "heresy" actually exists.

[studyhound]

A few writings (GoT included) tell the whole story... right. What they believed IS NOT "clearly established, and anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves... like you (sorry, returning the favor could not be helped).

Few?!?! I think some one is sore fully misinformed, try 50+ text!


About the Nag Hammadi Library Section

The Nag Hammadi Library, a collection of thirteen ancient codices containing over fifty texts, was discovered in upper Egypt in 1945. This immensely important discovery includes a large number of primary Gnostic scriptures -- texts once thought to have been entirely destroyed during the early Christian struggle to define "orthodoxy" -- scriptures such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, and the Gospel of Truth.

A few is like how many slices of pizza I had for lunch, gnostic works OTOH:
The Acts of Peter and the Twelve Apostles

Allogenes

The Apocalypse of Adam

The (First) Apocalypse of James

The (Second) Apocalypse of James

The Apocalypse of Paul

The Apocalypse of Peter

The Apocryphon of James:

(Williams translation)
(Cameron translation)

The Apocryphon of John*

Asclepius 21-29

Authoritative Teaching

The Book of Thomas the Contender

The Concept of Our Great Power

The Dialogue of the Savior

The Discourse on the Eighth and Ninth

Eugnostos the Blessed*

The Exegesis on the Soul

The Gospel of the Egyptians*

The Gospel of Philip

The Gospel of Thomas:

(Patterson & Meyer translation)
(Lambdin translation)
(Patterson & Robinson Translation)
(Grondin interlinear translation)

The Gospel of Truth:*

(Grant translation)
(Attridge & MacRae translation)

The Hypostasis of the Archons

Hypsiphrone

The Interpretation of Knowledge

The Letter of Peter to Philip

Marsanes

Melchizedek

On the Anointing

On the Baptism A

On the Baptism B

On the Eucharist A

On the Eucharist B

On the Origin of the World*

The Paraphrase of Shem (fragmentary, translation not provided here)

Plato, Republic 588A-589B

The Prayer of the Apostle Paul

The Prayer of Thanksgiving

The Second Treatise of the Great Seth

The Sentences of Sextus

The Sophia of Jesus Christ

The Teachings of Silvanus

The Testimony of Truth

The Thought of Norea

The Three Steles of Seth

The Thunder, Perfect Mind

The Treatise on the Resurrection

Trimorphic Protennoia

The Tripartite Tractate

A Valentinian Exposition

Zostrianos
** This list is taken form the THE GNOSTIC SOCIETY Library (http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhlalpha.html )

These are from the Nag Hammadi Library, it include writings on practice and theology, I have read several of them (hint more than the toes you have...) and they do cover the early beliefs and praxis of this group.

Been there, done that... not true. I see you have your head up your rear... how unlike you sh; usually (on occasion) your insights are right on the money (this I mean sincerely). A "heresy" exists because your belief system excludes Gnosticism... not because a "heresy" actually exists.

No that herecy exsist because they twisted the truth and perverted God's way. They left the Jewish messiah for a Greek mystery religion. Just like the marconians, Pelagianism, Arianism jut name a few. They got it wrong.

As for my remarks, I apologize, but your words have caused me to react in such away, inparticular your words to XMM, she is a dear woman and a true believer and you would do well to learn humility from her. (As I should do also)

:sh:

[VFarris01]

A few writings (GoT included) tell the whole story... right. What they believed IS NOT "clearly established, and anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves... like you (sorry, returning the favor could not be helped).

Few?!?! I think some one is sore fully misinformed, try 50+ text!
<snip>
These are from the Nag Hammadi Library, it include writings on practice and theology, I have read several of them (hint more than the toes you have...) and they do cover the early beliefs and praxis of this group.I have read them... all... (I lead a very dull life, lol.)

Maybe you should read your "news" brief... again...


About the Nag Hammadi Library Section

The Nag Hammadi Library, a collection of thirteen ancient codices containing over fifty texts, was discovered in upper Egypt in 1945. This immensely important discovery includes a large number of primary Gnostic scriptures -- texts once thought to have been entirely destroyed during the early Christian struggle to define "orthodoxy" -- scriptures such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, and the Gospel of Truth.

History is always written by the "winner." Who is to say the Gnostic beliefs were not the "orthodox" belief? The "church" not prevailed against by the gates of Hell? Give me a break here...

No that herecy exsist because they twisted the truth and perverted God's way. They left the Jewish messiah for a Greek mystery religion. Just like the marconians, Pelagianism, Arianism jut name a few. They got it wrong. This is true... according to your belief system.

As for my remarks, I apologize, but your words have caused me to react in such away, inparticular your words to XMM, she is a dear woman and a true believer and you would do well to learn humility from her. (As I should do also)Perhaps she is a "dear woman" and a "true believer;" that does not make her, what I found to be less than humble, remarks called for nor her belief system correct does it? She is in all likelihood a very respectable person... that does not make her truth the whole truth in matters of faith or TWeb decorum.

As for what I know of you, I find your insights usually well thought out... except when it comes to your occasional dogmatism (-hound fits in this case, lol) concerning your belief system. I respect what you believe... respect does not mean I (or anyone else) should be expected adhere to your "system" too. Neither of us may have the "correct" beliefs that we hope will ultimately get us into God's big house; we just know our belief system is the correct one... right?

[studyhound]

I have read them... all... (I lead a very dull life, lol.)

Maybe you should read your "news" brief... again...


About the Nag Hammadi Library Section

The Nag Hammadi Library, a collection of thirteen ancient codices containing over fifty texts, was discovered in upper Egypt in 1945. This immensely important discovery includes a large number of primary Gnostic scriptures -- texts once thought to have been entirely destroyed during the early Christian struggle to define "orthodoxy" -- scriptures such as the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, and the Gospel of Truth.

I read the quote, they have their bent to say it that their bent is right, I was just showing the error of saying there is only a few gnostic works. the few gnostics i have enountered use the fact of how many there are as a "proof" of their validity.

History is always written by the "winner." Who is to say the Gnostic beliefs were not the "orthodox" belief? The "church" not prevailed against by the gates of Hell? Give me a break here...

Well the gnostics sure didnt do much but become a footnote in history. Funny how God let a little thing like letting a truth like this get buried in the sand for over 1800 years.

This is true... according to your belief system.

No this is from years of reading, doing comparitive religious studies and looking at the end results of each system was. what we call orthodox christianity was the true intent and logical out come of the judaeo religious system God had set up in the Law and Prophets.

Perhaps she is a "dear woman" and a "true believer;" that does not make her, what I found to be less than humble, remarks called for nor her belief system correct does it? She is in all likelihood a very respectable person... that does not make her truth the whole truth in matters of faith or TWeb decorum.

I never said she was right in every point I fact I would dare say even she would admit to not knowing everything and in a position of learning. But calling some one a witch hardly puts you in a position to talk of any kind of decorum or respect.

:sh:

[seer]

Perhaps I do... now about that list...

No Farris, on the Theology board YOU claimed that YOU knew something I didn't. It's up to you to put up, not me...


How do you know your belief system is the correct one? Why can they not all be true? Because your belief system says they cannot? I believe they can and are. You will be needing to do a whole lot better than this to convince me your belief system is the right one.

I know that my belief syatem is correct because God revealed that to me... Now what?

[seer]

God cannot be known with the mind, Seer. God can only be known with the heart.

All that can be accomplished with thinking is determining what God is not. And I will tell that He is none of the things you listed above. edited to add: The human words that best describe God is that He is a Burning Fire. To the pure in heart His Fire is Mercy, Bliss, to the selfish, His Fire is Judgment, Purgation. All though are Divine Love.

Only those who can be as child, pure, innocent, trusting, open, can know God. If we hold to a pre conceived idea of Him, it becomes a wall, a barrier to truly knowing Him.


Mary

Of course that is an assertion Mary. The "heart" does not literally think or feel - only the mind does. Jesus tells us to love and know God - to love Him with all of our mind as well as emotions.

And if He is none of those thing I posted above i.e. a personal God, then Jesus lied... You see Mary, one must be personal to love...

[seer]

History is always written by the "winner." Who is to say the Gnostic beliefs were not the "orthodox" belief? The "church" not prevailed against by the gates of Hell? Give me a break here...

That does not mean that the winners were wrong. Prove that the orthodox tests are wrong and that the Gnostic works are correct....

[gnosticmary]

Of course that is an assertion Mary. The "heart" does not literally think or feel - only the mind does. Jesus tells us to love and know God - to love Him with all of our mind as well as emotions.

And if He is none of those thing I posted above i.e. a personal God, then Jesus lied... You see Mary, one must be personal to love...

Do you understand, Seer, that God does not love, but that He is Love and is ever present, always there waiting to enter into our hearts? But we put up barriers to God, mostly subconscious, in our efforts to protect damaged egos.

Those who know God see that humanity, for the most part, does not want God's Love. They want human love; subsequently they again again create a god made in their image.

When Christ's Love enters our heart, we know. Our heart is stimulated by His Touch and responds. But this feeling is indeed different from emotions, which are reactions of the ego to it's perceived outer environment.

[And actually, Seer, the cells of the heart are not muscle cells, but closer in makeup to brain cells. Scientists now view the heart as the 'brain' behind the brain, controlling it through the secretion of hormones.]

For you and others here, Seer, I offer the following excerpt from a Gnostic writing, called so because it is consider the higher teachings that Jesus taught His disciples in private - the knowledge that contains the keys for liberation, for entering into Kingdom, the keys for connecting with the Father.

Woe to you lawyers! For you have taken away the key of knowledge. You did not enter in yourselves, and those who were entering in you hindered.


Transfiguration


Before proceeding to explain what transfiguration is, we would like to point out what it is not. Transfiguration does not mean a striving effort with our thoughts and conceptions gained from dualistic knowledge and experience; on the True Path such knowledge and experience are of no use to us whatsoever. In studying this subject, it is best for us to put aside all acquired knowledge and science of this undivine, fallen universe, both in regard to visible and invisible things.

One should also dismiss the idea that transfiguration is a process developing on the horizontal level, that is to say, a process that unfolds within our transitory being according to our Earthly personality. If you have been able to accept the substance of the preceding chapters and make use of them for a better understanding, it should be clear to you now that we are not interested in the dualistic human personality at all, and that in order to begin the process of transfiguration it will be of no use to raise one's dualistic, transitory being, even to the highest possible degree of perfection in the ethical, religious, or any other field whatsoever.

This does not mean, of course, that one is justified in leading a reckless life. Candidates (the few chosen of the many called) for transfiguration will have to be of very special intelligence, possessing a deep and true Religious education and a high level of morality. However, intelligence, religious understanding and morality, worthy as they are of appreciation, are not liberating; in and of themselves they are useless with regard to reaching the divine Kingdom, even as aspects of a manifested longing to become integrated with it. There are millions of people who, although possessing the same character traits as the most devoted man of remembrance, cannot reach transfiguration, because their direction of thought, their blood-consciousness, remains on the horizontal level, even though they may earnestly expect eternal life in the hereafter.

We would like to repeat, then, that transfiguration does not mean culture of the individual, even to the highest degree of refinement. Neither is transfiguration a philosophy or doctrine which it would suffice to approach intellectually, to absorb mentally.

Transfiguration is the Doctrine of Rebirth put into practise. It aims at nothing more or less than demolition of the old man, including the lower and the higher selves, and the building of a totally new man, a New Higher Self, from the divine substance of the immovable Kingdom.

Building the new man from the divine substance (the four holy ethers) of the Kingdom of God means the reconstruction of what once was; a return of the candidate to the state of life and the state of consciousness of the divine man in the original domain of Life that was created for him, namely the divine Universe.

We may ask: 'Is it really possible for little me to return to that glorious state of existence? Heaven has now been denied and replaced with an infinitely higher ideal. On what authority is this attitude based, and from what source can one expect to derive the knowledge and strength to attain this lofty aim?'

These questions are quite logical and understandable, and it is good that they should cross our minds because it shows that we do not just accept a concept without first examining it intelligently. Indeed, we hope that everything in this book will be carefully considered because, as we always point out to those seeking the Path to the Kigdom, it is necessary to attain a deep inner conviction based upon experience.

So, how do we answer the foregoing questions? Well, the truth of transfiguration is laid down in the books of Wisdom of all ages. However, and since it is the best-selling book in the world, we shall refer mainly to the Bible as witness.

The Lord's Prayer says: "Thy Kingdom come". One may think this means that some day, by dint of continuous effort, by the polishing and correcting of dualistic norms, this world will become so perfect that selfishness and jealousy, hatred and separation, pain and suffering will exist no more, with the result that the ideal state "Thy Kingdom" would be attained.

But if the preceding expositions have been understood correctly, then we shall clearly recognise the utter delusion of this utopian idea. Jesus, the Christ, said: "Inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world." - Matthew 25:34. Therefore, the Kingdom is not to come; it already exists, for we may inherit it. In John 18:36, this is expressed in an unquestionably clear way: "My Kingdom is not of this world". So the divine Kingdom already exists but it is not of this world, even if this world were to be vastly improved. Therefore, instead of: "Thy Kingdom come", it is more reasonable to pray: "Thy Kingdom come within us".

Man can enter the "Immovable Kingdom" - Hebrews 12:28, only after he has acquired, through the process of transfiguration, vehicles from the primordial substance (holy ethers) of the divine Kingdom (the wedding garment). He must be reborn of "water and of spirit" (from the holy ethers and dynamic divine Power).

Through transfiguration, or rebirth, "we become the sons of God, which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of the Gnosis".

He who resolves to be reborn need not wait until the time of his incidental physical death, but can begin the process of transfiguration at any moment of his life. Not, of course, as a casual experiment, but by following an earnestly considered final decision from within. Then the mystery of the True Path leading to Life begins to reveal itself in him. He who is in the process of walking the Path of Return has entered the initial phase of the process of transfiguration, and "the Father advances two steps towards us for every single one we take towards Him".

The aspirant who wishes to enter the divine Kingdom must offer his dualistic life for it. This statement should be understood deeply, for so much confusion and turmoil has sprung from the notion of sacrificing one's physical body for an ideal, for one's friends, one's country, one's beliefs, etc. Throughout human history thousands of martyrs have willingly laid down their lives for such principles. Yet for the most part these individuals found that they were merely transferred to the reflection sphere 9astral realm) like everyone else.

Now, Jesus the Christ gave his life and his blood for the salvation of mankind, but in a very different way to that which has been misinterpreted by humanity. Christians, filled with piety and respect, stare at pictures representing Jesus nailed to the cross between the two assassins, his blood flowing forth from his hands, his feet, his head and his side. They feel commiseration with his suffering; their hearts are filled with emotion. Yet it is all delusion, tragic mystification, that in the course of ages, through misapprehension, the sacrifice of life and blood should have become associated with incidental, carnal death.

When the candidate for transfiguration, standing in the positive reality of his developing new soul-consciousness, is ready to sacrifice his life and blood for the liberation of mankind, in "imitation of Christ", he is not going to die. He does not die even with regard to his dualistic, material existence, but he "presents his body a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God." - Romans 12:1. In this way he serves God, by walking the True Path of self-surrender in spiritual service to the world.

The honest and intelligent spiritual aspirant knows that his body is an unholy, degenerated material vehicularity, a caricatural reflection of what it once was. Equally, he knows that the divine Fellowship of the Christ has been waiting for long ages in loving and prayerful expectation for him to come at last to the true awareness of his fallen state of being, so that he would, in great faith and confidence, raise his hands in supplication to Christ, declaring: 'Here I am (hineh he); ready, prepared; do unto me according to your will' or "Thy Will be done, not mine".

"He who is ready to lose his life for My sake, will find it." - Jesus. It: the Truth, the Life, the Light, the answer to all his problems and, at the same time, deliverance from delusion, from the universe of death, and re-entry into the original divine Kingdom. The "losing of one's life" refers to the voluntary dissolution of the ego, the fallen man; "for My sake" means for the sake of Christ, or the divine Spirit, for God and the Divine Plan. If this can be accomplished, even in one's attitude, then the aspirant is already "passing from death unto life." - John 5:24.

"Death" is the aimless, cheerless, hopeless sham existence of duality: "Let the dead bury their dead". "Life" is devoting oneself entirely, with one's new and informed awareness, to the spiritual service of mankind and to the world, in unity with the Fellowship of Christ in the immovable Kingdom.

There are many more quotations we could add. For example, the whole of 1 Corinthians, Chapter 15 is one of a succession of testimonies regarding the two universes and the process of transfiguration or rebirth.

He whose matured state of consciousness has come to the phase where he is able to approach, to comprehend, and to accept the Holy Language on the deeper levels explained above - a prerequisite for which is the harmonious co-ordination of thinking with both head and heart - proves that he no longer needs 'milk' and can digest 'solid food'. He no more requires to be taught by parables, allegories and myths, but can readily understand the Truth in plain language. He has been able to attain this awareness by answering the Call of the Gnosis, by responding positively to the Love of Christ, which has touched his heart, and to which he has abandoned himself, in self-surrender.


Mary

[Harald]

Gnostic Mary,

You wrote

Can you share what you are meaning in your reference to John 1? 1 John actually speaks of true gnosis and is recommended reading for any who are interested.


What I mean is that John gives some hints as to the characteristics of persons of "the gnôsis" faction which concerned him and his "children" (converts). From his use of the noun "ginooskoo" it is clear that the "gnostics" John battled laid some emphasis on experiential knowledge of Christ, cp. the words "I have come to know him (Christ is meant) experientially" in 1John ch. 2. Here is a literal translation

4 The one asserting: "I have come to know him experientially.", and not keeping the
commandments of his, is a liar, and in this one the truth is absolutely not.

Here John gives a trait of such "gnostics" as he battled. They were in the business of asserting (Gr. legoo, to say, to express verbally), claiming, professing, that they had come to experientially know (Gr. ginooskoo, not eidoo) Christ (and God) but they were proving themselves liars by not keeping Christ's commandments (cp. Matt. 28:20) for believers of the gospel of the kingdom (John was an apostle of the circumcision, of the gospel of the kingdom).

John in 1John does not use the noun "gnôsis" at all, but instead chose to employ the cognate verb, so "true gnosis" as a term can't be found in this epistle. But John uses the cognate verb also with reference to true Christians. For example he wrote that some had come to know experientially Him who was from the beginning. Ginooskoo is the verb. So, one understands that there were/are two kinds of experiential knowing/knowledge, true and false. John battled the false, and its faction. Genuine experiential knowledge of Christ is part of true Christianity, cp. John 17:3 where Christ Himself uses the verb ginooskoo, to know experientially, to know by close (personal) observation and/or participation. Some discernment is needed to be able to distinguish it from false experiential knowledge.


Most of your above description of Gnostics, Harald, fits Paul and the other followers of Jesus.

Not really.
1) Paul in his epistles puts no undue emphasis on the noun gnôsis, or, what it depicts, viz. experiential knowing. Paul has a perfect balance in his epistles; doctrine, practice, experience, no undue emphasis on personal experience.
2) Paul and his converts did not oppose Paul's mystery teachings re. the Body of the Christ
3) Paul and his converts did not aim amiss as touching the faith, but all attained unto EPIGNÔSIS of the same
4) John and his converts possessed an experiential knowledge of Christ, but it was genuine, evidenced by their keeping Christ's commandments, not continually breaking them
5) John and his converts were not in the business of audibly/verbally professing agape love for Christ/God and other converts, rather they manifested true agape love through deed and truth, not by tongue and expression
6) John and his converts never hated genuine saints, which themselves were as well, the "gnostics" hated (evidenced by their love-less deeds) the true believers while at the same time professing love and what more
7) John and his converts in no wise denied Jesus as the prophecied Messias as He was set forth in the gospel of the kingdom of which John was a custodian and herald. When John and his "little children" verbally represented Messias they always did this in strict accordance with the written Word of God, not contradicting the same. One hallmark of the "gnostic" was that he was not able to continually speak in strict agreement with the Scriptures as touching the person and work of Messias
8) John and his converts were not in the habit of denying that they possessed a sin nature or principle ("the flesh"), which nature was to be eradicated not until their glorification.

So, I have shown you that the "gnostics" that John and Paul had to do with were not identical in character to Paul and John and their respective genuine converts/imitators. But they were somewhat look-alike in that they were able to lead astray (Gr. planaoo, cause to wander) John's converts to a certain degree. Therefore John had to write 1John, so that they (his true brethren) might be wholly undeceived as touching those of "the experiential knowledge falsely so called" faction.

Whenever today I find professing believers who manifest character traits in line with those that John and Paul gives for their "gnostics" I can know for sure that they are of the same kind as the ones they had to battle. In fact, there are many modern day "gnostics" who call themselves Christians, Calvinists, and what more, and who are called "Christian" also by other professing believers. They may not exhibit every trait given by Paul and/or John, but some they do exhibit.

Harald

[VFarris01]

History is always written by the "winner." Who is to say the Gnostic beliefs were not the "orthodox" belief? The "church" not prevailed against by the gates of Hell? Give me a break here...Well the gnostics sure didnt do much but become a footnote in history. Funny how God let a little thing like letting a truth like this get buried in the sand for over 1800 years.Many truths get buried... this does not make them any less true.

This is true... according to your belief system.No this is from years of reading, doing comparitive religious studies and looking at the end results of each system was. what we call orthodox christianity was the true intent and logical out come of the judaeo religious system God had set up in the Law and Prophets.I have done exactly the same thing... your conclusions are your conclusions. My point still stands.

Perhaps I do... now about that list...No Farris, on the Theology board YOU claimed that YOU knew something I didn't. It's up to you to put up, not me...I am quite sure I "claimed" no such thing. Perhaps you should re-read posts 21, 24, & 30 on this thread.

Perhaps I do know something you do not know about the nature of God... You have not provided the list of EVERYTHING you know about the nature of God with which I can compare.

How do you know your belief system is the correct one? Why can they not all be true? Because your belief system says they cannot? I believe they can and are. You will be needing to do a whole lot better than this to convince me your belief system is the right one.I know that my belief syatem is correct because God revealed that to me... Now what?So the right answer/question was, "Because your belief system says they cannot." You will be needing to do a whole lot better than this to convince me your belief system is the right one... Now what?

History is always written by the "winner." Who is to say the Gnostic beliefs were not the "orthodox" belief? The "church" not prevailed against by the gates of Hell? Give me a break here...That does not mean that the winners were wrong. Prove that the orthodox tests are wrong and that the Gnostic works are correct....Ok, I can play this game too...

That does not mean that the winners were right. Prove that the orthodox texts are right and that the Gnostic works are wrong... Good luck hoeing that row.

[seer]

So the right answer/question was, "Because your belief system says they cannot." You will be needing to do a whole lot better than this to convince me your belief system is the right one... Now what?

I'am not trying to convince you of anything. One of us is following a "false Christ." I will stake my soul on the Christ of the New Testament, you are free to stake your soul on the Gnostic writings...

That does not mean that the winners were right. Prove that the orthodox texts are right and that the Gnostic works are wrong... Good luck hoeing that row.

Well since my texts are the earliest christian writings and yours came later - mid second century to the fourth century I suggest that the N.T reflects most clearly what the first Christians believe...

Let's start with one point Farris: Do you believe that Christ was incarnated in the "flesh?" That He had a physical body, born a human child, etc...?

[VFarris01]

So the right answer/question was, "Because your belief system says they cannot." You will be needing to do a whole lot better than this to convince me your belief system is the right one... Now what?I'am not trying to convince you of anything. One of us is following a "false Christ."One of us? You "know" this only because your belief system excludes any other belief.

I will stake my soul on the Christ of the New Testament, you are free to stake your soul on the Gnostic writings...Was I not clear... I am not a believer in Gnosticism... I am simply a Christian. "Stake your (my) soul" on whatever you wish.

That does not mean that the winners were right. Prove that the orthodox texts are right and that the Gnostic works are wrong... Good luck hoeing that row.Well since my texts are the earliest christian writings and yours came later - mid second century to the fourth century...This is not entirely true. You assume the texts of the NT are the "earliest" because that is what your belief system demands. We do not have any original NT texts nor do we have any texts for any Christian belief system before the mid 2nd century (that is, if we discount the Essenes).

I suggest that the N.T reflects most clearly what the first Christians believe.Early Christians believed much more than what is "preserved" as the "orthodox" viewpoint in the NT. Without considering all the texts written by the early Christians we are left with less-than-half of what the early Christians believed.

Let's start with one point Farris: Do you believe that Christ was incarnated in the "flesh?" That He had a physical body, born a human child, etc...?Why? Does it matter?

[seer]

This is not entirely true. You assume the texts of the NT are the "earliest" because that is what your belief system demands. We do not have any original NT texts nor do we have any texts for any Christian belief system before the mid 2nd century (that is, if we discount the Essenes).

No that is not what my belief system demands. It is historical...

Early Christians believed much more than what is "preserved" as the "orthodox" viewpoint in the NT. Without considering all the texts written by the early Christians we are left with less-than-half of what the early Christians believed.

Really - show me the first century Gnostic writings...

Why? Does it matter?

Why can't you answer a simple question - did Christ come in the "flesh" or not?

Was I not clear... I am not a believer in Gnosticism... I am simply a Christian. "Stake your (my) soul" on whatever you wish.

Why are you a Christian. On what do you base your knowledge of Christ...

[gnosticmary]

Gnostic Mary,

You wrote

Can you share what you are meaning in your reference to John 1? 1 John actually speaks of true gnosis and is recommended reading for any who are interested.


What I mean is that John gives some hints as to the characteristics of persons of "the gnôsis" faction which concerned him and his "children" (converts). From his use of the noun "ginooskoo" it is clear that the "gnostics" John battled laid some emphasis on experiential knowledge of Christ, cp. the words "I have come to know him (Christ is meant) experientially" in 1John ch. 2. Here is a literal translation

4 The one asserting: "I have come to know him experientially.", and not keeping the
commandments of his, is a liar, and in this one the truth is absolutely not.

Here John gives a trait of such "gnostics" as he battled. They were in the business of asserting (Gr. legoo, to say, to express verbally), claiming, professing, that they had come to experientially know (Gr. ginooskoo, not eidoo) Christ (and God) but they were proving themselves liars by not keeping Christ's commandments (cp. Matt. 28:20) for believers of the gospel of the kingdom (John was an apostle of the circumcision, of the gospel of the kingdom).

John in 1John does not use the noun "gnôsis" at all, but instead chose to employ the cognate verb, so "true gnosis" as a term can't be found in this epistle. But John uses the cognate verb also with reference to true Christians. For example he wrote that some had come to know experientially Him who was from the beginning. Ginooskoo is the verb. So, one understands that there were/are two kinds of experiential knowing/knowledge, true and false. John battled the false, and its faction. Genuine experiential knowledge of Christ is part of true Christianity, cp. John 17:3 where Christ Himself uses the verb ginooskoo, to know experientially, to know by close (personal) observation and/or participation. Some discernment is needed to be able to distinguish it from false experiential knowledge.

Thank you, Harald.

May I ask then how modern day Christians have come to proclaim that John was speaking of those that history has marked as “Gnostics”?

It seems clear that John is saying that those who claim to know Christ, but do not follow His commandments, are liars, yes? And so is it then not logical to say that there is something received in truly knowing Him that leads us to understand His commandments and the need to obey them and gives us whatever is needed to do so?

And can we not then also say that those we know in today’s world who are not walking as Jesus walked, who are not following in His footsteps - are not giving up their life and abundance in this world, denying self, loving God and others as themselves, are not true followers of Christ?

And would this not also indicate that if we personally do not walk as Jesus walked, then maybe we don’t actually know Christ after all? And maybe we might be better served if we looked for those who are living in obedience to Jesus’ commandments for guidance? Instead of looking to the liars who appear to be following a false religion?

Most of your above description of Gnostics, Harald, fits Paul and the other followers of Jesus.

Not really.
1) Paul in his epistles puts no undue emphasis on the noun gnôsis, or, what it depicts, viz. experiential knowing. Paul has a perfect balance in his epistles; doctrine, practice, experience, no undue emphasis on personal experience.
2) Paul and his converts did not oppose Paul's mystery teachings re. the Body of the Christ
3) Paul and his converts did not aim amiss as touching the faith, but all attained unto EPIGNÔSIS of the same
4) John and his converts possessed an experiential knowledge of Christ, but it was genuine, evidenced by their keeping Christ's commandments, not continually breaking them
5) John and his converts were not in the business of audibly/verbally professing agape love for Christ/God and other converts, rather they manifested true agape love through deed and truth, not by tongue and expression
6) John and his converts never hated genuine saints, which themselves were as well, the "gnostics" hated (evidenced by their love-less deeds) the true believers while at the same time professing love and what more
7) John and his converts in no wise denied Jesus as the prophecied Messias as He was set forth in the gospel of the kingdom of which John was a custodian and herald. When John and his "little children" verbally represented Messias they always did this in strict accordance with the written Word of God, not contradicting the same. One hallmark of the "gnostic" was that he was not able to continually speak in strict agreement with the Scriptures as touching the person and work of Messias
8) John and his converts were not in the habit of denying that they possessed a sin nature or principle ("the flesh"), which nature was to be eradicated not until their glorification.

The true gnostics that I know, Harald, historically and in modern times, embrace Paul’s Mystery teachings on the Body of Christ, have true knowledge of Christ or Epignosis, obey Jesus’ commandments, manifest true agape love through deed and truth - not by tongue and expression, do not do love-less deeds towards anyone – but will strongly point out hypocrisy when faced with it, proclaim Jesus as the prophesied Messiah, speak strickly in accordance to scripture – but to the deeper understanding that leads to obedience to Jesus’ commandments, and do not deny their sin nature.

What you actually have just described, Harald, is not what is known as a Gnostic, but what is typically called a modern day Christian. One who crucifies Christ again and again through his proclamation of knowing Him and believing in Him, yet justifying his lack of obedience using a incorrect understanding of scripture.

So, I have shown you that the "gnostics" that John and Paul had to do with were not identical in character to Paul and John and their respective genuine converts/imitators. But they were somewhat look-alike in that they were able to lead astray (Gr. planaoo, cause to wander) John's converts to a certain degree. Therefore John had to write 1John, so that they (his true brethren) might be wholly undeceived as touching those of "the experiential knowledge falsely so called" faction.

Whenever today I find professing believers who manifest character traits in line with those that John and Paul gives for their "gnostics" I can know for sure that they are of the same kind as the ones they had to battle. In fact, there are many modern day "gnostics" who call themselves Christians, Calvinists, and what more, and who are called "Christian" also by other professing believers. They may not exhibit every trait given by Paul and/or John, but some they do exhibit.

Harald

Indeed, and these ‘false gnostics’ that Paul and John spoke of fill the pews on Sunday at the churches across the land, calling the true followers of Christ heretics. Is it not obvious that it is just as Farris proposes, that the true followers of Christ were the losers to the state forced religion of the Romans?

And is not the true question for discernment then not what one believes, but “Do you walk as Jesus walked?"



Mary

[Harald]

May I ask then how modern day Christians have come to proclaim that John was speaking of those that history has marked as “Gnostics”? [Mary]

A very good and pertinent question. Some "modern day Christians" may be doing this in ignorance, never having taken time to see what John and Paul informs about those of "THE gnosis" faction of their day. Instead they rely on "church history" works and what these write about "Gnosticism" and "Gnostics" (remember, these exact nouns are not used by Paul or John). That "Gnosticism" which "church history" books depict is not subtle at all, it would not likely have caused John's converts to wander from the right path. But the gnosis-professors whom John and Paul contended against, and warned of, were subtle, so much so that they did succeed in causing genuine Christians to wander to some degree. They succeeded so much that John had to write 1John to set things straight and confirm his "little children" in the truth wherein they in fact stood.

It seems clear that John is saying that those who claim to know Christ, but do not follow His commandments, are liars, yes?

John is saying that such as claim to know Christ by/from experience but do not "keep" or "observe" His commandments, on a continual basis, are liars or tellers of falsehood. And the "commandments" John has in mind are such as Christ personally gave to his 12 Apostles when Himself was among them, and such as He gave to the same after His death on Calvary's tree. It must be had in mind that John was of the apostleship of the circumcision. So we are talking about the gospel and order of the gospel of the kingdom, not of Paul's "my gospel". Professing believers of today are duty bound to obey Paul's gospel and its order. So, such as in our day profess to have known Christ by experience but who do not obey Paul's gospel and the household rules of the Body of the Christ (as given by the exalted Christ via Paul) are liars.

And can we not then also say that those we know in today’s world who are not walking as Jesus walked, who are not following in His footsteps - are not giving up their life and abundance in this world, denying self, loving God and others as themselves, are not true followers of Christ?

Christ does not through Paul command the giving up of one's abundance in this world. To walk acceptably before God in this age of the Body of the Christ is to walk in imitation of Paul. To know what this entails one must look at the Pauline scriptures. Some information is also found in Acts.


The true gnostics that I know, Harald, historically and in modern times, embrace Paul’s Mystery teachings on the Body of Christ, have true knowledge of Christ or Epignosis, obey Jesus’ commandments, manifest true agape love through deed and truth - not by tongue and expression, do not do love-less deeds towards anyone – but will strongly point out hypocrisy when faced with it, proclaim Jesus as the prophesied Messiah, speak strickly in accordance to scripture – but to the deeper understanding that leads to obedience to Jesus’ commandments, and do not deny their sin nature.

If by "true gnostics" you mean such as truly know Christ through a genuine experiential knowledge then I can accept the epithet here. Otherwise myself am not inclined to refer to genuine children of God as "true gnostics". True it is, no denying, that God's true children have a true experiential knowledge of Christ and God, and it is theirs only by the undeserved favour of Christ, and through the Holy Spirit who has given this familiarity with God to the same.


And is not the true question for discernment then not what one believes, but “Do you walk as Jesus walked?"

Not according to John in 1John. In 4:2-3 he gave a standard to his converts, a standard of proving the spirits/prophets. And it is not primarily walk-related, but "confession" related. What the prophets/spirits verbally declared concerning Jesus Christ in His theanthropic person and His redemptive work showed whether they were of God or not. And this is a good standard also today. In 1John 4:2-3 the primary emphasis is on the incarnation and its abidingness, but not to the exclusion of everything else the Scriptures inform of Jesus Christ's divine-human person and redemptive work. In 2John 7 the emhasis of John is on Jesus Christ's "coming" in flesh, present participle, not perfect as in 1John 4:2, thus it appears John is referring to Christ's future return to earth in flesh to set up the prophesied Davidic Millenial Kingdom, where saved ethnic Jews (the "all Israel" of Paul in Rom. 11) play a major part.



Harald

[VFarris01]

This is not entirely true. You assume the texts of the NT are the "earliest" because that is what your belief system demands. We do not have any original NT texts nor do we have any texts for any Christian belief system before the mid 2nd century (that is, if we discount the Essenes).No that is not what my belief system demands. It is historical...Sorry, no, it is not. The "original" manuscripts do not exist. The "dating" of the time for the "originals" are pure conjecture based on the desire of the "scholar" to make the "manuscripts" fit within his/her belief system. The only actual (and original) texts we have dating to the 1st century belong to the Essenes. Would we not be better off following their belief system?

Early Christians believed much more than what is "preserved" as the "orthodox" viewpoint in the NT. Without considering all the texts written by the early Christians we are left with less-than-half of what the early Christians believed.Really - show me the first century Gnostic writings...Really - show me the 1st century non-Gnostic writings...

Wow, what fun! I could play this game game all day...

Why? Does it matter?
Why can't you answer a simple question - did Christ come in the "flesh" or not?Tell me why it matters that I answer this totally irrelevant question.

Was I not clear... I am not a believer in Gnosticism... I am simply a Christian. "Stake your (my) soul" on whatever you wish.Why are you a Christian. On what do you base your knowledge of Christ... You are two-for-two for irrelevant questions... good job!

[Harald]

From 2John 7 it is apparent that John's converts, who were Jews, were no replacement theologians. They were looking forward to the Davidic Millenial Kingdom of Christ and of saved ethnic Israel on earth. They did not hold to the equation of Israel = the Body of Christ/"the Church"

No. John and other cirumcision/kingdom apostles were of Israel. Paul was of the Body of the Christ, and he as well distinguished things that differed, not confusing elect Israel and the Body. Replacement theology bears the stamp of anti-Messias all over it. Replacement theology was apparently one marked trait of the "gnostics" that John warned about and contended against. Even the wicked Pharisees weren't guilty of the gnostic heresy of replacement theology.


Harald

[gnosticmary]

Greetings Harald, and thank you, deeply, for sharing your understanding of scripture given your knowledge of Greek.

You have assisted in allowing me to see things not before seen.

May I ask then how modern day Christians have come to proclaim that John was speaking of those that history has marked as “Gnostics”? [Mary]

A very good and pertinent question. Some "modern day Christians" may be doing this in ignorance, never having taken time to see what John and Paul informs about those of "THE gnosis" faction of their day. Instead they rely on "church history" works and what these write about "Gnosticism" and "Gnostics" (remember, these exact nouns are not used by Paul or John). That "Gnosticism" which "church history" books depict is not subtle at all, it would not likely have caused John's converts to wander from the right path. But the gnosis-professors whom John and Paul contended against, and warned of, were subtle, so much so that they did succeed in causing genuine Christians to wander to some degree. They succeeded so much that John had to write 1John to set things straight and confirm his "little children" in the truth wherein they in fact stood.


Yes - I have found that the evil each needs to be concerned with is the evil that is subtle, unseen by the masses - that which we in ignorance let into our minds and hearts, which then works like yeast, contaminating us from the inside out.

It seems clear that John is saying that those who claim to know Christ, but do not follow His commandments, are liars, yes?

John is saying that such as claim to know Christ by/from experience but do not "keep" or "observe" His commandments, on a continual basis, are liars or tellers of falsehood. And the "commandments" John has in mind are such as Christ personally gave to his 12 Apostles when Himself was among them, and such as He gave to the same after His death on Calvary's tree. It must be had in mind that John was of the apostleship of the circumcision. So we are talking about the gospel and order of the gospel of the kingdom, not of Paul's "my gospel". Professing believers of today are duty bound to obey Paul's gospel and its order. So, such as in our day profess to have known Christ by experience but who do not obey Paul's gospel and the household rules of the Body of the Christ (as given by the exalted Christ via Paul) are liars.

And can we not then also say that those we know in today’s world who are not walking as Jesus walked, who are not following in His footsteps - are not giving up their life and abundance in this world, denying self, loving God and others as themselves, are not true followers of Christ?

Christ does not through Paul command the giving up of one's abundance in this world. To walk acceptably before God in this age of the Body of the Christ is to walk in imitation of Paul. To know what this entails one must look at the Pauline scriptures. Some information is also found in Acts.

I will confess before beginning that I have personal investment in the Bible and so must empty myself of these investments so that God may show me His Truth. I have held Paul up as a true disciple of Jesus, although a lesser one than the other Apostles - as someone else on tweb recently stated. But if what you are saying is true, then I may be wrong.

Was Paul teaching a different gospel than that which Jesus taught while present on earth with His disciples (in life and resurrection)? A gospel that is in contradiction to the Gospels which clearly states that Jesus said Obey My commandments, lose your life, deny self, and follow Me?

Or could this other gospel that Paul taught be a dilution of the original Truth, offered to those who are not yet ready to walk the path of true discipleship? Those who can only hear the milk of the gospel? And so most of the present day churches are not the ones Jesus was addressing with His Life and original Teachings? But instead He was seeking those who belonged to Him, those who demonstrate through their obedience to His Words that they are the true disciples which He came into this world to find?



The true gnostics that I know, Harald, historically and in modern times, embrace Paul’s Mystery teachings on the Body of Christ, have true knowledge of Christ or Epignosis, obey Jesus’ commandments, manifest true agape love through deed and truth - not by tongue and expression, do not do love-less deeds towards anyone – but will strongly point out hypocrisy when faced with it, proclaim Jesus as the prophesied Messiah, speak strickly in accordance to scripture – but to the deeper understanding that leads to obedience to Jesus’ commandments, and do not deny their sin nature.

If by "true gnostics" you mean such as truly know Christ through a genuine experiential knowledge then I can accept the epithet here. Otherwise myself am not inclined to refer to genuine children of God as "true gnostics". True it is, no denying, that God's true children have a true experiential knowledge of Christ and God, and it is theirs only by the undeserved favour of Christ, and through the Holy Spirit who has given this familiarity with God to the same.


And is not the true question for discernment then not what one believes, but “Do you walk as Jesus walked?"

Not according to John in 1John. In 4:2-3 he gave a standard to his converts, a standard of proving the spirits/prophets. And it is not primarily walk-related, but "confession" related. What the prophets/spirits verbally declared concerning Jesus Christ in His theanthropic person and His redemptive work showed whether they were of God or not. And this is a good standard also today. In 1John 4:2-3 the primary emphasis is on the incarnation and its abidingness, but not to the exclusion of everything else the Scriptures inform of Jesus Christ's divine-human person and redemptive work. In 2John 7 the emhasis of John is on Jesus Christ's "coming" in flesh, present participle, not perfect as in 1John 4:2, thus it appears John is referring to Christ's future return to earth in flesh to set up the prophesied Davidic Millenial Kingdom, where saved ethnic Jews (the "all Israel" of Paul in Rom. 11) play a major part.



Harald

Is it possible, Harald, that John is also referring to the coming of Christ within each one of His disciples as they walk in obedience to Him?


Again, thank you, for your insightful sharing.


Mary

[gnosticmary]

I thought to share this with you, Harald, and anyone else who might be interested.

It is a writing by a true gnostic....


WE HAVE SEEN THE REALITY OF MODERN SOCIETY, examined its causes and concluded that humankind is being deceived and poisoned, and is presently in danger of annihilation due to its mental and astral activities.

Through their mental creations, sustained over long periods of time, human beings have turned their entire life-sphere into an almost hopeless confusion. The conflict, the chaos, the disasters caused by all this in the material sphere have become so vast that one is moved to ask 'How can this endless torrent ever be brought to a halt?' And the problem is made even worse because, whenever human beings are faced with disaster of any kind, they always resort to brute force as a remedy. They ask themselves, 'What power can be applied to eliminate this danger?' People keep on looking for weapons to avert the threat of disaster, oblivious to the fact that by doing so they only intensify the causes and make the results much worse. Remember Lao Tzu's words The finest weapons are instruments of disaster.

We have shown how incontrovertible these words are. So now the task, the problem facing us is this 'What should the Gnostic do in the face of this great emergency?' Today's opportunity must be grasped, and we must answer the question 'What must we do to avert the immense dangers threatening the human race?' Clearly, the time has come for a new, powerful and effective course of action.

Let us step back for a moment, so that we can examine the problem as objectively as possible. Should we intervene in external events? Should we make protests, for instance, as so many people today are doing? Should we write letters to the authorities? Should we draw attention to the dangers by acts of civil disobedience? Or should we perhaps act in a revolutionary way, trying to instigate political moves that would prevent the powers behind the scenes from being able to carry out their designs?

None of these things would work because, in one way or another, they all involve conflict. Even if one were only to oppose the mental activities of humanity on a mental level, by thinking contradictory thoughts, it would still involve conflict and the law of antitheses would still be invoked; and, as we know, mental weapons are the most terrible weapons. The finest weapons, as Lao Tzu says, are instruments of disaster, and aspirants on the True Path are better able than anyone else to know that it is mental weapons, especially, which should be shunned as the fiery, causative menace that they are. So the real tragedy of the situation lies in the fact that although a very large number of people realise that things are going seriously wrong in the world, and are aware of the extreme peril facing the human race, they are prevented - by ignorance - from being able to act in the only way capable of providing genuine succour to seeking humanity. So this is the point we would like to stress, with as much emphasis as we are able the only possible way of helping humankind must be sought in the application, the most radical application, of the power of Universal Love.

Having said this, we realise that there is much more we need to say about the power of Love and how to apply it, if we are to avoid being misunderstood; for there are so many differing opinions on the subject that we could easily become lost in a labyrinth of ideas. So, to bring ourselves closer to an understanding of what Love means, we would like to begin by first explaining what it does not mean. We would like to describe how love is sought for and practised by the church-going person, the humanist, and by the ordinary, egocentric human being. In contrast to all this we will subsequently describe Love as it is practised by the person who understands Gnostic magic.

In the church, ideas about how to love tend to be inextricably bound to delusion, and therefore to ignorance. The church authorities inculcate in their congregations such literal acceptance of the disfugured Holy Scriptures, treating them as written documents of which not one jot or tittle may be lost, that the actual words become a formidable obstruction to true understanding. In this way, the faith of the average church-goer tends to have the effect of attuning him not to God, who is Love itself, but to a text that interprets that Love, and therefore to an aeon which has been created and maintained by the ignorance of mankind; and that is something quite different from being attuned to divine Love itself!

Church-going people often put their faith in persons who preach love, but they tend not to have enough inner knowledge to verify the truth of what is being said. Not that there is anything wrong with preaching love, but if the listener lacks the inner ability to verify the truth, he will always be dependent upon external authorities, which means that he will run the risk of being deceived and exploited. If one is exploited, it is either because one possesses no soul quality at all, or because, if one does possess some soul quality and therefore experiences the influence of Love, one does not yet have a freed, fully autonomous soul. For there is a tremendous difference between the person whose soul has become free and autonomous, and the person who only possesses soul quality. A bound soul is always vulnerable to delusion in one form or another.

This applies to those who seek humanitarian values, too. The desire to experience a universal community of man is clear evidence of the possession of soul quality, even if the person concerned does not know that such an experience is impossible in dualistic nature, and that the Kingdom of God cannot be founded in the universe of death. Similarly, the wish to see evil as a temporary phenomenon which can soon turn into good, is also an unmistakable indication of the presence of soul quality. But without the additional dimension of Gnostic insight, the pursuit of humane values can only lead into a morass, and following such guidelines would be like burdening a baby with the leadership of the world.

To prevent misunderstanding we need to stress, before we go any further, that there are many ways in which soul quality can be gained. The experience of suffering, for instance, often brings about an increase in soul quality. When people are beaten and trampled by life, they nearly always become milder in character, due to all the suffering they have been through. It is like that, for instance, with people who are very ill. Due to their afflictions, they assimilate soul quality. They are touched by the all-encompassing Field of what Plato called the 'World Soul' Christ.

Christ encompasses everyone, without exception. Whenever anyone forgets his ego for a moment because he is immersed in suffering, then Christ will touch him. In this way the person is charged with soul quality by the all-encompassing Field of Christ, even if he does not know what is happening, and is therefore in ignorance.

This is how we may encounter the kind of people who are very noble, full of soul and full of love, but who either do not know of the one Path or refuse to walk it. Such people are full of potential but lack the one thing needful. They turn away from the Path because they believe what they are seeking can be found in the world of duality. They do not know that divine Love is not of this world. They think that they are standing on the Path, and do not realise that the Love-power they have experienced came from Christ, from another World. They are unable to consider this idea, because they are unaware of it. So they misinterpret the Love-power that they have experienced as being a part of matter, a part of the fallen world.

The approach to love taken by the totally I-centred human being is familiar to all. It is always expressed within sharply defined limits, and it is partial and conditional, for within those limits nothing is tolerated that could threaten the person's own ego and personal interests in any way. In the interests of a so-called 'uninhibited love-life', social taboos are overturned without hesitation. People who believe they must follow such a 'modern' path do not belong in a Gnostic order. Human beings who are totally absorbed in their own egos are on the lowest level of life; in fact, they are not even living, but dying.

Having said all this, we would like to explore the nature of divine Love, the Love that is above everything, the Love which makes everything free. For that Love is also the power with which all the dangers in the world can be completely dissolved. It is that power with which we shall have to work if we are to help, and if possible, to save all those who possess soul quality. So it is that power which we will need to possess and, wherever possible, to use without affectation. That Love-power must be freed, and it can only be freed by those who possess a soul that has been freed.

As long as a person's soul quality remains bound to the fallen personality, then whenever there is a problem, the ego, the personality, will be involved, even if the person does not want that to happen. When problems arise between spiritual aspirants, this is almost always the cause. Most aspirants possess an abundance of soul quality, but it is bound to, and interwoven with, the undivine ego. If only they had pure soul quality untainted by anything else, no problems would arise between them and they would completely understand each other and be united in harmony.

But time and time again, whenever interpersonal contact takes place, the ego is involved, and every ego is different, and has various kinds of karma. That is why people continue to come into conflict with one another, even though they do not want to. Only when the soul is freed, disassociated from the fallen self, and can function autonomously does it manifest its full potency in the emergency order.

When we say this, we do not mean something that happens when one dies, but indicate a new state of life in which the candidate for Liberation genuinely possesses a soul that has been made free, just like Jesus, the Piscean Christ, the prototype of all true Human Beings. Only if a person becomes a follower of Jesus in that sense, will he no longer place the fallen personality in the forefront of his liberating work, but will allow it to play a subordinate role. Only the person who has brought to a good end his work in imitation of John - the work of making straight the paths for his Lord - is capable of work in the Gnostic-magical sense.

Perhaps we are telling you about values and forces, aspects and possibilities of the Gnostic life about which you may never have heard before. Yet there are many aspirants who are involved in preparing themselves for this work. And we should count ourselves fortunate indeed if we were able to provide everyone with clear indications about the way in which, in one short lifetime, the soul can be set free and disassociated from the dualistic personality.

We should not imagine the prototype, Jesus, as a distant ideal. Anything we could possibly want to achieve in the fallen world would be more difficult than the imitation of Christ, understood in the Gnostic sense. So we hope that you will look for the key to Life, for your finding it will be of profound significance for the whole human race.

* * *

Throughout human history, whenever there has been a period of time during which the conditions were right, there has come into existence a large group of human beings whose inner nature was out of the ordinary. Intuitively, such people are aware that there must exist a very actual, very different, new way of living, an approach to life that goes far beyond anything possible within the scope of mysticism or humanism, and which is certainly not within the scope of the ordinary ego. The more time goes by without the members of such a group having found what they are seeking, the more a certain kind of tension increases within them.

Imagine a person who has that kind of disposition, and who, in fact, is affected by the World Soul, by Christ. Due to that for which he yearns, the forces of the true Light are able to touch him. He tries to make the path as straight as possible, but so far, he can only perceive the desert of life in the wilderness of duality. Because he is touched by the World Soul, and because he is in such a state of expectation, an intense tension will arise in him 'Surely there must be a way out? Surely there must be a solution for the human race, for the whole of human existence? Is not the Light always victorious in the end?'

This psychological disposition, this state of tension, prepares the person concerned to such an extent that, eventually, his level of awareness is bound to be raised, or at least he will become susceptible to a heightened level of awareness. When this critical point has been reached, because the tension has realised its maximum, the members of that exceptional group will have to prove whether or not they are really disciples of the human prototype, Jesus.

The position Jesus adopts is a higher one, and it cannot be otherwise. He places himself on a higher level than the one people are accustomed to in dualistic nature, and he expects those who really understand to come to him.

A voice is calling to all humanity today 'Go from glory to glory'. To mankind is proclaimed such an all-encompassing, tremendous optimism, a message of such majestic and glorious attainment, that everything we have so far tried to convey regarding the soul pales into insignificance by comparison. If we can raise our inner being above the ordinary, dualistic level, if we can raise ourselves inwardly to the higher level of life which has been called 'the mountain top', and in this way prove that the soul quality already accumulated within us has become active, then we will hear the following declaration, resounding with tremendous positivity, like a mantra sounding inside our being "Blessed are those who yearn for the Spirit, for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven".

As soon as this new state is realised in our system, and we are thus linked unmistakably to the World Soul, to Christ, we will have entered the radius of action of Divinity. We will have entered the state of Blessedness. If only we consistently adopt an approach to life in harmony with that state, we will experience Blessedness continuously, as a consolamentum. That continuous state of being will provide a consolation that makes bearable all the sorrows one might have to undergo as the result of life in the nadir on Earth.

Such people will be capable of the heroism of meekness, through which it is possible to overcome and inherit the divine Earthly realm. They will be able to lift the scourge of ignorance and its results. All who, in that high, serene state, hunger and thirst for righteousness, are bound to be satisfied. It is certain that, being merciful, they will obtain mercy; being pure in heart, they will restore to life the divinity in them; and, being peacemakers, they will know peace, the profound inner peace of the children of God.

Does not all this point toward soul-awakening, toward an ever closer contact with the centre of the New Realm? That is why there is blessedness, too, in being persecuted for righteousness' sake, and in being reviled and oppressed. For the counter-nature cannot tolerate it when the divine Nature breaks loose from under it and goes its own way. So the fire of persecution only serves to prove the counter-nature's weakness, and to show that it is in fear for its life.

To those with ears to hear it is given to live in that high state of being, to enter that great Reality. So clear reflection on this task is needed. It is a task that can be ours only if we have heard the Call of Christ from within, if we have experienced the power of divine Love, and are determined to fulfil the requirements of the True Path and to thus continue living in demonstration of the New World Consciousness to the best of our ability, for others.


Mary

[Katt]

From 2John 7 it is apparent that John's converts, who were Jews, were no replacement theologians. They were looking forward to the Davidic Millenial Kingdom of Christ and of saved ethnic Israel on earth. They did not hold to the equation of Israel = the Body of Christ/"the Church"

No. John and other cirumcision/kingdom apostles were of Israel. Paul was of the Body of the Christ, and he as well distinguished things that differed, not confusing elect Israel and the Body. Replacement theology bears the stamp of anti-Messias all over it. Replacement theology was apparently one marked trait of the "gnostics" that John warned about and contended against. Even the wicked Pharisees weren't guilty of the gnostic heresy of replacement theology.


Harald

I wonder, Harald, how anything in Creation cannot be the Body of Christ? Since only He is the beginning and the end?

I too am curious about some of the questions that Mary raised (and thank you Mary for posting those articles. It is rare to find such clarity on Tweb.)

Are you saying there are two gospels? One for Israel and one for the Gentiles? I prefer not to get into this here, but most looking for a literal fulfillment of the Old Testament are in agreement that the lost tribes of Israel migrated to fill the earth - that the Gentiles at the time of Jesus were the lost tribes.

If there are two gospels, my question then is the same as Mary's. Is the one revealed in the teachings of Jesus a gospel containing the 'meat' for Jesus' disciples, the ones God had given to Him, and then in the teachings of Paul, we find the 'milk' for the rest of the world?

I had thought that the cause for the apparent contradictions is found in the misinterpretation that was adopted by Constantine and those in authority coming after his time, and that Paul's original teachings were of the same one gospel that Jesus revealed, although the milk of that gospel - he being as Mary pointed out, a lesser Apostle.

Thanks, Harald.


katt

[seer]

Sorry, no, it is not. The "original" manuscripts do not exist. The "dating" of the time for the "originals" are pure conjecture based on the desire of the "scholar" to make the "manuscripts" fit within his/her belief system. The only actual (and original) texts we have dating to the 1st century belong to the Essenes. Would we not be better off following their belief system?

That is nonsense Farris. Should we quote non-christian biblical scholars, and liberal scholars who place almost all of the N.T. writing within the first century, save three or four books? And as far as I know the Essenes were not Christian.

Tell me why it matters that I answer this totally irrelevant question.

Tell me why Christ matters at all Farris. Obviously you have few solid answers and a lot of anger... Nice taking with you...

[VFarris01]

Sorry, no, it is not. The "original" manuscripts do not exist. The "dating" of the time for the "originals" are pure conjecture based on the desire of the "scholar" to make the "manuscripts" fit within his/her belief system. The only actual (and original) texts we have dating to the 1st century belong to the Essenes. Would we not be better off following their belief system?That is nonsense Farris.Why? Because you say it is?

Should we quote non-christian biblical scholars, and liberal scholars who place almost all of the N.T. writing within the first century, save three or four books?My point still stands; without refutation I see.

And as far as I know the Essenes were not Christian.As far as you know.

Tell me why it matters that I answer this totally irrelevant question.Tell me why Christ matters at all Farris.He obviously matters in your belief system... should He matter in mine as well because you say He should? (He does BTW.)

Obviously you have few solid answers and a lot of anger...Obviously you have few solid answers and a lot of anger...

Man, I love playing this game...

Nice taking with you...Same here.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Why? Because you say it is?

My point still stands; without refutation I see.

As far as you know.

He obviously matters in your belief system... should He matter in mine as well because you say He should? (He does BTW.)

Obviously you have few solid answers and a lot of anger...

Man, I love playing this game...

Same here.


Is the "game" you're playing the common childhood tactic of repeating things over and over without any relevant cognitive involvement? Do you have anything substantive to say---such as the elaboration of your "belief system?"

So far, we've got: Read Bart; he alone can remedy everyone else's staggering ignorance. The underdogs of church history (but which underdogs?) should be lent credence on the basis of unknown criteria. Roman Catholicism (and orthodoxy and in general?) are not to your liking (again, for unknown reasons). Whether or not Jesus was actually incarnate becomes an irrelevant question, according to you, as you take exception to certain features of orthodoxy for unspoken reasons of your own. But, nonetheless, Jesus "matters" within your (as yet unelaborated) "belief system." You're really not a gnostic, after all. You're an atheist's worst nightmare, and you associate yourself with Burt Lancaster. You don't want a "label," and you love playing games. And lastly, you exemplify lovingkindness.

And while it's true that your opponents and readers here are no doubt intimidated by the sheer argumentative power of these gleaned fragments of (what shall we call it?)---expression, it still might be worthwhile for you to aspire to genuine communication and tie these things together in some intelligible way.... :wink:

All joking aside, you're an intelligent person---why not shelve the persona and reveal your thoughts?

[VFarris01]

Why? Because you say it is?

My point still stands; without refutation I see.

As far as you know.

He obviously matters in your belief system... should He matter in mine as well because you say He should? (He does BTW.)

Obviously you have few solid answers and a lot of anger...

Man, I love playing this game...

Same here.Is the "game" you're playing the common childhood tactic of repeating things over and over without any relevant cognitive involvement?Oh, goodness, no. If you have not noticed, seer's questions/statements are nonsense.

For instance, earlier we saw:
seer: That does not mean that the winners were wrong. Prove that the orthodox tests (texts, VF) are wrong and that the Gnostic works are correct....

To which I responded:
VF:That does not mean that the winners were right. Prove that the orthodox texts are right and that the Gnostic works are wrong... Good luck hoeing that row.

... obviously seer has "few solid answers" because his argument is based on my supposed (as perceived by him) "anger."

I am showing the futility of defending a belief system based on faith. No one knows the "right" answers... if someone did we would be left without this forum. Name one person (besides yourself, lol) who bases their belief system on anything more substantial than faith.

Do you have anything substantive to say---such as the elaboration of your "belief system?"Should I have? My belief system is not any more substansive than seer's or yours. To claim otherwise is the worst of narcissism.

So far, we've got: Read Bart; he alone can remedy everyone else's staggering ignorance.I said there were things to be learned from a reading of his book. I never said it would solve the "ignorance" problem.

The underdogs of church history (but which underdogs?) should be lent credence on the basis of unknown criteria.This is the question, yes? I do not know what "criteria" we should use... was the Gnostic's faith any less sincere than yours or mine?

Roman Catholicism (and orthodoxy and in general?) are not to your liking (again, for unknown reasons).The "reasons" are not "unknown," they are "listed" on other threads throughout this and other forums.

Whether or not Jesus was actually incarnate becomes an irrelevant question, according to you, as you take exception to certain features of orthodoxy for unspoken reasons of your own. But, nonetheless, Jesus "matters" within your (as yet unelaborated) "belief system."These things are irrelevant because my beliefs are not under review in this thread (nor are seer's, nor yours, nor anyone's). The topic of this thread, in my opinion, is,

Why should we reject the beliefs of the Gnostics in favor of our own individual belief system?

You're really not a gnostic, after all.Nope, not at all.

You're an atheist's worst nightmare...Since you do not know the context of this statement you are forgiven for using it in your little ad hominem speech.

... and you associate yourself with Burt Lancaster.Like Barney Rubble, he is an excellent actor. Perhaps you do not recognize his character in the picture.

You don't want a "label,"...Do you want one; I am thinking of a pretty good one for you right now (this is meant in jest I assure you).

... and you love playing games.You do not?

And lastly, you exemplify lovingkindness.... to exactly the same extent as those who accuse me otherwise.

And while it's true that your opponents and readers here are no doubt intimidated by the sheer argumentative power of these gleaned fragments of (what shall we call it?)---expression, it still might be worthwhile for you to aspire to genuine communication and tie these things together in some intelligible way.... :wink: What for? It all makes sense to me.

Let me start with a pertinent question for you...

Why should we reject the beliefs of the Gnostics (or any religious group) in favor of our own individual (or collective) belief system?

All joking aside, you're an intelligent person---Some people think so but not most...

... why not shelve the persona and reveal your thoughts?I have been. Perhaps you were not paying close enough attention...

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

Oh, goodness, no. If you have not noticed, seer's questions/statements are nonsense.

Seer has a point of view, just as you have one. He has, at least partially, disclosed what his point of view entails---while your own point of view remains largely undisclosed. Neither one of you has trafficked in "nonsense," but a conversation cannot ensue but so far between the parties if one of them is reluctant to reveal what he believes, positively speaking.

On the face of things, it appears you have relativised orthodoxy simply by virtue of a descriptive early christian pluralism. In this scenario, of course what became "orthodoxy" could be methodologically reduced to only one plausible option among others. Then, if one assumes a fideist posture primarily, as you seem to be doing, one is left with competing "faiths" with virtually no criteria for evaluating the primacy of one option over against others. Then, I suppose, given the positive adoption of these assumptions, one would end with a mere historical recognition that there once was a plurality of views subverted by what we call "orthodoxy" (which itself, even yet, involves a plurality of views). This recognition could spell a suspension of judgment---again, if one holds such assumptions.


For instance, earlier we saw:
seer: That does not mean that the winners were wrong. Prove that the orthodox tests (texts, VF) are wrong and that the Gnostic works are correct....

To which I responded:
VF:That does not mean that the winners were right. Prove that the orthodox texts are right and that the Gnostic works are wrong... Good luck hoeing that row.

... obviously seer has "few solid answers" because his argument is based on my supposed (as perceived by him) "anger."

I am showing the futility of defending a belief system based on faith. No one knows the "right" answers... if someone did we would be left without this forum. Name one person (besides yourself, lol) who bases their belief system on anything more substantial than faith.

Well, "proof" would be relative to both you and seer, personally speaking. What constitutes "proof" for seer might involve a discussion of the canonical christian scriptures. For you, given your ostensible assumptions, the category of "proof" might be excluded altogether. Yet, you do seem convinced of something---even though what you call your "belief system" remains undisclosed. But, if your beliefs are no more "substantial" than seer's, your own confidence would seem unwarranted.


Should I have? My belief system is not any more substansive than seer's or yours. To claim otherwise is the worst of narcissism.

Given this admission, that your beliefs are no more substantial than seer's, is your confidence indeed---unwarranted?


I said there were things to be learned from a reading of his book. I never said it would solve the "ignorance" problem.

Fair enough.


This is the question, yes? I do not know what "criteria" we should use... was the Gnostic's faith any less sincere than yours or mine?

Is "sincerity" an evaluative criterion?


The "reasons" are not "unknown," they are "listed" on other threads throughout this and other forums.

I suppose we've both typed a sufficient number of past posts in other threads such that we could simply stop communicating anew with anyone else and refer those who might be curious as to our beliefs back to previous posts. But, if we did this, there would be no need for much further communication....


These things are irrelevant because my beliefs are not under review in this thread (nor are seer's, nor yours, nor anyone's).

If our discussions of any topic neither involve nor potentially impact our belief systems, and if the beliefs of the past are hermetically sealed away and to be regarded by us with complete detachment such that none of our own beliefs come "under review," I'd say that we've become much too sterile. Ideas are not static; they are potentially living and fluid. Ideas reside in living minds, and we are by no means unaffected by what we discuss.


The topic of this thread, in my opinion, is,

Why should we reject the beliefs of the Gnostics in favor of our own individual belief system?

Thanks for clarifying that. Yet, since none of us actually are gnostics by mutual admission, perhaps the topic of this thread ought to move towards a discussion of why we have in fact rejected the beliefs of the gnostics in favor of our own individual belief systems.

And we could also discuss our beliefs with those here who do espouse a kind of gnosticism. It's also possible that certain features of what some folks call "gnosticism" may yet supply us with valuable insights---even if those insights come via our own rejection....


Since you do not know the context of this statement you are forgiven for using it in your little ad hominem speech.

Thanks---I was being lighthearted.


You do not?


Well---every now and then.... :wink:


Some people think so but not most...

I think so.

[VFarris01]

Oh, goodness, no. If you have not noticed, seer's questions/statements are nonsense.Seer has a point of view, just as you have one. He has, at least partially, disclosed what his point of view entails---while your own point of view remains largely undisclosed.My POV is fully exposed if one is willing to open their eyes.

Neither one of you has trafficked in "nonsense," but a conversation cannot ensue but so far between the parties if one of them is reluctant to reveal what he believes, positively speaking.Timba, his eyes closed. (The Star Trek:TNG fan should be able to figure out this cryptic answer.)

On the face of things, it appears you have relativised orthodoxy simply by virtue of a descriptive early christian pluralism. In this scenario, of course what became "orthodoxy" could be methodologically reduced to only one plausible option among others. Then, if one assumes a fideist posture primarily, as you seem to be doing, one is left with competing "faiths" with virtually no criteria for evaluating the primacy of one option over against others.Why should one belief system be greater than another?

Then, I suppose, given the positive adoption of these assumptions, one would end with a mere historical recognition that there once was a plurality of views subverted by what we call "orthodoxy" (which itself, even yet, involves a plurality of views). This recognition could spell a suspension of judgment---again, if one holds such assumptions.Early Christianity was probably as diverse (more so according to Ehrman) then as it is now... I fail to see your point.

For instance, earlier we saw:
seer: That does not mean that the winners were wrong. Prove that the orthodox tests (texts, VF) are wrong and that the Gnostic works are correct....

To which I responded:
VF:That does not mean that the winners were right. Prove that the orthodox texts are right and that the Gnostic works are wrong... Good luck hoeing that row.

... obviously seer has "few solid answers" because his argument is based on my supposed (as perceived by him) "anger."

I am showing the futility of defending a belief system based on faith. No one knows the "right" answers... if someone did we would be left without this forum. Name one person (besides yourself, lol) who bases their belief system on anything more substantial than faith.Well, "proof" would be relative to both you and seer, personally speaking. What constitutes "proof" for seer might involve a discussion of the canonical christian scriptures. For you, given your ostensible assumptions, the category of "proof" might be excluded altogether.Faith, cannot be proven.

Yet, you do seem convinced of something---even though what you call your "belief system" remains undisclosed. But, if your beliefs are no more "substantial" than seer's, your own confidence would seem unwarranted.I fail to see that of which I am supposed to be so "confident."

Should I have? My belief system is not any more substansive than seer's or yours. To claim otherwise is the worst of narcissism.Given this admission, that your beliefs are no more substantial than seer's, is your confidence indeed---unwarranted?I am saying our individual belief systems are irrelevant. The abiding tie is the faith we have in our belief system. Wrong and right are irrelevant to our faith.

I said there were things to be learned from a reading of his book. I never said it would solve the "ignorance" problem.Fair enough.Really, it is an enlightening book... A person of your obviously high intellect would like it... and learn from it.

This is the question, yes? I do not know what "criteria" we should use... was the Gnostic's faith any less sincere than yours or mine?Is "sincerity" an evaluative criterion?Would it make them any less Christian. I reject the RCC's perversion of the Gospel; does the sincerity of their faith matter, I mean, are they less "Christian?" I do not believe so. The RC belief system conflicts with mine... is mine right? Is their's right? Is yours right? The common entity among them all is faith.

The "reasons" are not "unknown," they are "listed" on other threads throughout this and other forums.I suppose we've both typed a sufficient number of past posts in other threads such that we could simply stop communicating anew with anyone else and refer those who might be curious as to our beliefs back to previous posts. But, if we did this, there would be no need for much further communication....Fine... My background is the dreaded "Fundamentalist Christian" but my views are not necessarily as such; you? It still does not matter to the subject at hand.

These things are irrelevant because my beliefs are not under review in this thread (nor are seer's, nor yours, nor anyone's).

If our discussions of any topic neither involve nor potentially impact our belief systems, and if the beliefs of the past are hermetically sealed away and to be regarded by us with complete detachment such that none of our own beliefs come "under review," I'd say that we've become much too sterile. Ideas are not static; they are potentially living and fluid. Ideas reside in living minds, and we are by no means unaffected by what we discuss.Do not hurt my one remaining brain cell, ok?

The topic of this thread, in my opinion, is,

Why should we reject the beliefs of the Gnostics in favor of our own individual belief system?Thanks for clarifying that. Yet, since none of us actually are gnostics by mutual admission, perhaps the topic of this thread ought to move towards a discussion of why we have in fact rejected the beliefs of the gnostics in favor of our own individual belief systems.I think my way is better... I am always right... ask anyone, lol.

Why should we reject the beliefs of the Gnostics (or any religious group) in favor of our own individual (or collective) belief system?

And we could also discuss our beliefs with those here who do espouse a kind of gnosticism. It's also possible that certain features of what some folks call "gnosticism" may yet supply us with valuable insights---even if those insights come via our own rejection....This is true, to an extent.

I do not believe a Gnostic, Hindu, or Buddhist has any reason to reject his/her belief system in favor of one of ours. If you believe they should, why?

Since you do not know the context of this statement you are forgiven for using it in your little ad hominem speech.Thanks---I was being lighthearted.I thought as much during the whole tirade. You do not seem to be the adopted heir (one of the TWeb members) type.

Some people think so but not most...I think so.You are tooooooo kind. You too seem to have more cognitive ability than most.

[seer]

I do not believe a Gnostic, Hindu, or Buddhist has any reason to reject his/her belief system in favor of one of ours. If you believe they should, why?

Should the Satanist reject his belief system? Faith is not the key, the object of faith is what matters. But by your logic it would be ok for me to sacrifice my child to Molech - as long as I have "faith."

[VFarris01]

I do not believe a Gnostic, Hindu, or Buddhist has any reason to reject his/her belief system in favor of one of ours. If you believe they should, why?

Should the Satanist reject his belief system? Faith is not the key, the object of faith is what matters. But by your logic it would be ok for me to sacrifice my child to Molech - as long as I have "faith."Your faith seems to be one made of straw. Faith is indeed the key to anyone's belief system.

[seer]

Your faith seems to be one made of straw. Faith is indeed the key to anyone's belief system.


That does not make sense VF. Faith can be misplaced. I may have faith that this little pill will cure me, but it turns out to be posion. If I do have faith in Molech or Satan what does that accomplish?

[VFarris01]

Your faith seems to be one made of straw. Faith is indeed the key to anyone's belief system.That does not make sense VF.Your argument is a strawman seer... does what I said make "sense" now?

Faith can be misplaced.Faith can never be misplaced... perhaps you do not understand the "nature" of faith.

I may have faith that this little pill will cure me, but it turns out to be posion.Absolutely! What is an antibiotic except a poison; it cures you when taken in the proper amount does it not? Too much, though, will kill you; yes?

If I do have faith in Molech or Satan what does that accomplish?More straw?

[VFarris01]

Should the Satanist reject his belief system?Why should he/she? Because your belief system conflicts with "Satanism?"

Faith is not the key, the object of faith is what matters.Show me the object of your faith.

But by your logic it would be ok for me to sacrifice my child to Molech - as long as I have "faith."This is your "strawman."

Should one of you mods not like this back-to-back post would you combine them please.

[seer]

But by your logic it would be ok for me to sacrifice my child to Molech - as long as I have "faith."

This is your "strawman."

It is not a straw man VF, answer the question.

Why should he/she? Because your belief system conflicts with "Satanism?"

Ok, so having faith in Satan is a good thing?

Faith can never be misplaced... perhaps you do not understand the "nature" of faith.

So faith in Satan or Molech is not misplaced? Even if I roast my child for them?



Show me the object of your faith.

I'am not going to let you turn this around VF, not yet. Answer the questions....

Faith can never be misplaced... perhaps you do not understand the "nature" of faith.

Please school us,what exactly does faith in Satan or Molech accomplish...

[VFarris01]

But by your logic it would be ok for me to sacrifice my child to Molech - as long as I have "faith."

This is your "strawman."It is not a straw man VF, answer the question.Yes, it is. I will answer your "question" if, and only if, you can show me why ths question is not a strawman.

Why should he/she? Because your belief system conflicts with "Satanism?"Ok, so having faith in Satan is a good thing?I never said it was a "good thing" (A belief in Satan conflicts with my belief system too.).

You still have not answered my question... Why should someone give up their belief system in favor of your belief system... or mine?

Faith can never be misplaced... perhaps you do not understand the "nature" of faith.So faith in Satan or Molech is not misplaced? Even if I roast my child for them?Yes, it is misplaced... but only because we consider our own belief systems to be the ones that are superior... Perhaps our belief systems are not the superior "systems." How can we know?

Introducing your child as a sacrifice remains a strawman... What if God had permitted Abraham to offer his son as a sacrifice? What then?

Faith is not the key, the object of faith is what matters.Show me the object of your faith.I'am not going to let you turn this around VF, not yet. Answer the questions....I cannot answer the question unless you can show me the object of your faith. What was the definition of faith? I forget... The substance of something we cannot hold... the evidence of something we cannot see... or something like that :lol:.

Faith can never be misplaced... perhaps you do not understand the "nature" of faith.Please school us,what exactly does faith in Satan or Molech accomplish...I cannot "school" you in what you apparantly are having an extremely difficult time understanding... faith.

[seer]

I cannot "school" you in what you apparantly are having an extremely difficult time understanding... faith.

Ok, then lets take one point at a time. How do you define faith?

[VFarris01]

I cannot "school" you in what you apparantly are having an extremely difficult time understanding... faith.

Ok, then lets take one point at a time. How do you define faith?Since you are the one being "schooled" should we not begin with how you define faith? (As the "teacher" it is my perrogative to find out how much my "student" knows first... right?)

[seer]

Since you are the one being "schooled" should we not begin with how you define faith? (As the "teacher" it is my perrogative to find out how much my "student" knows first... right?)

Ok, at it's base faith is trust - trust in something or someone...

Your turn..

[VFarris01]

Since you are the one being "schooled" should we not begin with how you define faith? (As the "teacher" it is my perrogative to find out how much my "student" knows first... right?)Ok, at it's base faith is trust - trust in something or someone...

Your turn..That is it? Trust? What happened to, "The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen?"

What makes your "trust" (or my "trust") more substansive than the Pagan's or Satanist's? Do they not "trust" "something or someone..." too?

[Sparko]

That is it? Trust? What happened to, "The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen?"

What makes your "trust" (or my "trust") more substansive than the Pagan's or Satanist's? Do they not "trust" "something or someone..." too?

sorry to interrupt.

VFarris do you hold to the "Word of Faith" movement that says that Faith is an actual substance that has power of its own? Like a force or something?

[VFarris01]

sorry to interrupt.

VFarris do you hold to the "Word of Faith" movement that says that Faith is an actual substance that has power of its own? Like a force or something?Ok with me... your input is usually insightful.

Never heard of it... so, my answer must be, "No." Faith has no more "substance" than that which is "hoped for" or "not seen."

[Sparko]

Ok with me... your input is usually insightful.

Never heard of it... so, my answer must be, "No." Faith has no more "substance" than that which is "hoped for" or "not seen."

OK. When you questioned seer on his definition it seemed you were putting a special emphasis on "substance" - so I wanted clarification.

The "word of faith" movement are those who "name it and claim it" - they think that faith itself causes God to perform actions. So if you are sick and don't get healed then it is only because you didn't have enough "faith" - if you did have enough faith, then God would be obligated to heal you. Faith becomes a "force" that compels God to perform tricks for people. It is a leash on God.

Some of the teachers of this heresy are: Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, Paul Crouch, John Avanzini, Robert Tilton, Fred Price, and Benny Hinn.

an outcropping of this is the positive confession heresy where people believe that by speaking "faith filled" words, actions will occur.

http://watchman.org/reltop/posconf.htm

[VFarris01]

Ok with me... your input is usually insightful.

Never heard of it... so, my answer must be, "No." Faith has no more "substance" than that which is "hoped for" or "not seen."OK. When you questioned seer on his definition it seemed you were putting a special emphasis on "substance" - so I wanted clarification.I see... I did not think I put any more emphasis on "substance" than the Bible does. Faith has no substance... a better definition than "trust" is "desire" imo; as in, "There is a God because I desire that there be one."

The "word of faith" movement are those who "name it and claim it" - they think that faith itself causes God to perform actions. So if you are sick and don't get healed then it is only because you didn't have enough "faith" - if you did have enough faith, then God would be obligated to heal you. Faith becomes a "force" that compels God to perform tricks for people. It is a leash on God.Interesting. I do not believe faith works in this way either.

Some of the teachers of this heresy are: Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, Paul Crouch, John Avanzini, Robert Tilton, Fred Price, and Benny Hinn.Heresy? By who's definition? How do you know they are not right and you (we) are wrong?

an outcropping of this is the positive confession heresy where people believe that by speaking "faith filled" words, actions will occur.Same three questions... plus, what of...

(20) And Jesus said to them, Because of your unbelief. For truly I say to you, If you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, Move from here to there. And it shall move. And nothing shall be impossible to you.
and...

(21) Jesus answered and said to them, Truly I say to you, If you have faith and do not doubt, you shall not only do this miracle of the fig tree, but also; if you shall say to this mountain, Be moved and be thrown into the sea; it shall be done.
What does this say of the "power" of faith.

[Sparko]

I see... I did not think I put any more emphasis on "substance" than the Bible does. Faith has no substance... a better definition than "trust" is "desire" imo; as in, "There is a God because I desire that there be one."

God exists because you WANT him to?

That's baloney. God would exist if nobody believed in him.



Heresy? By who's definition? How do you know they are not right and you (we) are wrong?

Because that is not what the bible teaches. God is OUR master, we are not his. He doesn't jump when we say "frog" no matter how much faith we have that he will.

Same three questions... plus, what of...

(20) And Jesus said to them, Because of your unbelief. For truly I say to you, If you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, Move from here to there. And it shall move. And nothing shall be impossible to you.
and...

(21) Jesus answered and said to them, Truly I say to you, If you have faith and do not doubt, you shall not only do this miracle of the fig tree, but also; if you shall say to this mountain, Be moved and be thrown into the sea; it shall be done.
What does this say of the "power" of faith.

Do you think that Jesus meant that we can control where mountains go? That God would just up and move a mountain because we want him to? or that our own power can do it?

Of course not. Jesus was using an illustration to show that we often don't get things that God would let us have because we don't have enough faith to ask for them. We don't really believe that God can do such things as move mountains. So we never ask.

But nothing will be done outside of God's will. If that mountain moved it would be because God wanted it to move and you were asking in synch with God's will. God is not a puppet to be controlled.

[seer]

That is it? Trust? What happened to, "The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen?"

That is a quote in Hebrews, and if you keep reading the context is about faith in God and His promises.

What makes your "trust" (or my "trust") more substansive than the Pagan's or Satanist's? Do they not "trust" "something or someone..." too?

We are not there yet,I have given you my definition. That faith is trust in something or someone. Now what is your definition VF?

[VFarris01]

I see... I did not think I put any more emphasis on "substance" than the Bible does. Faith has no substance... a better definition than "trust" is "desire" imo; as in, "There is a God because I desire that there be one."God exists because you WANT him to?

That's baloney. God would exist if nobody believed in him.I had a feeling you might misinterpret what I meant and I apologize for not being clearer.

Certainly, God exists; this is in harmony with our belief system. One of the facts about God is He cannot be sensed by hearing, sight, touch, smell, or taste. The only "sense" left, if it can be called one, by which God can be experienced is intuition (it has other names as well). Therefore, a belief in God is by faith. Others have faith God does not exist (notably for the same reasons we believe He does exist). Do you understand my point now?

Heresy? By who's definition? How do you know they are not right and you (we) are wrong?Because that is not what the bible teaches. God is OUR master, we are not his. He doesn't jump when we say "frog" no matter how much faith we have that he will.Certainly, this is true; God is our master. Do you not believe what the Anointed one of God said in Matthew? Remember now, you are comparing others to your belief system... judge them not... we could be wrong.

Same three questions... plus, what of...

Matthew 17:20 MKJV: And Jesus said to them, Because of your unbelief. For truly I say to you, If you have faith like a grain of mustard seed, you shall say to this mountain, Move from here to there. And it shall move. And nothing shall be impossible to you.

and...

Matthew 21:21 MKJV: Jesus answered and said to them, Truly I say to you, If you have faith and do not doubt, you shall not only do this miracle of the fig tree, but also; if you shall say to this mountain, Be moved and be thrown into the sea; it shall be done.

What does this say of the "power" of faith.Do you think that Jesus meant that we can control where mountains go? That God would just up and move a mountain because we want him to? or that our own power can do it?Why must we depend on God to perform the act of moving the mountain? A man can move a mountain without God's help; yes? A structure such as the Hoover Dam could not have been built without faith it could be accomplished; no? If the builders had said, "Building a dam to block the Colorado River is impossible" would they still had tried to build the dam? ... or gone to the Moon? ... or sailed to the Americas? ... or...

Jesus was using an illustration to show that we often don't get things that God would let us have because we don't have enough faith to ask for them. We don't really believe that God can do such things as move mountains. So we never ask.Perhaps Jesus was speaking to one such as you in Matthew 14:30,31, "Oh, ye of little faith, why didst thou doubt?" God CAN move mountains in my belief system... why not yours?

But nothing will be done outside of God's will. If that mountain moved it would be because God wanted it to move and you were asking in synch with God's will. God is not a puppet to be controlled.If God is convinced of ones faith (and if God deems it necessary), the mountain will be moved I assure you (at least according to my belief system).

[VFarris01]

That is it? Trust? What happened to, "The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen?"That is a quote in Hebrews, and if you keep reading the context is about faith in God and His promises.Why do you believe there is a difference?

What makes your "trust" (or my "trust") more substansive than the Pagan's or Satanist's? Do they not "trust" "something or someone..." too?We are not there yet,I have given you my definition. That faith is trust in something or someone. Now what is your definition VF?I believe Hebrews 11:1 was sufficient; because you do not is irrelevant. Perhaps you did not read post #97; yes?

[seer]

I believe Hebrews 11:1 was sufficient; because you do not is irrelevant. Perhaps you did not read post #97; yes?


VF, you can not honestly divorce the text form it's context and expect to have a valid argument...

Ok, you said:

I see... I did not think I put any more emphasis on "substance" than the Bible does. Faith has no substance... a better definition than "trust" is "desire" imo; as in, "There is a God because I desire that there be one."

Help me makes sense of this. If a man does not desire that God exist - does that mean that God therefore does not actually exist?

[VFarris01]

I believe Hebrews 11:1 was sufficient; because you do not is irrelevant. Perhaps you did not read post #97; yes?VF, you can not honestly divorce the text form it's context and expect to have a valid argument...The "context" of Hebrews 11 is about how various people were justified by faith; in so doing the "definition" of faith is established. That you do not recognize it as such is irrelevant... it is my definition is it not? To insinuate I am dishonest is egregious; I am honest to a fault.

Ok, you said:

I see... I did not think I put any more emphasis on "substance" than the Bible does. Faith has no substance... a better definition than "trust" is "desire" imo; as in, "There is a God because I desire that there be one."

Help me makes sense of this. If a man does not desire that God exist - does that mean that God therefore does not actually exist?I said this in post #100 (three posts ago):

"Certainly, God exists; this is in harmony with our belief system. One of the facts about God is He cannot be sensed by hearing, sight, touch, smell, or taste. The only "sense" left, if it can be called one, by which God can be experienced is intuition (it has other names as well). Therefore, a belief in God is by faith. Others have faith God does not exist (notably for the same reasons we believe He does exist). Do you understand my point now?"

Try using the negative of the statement:"There is a God because I desire that there be one."It might look something like:"There is not a God because I desire that there not be one."Inserting your "definition" yields:"There is a God because I trust that there be (is) one."The negative might look something like:"There is not a God because I trust that there not be (is not) one."Both pairs read enough alike to say there is no difference between our "definitions."

If you would bother to read my other posts (in this thread) it would not be necessary for me to repeat myself.

[Pereynol of Sheer Dread]

My POV is fully exposed if one is willing to open their eyes.

I'm beginning to piece it together, however imperfectly.


Why should one belief system be greater than another?

That question seems to require evaluative criteria for what constitutes "greatness," as well as a specific philosophical stance on truth.


Early Christianity was probably as diverse (more so according to Ehrman) then as it is now... I fail to see your point.

My point surrounds the phenomena of relativisation and definition. What is called "diversity" from one quarter might be styled "difference" by another. Whether one defines "gnosticism" as a variety of christianity or as something outside christianity will of course depend upon where and why one draws one's definitional lines. And the dialectics of history are always critiqued via the prejudices of the onlooker. If this is true of the period and peoples under examination, it is no less true of the scholars who practice history today---of those who examine the relics and traces of the past. Ehrman has a set of assumptions---as do you and I---and the assumptions we hold indeed have a faith-component, but they also transcend faith. (I know you're aware of these things.)


Faith, cannot be proven.

I suppose that depends upon what one means by "faith" and "proof." But I think I understand what you mean.


I fail to see that of which I am supposed to be so "confident."

Well, strength of assertion seems to imply confidence, at least on some level, and bold rejection of viewpoints contrary to one's own also implies something of the sort. The root of "faith" is part of the word "confidence," after all....


I am saying our individual belief systems are irrelevant. The abiding tie is the faith we have in our belief system. Wrong and right are irrelevant to our faith.

I think what you call "our belief systems" become relevant in that our "faiths" are tied to them in some fashion. For instance, can one have "faith" without an object? I suppose that faith could exist on entirely subjective grounds, as pure experience, yet it always is associated with some object, content, mind state, or thought process---even among mystics of the most apophatic variety.

Even your quote above spells out that we have "faith," properly speaking, "in our belief system." So, while faith is indeed a commonality across the spectra of human belief systems, or "the abiding tie," as you put it, the specific system of beliefs itself which comprises faith's object for an individual or community also must be taken into account. And, depending upon what the precise system of belief in question entails, right and wrong may indeed become relevant. Perhaps to you, they are not---in keeping with the beliefs you hold; but to another whose beliefs are contrary to your own, right and wrong may well become pertinent.

Further, "right and wrong" have ethical connotations and involve notions of truth and falsity, along with expediency. If the latter is stressed, it could be said that such pragmatic categories as usefulness, acceptance, and rejection may well come to the fore. You yourself have rejected and affirmed aspects of other belief systems, as do we all. I don't see how these things can be consigned to the dustbin altogether, and I don't see how faith can exist in a cognitive vacuum such that the particulars of one's specific belief system can be legitimately branded "irrelevant."

When you say that these matters are irrelevant, It is probably because that proposition itself (that they are irrelevant) is a constituent part of your own belief system. Other belief systems might entail the relevancy of such things, contrary to your own. If so, those contrary belief systems would define "faith" differently---and consequently evaluate it differently. That being the case, you have a ready example of why one might reject or accept other belief systems (or parts thereof) contrary to one's own. The belief that right and wrong are irrelevant to faith is itself part of your personal belief system and therefore an object of faith, yet it can be evaluated on its own cognitive merits, then accepted or rejected. If I were to incorporate this proposition into my own belief system, my belief system would then change accordingly. If you are arguing on behalf of this proposition, you are presenting me precisely with reasons to change my belief system in favor of your own, aren't you???


Really, it is an enlightening book... A person of your obviously high intellect would like it... and learn from it.

I have read some of Ehrman's work, and I've heard him speak as well. The subjects with which he deals are of continuing importance to me. I end up reading lots of diverse stuff these days, but I've been meaning to give him more sustained attention. On your recommendation, I'll do that soon.


Would it make them any less Christian. I reject the RCC's perversion of the Gospel; does the sincerity of their faith matter, I mean, are they less "Christian?" I do not believe so. The RC belief system conflicts with mine... is mine right? Is their's right? Is yours right? The common entity among them all is faith.

If there were no "belief systems," could there still be faith?


Fine... My background is the dreaded "Fundamentalist Christian" but my views are not necessarily as such; you? It still does not matter to the subject at hand.

My background was a bit of a hodge-podge; growing up, my mother was a non-practicing christian, and my father was a staunch agnostic who submitted every religious claim to rigorous sceptical examination. And while I always had a subjective experience of God, I found the attitudes of my parents inapplicable in some ways and applicable in others. My formative years fashioned a mindset in me which still exerts its influences upon how I process information and how I make evaluations, certainly. So, yes, I'd say my specific background, as well as one's background, generally speaking, matters to the subject at hand---even if that subject happens to be some kind of "faith" OR gnosis.



Why should we reject the beliefs of the Gnostics (or any religious group) in favor of our own individual (or collective) belief system?

I think the fact is that we often do reject, accept, and engage with features of other belief systems, and that, especially today, belief systems aren't so cut and dry. Many times, people's "systems of belief" are fashioned as hybrids rather than being accepted passively as some kind of systematic totality. As such, belief systems are fluid and potentially subject to change---rather than static and fixed such that they admit of no questioning. We reject facets of other "systems" all the time, in practice. We often engage with a plurality of beliefs, and we find ourselves making judgments of some sort; it's unavoidable in our world, IMHO.


I do not believe a Gnostic, Hindu, or Buddhist has any reason to reject his/her belief system in favor of one of ours. If you believe they should, why?

In the progress of one's life, one often modifies one's core beliefs as a matter of course. If your beliefs no longer correspond to your fundamentalist roots, it seems your beliefs have changed as well. Should they have? If you think the modifications you've made to your own core beliefs well-advised, then you've come partway towards supplying an answer to your own question. Also, you're probably aware of aspects of the other religious perspectives you personally reject, and you would know why you reject these.

In addition, I see no reason why a proponent of some other set of beliefs could not be enriched by exposure to my own, and vice-versa, even if one did not "change systems." This, too, often happens. There's a uniqueness in all traditions, such that an exchange of ideas can become fruitful. Traditions and systems of beliefs have strengths and weaknesses, elements of focus and blindness, insight and opacity; they sometimes inform one another---even if they do not subsume one another.

I guess I approach your question more from a standpoint of what actually happens among people and their faith, convictions, knowledge, etc. As folks proceed through life, they encounter ideas; their ideas can become modified, and they often are modified. The results of this process can be evaluated as good, bad, or neutral---depending upon one's point of view. Accordingly, people try to persuade one another of the superiority of their own viewpoint. This is all very natural, and the reasons for it seem self-evident.

[seer]

The "context" of Hebrews 11 is about how various people were justified by faith; in so doing the "definition" of faith is established. That you do not recognize it as such is irrelevant... it is my definition is it not? To insinuate I am dishonest is egregious; I am honest to a fault.

Fine, use your own definition. Hebrews 11 is not about justification it is about the faith's object (God) and His promises. Example:

"And without faith it is impossible to please him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him."

So I doubt if the writer had your nebulas definition of faith in mind...

"Certainly, God exists; this is in harmony with our belief system. One of the facts about God is He cannot be sensed by hearing, sight, touch, smell, or taste. The only "sense" left, if it can be called one, by which God can be experienced is intuition (it has other names as well). Therefore, a belief in God is by faith. Others have faith God does not exist (notably for the same reasons we believe He does exist). Do you understand my point now?"

First, why can't God be sensed by hearing or sight for instance?

Second, then who is correct? The one that believes that God exists or the one that doesn't? Both can not be true...

[Sparko]

Try using the negative of the statement:"There is a God because I desire that there be one."It might look something like:"There is not a God because I desire that there not be one."Inserting your "definition" yields:"There is a God because I trust that there be (is) one."The negative might look something like:"There is not a God because I trust that there not be (is not) one."Both pairs read enough alike to say there is no difference between our "definitions."

If you would bother to read my other posts (in this thread) it would not be necessary for me to repeat myself.

Talk about STRAWMEN! :strawman:

Farris, Seer never said anything about God existing because he trusts there is one.

Come on guy!

Seer said faith was trust, never anything about faith having to do with God's existence, that was all you.

Faith is TRUST.

Faith that God exists is not the same thing that God exists because of faith.

I, like Seer, trust that God is real, and that Jesus will stand up for me on the last day. I trust (have faith, beleive) that Jesus will do what he said he will do, and save me and all those that belong to him. That is TRUST and FAITH. It has nothing to do with whether God is real or not. He either exists or doesn't independent on whether I am have trust or faith. If I have faith that he exists and he does not, then my faith is misplaced.

Sure we COULD be wrong about Christianity. But, we have TRUST that the bible is true and we have TRUST that God sent Jesus and we put our TRUST in Christ as our savior.

Now you can substitute the word FAITH for the word TRUST above and you will have the same meaning. You can't subsitute DESIRE or WANT into the sentence and come away with the same meaning. DESIRE and WANT would just be wishful thinking and not FAITH.

[VFarris01]

My POV is fully exposed if one is willing to open their eyes.I'm beginning to piece it together, however imperfectly.I knew you would.

Why should one belief system be greater than another?That question seems to require evaluative criteria for what constitutes "greatness," as well as a specific philosophical stance on truth.Exactly! Who is any one of us to criticize someone else's beliefs simply because they conflict with our own, especially in an area that can only be examined (analyzed) philosophically. I was obviously correct in my initial analysis if you ("I knew you would.").

Early Christianity was probably as diverse (more so according to Ehrman) then as it is now... I fail to see your point.My point surrounds the phenomena of relativisation and definition. What is called "diversity" from one quarter might be styled "difference" by another. Whether one defines "gnosticism" as a variety of christianity or as something outside christianity will of course depend upon where and why one draws one's definitional lines. And the dialectics of history are always critiqued via the prejudices of the onlooker. If this is true of the period and peoples under examination, it is no less true of the scholars who practice history today---of those who examine the relics and traces of the past. Ehrman has a set of assumptions---as do you and I---and the assumptions we hold indeed have a faith-component, but they also transcend faith. (I know you're aware of these things.)Does not "diversity" imply a certain amount of "difference?"

Faith, cannot be proven.I suppose that depends upon what one means by "faith" and "proof." But I think I understand what you mean.I sincerely believe you do understand. An analogy might be, "Prove God exists without relying on an appeal to faith."

I fail to see that of which I am supposed to be so "confident."Well, strength of assertion seems to imply confidence, at least on some level, and bold rejection of viewpoints contrary to one's own also implies something of the sort. The root of "faith" is part of the word "confidence," after all....I agree... but I cannot, do not, and will not reject another's belief system simply because it conflicts with my own.

I am saying our individual belief systems are irrelevant. The abiding tie is the faith we have in our belief system. Wrong and right are irrelevant to our faith.I think what you call "our belief systems" become relevant in that our "faiths" are tied to them in some fashion.Absolutely! Duh.

For instance, can one have "faith" without an object? I suppose that faith could exist on entirely subjective grounds, as pure experience, yet it always is associated with some object, content, mind state, or thought process---even among mystics of the most apophatic variety.Usually. I do not believe God can be experienced by our senses... for instance, if we could "see" or "touch" the "person" of God faith would be unnecessary... but even then we would still need a certain amout of "faith" to believe what we see and touch is God.

Even your quote above spells out that we have "faith," properly speaking, "in our belief system." So, while faith is indeed a commonality across the spectra of human belief systems, or "the abiding tie," as you put it, the specific system of beliefs itself which comprises faith's object for an individual or community also must be taken into account. And, depending upon what the precise system of belief in question entails, right and wrong may indeed become relevant. Perhaps to you, they are not---in keeping with the beliefs you hold; but to another whose beliefs are contrary to your own, right and wrong may well become pertinent.

Further, "right and wrong" have ethical connotations and involve notions of truth and falsity, along with expediency. If the latter is stressed, it could be said that such pragmatic categories as usefulness, acceptance, and rejection may well come to the fore. You yourself have rejected and affirmed aspects of other belief systems, as do we all. I don't see how these things can be consigned to the dustbin altogether, and I don't see how faith can exist in a cognitive vacuum such that the particulars of one's specific belief system can be legitimately branded "irrelevant."

When you say that these matters are irrelevant, It is probably because that proposition itself (that they are irrelevant) is a constituent part of your own belief system. Other belief systems might entail the relevancy of such things, contrary to your own. If so, those contrary belief systems would define "faith" differently---and consequently evaluate it differently. That being the case, you have a ready example of why one might reject or accept other belief systems (or parts thereof) contrary to one's own. The belief that right and wrong are irrelevant to faith is itself part of your personal belief system and therefore an object of faith, yet it can be evaluated on its own cognitive merits, then accepted or rejected. If I were to incorporate this proposition into my own belief system, my belief system would then change accordingly. If you are arguing on behalf of this proposition, you are presenting me precisely with reasons to change my belief system in favor of your own, aren't you???Are we obligated to change a system of belief (or a part thereof) or one's opinion about that system? Is our "obligation" to change by our rule or someone else's?

Really, it is an enlightening book... A person of your obviously high intellect would like it... and learn from it.I have read some of Ehrman's work, and I've heard him speak as well. The subjects with which he deals are of continuing importance to me. I end up reading lots of diverse stuff these days, but I've been meaning to give him more sustained attention. On your recommendation, I'll do that soon.You sound a lot like me.

Would it make them any less Christian. I reject the RCC's perversion of the Gospel; does the sincerity of their faith matter, I mean, are they less "Christian?" I do not believe so. The RC belief system conflicts with mine... is mine right? Is their's right? Is yours right? The common entity among them all is faith.If there were no "belief systems," could there still be faith?I doubt it. Even atheism is a "belief system."

Fine... My background is the dreaded "Fundamentalist Christian" but my views are not necessarily as such; you? It still does not matter to the subject at hand.My background was a bit of a hodge-podge; growing up, my mother was a non-practicing christian, and my father was a staunch agnostic who submitted every religious claim to rigorous sceptical examination. And while I always had a subjective experience of God, I found the attitudes of my parents inapplicable in some ways and applicable in others. My formative years fashioned a mindset in me which still exerts its influences upon how I process information and how I make evaluations, certainly. So, yes, I'd say my specific background, as well as one's background, generally speaking, matters to the subject at hand---even if that subject happens to be some kind of "faith" OR gnosis.Your "history" is not as general as mine but very informative. You appear to be an observer and evaluator... me too.

Why should we reject the beliefs of the Gnostics (or any religious group) in favor of our own individual (or collective) belief system?I think the fact is that we often do reject, accept, and engage with features of other belief systems, and that, especially today, belief systems aren't so cut and dry. Many times, people's "systems of belief" are fashioned as hybrids rather than being accepted passively as some kind of systematic totality. As such, belief systems are fluid and potentially subject to change---rather than static and fixed such that they admit of no questioning. We reject facets of other "systems" all the time, in practice. We often engage with a plurality of beliefs, and we find ourselves making judgments of some sort; it's unavoidable in our world, IMHO.I totally agree... I would not have it any other way.

I do not believe a Gnostic, Hindu, or Buddhist has any reason to reject his/her belief system in favor of one of ours. If you believe they should, why?In the progress of one's life, one often modifies one's core beliefs as a matter of course. If your beliefs no longer correspond to your fundamentalist roots, it seems your beliefs have changed as well. Should they have? If you think the modifications you've made to your own core beliefs well-advised, then you've come partway towards supplying an answer to your own question. Also, you're probably aware of aspects of the other religious perspectives you personally reject, and you would know why you reject these.

In addition, I see no reason why a proponent of some other set of beliefs could not be enriched by exposure to my own, and vice-versa, even if one did not "change systems." This, too, often happens. There's a uniqueness in all traditions, such that an exchange of ideas can become fruitful. Traditions and systems of beliefs have strengths and weaknesses, elements of focus and blindness, insight and opacity; they sometimes inform one another---even if they do not subsume one another.

I guess I approach your question more from a standpoint of what actually happens among people and their faith, convictions, knowledge, etc. As folks proceed through life, they encounter ideas; their ideas can become modified, and they often are modified. The results of this process can be evaluated as good, bad, or neutral---depending upon one's point of view. Accordingly, people try to persuade one another of the superiority of their own viewpoint. This is all very natural, and the reasons for it seem self-evident.I DO NOT disagree with any of the evaluations you have expressed above... In fact, I wish I had said it first. Well done!

[VFarris01]

The "context" of Hebrews 11 is about how various people were justified by faith; in so doing the "definition" of faith is established. That you do not recognize it as such is irrelevant... it is my definition is it not? To insinuate I am dishonest is egregious; I am honest to a fault.Fine, use your own definition. Hebrews 11 is not about justification it is about the faith's object (God) and His promises. Example:

"And without faith it is impossible to please him. For whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him."

So I doubt if the writer had your nebulas definition of faith in mind...So, let me get this straight; according to you, when a passage says an abstract concept (in this case, faith) is something (that is, given a definition) it suddenly becomes not that something (the given definition) because you disagree with the definition?

(1) Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. (2)This is what the ancients were commended for (by God, VF).

Please note; this verse says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about God. Faith is not limited to a belief in God.

V6 is a statement of fact about the relationship between faith and God not the a definition of "faith."

Please be a dear and look up the definition of "hope." If "desire" does not appear in the definition... you "win."

"Certainly, God exists; this is in harmony with our belief system. One of the facts about God is He cannot be sensed by hearing, sight, touch, smell, or taste. The only "sense" left, if it can be called one, by which God can be experienced is intuition (it has other names as well). Therefore, a belief in God is by faith. Others have faith God does not exist (notably for the same reasons we believe He does exist). Do you understand my point now?"[quote=seer]First, why can't God be sensed by hearing or sight for instance?When was the last time you physically heard and saw God? If you tell me this has actually happened to you at any time you are, with out doubt, in need of the services of a mental health professional.

Second, then who is correct? The one that believes that God exists or the one that doesn't? Both can not be true...Why does it matter?

[VFarris01]

Try using the negative of the statement:"There is a God because I desire that there be one."It might look something like:"There is not a God because I desire that there not be one."Inserting your "definition" yields:"There is a God because I trust that there be (is) one."The negative might look something like:"There is not a God because I trust that there not be (is not) one."Both pairs read enough alike to say there is no difference between our "definitions."

If you would bother to read my other posts (in this thread) it would not be necessary for me to repeat myself.

Talk about STRAWMEN!What strawman. All I was doing was making a comparison of seer's and my chosen words.

Perhaps you need a refresher on the definition of the "strawman fallacy." You can find it here (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/straw.htm).

Farris, Seer never said anything about God existing because he trusts there is one.

Come on guy!

Seer said faith was trust, never anything about faith having to do with God's existence, that was all you.

So, are you saying the word (trust) does not fit the definition of faith? I trust you are wrong.

Faith is TRUST.Yes and "faith" is hope (hope=desire, look it up) too.

Faith that God exists is not the same thing that God exists because of faith.I do not recall saying it did, that was all you.

I, like Seer, trust that God is real, and that Jesus will stand up for me on the last day.Hummmm, that is not what you said earlier...

"... Seer never said anything about God existing because he trusts there is one."

You "trust that God is real" and you do not "trust(s) there is one."

Which is it man?! Can you not make up your mind?

I trust (have faith, beleive) that Jesus will do what he said he will do, and save me and all those that belong to him. That is TRUST and FAITH. It has nothing to do with whether God is real or not. He either exists or doesn't independent on whether I am have trust or faith. If I have faith that he exists and he does not, then my faith is misplaced.You mean you do not hope your faith is not misplaced?

Sure we COULD be wrong about Christianity. But, we have TRUST that the bible is true and we have TRUST that God sent Jesus and we put our TRUST in Christ as our savior.If only the definition of "faith" was limited to one word you would have a clear point here.

Now you can substitute the word FAITH for the word TRUST above and you will have the same meaning. You can't subsitute DESIRE or WANT into the sentence and come away with the same meaning. DESIRE and WANT would just be wishful thinking and not FAITH.According to you... Paul says differently...

(1) Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. (2)This is what the ancients were commended for (by God, VF).

Substitute "desire" for "hope" and the verse has EXACTLY the same meaning.

"Now faith is being sure of what we desire and certain of what we do not see."

What was the definition of "hope" again?

[Sparko]

What strawman. All I was doing was making a comparison of seer's and my chosen words.

Perhaps you need a refresher on the definition of the "strawman fallacy." You can find it here (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/straw.htm).

I know what it is.


Yes and "faith" is hope (hope=desire, look it up) too.

I do not recall saying it did, that was all you.

Hummmm, that is not what you said earlier...

"... Seer never said anything about God existing because he trusts there is one."

You "trust that God is real" and you do not "trust(s) there is one."

Which is it man?! Can you not make up your mind?

Can't you even read? I guess not. no wonder we are not getting anywhere with you in this thread. I never saw so many misreadings of what I said in one place before since I was in a thread with zipperhead..

Trusting that God is real is what faith is about. It has nothing to do with MAKING God real. God either exists or he doesn't. My faith is either well placed or misplaced. Your earlier sentence made it sound as if faith was the REASON God existed.

You said: I have faith that God exists, therefore God exists.

Where do you get that "therefore" crap? That is just wrong.


You can say "I have faith that God exists, therefore I am a Christian"

or "I have faith God exists, therefore I trust in God for my salvation"

But you can never say "I have faith God exists, THEREFORE GOD EXISTS"

that is just illogical and assinine.

[VFarris01]

What strawman. All I was doing was making a comparison of seer's and my chosen words.

Perhaps you need a refresher on the definition of the "strawman fallacy." You can find it here (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/straw.htm).I know what it is.If you "know what it is," why did you call my comparison of terms a strawman? At best my post was a "false analogy (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/falsean.htm)" (which it was not).

Yes and "faith" is hope (hope=desire, look it up) too.

I do not recall saying it did, that was all you.

Hummmm, that is not what you said earlier...

"... Seer never said anything about God existing because he trusts there is one."

You "trust that God is real" and you do not "trust(s) there is one."

Which is it man?! Can you not make up your mind?Can't you even read? I guess not. no wonder we are not getting anywhere with you in this thread. I never saw so many misreadings of what I said in one place before since I was in a thread with zipperhead..How could I have misread:

"I... trust that God is real...and...

"... Seer never said... God exist(s)ing because he trusts there is one."These are DIRECT QUOTES.

How can you "trust that God is real" and at the same time not "trust(s) there is one."

Trusting that God is real is what faith is about.Faith is not necessarily about God.

It has nothing to do with MAKING God real.I never said it did.

God either exists or he doesn't.Can something exist that has no substance? God is the only thing that exists and does not exist at the same time.

My faith is either well placed or misplaced. Your earlier sentence made it sound as if faith was the REASON God existed.My "statement" may have "sounded" that way to you but it is not what I said (meant).

You said: I have faith that God exists, therefore God exists.Absoulutely! If I have faith God exists, then, for me, He does exist. If I have faith God does not exist, then, for me, He does not exist. Is it really that hard to understand?

Where do you get that "therefore" crap? That is just wrong.Logic is something you are still coming to terms with; yes?

You can say "I have faith that God exists, therefore I am a Christian"

or "I have faith God exists, therefore I trust in God for my salvation"

But you can never say "I have faith God exists, THEREFORE GOD EXISTS"

that is just illogical and assinine.Dude, faith is not logical.

[Sparko]

If you "know what it is," why did you call my comparison of terms a strawman? At best my post was a "false analogy (http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/falsean.htm)" (which it was not).

How could I have misread:

and...

These are DIRECT QUOTES.

How can you "trust that God is real" and at the same time not "trust(s) there is one."

1. You twisted Seers words in your analogy to say "I trust God exists, therefore he exists"

2. I pointed out that NO, Seer never said that. That was all you. Seer never claimed that God exists because he trusts that God exists.

3. I said that Seer and I trust that God exists.

4. Trusting that God exists is NOT the same thing as God existing because I trust he exists.

That is what I said and that is what you can't read. Maybe you can understand better now?



Absoulutely! If I have faith God exists, then, for me, He does exist. If I have faith God does not exist, then, for me, He does not exist. Is it really that hard to understand?

not hard to understand but just plain wrong. You can claim "I have faith that germs do not exist, therefore for me germs do not exist" But that will not stop some germs from infecting you and you catching a disease and dying, will it?

You can say "I have faith that God does not exist, therfore he does not exist for me" but that has no effect on the reality of whether God actually does exist or not. God's existance has objective reality apart from anyone's hope, desire, faith, etc.

That is where you go wrong VFarris. You try to equate faith with CAUSING objective reality. Faith does not create reality dude. no matter how hard you want it to.

Good faith REFLECTS reality. Bad faith does not.



Logic is something you are still coming to terms with; yes?

No. I think logic is something that you have no clue about.

:sherlock:

Dude, faith is not logical.

That is a very illogical statement. True and Good Faith is about believing because of EVIDENCE. sure you can blindly believe whatever you want and that would be illogical (or actually just stupid) but believing in Christ and the bible IS very logical. Our faith is based in eye witness testimony, prophesies that came true, books revealed by God and personal experience. It is very logical and rational.


Can something exist that has no substance? God is the only thing that exists and does not exist at the same time.

1. God does have substance. He is Spirit.

2. Love exists. It has no substance.

3. Nothing can both exist and not exist. That goes against the very BASIC laws of logic. The law of noncontradiction.

Maybe you are the one who needs to go study an introductory course in logic, Vfarris, because so far your reasoning in your posts is a complete mess.

[VFarris01]

1. You twisted Seers words in your analogy to say "I trust God exists, therefore he exists"

2. I pointed out that NO, Seer never said that. That was all you. Seer never claimed that God exists because he trusts that God exists.

3. I said that Seer and I trust that God exists.

4. Trusting that God exists is NOT the same thing as God existing because I trust he exists.

That is what I said and that is what you can't read. Maybe you can understand better now?

not hard to understand but just plain wrong. You can claim "I have faith that germs do not exist, therefore for me germs do not exist" But that will not stop some germs from infecting you and you catching a disease and dying, will it?

You can say "I have faith that God does not exist, therfore he does not exist for me" but that has no effect on the reality of whether God actually does exist or not. God's existance has objective reality apart from anyone's hope, desire, faith, etc.

That is where you go wrong VFarris. You try to equate faith with CAUSING objective reality. Faith does not create reality dude. no matter how hard you want it to.

Good faith REFLECTS reality. Bad faith does not.

No. I think logic is something that you have no clue about.

That is a very illogical statement. True and Good Faith is about believing because of EVIDENCE. sure you can blindly believe whatever you want and that would be illogical (or actually just stupid) but believing in Christ and the bible IS very logical. Our faith is based in eye witness testimony, prophesies that came true, books revealed by God and personal experience. It is very logical and rational.It seems you are arguing for the sake of arguing... we are done here.

[VFarris01]

It seems you are arguing for the sake of arguing... we are done here.It is more than obvious Sparko is arguing to argue. He continues to misrepresent what I have said, even after being corrected; the reason for which is unclear. Perhaps seer would comment on "the Spark has died's" comments on my comments of his comments (say that fast 5 times, lol).

Faith is about believing because of EVIDENCE. sure you can blindly believe whatever you want and that would be illogical (or actually just stupid) but believing in Christ and the bible IS very logical. Our faith is based in eye witness testimony, prophesies that came true, books revealed by God and personal experience. It is very logical and rational.Faith, my friends, is not about "evidence." Faith is believing something in spite of and/or without evidence. Would Sparko believe in God if the "evidence" was overwhelmingly in favor of NO God? I would sincerely hope (there is that word again) he would. Comments (anyone except Sparko)?

[John from Ebla]

It is more than obvious Sparko is arguing to argue. He continues to misrepresent what I have said, even after being corrected; the reason for which is unclear. Perhaps seer would comment on "the Spark has died's" comments on my comments of his comments (say that fast 5 times, lol).

Faith, my friends, is not about "evidence." Faith is believing something in spite of and/or without evidence. Would Sparko believe in God if the "evidence" was overwhelmingly in favor of NO God? I would sincerely hope (there is that word again) he would. Comments (anyone except Sparko)?


How can people have faith in something they don't hear or know about- l came to have faith by hearing the gospel. What evidence do l have about the gospel l hear? The bible and what it say's. :smile:

Kind Regards
John From Ebla

[VFarris01]

Faith, my friends, is not about "evidence." Faith is believing something in spite of and/or without evidence. Would Sparko believe in God if the "evidence" was overwhelmingly in favor of NO God? I would sincerely hope (there is that word again) he would. Comments (anyone except Sparko)?How can people have faith in something they don't hear or know about- l came to have faith by hearing the gospel. What evidence do l have about the gospel l hear? The bible and what it say's. :smile: Do not get too literal here John. I am going to assume we have read the Bible and have examined the "evidence" (if it should be called evidence) found within.

Let us look at the definition of "faith" Paul gave us in Hebrews again...

(1) Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

(1) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

1. Give me the direct evidence you have of God... in other words, show me what I (you/we) cannot see.

2. Explain how the Bible is evidence of God.

3. If the Bible is overwhelming evidence of God, what is the necessity of faith?

[seer]

1. Give me the direct evidence you have of God... in other words, show me what I (you/we) cannot see.

2. Explain how the Bible is evidence of God.

3. If the Bible is overwhelming evidence of God, what is the necessity of faith?

Again VF, faith is not a "leap in the dark" it is trust based evidence. Yes, I trust that the biblical writers did not lie concerning the teachings and resurrection of Christ. So I take their works at fact value.

Is that trust misplaced? It's possible, but I have faith in "something." Not nothing...

[John from Ebla]

Do not get too literal here John. I am going to assume we have read the Bible and have examined the "evidence" (if it should be called evidence) found within.

Let us look at the definition of "faith" Paul gave us in Hebrews again...

(1) Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

(1) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

1. Give me the direct evidence you have of God... in other words, show me what I (you/we) cannot see.

2. Explain how the Bible is evidence of God.

3. If the Bible is overwhelming evidence of God, what is the necessity of faith?


Gee, Seers already gave my response. :smile:

Just to clarify, l was talking about the faith in the gospel l heard. If l was not informed of it, l would not have know- my faith in Jesus comes from hearing and reading the bible.

Jesus said to Thomas " you have seen and believed, but blessed are those that have not seen me and believe. John 20:29 My faith in Jesus in based on what l heard and read. It is this faith that saves.

Hew11:1 Is true. We have not seen Jesus and we still await, the blessed hope of what was promised- but if l have never not heard of it- how would have believed it- have faith in it.

You have to be informed about something to have faith in it. Does every Tom, Dick and Harry understand the chemistry of evolution? No! they are informed about this and that and they beleive it.

Kind regards
JFE

[Sparko]

First VFarris says "I have faith that God exists, therefore God exists" and goes further and says "If I have faith God exists, then, for me, He does exist. If I have faith God does not exist, then, for me, He does not exist. Is it really that hard to understand?"


Then he says "Can something exist that has no substance? God is the only thing that exists and does not exist at the same time."

And more recently:

"Faith is believing something in spite of and/or without evidence."

and he has the gall to say to me: "Logic is something you are still coming to terms with; yes?"


and finally he accused me of misrepresenting him:
"He continues to misrepresent what I have said, even after being corrected;" When I have given direct quotes.


What a load of horse pucky! :horsepucky:


If Faith is something you believe in despite evidence then I suppose you believe in flying monkeys that come out of your butt, pink unicorns that live in your refrigerator, alien midgets who are monty python fans and run around saying "Nih!" and in Santa Clause?

Faith is believing in things BECAUSE there is evidence for it. There may not be absolute proof like a video tape of Christ's resurrection, but the evidence is overwhelming in favor of the bible being true. If it were not I would not believe it. Neither would you.

Why don't you believe in Hinduism, VFarris? Or in the Roman or Greek Pantheon of Gods? If Faith is believing despite evidence then LOGICALLY, you should believe in the least likely things because they have the least evidence for them.

The bible is full of evidences and eye witness accounts that convince people to believe BECAUSE of the Evidence and not in spite of it.

2 Peter 1:16 We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty.

Acts 26:24At this point Festus interrupted Paul's defense. "You are out of your mind, Paul!" he shouted. "Your great learning is driving you insane." 25"I am not insane, most excellent Festus," Paul replied. "What I am saying is true and reasonable. 26The king is familiar with these things, and I can speak freely to him. I am convinced that none of this has escaped his notice, because it was not done in a corner.

Acts 10:39"We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem. They killed him by hanging him on a tree, 40but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen. 41He was not seen by all the people, but by witnesses whom God had already chosen—by us who ate and drank with him after he rose from the dead.

The bible goes to a lot of trouble to provide evidence and witnesses if faith is supposed to be based on NO evidence.


You just keep digging yourself into that hole of illogic deeper and deeper.

[VFarris01]

I believe, gentlepeople (for I will not assume your "maleness") we must take a look at the definition of "faith."

faith (from here (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith))
n. 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
Idiom: in faith Indeed; truly.

be·lief (from here (http://http://www.thefreedictionary.com/belief))
n. 1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

trust (from here (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/trust))
n. 1. Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing.
2. Custody; care.
3. Something committed into the care of another; charge.
4. a. The condition and resulting obligation of having confidence placed in one: violated a public trust.
b. One in which confidence is placed.
5. Reliance on something in the future; hope.
6. Reliance on the intention and ability of a purchaser to pay in the future; credit.
7. Law a. A legal title to property held by one party for the benefit of another.
b. The confidence reposed in a trustee when giving the trustee legal title to property to administer for another, together with the trustee's obligation regarding that property and the beneficiary.
c. The property so held.
8. A combination of firms or corporations for the purpose of reducing competition and controlling prices throughout a business or an industry.
v. trust·ed, trust·ing, trusts
v.intr. 1. To have or place reliance; depend: Trust in the Lord. Trust to destiny.
2. To be confident; hope.
3. To sell on credit.
v.tr. 1. To have or place confidence in; depend on.
2. To expect with assurance; assume: I trust that you will be on time.
3. To believe: I trust what you say.
4. To place in the care of another; entrust.
5. To grant discretion to confidently: Can I trust them with the boat?
6. To extend credit to.
Idiom: in trust In the possession or care of a trustee.

1. Give me the direct evidence you have of God... in other words, show me what I (you/we) cannot see.

2. Explain how the Bible is evidence of God.

3. If the Bible is overwhelming evidence of God, what is the necessity of faith?

Again VF, faith is not a "leap in the dark" it is trust based evidence.Is it? Does not faith depend on how dark it is before the precipice and the length of the leap across?

Yes, I trust that the biblical writers did not lie concerning the teachings and resurrection of Christ. So I take their works at fact value.So, basically, you are taking their say-so as "proof;" yes (see "faith," definition 2). The Bible, dispite your desire for it to be so, is not material evidence nor is it logical proof.

Is that trust misplaced? It's possible, but I have faith in "something." Not nothing...Exactly how much "material evidence" is there in someone's say-so?

Do not get too literal here John. I am going to assume we have read the Bible and have examined the "evidence" (if it should be called evidence) found within.

Let us look at the definition of "faith" Paul gave us in Hebrews again...

(1) Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

(1) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

1. Give me the direct evidence you have of God... in other words, show me what I (you/we) cannot see.

2. Explain how the Bible is evidence of God.

3. If the Bible is overwhelming evidence of God, what is the necessity of faith?Gee, Seers already gave my response. :smile: That is nice.

Just to clarify, l was talking about the faith in the gospel l heard. If l was not informed of it, l would not have know- my faith in Jesus comes from hearing and reading the bible.Absolutely, this is where mine is from as well (see "faith," definition 1). Now, how do you make it past definition 2?

Jesus said to Thomas " you have seen and believed, but blessed are those that have not seen me and believe. John 20:29 My faith in Jesus in based on what l heard and read. It is this faith that saves.You are almost there... your "problem," as I see it, is you are using "faith" (definition 2, "not seen me and believe") then attempting to provide the "Star Wars" trilogy (the Bible) as material evidence; it does not and cannot work that way. The Bible is not material evidence of Jesus; Jesus is the material evidence of Jesus.

Hew11:1 Is true. We have not seen Jesus and we still await, the blessed hope of what was promised- but if l have never not heard of it- how would have believed it- have faith in it. Hearing is fine... the problem you have remaining is your lack of material evidence.

You have to be informed about something to have faith in it.Correct here is, "You have to be informed about something before you can have faith in it.

Does every Tom, Dick and Harry understand the chemistry of evolution? No! they are informed about this and that and they beleive it.Information is not material evidence; that is why it is so hard for a prosecutor to get a conviction based on hearsay (someone's say-so) "evidence."

[Sparko]

I believe, gentlepeople (for I will not assume your "maleness") we must take a look at the definition of "faith."

faith (from here (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith))
n. 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.


1. This definition says that Faith can be a synonym for TRUST.

2. You can't have confident belief without evidence.

3. Some faith does NOT rely on logical proof or material evidence, but that doesn't mean that it CAN'T or shouldn't. That just means that some faith is weak and has no evidence.

Christianity is not such a religion. It does have evidence and logical proofs.


Easton's Bible Dictionary says this about faith:
(public domain)
Faith - Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true (Phil. 1:27; 2 Thess. 2:13). Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests.

Faith is the result of teaching (Rom. 10:14-17). Knowledge is an essential element in all faith, and is sometimes spoken of as an equivalent to faith (John 10:38; 1 John 2:3). Yet the two are distinguished in this respect, that faith includes in it assent, which is an act of the will in addition to the act of the understanding. Assent to the truth is of the essence of faith, and the ultimate ground on which our assent to any revealed truth rests is the veracity of God.

Historical faith is the apprehension of and assent to certain statements which are regarded as mere facts of history.

more at: http://www.ccel.org/e/easton/ebd/ebd/T0001300.html#T0001302

[VFarris01]

You CONTINUE to argue for the sake of arguing... Why?

First VFarris says "I have faith that God exists, therefore God exists" and goes further and says "If I have faith God exists, then, for me, He does exist. If I have faith God does not exist, then, for me, He does not exist. Is it really that hard to understand?"

Then he says "Can something exist that has no substance? God is the only thing that exists and does not exist at the same time."

And more recently:

"Faith is believing something in spite of and/or without evidence."

and he has the gall to say to me: "Logic is something you are still coming to terms with; yes?"

and finally he accused me of misrepresenting him:

"He continues to misrepresent what I have said, even after being corrected;" When I have given direct quotes.

What a load of horse pucky!Please, by all means, disprove any of these statements of mine; I stand by each and every one of them… so far, all you have done is affirm them.

If Faith is something you believe in despite evidence then I suppose you believe in flying monkeys that come out of your butt, pink unicorns that live in your refrigerator, alien midgets who are monty python fans and run around saying "Nih!" and in Santa Clause?Here we have a classic case of the “Strawman Fallacy.”

Pretty much all of us, at one time or the other, believed in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and/or any of a number of mythological creatures. There was/is no evidence for their existence, yet we believed in them anyway; did we not?

If one chooses to “believe in flying monkeys that come out of your butt, pink unicorns that live in your refrigerator, alien midgets who are monty python fans and run around saying "Nih!" and in Santa Clause” there is nothing to stop them.

If someone has faith in something and chooses to believe in it, no matter how illogical and/or unreasonable in our opinion it may be, for them, the thing is a “reality.” Faith is not "logical," but it is faith.

Faith is believing in things BECAUSE there is evidence for it. There may not be absolute proof like a video tape of Christ's resurrection, but the evidence is overwhelming in favor of the bible being true. If it were not I would not believe it. Neither would you.What “overwhelming” material evidence is there for the Bible being true? I choose to believe the Bible is true, not because of “overwhelming evidence, but because I have faith it is true. I desire for the Bible to be true, therefore, for me, it is true.

Why don't you believe in Hinduism, VFarris? Or in the Roman or Greek Pantheon of Gods? If Faith is believing despite evidence then LOGICALLY, you should believe in the least likely things because they have the least evidence for them.The Strawman Fallacy, Act II.

Sorry, it does not “logically” follow. (Logic is something you are still coming to terms with I see.) There are millions of people who believe in Hinduism, not due to a lack of faith, but because there is a lack of evidence for them not to. I make a choice not to believe in Hinduism or Greco/Roman gods; how about you?

The bible is full of evidences and eye witness accounts that convince people to believe BECAUSE of the Evidence and not in spite of it.The Bible contains no material evidence.

It DOES contain accounts said to be made by eye-witnesses. Your (our) trust in these “eye-witnesses” is a testament to your (our) faith. Eye-witness testamony is not “logical proof” nor is it “material evidence;” it is entirely dependent on the “trust” (faith) a person gives the statement as being true.

<snip> The bible goes to a lot of trouble to provide evidence and witnesses if faith is supposed to be based on NO evidence.The Bible does indeed "go to a lot of trouble" but it is not evidence no matter how much you (we) would like for it to be.

You just keep digging yourself into that hole of illogic deeper and deeper. You just keep digging yourself into that hole of illogic deeper and deeper.

I believe, gentlepeople (for I will not assume your "maleness") we must take a look at the definition of "faith."

faith (from here (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith))
n. 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.1. This definition says that Faith can be a synonym for TRUST.So? I never said/say now/or will say faith does not entail trust. However, and I am pleased (suprised?) you included, Faith is a...

"belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."

Because you trust someone/something does not mean logical proof or material evidence exists; the person you "trust" could be lying, yes? We cannot very well include your insistence faith is synonomous with trust without using the ENTIRITY of definition 2 now can we?

2. You can't have confident belief without evidence.Material evidence for something negates the need for faith.

If someone says to you, "I have a quarter in my pocket;" for you to believe them is a function of the "trust" you have in that the person is telling you the truth, aka, "faith."

If they take the quarter from their pocket and show it to you, this is "material evidence;" faith is no longer necessary.

3. Some faith does NOT rely on logical proof or material evidence, but that doesn't mean that it CAN'T or shouldn't. That just means that some faith is weak and has no evidence.Thank you very much for this admission. However, did you not say earlier,

"Faith is believing in things BECAUSE there is evidence for it." ?

Do you have one particular line of reasoning with which you would like stick or do you not?

Christianity is not such a religion. It does have evidence and logical proofs.Special Pleading.

The only evidence for God is our belief/faith He exists.

Despite your insistence, the Bible is not evidence; the Bible is hearsay.

[seer]

So, basically, you are taking their say-so as "proof;" yes (see "faith," definition 2). The Bible, dispite your desire for it to be so, is not material evidence nor is it logical proof.

So did the New Testament writers lie? You do have any evidence that they did?

Exactly how much "material evidence" is there in someone's say-so?

Just about everything I know about history is based on "say so." I did not see or experience the Holocaust but I believe that it happened. Is my belief unfounded VF?

[VFarris01]

Hi seer, glad to see you...

So, basically, you are taking their say-so as "proof;" yes (see "faith," definition 2). The Bible, dispite your desire for it to be so, is not material evidence nor is it logical proof.So did the New Testament writers lie?I choose not to believe they lied; ie, I have faith they are telling the truth.

You do have any evidence that they (the writers of the NT, VF) did (lied, VF)?Do you think that if I had evidence the writers of the Bible lied I would still believe it? Would you?

Exactly how much "material evidence" is there in someone's say-so?Just about everything I know about history is based on "say so." I did not see or experience the Holocaust but I believe that it happened.
Is my belief unfounded VF?What you choose to believe about anything is a question only you can answer. Do you "trust" your history books? Fortunately, we have more than "simple" eye-witness testamony of the European Holocaust (the Jews were not the only ones to suffer). Do you consider the pictures and movies of the "death camps" material evidence (I do)?

I very much appreciate your (very) reasonable participation; thank you.

[Sparko]

You CONTINUE to argue for the sake of arguing... Why?

Huh? is this your way to say you have no answer to the accusation that you have NO IDEA what biblical faith is?

Please, by all means, disprove any of these statements of mine; I stand by each and every one of them… so far, all you have done is affirm them.


disprove an illogical statement. Dude, they disprove themselves.

God is the only thing that both exists and doesnt exist

The basic law of non contradiction says that A cannot be equal to NOT-A. You can't both exist and not exist. God can't, nothing can.

Proof.

I have faith in God therefore God exists.
Again, false on the face of it. I can come up with alternate examples that clearly show you wrong.

If I Don't have faith in God while you do, then does God exist or not?

Again, the law of noncontradiction says that he cannot both exist and not exist. God either is real and exists or he doesn't and what you or I think has no effect on the matter.




Here we have a classic case of the “Strawman Fallacy.”

Pretty much all of us, at one time or the other, believed in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and/or any of a number of mythological creatures. There was/is no evidence for their existence, yet we believed in them anyway; did we not?

Being able to have faith without evidence is not the same thing as faith REQUIRING there be no evidence or actually requiring that the evidence be against what you beleive in. Which is what YOU have been claiming. You said Faith is believing in SPITE of the evidence. That means that you only have faith if the evidence is against what you have faith in. For example, if the evidence is that the sky is blue, you would have faith that it was yellow. That would be believing IN SPITE of the evidence.

that is just stupidity, not faith.


If one chooses to “believe in flying monkeys that come out of your butt, pink unicorns that live in your refrigerator, alien midgets who are monty python fans and run around saying "Nih!" and in Santa Clause” there is nothing to stop them.

You are right. People believe stupid things all the time. But biblical faith, which is what you are supposed to be discussing in this thread is not stupidity faith. It is faith based on evidence.


If someone has faith in something and chooses to believe in it, no matter how illogical and/or unreasonable in our opinion it may be, for them, the thing is a “reality.” Faith is not "logical," but it is faith.

NO. Reality is objective. Believing in something does not create reality. If you believe in something that corresponds with reality then you are "right" if you believe in somethign that does not correspond with reality then you are "wrong"

If you don't even understand the concepts of "right" and "wrong" then you need to really hit the books, VFARRIS.

By the way, you are spending an inordinate amount of time in this thread trying to convince us that YOU are right about what Faith it. But according to your own definition, if I have "faith" that faith is dependent on evidence and that good faith corresponds with an objective reality, then I am right. So why are you trying to convince me that I am wrong and that you are right?

The very fact that you are arguing for YOUR view point defeats your whole stance. You LOSE by arguing for your viewpoint.

:lmbo:



What “overwhelming” material evidence is there for the Bible being true? I choose to believe the Bible is true, not because of “overwhelming evidence, but because I have faith it is true. I desire for the Bible to be true, therefore, for me, it is true.



"for me?"

That means nothing. Either something is true or it is not true. Either it corresponds with reality or it does not.

If you stand in the middle of the road and truly believe that Buses do not exist, and claim that they "dont exist for me" - is that going to stop you from getting turned into a flattened bit of jelly when you get run over by that Greyhound? The bus has objective reality apart from what you "believe" or have "faith" in.


Sorry, it does not “logically” follow. (Logic is something you are still coming to terms with I see.) There are millions of people who believe in Hinduism, not due to a lack of faith, but because there is a lack of evidence for them not to. I make a choice not to believe in Hinduism or Greco/Roman gods; how about you?

Why do they beleive? Because they think there is good evidence for their belief. Find me one that says he beleives because there is good evidence AGAINST his faith, and I will show you someone as idiotic as you.



The Bible contains no material evidence.

The bible IS material evidence. So is the Church. That either exist is evidence. Archeology is evidence. We can check on people and events through archeology that support what the bible says. We can read eyewitness accounts of people who saw the events. Those type of witnesses are called "material witnesses" in courts of law.

We have evidence of changed lives of those who become Christian. My father went from an alcoholic to a loving father after he got saved.

We have the evidence of fulfilled prophesies. What was written down long ago in the OT was fulfilled in the NT. We can see the regathering of Israel today as evidence of fulfilled prophesy.

We have the evidence of nature and science. We can see that what is around us did not happen by accident. We know that the entire universe came into existance from nothing, just like the bible says, and the scientists concur.

Evidence is everywhere

[VFarris01]

You CONTINUE to argue for the sake of arguing... Why?Huh? is this your way to say you have no answer to the accusation that you have NO IDEA what biblical faith is?I fully understand what "Biblical" faith is; as I recall, I quoted the Biblical definition. However, I was not under the impression this discussion was exclusively about the Bible; that was you.

I would perfer this to be a discussion, not the one-up-man-ship contest you are attempting to turn it into.

Please, by all means, disprove any of these statements of mine; I stand by each and every one of them… so far, all you have done is affirm them.disprove an illogical statement. Dude, they disprove themselves.Certainly they do when you take the statements out of context; In so doing you create straw.

God is the only thing that both exists and doesnt exist

The basic law of non contradiction says that A cannot be equal to NOT-A. You can't both exist and not exist. God can't, nothing can.

Proof.In context from post 111...

"Can something exist that has no substance? God is the only thing that exists and does not exist at the same time."

In order to disprove this statement you must be able to prove God exists. So far, no one in history has been able to supply this proof.

Certainly it (the statement) is a contradiction, but, is not God the ultimate paradox (contradiction)? Three persons - one being, omnipotent, omnipresent, exists outside of time and space, etc...

I have faith in God therefore God exists.

Again, false on the face of it. I can come up with alternate examples that clearly show you wrong.

If I Don't have faith in God while you do, then does God exist or not?

Again, the law of noncontradiction says that he cannot both exist and not exist. God either is real and exists or he doesn't and what you or I think has no effect on the matter.In context from post 111...

Sparko: You said: I have faith that God exists, therefore God exists.

VF: Absoulutely! If I have faith God exists, then, for me, He does exist. If I have faith God does not exist, then, for me, He does not exist. Is it really that hard to understand?

You "asked" for a clarification... you got one. The statement neither affirms nor denies the existence of God... it is a statement about faith.

Add two more acts to The Strawman Fallacy, a Shakespearian tragedy.

Here we have a classic case of the “Strawman Fallacy.”

Pretty much all of us, at one time or the other, believed in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy, and/or any of a number of mythological creatures. There was/is no evidence for their existence, yet we believed in them anyway; did we not?Being able to have faith without evidence is not the same thing as faith REQUIRING there be no evidence or actually requiring that the evidence be against what you beleive in. Which is what YOU have been claiming. You said Faith is believing in SPITE of the evidence. That means that you only have faith if the evidence is against what you have faith in. For example, if the evidence is that the sky is blue, you would have faith that it was yellow. That would be believing IN SPITE of the evidence.

that is just stupidity, not faith.Yet again you are taking my statements out of context, thereby, creating another strawman.

I never said faith required absolutely no evidence. In context from post 114...

"Faith, my friends, is not about "evidence." Faith is believing something in spite of and/or without evidence. Would Sparko believe in God if the "evidence" was overwhelmingly in favor of NO God? I would sincerely hope (there is that word again) he would."

Plenty of people believe in things in spite of the evidence against them; UFO's for instance. Plenty of people believe in things without evidence; UFO's for instance.

If one chooses to “believe in flying monkeys that come out of your butt, pink unicorns that live in your refrigerator, alien midgets who are monty python fans and run around saying "Nih!" and in Santa Clause” there is nothing to stop them.You are right. People believe stupid things all the time.As I said earlier, "If someone has faith in something and chooses to believe in it, no matter how illogical and/or unreasonable in our opinion it may be, for them, the thing is a (their, VF) “reality.”" I am not prepared to JUDGE anyones faith... that is someone elses "job" (yours maybe).

But biblical faith, which is what you are supposed to be discussing in this thread is not stupidity faith. It is faith based on evidence.What we are supposed to be discussing in this thread is Gnosticism... it got sidetracked.

Christianity is based on very little, if any, concrete evidence.

If someone has faith in something and chooses to believe in it, no matter how illogical and/or unreasonable in our opinion it may be, for them, the thing is a “reality.” Faith is not "logical," but it is faith.NO. Reality is objective.Yet, we are not discussing reality; we are discussing faith.

Believing in something does not create reality.I agree. I am sorry my statements led you to believe this was something I held to be true.

If you believe in something that corresponds with reality then you are "right" if you believe in somethign that does not correspond with reality then you are "wrong."Unfortunately, faith is not as black-and-white as you and I would like it to be.

If you don't even understand the concepts of "right" and "wrong" then you need to really hit the books, VFARRIS.If you believe the world revolves around "right" and "wrong" then you need to face reality.

By the way, you are spending an inordinate amount of time in this thread trying to convince us that YOU are right about what Faith it. But according to your own definition, if I have "faith" that faith is dependent on evidence and that good faith corresponds with an objective reality, then I am right.Uh, this is not my definition... perhaps you are quoting someone else.

So why are you trying to convince me that I am wrong and that you are right? The very fact that you are arguing for YOUR view point defeats your whole stance. You LOSE by arguing for your viewpoint.I am not trying to convince anyone of anything.

Perhaps I could say of you, "So why are you trying to convince me that I am wrong and that you are right? The very fact that you are arguing for YOUR view point defeats your whole stance. You LOSE by arguing for your viewpoint."

But then, I am not so conceited as to apply this argument in the first place.

What “overwhelming” material evidence is there for the Bible being true? I choose to believe the Bible is true, not because of “overwhelming evidence, but because I have faith it is true. I desire for the Bible to be true, therefore, for me, it is true."for me?"

That means nothing. Either something is true or it is not true. Either it corresponds with reality or it does not.Faith is not about reality no matter how much you wish it to be (wishing does not create reality either).

If you stand in the middle of the road and truly believe that Buses do not exist, and claim that they "dont exist for me" - is that going to stop you from getting turned into a flattened bit of jelly when you get run over by that Greyhound? The bus has objective reality apart from what you "believe" or have "faith" in.Add one more to your ever growing number of acts to The Strawman Fallacy.

Sorry, it does not “logically” follow. (Logic is something you are still coming to terms with I see.) There are millions of people who believe in Hinduism, not due to a lack of faith, but because there is a lack of evidence for them not to. I make a choice not to believe in Hinduism or Greco/Roman gods; how about you?Why do they beleive? Because they think there is good evidence for their belief. Find me one that says he beleives because there is good evidence AGAINST his faith, and I will show you someone as idiotic as you.If you wish to resort to ad hominems as part of your logic fallacy repertory, be my guest. Please note, you have added yet another act to The Strawman Fallacy.

The Bible contains no material evidence.The bible IS material evidence.The Bible is a book with a lot of thee's and thou's in it (if you consider the KJV)... nothing more.

So is the Church.No, it is not. Your insistence does not change the facts (reality).

That either exist is evidence. Archeology is evidence. We can check on people and events through archeology that support what the bible says. We can read eyewitness accounts of people who saw the events. Those type of witnesses are called "material witnesses" in courts of law.:lol: This type of "witness" is called "circumstantial evidence" in courts of law. SHOW me God.

We have evidence of changed lives of those who become Christian. My father went from an alcoholic to a loving father after he got saved.I am sincerely and extremely happy for you and your family that your dad "found" the anointed one of God. A "change of heart" (salvation) is no more evidence of God than a cup is evidence of water.

We have the evidence of fulfilled prophesies. What was written down long ago in the OT was fulfilled in the NT. We can see the regathering of Israel today as evidence of fulfilled prophesy.If you say so.

We have the evidence of nature and science. We can see that what is around us did not happen by accident. We know that the entire universe came into existance from nothing, just like the bible says, and the scientists concur.They do? Not from my experience.

Evidence is everywhereYou mean like the same evidence that supports evolution?

[Sparko]

I fully understand what "Biblical" faith is; as I recall, I quoted the Biblical definition. However, I was not under the impression this discussion was exclusively about the Bible; that was you.

I would perfer this to be a discussion, not the one-up-man-ship contest you are attempting to turn it into.

Certainly they do when you take the statements out of context; In so doing you create straw.

In context from post 111...

"Can something exist that has no substance? God is the only thing that exists and does not exist at the same time."

In order to disprove this statement you must be able to prove God exists. So far, no one in history has been able to supply this proof.

Take a critical thinking class farris. Proving God exists has no bearing on disproving the statement that God exists and doesnt exist. Whether anyone has a poloroid of God or not doesn't make a lick of diff.

God can't BOTH exist and NOT EXIST. Nothing can. He either exists or doesn't. No matter what you think or believe or what I think or believe about whether he exists or not.

That is not "straw". You seem to like to throw that word around a lot even though everything I quoted from you was on target and in context. Take a poll and ask anyone who is reading this thread. You are a relativistic ninny who can't even defend his own position and has to resort to accusing people of misunderstanding him, but you will never clarify or explain how your contradictory statements can be true. You merely assert that if you believe it it is true for you, whatever that is supposed to mean.



Certainly it (the statement) is a contradiction, but, is not God the ultimate paradox (contradiction)? Three persons - one being, omnipotent, omnipresent, exists outside of time and space, etc...

well at least you admit that your statement is a contradiction. That means it is NOT true and illogical. And while you are at it, look up the word Paradox in the dictionary. It does not mean contradiction. It actually means something almost opposite.

The trinity might be hard to understand but it is not a contradiction.

I n context from post 111...

Sparko: You said: I have faith that God exists, therefore God exists.

VF: Absoulutely! If I have faith God exists, then, for me, He does exist. If I have faith God does not exist, then, for me, He does not exist. Is it really that hard to understand?

You "asked" for a clarification... you got one. The statement neither affirms nor denies the existence of God... it is a statement about faith.

That does not clarify anything! that confirms what I said. You are claiming that God exists because you have faith he does.

If I have faith he does not exist and you have faith he does, we can't both be right!

If I have faith my truck is blue and you have faith my truck is red, only one of us is right. You can't say "well I have faith its red so its red for me" because I can take a photo of it and show you it is blue.

When you die you will find out if God exists or not. So will all atheists. And I dont think they are gonna be happy. They can stand in front of God and tell him "you don't exist" all they want till they end up in hell.


Yet again you are taking my statements out of context, thereby, creating another strawman.

I never said faith required absolutely no evidence. In context from post 114...

"Faith, my friends, is not about "evidence." Faith is believing something in spite of and/or without evidence. Would Sparko believe in God if the "evidence" was overwhelmingly in favor of NO God? I would sincerely hope (there is that word again) he would."



Yes you did say it required no evidence. IN SPITE OF means "In the face of contrary evidence" or evidence AGAINST, and "without evidence" means, well, WITH NO evidence.

No, if the evidence were overwhelmingly in favor of NO God and there was NO evidence FOR God, then I would not believe. Just like I don't believe in Giant Blue Alien Monkeys that created the world out of a piece of bubble gum. There is NO evidence for that, and there is overwhelming evidence AGAINST it.



Plenty of people believe in things in spite of the evidence against them; UFO's for instance. Plenty of people believe in things without evidence; UFO's for instance.

And I don't. and you want to know a secret? they think they DO have good evidence for what they believe. They have fuzzy photos, crop circles, etc. They don't believe without evidence.

NOBODY believes anything without a reason to believe.

If you do, then you are insane.


Yet, we are not discussing reality; we are discussing faith.

when you talk about existing and not existing you are making truth statements about REALITY.


I am not trying to convince anyone of anything.

:rofl: you could have fooled me.



Perhaps I could say of you, "So why are you trying to convince me that I am wrong and that you are right? The very fact that you are arguing for YOUR view point defeats your whole stance. You LOSE by arguing for your viewpoint."

uh. no. I think that reality is objective and that truth is absolute. God either exists or he doesn't. I would never say what is true for you is true for you and what is true for me is true for me even though they are contradictory. I would say I am right and you are wrong.

But you go around saying that things like God's existence can be true for you and not true for someone else. That whatever someone has faith in is the truth for them

Therefore you have NO way to argue with anyone about the truth of anything. You can never tell them that they are wrong and that you are right. Because in your paradigm their "truth" is just as valid as your "truth"

I can easily claim that I am right and you are completely wrongety wrong wrong wrong. I can argue all I want. Occasionally I could be wrong and the other guy could be right. But you can never do that without admitting that your whole paradigm of relative truth is only a shadow puppet.



[Faith is not about reality no matter how much you wish it to be (wishing does not create reality either).

Oh I am sorry. Are you arguiing with me and telling me I am wrong? But if I have "faith" that faith is about reality, then isn't that true for me? How dare you tell me it isn't? :rofl:

[VFarris01]

I fully understand what "Biblical" faith is; as I recall, I quoted the Biblical definition. However, I was not under the impression this discussion was exclusively about the Bible; that was you.

I would perfer this to be a discussion, not the one-up-man-ship contest you are attempting to turn it into.

Certainly they do when you take the statements out of context; In so doing you create straw.

In context from post 111...

"Can something exist that has no substance? God is the only thing that exists and does not exist at the same time."

In order to disprove this statement you must be able to prove God exists. So far, no one in history has been able to supply this proof.Take a critical thinking class farris.Unfortunately, between the two of us, I am the only one thinking critically; you are arguing for the sake of argument.

Proving God exists has no bearing on disproving the statement that God exists and doesnt exist.But it does have bearing on your insistence that reality is absolute. Faith has nothing to do with the actual existence or non-existence of anything.

Whether anyone has a poloroid of God or not doesn't make a lick of diff.True. A “picture” of “God” is not material evidence of God. You are finally starting to make some sense.

God can't BOTH exist and NOT EXIST. Nothing can. He either exists or doesn't. No matter what you think or believe or what I think or believe about whether he exists or not. You still do not understanding the concept… Why are you putting limitations on God?

That is not "straw". You seem to like to throw that word around a lot even though everything I quoted from you was on target and in context.You are the first little pig… I am the big bad wolf, lol.

Take a poll and ask anyone who is reading this thread. You are a relativistic ninny who can't even defend his own position and has to resort to accusing people of misunderstanding him, but you will never clarify or explain how your contradictory statements can be true. You merely assert that if you believe it it is true for you, whatever that is supposed to mean.The “argument” of last resort… When all else fails, use an ad hominem.

Certainly it (the statement) is a contradiction, but, is not God the ultimate paradox (contradiction)? Three persons - one being, omnipotent, omnipresent, exists outside of time and space, etc...well at least you admit that your statement is a contradiction. That means it is NOT true and illogical.The statement may not be true, but, it is logical (a paradox?). The problem with God is everything about him/her defies logic.

And while you are at it, look up the word Paradox in the dictionary. It does not mean contradiction. It actually means something almost opposite.par·a·dox (from here (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/paradox))
n.
1. A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true: the paradox that standing is more tiring than walking.
2. One exhibiting inexplicable or contradictory aspects: "The silence of midnight, to speak truly, though apparently a paradox, rung in my ears" Mary Shelley.
3. An assertion that is essentially self-contradictory, though based on a valid deduction from acceptable premises.
4. A statement contrary to received opinion.

If “paradox” is not about “contradiction,” why is the word “contradict” (contradictory, contrary) a part of every definition?

God is a paradox Sparky… to deny this “reality” is to deny the “evidence.”

The trinity might be hard to understand but it is not a contradiction.3 = 1, 1 + 1 + 1 = 1, 3 × 1 = 1, and 1 ÷ 3 = 1 defies a logical proof. Is this possibly a paradox? Therefore, by definition, the “Trinity” is a contradiction. 3 ≠ 1; this is an “absolute truth.” Keep your eyes open, this phrase (absolute truth) appears later.

]In context from post 111...

Sparko: You said: I have faith that God exists, therefore God exists.

VF: Absoulutely! If I have faith God exists, then, for me, He does exist. If I have faith God does not exist, then, for me, He does not exist. Is it really that hard to understand?

You "asked" for a clarification... you got one. The statement neither affirms nor denies the existence of God... it is a statement about faith.That does not clarify anything! that confirms what I said. You are claiming that God exists because you have faith he does.

If I have faith he does not exist and you have faith he does, we can't both be right!You are building another strawman.

My statement is 100% correct.

I am not claiming God does or does not exist because of faith. Faith is the absence of logical proof or material evidence. Because God cannot be proven by logic and/or material evidence, God exists, for the believer, through faith. This is to say, in the “believer’s reality” God does indeed exist.

Perhaps I can explain a bit clearer with you truck.

If I have faith my truck is blue and you have faith my truck is red, only one of us is right. You can't say "well I have faith its red so its red for me" because I can take a photo of it and show you it is blue.I am not stating weather or not your truck is blue or red, it could be any color for all I care; faith has absolutely nothing to do with the actual color of your truck.

Perhaps you recall this analogy (from post 122)…

“If someone says to you, "I have a quarter in my pocket;" for you to believe them is a function of the "trust" you have in that the person is telling you the truth, aka, "faith."

If they take the quarter from their pocket and show it to you, this is "material evidence;" faith is no longer necessary.”

If you tell me your truck is “red” and someone else tells me your truck is “blue,” for me (in my little sphere of “reality”), your truck is either red or blue based on how much faith I place in the person telling me (remember, we have no material evidence of the actual color of your truck; for that matter we do not have material evidence you even have a truck).

Now, suppose I see your truck (that is, I see the material evidence). I see your truck is “red” as you told me and not “blue” as someone else told me. I no longer require faith to believe your truck is blue or red; your truck is “red” based on the material evidence.

My “reality” has been shifted from the subjective (“I HAVE FAITH you have a “red truck,” therefore, your truck is red.”) to the objective (“I SEE you have a “red” truck, therefore, your truck is red.).

Now all we have to do is discuss the shade of “red;” i.e., scarlet, maroon, cherry, apple, cherry-apple, blood, etc…, lol.

When you die you will find out if God exists or not. So will all atheists. And I dont think they are gonna be happy. They can stand in front of God and tell him "you don't exist" all they want till they end up in hell.More straw? Again, faith has absolutely nothing to do with reality. Faith is a “reality” all its own. See above.

Yet again you are taking my statements out of context, thereby, creating another strawman.

I never said faith required absolutely no evidence. In context from post 114...

"Faith, my friends, is not about "evidence." Faith is believing something in spite of and/or without evidence. Would Sparko believe in God if the "evidence" was overwhelmingly in favor of NO God? I would sincerely hope (there is that word again) he would."Yes you did say it required no evidence. IN SPITE OF means "In the face of contrary evidence" or evidence AGAINST, and "without evidence" means, well, WITH NO evidence.Whew! I am pleased we have that bit of misunderstanding cleared up… FINALLY!

Do you recall definition 2? 2. “Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.” (Remember, this MUST BE your definition of “faith” because of your insistence of the synonym “trust.”)

No, if the evidence were overwhelmingly in favor of NO God and there was NO evidence FOR God, then I would not believe. Just like I don't believe in Giant Blue Alien Monkeys that created the world out of a piece of bubble gum. There is NO evidence for that, and there is overwhelming evidence AGAINST it.Then you should be able to show me (“us,” if we include the discriminating reader) this material evidence. Otherwise there is just as much evidence God spoke the universe into existence as there is Giant Blue Alien Monkeys created the world out of a piece of bubble gum… that is… no evidence at all.

Plenty of people believe in things in spite of the evidence against them; UFO's for instance. Plenty of people believe in things without evidence; UFO's for instance.And I don't. and you want to know a secret? they think they DO have good evidence for what they believe. They have fuzzy photos, crop circles, etc. They don't believe without evidence.

NOBODY believes anything without a reason to believe.Absolutely true… people create reasons for what they believe based on faith when faced with a lack of logical proof and/or material evidence. If someone is presented material evidence (seeing that your car is red) faith is no longer required.

Pictures and crop circles are not material evidence of ET; ET is material evidence of ET… nice try sneaking it in.

If you do, then you are insane.If you do not believe this, then you are insane.

Yet, we are not discussing reality; we are discussing faith.when you talk about existing and not existing you are making truth statements about REALITY.Am I? When we are discussing existing/non-existence (truth/non-truth) in the realm of faith, actual reality is irrelevant.

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything.You could have fooled me.Suppose my perception of you being a fool is, indeed, “you are a fool.” While this may or may not be the true reality, it is, however, reality as I perceive this particular reality. I have faith you are an idiot. Therefore, for me, you are an idiot. (Please do not perceive this as an ad hominem, it is not; it is another example.)

Perhaps I could say of you, "So why are you trying to convince me that I am wrong and that you are right? The very fact that you are arguing for YOUR view point defeats your whole stance. You LOSE by arguing for your viewpoint."uh. no. I think that reality is objective and that truth is absolute.Reality is indeed objective and truth is indeed absolute.

However, and the concept you are not grasping, faith is subjective. Remember, the definition of faith is “2. “Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material (objective, VF) evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.”

God either exists or he doesn't.This is absolutely true in the world of objective reality; well, for that matter, in the world of subjective reality this also true.

I would never say what is true for you is true for you and what is true for me is true for me even though they are contradictory. I would say I am right and you are wrong.You can only say this in the presence of material evidence and/or logical proof; our discussion of faith so far has not shown this to be the case.

But you go around saying that things like God's existence can be true for you and not true for someone else. That whatever someone has faith in is the truth for them This is absolutely true because faith is subjective, not objective.

Therefore you have NO way to argue with anyone about the truth of anything. You can never tell them that they are wrong and that you are right. Because in your paradigm their "truth" is just as valid as your "truth"Now you get the idea! In the absence of logical proof and/or material (objective) evidence, the truth is nothing more and nothing less than what we have faith (believe?) it is.

I can easily claim that I am right and you are completely wrongety wrong wrong wrong. I can argue all I want. Occasionally I could be wrong and the other guy could be right. But you can never do that without admitting that your whole paradigm of relative truth is only a shadow puppet.You are absolutely right! Recall the “Biblical” definition of “faith,” “Faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.” Faith is relative; in other words, “Faith is a shadow puppet.”

Faith is not about reality no matter how much you wish it to be (wishing does not create reality either).Oh I am sorry. Are you arguiing with me and telling me I am wrong? But if I have "faith" that faith is about reality, then isn't that true for me? How dare you tell me it isn't?This is absolutely true if (and, as I perceive it, only if) you desire for this to be your reality…

[Sparko]

Unfortunately, between the two of us, I am the only one thinking critically; you are arguing for the sake of argument.

what does that MEAN? are you just so far gone that you have no way to defend what you believe so you just decide to make stupid accusations?

I am arguing because I find it hilarious that someone who beleives so much in relativitistic truth as you do, would keep arguing that he is right about there being no absolute truth.

You are a walking self-contradiction so I keep responding to see how much deeper you will dig your hole.



But it does have bearing on your insistence that reality is absolute. Faith has nothing to do with the actual existence or non-existence of anything.

It doesn't? I thought you said that God exists cuz you have faith he does? Now you are saying that I was right and that your faith has nothing to do with the existence of God?

Thank you.



True. A “picture” of “God” is not material evidence of God. You are finally starting to make some sense.
It's not?
What would be material evidence for God then?



You still do not understanding the concept… Why are you putting limitations on God?

I am not. You are just being irrational and not making any sense. And when backed into a corner you try to shove it off as being a 'limitation on God'



You are the first little pig… I am the big bad wolf, lol.

Well, you ARE a pretty big blowhard...


The “argument” of last resort… When all else fails, use an ad hominem.

Yup. Just like you do.


The statement may not be true, but, it is logical (a paradox?). The problem with God is everything about him/her defies logic.

par·a·dox (from here (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/paradox))
n.
1. A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true: the paradox that standing is more tiring than walking.


God is a paradox Sparky… to deny this “reality” is to deny the “evidence.”

A pardox is a SEEMING contradiction that may be TRUE nonetheless. It is NOT a contradiction. It only SEEMS like it is.

Now do you get it?

The Trinity might seem like a contradiction to YOU, but in fact it is NOT a contradiction. There is no contraction in God at all. To say so just shows your inability to reason is worse than I thought. You meant to use the word Paradox as a synonym for Contradiction, but in fact it is the opposite. A Contradiction is something that is NOT true. A paraodox is something that might seem to be not true on the surface but it is in fact TRUE.

To say God exists and doesnt exist at the same time is a contradiction and not true.

To say God is three persons in one is a paradox and IS true.


3 = 1, 1 + 1 + 1 = 1, 3 × 1 = 1, and 1 ÷ 3 = 1 defies a logical proof. Is this possibly a paradox? Therefore, by definition, the “Trinity” is a contradiction. 3 ≠ 1; this is an “absolute truth.” Keep your eyes open, this phrase (absolute truth) appears later.

See? you confuse the two terms again. Yes it is a paradox, but is is NOT a contradiction.


I am not claiming God does or does not exist because of faith. Faith is the absence of logical proof or material evidence. Because God cannot be proven by logic and/or material evidence, God exists, for the believer, through faith. This is to say, in the “believer’s reality” God does indeed exist.

So...Let's see... I have faith that you do not exist. I have no material evidence that you do and the word logic and you sure don't mix. Therefore you do not exist.

Whew! that was fun. I guess that means you won't be responding to me anymore and this thread can get back on track.

[VFarris01]

Unfortunately, between the two of us, I am the only one thinking critically; you are arguing for the sake of argument.what does that MEAN? are you just so far gone that you have no way to defend what you believe so you just decide to make stupid accusations?In your little universe they (my "arguments") are "stupid..." in everyone else's they are absolute truth.

I am arguing because I find it hilarious that someone who beleives so much in relativitistic truth as you do, would keep arguing that he is right about there being no absolute truth.I never said there was no such thing as "absolute" truth. However, I find it amusing you would argue faith is not relativistic. Actual reality exists separate from the reality of faith. Actual reality has material (objective) evidence; faith lacks material evidence. I thought the analogies with the quarter, your car, and you being foolish (post 128) were sufficient "proof"... perhaps not.

You are a walking self-contradiction so I keep responding to see how much deeper you will dig your hole.Thus the accusation of you arguing for the sake of argument; you have confirmed this accusation to be fact. Keep it up, you are supplying ample support for my accusation.

But it does have bearing on your insistence that reality is absolute. Faith has nothing to do with the actual existence or non-existence of anything.It doesn't?NO, it does not.

I thought you said that God exists cuz you have faith he does? Now you are saying that I was right and that your faith has nothing to do with the existence of God?This is the most blatant misrepresentation you have yet used...

From post 128: "I am not claiming God does or does not exist because of faith. Faith is the absence of logical proof or material evidence. Because God cannot be proven by logic and/or material evidence, God exists, for the believer, through faith. This is to say, in the “believer’s reality” God does indeed exist."

God exists (or does not exist) in spite of our faith He exists (or does not exist).

True. A “picture” of “God” is not material evidence of God. You are finally starting to make some sense.It's not?
What would be material evidence for God then?Did I not make it clear before? God is material evidence of God. Please provide this material evidence (if you can).

The “argument” of last resort… When all else fails, use an ad hominem.Yup. Just like you do.If I have committed an ad hominem within this discussion concerning you I apologize... it was unintentional.

The statement may not be true, but, it is logical (a paradox?). The problem with God is everything about him/her defies logic.

par·a·dox (from here (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/paradox))
n.
1. A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true: the paradox that standing is more tiring than walking.

God is a paradox Sparky… to deny this “reality” is to deny the “evidence.”A pardox is a SEEMING contradiction that may be TRUE nonetheless. It is NOT a contradiction. It only SEEMS like it is.

Now do you get it?It would be helpful if you used the entire difinition of "paradox" instead of only the part you assume supports your abstraction.

Here it is again:

par·a·dox (from here (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/paradox))
n.
1. A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true: the paradox that standing is more tiring than walking.
2. One exhibiting inexplicable or contradictory aspects: "The silence of midnight, to speak truly, though apparently a paradox, rung in my ears" Mary Shelley.
3. An assertion that is essentially self-contradictory, though based on a valid deduction from acceptable premises.
4. A statement contrary to received opinion.

Hummm...

The Trinity might seem like a contradiction to YOU, but in fact it is NOT a contradiction. There is no contraction in God at all. To say so just shows your inability to reason is worse than I thought. You meant to use the word Paradox as a synonym for Contradiction, but in fact it is the opposite. A Contradiction is something that is NOT true. A paraodox is something that might seem to be not true on the surface but it is in fact TRUE.I see definition 2 (2. One exhibiting inexplicable or contradictory aspects) does not apply in your universe. Or is it the word "may" does not have a meaning in your universe; as in, "1. A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true. The word "may" in this case implies the statement "may... be false."

The word "paradox" has many synomyms... contrariety - dilemma - impossibility - inconsistency.

Access to a good dictionary and thesaurus would certainly do you no harm.

To say God exists and doesnt exist at the same time is a contradiction and not true.The statement actually fulfulls the requirements of definition 1, "A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true." To use your words, "A pardox is a SEEMING contradiction that may be TRUE nonetheless. It is NOT a contradiction. It only SEEMS like it is."

The statement, "God exists and doesnt exist at the same time," may nonetheless be true. Hummm...

To say God is three persons in one is a paradox and IS true.Nope, it is a logical inconsistency, and therefore, a contradiction, even though we both believe it is true.

3 = 1, 1 + 1 + 1 = 1, 3 × 1 = 1, and 1 ÷ 3 = 1 defies a logical proof. Is this possibly a paradox? Therefore, by definition, the “Trinity” is a contradiction. 3 ≠ 1; this is an “absolute truth.” Keep your eyes open, this phrase (absolute truth) appears later.See? you confuse the two terms again. Yes it is a paradox, but is is NOT a contradiction.When something defies a logical proof, by definition, this is a contradiction. That we believe God exists as one being in three persons is a paradox.

I am not claiming God does or does not exist because of faith. Faith is the absence of logical proof or material evidence. Because God cannot be proven by logic and/or material evidence, God exists, for the believer, through faith. This is to say, in the “believer’s reality” God does indeed exist.So...Let's see... I have faith that you do not exist. I have no material evidence that you do and the word logic and you sure don't mix. Therefore you do not exist.Within this ad hominem is a (very) small bit of truth concerning faith. However, I am wondering how you are having this discussion with someone who does not exist... perhaps you have a personality separation disorder and are simply having this discussion with yourself, LOL (no harm intended).

Whew! that was fun. I guess that means you won't be responding to me anymore and this thread can get back on track.Why... this is fun! If you would rather go back to talking about Gnosticism, the original topic of this thread, it would be fine with me.

[Sparko]

In your little universe they (my "arguments") are "stupid..." in everyone else's they are absolute truth.

I never said there was no such thing as "absolute" truth. However, I find it amusing you would argue faith is not relativistic. Actual reality exists separate from the reality of faith. Actual reality has material (objective) evidence; faith lacks material evidence. I thought the analogies with the quarter, your car, and you being foolish (post 128) were sufficient "proof"... perhaps not.

Thus the accusation of you arguing for the sake of argument; you have confirmed this accusation to be fact. Keep it up, you are supplying ample support for my accusation.

I thought I told you that you don't exist? was my faith not good enough? Or could it be that faith has nothing to to with whether something exists or not?



NO, it does not.

This is the most blatant misrepresentation you have yet used...

From post 128: "I am not claiming God does or does not exist because of faith. Faith is the absence of logical proof or material evidence. Because God cannot be proven by logic and/or material evidence, God exists, for the believer, through faith. This is to say, in the “believer’s reality” God does indeed exist."

What is this "believer's reality?" do you mean to say "in the believer's mind?" because that is not necessarily "reality"

If I have faith that big foot stole my sandwich, then you really can't say that in my reality bigfoot stole my sandwich. You could say that in my mind bigfoot stole my sandwich. But what is in my mind might or might not correspond with REALITY. I could be insane. and then I am just wrong. Or I could be right and bigfoot really did steal my sandiwich, in which case it would be objective REALITY even if YOU did not believe me.

Someone else could go out and find big foot and see him with my sandwich and that would be the material evidence you seek.




God exists (or does not exist) in spite of our faith He exists (or does not exist).

Duh!!! That is what I have been saying VFarris. Now you are saying it as if YOU were the one claiming it all along when in fact you were the one saying, and I quote:

"I have faith that God exists, therefore God exists"

So what is this, are you playing duck season/rabbit season with me? You think if you start stating what I have been saying all along and pretend it was what you were saying that somehow I will start arguing YOUR old position? :rofl:

No I will just leave it at that. You admitted what I was trying to explain to you all along. Faith does not create reality.

God exists (or does not exist) in spite of our faith He exists (or does not exist).

Thank ye kindly sir. Discussion over.

[VFarris01]

In your little universe they (my "arguments") are "stupid..." in everyone else's they are absolute truth.

I never said there was no such thing as "absolute" truth. However, I find it amusing you would argue faith is not relativistic. Actual reality exists separate from the reality of faith. Actual reality has material (objective) evidence; faith lacks material evidence. I thought the analogies with the quarter, your car, and you being foolish (post 128) were sufficient "proof"... perhaps not.

Thus the accusation of you arguing for the sake of argument; you have confirmed this accusation to be fact. Keep it up, you are supplying ample support for my accusation.I thought I told you that you don't exist? was my faith not good enough? Or could it be that faith has nothing to to with whether something exists or not?You build your house of straw... again.

I said from the very start faith has nothing to do with actual reality. Faith is a reality all its own (check post 128 again about the quarter, your "red" car, and you being foolish).

NO, it does not.

This is the most blatant misrepresentation you have yet used...

From post 128: "I am not claiming God does or does not exist because of faith. Faith is the absence of logical proof or material evidence. Because God cannot be proven by logic and/or material evidence, God exists, for the believer, through faith. This is to say, in the “believer’s reality” God does indeed exist."What is this "believer's reality?" do you mean to say "in the believer's mind?" because that is not necessarily "reality"

If I have faith that big foot stole my sandwich, then you really can't say that in my reality bigfoot stole my sandwich. You could say that in my mind bigfoot stole my sandwich. But what is in my mind might or might not correspond with REALITY. I could be insane. and then I am just wrong. Or I could be right and bigfoot really did steal my sandiwich, in which case it would be objective REALITY even if YOU did not believe me.

Someone else could go out and find big foot and see him with my sandwich and that would be the material evidence you seek.You almost have it right. In each of our little universes, reality is nothing more and nothing less than what we believes it to be.

God exists (or does not exist) in spite of our faith He exists (or does not exist).Duh!!! That is what I have been saying VFarris. Now you are saying it as if YOU were the one claiming it all along when in fact you were the one saying, and I quote:

"I have faith that God exists, therefore God exists"

So what is this, are you playing duck season/rabbit season with me? You think if you start stating what I have been saying all along and pretend it was what you were saying that somehow I will start arguing YOUR old position?

No I will just leave it at that. You admitted what I was trying to explain to you all along. Faith does not create reality.By taking what I said out of context (without using everything I said) all you are doing is building the same old strawman. I never said faith was about actual reality. I also never said faith created anything. The reality induced by faith exists outside, and occasionally contrary to, actual reality.


Sparky, faith is not about reality. Faith is about what someone believes is reality; my position in this respect has remained the same since my first post on this subject.

You are arguing for the sake of argument. Keep it up, you are supplying ample support for this accusation.

[Sparko]

Well even though you now claim you never said it, as long as you admit that Faith has nothing to to with causing reality or the existence or non-existence of God, I am satisfied and done with this.

Therefore your statement "I have faith in God, therefore God exists" is a false statement and you agree it is so.

I am not interested in how you justify your concession of that fact. You can tell yourself that is what you meant all along and I was "building strawmen" if it soothes your conscience. Others can read this thread for themselves.


debate over.

[VFarris01]

Well even though you now claim you never said it, as long as you admit that Faith has nothing to to with causing reality or the existence or non-existence of God, I am satisfied and done with this.I never said otherwise...

From post 111 (we are now at post 134):

You: Trusting that God is real is what faith is about.

Me: Faith is not necessarily about God.

You: It has nothing to do with MAKING God real.

Me: I never said it did.

You: God either exists or he doesn't.

Me: Can something exist that has no substance? God is the only thing that exists and does not exist at the same time (this statement was established to be a paradox in post 130).

You: My faith is either well placed or misplaced. Your earlier sentence made it sound as if faith was the REASON God existed.

Me: My "statement" may have "sounded" that way to you but it is not what I said (meant).

You: You said: I have faith that God exists, therefore God exists.

Me: Absoulutely! If I have faith God exists, then, for me, He does exist. If I have faith God does not exist, then, for me, He does not exist. Is it really that hard to understand?

Therefore your statement "I have faith in God, therefore God exists" is a false statement and you agree it is so.It is not a false statement! Within the realm of faith it is a very true statement.

I am not interested in how you justify your concession of that fact. You can tell yourself that is what you meant all along and I was "building strawmen" if it soothes your conscience. Others can read this thread for themselves.You can tell yourself that IS NOT what I meant all along and you WERE NOT "building strawmen" if it soothes your conscience. Others can read this thread for themselves.

debate over.Debate?

[Sparko]

I never said otherwise...

From post 111 (we are now at post 134):

You: Trusting that God is real is what faith is about.

Me: Faith is not necessarily about God.

You: It has nothing to do with MAKING God real.

Me: I never said it did.

You: God either exists or he doesn't.

Me: Can something exist that has no substance? God is the only thing that exists and does not exist at the same time (this statement was established to be a paradox in post 130).

You: My faith is either well placed or misplaced. Your earlier sentence made it sound as if faith was the REASON God existed.

Me: My "statement" may have "sounded" that way to you but it is not what I said (meant).

You: You said: I have faith that God exists, therefore God exists.

Me: Absoulutely! If I have faith God exists, then, for me, He does exist. If I have faith God does not exist, then, for me, He does not exist. Is it really that hard to understand?

It is not a false statement! Within the realm of faith it is a very true statement.

You can tell yourself that IS NOT what I meant all along and you WERE NOT "building strawmen" if it soothes your conscience. Others can read this thread for themselves.

Debate?


Yet again, you give conflicting answers. How is one to know what you believe? You spend half of your post claiming that you don't believe that Faith is what makes God exist and the other half saying it does.

I have no idea what you really believe other than what you say VFarris01. And so far all I see is you trying to straddle the fence and claiming that you are right because you both agree that Faith does NOT determine if God exists or not, and that it does in fact determine if God exists or not.

Either you are insane, or you are very poor at expressing yourself.

It seems you are the one who keeps wanting to argue for argument's sake. I have told you twice that now that you have admitted that Faith does not make God exist, I would let this argument go. And yet you can't do that, you just keep repeating yourself, saying I was building straw and quoting yourself from past posts, then turning around and claiming the exact opposite.

Let it go VFarris01. You already said that God's existence is not determined by faith, and I agree. Its done.

[VFarris01]

Yet again, you give conflicting answers. How is one to know what you believe? You spend half of your post claiming that you don't believe that Faith is what makes God exist and the other half saying it does.My answers conflict only in your universe.

I have no idea what you really believe other than what you say VFarris01. And so far all I see is you trying to straddle the fence and claiming that you are right because you both agree that Faith does NOT determine if God exists or not, and that it does in fact determine if God exists or not.More straw...

Either you are insane, or you are very poor at expressing yourself.... followed by an ad hominem. A leopard cannot change its spots...

It seems you are the one who keeps wanting to argue for argument's sake. I have told you twice that now that you have admitted that Faith does not make God exist, I would let this argument go.

And yet you can't do that, you just keep repeating yourself, saying I was building straw and quoting yourself from past posts, then turning around and claiming the exact opposite.Admitted? I never claimed otherwise!

Let it go VFarris01. You already said that God's existence is not determined by faith, and I agree. Its done.Fine. Then you will not respond?