aa5874

You must have forgotten to write that #70 and #76 are irrelevant if you maintain that Justin, and Tertullian are irrelevant.

mountainman

Hey. One cannot sweep evidence into the dustbin. The Gnostics are the only known historical resistance to the rise of the great nation of Christians. They must have played some role in history, despite what the Christian heresiologists wrote falsely about them. See for example the Gospel of Judas which was written by some as yet unknown historical author.




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

This remains the assertion of the master heresiologist Eusebius.

We have no compelling supporting evidence for this assertion.




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

mountainman

The Gnostic Gospel of Thomas text is unambiguously attested physically first in a mid 4th century Coptic manuscript, but how many of the faithful Historical Jesus brigade want this text to be an exemplar of 1st and/or 2nd century Christian philosophy?

Jesus says, Jesus says, Jesus says .... preface every saying in gThomas but this does not establish anything.




εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

Chili

You mean the great nation of Catholics and the Gnostics are nothing but scatterbrains like the Christians are today.

Do you not understand the difference between cold, hot and lukewarm, wherein the Christian with the mind of Christ would be hot, and notice please that there is no hotter than hot, but that lukewarm is anywhere in between cold and hot, and those include all heretics from Gnostics to Docetics to even simple Christians just like today now with 20.000 salvation recipes strong.

If ever even one protestant today would become a Christian he would know the difference and that is what the rich man's table is all about, Luke 16:19-31. Not one of them will ever be Christian in the manner of JC until he takes Jesus down from the cross and places himself upon it, and that is just contrary to their primary as follower of Jesus who died for their sins.

In short, one must be an outcast like Catholic to get done by a fiery Christian who will drag him to his own den to nurse him there like a wolf while rejoicing in the sinner he saved, and will continue to love him and lick him clean as I wrote you before.

You should read Peter the Shepherd in John 21:15-19 again and see there that another will tie you fast while all Peter does is tend and feed sheep as Catholic [sheep] inside the flock where they are cold and so only feed them as cold.

And what is the big deal about the Gospels anyway? if it must be prior to us by nature before humans can understand it? That is all neologism in there for which we must actualize our condition to understand, and then only say 'yes' to it with no contradiction to be found, and even see the protestant slant in the translations we read.

Bottom line: Jesus worship because he died for your sins is totally wrong and subsequent passage reading is just rich man's food.

Chili

I would even take it one step further and say that there is no such thing as a Christian Gospel in the same way that Judas spilled his guts as the Jew in him and that Peter as faith was the final enemy to overcome (starting already with "get thee behind me satan"). . . or there would be temple in the New Jerusalem still: "I saw no temple in the city" Rev.21:22.

Iskander

When I said that “Gnostics are nothing” I was responding to aa5764 and it really meant to say that Gnostic literature was also irrelevant.


Gnostics are a late development in the history of Christianity. Gnostics tried to define the nature of Jesus-the-Christ and the nature of redemption as a gift for the dead; instead of redemption as a gift for the living.

The Jewish phase of Christianity precedes the Myth creation effort of Gnostic Christians, who have succeeded in hiding the Jewish man through destruction, editing, intimidation, additions, propaganda, lies and so forth.

The following excerpt from Harnack, Dogma 1, page 175, explains why patristic literature and Gnostic literature are irrelevant to the understanding the schism in Judaism.

Clivedurdle

Didn't Harnack die before Nag Hammadi was found?

Iskander

Please, make a statement.

Stringbean

Yeah. Nag Hammadi was 1945, Harnack died 10 June 1930.:huh: