wordy

We hear about them through the denouncing of their faith.
the Church fathers try their best to tell how wrong they are.

Did any of these Gnostics live at same time as Jesus
Could Paul have been a Gnostic that was so successful
them had to include him in the Canon due to him so well known?

They would ahve failed to get Christianity going if they had
placed him as apocryphic something. Him too loved to be ignored?

Paul comes through as very Gnostic to me. Catholic Church
bet all their money on Peter as the head despite Paul teasing
Peter had not much to offer. So could that be how the Church
play down Paul as the most successful of the religious figures?

By making him harmless by embracing him the supporters of Paul
had to either go underground or to accept that Peter rules?

aa5874

The Roman Church never ever downplayed Paul.

The very Canon of the Church contains 13 Epistles under the name of Paul.

It was the fiction character called Apostle Peter that was 'abused' by Jesus, Paul, and the Church.


1. In the NT Peter was charaterised as a Devil by Jesus and may not even be eligible to enter heaven because he DENIED Jesus on earth.

Matthew 10:33 KJV Matthew 262. Peter is SATAN according to Jesus in the Synoptics.

Mark 8:33 KJV
3. Paul blamed Peter for doctrinal problems in the Church.

Galatians 2:11 KJV4. In Acts of the Apostles, the very author Ignored the Activities of Peter after the 'showdown in Jerusalem" with Paul.

Paul and Peter had a major confrontation in Acts 15 and immediately from Acts 16 to Acts 28 we hear NOTHING of Peter again. The author of Acts even travelled with Paul and wrote of no more events of Peter for the last 13 chapters of Acts.

Up to Acts 15, Peter is mentioned about 55 times and Saul/Paul about 42 times.

After Acts 15, Peter is mentioned ZERO times and Saul/Paul about 100 times.

5. In Church History by Eusebius it is claimed the 2nd Epistle of Peter did NOT belong to the Canon.

Church History 3.3.1. 6. In the NT, the Pauline Gospel was FINAL.

Galatians 1The fiction character Peter was abused by the supposed Jesus, Paul and the Roman Church in an out the Canon.

wordy

But AFAIK the whole Church is built upon Peter
coming to Rome and being the head of it.

that they have Pauls epistles could be that they
had to or else a great schism had broken out.

Paul is the most or almost only actor but
it is the four anonymous Marcus and Matthew and Luke
and John that do their best to play down the importance of
the Heavenly Christ that Paul met in a vision.

The Bible show that the physical Jesus that Paul never met
is the most important one. To me that is a clear indication that
they did their best to make Paul as irrelevant as possible.

And the result now is taht we do have a historic physical Jesus
instead of the Heavenly Christ that can incarnate in any believer.

Chili

Peter was faith and a twin in doubt represented by Thomas. Faith is the enemy to be annihilated in understanding. So yes, Peter was the antagonist so that Judaism can spill its guts and be done with forever in the NT where Paul calls the shots to built the New Religion Jesus had in mind when they put together the NT. So then, no allegiance is owed to the OT and is why Luke takes the lineage past all the ancients and right back to God, now with Christ as NT Lord God by name.

It's all true, and is historic but so it would come to be without a whole bunch of half-baked Christians going around in circles and never get where they really wanted to be in the end.

wordy

But a heavenly Christ that only visit us in spirit
would that not be a Gnostic version?

But the thread is really about this:

Are there any historical evidence for any of
the Gnostics to have existed or where they all
invented by the Church as an enemy to write about.

Can one point to any Gnostic leader that lived same time
as Jesus or Paul? and that we know really existed and
said what is told about them?

aa5874

Again, please open your Bible to Matthew 1.18. It was the Son of a Zombie of God that was baptized. The Gospels are myth fables--NOT history.

Does it not say Jesus was born after his mother became pregnant by a Spirit??

Matthew 1:18 CEBThere is absolutely NO history of a human Jesus in the Gospels.

It was made public and propagated in the Roman Empire that Jesus was DIRECTLY related to some kind of Spirit that was Holy and that he could perform like a Spirit.

After Jesus was Baptised and then died later after he was buried the tomb was sealed in gMark.

The body of the Baptised Jesus vanished like a Ghost in Ghost stories.

Chili

Nono, Peter is the seat of Paul. All he needed was the insight Peter to re-cognize Jesus as the promised messiah and that insigth would be the rock of faith needed to get to heaven in the NT.

Just follow what happens next. Peter became enemy to be explored and exploited and when all faith was gone even Thomas DECLARED "My Lord AND my God" now as believer himself.

This so defrockt Peter (no doubt = no faith), who could not even get a bite on his next fishing trip, all night, even there with all of them to make sure that they were trying very hard and still could not catch or even snare any living thing.

Now notice that Peter was naked, to say that with all doubt gone his cloak of faith was removed.

Then Jesus said from the shore: Nothing? [Oh good], and then said "cast on the other sided to the [life-house]boat and there you will catch big fish." So Peter did as he was told, but first put on a new cloak that had Catholic written all over it, and then dove in head-first to make sure that they were his, and so the whole celestial sea was emptied and they moved it to Rome, simply because the Jews did not want them and so they had no choice but move to Rome.

Poor guys, all those big fish that nobody will ever understand and the rest are Jesus worshipers fighting about in every which way they see to good works in his name.

wordy

I do believe that Jesus was myth.
I leave it open that maybe John the Baptist
may actually ahve existed but that is just a guess.

Teh Bible does not have much on Gnostics
but the church father do have?

So maybe Gnostics really lived? But do we know a name
of a Gnostic writer that lived same time as Jesus or Paul
are supposed to live? Do we have any writings by them
that we can trust is true to their style of writing?

Forget what I wrote about Peter and Paul in fight.

I only wanted to point out that John being written as it is
seems to be aimed at Gnostics it uses much similar views?

So maybe the Gnostics are real historical persons
and they had to find ways to make them as powerless as possible
and that would explain why they created the myth of Jesus physical

because the Gnostics accept a heavenly Christ
and Gnostics don't need a physical Jesus.

wordy

Seems I am not intelligent enough to read you answers
so I slowly and politely bow out of this thread and only look in
now and then to see if some physical Gnostic from time of 30 AD turn up

Chili

The mind of Christ is gnostic and that really is the end of our search and therefore cannot be with an -ism attached, or the end would not be the solitary individual as man in the image of God.

To say: if religion is a means to the end you have to get out and leave it behind when you get to the end.