Sleeper awake!

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
cora
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:57 pm

Re: Sleeper awake!

Post by cora »

Really? Make it complicated and it will be true? Never mind as long as the JEWS invented it? Like Moses taught philosophy to the greeks? Like Abraham taught hieroglyphs to the Egyptians? The attitude learned from Exodus? The "we are superior to everybody else" so of course we are proud and arrogant, looking down on others?
These quotes all have nothing to do with anything.
And Gnosticism comes from Plato (around 380 BC and GREEK). It became widespread which is not noticed because it is not a centrally organised religion with temples and priests. Like the mystery religions were gnostic. The saviour-idea comes from them, but was anyhow popular in Hellenism. Kings called themselves saviour all the time. Paul wanted to set up a new mystery religion, and he did. Thereto he "stole" a jewish story, because he needed a dying-rising person. Since this human being was raised from the dead by Jahweh, he needed it. There was no Jesus and no Christ of course. There were no jewish Christians of course. There was no resurrection (by himself) of course. Philo has nothing to do with it. Paul was a greek from Turkey and he was gnostic a la Plato. Isu is the god (the Logos), and chrestos means saviour.
As you can see Paul has been "reworked" a bit by Irenaeus to fit the catholic picture. Although catholicism is still a mystery religion. The whole Jesus and Christ and the resurrection and the virgin mary and the whole "sacrifice" for our sins is all from the end of the 2nd century. As well as the "prediction" from the OT of course.
Start thinking normal, start thinking straight.
User avatar
Geocalyx
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 5:59 pm

Re: Sleeper awake!

Post by Geocalyx »

Start thinking normal, start thinking straight.
Most of the stuff we know about Gnosticism today, we know from two sources:
- Church Fathers and a few Greek fragments
- NHL & assorted Egyptian texts
You seem rather keen on trusting the former, so there is no helping there. Maybe there was Gnosticism like you describe. But the latter, which are often seen as the source texts on the matter, are NOT religious texts.

Consider that each one of them appeals to mind, reason and autonomy. And that none of them appeals to dogma, none of them supports a named gnostic sect of any sort, none of them pray in expectance of something in return ... and were apparently written and distributed in an exile of sorts.

Less thinking, more firsthand reading and translating.
Teachings of Silvanus wrote:Bring your guide and your teacher. The mind is the guide, but reason is the teacher. They will bring you out of destruction and dangers.
cora
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:57 pm

Re: Sleeper awake!

Post by cora »

To begin with everything gnostic was murdered out by the church, for the last time in the 13th century, 10's of thousands some say 100's of thousands people burned alive. Since then (1300) gnostics have been quiet. I do not do church fathers because of the high % of lying. The NHL are not the source-texts, the only thing is there is nothing more. I myself find them difficult to follow, but it was a religion, only different than Catholicism. In Gnosticism every school/group/community has the freedom to put their own emphasis and differ from each other. That is why they were not a threat to the church.
Like I said it comes from Plato, so you can start reading Plato about it, which is basic Gnosticism. Then the mystery religions, the most popular religions from 300 BC until 300 AD, were gnostic. You can read about them (although the church left not much over). But if you search you will find interesting things. The gospel of John is gnostic. Paul is gnostic: he preaches a dying-rising-god-saviour, which is in every letter more than once. You have to go through all the forgeries by Irenaeus of course, and only look at the actual preaching, which way I found it out very easy. It is the mystery religion of Mithra (the Persian sungod), replacing Mithra by Isu Chrestos (IC, easy to replace by Iesous Christos, also IC), which means Isu Saviour. Paul is preaching a saviour god, not a person called by the catholic church 100 years later a messiah. Not much use for Paul to preach a jewish messiah in Turkey and Greece, because they of course do not know what a messiah is, nor do they want to know.
So now you can read about it.

And yes, like I said they were autonomous, and thank god they had no dogma's, everybody had its own school, why should anybody pray in expectance of something in return? If being in one big institution, with a lot of dogma's, and praying for something in return, is your idea of a religion, I don't want to join. You are describing in fact the catholic and protestant churches. And you seem not to understand that there are many other forms of religion, like Buddhism or Hinduism, or Shinto to name the biggest. The gnostics were different from the church, they were free.
I consider myself led by reason especially, and I keep on reading, to get a wider view and be more open, in order not to be stuck on the narrow view of church people, or people stuck on one book. Thanks for your comment.
User avatar
Geocalyx
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2019 5:59 pm

Re: Sleeper awake!

Post by Geocalyx »

The gospel of John is gnostic.
Huh? I thought you said gnosis was suppressed by the Church?

There are many types of philosophies, you can divide them by being secular or religious, but the NHC brand of gnosis is counter to religion. Religion demands belief. Gnosis demands awareness that a bigger picture exists.

IC is likely a backronym. Ish means The Man in Hebrew, as this forum taught me. (Coptic manuscripts say IC, but C does not read "C" in Coptic, it reads "S".) By the way, The Holy Book of the Great invisible Spirit fully says "IESOUS" in the colophon.

Shinto? Kojiki has nothing to do with this. It's about homeland and god-given national ground.

Why is there no mention of Mithras and the deepest mysteries one will partake in and such in the NHC? There is an "ultimate revelation" in Revelation of Adam, but it's a blank page, and the part where Trimorphic Protennoia promises one, is just a big hole. Why would there be such jokes if this was all a pact of snobbish mystery religions?

The only text that in fact resembles stuff going down in a mystery religion manages to attribute the creation of existence to a donkey's belch. No bulls or scorpions there, just bread, linen, and lots of magical names. Even that one I find somewhat suspicious as it's actually peripatic in substance, rather than Platonist - its mythology focuses on a prime mover as opposed to a pre-existent idea, which is why it has nothing to offer other than a promise of passing by some entities in afterlife, hardly worth entering a mystery religion for ( ... which also leads me to believe that each individual codex might be a personalized book of the dead to be buried next to a person, full of texts they'd particularly like, but that's a discussion for another topic).
rgprice
Posts: 522
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:57 pm

Re: Sleeper awake!

Post by rgprice »

Well the Gospel of John is an interesting case. It appears to have been written by Apelles, a disciple of Marcion's who left Marcion and became a sort of anti-Marcionite. The views of Apelles are very similar to Marcion's except he held that Jesus had actually become real flesh, whereas Marcion held that he did not.

I think that what we call gJohn is the Gospel of Apelles or is at least built upon the Gospel of Apelles. Thus, gJohn is actually gnostic. The reason that its in the NT is because its anti-Marcionite. But this also gets into the question of how the NT was developed and who put it there. The traditional view is that it was developed through a long process by Catholics, etc. and assembled in the 4th century. But this appears not to be the case. It appears rather that the NT as we know it (mostly) was put together in the mid second century in reaction to Marcionism, most probably by a single individual who made all of the choices for the content on his own.

The church fathers received this anthology and generally accepted it because of its anti-Marcionite themes. Who actually put it together we don't know. But, whoever did put Johannine works in because of their anti-Marcionite teachings regarding the bodily incarnation of Jesus. Yet, the Johannine works aren't really Catholic either. There are actually a lot of anti-orthodox elements of gJohn as well, but since it was already included within the anti-Marcionite anthology, the church fathers found ways to rationalize it and work with it. The prospect of casting doubt upon one of the Gospels in the anthology was too big a problem so it was better to accept it and make used of its anti-Marcionite elements.
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 6841
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Sleeper awake!

Post by MrMacSon »

rgprice wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 3:20 am Well the Gospel of John is an interesting case. It appears to have been written by Apelles, a disciple of Marcion's who left Marcion and became a sort of anti-Marcionite.
  • Markus Vinzent covers 'John' and Marcion and evidence for them being likely contemporaries in Marcion and Dating the Synoptic Gospels; evidence such as Papias and the 'Prologue of the Gospel of John' which Vinzent thinks is likely to have been written by Papias: iirc, he thinks Pliny the Younger's Epistle 10.96. is evidence of a Marcionite community.

rgprice wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 3:20 am It appears rather that the NT as we know it (mostly) was put together in the mid second century in reaction to Marcionism.

The church fathers received this anthology and generally accepted it because of its anti-Marcionite themes. Who actually put it together we don't know.
.
  • Certainly many of the NT books are likely to have been written in the mid second century, perhaps both prompting Marcion to put together a canon, what some call the first NT, and perhaps some NT books in response to Marcion's cannon-collection, but I wonder if the time a first orthodox canon/ NT might be a bit more elusive. I'd say it's earliest date might be ~180. I wonder if Irenaeus was involved in some type of 'orthodox' collection, but if there were still disputes, hence his Against Heresies. It's possible an initial 'orthodox' collection was still disputed and things were murky & loose for quite a while yet.

    As you say ...
rgprice wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 3:20 am the church fathers [eventually] found ways to rationalize [John] and work with it. The prospect of casting doubt upon one of the Gospels in the anthology was too big a problem
cora
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:57 pm

Re: Sleeper awake!

Post by cora »

Geocalyx,
I don't think you understood everything as it was meant. Yes, gnosis was suppressed, but they of course are not going to suppress one of their own gospels, would you think? As long as nobody knows about it everything is fine. Still almost nobody knows about it.
Gnosticism actually has a God. He has a son (the Logos) and a daughter (the holy spirit). Of course they believe, but the way it is expressed is different.
There are many versions of Gnosticism like I said. The NH papers have at least three, the mystery religions is again something else. There were about 8 mystery religions, but the idea was all the same. It is about a dying-rising-god-saviour. The dying-rising-god is naturally a sun god. The saviour is the gnostic part: if you believe you will get life after death. This was very special because the jews and the greeks did not have that.
That is what Paul was preaching: he just put someone in the role of the god-saviour: Isu Chrestos. Chrestos means in this case saviour. Isu is a god/divine spirit. He could of course not take/steal a sun god. Perfectly gnostic. This divine spirit was the son of god the father. God the father is the GNOSTIC GOD. Everything fits. Paul is a gnostic. Therefore Marcion is a gnostic and John is a gnostic.

As you will have seen, the catholic church to be stole some things of Paul. God the father became the name for Jahweh, and the sons name was changed in Jesus Christos. What means that our trinity is gnostic, but as long as nobody knows that...……. The trinity, the son of god, it was simply stolen from Gnosticism. In fact the whole of Christianity is stolen from the mystery religions, because we still have a dying-rising-god/person, who is a saviour. I don't know if he promises life after death as in Paul and John, he is now a sacrifice for our sins or something like that. The word SIN is not gnostic, the word SIN is jewish. The church of rome was old-testamentic, their main concern was that Jahweh would become the ultimate highest god.
cora
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:57 pm

Re: Sleeper awake!

Post by cora »

I really have to add some facts: I have never heard of Apelles but I am sure that he has nothing to do with it. The gospel of John has always been called the gospel of John (I have found an older version) and was written I think 110-120. The gospel of John is NOT anti-Marcionite. You seem not to know that Gnosticism is tolerant (Christianity is not at all). As long as you get your divine spirit down, the way you do it is not important.
What do you mean: who put it together we don't know. Are you a writer of books? And you don't know where the NT comes from? Incredible. Who is the first writer of Christianity? And who the second? What about Justin and Irenaeus. It comes all from Irenaeus in 185. You ought to know that, it is a simple fact. He did not take it in because it was anti-Marcionite. He took it in because it was there early, AND he took it in because he wanted to change the Logos (the son of the gnostic god) into the Word. Jesus had to be the Word of god to make it Jahweh-ish. And then of course the Word became flesh, and everybody believed it, but HOW did he become flesh? Nobody says anything. I recently understood it. The Logos is a divine spirit. So he enters Jesus. Jesus is a person, being invaded in the beginning by a spirit, as John tells. So it is just like in Mark. Everybody fooled for 1800 years.
cora
Posts: 161
Joined: Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:57 pm

Re: Sleeper awake!

Post by cora »

Macson,
Yes John and Marcion are comtemporaries, I would almost say they knew each other. Papias did not exist, the text is by Irenaeus. The prologue of John is purely gnostic, do they still not know that? It is about the Logos, the son of the gnostic god. Until Irenaeus made the Word of it. Plinius gives evidence of chrestians being noticed at all for the first time. You just have to acknowledge that Paul preached between 90 and 120, most of the time in Turkey. It is not conform the NT...……...but Jesus was first mentioned in Judea after the war. That is also not conform the NT. Nothing is conform the NT. Because the NT is not conform the truth.
NT appeared in 185, almost right. Really, you wonder if...…….How many writers for the church are there actually in 150-200? Why don't you look it up? I cannot understand this, so much fuss for years , and nobody knows anything. So I say it and am ignored. So many people and nobody knows when the NT came out. And it was not disputed no, it was the definitive canon.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 1199
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Sleeper awake!

Post by Jax »

rgprice wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 3:20 am Well the Gospel of John is an interesting case. It appears to have been written by Apelles, a disciple of Marcion's who left Marcion and became a sort of anti-Marcionite. The views of Apelles are very similar to Marcion's except he held that Jesus had actually become real flesh, whereas Marcion held that he did not.

I think that what we call gJohn is the Gospel of Apelles or is at least built upon the Gospel of Apelles. Thus, gJohn is actually gnostic. The reason that its in the NT is because its anti-Marcionite. But this also gets into the question of how the NT was developed and who put it there. The traditional view is that it was developed through a long process by Catholics, etc. and assembled in the 4th century. But this appears not to be the case. It appears rather that the NT as we know it (mostly) was put together in the mid second century in reaction to Marcionism, most probably by a single individual who made all of the choices for the content on his own.

The church fathers received this anthology and generally accepted it because of its anti-Marcionite themes. Who actually put it together we don't know. But, whoever did put Johannine works in because of their anti-Marcionite teachings regarding the bodily incarnation of Jesus. Yet, the Johannine works aren't really Catholic either. There are actually a lot of anti-orthodox elements of gJohn as well, but since it was already included within the anti-Marcionite anthology, the church fathers found ways to rationalize it and work with it. The prospect of casting doubt upon one of the Gospels in the anthology was too big a problem so it was better to accept it and make used of its anti-Marcionite elements.
My money is on Tatian. Once he included John in his harmony the damage was done and even while some wanted John not to be included in the official cannon they were kind of stuck with it.

All they could do is what it looks like they did with Paul in adjusting the message by adding to the Gospel. They couldn't remove content without appearing to be guilty of what they were accusing Marcion of but like the pigs in Animal Farm they added content to improve the text and bring it in line with their orthodoxy.

My 2 cents
Post Reply