Gnosticism and Paul

mosherosh

Member
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Re: Acceptance of Christianity

I like Bandit's stripping away of Pauline Christian dogmatic nonsense. It is a postitive step in the right direction to resurrect Christianity from it's otherwise inevitable fate of becoming another Mystery Religion museum piece for anyone who thinks critically. I know Bandit didn't mean his post to be taken this way but, hey, there it is, the list of ways to recover the lost meaning of Jesus' sacrifice without resorting to what I call the "Tinkerbell belief system", i.e, believing in the Story of Jesus with all you heart, mind and soul, because the Bible tells you to which is more or less the same idea Peter Pan tells to the Lost Children when Tinkerbell lies dying that if they will only "believe in fairies with all your heart" Tink will live, and by gosh, she does! And by God, so does Jesus Christ of the Story when Christians believe it with all their heart, mind and soul. But does he really? Can believing in an unproven, unprovable story written by historically virtually unknown men at unknown times, a story that defies common sense and laws of physics, really "save" anyone? Yet billions of Christians have claimed just this for their belief in the Story of Jesus per New Testament writtens.

I dunno..this is not my idea of spiritual wisdom but then I am a Gnostic Christian who views the Pauline Christian useage of the Name of Jesus as some sort of magic wand that gets Christians into heaven by merely "believing with all their hearts, mind, and soul.." that this constitutes being a "Christian" is not my idea of what Christianity is all about. It's about spiritual truth and changed behavior. In our modern times, you can't find spiritual truth in beliefs in superstitious myths which I am sorry to add my opinion and inform Pauline Christians for the umpteenth time, cannot be found in believing in ancient Mystery Religion doctrines which Pauline Christianity is a prime example. One has only to compare Pauline Christian dogma with Mithraism, compare Jesus with Mithra, to see how Pauline Christianity fits the Mystery Religion mold with its pagan polytheistic deity worship instead of God alone.

Pauline Christian dogma is obsolete now that the Biomystical Christian meaning of Yeshu/Jesus' sacrificial death is available to all Christians wanting and needing something more than suspension of critical judgment in order to "believe" the unbelievable, in order to be unbelievable Christians..
 
Re: Acceptance of Christianity

Most everything beginning with Paul's paganizing the Jewish Messiah tradition so that Jesus Christ would fit the dying/resurrection God-Man mold Roman Empire people were familiar with which built the bridge for pagans to become "grafted" on the tree of Jewish religious traditions. This alone created the unbridgeable chasm between Judaism and Pauline Christianity because Jews can never worship a man as God, impossible without throwing the Ten Commandments out the window.

But the real clincher for me that tells me that Paul while being one hit with a tremendous vision of the risen Christ still could not understand Jesus' basic teachings about humility and forgiveness of sins. When Paul pulls the ancient religious threat of condemning all who don't believe his particular gospel he shows that he thinks he is above the Spirit of Christ as it came into many others during those heady years of the 1st century AD. Anyone who tries to lay claim to being the ultimate spokesman for God is someone a follower of the teachings of Yeshu/Jesus should be very leery of.
 
Re: Acceptance of Christianity

mosherosh said:
Most everything beginning with Paul's paganizing the Jewish Messiah tradition so that Jesus Christ would fit the dying/resurrection God-Man mold Roman Empire people were familiar with which built the bridge for pagans to become "grafted" on the tree of Jewish religious traditions. This alone created the unbridgeable chasm between Judaism and Pauline Christianity because Jews can never worship a man as God, impossible without throwing the Ten Commandments out the window.

But the real clincher for me that tells me that Paul while being one hit with a tremendous vision of the risen Christ still could not understand Jesus' basic teachings about humility and forgiveness of sins. When Paul pulls the ancient religious threat of condemning all who don't believe his particular gospel he shows that he thinks he is above the Spirit of Christ as it came into many others during those heady years of the 1st century AD. Anyone who tries to lay claim to being the ultimate spokesman for God is someone a follower of the teachings of Yeshu/Jesus should be very leery of.
Which was written first: Paul's Epistle to the Romans or the Gospel of Mark?
 
Re: Acceptance of Christianity

Who was the historical Jesus; Yeshu ben Pantera or Jesus Christ of the Gospels?;)
 
Re: Acceptance of Christianity

Kindest Regards, Mosherosh, and welcome to CR!

I am still trying to figure out your point. There have been a number of discussions about the validity of Paul's teaching on the Christianity board. In my opinion, I think it would be suitable to carry this discussion over there.

In brief however, I believe you dismiss Paul's teaching out of hand. And since the teachings of Paul constitute the greater portion of Christian theology, the end result is the undermining of the Christian faith, leaving a hollowed out worthless shell. So, I would have to ask, just what is it you do believe, if Paul's teaching is not acceptable, and you still consider yourself a Christian?

I would greatly prefer if your answer was taken to the Christianity board, if you don't mind please. This particular thread was not started nor intended as a critique of Christianity. There are plenty of other places here where that is acceptable. :)
 
Re: Acceptance of Christianity

mosherosh said:
Who was the historical Jesus; Yeshu ben Pantera or Jesus Christ of the Gospels?;)
I don't know.

Do you have an answer to the question I posted above?
 
Re: Acceptance of Christianity

My NIV Bible says Paul wrote Romans around 57AD. Mark is most commonly thought to have written around the fall of the Temple, 70 AD. I read Mark as a Story, not as historical documentation. I have my own "feeling" (something below "Knowing") that Mark, as a one-time protege of Paul, took off with Paul's Cosmic Christ idea and was one of the first to start using the Old Testament prophetic verses applied to the Suffering Servant which while originally a metaphor for Jews became in Mark's hands the model for a Cosmic Christ/Messiah, Jesus Christ. The fall of the Temple and Jerusalem must have been seen as a catastrophe for both Temple Judaism and Pharaisic Judaism while Christian Jews probably saw it as vindication that God had truly passed the Spirit baton to Christian Jews with their oral tradition memories of teachings by a Jewish teacher stoned to death and hung on a tree as per Jewish law (which Paul refers to in Gal 3:13 I think..) for blasphemy. Remembering how many Jews were crucified by Pilate and other Roman procreators, Mark choses a name "Jesus" to represent Salvation is of Yahweh and indeed there were likely many "Jesus"s crucified in the early 1st century Palestine. They all represented Jews under persecution but with Christian Jews there is the difference in breaking with traditional Judaism, Temple (Sadducee) or rabbinical (Pharisee). John's Jesus makes the break symbolically clear by casting Jesus as innocent victim while Barabbas, (Son of the Fathers) the real criminal representing the Tradition of our Fathers, Jews let go free.

But it's all a Story built of words from the OT plus a miraculous reversal of the sleazy Yeshu ben Pantera slanderous history to describe Jesus and his actions using the core Sayings to flesh out the Jesus character. But let's face it. Myths are most powerful vehicles for mass social change movements and the Christian mythology was ripe for the Roman world and the second major collapse of the Jewish world. And for all my Paul bashing, I realize I very likely wouldn't be a Christian today now most any of us with his genius hitching the Jewish Messiah concept onto the pagan Mystery Religion bandwagon. God does work in mysterious ways..
 
Re: Acceptance of Christianity

"I would greatly prefer if your answer was taken to the Christianity board, if you don't mind please. This particular thread was not started nor intended as a critique of Christianity. There are plenty of other places here where that is acceptable. :) "

"Acceptance of Christianity" is the title of this discussion thread. I took it to mean a discussion about the acceptance of Christianity, when, where, who, and why accepted, and logically, when, where, who, and why it has not been accepted. I am a Gnostic Christian who's historical tradition is every bit as old as Pauline Christian traditions and I for one will not let you or anyone define what it means to be a "Christian" for me. You are not me and don't have the qualifications for such judgment. All you need to know is that I follow the teachings of Yeshu/Jesus Christ to the best of my ability and believe with all my heart, mind, and soul in the saving power of the Spirit of Christ as the Primary Word or Message from God called by Pauline Christians the "Firstborn Son" of God Most High. Now we can go round and round about definitions of words but we both know this truth: the devil is in the details. It should be enough for you and this discussion that I call myself Christian and try to live the Life.

Now as a Gnostic Christian I can give you a number of reasons why traditional or Pauline Christianity has been accepted in the past but is headed for the compost pile of history, there to enrich the soil for the growth of a new Christian theology that cannot be blown to pieces so easily by most anyone who thinks critically about religious belief systems.
 
Re: Acceptance of Christianity

Kind Regards, mosherosh.
mosherosh said:
"Acceptance of Christianity" is the title of this discussion thread. I took it to mean a discussion about the acceptance of Christianity, when, where, who, and why accepted, and logically, when, where, who, and why it has not been accepted.
I see. It is unfortunate that you had the misfortune of happening along after the fact. Perhaps you also noticed this thread was placed in the feedback section, not the Monotheism section? Did you get the opportunity to read the whole thread, noticing that it dealt primarily with moderation questions on the Christianity board? Have you looked up any of the old threads concerning Paul in the Christianity section? I even started a new one just for you, about Christianity minus Paul.

I am a Gnostic Christian who's historical tradition is every bit as old as Pauline Christian traditions
Good for you. I think you will find a few people around here that are familiar with your views.

and I for one will not let you or anyone define what it means to be a "Christian" for me. You are not me and don't have the qualifications for such judgment.
Perhaps it would be well if you were not so quick to judge. I have not prequalified you for or to anything, but I see you already have me pegged. Silly me.

All you need to know is that I follow the teachings of Yeshu/Jesus Christ to the best of my ability and believe with all my heart, mind, and soul in the saving power of the Spirit of Christ as the Primary Word or Message from God called by Pauline Christians the "Firstborn Son" of God Most High.
Quite the contrary, it is my job around here to know much more. So you follow the teachings of Christ? You do well. So do I.

Now we can go round and round about definitions of words but we both know this truth: the devil is in the details. It should be enough for you and this discussion that I call myself Christian and try to live the Life.
Just a touch hypersensitive I see. Pity. I really would be interested to hear your point of view. Too bad that is too much like "go(ing) round and round about definitions of words..."

Now as a Gnostic Christian I can give you a number of reasons why traditional or Pauline Christianity has been accepted in the past
Again, I would love to hear it, preferably on the proper board, provided you can drop the suspicions and antagonistic attitude.

but is headed for the compost pile of history, there to enrich the soil for the growth of a new Christian theology that cannot be blown to pieces so easily by most anyone who thinks critically about religious belief systems.
However, I would caution about an attitude such as this. We try to maintain a level of respectful dialogue, which means not knocking others for their beliefs. If that is acceptable to you, then please join in. If not...it has been nice. :)
 
Re: Acceptance of Christianity

mosherosh said:
My NIV Bible says Paul wrote Romans around 57AD. Mark is most commonly thought to have written around the fall of the Temple, 70 AD. I read Mark as a Story, not as historical documentation.
I would agree with all of that.

mosherosh said:
I have my own "feeling" (something below "Knowing") that Mark, as a one-time protege of Paul, took off with Paul's Cosmic Christ idea and was one of the first to start using the Old Testament prophetic verses applied to the Suffering Servant which while originally a metaphor for Jews became in Mark's hands the model for a Cosmic Christ/Messiah, Jesus Christ.
This is what I was getting at with my question. It struck me as unusual that you would be so "anti-Paul" as a Gnostic, when the problem you seemed to have was Paul's disagreement with the words of a character in a story that may have been in part inspired by Paul's teachings in the first place.

It also surprised me because the early Gnostics were the first to appreciate Paul. Much of the earliest writings regarding Paul are those of Marcion and Valentinus (who claimed to have received the Gnosis from Paul via Paul's disciple and Valentinus's teacher, Theodas). It doesn't appear that the proto-orthodox caught onto to the idea of re-interpreting Paul to support their views until they were already in the process of attacking the Gnostics, the Thomas Christians, the Marcionites and the Ebionites and anyone else who didn't agree with them. That's why I asked what bothered you about Paul's writings. Is it their writings or the way they've been intrepreted or altered to support the orthodoxy?

mosherosh said:
But it's all a Story built of words from the OT plus a miraculous reversal of the sleazy Yeshu ben Pantera slanderous history to describe Jesus and his actions using the core Sayings to flesh out the Jesus character. But let's face it. Myths are most powerful vehicles for mass social change movements and the Christian mythology was ripe for the Roman world and the second major collapse of the Jewish world. And for all my Paul bashing, I realize I very likely wouldn't be a Christian today now most any of us with his genius hitching the Jewish Messiah concept onto the pagan Mystery Religion bandwagon. God does work in mysterious ways..
Indeed.
 
Re: Acceptance of Christianity

This was all on a Feedback thread, but it's an interesting discussion in itself, so I've split the thread so the discussion on Gnosticism now takes place on the Mysticism board.
 
and what makes you say Paul was completely faith-baised? Actually he expressed a trinitarian system of spirituality in the words hope, faith, and love. But the greatest of all those he says is love. For a Pauline Christian, devotion to the Christ's teachings were most important. Pauline Christians received their hope and faith by their loving devotion, not by faith (or works) alone. What Paul meant by Grace alot of folks misunderstand. Grace meant turning over to the gentle, peaceful way of Christ, and leaving religion, rites, and the evils of the world behind. Remember the greatest evil within Christianity is in the walls of the churches themselves, not outside of it....
 
Back
Top