Thread 40924207

You guys do realize Gnosticism was debunked in 180 AD by Ireneaus right?

I've been led to believe his debunking was fake. Basically calling it debunked whilst not actually having proven it. What would you say about it?

>>40924207 (OP)
It was rebunked by me yesterday. You must have missed the memo.

>Iren, iren so far away~~


https://youtu.be/iIpfWORQWhU

>>40924222
Trips of truth

>>40924207 (OP)
You mean the religion that murdered your saviour back in 2022 (me being the killer) got dfbunked by words?
Oh gosh... XD

>>40924270
You killed the Nobody?

irineu você não sabe nem eu

>>40924213
The scholars of the early church like Origen, Tertullian, Ireneaeus, Antioch, Clement; all of these were tight-knit with the church the apostles started; Irenaeus himself was student to Polycarp who followed Apostle St. John around all day.

It helps more that the churches the apostles started were all connected in that they convened and submitted to a leadership we now call the Roman Catholic Church (Paul and Peter were martyred in Rome, it is also the central hub of X'ians in the first century according to secular historical records)

Any of the 70-80 works attributed to "gnosis" going around had no interrelation with any of the disciples or disciples students at all; nobody had heard of the book of thomas, the book of Nicodemus, etc. etc. and it's not that because nobody had heard of these writings it therefore became false; but because significant individuals that were close to the apostles daily, 24/7, 365, had no remembrance or purpoted association to any of the remarks, events, or sayings attributed to in the gnostic books regarded as heresy before the end of the first century.

Notably, the first instance in scripture is the rebuke of "hidden teachings" by St. Paul himself;
1 Timothy 6:20–21

“O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge (gnosis), for by professing it some have swerved from the faith.”

Continuing in my next post:

>>40924257
>>40924213
>>40924346
This quote was from a letter written in greek, and looking at the greek word for gnosis, and its etymology. At the time Paul wrote (mid-1st century), gnosis didn’t yet mean “Gnosticism” in the later 2nd-century sense, but he was definitely warning against elitist, speculative “secret knowledge” that was already floating around in Greek philosophical and religious circles that led to the creation of several proto (early) gnostic sects in the middle of the first century such as the Nicolatians or the Valentinians.

Revelation 2:6 and 2:15 mention the Nicolaitans: “You hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.”
Early church writers like Irenaeus and Hippolytus say the Nicolaitans practiced sexual immorality, possibly ritual sex as the Nicolatians had been believed by the church writers to fall into a gnostic-like belief where the material, created by the devil, was inherently sinful so avoiding sin to them was meaningless.

Tertullian (c. 200 AD) mentions that heretics made up texts.

In On Baptism 17, he says the “Acts of Paul and Thecla” was forged by an Asian presbyter (a kind of monk/priest) who admitted he wrote it out of love for Paul. He was deposed from office for this.

Continued in my next post:

>>40924213
>>40924257
>>40924346

That’s not the same as “all gnostic texts were made up,” but it does show that apocryphal writings were being fabricated and passed around as apostolic. But the mere fact that the entire church was able to come together and say "Hold up, none of what they're saying lines up with what Jesus or the apostles taught " does lead to condemnation for gnosticism if we want to attribute its apocrypha as works of non-fiction
because it is well written down in John 21:25:
>25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.
If anyone would be informed to the true knowledge of God, it would be those 12 who spent their entire livelihoods with the God incarnate as Jesus Christ of Nazareth.

Then the 2nd and 3rd gen Christians, still following the apostolic lines through their students and ordained leaders approved for teaching others; comes the Muratorian Fragment (circulating 170 AD) discovered in 1790 AD in some library, had already excluded some gospels/letters as fictional that is to say “heretical.” including those works from the famous Valentinius sect that made the current Gnosticism popular on /x/ (Sophia, hylics, sygzy, demiurge, etc.)

>>40924213
>>40924257
>>40924270
It goes more to say that when you look at Hippolytus' work given he spoke personally to the bishops and the papal figures in the early 3rd century; he quotes Nicolaus
>Nicolas “used to lead an immoral life and taught his followers to indulge in promiscuous sexual practices,” and some interpretations say he “offered his wife” in the context of sexual licentiousness.
Here's his drawing and quoting from all his sources. This greentext is a direct quote from Hippolytus' work dubbed Refutation of All Heresies which used Irenaeus' Against Heresies as a base for a revised 3rd century edition for the Roman Churches at the time which they all received and distributed among each other in multitudes of tens of thousands.

Valentius himself was almost made bishop, but when the apostles picked someone else over him he left and started a completely different sect making shit up drawing inspiration from numerology (Irenaeus Against Heresies Ch. 1),
, and Chapter 1 Section 3 is the strongest objection yet seeing Irenaeus knew Polycarp very well and studied with him his entire life.
>Such, then, is their system, which neither the prophets announced, nor the Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they boast that beyond all others they have a perfect knowledge. They gather their views from other sources than the Scriptures; and, to use a common proverb, they strive to weave ropes of sand, while they endeavour to adapt with an air of probability to their own peculiar assertions the parables of the Lord, the sayings of the prophets, and the words of the apostles, in order that their scheme may not seem altogether without support. In doing so, however, they disregard the order and the connection of the Scriptures, and so far as in them lies, dismember and destroy the truth.

>>40924207 (OP)
>Be Irenaeus
>Dunk on the gnostics for their heresy and elitism when it comes to gnosis
>Teach concepts like theosis and help cement the early communal church life and canonization of the 4 nt gospels
>Be modern day
>Most modern Christians aren't even aware of the concept of theosis (or acquiring the holy spirit, divinization, etc.)
There's some irony to that

Gnosticism is just Hellenists who almost saw a few Hebrew ciphers in OT and couldn't figure out the rest so brain-broke themselves with Sophia / Demiurge fanfic.

Sophia is just dark Shekinah who was already Lilith

>>40924207 (OP)
You realize my turds slide down your mom's throat, right?

>>40924346
>Polycarp
https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/15999
>1 Timothy
(Picrel)
Sorry, you don't get to just take your own side's word that it's everyone else who was doing all the lying and forging.

>>40924207 (OP)
Nag Hammadi texts are fake

>>40924697
To elaborate a bit on 1 Timothy being forgery, a few of the reasons I know offhand for suspecting it are that, while it does have "Paul" argue against the idea of hidden teachings, in another letter Paul himself asserts that there are hidden teachings. From 1 Corinthians 2: "For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified [. . .] Yet among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are being destroyed."

Also 1 Timothy has "Paul" feeling compelled to swear he isn't lying, "For this I was appointed a herald and an apostle (I am telling the truth; I am not lying)" (1 Timothy 2:7) which is something Paul occasionally does to audiences who might distrust him, but here he is supposedly speaking to Timothy, his "true child in the faith," so it seems a little odd, like a guilty slip of the pen from a forger.

It also has the absurd idea that women will be saved through childbearing, which is totally contrary to Paul's model of salvation elsewhere and his belief that it's good to abstain from marriage if you can handle it, and he wishes all were as he is (celibate). The bit about women being silent in 1 Timothy likewise goes against Paul's advice in 1 Corinthians 11 that women should wear head coverings while prophesying (so talking in church) and his later wish in 1 Corinthians 14 that everyone would be able to take turns prophesying in church. It's true that there's a passage toward the end about women being silent very similar to the one in 1 Timothy, but it disrupts the flow of the text and goes against what is said before, so it's widely considered to be a later interpolation, perhaps from the same person who forged the pastoral epistles, trying to give more weight to his views by inserting them into an earlier more trusted text.

But those are still only a few of many grounds for suspecting the pastorals of being later forgeries.

>words are proof
Cant w8 to give my life savings to a social engineer

>>40924697
Your argument is a classic case of red herring. There are 7 indisputed Paulian letters, establishing a foundation for Christians at the time in contact with the disciples and their ordained bishops, deacons, etc. Paul himself admitted to using scribes, n Romans 16:22, Paul himself mentions Tertius, who wrote the letter as Paul dictated:
>“I, Tertius, who wrote this letter, greet you in the Lord.”
Whether or not 1 Timothy was written by Paul himself or not is a moot point, Paul's "thorn in the flesh" in 2 Corinthians 12:7 is his eyesight, Paul required scribes and these scribes themselves were Christians dissiminating Paul's letters for him as followers.
>Galatians 4:13–15
>“You know it was because of a bodily illness that I preached the gospel to you at first, and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus. What then has become of your blessing? For I bear you witness that, if possible, you would have plucked out your eyes and given them to me.”
Scholars widely accept this as admission that Paul requires scribes. (Paul was completely blinded on the Road to Damascus, further paralleling his spiritual tribulation entertwined with the flesh of his)

Continued;

>>40924697
Carrier himself is not even well regarded among the agnostics or atheist of: historians, archeologists, scholars. He's not peer reviewed like agnostic Bart Ehrman, actually credited among historians for debunking the "mythicism" bullshit theory Carrier spouts.

To remind the audience this is what Carrier believes
>“Furthermore, Carrier posits originally Jesus was the name of a celestial or “angelic extraterrestrial” being who was subordinate to God who came from a “cosmic sperm bank”, was tortured and crucified by Satan and his demons, buried in a tomb above the clouds, and resurrected - all in outer space. As a celestial extraterrestrial, Jesus was probably known originally only through private revelations and hidden messages in scripture, which were then elaborated into an allegorical person, communicating the claims of the gospels.”

Continued;

>>40924697
Carriers entire argument against Polycarp/Irenaeus is "he said she said"; meanwhile The New Testament itself makes mention of the valentinius Pleroma concept going around but re-uses it in a true Christian lens to reject the gnostic connotations to it, it mentions it directly by name three times to triple down what Pleroma truly is (not anything in gnostic texts)
>Colossians 1:19: "For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell,"
Colossians 2:9: "For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,"
Ephesians 1:23: "which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all,"

all of these draw striaght from the greek word (πλήρωμα (plērōma), which literally means “fullness.” These passages take the term and apply it theologically to Christ, emphasizing that he embodies the complete divine presence, rather than adopting the Gnostic Valentinian sense of an abstract, emanated realm of divine entities within their hierarchies. In other words, the New Testament repurposes the language familiar to first-century readers including concepts circulating in gnostic circles but clarifies that true “fullness” is realized in the incarnate Christ and his body, the Church, rejecting any detached or mystical Gnostic interpretation trying pleroma to a cosmic, truly hierarchical realm of divine emanations (aeons); Going against the sole authority and kingship of the Lord, Valentinians and the gnostics reject the oral tradition and make up entire fan fiction outside of the divine laying of hands.

Continued;

The only reason why we are talking gnosticism and it being dunked on by someone is because SOMEONE'S PAID FOR IT.
THAT'S RIGHT, YOU'RE READING PAID CONTENT.
FACTS.
Someone the filthy rich hate, attained something he defined when questioned by lots of people as "gnosis".
So, as things are, plenty of people hate gnosticism on his favourite website.
How do I know these people are underpaid wankers?
Because they didnt bother to ask further.
If they had, they would know it's a MODERN religion and a nonchristian one.
Thus, I am the fellow in question.
I guarantee you that:
a) This isn't gnosticism the way 4chan refers to it.
b) This isn't a religion you can convert into (you're born, not made).
c) This isn't a religion of the light.
d) This isn't a dos and don'ts religion
e) Further info is denied, incase they grab it

Hurrr
Durrr
Flurrr
Clurrr
>It has yo be something I know guise
It isn't :_D

>>40924697
Even if you believe in Christ, which you should, no reasonable gnostic can immediately so choose to ignore the very fact the ordained disciples refused to ordain Valentinius as he was not fit for christian duty as a bishop; further solidified by his schismatic divisive sect in a time where the whole order of the church was unity in doctrine and theology; Valentinius was the exact christian Christ warned would attempt to claim would be true Christians but are not. A sin so great that schismatic divison itself was not done in the church at large until the 1200s, thats how grave schism was, Valentius oftly going the route of starting his own cult is exactly the mystery teachings that are inherently antithesis to the gospel spread to the masses without shame or deceit, evidenced by martyrs and preachers on the street.

>>40924815
Gnosticism is just speculation m8.

>>40924862
Hurrrf Duuurrrfff
>Muh ancients
>Muh Iraneus
>Romans fought against Assassins and Hunters of Supernatural Horrors with abilities akin to those of Ryogi Shiki and Tohno Shiki guise.
They totes legit arent ayo limaos from anuda dimension
X'D
>>40924869
Retard

>>40924784
1 Timothy does not imply that all women must be saved through childbirth; its building upon what Paul already said, if you cant control your passion, marry. Most people will choose this second option, so theyre speaking at large when they say women will be saved through "childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety." (quoted from the verses on biblegateway website)

>>40924827
*Your argument* is a classic case of red herring. Paul perhaps requiring scribes isn't an excuse for the pastorals contradicting Paul's ideas in his more certain letters, and it isn't a moot point that Paul didn't write them when what they say is part of your argument against Gnosticism. In fact that someone apparently felt the need to forge letters from Paul against Gnosticism, if that's what happened (and I think the case for it being what happened is quite strong, though laying it out in its entirety would take ages and be pretty much copypasting from copyrighted books), should actually a point in favor of Gnosticism in my book. It was present early enough and widely enough that more than just telling the truth was required to suppress it; it took lying.

But now I don't have time at the moment to continue an argument that I'm fairly sure will never end with you conceding (I've had such arguments here before), so I think I'll leave off there. Maybe I'll come back later to see if anything interesting has been said to which I might respond.

>>40924346 (ff.)
Ok but if something is falsely called gnosis then that implies that something else is truly thus called. And it seems that Clement, Origen, Dionysius, and others (even Plotinus, in spite of Porphyry's redactions) are gesturing at it. That's far more interesting to me

>gnosticism is fake because [incoherently circular list of names and dates]
k

>>40924914
>when what they say is part of your argument against Gnosticism
No, it is not, the scribes carried Pauls oral tradition and teachings.
>>40924921
Clement positively uses the term “gnosis” to refer to spiritual knowledge gained through Christian teaching and virtue. Origen often uses “gnosis” in the sense of deep spiritual understanding of God and the Scriptures. Some lesser-known early Christians (like Theophilus of Antioch, c. 180) also mention gnosis as true knowledge given by God, contrasting it with Gnostic error. None of these accept gnostic fiction unlike /x/ which buy into hook, line, and sinker. You're right that the early church Gnosis in the Catholic theology is much more appealing.

>>40924944
>didn't read
Gnosticism's origins is all made up speculation drawn from numerology mate. Not that you would challenge your beliefs and research all this, go back to breaking your attention span on whatever it is that's made you this way.

>>40924945
Cf. ST IIa IIae QQ 171-175, especially:
Q 172 A 4 resp:
>Hence we read of the sons of the prophets (2 Kings 4:38) that they "dwelt together with [Vulgate: 'before']" Eliseus, leading a solitary life, as it were, lest worldly employment should be a hindrance to the gift of prophecy.
ad 1:
>Sometimes the gift of prophecy is given to a man both for the good of others, and in order to enlighten his own mind; and such are those whom Divine wisdom, "conveying itself" by sanctifying grace to their minds, "maketh the friends of God, and prophets."
Q 175 A 3 ad 2:
>The Divine essence cannot be seen by a created intellect save through the light of glory, of which it is written (Psalm 35:10): "In Thy light we shall see light." But this light can be shared in two ways. First by way of an abiding form, and thus it beatifies the saints in heaven. Secondly, by way of a transitory passion, as stated above (II-II:171:2) of the light of prophecy; and in this way that light was in Paul when he was in rapture. Hence this vision did not beatify him simply, so as to overflow into his body, but only in a restricted sense. Consequently this rapture pertains somewhat to prophecy.
& ad 4 (longer passage).

Guys, the religion of the person I'm attacking, which is a modern religion, is fake because muh ancient gnostics

Say Op, where the gnostics at?
Where are they since you're so invested?
Classic gnosticism disappeared more than a thousand years ago.
And with it, the last gnostic.

So where are these gnostics you're set up against?

Cant quite put the finger on them?

Gratz
>>40924862
>>40924878
These are your (retard) reality.

Wheres your God now?

>>40925079
gnositicsm isnt a modern religion, and any sect based on valentinius is still ancient gnosticism, with maybe some bogus new age channeling buzzwords in association.

>>40925104

>>40925130
No one but (((you))) knows what in HELL is your reason to attac a religion no fucking one knows how to practice

>>40925130
>valentinius
Yes anon, the religion where you hunt supernatural horrors a la Garden of Sinners is based off valentinus.
XD

>>40925142
>no fucking one knows how to practice
1.4 billion humans alive today disagree with you.
>>40925162
Whatever abilities you have don't discredit truth.

>>40925179
What truth, lmao

>>40925201
the Catholic catechism.

>>40925209
Ah see, I havent been long in your planet, but see... They're dead.

>>40925217
show me your charity works

>>40925225
Excuse yourself.
I don't do that filth.
Look, chummer, if you think my religion, that you're trying to persecute, is about being a nice lad, you're going to find yourself soon in the wrong side of a daggers edge.
Fair warning, satanboi/choirboi, whichever applies.

Charity says the faggot.

>>40925248
Lecture yourself, not others

>>40925248
I'm not sure why, but your church is real mad at me being into the business of horror killing

>>40925253
I bet this nigra thinks I'm threatening to kill him in horrorous ways.

Sir, we are Hunters and Assassins of Supernatural Horrors, terrible beings that assuredly are of no benefit or profit for you, wether you're humankind or demonkind.

So cease your torpid stalking, because we deal with religious persecution towards our lineage as if they were atrocious creatures that are leaving the land barren.

>>40924958
I read your posts, and I’ve read other threads covering similar grounds.

My point is that it buries its claims behind a complex web of history. If anything is comparable to numerology, it’s what you’re doing — a magic show tier distraction meant to counter simple ideas. It will never, ever work. Insult me as much as you want.

>>40925276
Everyone on the Internet is LARPing until proven otherwise, and the genuine article feels no need to prove anything to anyone. The tough guy routine is tiresome and pointless.

>>40925276
Nobody thinks you're out to get me dweeb. I'm well aware of psychic wars; none of that contradicts the gospel of unity. When was the last time you ate from the eucharist?
>John 6:53: "Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you
"B-b-b-but He was being metaphorical"
This part filters many, specifically the transubstantiation. You finding it hard to believe is part of the process. John 6:53-60. Many believers left his teachings after Jesus said to eat his flesh and drink his blood. His 12 remaining apostles pushed back on the literal interpretation, murming to one another on how ridiculous it seemed to them, to which Jesus said:
<60> Many of his disciples, when they heard it, said," This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" <61> But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at it, said to them," Do you take offense at this? <62> Then what if you were to see the Son of man ascending where he was before? <63> It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. <64> But there are some of you that do not believe." For Jesus knew from the first who those were that did not believe, and who it was that would betray him. <65> And he said," This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." <66> After this many of his disciples drew back and no longer went about with him.

>>40925251
I'm not lecturing, I'm quoting outside sources.

>>40925298
>>40925298
>complex
Not complex at all, the start of the church is very cut-throat straight forward. The church in Rome is the central hub in the early beginnings, and among the ordained priests we have the following anchor churches so to speak that laid the canon for all churches which voluntarily submitted to by virtue of the leadership, and keys, given to Peter and his successors based in Rome:
Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem.
They were established by prominent figures like Peter (Rome and Antioch), Andrew (Constantinople), Mark (Alexandria), and James (Jerusalem).

>>40925448
Cool, where are the gnostics this faggot is after?
>Muh tough guy
Yes, fag, any non compliance is tough guy talk

>>40925475
Where are the gnostics?

>>40925636
>Cool, where are the gnostics this faggot is after?
There seem to be a few individuals who were disproportionately upset by the appearance of this thread. As they say, if you're taking flak, then you must be over the target.

>>40925669
I described my beliefs as outside the framework of this thread, described them, and asked the op where the gnostics are.

You didnt read, ofc, so you don't know where I'm coming from.

>>40925708
I think you have your own thing, which doesn't correlate to anything previously known as gnosticism, but which you represent in a very grandiose yet sad and irritable state. Everyone really is fighting a battle that no one else can see, but perhaps you aren't faring well in yours. I pray you find strength to overcome the inner demon.

As for things properly called gnosticism, if you want to know what I really think: on /x/ generally, it's obviously pervasive. Society at large embraces it under the banner of liberal protestantism, "Catholicism" since Paul VI included. This ought to be clear enough even to a semi-serious student of religious history. The theory of the "religious sense" etc should be familiar. It's ironic that the self-proclaimed gnostic imagines himself as a persecuted minority. Nothing could be more mainstream today. The same pattern is found elsewhere in society, especially with various well-funded mass movements. It's really the religion of the emotions. It doesn't appeal to a mature spirit.

>>40924270
this didn't happen.
go to church nigger.

>>40925807
I have studied classical gnosticism, from the foremost authorities on the subject.
I know the religion well.
It's neither known how to practice it in full, nor is it known what their full doctrine is.
But somehow, it's a plague, gotcha.

>>40925807
>Society at large embraces it under the banner of liberal protestantism
What makes you say this? I find that grouping offensive even as someone who just finds Gnosticism interesting.

(I don't accept any old books as gospel and think all religions I've come across are almost certainly humans inventions, except that some might have a vaguely accurate broad outline if you squint. But if I had to choose one type of Christianity to follow, I'd go with a reconstructed Gnostic variety. And I would guess that something along those lines applies to most everyone who likes Gnosticism.)

>>40924346
0>>40924352
>>40924354
>>40924442
I am a gnostic, you worship a dead jew on a stick. We are not the same…

>>40925851
Yes, I have read Elaine Pagels and spoken with her too, she is a relative of a friend. Plague is your word, not mine.
Not known how to practice in full? Here I may depart from the professor. If you have the principles, then you have the practice. And we have the principles.
>>40925880
You answered your own question, in fact. Your parenthetical remark is exemplary liberal protestant dogmatic theology.

>>40925880 (cont.)
Ah, nevermind. I googled liberal protestantism and I think I see how it fits with what I believe, or at least "liberal Christianity" generally fits.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity
>is a movement that interprets Christian teaching by prioritizing modern knowledge, science and ethics. It emphasizes the importance of reason and experience over doctrinal authority.

Initially I just read "liberal" and "protestant" separately, and for me the main associations with both of those labels include a ton of stuff I disagree with. Though even understood correctly I don't think this should be conflated with Gnosticism. I would say it's something that makes "heresy" of all kinds more acceptable. And I really doubt most self-professed liberal Christians will be found to reliably care much for ideas of gnosis or demiurges or reincarnation or hylic/psychic/pneumatic distinctions or asceticism (or antinomianism) or other things along those lines. But maybe. I haven't done any surveys.

>>40926034
I guess Gnosticism could kind of be seen as a workable label for liberal Christianity insofar as Gnosticism is detached from any specific set of early Christian ideas and summarized, as wikipedia says
>These diverse groups emphasized personal spiritual knowledge (gnosis) above the proto-orthodox teachings, traditions, and authority of religious institutions.
But I also think it isn't totally without viability to suggest that early Christianity was more Gnostic in character, and the proto-orthodox took it over and imposed an artificial consensus over it.

>>40926034
>And I really doubt most self-professed liberal Christians will be found to reliably care much for ideas of gnosis or demiurges or reincarnation or hylic/psychic/pneumatic distinctions or asceticism (or antinomianism) or other things along those lines.
Anecdotally, I have found that it's quite common, if tacit. Asceticism and reincarnationism find expression through yoga and similar eastern syncretism, antinomianism through base hedonism (though of course historically antinomianism is a much broader category). Here we have to look at liberal protestantism as a social phenomenon, which to be frank it essentially is. There is also inseparably a belief in progress, and this gives rise to the belief that while everyone's religion is an individual expression of one's own experience of the divine, mine is the most highly evolved. Is this not the hylic/psychic/pneumatic distinction expressed in modern scientistic terms?

Different doctrines are suited to different degrees of spiritual maturity. If a doctrine is erroneous, that does not deprive it of any greater purpose. The only spiritual plague in my view is sin itself, of which my concern is solely my own.

>>40926083
>But I also think it isn't totally without viability to suggest that early Christianity was more Gnostic in character, and the proto-orthodox took it over and imposed an artificial consensus over it.
How early are we talking here? 1 Timothy was written in 60AD rebuking hidden teachings, same with Colossians (60 AD) which identifies true pleroma as belief in Jesus Christ and the works that follow it (because faith without works is dead) , and Ephesians , repeating itself to triple down against gnosticism , purpoted to be written 61AD.

Gnosticism did indeed exist before Christianity, it's based on Platonism and egyptian philosophies beginning to be taught in the Academy of Athens, Rome (among a mixture of different philosophies, the academy here was the central hub for philosophers from far and wide). St. Paul himself went personally to the academy routinely to debate the philosophers and scholars there; even so far as to win over some of the school there, including the local judge of Athens, Dionysus, who later became the first bishop of Athens.
There is a great article linked here paralleling to Socrates and Paul, who both gave a discourse on a hill before a government and judicial council, only for them to both later be killed for their beliefs.
>https://scripturecentral.org/knowhy/how-did-paul-interact-with-greek-philosophies-in-athens
>As Paul was preaching in the agora, he gained the attention of “certain philosophers of the Epicureans, and of the Stoicks,” who had varying attitudes towards what they heard: “And some said, What will this babbler say? other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods: because he preached unto them Jesus, and the resurrection” (Acts 17:18). So they took Paul to meet with the Areopagus on Mars Hill right next to the Acropolis. There the city rulers invited him to explain in greater detail the new doctrine he was preaching.

>>40925708
>described them
You did no such thing.
>>40925851
>I know the religion well
No you do not. It is not a religion. It is a web of off-shoots from one another, all the more speculative than the other.

>>40925880
>But if I had to choose one type of Christianity to follow, I'd go with a reconstructed Gnostic variety
Gnosticism has nothing to do with Christianity or early Christianity.

>>40925991
So which gnostic sect do you actually identify with? Valentinians, Sethians, Basilideans… or just ‘DIY’ gnostic?”

>>40926816
>Be Denis the Areopagite
>Areopagus
>Mars Hill
>Be martyred on Montmartre
>Mont des Martyrs
>Mont de Mars
wat

>>40926083
"Christian gnosticism" emerged in the latter half of the first century, about 17 years after Jesus departing from the Apostles (33 AD~) Gnosticism has never, been part of Peter's church. It was beginning to gain traction towards the latter end of the century but by then it was already debunked in the Book of John, which was the last of the four main NT books, written as a spiritual response to firmly re-clarify the church's beliefs and debunk the emergence of developing gnostic beliefs tied to Christ, 1 John (c. 90 AD) attacks those denying Jesus came “in the flesh” which was a common gnostic/docetic claim that Epiphanius of Salamis in the 4th century wrote in his Panarion 51.6 "John wrote to counter Cerinthus, a heretic who lived from 50AD-100AD, a heretic in Ephesus who denied the true incarnation" Make a mental note that Cerinthus, a proto-"Christo-gnostic" did not personally meet Jesus and his disciples had to come out and literally make a new addition to the scripture solely to combat gnosticism.

Bart Ehrman a selfproclaimed agnostic atheist corroborates the same peer-review secular belief that John was written to clarify theological gaps that the first 3 synoptic gospels appeared to miss.

>>40924207 (OP)
Christianity is self debunking to be honest.

>>40926922
>>40926083
John also made a second book, right after, 2 John:
2 John is very short, and its key polemical verse is 7–11:
“…many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.”

It speaks for itself.

>>40925179
Papal line of secession is illegitimate.

>>40926083
scholars like Bentley Layton (The Gnostic Scriptures) estimate Gnosticism probably represented a minority maybe 5–15% of Christians at its height in the 2nd century.

>>40927013
Succession*
Ok Luther. Dont forget catholics are the first anti-jew christians

>>40926816
>1 Timothy was written in 60AD
Not sure what that claim is based on. https://earlychristianwritings.com/ has it between 100-150 AD, and the oldest partial collection of Paul's letters we have, P46, estimated to be from 175–225 AD, is believed to have not included them.

In support of Gnosticism being original I would also suggest the possibility that Marcion, perhaps informed by the Gnostic Cerdo, was simply correct in believing that Paul's letters had been corrupted very early. If someone buys the academic majority opinion that Matthew and Luke are based on the gospel of Mark with modifications to support the respective authors' preferred ideas and messages (I do), then they accept that the co-opting of writings was happening from the very beginning, and why should someone willing to do that stop at rewriting gospels? Why not letters too? And, indeed, there are at least a few interpolations into Paul's letters that are widely acknowledged to be such, and there are many more that might be suspected from internal dissonances. Likewise with the Johanine letters and the gospel of John imo.

"Many deceivers have gone out into the world" indeed. I just suspect that often the people warning everyone else about all those deceivers everywhere often were the deceivers, and they largely won.

>>40927476
But also the letters of Paul and the gospel of John are perhaps not so definitively opposed to Gnosticism even in their current form, if they're the same as what the Valentinians accepted in their canon and yet still came away from with Gnostic conclusions.

>>40927020
Jesus was legitimate, but the church is not.

>>40927476
>believed not to have included them
*them = the pastoral epistles

>>40927476
>>1 Timothy was written in 60AD
>Not sure what that claim is based on. https://earlychristianwritings.com/ has it between 100-150 AD, and the oldest partial collection of Paul's letters we have, P46, estimated to be from 175–225 AD, is believed to have not included them.
I want you to note that your argument is Bart Ehrman's which was published in 2015, and these arguments contends "no evidence John had a scribe". Stanley Porter in 2019 cited Ehram with a rebuttal, using computational linguistics to demonstrate that 1 Timothy shares significant syntactic structures with undisputed Paulines compared to pseudepigraphal works (e.x; 3 Corinthians) are far more divergent than the canonized.

Ehrmans argument further contends on P46 not including 1 timothy, Porter in a recent publication in 2021 argues correctly that P46 doesnt include Philemon and thats an undisputed letter of Paul. There are further minor contentions that boil down to simple misunderstandings of greek etymology and cultural context differing between localities Paul would be all over. (see Andreas Kostenbergers

P46 also has Colossians, and Ehram tries to argue P46 in favor of canon, so his 2nd century gnostic origin theory is incredibly malaligned as well as his other works are on mythicism. Colossians 2:18 reads
>18 Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you. Such a person also goes into great detail about what they have seen; they are puffed up with idle notions by their unspiritual mind.
a direct connotation to gnostic "angelic genealogies" among aeons. And Colossians itself is 95 AD according to Ehrman himself, contradictory to his point. (though, Colossians are generally dated to 60AD~ too)

>>40927576
>Colossians 2:18
Considering Paul associates worship of angels, or a bit earlier slavery to elemental spirits, with following dietary rules and observing new moons and sabbaths (which are "only a shadow of things to come), and considering in Galatians 3:19-20 it can be read as Paul attributing the Jewish law to angels rather than to God, it could be implicitly understood from these passages that Paul believes the Jewish God, who is responsible for the law and for these sorts of commands, is an angel, and he's warning against worshipping the Jewish god alongside other false gods. In which case what he's saying is thoroughly Gnostic.

>>40927476
forgot to link Andreas' work https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1431&context=honors

>>40927509
Completely false see >>40927576 and the entire thread.

>>40927476
The presence of P133 alongside early manuscripts like P52 (the John Rylands Fragment of John’s Gospel, around 125 AD) supports the view that the Pastoral Epistles were not late additions but part of early Pauline collections.

P133 is written in a codex format rather than a scroll, which is significant because early Christians preferred codices for Scripture, unlike Jews and Greeks who primarily used scrolls. This suggests that 1 Timothy was already considered authoritative by the early 3rd century. While marcion’s canon (around 140 AD) excluded the Pastorals, P133 confirms they were circulating independently in orthodox Christian communities. Additionally, the text of P133 closely aligns with later manuscripts such as Codex Sinaiticus (4th century), showing remarkable stability with no major variants in 1 Timothy 3:16–4:3

their consistency argues against theories of later interpolation, as a forged or heavily edited text would likely exhibit more variations, much like the disputed endings of Mark’s Gospel.

The reliability of P133 reinforces the early and widespread acceptance of 1 Timothy as authentic Scripture.

cont;

>>40927648
I haven't read more bullshit in my life than that one thread up on /pol/ right now about 1000 jews protesting a police department for jailing a jewish pedophile.

Ehramsn contradiction is he claims Colossians is in 95 AD, but then goes on to claim the similar language in 1 Timothy must be a 2nd century Gnosticism attribution.
>1 Timothy 4:1–3
>"In later times some will depart from the faith… forbidding marriage and requiring abstinence from foods."
Ehram claims this verse coincides with the rise of 2nd century gnosticism. When in fact it perfectly matches 1st century jewish sects like ascetic Essenes (John the Baptist is purported to be one for many reasons such as his meat-free diet) Put it this way in case I had a typo or somewhere before:
If Ehrman admits Colossians (even if "pseudo-Pauline") is 1st-century, then angelic heresies existed pre-Gnosticism.
>songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (Qumran, 1st c. BC) describes angelic liturgies where humans join heavenly worship.
>11QMelchizedek: Melchizedek shown as a divine angelic priest. showing angel veneration in Judaism.
>jubilees 1:27–29: Angels mediate the Law to moses.
>1 enoch 14: Enoch sees angels in God’s throne room.
(and its not like jewish mysticism was a well guarded secret, the essenes themselves were a breakaway sect of jewish priests who interpreted scripture all too radically)

P46 is 200 AD and it includes Colossians even if it excludes the Pastorals. so why does Ehrman in his double standard dismiss 1 timothy based on "late" heresies but doesnt apply the same logic to colossians if it reflects early canon?

Paul never forsakes the jewish law contrary to protestant ideas that spawned a new anti-Paul movement; St. Paul cites Isaiah 45:5 ("I am the Lord, there is no other") in *1 Cor 8:4–6* to affirm Yahweh’s supremacy.

In Colossians 1:16 he calls Christ the creator of all angels. Galatians 3:19-20 though the Law was mediated by angels, Paul says God gave it (& Acts 7:53 likewise)

>>40926828
>Bro, you have to describe to me in detail a family tradition because that's totally my business to investigate and persecute. Since it clearly, as a family tradition, must be Christian gnosticism...

You're getting closer and closser to a knife...

>>40927752
And my favourite
>I'm on a pedo guro zoonecrophilia website, so I pass as a Christian
>Grrr, I got paid to hate gnosticism grr

>>40927648
Also,
>Polycarp (110–140 AD) quotes 1 Timothy 6:7, 10 (Philippians 4.1). (https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0136.htm)
>Marcion (140 AD) rejected the Pastorals proving they existed by then.
>Muratorian Fragment (170–200 AD) lists them as Scripture.

>>40927746
>Galatians 3:19-20 though the Law was mediated by angels, Paul says God gave it
Galatians 3:19-21 can be translated as:
"Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring would come to whom the promise had been made, and it was ordained by angels into the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator involves more than one party, but God is one. Is the law then opposed to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a law had been given that could make alive, then righteousness would indeed come through the law."

Although it's commonly translated as "through angels" it can be translated instead as "by" as the same word is elsewhere, and the context makes more sense that way. Because it explains why Paul then says "Now a mediator involves more than one party, but God is one." (A mediator is needed to mediate between groups, but God is not a group, so Moses must have been mediate for a group rather than for God.) And it explains why Paul says "Is the law then opposed to the promises of God?" (It would be silly to suggest that God's own actions were opposed to his promises, but someone else's actions might be.) And it explains why he says "For if a law had been given that could make alive," a recurring idea of Paul's where he rejects Leviticus 18:5, "You shall keep my statutes and my ordinances; by doing so one shall live: I am the Lord." essentially calling God a liar, if you believe that Paul thought the God who said that was the true God.

>>40925651
Mostly murdered wholesale by the Church's crusades against them. See the Albigensian Crusade...
Even the NT admits that Jesus had secret doctrines that he only gave to the Apostles.

>>40927972
>Even the NT admits that Jesus had secret doctrines that he only gave to the Apostles.
No it does not. Jesus uses parables and challenging sayings to reveal truth to those who are receptive and hide it from those spiritually closed off; those who are ego-minded than humbly driven. (Matthew 13:10–17) CCC 522).

Test of faith and commitment: Hard teachings help distinguish true disciples from casual followers. It’s not about trickery, but about showing who is willing to trust and follow God’s ways even when it’s challengingWhat you're referring to is Jesus explaining why he talks in parables to townspeople and direct sayings to apostles; which is because it's a direct parallel to the elect who "will have ears to hear, and eyes to see" as opposed to those unelect; we know the 12 were elect because literally everybody but the 12 left Jesus as his teachings grew harder to accept. Chronology:
Verse you're citing:
Mark 4: Jesus is on a boat teaching a crowd by the sea. After telling the parable of the sower, he explains privately to the disciples why he uses parables.
Luke 8: Same context;after the parable of the sower, Jesus explains to the disciples the meaning of the parable.

Continued;

>>40927972
The Catholic Church itself interprets these parables as a method of revealing spiritual truths to those open in faith, rather than hiding secret doctrines for a select few. As the Catholic Encyclopedia (drawing from the official catechism doctrine), parables were used by Jesus to “convey deeper spiritual truths through simple stories” and to “provoke thought and self-examination” in the listener, preparing them to understand the Kingdom of God. The church since its earliest writers in the middle of the second century have long maintened that Jesus did not have separate secret teachings for only the apostles. This link here has a pretty exhaustive explanation for many of the parables drawing from early church theologians and well established interpretations through the authority of the Roman Church. https://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=8963

Later chronology past Mark 4 and Luke 8: the Last Supper chapters in Mark are chapter 14 far into his ministry, already in the week of Passover when Jesus was heading to be crucified; by this time, many followers had left (John 6:66 notes “many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him”), leaving primarily the Twelve St. apostles.

>>40927843
I'd love to know which gypsy blog you read this interpretation from but it's a butchery of greek and the scripture Paul is citing which is Deuteronomy 33:2 God gave the Law "with angels at His right hand"
Paul is not saying angels replaced God as the Law’s author ; he’s emphasizing the Law’s inferiority to the direct promise (Gal 3:18) & he's right, Pharisees and saducees got caught up so much with minutia they conflated virtue with selfishness.

Paul’s point is rhetorical: The Law wasn’t meant to replace the promise (Gal 3:17–18) He's emphasizing that God is above the law, the law has its place in its context, but the law is a tool to achieve a greater purpose the jews lost sight of, which Paul is re-emphasizing. Romans 7:12: Paul calls the Law "holy, righteous, and good" is this Gnostic-like to you?

See 1 Timothy 1:8: "The Law is good, if one uses it properly."
1 Corinthians 9:9–10: Cites Deuteronomy 25:4 as God’s Law.
Romans 9:4: Calls the Law part of Israel’s "adoption, covenants, and worship" from God.

>>40927537
Real

>>40924207 (OP)
Gnosticism isn't true (Jesus was just a delusional Jew), but the Abrahamic deity is an evil deceitful being.

>>40926828
>It is a web of off-shoots from one another, all the more speculative than the other.
That logic applies to all of Christianity. All of Christianity is just a Judaism offshoot.

>>40924207 (OP)
Gnosticism is the truth whether you want it or not. The creator of this universe/world is clearly a monstrous, utterly evil unholy piece of shit.

>>40928287
Jesus never even existed to begin with.
>>40928305
This is also true, christianity is just watered down judaism for the goys.

>>40927972
>Albigensian Crusade
The phrase "Albigensian Crusade" wasnt coined until the atheist Enlightenment liberal era to smear the church: “Rome brutally exterminating freedom-loving heretics.”
Yeah no. there are no secret doctrines here to be learned from. this "crusade" started because of a feudal turf war between northern france and southern france anything else is a side effect.

the Holy Catholic Empire initially tried diplomacy, and persuasion through public debates, but none of the nobles controlling Southern France wanted anything to do with the French Crown in the north doing the mediating. North and southern france were completely different from each other in dialect, culture, politics, economy, etc. in modern times think of it as the american's south rejecting the north's influence, ring any bells?

For example, the Canso de la Crozada (Song of the Crusade), written in Occitan verse by a local poet, frames the northern crusaders as greedy aggressors and expresses the perspective of southern France nobility and commoners. It’s one of the best “voices” of southern discontent we have. The church sent a papal representative through northern france because that was the only way for the Catholic church to go into south france; they sent Pierre de Castelnau escorted by the Norther crown military who was abruptly murdered in 1208 by a southern French noble (Count Raymond VI) who viewed the ordeal as an intrusion from the feudal north consolidating more power and land.

Though the papacy declared war, Northern French nobles, eager for land and influence, were the first to respond. Leaders like Simon de Montfort organized troops and invaded Languedoc under papal blessing. In practice, the crusade became as much about feudal conquest and territory as about rooting out heresy.

Continued;

>>40928316
Cult leader with delusions of grandeur. It's a tale as old as time IMO. Still his historical existence is far from certain.

>>40928326
Church good, but who is hiring the satanic black mages and why did Undertale ost play in the pope computer when I hit play on my pc? It was all over the news, even Undertale creator believed the pope was a fan

>>40924207 (OP)
Interesting thread

>>40927972
And if we want to look into what Cathars taught and practiced:
>required celibacy FOR ALL ADHERENTS (As opposeds to catholicisms celibacy for people who WANT to be in the clergy)
>NO MEAT. enjoy your anemic disorder, hypothyroidismn, and myriad of other health complications that are not only going to fuck up your memory, attention and cognition but shorten your already-short medieval life :)
>FAST ALL THE TIME. NO FOOD. EVER.

The apostles themselves prophesied that gnostic doctrines would emerge to destroy the church;
1 Timothy 4:1–5 (ESV)

1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons,
2 through the hypocrisy of liars whose consciences are seared,
3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.
4 For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving,
5 for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.

There's no secret doctrine here Paul or any apostle secretly practiced. Cathars taught Jesus never came in the flesh, that he was a spiritual illusion; completely contradictory to the original church's teachings on the passion of Christ and his sufferings as a human, in the flesh, praying to God that He change His mind regarding crucifixion, we see Jesus' humanity in the gospels.

Continued;

>>40928198
>referencing 1 Timothy as proof of anything about Paul
We've already been over that as far as I'm concerned, the evidence is pretty solid that it's a later forgery, but I doubt you'll ever concede anything so there isn't much point arguing to persuade you, and you'll just drown out my side of the argument with ever larger walls of text repeating the official spiel until I give up.

>>40927972
Cathars taught that everything was evil because it was created by a satan contradicting various teachings in the gospels such as John 1:3 “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.” Cathars rejected all sacraments including baptism, eucharist, weekend church-going, festivals

The church justified itself through scripture such as
>Galatians 1:8–9 “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.”
The cathars had effectively abandoned the church and created their own bootleg religion. But the region didn't treat the crusades as an offense towards the papacy, it reacted directly to Northern troops setting foot on southern france, southern nobles used cathars as a political polemic for the purpose of schism with the north, they leveraged the heresy to assert political independence from northern France.

There are some debate transcripts still suriving today in Humbert of Romans Dominician.
>Cathars: "They deny the resurrection of the body, calling it a prison of the soul."
>Dominic (an earlier peaceful delegate sent by rome to settle debates publicly): If the body is evil, why did Christ take flesh?"

or Da Heresi Catharorum
>Cathars: "The God of the Old Testament is a murderer [citing Exodus]. Christ’s God is love.
>Catholic church: "The same God who punished sin also sent Christ to redeem it."

The Cathars had a weak grasp on the prophecies Christ fulfilled, theres a good document here on 351 on them https://www.newtestamentchristians.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/351-Old-Testament-Prophecies-Fulfilled-in-Jesus-Christ.pdf
As well as a fundamental misunderstanding of the impact of Jesus incarnating in the flesh and voluntarily suffering for humanity.

>>40928371
I am not a Gnostic but for what it's worth you presented your side well, and his official PR spokesperson level answers are off-putting to say the least.

>>40928371
>>40928401
Big samefag energy. Carrier is debunked and Ehrman contradicts himself all over the place. Lurkers who take the time to read closely my words and not skip over like you did will best reap truth and wisdom unlike yourself.

Anyways, the West is asleep now. Up comes the Middle East.

>>40928312
I'm sorry you feel that way, I used to buy into the apocrypha myself but the more you look into it the less the evidence points to christian gnosticism being non-fiction.

>>40928371
To the reader I say consider what the lying liar who lies, the false Paul of the pastorals, says in 1 Timothy 6:20, "Avoid the profane chatter and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge;" and if you're bored enough go be interesting in this subject like I am, do the opposite. Look for the contradictions. Contradictions and dissonances are in the texts because they were put there by people who corrupted the texts but wanted to sell their corruptions as originals which could be passably bent to support their views, as Marcion was likely informed of by Cerdo which led to his efforts to restore them.

>>40928431
*bored enough to be interested

>>40928431
Again, Colossians 2:8 warns against "hollow and deceptive philosophy" similar language, yet Ehrman dates Colossians to the 1st century.

The Dead Sea Scrolls itself confirms there was a battle for ideologies in 1QpHab 5:11 (Pesher on Habakkuk)
>Its interpretation concerns the Liar, who led many astray with deceitful words, for they chose ‘smooth things’ (חלקות) and did not listen to the Teacher of Righteousness." (1 century BC)

Bart Ehrman claims that 1 Timothy 6:20 must be 2nd-century because it attacks Gnosticism but the DSS show "false knowledge" was a Jewish problem before Christianity. (Hellenist/Coptic philosophy and cultural intermingling)

1 Timothy’s warning fits Paul’s lifetime (50s–60s AD). https://archive.org/details/paulfaithfulness0012wrig

Honestly, this debate is best solved by a test of spirits lined out in scripture
>You Will Know Them by Their Fruits
>15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. 19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

Marcionites, preaching moral subjectivity (nobody can judge me) today evolved into the summer of love's hippie sex revolution we have today, where nothing fucking matters because as long as you can abandon family virtues to have sexual orgies and drug parties getting nothing done, Jesus is good! Because the material plane is hopeless!

But yeah, the gnostics have it right. In a devils advocate take, the Gnostic "Jesus is our hope for salvation, but let's sin anyway, the material is cursed" ideology is an honest inversion to virtue, reason, and logic

Meanwhile the catholic church instituted universities,

>>40924207 (OP)
>>40928312
>>40928425
Your whole argument depends on the authenticity of scripture. The Gnostics probably were just a Christian splinter group whose writings were newer. But the truth of what they believed is self evident. Any creator of this reality is inherently an evil being. The only solution to the problem of evil is that the creator is evil.

>>40928479
>>40928478

>>40928482
Somehow the post you linked didn't contain a world shattering theodicy. If I judge "God" by his fruits though, he is obviously evil.

>>40928425
>the less the evidence points to christian gnosticism being non-fiction
It is in large part myth attempting to convey spiritual/experiential truths and philosophical speculations, but imo that's in large part how Christianity began. It's just that it got out of control and some people liked some of the stories so much that they insisted on taking everything very literally, and they cut off those who remembered the origin as heretics, and they thoroughly homogenized the new gospel with the old testament which they also took very literally and uncritically, and they reduced the complexity of the original Christianity into a fairly simple dogma that could used to control people.

"Truth’s mysteries come to us through images and symbols. The bridal chamber, the holy of holies, is invisible to us. The curtain in front of it has concealed the workings of God, but when it is ripped and what it has been covering is uncovered, the building that contains it will be abandoned and demolished." —Gospel of Philip

>>40928492
How does gnosticism teach the earth is a spiritual school and yet it's inherently evil? Gnostics are honestly a bunch of headless chickens going around. The catholic catechism has been consistent and coherent for 2000 years, show me the fruit of gnosticism in your life and how it's improved it.

>>40928505
Cool quote, but it's not new at all. Its dated third century and by then Revelations already established the First Resurrection milennial kingdom and the glorified bodies therein.

>>40928506
The whole planet is God's rotten fruit. Also the New Age movement doesn't have the same beliefs as Gnosticism.

>>40928516
There is no Gnosticism my guy. It's thousands of little sects here and there today all with widly different beliefs, based on the many hundred several little sects throughout history that have all emerged when nobody could interpret or read scripture themselves, so they were easily given in to whatever new charlatan came around winning the commoners over with new ideas to leave the church and the traditions. >>40928336
This anon's wit fails him; there are charismatic cult leaders with delusions of grandeur; all of them lead gnostic ideologies.

>>40928512
IIRC Revelations is also one of the few books in the new testament that can be read as most strongly supporting the absurd doctrine of eternal torment, and it's a reworked older thoroughly Jewish apocalypse that IIRC can be easily read as condemning Paul and Christians who followed him, which I believe the Jewish encyclopedia goes into, though that's a long discussion by itself https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12712-revelation-book-of

>>40928533
So Gnostics have belief's consistent enough to criticize but when someone points out that you are wrong about them, suddenly they are thousands of sects with no single set of beliefs. Anon I don't consider myself a Gnostic but you have convinced me that Catholics are unethical deceitful people.

>>40928545
I am refuting the points of early gnosticism, which is long extinct as its deserved. Any LARPers today fall into deception regardless of whatever family tradition they feel proud of; it's all fictional works holding back humanity. Whatever power is attributed to in proto-gnosticism is accompanied by deceitful spirits by which invincible ignorance compels them to be saved by the catholic catechism.

>>40928538
>IIRC can be easily read as condemning Paul and Christians who followed him,
All ancient texts build on predecessors. I gave it a quick read, nothing there stands out to me as condemning Paul/Christians.

>>40927476
>>40928401
Richard Carrier is batshit and not taken seriously in academia, there's a reason even atheist/agnostic scholars studying religion don't even cite him or peer review his work, sorry retards. He supposes John couldn't live to his 80s-90s, he's fooled by the statistical average heavily factored by how prevalent it was for a baby/child's early death, as proof nobody lived until their 80s-90s, when in reality, once you pass the filter of infancy, people in antiquity lived to live really long lives.

It was really common for people in that century to live a long elderly life.
https://www.worldhistory.org/article/2475/growing-old-in-ancient-greece--rome/

His whole argument falls apart like a house of cards after this.

>>40924354
>hylics
Just look at retards who took the vax.
>demiurge
This world is crude and abominable, satan is creator of it.

>>40924354
Christianity is far worse and illogical than gnostic belief and the reason why it came into being as it a bout a prideful narcissist who made us all cursed. Even jesus himself said the apostles were morons who did not understand him. And no one knows his true message but the gospel of thomas maybe the most accurate. Also the gospels were not written by the apostles and anyone who thinks his is a moron. This is why jesus contradicts himself.

>>40924945
>Gnosis in the Catholic theology is much more appealing.
No it isn't, your catholic theology is full of weird fanfiction and falsehoods like worship of mary, saint benedict medal and vicar of christ.

>>40929200
>>40929303
I'm too tired to explain why you're wrong, but I just wanted to mention the Holy Ghost post-resurrection promised the apostles to remind them of the path and teachings. There are several indisputed Paulian letters, and the idea that scribes edited the 4 gospels doesn't refute the movement at large; Paul famously had a scribe close by.
2. You don't know what you're talking about. Nobody worships Mary, it's the intention that seperates dulia and latria; veneration is all done through respect and conscience that Jesus Christ makes everything possible.
3. The vicar goes back to Peter and the churches respecting him as leader (see Letter of Council of Chalcedon
4. The medal is not a good luck charm, but rather a symbol of faith and devotion, intended to inspire its wearer to live a Christian life and to resist evil.

>gnostic belief
there goes those two terms again, what gnostic belief are you talking about? There isn't a gnostic belief alive today that doesn't cede that NT's Jesus isn't the saviour to defeat Yaldaboath once and for all. This cosmology is nonsense in every sense of the word. You cherrypick whatever best suits your flavor of pseudo-intellectualism. I couldn't find any free-time I'd be willing to give to the matter tonight anymore; the notion in gnosticism that Jesus is Christ and yet Christ is so fallible to make his canon gospel a work of fiction doesn't reconcile with the pleroma of Christ that gnostics often holler right before presupposing themselves into a state of self-righteousness by placing themselves as a pneumatic or psychic for the simple reason of being misunfortunate enough to wander into the decrepit armpit of /x/ and its deceits.

>>40924346
>Paul
Aka (((saul))) the pharisee agent.

>>40924869
>Even if you believe in Christ
I'm curious OP, what do you believe in? Do you believe in God? The paranormal? Or would you consider yourself an skeptic/atheist?

>>40929440
>Holy Ghost
NTA but talking about the Holy Ghost, what's the true meaning behind the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? And why is it unforgivable? I've never fully understood it

>>40929504
No actual argument. /pol/tards can only speak in slogans

>>40929440
>I'm too tired to explain why you're wrong
So in other words you have no arguements.

>>40929552
Don't tempt OP. I disagree with them but they had been responding at such a rate and volume, and their initial post was early enough in the day, that I would guess their excuse is genuine.

>>40924222
Did you go to Church College or something? Cause that was freakin' amazing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulwUkaKjgY0

>>40929536
>cucktholicism shill is tourist
What a surprise.

The only reason every church and priest repeats "gnosticism is heresy" because it's a legitimate threat to the power system set in earth. Both Christianity and Freemasonry steer you toward worship of Demiurge, neither rejects the Demiurge, so you don't see Christians actually going against Freemasons anywhere really. Many Christians are more than happy to have Mason or Jesuit teaching them as a priest, because most simply don't care, they worship different faces of the same god (whether they know it or not) so it really makes no difference

This is the main reason Christians (and usually Christians that are crypto masons) will keep repeating, "gnosticism is heresy", because the gnostics know what's up, what the masons are doing, most gnostics have more info than the average mason, the difference is that gnostics reject demiurge, whilst the others worship it. It's a very grand conspiracy, and it probably started with the First Council of Nicaea. It goes without saying that this thread glows

I like gnosticism because it makes churchers seethe, simple as

Ok, schizos, chorizos and castizos, I have a question, I have seen a being slightly like this, I couldn't get a clear view of the center, he was clearly wheellike, and instead of eyes he had eyes, hands and a head, he was defo hostile and not frenly.

>>40924207 (OP)
>>40924346
>>40924354
Beautiful and well written. God bless you OP.

>>40930299
Is this another Templar Baphomet myth? The problem with your First Council of Nicaea myth is that people like you postulate this assuming that we don't have extant records of manuscripts/codex/scrolls dating back to the first century containing early canons. None of them include gnostic apocrypha.

>>40930931
Thank you anon.

>>40927476
Marcionism is flawed inherently. In Matt 10:1-15, Jesus sends His apostles out to evangelize Israel and warns of what will happen to some cities if they do not repent. Then in Matt 11:20-24, Jesus addresses the cities that have not repented, and warns them for failing to repent.
He compares these cities to Tyre (Ezek 26-28) and Sidon,
and Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 19:23-25)

First of all, it does not matter if Jesus is merely using Jewish "myths" to appeal to a Jewish audience. That is not the point. What is the point is understanding Jesus' moral compass. How is His moral compass in comparison to the God of the Old Testament?
When Jesus is condemning the unrepentant cities of Chorazin and Bethsaida, he says that the day of their judgement, "will be more bearable for Sodom on the day of judgment than for you." This an explicit example of Jesus being "mean," surpassing the "meanness" of even the God of the Old Testament. What Jesus threatens is less bearable than God killing an entire city by burning it to the ground.

"Okay, but Jesus never says that He himself will judge them." Who has judgement over life and death again? John 5:21-27. Jesus is pronouncing "woes" and "judgement," and yet somehow he's not involved?

"Jesus didn't at all let/enable the Romans to kill and enslave!" Read verse 24 of Luke 21 in conjunction with verse 22: "Days of vengeance." It is what Jerusalem deserved.

"But that contradicts Jesus' teachings on love and mercy!" That's your problem to figure out, not Jesus'

"The epistles/gospels aren't reliable! Jesus is actually-" Sort out your denial of the New Testament, first of all, before sorting out your denial of the Old one.

Jesus is kind and loving, yet also just and to be feared (Matthew 10:28); I must emphasize the latter, in light of the blasphemous heretics who dare suppose that the Lord Almighty cannot do as He wills.

>>40931281
OP, what do you think of Matthew 12:31

>And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

what's the true meaning behind the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit? And why is it unforgivable? I've never fully understood it

>>40929440
And what holy group is responsible for that making sure only one religion existed and torturing any other? Your stupid cosmology that YHVH the foreskin lover needed to send his son or himself the random jew to die just to let you join heaven is better? Really? but you claim worshiping self and becoming the best self is the a worse stupid cosmology over some random woman hating foreskin loving deity? Hypocrite. Your right about wasting time you keep licking that Yahweh ass and I won't.

>>40928478
>>Its interpretation concerns the Liar, who led many astray with deceitful words, for they chose ‘smooth things’ (חלקות) and did not listen to the Teacher of Righteousness." (1 century BC)
The Liar is Paul the False Apostle, the Teacher of Righteousness is Jesus or James. This book explains everything, you must repent of the lawless teachings of Paul. Elaine Pagels has shown that Paul was a Gnostic heretic and the author of all heresies.

>>40924354
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2LIKOKBeO4

>>40924207 (OP)
Before I even read through the thread I'm gonna get my tea and popcorn. This going to be good.

>>40924207 (OP)
Oh okay, but what do you think based on your own experience? You alright taking life second hand? Letting people decide the truth of reality for you?

There's only one place you'll ever meet God in your life and that is in the arena of consciousness. That's the simplest truth there is. No need for all this convolution about what so and so said.

>>40926850
Why would I have to “identify” with a sect to be a gnostic you Jewish cuck? I repeat. I don’t worship a dead jew on a stick. Gnosticism is only self identified with abrahamic filth by those who wise to discredit it, or people who can’t fully let go of their Jewish programming.

>>40931412
Catholicism teaches that blasphemy against the spirit is the point right before judgement, where you for the last time, outright reject the mercy of God, that of course is unforgivable, as it becomes the last sin you're capable of.

In other words, In Catholic theology, the “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 12:31–32, Mark 3:28–29, Luke 12:10) is not some casual slip of words, but a persistent and final rejection of the grace that God offers. The Church Fathers and later theologians (e.g. Augustine, Aquinas) explained it as a hardened refusal to repent, even up to the point of death.

Why unforgivable? Because forgiveness requires openness to God’s mercy. If someone refuses the Spirit’s grace the very source of conversion and repentance then there’s nothing left that can save them. God doesn’t withhold forgiveness; the sinner locks himself off from receiving it.

Catechism of the Catholic Church (§1864): “There are no limits to the mercy of God, but anyone who deliberately refuses to accept his mercy by repenting, rejects the forgiveness of his sins and the salvation offered by the Holy Spirit. Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.”

So your paraphrase fits: it’s the final, conscious rejection of God’s mercy, usually described as occurring at or before death, when a person is offered the chance to repent but refuses. The Catholic theology isn't as strict and black/white as most non-Catholic christians will lead you to believe; if you lead an entire life without God, you will have plenty of opportunity to repent and be saved, barely.

>>40932751
>Blaoblao my religion says
>Blaoblao heresy
>Blao opinions and verses taken on faith
Cool story bro, gnosticism is experiential, faith means fuckall for a gnostic.

>>40931671
>And what holy group is responsible for that making sure only one religion existed and torturing any other?
Crusades people often bring up are misunderstood entirely. I explained one bit here >>40928326 ....

... basically most scholars estimate only a fraction (maybe 10–20% of those killed) were genuine Cathars. That means perhaps 20,000–50,000 actual Cathars died, while the rest were southern French Catholics or neutral civilians caught in feudal territory dispute.

Now the next biggest event catholics are criticized for are the witch hunts; I want to be clear that the pope sent out numerous announcements asking for witch hutns to stop, the grand majority of these were done by local laity themselves of no ordained position. In fact according to some canons of Councils those who burned witches were condemned to death.

Are you talking about crusades against Muslims though? because as these witch hunts were going on, in just about 250 years the Holy Catholic Empire executed more than 100k islamists while hundreds of thousands more, expelled from territory. In order to understand the church's disregard for muslims let's go back to the split of the roman empire, the east turned into the byzantium empire in the middle of the first milennium. After Muhammad’s death (632), Arab Muslim armies rapidly expanded into Byzantine territory. They conquered Syria, Egypt, and North Africa all lands that had been part of the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire. Byzantium lost about two-thirds of its empire within a century.

Eventually the Ottomans (muslims) were able to conquer Byzantium and its capitol, killing the emperor, outnumbering troops by 8x or 10x, massacres of the people were done, women and children, raped and enslaved; many deported. Constantinople at this time was mostly Christian in the hundreds of thousands. It was a christian hub by all intents and purposes.

Continued;

>>40931671
Eventually over several centuries the caliphate (muslims) took over large regions of territory at this point now taking the grand majority of Spain under control (mostly catholic). Barely thriving after the ottomans sack of constantinople, Byzantine emperor Alexios I Komnenos appealed to the pope (Urban II) for military aid. Pope Urban called the First Crusade in the year 1000~ish AD justifying a just war (self defense). Initially, Jewish communities often thrived under Christian rule in reconquered lands. over time, suspicion grew that they had collaborated with Muslims and it culminated in the Spanish Inquisition expulsion of Jews (~200,000–300,000 forced to leave).

>woman hating
? You do realize protestant christians TODAY hate Paul for giving women freedom to speak up in church? Most feminists quoting the bible, in fact I'd say all, cherrypick verses out of context.
>foreskin loving
Yeah no bro, circumcision has never even been encouraged since the start of the church. Circumcision is new phenomenon with zionist protestants/evangelicals; completely different christians than the original catholics. Catholics were and still are the original anti-jew christians.

>>40932010
What God are you talking about? Zoroastrian? Jesus'? Mithras'? Please can you make a coherent sentence?

>>40931671
forgot to teach pic rel. Anyway, the meme about bad times creating strong men who created good times who created weak men, yeah that turned into the enlightenment thinkers and their arrogant disregard for warfare. Having never experienced the need of self-defense in their lives, as it seemed so distant in their past, despite France, Voltaire's home, at the time was only free from islam rule from the very Catholic wars centuries earlier he criticized. Populations Muslims invaded were turned into second class citizens. The enlightenment wouldn't even be possible if the church just turned the other cheek and let muslims conquer wherever they see fit.
You see the same problem today with liberals opening up borders because of rosy-lens ideals emanating from the peace that bloody men created, to combat incompatible cultural and governmental migration.

>>40932840
If you have to ask you have proved the point I was getting at in my post. Mmm yes, external exoteric convolution. All you can eat.

Let me ask another way:

Do you have a relationship with God? Where is that taking place?

>>40933331
God's influence over the world, such as His influence in your self, through ideas of feelings or intellect; is modal in that theres a natural relationship, and an elevated Holy Spirit-led relationship; which is much different than God's breath in every man which you're philosophically referencing.

>>40932796
Any institution involved with killings of any number that is not driven by self defense or prevention of further deaths is not of Christ. Percentages don't matter. Apologetic copes don't matter.

>>40933429
Where did these ideas of yours come from? Figure that out yourself?

>>40929440
What evidence does the Catholic church have that shows they have apostolic succession passed to them from Peter? The Letter of Council of Chalcedon doesn't count, there is no evidence that Peter passed on authority to any organization that can be associated to the Catholic church. Merely professing respect for a person does not mean you inherited authority from said person, just like a satanist wearing a cross doesn't make him a Christian.

I have yet to see convincing anthropological evidence that the proto-orthodox church was directly identified as inheritors of Peter's will. The closest we have are the Ebionites who supposedly were led by Jesus' brother James, but had all died out by 600AD

>>40933429
>Choose book
>Hope it's true
>But this wasnt retarded enough
>He has to tell us

>>40932831
NTA and I'm genuinely curious but why was God requesting so many questionable things in the old testament? Such as asking for 200 foreskins or the bald men who were ridiculed and God sent two bears to kill those who were joking those men

It's true that it seems like in the New Testament the approach seems to be different

>>40924346
>Irenaeus himself was student to Polycarp who followed Apostle St. John around all day.

This means nothing. Even the 12 apostles disagreed with each other (Paul and Peter) and there is no evidence Peter would have approved of Polycarp's or Irenaeus' teachings, even assuming Polycarp was truly Peter's disciple (of which is a claim that is not clearly supported).

>Nobody ever heard of the book of thomas, the book of nicodemus, etc.

According to who? The proto-orthodox church, who were documented to hunt down and kill all opponents to their doctrines? The very same institution that engaged in centuries of conflict with the Arians and later the Nestorian Christians post the Council of Ephesus, burning each others' homes down, assassinating each other and beating each other to death with stone tiles? The ones who engaged in extended book burning and made it so that only their writings survived?

I don't fully trust gnostics either, but you apologists smell fishy to me.

>>40933475
Early Christians theorized that the God of the old testament was not the same as the heavenly father that sent Jesus. Some rejected the old testament altogether. Jesus himself told the jews "their father was of the devil, a murderer and a liar from the very beginning".

>>40926922
Paul did not ever meet Jesus either, why should we trust his letters?

Also another question, where does the Book of John or 1 John attacks gnostics? Gnostics had a very large variety of beliefs, they cannot be lumped into one category. Some believed Jesus didn't come in the flesh, others believed he did come in the flesh, etc. Just because the book clarifies that Jesus came in the flesh doesn't mean it is necessarily attacking Gnostics, as the term "Gnostic" is a catch all phrase used to describe Christians who believed that "gnosis" was necessary for salvation. Other than that common thread, they were pretty all over the place with the details.

For all you know, the author of the Book of John could have very well agreed with a sect of Gnostics over another.

>>40933429
>God's Breath in Every Man
Literally in Genesis

Catholicism is souless plastic slop for people devoid of holy spirit and any form of spirituality.

>>40925991
jesus is like the main man of the gnosis >>40928633

>>40933493
This is called Gnosticism. No church believes this today. This is why gnostics are based.

>>40932831
If the catholics hated fore skin rituals and were so against jews they would have rejected the old testament and claimed it heresy. As far as I know only gnostics did this. You can't just worship the canaanite jew god and claim to hate jewish belief.

>>40932751
>Catholicism teaches
Don't care and didn't ask.

>>40930931
Nice samefagging op.

>>40933936
>>40933953
Why do you find it appropriate to respond to a post that wasn't directed towards you, but rather it was written for someone caring enough to ask me what I thought?

If you're trying to insinuate you find incoherence in my answer, there is not yet been a single critical analysis of the catechism finding any contraditions in contrast to gnosticism.

>>40931281
>It is what Jerusalem deserved.
What did epstein island victims do to deserve what happened to them?
People like you do not have neither soul nor holy spirit, you are nothing but lump of flesh.
No wonder that you are catholic.

>>40933963
contradictions*

>>40933966
I don't know, I'd rather not lean on my own understanding of matters I'm not intimately familiar with, as neither are you. God didn't cause Epstein or his handlers to diddle kids, you're reasoning is working backwards into an illogical pit. Logic constitutes freewill allows us to pick and choose; that is, the Logos of Christ.

The figurehead of the Bible wrote in scripture, inspiring its men to say, "The Jews crucified Jesus", explicitly. You can make a guess why Jerusalem deserved its destruction in 70 AD. Have you even read the New Testament, anon?

>>40933861
Lol

>>40933475
Op what about this?

>>40934001
Its been a long day I'll respond tomorrow. I do have a quick article on the bear attack I was reading two days ago coincidentally, theres a lot of context to that; boiling down to God warning pagan child-sacrificing followers of a cult (young men associated)
https://bible.org/seriespage/elisha-and-two-bears-2-kings-223-25

Long read but it's worth it

>>40933977
Ok, faggot.
Tell me if this is untrue.
>>40933474
9 Gorillon € says you don't have an intelligent answer. Dw if I don't have them, I'm sure your god is totally real and will give them to you.
Infact your god promised to give you anything provided you asked in the name of Jewsus, yet for some reason you chicken and turtle arround this claiming it's for spiritual things only, while el biblio doesnt say such things.