Posted on 03/29/2008 8:24:03 PM PDT by hanfei
The Catholics also deny the Orthodox Trinity, mass-murdered Copto-Armenians, and call Augustin their greatest saint while denying his teachings (enter Calvin). So what?
>>It’s very old; author is unclear, but is purportedly — far from certain — Mary Magdalene or Mary.<<
Whenever I see something like this, I apply the following:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
What really irritates me about Catholicism is that it denies MY sainthood!
Soon, it will have to admit the non-Prophet Muhammad, or the poor dears won’t get churches in Saudi Arabia.
Oh I think you do. You started them.
Good heavens, and people think this mish mash is a valid gospel?
Really?? Please point out precisely where in any of my postings on this thread I did any such.
You made the statement "Gnosticism started way before Christianity and the Apostle Paul was up to his ears in it." And I asked for a clarification of what you were referring to, as you replied to post #20, which was actually Beachdwellers (not mine)--but you included me in your reply for some unknown reason.
So, I'll say it again---if you think you have something true to add to the discussion, post it. Otherwise shut up.
The earliest dating I've seen is the middle of the second century. Old, but not old enough to have been written by any Mary that walked with Jesus while he was on earth.
During the second and third centuries, what we would call 'new agers' today began popping up and attempted to hi-jack the true gospel. That is what caused the church to conduct councils (i.e. the Council of Nicea).They wanted to come together and reiterate in a formal way what the church had believed since its inception.
You shut up.
Hey Buckaroo. I mearly mentioned Paul was neck deep in gnosticism and you referred to my "shorthand" as "gibberish". Shouldn't have taken that tone with me dude. And then start the babyish "shut up" routine. What a thin skinned poster you are.
One should read the Nag-Hammadi Codices (of which this is a part) to fully realize the kind of company this codex keeps. One quickly determines the lack of scriptural value.
When reading such things, the antithesis is the most valuable lesson, those things which one must suppose are happening in the society that would spawn such a work for the obvous purpose of changing attitudes within the Church. It is interesting to see the same forces working against the church so many, many years ago.
The more things change, the more they remain exactly the same.
I know of no Protestant denomination that embraces Gnosticism in the least.
BUMP.
Exactly. But don't expect any seriously engaging discussion by taking that stance. Posters would rather call one sophomoric and tell one to "shut up".
The only way that I know of Paul being "neck deep in Gnosticism" was in denying it. I keep trying to get a clue as to what you are talking about, but you keep playing head games. If you've got something of substance on the subject to say, post it. Otherwise, quit wasting my time.
“So what?”
so go pester a more receptive audience.
You’re kidding, right? You really believe this gospel was authored by apostolic authority of those who knew Jesus? Do you have any idea what the name “gnostic” refers to?
>> whether one believes the “Sayings Gospel Q” theory or not. (I don’t, though I posted Q for people to see much of the old material in pristine form). <<
You do know that there really isn’t a “Q” gospel? You do know that the possibility of a “Q” gospel was put to rest decades ago, when scholars had to concede that the gospels were first-generation, right? You do know that the Jesus Seminar folks are the only ones who seriously discuss the “Q” gospel in the last forty years, right?
You do know that gnostics believed that they could discern events they did not see by using numerology and occult practices, right? You do know that the gnsotic religion predated Christ by centuries, and only sought to pre-empt the new religion, right? You do know that gnosticism was Satanic, holding that the Judeo-Christian God messed up Satan’s plan, right? You do know that gnostics disavowed sexual relations altogether, and made a sacrament out of starving themselves together, right? (You can find a trace of this in this gospel’s Mary’s insistence that she has become a man.)
>> I don’t remember any talk about women having “leadership roles” until the sixties and after. <<
Well, there were the temple prostitutes, but they were definitely not orthodox Christians.
>> The Catholics also deny the Orthodox Trinity, mass-murdered Copto-Armenians, and call Augustin their greatest saint while denying his teachings (enter Calvin). So what?<<
Oh, here we go... I should’ve known that when pressed, you’d turn all anti-Catholic on us.
1. “Filique” not withstanding, Catholics profess the same Trinity as the Orthodox, and any Orthodox person will tell you that.
2. Copto-Armenians? The Copts and the Armenians and 2,000 miles apart. Copts are from Northeast Africa, and Armenians are from Central Asia. Google yourself: this very post made #1 on Google’s references for “Copto-Armenians,” because you just coined a new term.
3. Calvin believed he was reaching the inevitable conclusions of what “Augustine” (sic) was driving towards. But even the most die-hard proponents of a Calvinistic Augustine on FR will admit that Augustine never reached those ends. I know... I’ve had that debate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.