Search results

I'm out of these forums along with Soulgazer.

I'll do better than provide reference, I'll provide a quote. 4th century "Apocalypse of Paul". "But I saw in the fourth heaven according to class - I saw the angels resembling gods, the angels bringing a soul out of the land of the dead. They placed it at the gate of the fourth heaven. And...

I agree, resurrection is very much distinct from reincarnation. Resurrection would be the event that breaks the chain of reincarnation if we are to speculate on reincarnation and Christianity. The idea of "becoming" would fit nicely with a view that reincarnation is there for a specific goal...

Well one could suppose that our condition here and now is one of enslavement in a realm not of our choosing, call it hell. That reincarnation is the means to our enslavement in this realm, and that Jesus brought a way out of our situation. Just thinking out aloud. Come to think of it, this...

That is assuming reincarnation is there for us "to get it right". That view would be harder to justify from scripture than reincarnation.

Because humans die? What does that have to do with reincarnation?

Revelation is at the end of the canonical NT books but before the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas and an unidentified fragment.

On a side note to the OP. The idea of a trinity, from historical texts, makes most sense from the Gnostic texts verses the contrite idea that YHWH is a trinity from the Orthodox texts.

I don't think anyone has argued for physical substance but a spiritual substance, Gnostic and Orthodox alike.

I think one can make a case for the usage in Gnostic thought. Clearly there is a Father-Son-Holy Spirit trinity in Valentinianism and a similar trinity in Sethianism Virgin Spirit-Barbello-Son.

The author of that have a lousy understanding of "Gnostic".

Nero would have been a "been" too at the time of authorship, he died in 68. Soulgazer would be correct in your interpretation, Domitian's rule would have been smack in the middle of the authorship of Revelation (81-96).

I find the evidence of Markan priority neater than that of the Griesbach hypothesis or the Augustinian hypothesis.

Not sure about the companionship, and I definitely don't think Mark is built upon the other two synaptics. But good observation of the relationship, Paul and Mark are in my option closely related.

Correction on my post, that is Mark the interpreter of Peter.

Now if Stephan Huller is correct, he tries to identify Marcion as Mark the interpreter of Paul (Marcion being the diminutive of Mark). Marcion then being an invention of the 2nd century heresy hunters based on Marcellina (who went to Rome) exactly as they claim Marcion did. Peters whole line...

John the Baptist seem to be the common denominator. I posted this in another thread but it's worth posting again in this thread. __ John Baptist______ / | \...

Paul certainly is one of the earliest Gnostic teachers, but the father? You have to account for Glaucias, Basilides, Marcus of Memphis, Lucius Charinus, Dositheus, Simon, Saturnius, and Menander to just mention a few who's linage didn't come through Paul but through Simon Peter, John the...

There are also some interesting parallels between Simon Magus and Simon Peter in some of the early non-canonical books.

Polycarp is filtered through Ireaneus and since we know Ireaneaus never lied or distorted anything we can be 109% sure it is accurate and reliable. Also look into Stephan Huller's Observations and Markus Vinzent's Blog