Fundamental challenge

[savedandhappy1]

Yet to know oneself, at the deepest level, is simultaneously to know God; this is the secret of gnosis. Another gnostic teacher, Monoimus, says:

Abandon the search for God and the creation and other matters of a similar sort. Look for him by taking yourself as the starting point. Learn who it is within you who makes everything his own and says, "My God, my mind, my thought, my soul, my body." Learn the sources of sorrow:, joy, love, hate . . . If you carefully investigate these matters you will find him in yourself.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/story/pagels.html

It is not surprising that as we see more and more preachers tell us to look inside ourselves and how we are to find peace by finding ourselves, that people would point to the gnostic.

We are to put nothing above God, and we are not to love ourselves more than God. Yet, we see more and more people believing that we can do so much all by ourselves.

To me the gnostics is just another example of how the great deceiver trys to copycat the Lord, and to deceive those searching for the peace that can only comes from the Lord.

Me, Me, Me, Me and Me!!! We see it everywhere, all we think about is Me, Me, Me, how sad. Are we to believe that that is what Jesus really was teaching, that ourselves are more important than others, and the Lord?

 

[sashatheman]

There wasn't only Gnostic Christian.
Look up ebionites and marcionites just for example.

 

[Brieuse]

There wasn't only Gnostic Christian.
Look up ebionites and marcionites just for example.

Summary of thread.

1. OP requests a true ex-gay to comment.
2. *snip* Gays are evil etc etc.
3. Ohioprof is not a Christian - apparently. Don't worry Ohioprof, you'll notice some of us here have not judged you.

Pity I don't see any witness from a true ex-gay. I have many questions to ask.

 

[RMDY]

Ohioprof is not a Christian - apparently. Don't worry Ohioprof, you'll notice some of us here have not judged you.

No one that I know on this forum has said that. But my comments were more along the lines of warning him to avoid gnosticism and other sources that claim to have testimonies about Jesus, such as the Muslim testimonies.

 

[RMDY]

Gnostic gospels are not reliable because they were written long after the 4 gospels were around. Secondly, the gnostics hadn't known Jesus personally like the apostles did.
Paul was an exception. Jesus miraculously appeared to him. He was the man who replaced Judas as an apostle.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Good morning.

I see you are back online. Would you answer my question now please?

I guess not.

Summary of thread.

1. OP requests a true ex-gay to comment.
2. *snip* Gays are evil etc etc.
3. Ohioprof is not a Christian - apparently. Don't worry Ohioprof, you'll notice some of us here have not judged you.

Pity I don't see any witness from a true ex-gay. I have many questions to ask.

1) OP issues challange.
2) nobody said this.
3) nobody said this.

 

[Brieuse]

nobody said this.

sorry, I don't think you can separate the source of information from Jesus, and claim to follow him. Just my take on the matter.

I believe it is apostasy to believe Jesus wasn't literally resurrected.

But of course, eros love is only allowed between men and woman who are married. Otherwise that kind of love is immoral.

The Lord's Word does not change and stands and sin is sin and no amount of trying to twist Scripture to condone a sinful lifestyle will change that fact.

plus many other attempts to take cheap jabs at homosexuals, while being off topic too.

Maybe the comments were not intentional, but was implied.

 

[Uphill Battle]

plus many other attempts to take cheap jabs at homosexuals, while being off topic too.

Maybe the comments were not intentional, but was implied.

not one of those states

1) Ohioprof isn't Christian

or

2) Gays are evil.


there is fundamental disagreement with both positions.

But you are accusing of things not even said.

for my part, I figure that Christ forgives a whole lot of human failing.

 

[Ohioprof]

No one that I know on this forum has said that. But my comments were more along the lines of warning him to avoid gnosticism and other sources that claim to have testimonies about Jesus, such as the Muslim testimonies.

I'm a her, not a him.

And I have not embraced Gnosticism. I am just interested in studying the Gnostic Gospels, as I am interested in studying the canonic Gospels.

 

[Ohioprof]

A poster in another thread said that she used to be a lesbian and is now happily married to a man. I suggested that she post here in this thread and testify about her life, but she has not done so thus far.

 

[savedandhappy1]

A poster in another thread said that she used to be a lesbian and is now happily married to a man. I suggested that she post here in this thread and testify about her life, but she has not done so thus far.

Well we all know what that means..........................must mean she is a liar, liar, liar............................

or it could mean that she has no one to answer to but God...............................

or it could mean that she has done that before and sees no reason justifing herself, or being told she wasn't really a lesbian because she married a man, which would have to mean that she is bisexual not lesbian.................................

or it could mean she hasn't the time................................

or she doesn't feel led by the Lord to do that at this time................................

or

or

or, I probably could list other reasons beside the ones listed already.

 

[RMDY]

I'm a her, not a him.

And I have not embraced Gnosticism. I am just interested in studying the Gnostic Gospels, as I am interested in studying the canonic Gospels.

Forgive me for referring you to as a guy.
It is a good thing you have not embraced Gnostics

 

[RMDY]

plus many other attempts to take cheap jabs at homosexuals, while being off topic too.

Maybe the comments were not intentional, but was implied.

I did not call Ohioprof "not a christian"
I did not take any jabs at anyone in here. I was just stating some information about greek definitions of love----Chalice and I even had a discussion about it in another topic.

And it is apostate teaching to believe one is a christian and not accept the resurrection for what it is.

 

[Ohioprof]

Well we all know what that means..........................must mean she is a liar, liar, liar............................

or it could mean that she has no one to answer to but God...............................

or it could mean that she has done that before and sees no reason justifing herself, or being told she wasn't really a lesbian because she married a man, which would have to mean that she is bisexual not lesbian.................................

or it could mean she hasn't the time................................

or she doesn't feel led by the Lord to do that at this time................................

or

or

or, I probably could list other reasons beside the ones listed already.

Why don't we let her speak for herself instead of us trying to imagine what she will say. Each individual has his or her own story, and each person should get to speak for him or herself.

 

[Ohioprof]

Forgive me for referring you to as a guy.
It is a good thing you have not embraced Gnostics

Well, I see nothing wrong with the Gnostics, and I find their Gospels and other writings quite diverse, at least what I have read so far. I have been working my way through the sayings attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas.

 

[Ohioprof]

I did not call Ohioprof "not a christian"
I did not take any jabs at anyone in here. I was just stating some information about greek definitions of love----Chalice and I even had a discussion about it in another topic.

And it is apostate teaching to believe one is a christian and not accept the resurrection for what it is.

You've always been very thoughtful and polite toward me and toward others, John. And you have a good sense of humor.

 

[RMDY]

Well, I see nothing wrong with the Gnostics, and I find their Gospels and other writings quite diverse, at least what I have read so far. I have been working my way through the sayings attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas.

The gospel, or good news, of Christ was around since the time of Pentecost. Even then, Christ went around proclaiming the gospel, meaning good news.

I can deduce from Paul's letters that the gospel of Christ was well in circulation before 70 AD. Paul, a former murderer of Christians, hated the Good news of Christ. Then something miraculous happened to him and he changed.

(Although the earliest dated written gospel we have today is as early as 70AD from what I can recall). Nonetheless, eventually other gospels came about that had no relation to Christ other than through the current good news that was already proclaimed through out the regions.

I believe any gospel other than the 4 at present time cannot be trusted and are inaccurate when it comes to their testimony about Christ.

 

[Ohioprof]

The gospel, or good news, of Christ was around since the time of Pentecost. Even then, Christ went around proclaiming the gospel, meaning good news.

I can deduce from Paul's letters that the gospel of Christ was well in circulation before 70 AD. Paul, a former murderer of Christians, hated the Good news of Christ. Then something miraculous happened to him and he changed.

(Although the earliest dated written gospel we have today is as early as 70AD from what I can recall). Nonetheless, eventually other gospels came about that had no relation to Christ other than through the current good news that was already proclaimed through out the regions.

I believe any gospel other than the 4 at present time cannot be trusted and are inaccurate when it comes to their testimony about Christ.

Some of the Gnostic materials may date back to 70CE also. I don't believe any of the Gospels, canonical or otherwise, can necessarily be "trusted" as accurate. They each present a different picture of Jesus. And then of course there is the Q Gospel, which many scholars believe existed as a source for the other synoptic Gospels, but which has never been found. The existence of the Q Gospel is a theory, and not all Bible scholars believe there was a Q Gospel.

 

[RMDY]

Some of the Gnostic materials may date back to 70CE also. I don't believe any of the Gospels, canonical or otherwise, can necessarily be "trusted" as accurate. They each present a different picture of Jesus. And then of course there is the Q Gospel, which many scholars believe existed as a source for the other synoptic Gospels, but which has never been found. The existence of the Q Gospel is a theory, and not all Bible scholars believe there was a Q Gospel.

Which gnostic gospels date back to 70AD? Educate me.

And Q Gospel? Never heard of that one... *goes to look it up*

But nonetheless, the apostles were already warning of false doctrines and teachings springing up in the churches before 70AD anyway.

 

[RMDY]

Q gospel is only speculation at the moment