|
|
Post by phantasman on Oct 21, 2013 7:12:14 GMT -5
For a few years now, I have been studying and reading the non Canonized scriptures, comparing them to the Canon Bible. There really is a separation in the thought of spirituality, but the messages in many ways, remain the same in how we must live. As Philip has told us, truth comes in images and types. I seem to keep getting these images of the events of what Christ was doing as he walked this Earth. I don't know if I am just imagining something I "want" to see, or if spiritual things are at work here. In any case, I want to share them to see if they make sense.
It seems that the Gospel (Canon) is just too short for the time Christ was here. Almost, incomplete. I see Christ going to many places teaching, not of the OT ways, but of the truth, a more defined way. I see the Jewish leaders getting upset because it is not as their scriptures teach (exactly). For many common Jews, they accept Christs words, because the have had doubts about how the Temple has been run (similar to how many are questioning the activities of todays church). The people were primed for receiving truth.
Now the people that accepted Christs message, as well as the disciples', wrote a lot of the teachings down for future generations, ie, Christs teachings. A lot of these have been named as the Gnostic scriptures, by various names. On the other hand, the catholics were more political, subscribing to harmony within this kingdom. They have resorted to using the OT to still define the Gospel, and without the Gnostic scriptures to help support a Gospel that repeats itself 4 times, the words of Christ barely gets a chance to be heard in a more complete manner.
So what we get is a "hamburger" mesh of some of this, some of that, and with some getting lost in translation, the clarity is dim at best. It could explain why there are so many Orthodox views.
One other thing. Sometimes I feel spiritual discomfort when I study Gnostic material. But there is an inner battle that says it's the right thing for me to do. When I learn something that is spiritually true (to me), I feel a sense of elation that overcomes the discomfort, as if something was trying to prevent me from knowing something. At first, one can think it is God trying to protect you. But I realized that if I asked God for truth, the author of lies is surely going to act to prevent me from seeing it.
Thoughts?
|
|
unix
Junior Member
busy with full-time studies
Posts: 82
|
Post by unix on Oct 21, 2013 15:40:30 GMT -5
After studying "Gnostic" Gospels, having images of Jesus saying something openly, not just to a/the disciple(s), and those particular words being used from the 1st through 2nd century, even by Ptolemy, is the kind of images I would like to get.
I'll have to look into the nature of the following passages in Mt:
Like some other thinkers of the second century, Ptolemy has a tripartite approach to the law.126 One division derives from the God, another from Moses, the third from elders of the people. Proofs are adduced from Matt. 15:1-20 and 19:3-12.127 From these sayings on marriage one can determine the will of God (union of man and woman), Moses' reasonable alteration of that principle, and thirdly, changes derived from tradition. The law thus has three divisions: (1) that which is pure but imperfect, an example of which is the Decalogue, the imperfections of which had to be fulfilled by the Savior; (2) that which is contaminated with injustice, such as the Lex talionis (eye for an eye), which is just but incongruous with the will of God; and (3) that which is purely symbolic, that is, the "ritual law". Logic leads to the conclusion that the law cannot come from a perfect god and must therefore stem from the creator (demiurge), who, like the god of Marcion, is just—and therefore not an evil entity.
Justin, by comparison, also advocated a tripartite division: some commandments serve piety and just actions, others appertain to the mystery of Christ, and some arose because of the hardness of human hearts.128 The difference is that Ptolemy, in typically Gnostic (an philosophical) fashion, focuses upon origins, whereas Justin is concerned with the purpose of the commandments. Ptolemy's approach may have been inspired by Jewish and Jewish-Christian traditions, probably encountered in Alexandria.129 His method is also more "scholarly", in that it seeks to distinguish layers of tradition.
Ptolemy clearly states what would become a basic Christian principle: "Now, once the truth had been manifested, the referent of all these ordinances was changed, inasmuch as they are images and allegories."130 The criterion is the contrast between promise and fulfillment. The method is allegorism.131 He supports this with one allusion to Rom. 2:29 (spiritual circumcision, PtolFlor 5.11) and an explicit reference: "Likewise, the apostle Paul makes it clear that Passove and the Feast of Unleavened Bread were images, for he says that 'Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed' and, he says, be without leaven...by 'leaven' he means evil..." (1 Cor. 5:7)132
Ptolemy to Flora 6.6 builds upon the foregoing: "His (Jesus') disciples made these teachings known, and so did the apostle Paul...[then follows a summary of Passover imagery]... The part consisting of a law interwoven with injustice he made known by speaking of 'abolishing the law of commandments and ordinances'; and the part not interwoven with the inferior when he says, 'the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good.'"133 The relevant citations derive from Eph. 2:15 and Rom. 7:12. This is one means of resolving apparent conflicts within the Pauline corpus, The principle is that Paul does not contradict himself. When he appears to do so, he is referring to different matters. Ptolemy to Flora 7.6 cites 1 Cor 8:6, with a modification: "There is one unengendered father, from whom are all things."134 ("Unengendered father" replaces "one God the father.")
126. Philosophers had earlier come up with a "tripartite" theology", including that of the poets (mythology), that of the various civic cults (e.g. Artemis of Ephesus), and that of the philosophers.
127. Ptolemy's basic gospel texts appear to come from Matthew.
128. Justin, Dial. 44.2. A scheme very much like that of Ptolemy appears in the Pseudo-Clementines, Hom. 3.50-54. This is one mark of the Clementines' affinity with apologetic thought.
129. Quispel, Ptolémée, 23-26.
130. Ptolemy to Flora 5.9 (trans. Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 312).
131. Cf. Heb. 8:5, 10:1.
132. 5.15, trans. Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 312.
133. Trans. Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 313.
134. Trans. Layton, Gnostic Scriptures, 314.
Richard I. Pervo (2010). THE MAKING OF PAUL Constructions of the Apostle in Early Christianity. Fortress Press (p. 214-215).
|
|
|
|
Post by phantasman on Oct 22, 2013 9:41:53 GMT -5
I have found Matthew to be the Gospel of strong Hebrew flavor. Citing linage, rituals, etc. things of importance to the Jews. Paul in this way was as favorable toward traditional things. While they are not really bad, I do not believe Christ was traditional, though he followed some to just appease.
Luke (Paul's convert) is the only place that has Christ hinting for us to perform communion. Philip describes it as Bread=Word, Wine=Holy Spirit. So, is it a physical ritual, or a spiritual message?
Right now, Albion and I are debating what a Christian is. He says it's someone who follows tradition of the "church". I couldn't disagree more.
|
|
|
|
Post by Soulgazer on Oct 24, 2013 8:21:59 GMT -5
There is one sentence in "Gnostic Peter" that really spoke to me those years ago. {Jesus said} "And they will cleave to the name of a dead man, thinking that they will become pure." Who was this "dead man" I wondered. Then it dawned on me. It was the living Christ refering to the dead Jesus. This, and parts of the Gospels really seem to fly in the face of some orthodox teaching. This helped set me down the road of invesigating the origin of many of the teachings that are common on Sunday mornings.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantasman on Oct 24, 2013 11:52:51 GMT -5
SG. I cannot find Gnostic Peter. You gave me the link once before. Be so kind to repeat. please. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Soulgazer on Oct 24, 2013 15:59:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by phantasman on Oct 24, 2013 18:09:05 GMT -5
Thnaks. I didn't know it was the Apocalypse. In the Early Christian Writings, The AoP is different, so I never clicked on it at NHL.
So, is the Gnostic Peter verse you referenced explained by what Philip is saying here:
"Jesus" is a hidden name, "Christ" is a revealed name. For this reason "Jesus" is not particular to any language; rather he is always called by the name "Jesus". While as for "Christ", in Syriac it is "Messiah", in Greek it is "Christ". Certainly all the others have it according to their own language. "The Nazarene" is he who reveals what is hidden. Christ has everything in himself, whether man, or angel, or mystery, and the Father.
Though Jesus is dead, and Christ lives, I see Jesus as the bringer of truth and wisdom, something men only got by images and visions before.
|
|
|
|
Post by Soulgazer on Oct 24, 2013 19:34:41 GMT -5
Yes I think so. The text all are thematic highlighting the difference between spirit and flesh and the interaction between the two. They believed that not only did Jesus highlight the wisdom and truth, but was Himself a type and image of wisdom and truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantasman on Oct 28, 2013 9:43:06 GMT -5
Online, WIKI claims Gnostic Peter parallels Second Treatise of the Great Seth. I read some of that and it seems way too crazy for me. Everyone being "laughing stocks" for Christ. Moses, David, John the Baptist, Simon (who died for Christ), while Jesus laughed at their stupidity.
|
|
|
|
Post by Soulgazer on Oct 28, 2013 15:49:02 GMT -5
Online, WIKI claims Gnostic Peter parallels Second Treatise of the Great Seth. I read some of that and it seems way too crazy for me. Everyone being "laughing stocks" for Christ. Moses, David, John the Baptist, Simon (who died for Christ), while Jesus laughed at their stupidity. I don't agree with WIKI's synopsis. A cursorary reading of Gnostic Peter would seem to have a substitute for Christ per the Sethian faith, but a more careful reading reveals something different: the division of the living spirit and the flesh. "The Savior said to me, "He whom you saw on the tree, glad and laughing, this is the living Jesus. But this one into whose hands and feet they drive the nails is his fleshly part, which is the substitute being put to shame, the one who came into being in his likeness. But look at him and me." Compare this to the "mystery of the cross" from the "acts of John": "Now what those things are I signify unto thee, for I know that thou wilt understand. Perceive thou therefore in me the rest of the Word (Logos), the piercing of the Word, the blood of the Word, the wound of the Word, the hanging up of the Word, the suffering of the Word, the nailing (fixing) of the Word, the death of the Word. And so speak I, separating off the manhood. Perceive thou therefore in the first place of the Word; then shalt thou perceive the Lord, and in the third place the man, and what he hath suffered. " |
|
unix
Junior Member
busy with full-time studies
Posts: 82
|
Post by unix on Oct 28, 2013 18:40:46 GMT -5
The final and third volume is focused on The Scrolls and Christian Origins. Numerous scholars discuss the first century C.E. '”a pivotal period in our culture”' from the Baptizer and Jesus of Nazareth in the twenties to the author of Revelation in the nineties. The contributors to this third volume indicate how and in what ways the ideas found in the Dead Sea Scrolls may have influenced the thinking of many first-century Jews, including John the Baptizer, Jesus, Paul, and others. Cumulatively, these experts reveal the new view of the emergence of 'Christianity': what became known as 'Christianity' was once a group, or sect, within Second Temple Judaism.
Jesus and his followers made the required pilgrimages to Jerusalem, which they knew as the 'Holy City'. They came to this metropolis to celebrate Passover, Pentecost, and Booths. According to the Gospel of John (10:22-39), Jesus celebrated Hanukkah. The Evangelists record many debates between Jesus and other Jewish groups, especially the Pharisees and Sadducees; often only the Dead Sea Scrolls clarify the reason why such debates were crucial among first-century Jews.
During the first decades of the twentieth century there was a consensus among many New Testament experts that Christianity had been indelibly shaped by Persian, Greek, and Roman mystery religions. The third volume seems to indicate the emergence of a new consensus: the Palestinian Jesus Movement was a part of Second Temple Judaism, and 'Christianity' was once Jewish in every conceivable way. Long before the emergence of the Qumran Community, Greek thought and myths had influenced early Jewish thought (cf. the images on the bullae of the Samaritan Papyri that are self-dated to the end of the fourth century B.C.E.).
There is more than this broad perspective that is a consensus. The Dead Sea Scrolls help us to understand more fully the language and the symbolism, and sometimes the technical terms, found in Paul's letters and in the intracanonical Gospels. With only a few exceptions, the emphasis falls on the indirect ways the Dead Sea Scrolls help us understand these writings that were collected much later into a codex that would be known as 'the New Testament'. Now, thanks to the recovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we know much better the context of the apocryphal Jewish texts and of the documents preserved within the New Testament.
Sometimes more than a general Jewish context appears before our eyes. For example, it is not so much the issue of how Jesus, the Fourth Evangelist, or Paul may have been influenced by the ideas in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is the ways that the scrolls help us understand what Jesus, the Fourth Evangelist, or Paul was trying to claim and why he was employing such an argument. Sometimes we see for the first time, or at least far more clearly, why Paul used the term 'works of the law' in Galatians. The study of all the Gospels, especially the Gospel of John, has been significantly enriched by the study of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The intracanonical Gospels may have been composed in Greek, but they are not to be categorized as Greek compositions.
Numerous thoughts reappear in the chapters in volume 3. One perception unites them: John the Baptizer, Jesus, and Paul were Jews. They were also devout Jews. They were committed to the sacredness of Scripture. They claimed to have experienced the presence of God; clearly, they learned about God's will for his creatures by studying Torah. Thus, as my colleague Donald H. Juel wisely pointed out in his contribution to the third volume, it is now misleading to talk about 'Christians' in the first century C.E.
Charlesworth, J. H. (2006). Preface: The New Perspective on Second Temple Judaism and 'Christian Origins'. In J. H. Charlesworth (Ed.), The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Volume One: Scripture and the Scrolls: The Second Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins (pp. xxvii-xxix). Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.
Previously edited: Oct 29, 2013, 2:40am by unix
Previously edited: Nov 3rd, 2013 at 6:37pm by unix
|
|
|
|
Post by phantasman on Oct 29, 2013 10:12:08 GMT -5
So, you're saying Jesus didn't know or understand who God was until he read and understood the Torah?
|
|
|
|
Post by Soulgazer on Oct 31, 2013 23:03:16 GMT -5
So, you're saying Jesus didn't know or understand who God was until he read and understood the Torah? That is an interesting concept. I'll have to think on that for a while. |
|
|
|
Post by phantasman on Nov 4, 2013 12:17:16 GMT -5
John 6
31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.
32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven.
and
48 I am that bread of life.
49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
and
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.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
Now, if Philip is correct:
"His flesh is the word, and his blood is the Holy Spirit."-Philip
I can get more out of that than eating a wafer and drinking grape juice.
|
|
|
|
Post by Soulgazer on Nov 6, 2013 21:36:20 GMT -5
Interesting. Again, very thought provoking, thank you.
|
|
