Question

[Susannah]

How does this forum handle Gnosticism. Is it off limits as a topic? Same question for dead sea scolls. Thanks.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

How does this forum handle Gnosticism. Is it off limits as a topic? Same question for dead sea scolls. Thanks.

We've talked about Gnosticism in the past, to explain what it is. But those were explainations of it. Not arguments for it, or agreement with it. In at least that point it's at least allowable to talk about that much. (Unlike OSAS vs OSNAS topics which ba came banded because of the heated unresolved debates that resulted from them).

The Dead Sea scrolls are good for discussion as far as I'm aware.

Perhaps a moderator will have the real answer though for you.

 

[Susannah]

Thanks for replying. The early church was divided into different factions until the council at Nicea. I like their ideology and might have voted to include their ideas in the Bible, but now it is too late. I

t is easy for me to bring controversy where none existed by rationalizing that I am educating people, but I am trying to stay away from these days. I just wanted to know where people stand on this issue.

The part of their ideology I am attracted to is the idea that if we were made in God's image then the Trinity must have some feminine qualities. If God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all male then why create both men and women in his image. I have wrestled with this issue all my life. My most radical fantasy is the God is masculine; the Holy Spirit is feminine; Jesus was androgynous. Of course they are all spirit so it doesn't matter really. I just can't let go of the idea that if we are made in his image there is more to the story than what was sanctioned at Nicea. God help me. ❤

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

I look at it as the roles we have and how those roles and responsibilities are used to teach is about God.

Biblically speaking there are roles and responsibilities for men in the bible. And God has identified Himself as a Him. In this way God is not only saying how we are to identify Him, but also what responsibilities and commitments He hold. God is the Father, and we are his children (such as the context of being rebellious sinful daughters as Israel and Judea were compared to by prophets in the old testiment). He is the Husband, and one hope among many Christians is that we are His bride. However in rebuking Israel and Judea at least once they were called an adulterous wife seeking other nations and their false gods.

In both instances when God has called Himself a Husband, or a Father, He is not saying these things in relation to the Holy Spirit. He is saying these things in relation to us.

Which from there will get into the harder topic. Bibically speaking what are the roles for women. For Adam, Eve was a helper, and later as part of the punishment for the fall, Adam was given a harder Taj to provide, while Eve was given both a painful childbirth and being in submission to Adam. And that I think is the role we should focus on here with our relationship with God.

As individuals and as a group we are like children that need to submit to God, and we are like a wife that is suppose to help Him, but also respect and submit to Him.

At least that's my take on how God identifies Himself as a male. It's not in relationship to the Holy Spirit, and it's not our job to identify a sex to the Holy Spirit.

As for Jesus, he was a make, and throughout His teachings He identified Himself as the Son.

I'm sorry if that sounds harsh or judgmental, but I don't agree with the idea of making up doctrine that isn't there. That includes Jesus filling a sex identity outside of how He is identified, or assigning the Holy Spirit any identity that has not been given to the Holy Spirit.

 

[Susannah]

I don't believe you are harsh or judgmental. You are just sharing your ideas and I appreciate this.

A question. I thought the Bible says that it was Jesus who was our bridegroom.

My problem with the Bible is all the different translations. I don't know which one is closest to the original. In some of the older translations they use the word, "rach' to describe the Holy Spirit which is the feminine gender. Why did they change this?

As a writer one of the hardest things is to choose a gender pronoun when writing about an individual. I was taught to always use a male pronoun even when talking about a woman. These days we are allowed more freedom to say he or she or to use the plural, "people." That is what I do most of the time.

So I have always wondered if God refers to himself as male or the man who wrote the scripture who was following the norms of his time.

I am not really worried about the whole thing because I know God is spirit and has no gender. It only comes up for me when I personify God. If I am going off the deep end I wonder who gave birth to Jesus. LOL

I did read one article where the author said God has been referred to as a male because he is an authority figure just as men were back then. Here is a loaded idea. As women because authority figures does our image of God change. The feminists think so.

In conclusion . . . I like the male image of God. I really do. I just want some feminine qualities. Someone on this board suggested I can turn to Mary, the mother of Jesus, for my feminine fix because it helps me fit in better with a religion which is still very patriarchal. I think this is what I will do.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

On the other hand though I think there's a verse in the old Testiment calling wisdom a "she." So in that sense of the spirit of wisdom is a she (or is it the angel of wisdom?), then it's possible for the Holy Spirit to be considered a she. But that's just a possibility
I wouldn't put a doctrine on it or teach it as true. It's just a possibility at tgat point.

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

I don't believe you are harsh or judgmental. You are just sharing your ideas and I appreciate this.

A question. I thought the Bible says that it was Jesus who was our bridegroom.

My problem with the Bible is all the different translations. I don't know which one is closest to the original. In some of the older translations they use the word, "rach' to describe the Holy Spirit which is the feminine gender. Why did they change this?

As a writer one of the hardest things is to choose a gender pronoun when writing about an individual. I was taught to always use a male pronoun even when talking about a woman. These days we are allowed more freedom to say he or she or to use the plural, "people." That is what I do most of the time.

So I have always wondered if God refers to himself as male or the man who wrote the scripture who was following the norms of his time.

I am not really worried about the whole thing because I know God is spirit and has no gender. It only comes up for me when I personify God. If I am going off the deep end I wonder who gave birth to Jesus. LOL

Hmmm. I don't know about those translating issues. Might need to consult some one who's studied bible translations in the original texts (or the closest texts we have to the originals).

Maybe a concordance would help?

 

[GodsGrace]

I don't believe you are harsh or judgmental. You are just sharing your ideas and I appreciate this.

A question. I thought the Bible says that it was Jesus who was our bridegroom.

My problem with the Bible is all the different translations. I don't know which one is closest to the original. In some of the older translations they use the word, "rach' to describe the Holy Spirit which is the feminine gender. Why did they change this?

As a writer one of the hardest things is to choose a gender pronoun when writing about an individual. I was taught to always use a male pronoun even when talking about a woman. These days we are allowed more freedom to say he or she or to use the plural, "people." That is what I do most of the time.

So I have always wondered if God refers to himself as male or the man who wrote the scripture who was following the norms of his time.

I am not really worried about the whole thing because I know God is spirit and has no gender. It only comes up for me when I personify God. If I am going off the deep end I wonder who gave birth to Jesus. LOL

I did read one article where the author said God has been referred to as a male because he is an authority figure just as men were back then. Here is a loaded idea. As women because authority figures does our image of God change. The feminists think so.

In conclusion . . . I like the male image of God. I really do. I just want some feminine qualities. Someone on this board suggested I can turn to Mary, the mother of Jesus, for my feminine fix because it helps me fit in better with a religion which is still very patriarchal. I think this is what I will do.

Hi Susannah,,,
How has your experience with Mary gone?
I used to be Catholic...she is very revered in the Catholic faith.

 

[JohnDB]

Thanks for replying. The early church was divided into different factions until the council at Nicea. I like their ideology and might have voted to include their ideas in the Bible, but now it is too late.

Only about 2000 years too late to add your opinion. They actually weren't that divided in many aspects of theology when they met.
Constantine, as the new Emporor, wanted to appreciate those who helped him gain the Throne. So he asked those who were the religious leaders to more organize the tenants of their religion. Because he wanted to herald them and promote their religion.

It is easy for me to bring controversy where none existed by rationalizing that I am educating people, but I am trying to stay away from these days. I just wanted to know where people stand on this issue.

actually many of us here have studied this stuff our whole lives at in incredible depth. There are membership here that have PHDs in this.

The part of their ideology I am attracted to is the idea that if we were made in God's image then the Trinity must have some feminine qualities. If God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are all male then why create both men and women in his image. I have wrestled with this issue all my life. My most radical fantasy is the God is masculine; the Holy Spirit is feminine; Jesus was androgynous. Of course they are all spirit so it doesn't matter really. I just can't let go of the idea that if we are made in his image there is more to the story than what was sanctioned at Nicea. God help me. ❤

And this heresy which was dead by the time of the Council of Nivea was killed by the Apostle John who wrote several letters, a book of Prophecy and a Gospel account. All of John's writings deliberately were written with denouncing Gnosticism as a focus.

 

[JohnDB]

This is why we don't base our beliefs on what we feel.
We have a very accurate Bible. This Bible, when good hermeneutics are applied, detail out exactly how to live out our faith.
The Bible is explicit in lining out exactly who God is, who mankind is, and the relationship between the two.

Jesus was all man...a man's man. Nothing feminine whatsoever about him. Girls didn't do construction work...the guys worked in rock and heavy ceramics.

 

[GodsGrace]

Only about 2000 years too late to add your opinion. They actually weren't that divided in many aspects of theology when they met.
Constantine, as the new Emporor, wanted to appreciate those who helped him gain the Throne. So he asked those who were the religious leaders to more organize the tenants of their religion. Because he wanted to herald them and promote their religion.


actually many of us here have studied this stuff our whole lives at in incredible depth. There are membership here that have PHDs in this.



And this heresy which was dead by the time of the Council of Nivea was killed by the Apostle John who wrote several letters, a book of Prophecy and a Gospel account. All of John's writings deliberately were written with denouncing Gnosticism as a focus.

In that very popular verse where Jesus says "If they were with us they would not have left us", I THINK in John 6...John is speaking about gnostics. But this verse is always used by those that believe in unconditional eternal security to show that they were never saved to begin with.

So many times, we try to make scripture say what we want to hear instead of what it says.
OTOH,,,,there's just too much to know.

 

[JohnDB]

In that very popular verse where Jesus says "If they were with us they would not have left us", I THINK in John 6...John is speaking about gnostics. But this verse is always used by those that believe in unconditional eternal security to show that they were never saved to begin with.

So many times, we try to make scripture say what we want to hear instead of what it says.
OTOH,,,,there's just too much to know.

Jesus was talking about giving up everything they thought they knew in order to follow God...about eating flesh and drinking blood. Jesus wasn't speaking literally but figuratively. But even still, it upset the Jewish hordes that were following him solely for the food He had provided at the preceding miracles.

Your quote reminded me of Peter's letter that was referencing the homosexuals that had glommed onto the Christian faith but didn't want to give up homosexuality. Peter quoted the proverb of Solomon saying that "A dog returns to it's vomit" also in that section.

 

[GodsGrace]

Jesus was talking about giving up everything they thought they knew in order to follow God...about eating flesh and drinking blood. Jesus wasn't speaking literally but figuratively. But even still, it upset the Jewish hordes that were following him solely for the food He had provided at the preceding miracles.

Your quote reminded me of Peter's letter that was referencing the homosexuals that had glommed onto the Christian faith but didn't want to give up homosexuality. Peter quoted the proverb of Solomon saying that "A dog returns to it's vomit" also in that section.

I can't remember that it's about homosexuals.
Will read it now.

 

[PeterJens]

I don't believe you are harsh or judgmental. You are just sharing your ideas and I appreciate this.

A question. I thought the Bible says that it was Jesus who was our bridegroom.

My problem with the Bible is all the different translations. I don't know which one is closest to the original. In some of the older translations they use the word, "rach' to describe the Holy Spirit which is the feminine gender. Why did they change this?

As a writer one of the hardest things is to choose a gender pronoun when writing about an individual. I was taught to always use a male pronoun even when talking about a woman. These days we are allowed more freedom to say he or she or to use the plural, "people." That is what I do most of the time.

So I have always wondered if God refers to himself as male or the man who wrote the scripture who was following the norms of his time.

I am not really worried about the whole thing because I know God is spirit and has no gender. It only comes up for me when I personify God. If I am going off the deep end I wonder who gave birth to Jesus. LOL

I did read one article where the author said God has been referred to as a male because he is an authority figure just as men were back then. Here is a loaded idea. As women because authority figures does our image of God change. The feminists think so.

In conclusion . . . I like the male image of God. I really do. I just want some feminine qualities. Someone on this board suggested I can turn to Mary, the mother of Jesus, for my feminine fix because it helps me fit in better with a religion which is still very patriarchal. I think this is what I will do.

I am not sure I understand the gender idea about God.
If you know the cross, the cost of the walk of love, nothing in us compares. And this is not based on does God understand me better if they are a female view or a male view?

What this speaks to me is of not seeing Jesus as a person. I love women because they care more about making contact with individuals and how they respond, and less about competition. What I love about Jesus is He knew it all, and laid a path before me to walk and learn.

Whether I am male or female the road is the same. And God knows me, intimately, down to the hairs on my head. It is in having an open heart and letting pain out, forgiveness and the cross and love in, that we begin to see the realities as they are.

I think because God is allied often with our relationship or lack of it with our fathers, we often want a sympathetic female voice, but this illustrates our need to resolve our feelings with our earthy father, to be able to see the love our heavenly Father has for us. God bless you

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

In that very popular verse where Jesus says "If they were with us they would not have left us", I THINK in John 6...John is speaking about gnostics. But this verse is always used by those that believe in unconditional eternal security to show that they were never saved to begin with.

So many times, we try to make scripture say what we want to hear instead of what it says.
OTOH,,,,there's just too much to know.

Gnostics are not saved.
None of them.
So what's your point?
You think gnostics are saved?
Show me where in the Bible it says that.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

I am not sure I understand the gender idea about God.
If you know the cross, the cost of the walk of love, nothing in us compares. And this is not based on does God understand me better if they are a female view or a male view?

What this speaks to me is of not seeing Jesus as a person. I love women because they care more about making contact with individuals and how they respond, and less about competition. What I love about Jesus is He knew it all, and laid a path before me to walk and learn.

Whether I am male or female the road is the same. And God knows me, intimately, down to the hairs on my head. It is in having an open heart and letting pain out, forgiveness and the cross and love in, that we begin to see the realities as they are.

I think because God is allied often with our relationship or lack of it with our fathers, we often want a sympathetic female voice, but this illustrates our need to resolve our feelings with our earthy father, to be able to see the love our heavenly Father has for us. God bless you

Does someone here have a problem with genders?
It's non-essential.

 

[OzSpen]

In that very popular verse where Jesus says "If they were with us they would not have left us", I THINK in John 6...John is speaking about gnostics. But this verse is always used by those that believe in unconditional eternal security to show that they were never saved to begin with.

So many times, we try to make scripture say what we want to hear instead of what it says.
OTOH,,,,there's just too much to know.

wondering,

First John was written to refute the Gnostic heresy. So was Against Heresies by the early church father, Irenaeus.

What Gnostics believe is as easy as finding a needle in a haystack. However, here are some basics:

• It is based on the Greek word, gnōsis, knowledge. For Gnostics, what is known has changed many times ever since the Gnostic hay day of the 1st century.
• You need to acquire mystical knowledge, which is Gnostic salvation.
• Yes, there is a Great God, but he's unknowable.
• A Demiurge (Creator) is not all-good, but is 'a bungling and incompetent fool that creates the world as a spiritual prison'.
• For Gnosticism there is a distinction between the highest, unknowable "alien God" and the "creator" of the material - the Demiurge - who is a lesser creator God who messed up in creating the world. Instead of getting a 'good universe', this inferior god infected the world with sin and pain. Along with that comes spiritual, gnostic blindness.
• As for the human body, a built-in good soul/spirit is trapped in an evil, material body.

This is contrary to biblical Christianity where salvation is found only in Jesus (Acts 4:12). For the Gnostics, they redeem themselves by examining the inner 'spark' that needs to be set free from the evil fleshly body.

Some Gnostics deny God's existence and human beings become deities.

Gnosticism and Christianity are mutually exclusive. Why? I cannot improve myself by human wisdom because, 'The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction' (Prov 1:7 NIV).

Oz

 

[GodsGrace]

wondering,

First John was written to refute the Gnostic heresy. So was Against Heresies by the early church father, Irenaeus.

What Gnostics believe is as easy as finding a needle in a haystack. However, here are some basics:

• It is based on the Greek word, gnōsis, knowledge. For Gnostics, what is known has changed many times ever since the Gnostic hay day of the 1st century.
• You need to acquire mystical knowledge, which is Gnostic salvation.
• Yes, there is a Great God, but he's unknowable.
• A Demiurge (Creator) is not all-good, but is 'a bungling and incompetent fool that creates the world as a spiritual prison'.
• For Gnosticism there is a distinction between the highest, unknowable "alien God" and the "creator" of the material - the Demiurge - who is a lesser creator God who messed up in creating the world. Instead of getting a 'good universe', this inferior god infected the world with sin and pain. Along with that comes spiritual, gnostic blindness.
• As for the human body, a built-in good soul/spirit is trapped in an evil, material body.

This is contrary to biblical Christianity where salvation is found only in Jesus (Acts 4:12). For the Gnostics, they redeem themselves by examining the inner 'spark' that needs to be set free from the evil fleshly body.

Some Gnostics deny God's existence and human beings become deities.

Gnosticism and Christianity are mutually exclusive. Why? I cannot improve myself by human wisdom because, 'The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction' (Prov 1:7 NIV).

Oz

Great post.
So much information.

Gnosticism was one of the earliest heresies and was rejected by all the ECFs.

 

[GodsGrace]

Gnostics are not saved.
None of them.
So what's your point?
You think gnostics are saved?
Show me where in the Bible it says that.

I never say that someone cannot be saved.
I leave that up to God.

However, I was saying that gnostics were NOT a part of Christianity
and this sect was rejected even at the time that Jesus was still alive.
1 John 2:19 speaks about the gnostics and how they were not part of
the disciples of Christ.

 

[GodsGrace]

Great post.
So much information.

Gnosticism was one of the earliest heresies and was rejected by all the ECFs.

OzSpen

1 John 2:19 speaks to this.
They were already present even when Jesus was still alive.