This is really going to make a lot of folks mad.....

[ÃÂoppleganger]

 

[peace4all]

it has long been known that christianity "borrows" things from other cultures. Thats what all religions do. All of them, share similarities, because humans all make up the same kind of things. captains are often heroes, or believed to be amazing when they get lucky. etc. So there are tons of religions and groups that have ppl almost EXACTLY the same as christian principles, however, some came BEFORE christianity, others came after.

it is a plain fact, religions are like open source software.

 

[ÃÂoppleganger]

:evil:

 

[Georges]

Whatever the two aren't the same thing, just because before Christ these same things existed, doesn't mean there the same thing. When The Messiah Christ did show up they weren't refering to him as Mithras reborn. The called Him the Deliverer Immanuel. Paganism is not Judeo-Christian.

You are quite right, they are not....It just maybe coincidence that....

1. Both have Sunday worship
2. Both have a descending, dying, resurrected heavenly being.
3. Both birthdays celebrated Dec 25
4. Both are saviors of mankind
5. Both born of a virgin...

and the list goes on......

6. Can't forget about the baptism by the bulls blood that washes away the believer's sins.

Dopp...of course the Jews weren't referring Christ to Mithra....they were referring Christ to the expected Messiah that would lead them into the Messianic Kingdom. Paul didn't refer to Christ as Mithra either, but he used the Mithra legend, or terminology (a legend well known to the gentile population of Asia Minor (not Israel) to promote his vision of Christianity. Since the two are very similar, it was an easy thing for Paul to do and quite receptive to his audience. The disciples of the Church at Jerusalem didn't know anything about Mithra so they wouldn't have associated Mithraism with Judaism.

 

[ÃÂoppleganger]

:P

 

[ÃÂoppleganger]

Oops did it twice!

 

[hybrid]

guys,

here's proof that peter vouched for the authenticity of pauls teaching. and as a bonus peter had also admonition to those who wanted to twist pauls writings.

2 Peter 3:15-16
15 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. NIV

to cast doubt with paul teachings as tantamount to also cast doubt with peter. and to cast doubt with peter is to cast doubt to the whole testasment teachings and eventually to cast doubt and undermine the gospel of jesus christ or christianity itself.

and i think this is what is being done here in the name of seeking the truth.

 

[Georges]

guys,

here's proof that peter vouched for the authenticity of pauls teaching. and as a bonus peter had also admonition to those who wanted to twist pauls writings.

2 Peter 3:15-16
15 Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. NIV

to cast doubt with paul teachings as tantamount to also cast doubt with peter. and to cast doubt with peter is to cast doubt to the whole testasment teachings and eventually to cast doubt and undermine the gospel of jesus christ or christianity itself.

and i think this is what is being done here in the name of seeking the truth.

Thanks Hybrid.....I am aware of the quote and, by the tone of the thread, it appears that some think I said Paul is promoting Mithraism....I am not...I merely stated as I have repeated that Paul was/is influenced by Mithraism as shown in his epistles. Peter had no problem with understanding the principles of Torah observance as practiced by the Church at Jerusalem. What is difficult for Peter and other's to understand as seen in 2 Peter is that Paul has introduced these (not difficult, but foreign, ie. some of the principles of mithraism and Gnosticism) into his vision of Gentile Christianity. This is what was difficult for the Messianic Christians to comprehend....they had a totally different perspective of the Messiah. Paul introduced a different messiah then they were used to.

Also.....the debate rages in that Peter wasn't the author of 2nd Peter and that it was written much later (as late as 2nd century). Specualtion anyway. If it were written later, Paulinists could easily have edited the text. It is known that the NT is a collection of books that have been edited over history.

 

[ÃÂoppleganger]

:x

 

[Georges]

Paul didn't refer to Christ as Mithra either, but he used the Mithra legend, or terminology (a legend well known to the gentile population of Asia Minor(not Israel) to promote his vision of Christianity. Since the two are very similar, it was an easy thing for Paul to do and quite receptive to his audience. SHOW ME WHERE IN THE BIBLE --> verse = ?

It's quite obvious in Acts that Paul was at odds with the Church leaders there....News flash....It wasn't because he was toeing the company line. Paul was obviously teaching something the Elders at Jerusalem didn't like.

Thanks Hybrid.....I am aware of the quote and, by the tone of the thread, it appears that some think I said Paul is promoting Mithraism....I am not...I merely stated as I have repeated that Paul was/is influenced by Mithraism as shown in his epistles. SHOW ME WHERE IN THE BIBLE --> verse = ?

1Cr 11:23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the [same] night in which he was betrayed took bread:
1Cr 11:24 And when he had given thanks, he brake [it], and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me.
1Cr 11:25 After the same manner also [he took] the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink [it], in remembrance of me.
1Cr 11:26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come.
1Cr 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink [this] cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
1Cr 11:28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of [that] bread, and drink of [that] cup.
1Cr 11:29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body.
1Cr 11:30 For this cause many [are] weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

and Heb 9:11-15......

Did Christ teach salvation and damnation in regard to the "last seder'? Mithraism as it is "thought" does apparently teach salvation and damnation in regard to it's bread and wine practice. Did Paul borrow from that to teach Pagans about Christ....Perhaps in the same mode that he promoted the "unknown god" as God to the Athenians?

This may be Paul's creation....'as given to him "only" by Christ'. Notice, Paul is the only one to receive this information, none of the other disciples ever hint at it. Did the apostles at Jerusalem promote what has become this very important Christian basic principle? I don't think in the context that Paul is suggesting anyway. Sure, they still celebrated the Passover seder as a remembrance, but the celebration of the Eurcharist as Paul prescribes isn't what is promoted at the "Last Supper", or "Last Seder".

What is difficult for Peter and other's to understand as seen in 2 Peter is that Paul has introduced these (not difficult, but foreign, ie. some of the principles of mithraism and Gnosticism) into his vision of Gentile Christianity. This is what was difficult for the Messianic Christians to comprehend .... they had a totally different perspective of the Messiah. Paul introduced a different messiah then they were used to.

Big Deal, the Jews had a different concept of the Messiah
SHOW ME WHERE IN THE BIBLE --> verse = ?

To many to list.....take the concepts that Paul is promoting and the subsequent delvelopment of theology (as it is today) and you have a different Messiah than the Jewish Christians promoted. Would Paul agree with modern mainstream Christian theology...I don't know....But he did provide the principles (like the eucharist, and apparent antitorah promotion) that started mainstream Christianity down the slippery slope. I wonder how differently Christianity would have been if the theology of James and Peter would have won out...?

Is it possible that Paul (or his intellectual descendents) borrowed from the Mystery Religion of Mithraism in creating their own brand of Christianity? SHOW ME WHERE? SHOW ME WHERE IN THE BIBLE --> verse = ?

Again,,,,question asked because of the difference between Paul's concept of Christianity and that of the Church at Jerusalem. Verse? This concept is based on the entirety of Acts and the Pauline epistles, Paul's Birthplace, Paul's "pre conversion" history, Paul's post conversion ministry target (geography and people type) shows a pattern of theology behavior.

The Pauline epistles......

Read the following, then do the research to verify, and…….think for yourself.
Well, yea I did that its not that hard to confuse the two if you study the myths a bit, let alone the Bible. Yet you haven't read Nietzche - Thus spake Zarathrustra, and his views on christ, let alone Paul? Strange

really....? Not hard for you not to confuse the two.....huh...me either....I don't confuse the two.....I think I got a pretty good handle on what the Church at Jerusalem practiced and believed, and it ain't the same as what Paul was promoting.....again that is why Paul was called to the carpet in Jerusalem...or perhaps you think that Paul went to Jerusalem to confront the leaders of the Church there?

How many practices that are described below as practiced in Mithraism can be found in today’s Christian Church?
ALOT, that doesn't mean it wasn't introduced through Romanism not Paul.

OK, whatever.....Paul supplied the basic's, the Gentile Christian father's took if from there.....sorry don't have a Bible verse for that....

How did this happen?

Rome became the center of the church, which was the center of the world, per say, which was the center of pagan belief, in short.

Rome was only the capitol of the Empire, I'm sure you will agree that paganism was found through out the Empire....especially in Greece and Asia Minor where Gnosticism also was prevelent.

What can be done about it?
Stop believing in stupid cheap imitations, substitues for Christ, the easter bunny, etc ...

Agreed.....

How can this be for our edification if you don't explain it's purpose? Just questions, just tidbits, no actual verses, no answers, just suppositions. Why should I believe when you give me nothing of substance?

Thought I provided the answers....just not the ones you wanted....besides...I don't really care if you believe me, or not...really. Can't say as that you've proven me wrong anywhere....You yourself admitted that there is Pagan ifluence in Gentile Christianity....where did it start if not by Paul? Sorry, again no Bible verse.

Dopp.....please use the quote option....you are quoting me and I post a lot and am having trouble keeping up with who wrote what.....

 

[ÃÂoppleganger]

:

 

[hybrid]

Thanks Hybrid.....I am aware of the quote and, by the tone of the thread, it appears that some think I said Paul is promoting Mithraism....I am not...I merely stated as I have repeated that Paul was/is influenced by Mithraism as shown in his epistles. Peter had no problem with understanding the principles of Torah observance as practiced by the Church at Jerusalem. What is difficult for Peter and other's to understand as seen in 2 Peter is that Paul has introduced these (not difficult, but foreign, ie. some of the principles of mithraism and Gnosticism) into his vision of Gentile Christianity. This is what was difficult for the Messianic Christians to comprehend....they had a totally different perspective of the Messiah. Paul introduced a different messiah then they were used to.

what you have asserted so far was your supposition that paul was influenced by mithraism and consequently used it to explain the gospel in order to relate to the mithraist inthe empire.

and in my own supposition i think this is wrong for several reasons.

first. again peter would have seen through it if paul was espousing christianity and mitraism in his episitles and had warned christians to stay away from paul rather that commend him.

second. paul in his writings was very zealous in keeping the word of god pure and unadultareted. he even warned chrisitians that even angels preached a diferent christ let him be anathema. it was unlikely that he himself wil violate this principles.

third, if paul was guilty as you charged, then the apostle themselves would have striped him his apostleship to the gentiles. and paul would had gone done in christian history as another heretic.

fourth. paul was a pharasee of the parhasee and no self respecting jew would borrow a concept from another religion. therefore as a pharasee he disdained other beliefs. specially a pagan one like mithraism.

finally , why don't you think this way.....

" maybe because of the similarities betweeen mithraism and christianity that made it easier for paul to make converts within the roman empire but nonetheless pauls teachings were authentic christianity. isn't it make more sense? "

Also.....the debate rages in that Peter wasn't the author of 2nd Peter and that it was written much later (as late as 2nd century). Specualtion anyway. If it were written later, Paulinists could easily have edited the text. It is known that the NT is a collection of books that have been edited over history.

this is what i'm talking about. you would go even to the extent of discrediting the bible (at least the NT) to prove your point.

guess youre not one of those "sola scriptura" guys.

that would make "you" then the final authority of evreything true.

what an awesome responsibility.

 

[Georges]

Thanks Hybrid.....I am aware of the quote and, by the tone of the thread, it appears that some think I said Paul is promoting Mithraism....I am not...I merely stated as I have repeated that Paul was/is influenced by Mithraism as shown in his epistles. Peter had no problem with understanding the principles of Torah observance as practiced by the Church at Jerusalem. What is difficult for Peter and other's to understand as seen in 2 Peter is that Paul has introduced these (not difficult, but foreign, ie. some of the principles of mithraism and Gnosticism) into his vision of Gentile Christianity. This is what was difficult for the Messianic Christians to comprehend....they had a totally different perspective of the Messiah. Paul introduced a different messiah then they were used to.

what you have asserted so far was your supposition that paul was influenced by mithraism and consequently used it to explain the gospel in order to relate to the mithraist inthe empire.

I can't take credit for it.....others have done the research...in the next post, I quote the http://www.wikipedia.com reference. They have broken down the argument better than I could have.

and in my own supposition i think this is wrong for several reasons.

first. again peter would have seen through it if paul was espousing christianity and mitraism in his episitles and had warned christians to stay away from paul rather that commend him.

Peter and Paul were not friends.....Peter (part of the Jerusalem gang) wasn't happy with what Paul was apparently teaching.....That is why Paul was called to Jerusalem....to answer to the charges that he was teaching contrary to what they (the Jerusalem Church) taught. When did Peter commend Paul?

second. paul in his writings was very zealous in keeping the word of god pure and unadultareted. he even warned chrisitians that even angels preached a diferent christ let him be anathema. it was unlikely that he himself wil violate this principles.

So much so that he quoted the septuigent than the original Jewish translation of the OT? There are differences in the texts. Off the top of my head, I don't know if Paul ever quoted Jesus? Did he? Please text so I can see it...I'm tired tonight and can't think of any right now. There were many Christs that were preached by the different early sects of Christianity. I wonder if the Christ that the Chruch at Jerusalem preached one of the ones he was talking about?

third, if paul was guilty as you charged, then the apostle themselves would have striped him his apostleship to the gentiles. and paul would had gone done in christian history as another heretic.

I'm not ready to condemn Paul yet......I was a big Paul guy....it's just the evidence (for me) is piling up against him.....James, Peter and the others I like. The other disciples didn't have that much power over Paul....Paul preached to the Gentiles far away from Jerusalem....Historically, the Ebionites who were direct descendents of the Church at Jerusalem considered Paul an apostate.....

fourth. paul was a pharasee of the parhasee and no self respecting jew would borrow a concept from another religion. therefore as a pharasee he disdained other beliefs. specially a pagan one like mithraism.

Yes, Paul claims to be a pharisee, but I've read studies that Paul doesn't act, preach, or teach as a schooled pharisee would....So is Paul really a Pharisee. Really, if he were a pharisee, the other phraisee Christians (James, Peter, John) would have been more receptive to him instead of being leary. Again, the Elders in Jerusalem called Paul to the carpet twice because of his strange teaching.

finally , why don't you think this way.....

" maybe because of the similarities betweeen mithraism and christianity that made it easier for paul to make converts within the roman empire but nonetheless pauls teachings were authentic christianity. isn't it make more sense? "

If he encouraged Torah observance like the other apostles did, I would be inclined to accept that.

Also.....the debate rages in that Peter wasn't the author of 2nd Peter and that it was written much later (as late as 2nd century). Specualtion anyway. If it were written later, Paulinists could easily have edited the text. It is known that the NT is a collection of books that have been edited over history.

this is what i'm talking about. you would go even to the extent of discrediting the bible (at least the NT) to prove your point.

I'm not making this up......and I'm not trying to prove a point....I'm looking for the truth as everyone else is.....

guess youre not one of those "sola scriptura" guys.

I'm not making this up either....there are additions and subtractions from the NT......that's truth. The NT's canon has been added to and subtracted from for a period of what 300 years before it was finally settled on...if you can trust a possibly doctored document...more power to you. Still, I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater....I'm just more careful when I read it.

that would make "you" then the final authority of evreything true.

I don't.....As I've said, I'm constantly looking to prove and disprove, so I understand more clearly.

what an awesome responsibility.

I forgive you the shot.........I won't reply in kind......

Thanks for the reply.....check out the added post below.

 

[Georges]

For Dopp.....I won't write any more on this.....this is from http://www.wikipedia.com concerning Gnosticism and the NT...

Excerpts from the article:

Gnosticism and the New Testament
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This article discusses the relationship between Gnosticism and the New Testament. The Gnostics were a branch of philosophers strongly associated with mystery religions, existing in parts of the Roman empire in the first and second centuries AD. They were highly concerned with secret, esoteric interpretations of various works, including the teachings of Jesus, and less so with their literal content, which they may have regarded as allegory. The New Testament, which contains the Gospels and the Epistles, is the portion of the Christian Bible written after the birth of Jesus.

Contents [hide]
1 The Gospels
2 The Pauline Epistles
2.1 Paul and Hellenic influence
2.2 Terminology by Paul having a Gnostic significance
2.3 Paul and the early church
2.4 Gnostic interpretations of Paul's teachings

The Pauline Epistles

Paul of Tarsus

This section examines the possible involvement of Paul of Tarsus with Gnosticism. Controversially, it has been suggested that Paul of Tarsus (the Christian Saint Paul) was a Gnostic who developed the early Christian church as a mystery religion with a Jewish foundation, which later developed into a Christianity that forgot the mystery elements and largely abandoned its Jewish foundation.

The argument for Paul being a gnostic relies heavily on arguments about which of Paul's epistles were actually written by him. The ones they acknowledge, they seek to interpret in ways compatible with gnosticism, while they reject Paul's authorship of those epistles that more clearly reject gnosticism. The "pastoral" epistles to Timothy and Titus are generally acknowledged as being more clearly anti-gnostic; Paul's authorship of them is particularly disputed by some scholars. A few scholars claim they were forged by Irenaeus to support his anti-Gnostic views. Most scholars don't share this suspicion, as Paul's epistles are generally dated to the late first century and Irenaeus lived in the second century. For details of these arguments, see Authorship of the Pauline Epistles.


Paul and Hellenic influence

Although Paul claims to have been a Jew, Paul writes in Greek, and only refers to the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament used by most Jews at the time), a usage that shows a more Hellenic influence on his life. He grew up in Tarsus, which was a centre (and possibly the origin, as suggested by Plutarch) of the Mithras version of Mystery Religions. Tarsus was also, at the time of Paul, the dominant centre for Hellenic philosophy, Strabo commenting that Tarsus had surpassed Athens and Alexandria in this extent. Paul expresses in his writing many ideas of Hellenic thought used by philosophers such as Plato, referring, for example, to the solar cycle known as the great year, as well as to the idea that one is wise became one knows one knows nothing. Paul was educated in Jerusalem, especially by Gamaliel.

According to the book of Acts, Paul's ministry takes him to cities dominated by Mystery Religion, such as Antioch (a centre for the Adonis version), Ephesus (a centre for the Attis version), and Corinth (a centre for the Dionysus version). However, Saul (another name given to Paul) approved the stoning of Stephen in Acts 8:1, where it states that "And Saul was there, giving approval to his death." (NIV) and in Acts 8 and 9 it is recorded that Saul persecuted Christians, with the approval of the High Priest (Acts 9:2). In Galatians 1:14, he also states that "I was advancing in Judaism beyond many Jews of my own age and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers." (NIV)

Terminology by Paul having a Gnostic significance

When considering the question of whether Paul uses Gnostic terminology, or supports Gnostic ideas, it is important to refer to the original greek form of the text. Translations often choose to translate words which are the names of things or concepts, rather than replacing them with the name for the equivalent concept, sometimes doing so to suppress information or support a certain point of view, and in other instances simply because the translator is unaware of any special significance of the term.

The fact that, although Paul does long to share the knowledge with those he writes to in Romans he does not write the knowledge into the letter, was explained by gnostics as Paul's respecting the principle common to mystery religions of having secret teachings, which must not be shared openly (for example, if the letter was intercepted). Elsewhere, Paul makes use of a phrase which is also the vow of secrecy common to many gnostic groups, such use by gnostics being attested by Hippolytus in his criticism of the gnostic Justinus, as well as in the gnostic Gospel of Thomas, for example, in 1 Corinthians Paul states

Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.
Paul also can be construed as referring to the initiation system of the mystery religions. In 2 Corinthians, Paul refers to those who are novices in the religion as having veils over their face as their mind was blinded, a principle that mystery religions considered true and as such some made their novices wear veils and referred to them as mystae (i.e. having closed eyes).
The terms Paul uses for perfected Christianity, such as (in the standard translation) Mature and to the level of maturity and the perfect man, actually use the greek word Teleioi, which means initiated, a principle also used in the hellenic mystery religions. In particular, in 1 Corinthians, we speak wisdom amongst the perfected also translates we speak of Sophia amongst the initiated (Sophia being a spiritual entity to the gnostics as well as the usual Greek word for "wisdom"), something which the gnostic Valentinians quoted as proof that Paul initiated Christians into the gnostic ideas of Sophia.
As for himself, in 1 Corinthians, Paul considers he is a Steward of the mysteries of God, which was also the technical term for a priest in the Egyptian version of the mystery religions where the central figure is the god Serapis. Paul also claims to know someone who ascended as far as the third heaven, a principle which in mystery religions represented the degree of initiation achieved (for example, in the Mithras version there were 7 heavens, one for each of the 5 known planets, the sun, and the moon). Paul's story appears to have been a one time event however, and he claims uncertainty as to whether the visit to the third heaven was in the body or out of the body.

Paul can also be construed as referring to the gnostic cosmos, at one point, stating the wisdom...which none of the rulers of this world knoweth, which if some words are transliterated from the Greek becomes the wisdom...which none of the Archons of this Aion knoweth, Archons being the gnostic concept of minions of the evil Demiurge. Elsewhere Paul refers to a god of this passing age, which non-gnostics interpret as referring to the devil, but gnostics considered (particularly since it clearly states god rather than some lesser creature) this to be a reference to the demiurge.


In the letter to the Galatians, Paul states that the Law is the product of a mediator, and that the mediator is not one, God is one. The gnostics treated this as a reference to the standard gnostic teaching that the law should not apply since it was the product of the evil demiurge. Gnostics also referred to the demiurge as the mediator between God (whom they considered the only being to be singular and whole, and thus also referred to as Monad) and creation (which they considered intrinsically evil, rather than evil as the consequence of some human error). In Romans, Paul clearly speaks of creation as awaiting redemption, rather than treating it as something irredeemable. He also refers to the law as the 'instructor' or 'tutor' of the Jewish people, and as the beginning of God's work of turning people back to Himself, rather than as something opposed to God.

Paul and the early church

Some scholars, such as Elaine Pagels, take this as evidence that Paul, and consequently early Christianity, was originally gnostic, rather than literalist. Valentinus, a gnostic, claimed that Paul had initiated his teacher, Theudas into the "Deeper Mysteries" of Christianity, which revealed a secret gnostic doctrine of God.

Gnostic interpretations of Paul's teachings

The followers of Valentinius systematically decoded the Epistles, claiming that most Christians made the mistake of reading the Epistles literally. Valentians understood the conflict between Jews and Gentiles in Romans to be a coded reference to the differences between Psychics (people who are partly spiritual but have not yet achieved separation from carnality) and Pneumatics (totally spiritual people).

The Valentians argued that such codes were intrinsic in gnosticism, the secrecy being important to ensuring proper progression to true inner understanding. In 2 Corinthians, Paul states he had heard ineffable words which it is not lawful for a man to utter, a postition that gnostic initiates supported with respect to the higher gnostic teachings. However, Paul does also suggest Gnosis puffeth up, which appears to diminish support for gnosticism, but Clement of Alexandria offered the explanation that this meant to entertain great and true sentiments and was a reference to the magnitude of the effect of receiving it.

In 1 Corinthians, Paul goes on to state I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able, which Gnostics interpret as the suggestion that the Corinthians were still Hyclic (i.e. had not passed even the first level of understanding). Paul later states But the Psycic receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are Pneumatic (Psycic is usually translated natural man, and pneumatic is usually translated spiritually discerned), offering an explanation which coincides with the gnostic teaching of levels of comprehension.
Gnostics viewed scripture as allegory, only serving a literal meaning to Hyclic (i.e. uninitiate) people, partly for the purpose of advertising. Gnostics thus interpreted Paul's statements, that the Old Testament acts as our examples and that the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life, as supporting this view, with understanding more important than rigid adherence. Gnostics also took the phrase though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more as indicative of Paul's progress from Hyclic to a more gnostic interpretation, rather than the understanding of Christ's time being in the past.
Paul states that Christ came in the homoioma of human flesh. Homoioma means image or representation (the text is usually translated in the likeness of human flesh). Some gnostic groups treated this as admittance of Docetism, with the Christ being the divine wisdom which revealed gnosis, which would help humanity escape the evil creation (the world) of the demiurge, and having no physical existence.

In Galatians, Paul states of his conversion that God revealed his Son in me, rather than to me, which Gnostics interpret as a reference to Christ being the divine gnosis sent to save humanity, rather than a physical creature or person. In the same letter, Paul also states that I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me, which gnostics took as further evidence of Paul supporting their stance.
The gnostics took an esoteric view of death, and therefore of resurrection. When Paul states in Romans that he that is dead is freed from sin, and that we are buried with him by baptism into death, the gnostics assumed it was a reference to the teaching that the body is the work of the evil demiurge, and that death would release the divine part of a person from the demiurge's power.
Gnostics also took death to be symbolic for the death of the part of a person tied to the demiurge, and the consequential resurrection as a new entirely spiritual being, understanding resurrection as an awakening of spiritual enlightenment. In Phillipians, Paul refers to himself as partaking in the same death as Christ, and thence partaking in the resurrection of the dead, which suited gnostic interpretations. Paul's references to reaping and sowing of crops, in 1 Corinthians, was also a common image from the mystery religions symbolising the esoteric death and resurrection of initiates.
In 1 Corinthians, however, during chapter 15, Paul appears to give credence to a more literal idea of the physical resurrection of the dead. However, as noted by many gnostics Paul also states flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Irenaeus complained that all heretics always introduce this passage. It is widely thought by scholars that the presence of the issue proved such a problem that someone felt the need to forge a third letter to the Corinthians, which explicitly states the dead are resurrected physically. Despite this 3 Corinthians was rejected from biblical canon, and thus became part of the New Testament apocrypha.

One feature that was contested amongst the gnostics was that of ethics. Gnostics believed that since the world was intrinsically evil, so was anything the human body did. Some gnostics concluded that this meant that one could engage in gross immorality since it demonstrated the knowledge that the body was a prison for the soul. Most gnostics, however, considered that instead one should suppress the urges of the body as much as possible and live a highly ascetic life. One consequence of this view was a lack of care to social status (exhibited noticeably in Mithraism), or for that matter not caring about being/not-being a slave, a criticism also levied at Paul for his lack of raising the issue in Philemon.
Paul also appears to many scholars to exhibit a strong distate for sexuality of any kind, supporting the principle of celibacy, which gnostics interpreted as due to the idea of the world as evil, though non-gnostics took it to be merely a rigid and strict adherence to the Old Testament. Paul himself elsewhere states that he teaches righteousness without the Law, which gnostics used as a counter argument to the claim he adhered to the Old Testament, and also supported the idea that laws were ultimately the product of the demiurge as a trap. In 1 Corinthians, Paul does recommend celibacy, but also recommends marriage for those who are not suited for celibacy. Later, he defends the right of Peter and the other apostles to be married and to travel accompanied by their wives, although he himself was unmarried. In contrast, he condemned sexual immorality of all kinds, in various epistles, along with several other categories of sins, and making no exceptions for these.

 

[hybrid]

For Dopp.....I won't write any more on this.....this is from http://www.wikipedia.com concerning Gnosticism and the NT...

Excerpts from the article:

Gnosticism and the New Testament
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

(deleted)

george,

are you aware that anybody can contribute anything to wikiepedia. you can even edit the articles there yourself to suit your own understanding on what ever topic is there.

can you provide a more respectable sources other than the wikipedia to support your issues agaisnt paul?

 

[hybrid]

george,

i found a website that explains or counters some major issues you raised in this post in behalf of elaine pagels and those nasty gnostics.

check it out!

http://tektonics.org/gk/gnostpaul.html

i quote the beginin and the conclusion of the articles for quick browsing...

Was Paul actually a Gnostic? The idea is taken seriously by no one in NT scholarship today; even Elaine Pagels, the Gnostic-promoter premier, declines in her book The Gnostic Paul to say yea or nay to whether Paul was actually a Gnostic, instead concentrating on how the Gnostics interpreted Paul's letters. A Gnostic Paul is a figment of the Christ-myth crowd, which needs Paul Gnostic in order to explain away certain problematic contentions. For this essay we have chosen to highlight two proponents of the Gnostic Paul (hereafter GP):

We may summarize the case for a Gnostic Paul by referring to the way FG illicitly summarize Col. 1:25-28 with the sentence, "The secret is this: Christ in you!", or that they rework 1 Cor. 2:14 to say, "But the Psychic receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are Pneumatically discerned," and read "Jews" as "psychic Christians" and "Gentiles" as "Pneumatic Christians." Like the Gnostics of the second century, one can only manufacture a Gnostic Paul by wrenching words from their context and reapplying and filling them with their own meaning. By such means have Paul, Jesus, and others been made to support every point of view from Communism to Mormonism to Jehovah's Witnesses. GP advocates are just another brick in the wall.


On a claim that chrisitianity was a Mithraism copyccat see here http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html.


as for me, case closed.

 

[Georges]

For Dopp.....I won't write any more on this.....this is from http://www.wikipedia.com concerning Gnosticism and the NT...

Excerpts from the article:

Gnosticism and the New Testament
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

(deleted)

george,

are you aware that anybody can contribute anything to wikiepedia. you can even edit the articles there yourself to suit your own understanding on what ever topic is there.

can you provide a more respectable sources other than the wikipedia to support your issues agaisnt paul?

Yeh...I am very aware of it and should have put a caveat at the beginning of that post saying it may not be a neutral post......that being said, It is not the first time I've seen this information so it is out there in other places.

However, at this time, it would take a little more time to track other sources than I have...if you come across other sources supporting or disputing Paul and Gnosticism, I would appreciate the information.

Basically, how I've come to the conclusion of Pauline Chrisitanity is by what I've read on the subjects of Mystery Religion and Gnosticism from multiple sources....Comparing their principles and practices to what the Chruch in Jerusalem believed and what Paul taught and the resulting theology development of the Gentile Chruch....It is totally different than a resulting theology of the Jewish Church if it had prevailed. If the Jewish Church had prevailed...it would be interesting to see what practices and beliefs would be dropped, or added. But, as I say, it is very obvious that Paul teaches things (seemingly)contrary to what the other Apostles taught.

 

[Georges]

george,

i found a website that explains or counters some major issues you raised in this post in behalf of elaine pagels and those nasty gnostics.

check it out!

http://tektonics.org/gk/gnostpaul.html

i quote the beginin and the conclusion of the articles for quick browsing...

Was Paul actually a Gnostic? The idea is taken seriously by no one in NT scholarship today; even Elaine Pagels, the Gnostic-promoter premier, declines in her book The Gnostic Paul to say yea or nay to whether Paul was actually a Gnostic, instead concentrating on how the Gnostics interpreted Paul's letters. A Gnostic Paul is a figment of the Christ-myth crowd, which needs Paul Gnostic in order to explain away certain problematic contentions. For this essay we have chosen to highlight two proponents of the Gnostic Paul (hereafter GP):

We may summarize the case for a Gnostic Paul by referring to the way FG illicitly summarize Col. 1:25-28 with the sentence, "The secret is this: Christ in you!", or that they rework 1 Cor. 2:14 to say, "But the Psychic receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are Pneumatically discerned," and read "Jews" as "psychic Christians" and "Gentiles" as "Pneumatic Christians." Like the Gnostics of the second century, one can only manufacture a Gnostic Paul by wrenching words from their context and reapplying and filling them with their own meaning. By such means have Paul, Jesus, and others been made to support every point of view from Communism to Mormonism to Jehovah's Witnesses. GP advocates are just another brick in the wall.


On a claim that chrisitianity was a Mithraism copyccat see here http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/mithra.html.


as for me, case closed.

Thanks for the info.....From what I've looked at...very interesting. However, the fact remains....Paul taught a radical change from what the other apostles taught....Why?

as for me case closed also...I will read Paul, guardedly....as did the Berean's. You do realize that there were those whom traveled with Paul, left Paul. Ever wonder why?

 

[ÃÂoppleganger]

:fadein:

 

[Imagican]

Yep, and you know that Paul got 'paid' really well for his teachings. I seem to remember him pointing out that he even used what little money that he made as a tentmaker to support his ministry, up until he was murdered for Christ.

Now, George, I ask this: What possible purpose did it 'serve' Paul to follow Christ other than him 'actually' having the vision you make light of? He was NEVER considered any kind of leader in the sense that we know the Popes' as or even our modern day pastors. When one takes into consideration that Paul was an educated, (probably reasonably wealthy), Jew who was persecuting Christians previous to 'meeting Christ', why do you figure he changed his mind and started spreading the Word?

George, you are MORE than welcome to 'follow Torah', but please, if you don't believe in the Bible, just say so and be done with it. Torah IS to be followed, just NOT for the reason/s that most offer.