# nag hammadi and canonical Christianity



## californian

i've done a bit of study on the nag hammadi texts and "Gnosticism." i am an adherent of Orthodox Christianity myself and what i've found most bizarre in reading writers like elaine pagels is that she seems to draw up a set of values/principles that belong to the "Gnostics" and those that belong to the orthodox.

the strange thing is that almost all of the things she likes about Gnosticism were always present and validated within canonical Christianity, although it is true that over time they became less and less emphasized in a lot of mainstream Christian circles.

so, i'm interested in feedback from anybody who likes the Nag Hammadi texts and "Gnosticism" and sees it as advocating a spirituality that is better/more powerful than what they perceive as canonical or Orthodox Christianity, especially in relation to helping a person suffering from DP/DR.

i don't want to start a furious mudslinging debate, just a friendly dialogue that might satisfy my curiosity regarding questions i'd like to ask elaine pagels or karen king but don't really have the opportunity to...


----------



## californian

no takers, eh? CECIL? Pancthulhu? Anyone? :shock:


----------



## CECIL

I'll bite 

Amoungst other writings, one thing they uncovered in the library was the Gospel according to Thomas - ever wonder why there are only 4 disciples featured in the bible? Its because only 4 of their _interpretations_ of Jesus suited the Church's idea of what Christianity should become. My understanding is that these alternate texts were declared heretical by the Church and banned (Not to mention anyone who believed it was put to death). They had quite a powerful editorial staff for the bible 

I would love a link or some information on where to read those texts, as so far I've only seen them through second hand sources.

But from what I understand, I much prefer the idea over the Christian dogma we have today. Instead of telling people to worship Jesus as their saviour (i.e. taking thier personal power out of their hands), the idea of Gnosticism is that each individual has within them a "spark of the divine".

Instead of worshipping an external Jesus figure, you worship yourself, listen to the guidance of this little spark and allow it to grow. Basically, instead of worshipping Jesus, you BECOME Jesus. This may sound like blasphemy, but its really not. What I am saying is that Jesus was only a man. A man who lived in a way that was 2000 years ahead of his time. He preached freedom and worshipped the self. He told people not to follow the rules laid down by external governments but instead to follow their own, inner guidance.

Through a strict editorial process as well as hundreds of years of chinese whispers, our understanding of what Jesus was on about has totally changed.

Back then we weren't quite ready to break free of religious control and so we remained chained to this idea of sacrifice for salvation. i.e. That in order to be happy, we must first suffer - in order to have a good weekend, we have to endure 5 days of tedious and strenuos work. Now we as a species are ready to do away with that silly myth and instead embrace life to the fullest. That is, to actually LIVE instead of SURVIVE.

"Gnosis" means Wisdom. All of the wisdom of existence is accessible by anyone and everyone. You just have to be able to listen to hear it


----------



## californian

CECIL said:


> I'll bite


 :shock: ... :lol:



CECIL said:


> Amoungst other writings, one thing they uncovered in the library was the Gospel according to Thomas - ever wonder why there are only 4 disciples featured in the bible? Its because only 4 of their _interpretations_ of Jesus suited the Church's idea of what Christianity should become.


well, i was intending this to be more of a spirituality discussion, but since you had to go and bring up _this _issue, i will most certainly have to address it. 

one statement that you make here is absolutely correct, it is that the 4 Gospels that we have in the Bible are *interpretations* of Jesus. of course, any account of a person is an interpretation, no matter how supposedly "objective" or "historical" it is claimed to be. what is distinctive about the four canonical Gospels is that they interpret Christ (and his crucifixion/resurrection) in light of the Hebrew Scriptures. Or conversely they interpret the Hebrew Scriptures in the light of Christ and his crucifixion/resurrection.

what all of the so-called "Gnostic" texts lack is either engagement with the Hebrew Scriptures, or engagement with the crucifixion/resurrection proclamation of the apostles. so it isn't about what "suited the Church's idea of what Christianity should become," it is about having a criterion of interpretation--a first principle. the first principle of the early Christian apostolic proclamation was Gospel of Christs' crucifixion/resurrection according to the Hebrew Scriptures. the only criterion for the Gnostic groups was the individual's interpretation of Christ.

it really isn't a political question in the first 3 centuries...it is an epistemological question.



CECIL said:


> My understanding is that these alternate texts were declared heretical by the Church and banned (Not to mention anyone who believed it was put to death). They had quite a powerful editorial staff for the bible


sorry, i have to address this one too. this is an anachronistic assumption based on a lot of widespread but poorly researched notions (thanks a lot to Dan Brown on this one). the Church of the first 3 centuries, was not "powerful" and had no powerful editorial staff. furthermore, there was never any universal council called to "ban" any books. it never was a controversy or a subject of real debate for the Church *even after Constantine*.

too often people project the later power of the Church/Empire combo onto this early period--it just isn't accurate.



CECIL said:


> I would love a link or some information on where to read those texts, as so far I've only seen them through second hand sources.


http://www.earlychristianwritings.com this is a great reference site. it contains texts of canonical, non-canonical writings and even scholarly reconstruction texts. it is a purely academic, non-faith based site (from what i can tell).



CECIL said:


> But from what I understand, I much prefer the idea over the Christian dogma we have today. Instead of telling people to worship Jesus as their saviour (i.e. taking thier personal power out of their hands), the idea of Gnosticism is that each individual has within them a "spark of the divine".


now _this_ is getting towards what i was asking about. and again, it seems to prove my point that people in general (both a large number of Christians and non-Christians) are ignorant of traditional Christian doctrine. as i've pointed out elsewhere, for example, both the canonical Gospel of John and the writings of St Paul have references to Jesus being a spark of the divine present in all human beings. i don't really see how this is unique to the Gnostics. rather, it seems to me that this idea is out of control with the Gnostics--it lacks any criterion for distinguishing this light or spark from any other wacky feelings/voices/impulses a person might havee.



CECIL said:


> Instead of worshipping an external Jesus figure, you worship yourself, listen to the guidance of this little spark and allow it to grow. Basically, instead of worshipping Jesus, you BECOME Jesus. This may sound like blasphemy, but its really not. What I am saying is that Jesus was only a man. A man who lived in a way that was 2000 years ahead of his time. He preached freedom and worshipped the self. He told people not to follow the rules laid down by external governments but instead to follow their own, inner guidance.


again, i think this outlook is both a result of a misunderstanding of traditional Christian teaching both by Christians and non-Christians. i think you have set up a false either/or proposition here. traditional Christianity is about both worshipping Jesus and BECOMING Jesus. St Irenaeus (who was the main opponent of the Gnostics) taught that Christ "became as we are, that we may become as he is." St Athanasius took this formula even farther and stated "God became human that man might become divine." Both of these figures are of central importance to Orthodox, Catholics, and Protestants alike. Many of the Church fathers refer to this concept of salvation as "theosis" or "deification." this should not be taken to mean that you become "a" god, but that the spark of the divine that is Christ in you is so fully fanned into a flame that when you act, it is the same as God acting. this doctrine is not reliant solely on these Church Fathers either--i originally came to believe in it simply by reading the New Testament (while i was still a Protestant).

the sad reality is that Protestants largely neglect (or even reject this teaching) and that in Roman Catholicism it tended to get obscured in favor of a more legal view of salvation--but it never disappeared in the Catholic tradition and is enjoying a major resurgence right now. the Orthodox is where this view remained most prevelant, but even there we've done a bad job of actually teaching and demonstrating this way of approaching Christ and Christianity. nevertheless, it is dominant among Orthodox, resurging among Catholics, and is even embraced by a minority of Protestants (even evangelical ones like dallas willard and richard foster).



CECIL said:


> Through a strict editorial process as well as hundreds of years of chinese whispers, our understanding of what Jesus was on about has totally changed.


actually, all canonical NT texts are easily dated to within 100 years of the death of Christ (with the possible exception of 2 Peter). however, you are correct that the way these texts have been handled and interpreted since the late middle ages and reformation has shifted the focus in a bad way.



CECIL said:


> That in order to be happy, we must first suffer - in order to have a good weekend, we have to endure 5 days of tedious and strenuos work. Now we as a species are ready to do away with that silly myth and instead embrace life to the fullest. That is, to actually LIVE instead of SURVIVE.


this sounds more like Stoicism to me than Christianity. not that Stoic influences haven't come in, but this idea is specifically rejected in traditional Christianity. what is embraced is that suffering can be turned into something meaningful. this is another area where i feel that the Gnostic texts and approach is sorely lacking. it is escapist in respect to suffering.



CECIL said:


> "Gnosis" means Wisdom. All of the wisdom of existence is accessible by anyone and everyone. You just have to be able to listen to hear it


true, which is why many of the early "orthodox" called themselves the true Gnostics. my point here remains that it seems to me that traditional Christianity contains within it all of the good aspects of Gnosticism, but gives it a criterion through which to explore actual knowledge of self, God, the world, etc. it provides a real path and method for which to "put on Christ" as St Paul would say it.


----------



## Epiphany

OK...I'm not even slightly qualified to post anything on this topic becasue I had honestly never heard of the nag hammadi texts until reading this, but just can't help myself. 



> Through a strict editorial process as well as hundreds of years of chinese whispers, our understanding of what Jesus was on about has totally changed.


This made me giggle...even in primary school I remember referring to the bible as "The Big Book of Chinese Whispers".



> But from what I understand, I much prefer the idea over the Christian dogma we have today. Instead of telling people to worship Jesus as their saviour (i.e. taking thier personal power out of their hands), the idea of Gnosticism is that each individual has within them a "spark of the divine".


I like this...perhaps if I had been steered towards looking at things in this way instead of the generalised views they give in religious studies at school I may have actually entertained some of the teachings a little more. I was already a fairly advanced reader when I first began learning about religion etc and had long ago given up believing in the fairy-tales I used to read...the way the bible was protrayed to me at that age was like a giant fairy-tale I was expected to believe was verbatim real. I found it easier to believe in the monster under my bed.

To follow your own inner guidance, to listen to instincts, to believe in yourself, to find your inner spark. This is what they should be teaching in our schools...if this was taught in amongst religious studies I may have been able to swallow it all. It might even help resolve a lot of personal issues for some of the more sensitive children...instill a little confidence.

OK...that's just my totally uneducated take on it all. It has sparked a little interest in the nag hammadi texts for me.


----------



## californian

Epiphany said:


> OK...I'm not even slightly qualified to post anything on this topic becasue I had honestly never heard of the nag hammadi texts until reading this, but just can't help myself.


glad to hear your thoughts. nag hammadi refers to the location where a jar full of these manuscripts were found. it was always known that they existed (these Gnostic Gospels) but no surviving manuscripts were found until the nag hammadi discoveries in 1945.



Epiphany said:


> I like this...perhaps if I had been steered towards looking at things in this way instead of the generalised views they give in religious studies at school I may have actually entertained some of the teachings a little more. I


yeah, this is kind of my point. i grew up the same way with many of the same problems, but i kept searching and eventually found answers that i found satisfactory within traditional Christianity--i found that it was actually at the center of both what the New Testament and the earliest Christians were doing. but today, the kind of Christianity that is generally presented is so flat and shallow.

it is for this reason that i think these Gnostic texts and their communities are found to be attractive to people today.

but in my experience with them (the Gnostics) and the people who study them, i haven't found that they offer anything that can't be found with a greater balance in canonical Christianity.



Epiphany said:


> iwas already a fairly advanced reader when I first began learning about religion etc and had long ago given up believing in the fairy-tales I used to read...the way the bible was protrayed to me at that age was like a giant fairy-tale I was expected to believe was verbatim real. I found it easier to believe in the monster under my bed.


yeah, i find it to be a shame that people teach Scripture so overliterally. not even St Paul approached the Old Testament that way. and the majority of early Christians didn't either. it really denies the literary and spiritual power of holy writings to approach them in such a flat, literal manner.



Epiphany said:


> To follow your own inner guidance, to listen to instincts, to believe in yourself, to find your inner spark. This is what they should be teaching in our schools...if this was taught in amongst religious studies I may have been able to swallow it all. It might even help resolve a lot of personal issues for some of the more sensitive children...instill a little confidence.


i absolutely agree that a real SPIRITUAL Christianity ought to be taught. instead it usually just gets boiled down to rules and regulations and rigid interpretations. 



Epiphany said:


> OK...that's just my totally uneducated take on it all. It has sparked a little interest in the nag hammadi texts for me.


check out http://www.earlychristianwritings.com i think it's a great thing to read Gnostic texts *and *read the canonical Gospels--Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, side by side and think about who exactly this Jesus is that they are presenting. sthey are all different interpretations of the same man. see for yourself which Jesus is the most attractive...


----------



## CECIL

http://www.webcom.com/gnosis/naghamm/nhl.html

^ Here's another link.

I read some of the Gospel of Thomas and its quite funny.

And Jesus said: "Everyone with two good ears better listen!".

Maybe I'm just ignorant and paranoid, but there seems to me to be a pattern of obtaining control and power in the established authority of the Church that we have now and have had in the past. I know that at its core, Christianity is very relevant, I just don't want to expend energy dealing with the cold, dead face of the Church. Its just not relevant to me and I don't think its relevant to humanity anymore.

"Split a piece of wood and you will find me. Lift a stone and I will be there". - Pretty much sums it up for me


----------



## californian

CECIL said:


> I read some of the Gospel of Thomas and its quite funny.
> And Jesus said: "Everyone with two good ears better listen!".


yes, there is some funny stuff in there. if you want a REALLY entertaining read, try the "infancy gospel of thomas." it tries to fill in all the "missing years" of jesus as a little kid and adolescent. in it he does funny stuff like kill people that make him mad and then bring them back to life when Joseph tells him it wasn't a nice thing to do. :lol:



CECIL said:


> Maybe I'm just ignorant and paranoid, but there seems to me to be a pattern of obtaining control and power in the established authority of the Church that we have now and have had in the past.


there is no doubt that this process isn't real. you have certainly identified one of the greatest problems in humanity in general. this is in fact a big problem facing my Church right now. in the wake of the fall of communism, many Orthodox churches have the potential to reclaim a lot of power. it is my hope and prayer that they approach this issue prudently--but i know how human beings are, so there WILL be problems that arise. 



CECIL said:


> I know that at its core, Christianity is very relevant, I just don't want to expend energy dealing with the cold, dead face of the Church. Its just not relevant to me and I don't think its relevant to humanity anymore.


to quote you, that's a "valid" way of looking at it. what i might take issue with is your saying it isn't relevant to *humanity*. i would say you are certainly qualified to judge what you think is relevant to you. but humanity in general has to work that out for itself.  but you have to do what you have to do. *i fully believe that anyone pursuing Truth is in someway pursuing Christ...even if outwardly it seems like they are running from him.*



CECIL said:


> "Split a piece of wood and you will find me. Lift a stone and I will be there". - Pretty much sums it up for me


yes, that is probably the best quote in the gospel of Thomas that isn't found in the canonical Gospels. i would say that this concept is still there in the New Testament, just not in those words. but i definitely agree with this statement, as does traditional Christianity.

in the end, my only point in starting this thread was to see if there really is anything that is in the spirituality of the Gnostic Gospels that appeals to people that can't be found in canonical Christianity.


----------



## USpacebreaker

I know this post is a little old but I want to throw my two cents in on it.

What is your opinion on Yaldaboath? If you are unsure who this is read "On the Origin of the World." To me it adds up. I'm not blindly trying to start a fight here. Yet, from what I've felt in the stirrings of my own soul, I feel there might be something to it. Why should there be a devide between the Old and New Testaments? Why was God so prone to what we would think of as petty emotions? When I was a child a did love God, but when I saw this side of the faith I was disgusted and horrified. This was also the time when I had truely found an identity and felt power from that knowledge. Yet, it came in conflict with my ever changing concept of God. I'm not alone in my thinking. Carl Jung would have also reiterate my thoughts on this. He himself was also fascinated with Gnosticism. In fact, part of the Nag Hammadi was given to him as a gift and thus called the "Jung Codex"

I just find it strange that when I had reach some level of Gnosis(even though I did not know what it was at the time) my soul became burdened with all too much knowledge of God. I held back, now I have no spirit nor do I have an identity. I don't mean to be narcissistic about this stuff. I need to get of my chest and no one can understand here in my town. This thought is the main reason for the mental breakdowns I've had. Can anyone relate?

In closing, my favorite lines from the Gospel of Thomas which sums up how I used to feel are:

Jesus said, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the all."

Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds will procede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will procede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

In everything, even in organized religions that we follow, we are, at best, only second best. Unless, that is, we come to know ourselves. Nothing funny about that in my opinion.

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/origin.html


----------



## CECIL

USpacebreaker said:


> I just find it strange that when I had reach some level of Gnosis(even though I did not know what it was at the time) my soul became burdened with all too much knowledge of God. I held back, now I have no spirit nor do I have an identity.


Could you expand on what you mean by this? Specific examples would be good if you are ok with giving them


----------



## widescreened

I can only account for Christianity and the way it fragmented over time. Even the huge events of protestantism and Luthers critique of Catholicism has subdivided ahundread fold into differing belief systems and critiques of each other. This will continue indefinitely. Why? beccause deep thinkers and ruminators, or the enlightened, are constantly comming and going. unfortunately, if you view your own version of Christianity as being 100% correct, its only a matter of time before you stumble on a critique that violates your system of beliefs, to the point of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. When this happens, a person who has addopted a belief system and is presented with a new arguement or critique, he/ she is so disolusioned, afraid, alarmed by this violation, that he/she can assume that it is a sinister attack on the faith. Even within Catholicism, there are many different attitudes to beliefs and devotion. Marian devotion is a huge sect within Catholicism. Apparitions of the Virgin Mary are too numerous to account for here, yet Rome doesnt recognize very many of them. Even so, devotees continue to flock to places like Medjugorje in their millions to hear Marian messages. Aside from Rome, Marian apparitions in Medjugorge are viewed by many devoted Marian followers as being false, made up for political reasons (anti Communist) Or the work of a dibolical force in disguise to mislead the public into fearful devotion. This doesnt even account for the Evangelical believers who attribute any type of Marian devotion to Demon worship, the only true divine way to God being thru prayers to Christ.
My point is that if you are black and white in your belief, its only a matter of time before a new belief system or view will confront your own belief system. The answer?? Believe in something, but dont be black and white, or absolute in your belief. Otherwise its only a matter of time before we are confronted with a critique that will rock belief to the core. The true answer to salvation may lie only in doing your best with life and learning to love, and leave the rest to the divine power that created us all.


----------



## USpacebreaker

> "Yet", the eminent scholar of Gnosticism, Elaine Pagels, comments in exegesis, "to know oneself, at the deepest level, is simultaneously to know God: this is the secret of gnosis.... Self-knowledge is knowledge of God; the self and the divine are identical." 11





> USpacebreaker wrote:
> I just find it strange that when I had reach some level of Gnosis(even though I did not know what it was at the time) my soul became burdened with all too much knowledge of God. I held back, now I have no spirit nor do I have an identity.
> 
> Could you expand on what you mean by this? Specific examples would be good if you are ok with giving them


I'll try. For years I've struggled to express this and I don't know if it is a failure on my part to communicate coherently or if no one can truly understand.

First off, by gnosis I mean self-knowledge. Keep in mind that, as I explain myself, I was 14 when these things occured. I had a revelation one day. I don't know if was inspired by humanities I surrounded myself with or if it just came out of the blue that I was myself and only myself. Now, this may not seem like such a big deal; I will vouch for it though. There is a certain power that comes from this state of mind. If you find it, no amount of worldly negativity can ever spoil you. I became alive and free. I knew where I was and who I was.

This lasted for less than 6 months. I was forced(because of certain civil problems of the the town that I lived in) to go into a Baptist run private school. The first day I was there, I felt something come over me; something cumbersome and depressing. The next few weeks it grew in intensity. It became unbearable. It was the workings of the holy spirit. It seared into me with conviction. It hurt. I'm not saying that God is bad or that the holy spirit is bad, but it is bad if you see these things and do not accept. I ran, but could not run. I was trapped with a knowledge of a reality that I did not want to see. I remember that this knowledge seemed to be in direct conflict with my idea of gnosis(?). So many people do not understand the holy spirit.

When I say I have no spirit, I mean that I ran too far. If you are familiar with the New Testament and the dogmas of it, then, I think you should be able to figure out just what I mean. I don't want to say it. Maybe it's my curse now that I have no identity; that I have become that "poverty."

I just want to say that I'm only posting all this because I think that there is something of spiritual truth(or at least the workings of the spirit) in what I experienced, and, that by sharing, people might become more aware of what is going on. I'm not purely egotistical when I write though I do really want to be understood.


----------



## CECIL

SpaceBreaker, I'm not sure if I'm understanding you fully so correct me if I'm wrong.

At 14 you had a revelation and entered into a new way of being, one that felt right for you at the time. It was liberating and you felt on top of the world, like nothing could touch you.

But then you went into a Baptist school and there you were drilled with lots of religious dogma. Everyone around you seemed to be "buying into" these beliefs and accepting them as normal and true. These beliefs were contrary to the revelation and state that you had been in for 6 months prior, which had felt natural to you.

Over time you became to doubt your own intuition and your own sense of spiritual freedom and came to believe that what they (meaning everyone around you) believed was true. You believed that your own emotional world was wrong and invalid, so you cut yourself off from it and denied that it existed, instead trying to embrace the what was the norm in your environment. This ultimately led to Depression/DP etc - basically a feeling of complete emptiness.

Is that an accurate paraphrasing of what you are trying to say?


----------



## IMSojourner

CECIL said:


> But from what I understand, I much prefer the idea over the Christian dogma we have today. Instead of telling people to worship Jesus as their saviour (i.e. taking thier personal power out of their hands), the idea of Gnosticism is that each individual has within them a "spark of the divine".


What you've just written indicates to me that you are not aware of Christian teaching that Christ lives *in* those who love Him. And have you not heard, "The Kingdom of God is within you"? Christ's words, those.



CECIL said:


> Instead of worshipping an external Jesus figure, you worship yourself, listen to the guidance of this little spark and allow it to grow. Basically, instead of worshipping Jesus, you BECOME Jesus.


Why do you think we "eat" his Body and "drink" his Blood?



CECIL said:


> This may sound like blasphemy, but its really not.


Of course it's not blasphemy -- it's Christian dogma!!!



CECIL said:


> What I am saying is that Jesus was only a man.


That's not what Christ said. He said he was one with the Father. As C.S. Lewis wrote, he was either a lunatic or was telling us the truth. You have to decide.



CECIL said:


> A man who lived in a way that was 2000 years ahead of his time. He preached freedom and worshipped the self.


Oops. You got that wrong, Cecil. He did not preach worshipping the self. He preached freedom -- true freedom, which is love of God, love of people, and union with the Father.



CECIL said:


> He told people not to follow the rules laid down by external governments but instead to follow their own, inner guidance.


Oops, again. He did not say that at all. He said, rather, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's."

I hope you go to the original source, the Bible, and get your information from the text, not from what you used for your current statements, whatever or whoever that was.

I would recommend _Life of Christ_, by Fulton Sheen, or _Foundations of Christian Faith_, by Karl Rahner.


----------



## Epiphany

I have a hard time accepting the idea that the Bible is meant to be taken in such literal terms. It is all so open to individual interpretation that surely noone can say with any real certainty exactly who or what Jesus was, claimed to be or even really said. Especially since these things have already been subject to interpretations biased by the writers licence to embellish.

I am wondering then, with the above in mind, how you can nit pick someone's personal ideas of Jesus with such confidence that what you say is more correct?

I have always been curious as to how it would feel to have such conviction about a topic so sketchy and unknown. I have never been able to just have total faith that I am 100% right about such things.


----------



## IMSojourner

Epiphany said:


> I have a hard time accepting the idea that the Bible is meant to be taken in such literal terms. It is all so open to individual interpretation that surely noone can say with any real certainty exactly who or what Jesus was, claimed to be or even really said. Especially since these things have already been subject to interpretations biased by the writers licence to embellish.


How the collection of literature came to be what we know as the Bible is a subject of much scholarly study. Yes, it's not simple; but good information on the history of the development of the Bible and its translations over time is available that can shed light on the issues you raise above.



Epiphany said:


> I am wondering then, with the above in mind, how you can nit pick someone's personal ideas of Jesus with such confidence that what you say is more correct?


When someone purports to state the Christian faith and states something that is not accurate, as a Christian, I think I ought to state what the Christian community *actually* believes.



Epiphany said:


> I have always been curious as to how it would feel to have such conviction about a topic so sketchy and unknown. I have never been able to just have total faith that I am 100% right about such things.


It is your opinion that that the topic is "sketchy and unknown," and I would suggest that there is available information about this topic that you may not be aware of. Yes, there are questions, but scholarly investigators know a great deal, most of which is readily available to anyone who wants to take a more detailed look at the issue.

It's definitely not a question of throwing our hands in the air and saying, "We cannot know." And at the very least, when someone misstates what Christians believe, I have to set the record straight.


----------



## CECIL

IMSojourner said:


> What you've just written indicates to me that you are not aware of Christian teaching that Christ lives *in* those who love Him. And have you not heard, "The Kingdom of God is within you"? Christ's words, those.


If Christ lives in you already then why do people go to Church? Why do people pray to Jesus and/or God to do things for them they could do themselves? Why do we even have a Church anymore? Why do people have to ask for forgivness when they could just forgive themselves? If Christ lives in you it means you ARE christ, hence no need for the middle-man anymore, you can do it all yourself.



> Instead of worshipping an external Jesus figure, you worship yourself, listen to the guidance of this little spark and allow it to grow. Basically, instead of worshipping Jesus, you BECOME Jesus.
> 
> Why do you think we "eat" his Body and "drink" his Blood?


Notice the symbolism of taking something that is *external* to you (Food and Drink) and internalising it. i.e. That something is not you and you are trying to "put it in you". My point is its already there, no need for outdated rituals anymore.



CECIL said:


> What I am saying is that Jesus was only a man.
> 
> That's not what Christ said. He said he was one with the Father. As C.S. Lewis wrote, he was either a lunatic or was telling us the truth. You have to decide.


For starters your source is the Bible and mine is my own personal interpretation. My source is as suspect to you as your source is to me, so we may not be able to find a middle-ground here.

But this is my point. Why can't you be human and one with God at the same time? It doesn't have to be one or the other (black and white), it can be both simultaneously.

If we choose to see Jesus as a super-human like figure, a deity chosen and sent by god, then we innately know we cannot attain the same state. If we choose to see Jesus as a human that lived to his highest potential then each and every one of us on earth can do the same thing!



> Oops. You got that wrong, Cecil. He did not preach worshipping the self. He preached freedom -- true freedom, which is love of God, love of people, and union with the Father.


I'd argue that true freedom is worhsipping the self and loving EVERYTHING 



> Oops, again. He did not say that at all. He said, rather, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's."


Semantics and personal interpretations.



> I hope you go to the original source, the Bible, and get your information from the text, not from what you used for your current statements, whatever or whoever that was.


Considering I don't put much faith in the validity of the Bible in the first place, its not high on my list of "Go to's" on the matter.

I was more talking about my perceptions of main stream christianity and how it is sold to the masses now days. I don't want to debate over passages in the Bible. That makes me sound ignorant, yes, but my ideas come from my own personal experience with Spirituality and not from the Bible.

Still waiting for a response from SpaceBreaker :wink:


----------



## USpacebreaker

> Still waiting for a response from SpaceBreaker


I'm here.


> At 14 you had a revelation and entered into a new way of being, one that felt right for you at the time. It was liberating and you felt on top of the world, like nothing could touch you.


Yes, this is correct. However, from here on things got a bit strange. I did not have a problem with my peers, the staff, or the clergy except that I thought that they were A-holes for bombarding me with things I did not want to here about and for preaching fire and brimstone sermons to little children. I envied them for there simpleness. They saw a childlike spirit whereas the spirit I saw scared the hell out off me(or in me for that matter.) Have you ever heard the term ignorance is bliss? IMO, this mainly applies to knowledge of right and wrong and even more so in a spiritual sense. It was the knowledge of God and the Spirit that seered in to me, not the people. Everyday and every hour of the day that I was in the school, the spirit of God(Holy Spirit if you will) moved my soul; pushing me, illuminating things I wasn't ready face. You can hear the word of God but it means nothing if the spirit is not in the word. It hit me like an earthquake. I was afraid of losing my youth so I ran from the spirit and the thought of the spirit. In christian dogma they call this greiving the spirit. But of course, if you never experience the spirit you can never sin against it. My problem was that I did not want to decide. I naively wanted to go back to a state of just being and my gnosis. But you can never unlearn; you most learn to cope with knowledge by learning more.

The next year I moved to another town. I was very stressed and painfully shy but managed to put up a front and do ok socializing. I smoked pot a few times with a friend and felt relieved from my burden for a while. I didn't smoke much though. Anyway, one day, as I was outside talking with my brother and my friend, the DR set in. I freaked and blamed God for it. There is another darker revalation that comes after this that I'm not sure if I can express it here without being a little too disturbing for some people. PM me if you are interested.

I'm glad that you are able to form your own opinions on religion just becareful. There is truth to jesus and his sacrifice. If dig down deep enough you will find it is very mathematical. The universe was set into motion long ago and allowed to develope its own course. Hell is only a consequence of this, not an invention. Why it is this way, who knows.

As far as interpreting, like all good and meaningful art you sould be able find youself in it. IMO, the same goes with the gosples. Jesus is known to appear to people as they are. And most of all Heaven is beyond our comprehension. Every interpretation by man is inherantly flaud by man's imperfection. But we try, as we should, to understand.


----------



## IMSojourner

If Christ lives in you already then why do people go to Church? Why do people pray to Jesus and/or God to do things for them they could do themselves? Why do we even have a Church anymore? Why do people have to ask for forgivness when they could just forgive themselves? If Christ lives in you it means you ARE christ, hence no need for the middle-man anymore, you can do it all yourself.

* It's a three-letter word that you're looking for: sin. And really, it's not a question of our identity with Christ, as such. We are always human creatures, and Christ is always the Son of God who became man. We do not merge. The meaning of his living in us isn't quite that way. It's a long story and I cannot possibly do it justice. And we don't *do* anything "ourselves," anyway. There is nothing we have that was not given to us and that is being held in existence by God. But it's a long story. I just mainly in my earlier comment wanted to point out that what you had described is true of Christians. *



> Notice the symbolism of taking something that is *external* to you (Food and Drink) and internalising it. i.e. That something is not you and you are trying to "put it in you". My point is its already there, no need for outdated rituals anymore.





CECIL said:


> But this is my point. Why can't you be human and one with God at the same time? It doesn't have to be one or the other (black and white), it can be both simultaneously.


*That's what people who are serious about following Christ understand Christ to have been saying. After all, Jesus WAS human and he WAS God, according to the Christian faith. He called us to be one with him and the Father. The reason we cannot do so is because of sin, which, as you may have noticed if you have observed the world, human creatures find it very difficult to love others fully and incredibly difficult to ask Christ to guide them in all things. And if you know yourself as I know myself, you know that sin, which is simply not wanting union with God more than life itself, is in all of us. The reason the Bible is valuable to Christians (and Jews) is that it is a collection of literature that documents the striving to follow God and the weakness of humanity.*

If we choose to see Jesus as a super-human like figure, a deity chosen and sent by god, then we innately know we cannot attain the same state. If we choose to see Jesus as a human that lived to his highest potential then each and every one of us on earth can do the same thing!

* That he was both God and man is the way that has been given to us. I don't know that you and I are all that far apart, actually. You may be a sinless person, for all I know, but I tend to doubt it. * :wink:


----------



## CECIL

I think I get what you are trying to say Sojourner, but I wonder if most of the people that follow Christianity have the same understanding as you. I'm inclined to believe that they don't and instead have a "face value" sort of understanding, which is more what I was adressing in my posts.

SpaceBreaker - It was good to hear your story and I'd be interested for you to tell me more if you are willing. You are using a few terms I'm not familiar with though, such as "running from spirit" etc.

Btw my interpretation of your events was me seeing myself in your story


----------



## IMSojourner

> I think I get what you are trying to say Sojourner, but I wonder if most of the people that follow Christianity have the same understanding as you. I'm inclined to believe that they don't and instead have a "face value" sort of understanding, which is more what I was adressing in my posts.


Unfortunately, you're right, and _that's_ why we go every week (I used to go to daily Mass)! :lol:

I'm an adult convert who came into it because I wanted to know reality. Many grew up with Christianity and have a different experience, sometimes never even having the questions and longings I did at all in their lives. There's a spectrum of spiritual experience in the population, along with a spectrum of abilities to articulate it.

For me, though, having faith has made dealing with my emotional issues less excruciating. Just tonight, as a matter of fact, I had a bout of anxiety, which is always the precursor to a crying jag where I let out feelings that I've been hiding from myself. It's so scary to be in that pre-crying state, where the anxiety makes me wonder if I even know who I am or where I am or what planet I am on. I pray during those times, and I never feel immediate consolation, but as I pray I remember the times I have been touched in such a way by God that I could not doubt his reality, and I remind myself that the anxiety is a message from my body that something emotional needs attending to, and that for however long, I will continue to live. Then, gradually, if I try to distract myself, the torment will ease over time, and like the aroma of fresh bread wafting in from the kitchen, I will almost imperceptibly become aware that I am sensing God's nearness and very presence with me. It is uncanny. The peace is indescribable, but it is the proof that something very Real is here with us, or at least with me, in me, beckoning me to love. That's really the call, you know, for me. It is the call of love.


----------



## USpacebreaker

> I'm an adult convert who came into it because I wanted to know reality. Many grew up with Christianity and have a different experience, sometimes never even having the questions and longings I did at all in their lives.


That is great to hear. It is people like yourself that truely appriciate this experience. I was born and raised in the "Bible Belt" where Christianity, vealous preaching, self-rightiousness predominate one's life from birth. While it does ground good ethicss(for the most part) in people they usually end up taking it for granted or missing the point of it altogether. There is great power in Cristianity, and, despite my disposition, I think it is a beautiful religion.



> There's a spectrum of spiritual experience in the population, along with a spectrum of abilities to articulate it.


What do you mean this?



> You are using a few terms I'm not familiar with though, such as "running from spirit" etc.


By spirit I mean the prescense of God that is there in your soul. The spirit is the third part of the trinity. Think of it as the bridge between you and God. The spirit is there waiting for people in a steady breeze or a knock on the door as Jesus puts it. When the spirit is there and you submit to it you then become a Christian and the spirit finds its dwelling place within your soul. IMO, this is what is meant by the Kingdom of Heaven is within you. We are vessels of the Kingdom. It guides and directs you. Everyone has this to some extent yet many do not persue and many more do not recognize. My problem was that I recognized it and ran. If the spirit of God calls you, you feel it as conviction, a warm welcome and plea join in union with God. By running from this, it is as if you insult the sacrifice that was made on your behalf. I ran, not because I hated God by any means. I ran because I did not want submit. I wanted to return to my state of existance without the knowledge of God. I wanted to be *MYSELF*. (I'm paraphrasing this) Jesus, when he spoke of the kingdom said himself that it is better that one never know God than know God and not accept. This a sad story, but in the end, I'm to blame.

This brings me back to my original post. I feel like an authority on these spiritual matters, yet I'm really confused. Was it because I went through a stage of self knowledge that is the reason I experienced such a strong conviction; or, was it because my self knowledge came into conflict with the teachings and direction of the spirit. Why is the Old Testament Father different from that of the New? Why was the Old jealous? Why the need for a New Covanent? In one of the Nag Hammadi's passages it states that the physical universe began with Yaldaboatha(Old Testament Father) and since he was ignorant of a higher power(Pistis & Sophia) declared himself God. Mankind was latter created in ignorance(Garden of Eden) until Jesus disguised as a serpant let them eat of the Tree of Knowledge. Then they suffered but became rational and gained knowledge of good and evil. This may be early Christian occultist hogwash, but it is in the Nag Hammadi. I can't discern spirits anymore, but I remember that deep down I wondered how a god of pure love would allow things like this. Why should we have a choice in first place if most do not accept? What is missing here?

Anyway, I try not to appologize anymore, but I will if need be. This was my experience. If you relate, then I feel for you. If not, Find your own interpretations of it and seek guidance if you have to. But do not follow in my footsteps.


----------



## IMSojourner

> Quote:
> There's a spectrum of spiritual experience in the population, along with a spectrum of abilities to articulate it.
> 
> What do you mean this?


I mean that some people have little spiritual experience, some have a lot, and some have an inordinate amount, and that of those who have spiritual experience, the ability to speak about it articulately is absent, low, medium, or high.

Many people with deep spiritual experience simply haven't got the words to describe it or they haven't had the experience of reading the descriptions of others who have written magnificently about spiritual experience and saying, "Ah, yes, it was like that for me, too."

---------

By the way, God is the same God in the Hebrew scriptures as he is in the New Testament.

Have you ever read _The Hound of Heaven_ by Francis Thompson? That's what your post reminded me of -- running from God.


----------



## CECIL

USpacebreaker said:


> If the spirit of God calls you, you feel it as conviction, a warm welcome and plea join in union with God. By running from this, it is as if you insult the sacrifice that was made on your behalf. I ran, not because I hated God by any means. I ran because I did not want submit. I wanted to return to my state of existance without the knowledge of God. I wanted to be *MYSELF*.


It sounds to me like you ran because you were afraid of change and of losing yourself. That's an understandable reaction. It also sounds like a bit of a power play (God's will versus my own) which I can relate to as well, in different terms. I think its possible to have both at the same time. I am just guessing though 



> Mankind was latter created in ignorance(Garden of Eden) until Jesus disguised as a serpant let them eat of the Tree of Knowledge. Then they suffered but became rational and gained knowledge of good and evil. This may be early Christian occultist hogwash, but it is in the Nag Hammadi. I can't discern spirits anymore, but I remember that deep down I wondered how a god of pure love would allow things like this. Why should we have a choice in first place if most do not accept? What is missing here?


I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say "allow things like this", but I'm going to assume you mean the Adam and Eve scenario. I've actually come across this idea before and I believe it holds a lot of merit. Keep in mind I view these things metaphorically though, not literally.

The idea I heard was that Adam and Eve were create ignorant, like you said. Basically the Garden of Eden was a paradise but at the same time it kept then naive. What is the point of eternal bliss if you have no experience and no self-reflection? You'd get bored stupid 

So they ate the apple which was given to them by a serpent (which is believed to represent evil but it actually represents knowledge, I think). By eating of the tree of knowledge we (i.e. humans - Adam and Eve) were booted from the garden and basically had to start learning about the world.

This knowledge of good and evil represents learning about dualism - i.e. the concept that we must suffer to appreciate bliss and vice versa, which is very much where we are as a race at the moment. The next step is learning to transcend this dualism into a reality of pure love.

There is an ulterior motive hidden in this story. By being set upon the path of knowledge our evolution was kick-started (and I mean evolution in a spiritual sense). By starting to climb the tree of knowledge, we have actually evolved far enough now that we have knowledge that previously only God held.

So very literally, we are being created in God's image and in a very literal sense we will soon be Gods  So then the motive behind this whole thing was to allow our consciousness to evolve.

The story in the bible talks about eating the fruit as the first sin, of defying god's will. However, anything that exists is valid - god would not have created the apple if he did not want us to eat it  Get it? It was a set up! This is what was intended for us all along and we are getting very close to realising our full potential.

Not sure if that addressed your point at all, but it was a good rant none-the-less :lol:


----------

