Inclusion of the books of Enoch, the Gospel of Thomas and Judas. A much more complicated and less comforting message, yet also stirring of the soul to move toward God by one's one efforts.Christian Gnosticism is most based Christianity.

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

File: 1411262949713.png (22.93 KB, 220x300, 11:15, coptic-gnostic-cross-220x3….png)

Anonymous 09/21/14 (Sun) 01:29:09 No.9

Inclusion of the books of Enoch, the Gospel of Thomas and Judas. A much more complicated and less comforting message, yet also stirring of the soul to move toward God by one's one efforts.

Christian Gnosticism is most based Christianity.

Anonymous 09/21/14 (Sun) 01:30:40 No.10

>>9
>not catholic
absolutelyheresy.jpg

Anonymous 09/22/14 (Mon) 12:19:24 No.24

>>9
>gnosticism
>Christian
Nope

Anonymous 09/27/14 (Sat) 04:22:56 No.51

Knowing some apocrypha is really interesting. It allows us to learn some dark parts that were "lost" about the beginning of Christianity. And since I am somewhat interested by the ancient heresies, it is always a pleasure to learn more about the ancient ways.

Anonymous 09/30/14 (Tue) 06:06:27 No.115

File: 1412057187209.jpg (260.88 KB, 700x700, 1:1, 194889.jpg)

>>9
>>51
Christian gnostic apocrypha written about 150 A.D. and later.
Christian canon written about 40 - 100 A.D.
How about NO…?

Anonymous 09/30/14 (Tue) 12:08:56 No.116

>Christ was about to become the creed of the rapidly forming church. Jesus lives; he died for men; he gave the spirit; he is coming again. Jesus filled all their thoughts and determined all their new concept of God and everything else. They were too much enthused over the new doctrine that “God is the Father of the Lord Jesus” to be concerned with the old message that “God is the loving Father of all men,” even of every single individual. True, a marvelous manifestation of brotherly love and unexampled good will did spring up in these early communities of believers. But it was a fellowship of believers in Jesus, not a fellowship of brothers in the family kingdom of the Father in heaven. Their good will arose from the love born of the concept of Jesus’ bestowal and not from the recognition of the brotherhood of mortal man. Nevertheless, they were filled with joy, and they lived such new and unique lives that all men were attracted to their teachings about Jesus. They made the great mistake of using the living and illustrative commentary on the gospel of the kingdom for that gospel, but even that represented the greatest religion mankind had ever known.

http://urantiapapers.freeurantia.org/

Anonymous 09/30/14 (Tue) 19:14:42 No.120

File: 1412104482479.jpg (179.44 KB, 559x750, 559:750, Pentecost3.jpg)

>>116
I don't really get what exactly this passage is trying to say. In their enthusiasm for Christ the early Christians led lives of exemplary love and fellowship, inspired by the example of Christ and Christ's Sonship and unity with God the Father. This example lead to the expansion and wide interest that lent the early Church its spiritual verve and staying power.

However, the author seems to imply that this loving communitarianism ought to be the basis of the Christian religion, not the Divine example of Christ's life and Sonship that inspired it.

I just don't see how one could exist without the other. If Christ was not the Son of God, did not die for the salvation of humanity, and did not rise again on the third day, well, I just don't see how or why the kind of exemplary Christian fellowship this author praises here would have arisen without this Divine element.

Please correct me if I've misapprehended anything.

Anonymous 09/30/14 (Tue) 20:27:35 No.121

>>120

>And so, under the vigorous leadership of Peter and ere the Master ascended to the Father, his well-meaning representatives began that subtle process of gradually and certainly changing the religion of Jesus into a new and modified form of religion about Jesus.

http://urantiapapers.freeurantia.org/p192.htm

>Some day a reformation in the Christian church may strike deep enough to get back to the unadulterated religious teachings of Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith. You may preach a religion about Jesus, but, perforce, you must live the religion of Jesus. In the enthusiasm of Pentecost, Peter unintentionally inaugurated a new religion, the religion of the risen and glorified Christ. The Apostle Paul later on transformed this new gospel into Christianity, a religion embodying his own theologic views and portraying his own personal experience with the Jesus of the Damascus road. The gospel of the kingdom is founded on the personal religious experience of the Jesus of Galilee; Christianity is founded almost exclusively on the personal religious experience of the Apostle Paul. Almost the whole of the New Testament is devoted, not to the portrayal of the significant and inspiring religious life of Jesus, but to a discussion of Paul's religious experience and to a portrayal of his personal religious convictions. The only notable exceptions to this statement, aside from certain parts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, are the Book of Hebrews and the Epistle of James. Even Peter, in his writing, only once reverted to the personal religious life of his Master. The New Testament is a superb Christian document, but it is only meagerly Jesusonian.

http://urantiapapers.freeurantia.org/p196.htm

Anonymous 09/30/14 (Tue) 21:02:11 No.122

File: 1412110931765.jpg (190.47 KB, 640x873, 640:873, Saint_Augustine_Disputing_….jpg)

>>121
I'll give this book you're sourcing a gander. Hopefully he provides some substantive and reliable historical evidence for the claims he is making. If not I'll just have to dismiss this as baseless heresy and wishful thinking on his part.

Still, I remain incredulous at this idea that something like the early Church could have arisen from anything other than an actual Divine disruption of the human order. If Christ was just some guy who told us to get along then He brought and left behind nothing new or substantive into the world.

Anonymous 10/01/14 (Wed) 04:50:32 No.129

File: 1412139032053.png (683.11 KB, 1000x1004, 250:251, 010ab68a7eafe8b0a954b9bb0d….png)

>>122
It is undoubtedly heretical.
Christ established a church, which He promised that the gates of Hades wouldn't prevail against. He goes on to say that whatever the apostles bind (disallow) on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever they loose (allow) on earth will be loosed in heaven.
These same apostles later approved of Paul and his doctrines.
To deny the veracity of Paul is to say that the Gates of Hades prevailed over the Church of Christ and the Apostles (through the perversion of his teachings), and thus to deny the very words of Christ.

Anonymous 10/05/14 (Sun) 19:55:59 No.213

>The concept of Jesus is still alive in the advanced religions of the world. Paul’s Christian church is the socialized and humanized shadow of what Jesus intended the kingdom of heaven to be — and what it most certainly will yet become. Paul and his successors partly transferred the issues of eternal life from the individual to the church. Christ thus became the head of the church rather than the elder brother of each individual believer in the Father’s family of the kingdom. Paul and his contemporaries applied all of Jesus’ spiritual implications regarding himself and the individual believer to the church as a group of believers; and in doing this, they struck a deathblow to Jesus’ concept of the divine kingdom in the heart of the individual believer.

>And so, for centuries, the Christian church has labored under great embarrassment because it dared to lay claim to those mysterious powers and privileges of the kingdom, powers and privileges which can be exercised and experienced only between Jesus and his spiritual believer brothers. And thus it becomes apparent that membership in the church does not necessarily mean fellowship in the kingdom; one is spiritual, the other mainly social.

http://urantiapapers.freeurantia.org/p170.htm

Anonymous 10/05/14 (Sun) 20:25:56 No.215

>>213
None of this conforms with what we know of Christ, His teachings, and the events of His life.

If Christ was merely a spiritual teacher who just wanted us to develop personal spiritual lives and live in harmonious communities, and not the Son of God who established a Church for the salvation of mankind, then there is no real reason to follow Him instead of Gautama Buddha or Diogenes or your grandfather.