>>508689 Well, based on anthropological findings that, at least in my opinion, cast doubt on the reality of the foundations of Judaism, I would say by relation, it probably isn't correct in the sense that it is some form of objective truth.
Also, after readings of Hermetic texts, such as the Kybalion and other literature reputed to be written by Hermes Trismegistus, I think that while interesting thoughts, it is ultimately obtrusive mysticism.
I very much doubt that there is any basis in reality in the Hidden Masters, and that stories of Simon Magus, Kabbalah, Christian Rosencruetz and etc. are merely myth or distortions.
"As above, so below" doesn't mean anything tbqh familia
>Exactly, and the Pharisees Talmud Jews tried to kill Jesus.
Unless, of course, you sit back and compare the beliefs of the "Pharisees" of the Gospels with other accounts of Pharisee and later RabbinicJ udaic beliefs and note that the "Pharisees" of the Gospels have a lot more in common with the Sadducees.
Which would make sense, since it's the Sadducee high priest, not Pharisees like Gamaliel who are trying to get Pilate to nail Jesus to a tree.
Which actually doesn't imply anything about difference of teachings. Jesus parrots quite a few Pharisee lines, like the Golden Rule among others.
>>512398 >Paul's letters can / make more sense (to me) when you interpret them from a "Gnostic" standpoint. So why does he gives a shit about himself following the Law? Why does he speak of salvation being brought to the Jews first, if he's a Gnostic? (Rom 1:16)
>Can't prove it But of course!
Paul of Tarsus not an Internet Gnostic, he's what today is called a Messianic Jew.
Essentially, he goes to great depths to demonstrate a variaty of biases or perhaps even flat out later edits to the Gospels, which present a distorted picture of what the "Historic Jesus" was actually like.
Then he tries to reverse the biases and reconstruct "Historic Jesus" which I thought was a bit dumb, but his analysis of the composition and the political climate of the Gospel authorship, as well as where things in the Gospels lie along the various positions of other Jewish sects is pretty spot on.
>>512446 >Actually the literal definition means "knowledge" ? That is the correct definition of the word, but the group known as gnostics were labelled so by christian using the definition i said earlier. Gnostics never referred to themselves as gnostics.
>The only real difference is the demiurge / all powerful God, essentially the creation story, and more in depth teachings. What about the Aeon Sophia and Christ and their relationship with each other?
>>512486 That's why I use it aseems an umbrella term. If the creator god is different than the Holy Spirit of the actual God, this makes sense to see how the construct of matter / spirit and explains suffering in this material life.
You have to take the teachings for yourself though, I can't just spoon feed them for you. And again I can't prove Paul was a gnostic, but you can't prove he isn't a gnostic because he died 1900 years ago good luck
"Gnosticism" is a modern invention. They were just a bunch of different sects that laid claim to the Christian tradition. None of them identified themselves as "gnostics" in any sectarian sense and contradicted one another as often as they contradicted the proto-orthodoxy, so you have to be specific about which "gnostics" you're talking about.
>>512440 >tree Totally a side note, but why do the letters of Peter state christ was hung from a tree instead of crucified? I feel like translators would change that to crucified to prevent confusion, yet they did not.
>>512384 >What is the road to Damascus Gnostic = knowledge of/belief in God through direct divine experience (gnosis), rather than through acceptance of Dogma. In this true sense of the word, he was very much a Gnostic.
Basic knowledge about the history of gnosticism (actual gnosticism, not the bullshit you can find all over the internet) proves that. It was a movement founded in the second century that may have been quite diverse, but did adhere to a set of general principles, and Paul fit none of them. Basically, he helped found what would become the church that gnosticism consistently pitted itself against and tried to prove was wrong. Trying to claim he was a gnostic is nonsensical.
>>515443 >It was a movement founded in the second century that may have been quite diverse, but did adhere to a set of general principles, and Paul fit none of them.
Every attempt to define gnosticism according to a set of general principles has failed to take into account its diversity. Paul was both a gnostic and not a gnostic, simply because "gnosticism" never existed and is a subjective term invented by modern historians.
Clement of Alexandria considered the orthodox to be the "true gnostics"
The term "gnostic" was simply an adjective that could be used as much by the orthodox as the heterodox and the term "gnostic" seldom comes up in any of the gnostic writings. Even in the heresiological writings of Tertullian and Irenaeus, the term "gnostic" is only ever used in the sense "someone who claims they know" not as a distinct religious phenomenon.
Both the Marcionites and the Orthodox mystical tradition completely debunk any notion of a united "gnostic" movement that excluded the orthodox themselves.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.