• In total there are 3 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 742 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 2:59 am

Have you investigated Gnostic Christianity?

Engage in conversations about worldwide religions, cults, philosophy, atheism, freethought, critical thinking, and skepticism in this forum.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
FTL99
Float like a butterfly, post like a bee!
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 9:32 pm
12
Has thanked: 28 times
Been thanked: 57 times

Re: Have you investigated Gnostic Christianity?

Unread post

Flann 5 wrote:I think the big problem with Massey and Murdock is their failure to cite primary sources to substantiate their claims.
Apart from the failure of the dying and rising Gods thesis itself, this is a further problem.
This is not a matter of Christian bias but the requirement for relevant sources to support claims.
Here's such a critique of Massey's work highlighting this problem.
tektonics.org/lp/massjc.php
There is also the record of secular historians such as Tacitus and others.
youtube.com/watch?v=4bLlpiWh9-k
I wonder who it is that you think wrote the new testament gospels,when they wrote them, and what their purpose was in writing them as they did.
The dating is important as an early date explains why the people in Jerusalem believed in the public crucifixion of Christ in their city by Pontius Pilate, within living memory. On the other hand they would not have believed an invented story they would have known to be false.
Flann 5: "I think Elliott Nesch in his "Zeitgeist Refuted" demonstrates the false premises of Astrotheology historically and the impossibility of any coherent and credible application of this to the gospels."
Elliott Nesch and his "Zeitgeist Refuted" were thoroughly debunked long ago to the point of embarrassment:
Nesch: "42 authors mention Jesus within 150 years of his life."
Response: "It's not always just what devotees say that is wrong it can often be what they don't say. For example, not a single one of the "42 authors" ever met Jesus while he was alive. The four canonical Gospel writers were all anonymous until the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were added as authors late in the 2nd century. There is no contemporary eyewitness testimony for Jesus at all whatsoever. Nobody ever wrote about Jesus during his lifetime and the canonical gospels didn't exist as we have them today until around 180CE - that is what the literary and historical records show i.e. evidence that actually exists."

'Zeitgeist Refuted' by Elliot Nesch, Debunked
http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums ... =19&t=3063
From my own experience, those who claim Astrotheology is false tend to know nothing about it because they have never studied the subject and simply dismiss it out of hand in order to shut down any discussion. They also rely heavily on others who also know nothing about it.
Primary sources and scholar commentary on them support Zeitgeist Part 1:

Sourcebook
http://stellarhousepublishing.com/zeitg ... cebook.pdf

Primary Sources & Scholars cited in the ZG1 Sourcebook
http://www.truthbeknown.com/zeitgeistsources.html

Rebuttal to Dr. Chris Forbes
http://truthbeknown.com/chrisforbeszeitgeist.html

Zeitgeist Part 1
http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/vie ... =19&t=2997
Flann 5: "I think the big problem with Massey and Murdock is their failure to cite primary sources to substantiate their claims."
Just more misinformation from people who have no idea what they're talking about. Flann 5, your sources (JP Holding/Tekton/Chris White and Mike Licona) all betray you due to their transparent Christian biases. They have no intention of ever being objective on the subject of astrotheology or the work by Acharya S/Murdock and have proven themselves worse than unreliable and untrustworthy on the subject. A person sincerely interested in the subject would be embarrassed to cite them as a credible source as they are merely out to shore up their Christian faith and euphoria at all costs - even if it means being dishonest.

Most are unaware of the fact that Gerald Massey was heavily peer reviewed by the top scholars and Egyptologists of his day:

Who Is Gerald Massey?

Scholars who've actually studied her work tend to be supportive of it:

"I find it undeniable that many of the epic heroes and ancient patriarchs and matriarchs of the Old Testament were personified stars, planets, and constellations." "I find myself in full agreement with Acharya S/D.M. Murdock"

- Dr. Robert Price, Biblical Scholar with two Ph.D's

http://www.robertmprice.mindvendor.com/ ... _egypt.htm

"...In recent months or over the last year or so I have interviewed Frank Zindler and Richard Carrier and David Fitzgerald and Robert Price all on the issue of mythicism ... when I spoke to these people I asked for their expertise collectively and what I got, especially from Fitzgerald and Robert Price, was that we should be speaking to tonights guest D.M. Murdock, author of 'Did Moses Exist? The Myth of the Israelite Lawgiver'."
- Aron Ra


http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums ... 432#p29432

"I have no objection to postulating a 'prehistoric' (i.e., prior to our earliest horizon on Christianity) phase to the heavenly Christ cult in which observations of the heavens helped shaped the Christ myth." "Acharya has that aspect of things sewn up!"

- Earl Doherty

http://freethoughtnation.com/forums/vie ... 236#p26236

Earl Doherty defers to Acharya for the subject of astrotheology:

"A heavenly location for the actions of the savior gods, including the death of Christ, would also have been influenced by most religions' ultimate derivation from astrotheology, as in the worship of the sun and moon. For this dimension of more remote Christian roots, see the books of Acharya S"

- Earl Doherty, Jesus: Neither God Nor Man, (2009) page 153


"Your scholarship is relentless! ...the research conducted by D.M. Murdock concerning the myth of Jesus Christ is certainly both valuable and worthy of consideration."
- Dr. Ken Feder, Professor of Archaeology


"I can recommend your work whole-heartedly!"
- Dr. Robert Eisenman


"I've known people with triple Ph.D's who haven't come close to the scholarship in Who Was Jesus?"
- Pastor David Bruce, M.Div, North Park Seminary


"...I have found her scholarship, research, knowledge of the original languages, and creative linkages to be breathtaking and highly stimulating."
- Rev. Dr. Jon Burnham, Pastor, Presbyterian Church


Richard Carrier has never actually studied her work and is blatantly biased against it, which explains why his criticisms of her work contain sloppy and egregious errors. Carrier is simply not a reliable or credible source on the subject of Murdock's work. It's intellectually dishonest for him to even discuss it when he knows so little about it and it's especially unethical for Carrier, as a scholar, to maliciously smear and libel Murdock in all of his lectures:

http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums ... 4771#p4771

Carrier needs to be called out on his unethical behavior by scholars and others as well. He owes Acharya S/Murdock an apology. The last thing we need in mythicism right now is this type of malevolence by Carrier of all people.

The Mythicist Position

User avatar
Gnostic Bishop
Just realized BookTalk.org is awesome!
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 12:36 pm
9
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 131 times

Re: Have you investigated Gnostic Christianity?

Unread post

Robert & FTL

Nice work. Thank you both and I wish you and all a good new year.

Regards
DL
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Have you investigated Gnostic Christianity?

Unread post

Flann 5 wrote:
Robert Tulip wrote:I think Saint Peter is a prime candidate for invention. If Peter did not exist, it would have been necessary for the church to invent him, in order to have a historical founder who had direct contact with Jesus Christ. But I can’t really imagine that Paul was invented, so it leads me to the view that the text in Galatians about Peter was added later or was intended symbolically.
This is purely subjective speculation by Robert here I think.
It would be difficult to say the least, to read this in any natural way into such as Paul's description of Cephas (Aramaic of Peter) who he calls an apostle and Barnabas in terms of having wives and not having to work to support themselves as apostles.
How would the recipients of this letter read and understand this part of the letter which I provide a link for? It reads entirely naturally and reasonably as of real people and practical issues.
Robert Tulip wrote:If the story is invented, which looks more plausible than a talking cloud, then for Saint Peter to allegedly invoke this story as historical authority for his own status looks forced, to put it mildly. Saint Pete says this is not a “cleverly devised story”. Instead it is apparently meant to be taken as gospel truth. The trouble is, once we start doubting the transfiguration, and the helping hand of faith that Christ held out to Peter when they were strolling on the water, we start to see these stories as primarily symbolic.
Here is Robert's foundational objection. There is no God and therefore any supernatural account must be false and must not be interpreted as it naturally reads but must be allegory notwithstanding the glaring problem of turning Peter,John and the apostles into supposed signs of the zodiac. The reading of course is that God's voice was heard from out of a cloud and not that a cloud spoke, as Robert puts it.
Robert Tulip wrote:I can accept that Galatians was probably mostly by Paul. But many of its lines, such as the famous “born of a woman”, are allegory, not literal history. Elaine Pagels argues in her early work The Gnostic Paul that Paul’s reference here to Jews and Greeks is Gnostic code for the public and the initiates. So Paul's discussion of Peter’s mission to the Jews is about the mission of the church to the public, while his discussion of his own mission to the Greeks is about the inner work of the Gnostic movement. It is no surprise that the mission to the public defeated the mission to the initiates, who were few in number, had difficult and complex ideas, and lacked the focus on political scheming required to purge their opponents.
Again an unnatural reading and interpretation. The division between Jews and Gentiles was an historic and religious reality and gave rise to debates and discussions of things like circumcision and the Mosaic law in relation to Gentile Christians.
Paul in his letter to the Corinthians reminds them that he had preached the gospel to them himself and in effect founded their church. An historic claim the readers could easily know to be false if it was.
To suppose Peter did not preach to the Jews ignores the new testament accounts of him doing so.
It also sets up an interpretive dichotomy between Paul as personal historical preacher to the Corinthian gentiles and Peter, allegorical sign of the zodiac yet somehow preacher to a supposed literalist outer mass of early Christians.

As for "born of a woman" being allegory,as you know Paul elsewhere refers to Jesus as being of the seed of David according to the flesh. This expression found many times in the bible as always referring to physical descent and genealogy.
A phrase Paul also uses; "......my countrymen according to the flesh,who are Israelites,.....of whom are the the fathers and from whom whom,according to the flesh, Christ came....." Romans 9;3-5
And "For it is evident our Lord arose from Judah,of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood." Hebrews 7;14.

And in Romans 1;3 Paul writes "the gospel of God .......concerning his son Jesus Christ our Lord,who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh."
Of course those who wish to, can attempt to allegorise the new testament writings to their hearts content, but it looks to me like the trying to fit a square peg into a round hole exercise.
There are allegories and parables in the gospels but these are plainly differentiated from the biographical and historical narratives.
Here again is Paul speaking in relation to the apostles as real people.
http://www.biblehub.com/niv/1_corinthians/9.htm
Just for convenience I've lifted this entire post mainly to respond to DB Roy's assertion that Paul doesn't say that Jesus was an earthly human born person.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Have you investigated Gnostic Christianity?

Unread post

Just more misinformation from people who have no idea what they're talking about. Flann 5, your sources (JP Holding/Tekton/Chris White and Mike Licona) all betray you due to their transparent Christian biases. They have no intention of ever being objective on the subject of astrotheology or the work by Acharya S/Murdock and have proven themselves worse than unreliable and untrustworthy on the subject. A person sincerely interested in the subject would be embarrassed to cite them as a credible source as they are merely out to shore up their Christian faith and euphoria at all costs - even if it means being dishonest.

This is pure ad hominem. It's also a poison the well fallacy.
youkrst

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
One with Books
Posts: 2752
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2010 4:30 am
13
Has thanked: 2280 times
Been thanked: 727 times

Re: Have you investigated Gnostic Christianity?

Unread post

This is pure ad hominem. It's also a poison the well fallacy.
nah... it's true :)

in fact, it bears repeating

Just more misinformation from people who have no idea what they're talking about. Flann 5, your sources (JP Holding/Tekton/Chris White and Mike Licona) all betray you due to their transparent Christian biases. They have no intention of ever being objective on the subject of astrotheology or the work by Acharya S/Murdock and have proven themselves worse than unreliable and untrustworthy on the subject. A person sincerely interested in the subject would be embarrassed to cite them as a credible source as they are merely out to shore up their Christian faith and euphoria at all costs - even if it means being dishonest.
User avatar
Flann 5
Nutty for Books
Posts: 1580
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2013 8:53 pm
10
Location: Dublin
Has thanked: 831 times
Been thanked: 705 times

Re: Have you investigated Gnostic Christianity?

Unread post

Quote; Gnostic Bishop; The thinking shown below is the Gnostic Christian’s goal as taught by Jesus but know that any belief can be internalized.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alRNbes ... r_embedded

This method and mind set is how you become I am and brethren to Jesus, in the esoteric sense.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdSVl_HOo8Y

When you can name your God, I am, and mean yourself, you will begin to know the only God you will ever find. Becoming a God is to become more fully human.

Regards
DL[/quote]

It's because of these kinds of ideas that you present here that I say that you claim self divinity, Bishop.
Last edited by Flann 5 on Tue May 26, 2015 1:39 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: Have you investigated Gnostic Christianity?

Unread post

When you can name your God, I am, and mean yourself, you will begin to know the only God you will ever find. Becoming a God is to become more fully human.

And all along we've been debating the existence of God:
lo and behold, he's been here all along. :)

DL -
Can you fix our global warming problem, please? :-D
User avatar
Gnostic Bishop
Just realized BookTalk.org is awesome!
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2014 12:36 pm
9
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 131 times

Re: Have you investigated Gnostic Christianity?

Unread post

ant wrote:
When you can name your God, I am, and mean yourself, you will begin to know the only God you will ever find. Becoming a God is to become more fully human.

And all along we've been debating the existence of God:
lo and behold, he's been here all along. :)

DL -
Can you fix our global warming problem, please? :-D
Yes I can.

Give me a platform to speak to the world and with their help, it will be a relatively easy task.

You seemed to have missed where I said that to become God is to just become more human.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJ1PDxeUynA

Regards
DL
Post Reply

Return to “Religion & Philosophy”