Gnostic Bishop wrote:

TEKennelly wrote:"The Jefferson Bible" is poorly named. It should be "The Jefferson Gospel" as it is a condensation and amalgamation of the four Gospel without any miracles and limited theology. It is an interesting read. It is rather short. I have been making way through it slowly over past two months or so. The text is only the Bible, although Jefferson might add a word or phrase in a few places to connect the narrative - I am not certain on this point.

I think it will read like the Chrestian literature used to read before Christianity got their hands on it.

They showed a Jesus the Good and a God the Good where both were just humans and not supernatural. I have not been able to proven it but think the old Chrestians were the first Gnostic Christians.

This link shows the plagiarism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... At-PAkgqls

Regards
DL

The video makes a great deal out the possible corruption of one word. Obviously the Christos is used many times in the NT. I doubt its use is generally corrupt.
Gnosticism or gnostic tendencies seem to be in the Christian communities from nearly one. The Gospel of Thomas which might be as old as the four has a gnostic flavor.

Gnostic Bishop wrote:I can agree with this view. I would add that God shows himself to be a corrupt judge who asks for and accepts bribes, which is an analogy for a sacrifice.

I assume here that as a judge, God would usually want to punish the guilty and would refuse to punish the innocent, without that sacrifice of bribe that is.

Well, that's certainly an interesting view. Lots of old ideas about Yahweh were quite confused, though few were as unlovable as, say, Zeus.

When I feel disgusted by the whole idea of God as judge (which is fairly often) I try to remember my friend who personally knew many young people who were "disappeared" by the Argentine junta. Often they were raped or otherwise tortured before being killed. Some were not even leftists, just got caught up in the lust to get names from people being tortured. And he feels that the torturers deserve eternal pain.

I don't know. I am thankful not to be in the position of judge, but I find my friend's feelings quite understandable. So, knowing that the Bronze Age was filled with similar barbarity, (e.g. Shalmaneser I of Assyria boasted of blinding 14,400 enemies in one eye. He was considered merciful for bringing defeated enemies to Assyria as slaves rather than just killing them) I am willing to cut some slack for the storytellers. But that doesn't mean we have to believe them.

Gnostic Bishop wrote: Only a really corrupted sense of morality would create a hell. It is a good think that is a fantasy place just as Yahweh is a fantasy God.

Yes, many human constructions about the divine are rather horrible. I happen to think that the "revelation" of covenant relation established by Yahweh was a pretty good notion, and that it was at least partly responsible for moving things in a good direction. But I don't expect everyone to consider it legitimate or healthy to try to separate out the bad stuff and keep the good stuff.

TEKennelly wrote:

Gnostic Bishop wrote:

TEKennelly wrote:"The Jefferson Bible" is poorly named. It should be "The Jefferson Gospel" as it is a condensation and amalgamation of the four Gospel without any miracles and limited theology. It is an interesting read. It is rather short. I have been making way through it slowly over past two months or so. The text is only the Bible, although Jefferson might add a word or phrase in a few places to connect the narrative - I am not certain on this point.

I think it will read like the Chrestian literature used to read before Christianity got their hands on it.

They showed a Jesus the Good and a God the Good where both were just humans and not supernatural. I have not been able to proven it but think the old Chrestians were the first Gnostic Christians.

This link shows the plagiarism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=p ... At-PAkgqls

Regards
DL

The video makes a great deal out the possible corruption of one word. Obviously the Christos is used many times in the NT. I doubt its use is generally corrupt.
Gnosticism or gnostic tendencies seem to be in the Christian communities from nearly one. The Gospel of Thomas which might be as old as the four has a gnostic flavor.

Indeed.

As to Christ, I see the use as always corrupt. The thing is, in Jewry, the anointing with oil is what conferred the person to Christ designation.

Jesus never had that done to him and thus he never gained the Christ designation.

Regards
DL

Harry Marks wrote:

Gnostic Bishop wrote:I can agree with this view. I would add that God shows himself to be a corrupt judge who asks for and accepts bribes, which is an analogy for a sacrifice.

I assume here that as a judge, God would usually want to punish the guilty and would refuse to punish the innocent, without that sacrifice of bribe that is.

Well, that's certainly an interesting view. Lots of old ideas about Yahweh were quite confused, though few were as unlovable as, say, Zeus.

When I feel disgusted by the whole idea of God as judge (which is fairly often) I try to remember my friend who personally knew many young people who were "disappeared" by the Argentine junta. Often they were raped or otherwise tortured before being killed. Some were not even leftists, just got caught up in the lust to get names from people being tortured. And he feels that the torturers deserve eternal pain.

I don't know. I am thankful not to be in the position of judge, but I find my friend's feelings quite understandable. So, knowing that the Bronze Age was filled with similar barbarity, (e.g. Shalmaneser I of Assyria boasted of blinding 14,400 enemies in one eye. He was considered merciful for bringing defeated enemies to Assyria as slaves rather than just killing them) I am willing to cut some slack for the storytellers. But that doesn't mean we have to believe them.

Gnostic Bishop wrote: Only a really corrupted sense of morality would create a hell. It is a good think that is a fantasy place just as Yahweh is a fantasy God.

Yes, many human constructions about the divine are rather horrible. I happen to think that the "revelation" of covenant relation established by Yahweh was a pretty good notion, and that it was at least partly responsible for moving things in a good direction. But I don't expect everyone to consider it legitimate or healthy to try to separate out the bad stuff and keep the good stuff.

If one does not, then one can never decide if the ideology is good or evil.

As to Yahweh's covenant, he is guilty of breaking it, if you follow the reasoning of this Jewish work.

I do.

https://vimeo.com/7038401

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop wrote:one does not

Just taking this quote out of context to illustrate that even in context it lacks enough supporting words to make any sense. I assume it means "if one does not consider it legitimate or healthy to try to separate out the bad stuff and keep the good stuff", but all the extra quoted text makes it confusing.

Robert Tulip wrote:

Gnostic Bishop wrote:one does not

Just taking this quote out of context to illustrate that even in context it lacks enough supporting words to make any sense. I assume it means "if one does not consider it legitimate or healthy to try to separate out the bad stuff and keep the good stuff", but all the extra quoted text makes it confusing.

It is not confusing to me but your reply is.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop wrote:

Harry Marks wrote:But I don't expect everyone to consider it legitimate or healthy to try to separate out the bad stuff and keep the good stuff.

If one does not, then one can never decide if the ideology is good or evil.

It's not the clearest, but since I do this myself I didn't have too much trouble deciphering. A comment whose reference is otherwise unclear is probably commenting on the last sentence of the quoted material.

If people are going to insist that thought systems have to be accepted or rejected in one piece, not sorted through for gems, then they are going to find that lots of people reject their system. And often, the more those people think for themselves, the more likely that they judge the system faulty. If I were of a mind to argue people need to keep the original system intact, I would give thought to who I am fencing in and who I am fencing out.

Harry Marks wrote:

Gnostic Bishop wrote:

Harry Marks wrote:But I don't expect everyone to consider it legitimate or healthy to try to separate out the bad stuff and keep the good stuff.

If one does not, then one can never decide if the ideology is good or evil.

It's not the clearest, but since I do this myself I didn't have too much trouble deciphering. A comment whose reference is otherwise unclear is probably commenting on the last sentence of the quoted material.

If people are going to insist that thought systems have to be accepted or rejected in one piece, not sorted through for gems, then they are going to find that lots of people reject their system. And often, the more those people think for themselves, the more likely that they judge the system faulty. If I were of a mind to argue people need to keep the original system intact, I would give thought to who I am fencing in and who I am fencing out.

Some systems should be scrapped altogether if they produce more evil than good.

I.E. The KKK ideology, Nazism and it's ideology, Christianity and Islam.

I do hear you on not throwing out babies with the bathwater, as an esoteric ecumenist, I shamelessly cherry pick from any ideology if the rule or law is worthy. That is how Gnostic Christianity works and why it is such a great ideology. We can evolve our rules and laws while most idol or ideology worshiping religions like Christianity and Islam cannot.

Regards
DL

Harry Marks wrote:If people are going to insist that thought systems have to be accepted or rejected in one piece, not sorted through for gems, then they are going to find that lots of people reject their system.

Jesus Christ explains this point very clearly.

Jesus Christ wrote:Matthew 13:24-30 New King James Version (NKJV)
The Parable of the Wheat and the Tares
24 Another parable He put forth to them, saying: “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat and went his way. 26 But when the grain had sprouted and produced a crop, then the tares also appeared. 27 So the servants of the owner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Do you want us then to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he said, ‘No, lest while you gather up the tares you also uproot the wheat with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest, and at the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather together the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”

The wheat is the lost Gnostic secret cosmic wisdom, while the tares are the false literal teachings of the church. They grow together until the end of the age, when they will both be fully ripe and it will become possible to separate them from each other, retaining the wheat and discarding the tares.

Gnostic Bishop wrote: I do hear you on not throwing out babies with the bathwater, as an esoteric ecumenist, I shamelessly cherry pick from any ideology if the rule or law is worthy.

Cherry-picking is only a problem if it is done with evidence, to give a partial picture of the facts. With values and wisdom, cherry-picking should be practiced regularly! Individuals and traditions, especially ancient traditions, have a partial picture of matters, and they should have the "worthy" parts (as you aptly put it) lifted up, not as evidence that the source is wonderful, but as insight to be pondered.