Poll - What kind of Ancient People are YOU???

by LittleToe 71 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  gumby

  Plum...can I come over again

  Are you:

  1. A minority group called "Jew"
  2. A majority group called "Greek"
  3. A minority group called "Christian"

  Well....I'm the middle one. Everytime I get out of the shower and look down at myself I swear I must be a greek! Little bastards.

  Actually you bring up a good point as I commented to shelby about this the other day that she had gnostic 'traits'.

  The Greeks in Jesus day were logical, yet believed in gnosticism, or "knowing" by special knowlege that could be imparted to them. The also believed in re-incarnation and honored a goddess. Many became Christian in their esoteric views but only viewed Jesus as a heavenly spiritual figure. Many of their writing were discovered in a cave in egypt 1945 . In these caves they found a whole library with gnostic letters of "Phillip, Thomas,and apocalypses attibuted to Paul and James, and texts recording the acts of Peter and the 12 apostles. These texts are available as books of the bible that didn't make the canon as the Literalist Christians (those who believed in a fleshly christ historical figure)...were the ones who did the editing after erasing the gnostics and most all of their writings.

  The one thing they were known as were free thinkers.........so I guess I would pick them......but only if I had to......then I'd dump the goddess thing and doubt the re-incarnation thing , then they would Df me and I'd be in the same boat I'm in now

  Gumby

  .
• 

  plmkrzy

  aw does gummers need a dwink? Sure lol!
• 

  blackout

  Definately Celtic, but if I had to choose, a greekish jew.
• 

  RAYZORBLADE

  Hey LT: I saw the three choices, and I don't fall under any of the three or combination thereof.

  But the tartan subject was cool, and yer talkin' to a MacLeod here.
• 

  LittleToe

  Love the responses, thus far

  Getting back to the original post, for a moment, before the frivolity begins anew...

  Paul seemed to indicate that there were believers, and unbelievers.
  Those who disbelieved seemed to fall into two camps, in his eyes, at that time.

  Those who wouldn't believe because it seemed illogical, and those who wouldn't believe because God didn't do something spectacular, like appear before them or give a miraculous sign.

  At the same time he argues that this was intentional, and that it was through things that seemed foolish and weak (from a human perspective), that God revealed Himself in Christ.
  It begs the question, why would He work like that, since it seems so illiogical when He could be far more convincing and therefore have the belief of the whole world. I guess that would be the greek response, huh?

  Alternatively He could maybe show Himself to us in some special way, so that we each (individually) could believe. Hmmm, I guess that would be the Jewish response.

  And yet some do come to "faith", believing in what they haven't seen, even though it sounds unreasonable to many (especially given that the book that is allegedly written by Him seems so hard to decipher - another Greek response, in another educated age??).
  It seems that Greeks, Jews, and even barbarians (I include myself in that, being of Celtic descent) have the ability to believe the unbelievable. To those that believe it's real. To those that don't, it's ridiculous.
  .

  Essay over...
  Let the fun resume...

  I bear the Macrae tartan, btw.
• 

  LittleToe

  Gumby:ROFLMAO
  I LOVED your post!!!

  As for Qumran, that certainly goes to highlight that there were many groups, and already many "Christian" denominations, even early on.
  So much for there just being one that was corrupted by Roman Catholicism, huh?

  Someone, somewhere on one of these current threads, made a comment about there being so much to read (it was likely you, now I come to think of it).
  It's so true. It's hard not to be like a kid in a candy store, now that we have the freedom to read what we wish. Never was Solomon's observation so clear...

  (LT, of the "Gnostic leanings" class)
• 

  Ravyn

  gnosticism was my first pit stop after JWs, and at the same time as paganism. And the kid in a candy store was so me! I had a UU friend pay for a summer's worth of seminars at harvard divinity and the library was like HEAVEN! I am still reading about gnosticism and that was 7 years ago--I have about 100 pages scheduled for this week end in "The Early Christian World" vol 2, by Phillip Esler--and if anyone knows the book it is like 1000 pages of Elaine Pagels....not the easiest reading in the world for sure.

  My furlough into gnosticism was directly related to my genealogy and heritage research. I come from Clan Sinclair who have deep Templar roots and owned Roslyn Chapel. Also Clan Hay who were known to be sorcerors and who pissed off Thomas the Rhymer once and he cursed their sacred tree and they lost their lands. On the other side I have connections to Hugues du Payen and Chartres. I also have some gypsy blood--which for me gives me a Hindu/Persian connection. There were more groups of gnostics than just Christian ones....

  So I really dont know what to call how I believe. It is not Neo-pagan, and it is definitely not Chrisitian, but it is not hostile to either. I hesitate to use the word Gnostic only because of its origins, which I am not greek either. And New Age sounds so fluffy and I am NOT fluffy. I need a new word.

  Ravyn
• 

  GentlyFeral

  Ok, ok, you can choose "4 - Celt - eaten by LT" as well,

  Chalk up another one, please, LT, and I hope you like eating out.

  but which of the first three categories do you also fall under?

  I act like a "Christian" (without Jesus) - because my gods have told me that historicity and provability are irrelevant. But my personal belief is based on personal experience, which is a kind of "sign", isn't it? So does that make me a "Jew" also? And now I'm trying to make logical sense of it, so am I now "Greek"?

  GentlyFeral
  the unclassifiable

  (edited because I misconstrued the original question)
• 

  SpannerintheWorks

  To believe in Christ, the Jews asked for a powerful sign, before they would believe.
  To believe in Christ, the Greeks appealed to logic and wisdom, before they would believe.
  To believe in Christ, the Christians simply believed, and treated it as a personal calling.

  "Believe in" what, exactly?

  1. That Christ actually even existed? No proof!

  2. That Christ is the Messiah? The Jews don't believe this, even though the OT was written by them and for them. (According to the bible.

  But that can't be proven, either).

  3. That Christ is God? Many counter-arguments can be given to disprove this using the bible. But the bible is such a subjective book

  anyway. Much better to refer to 1. above and do away with the middle-man.

  Spanner
• 

  jgnat

  Here's mine.