I found a big ol' fat lie again in there!
by gumby 179 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Alwayshere
Have we covered yet that there's dubiety over wheather or not John the Baptist entered the Kingdom of Heaven, as per Matt. 11:11 and the gospel of Thomas?
Little Toe, this is just my opinion but when Jesus said "the least one in Heaven is greater than he is" John was still on earth so those in Heaven would be greater. Who knows for sure , when John died he could have gone to Heaven.I know when i was a JW they taught John would be here on earth but they have told so many lies, you can't believe what you once thought was true. Wheather he went to Heaven or not, doesn't matter to me but what does is trying to get those who are still slaves to that organization to do research and than they will see the truth isn't in that cult.
-
Rod P
Hello Gumby
Hello Narkissos
Well, pheeewwww! That was some trip I was on this weekend. My head is spinning.
First of all, I got into this whole Mandaean thing.
(NOTE: In the interests of time, I have taken the liberty of paraphrasing and even extensively quoting from articles off the internet. The sources are:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The exact origins of Mandeism are unknown, and scholars argue dates ranging from the first to the fourth centuries A.D. Because they speak a form of Aramic, some credence is given their claim that they are descended from followers of John the Baptist; others believe they may be descended from the Essene sect.
The Mandaeans are the last remaining continuous Gnostic sect. Mandean is from the word "Manda", or "secret knowledge". They practice weekly Baptisms as a sacrament. The Mandeans regard John the Baptist as an important religious figure, and claim to follow his teachings. A study of the history of religion suggests that John the Baptist could have represented an alternative religious orientation to Jesus. Christianity represents John the Baptist as someone who baptized Jesus, symbolizing that Jesus is his Lord. The Mandean religion on the other hand, speaks about a messenger of light that was sent to Jerusalem in order to undress the lie of Jesus. In other words, the Mandeans presented Jesus as a "lying prophet". They rejected Jesus as a false prophet, who mislead people and who also revealed religious secrets. Here is a Mandean's account of Jesus:
"While John lives in Jerusalem, gaining sway over Jordan and baptizing, Jesus Christ shall come to him, shall humble himself, shall receive John's baptism and shall become wise with John's wisdom. But then shall he corrupt John's sayings, pervert the Baptism of Jordan, distort the words of truth and preach fraud and malice throughout the world." (Note: This is not a claim that what they said was true; simply a quote of what they have written about Jesus)
Now, the religion of "Manichaeism" (as opposed to "Mandaeism") originated in lower Mesopotamia, in the western territories of the Persian empire, soon after the new Sassanid dynasty had ousted the Parthians as rulers in the 3rd Century A.D. It was pretty widespread in the world, but was later denounced by Chrisitanity, Buddhism and Zoroastrianism, to which Manichaeism was all related.
Scholars have debated the connection between Manichaeism and the Mandaeans. Various ancient documents are cited, but one contains some arguments with the Nazsoraeans- which was a term used by the Mandaeans prior to their exodus from the Palestine area, and today they still use the term for the Priesthood. (Hmmm. Any connection with "Nazarene" vis-a-vis Jesus?). Another document talks about a baptizing sect called Sabat al-bata'ih- the Sabians of the Marshes. Informally they were called al-Mughasilah "the Baptists" or "ones who wash themselves". For these reasons, there is evidence that there was a Mandaean influence on Manichaeism.
A guy named Mani apparently started the religion of Manichaeism. He was born in Babylon in 216 A.D. His father Futtaq, was an Elkasaite (located in Syria-Mesopotamia) which was a vegetarian baptismal sect that was originally Jewish. The sect had come to regard their founder as the reincarnation of Jesus. At the age of twelve Mani, in his own words, was first visited by his guardian angel, his spiritual Twin (or, as he was to say, the Paraclete promised by the Gospel of John). This Twin told him to "leave this cult" and prepare for a mission of teaching. Then at the age of 24 years, he was given his second call, this time to begin his mission. Mani travelled around, visiting the land of the Indians, the land of the Persians, and southern Mesopotamia. Most of Mani's known writings were in his native Syriac. At the end of his life, a Zoroastrian magi had Mani put in chains, charged with teaching "against our law", and after 26 days he was put to death. His corpse was cut up and the severed head was stuck on a gate-post.
Mani claimed that his teachings were given to him directly by his Twin Jesus of Light. To Christians, Mani proclaimed himself the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit in the form of the Helper, whose coming had been predicted by Jesus in the Gospel of John. The teachings of Mani spread into central Asia and then into China, and there they had ties to Buddhism. The Manichaeans of the East began to differ significantly from the Manichaeans of the West. In the East, Mani became identified with Maitreya, the Buddha-to-come, who will one day take earthly form as the historical Buddha. In the West, Manichaeans show up in Rome and Dalmatia at the beginning of the fourth century, and in France and Spain shortly after. In later centuries they are found in the Balkans, southern France, northern Italy, etc. Nowadays Manichaeism and Mandaeans are lumped together as "Mandaean History" and "Mandean Religion" etc.
The Mandaeans/Manichaeans have been living along the Lower Euphrates and Tigris rivers in Southern Iraq and in Khuzestan (Iran) along the Karun River for the past 2000 years. They are also found today in Bagdad and Ahwaz. When the area was divided up into Iraq and Iran, the Mandaeans were living in the middle, and so they ended up being split, just like East and West Germany was.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Now, what is the point of all this? It is that there is some rather lengthy and detailed external historical and current evidence about the existence of the Mandeans, and that they were followers of John the Baptist, and who did not believe in Jesus Christ. Obviously, they, as John's disciples, did not merge with the disciples of Jesus. Score One for Narkissos.
What are the implications for this? I'm not sure. Are these the same people that went around the territory with John the Baptist and baptized others as spoken of in the Gospel accounts? They seem to be practicing baptism as a kind of washing ritual or sacrament (as in weekly), and doing it to themselves only(i.e. current practices); but are they actively pursuing converts as an integral part of the preaching and baptizing that John the Baptist was doing? Did they practice the baptism of John (i.e. for the forgiveness of sins)? In other words, I want to be sure we are comparing "apples with apples" here. I guess more homework still needs to be done here.
I have not lost sight of the fact that you are using this "not merging" claim as evidence to support your argument that the account of John baptizing Jesus as stated in the Gospels may be bogus.
You are also suggesting that Jesus and John may never have met. Well the Mandaean account sure doesn't see it that way: "Jesus Christ shall come to him, shall humble himself, shall receive John's baptism and shall become wise with John's wisdom. But then shall he corrupt John's sayings, pervert the Baptism of Jordan, distort the words of truth and preach fraud and malice throughout the world."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I have a whole bunch of info on Gnosticism respecting the question of whether or not the New Testament is all a big forgery. Except right now it is 2:30 in the morning, and I'm going to continue this tomorrow.
Regards!
Rod P.
-
Narkissos
Hello Rod P,
Congrats for the research!
Just a few remarks:
(1) the reiteration of baptism (= sacred purification bath) was also the apparent practice of the Qumran Essene community, and it seems to have a long history too (see for instance "hemerobaptism" or "daily baptism"); while Christianity made baptism the unique sacrament of initiation, it is quite uncertain what John's baptism actually was; we only think of it as unique because we retroject the mainstream Christian practice on it.
(2) I didn't mean to be positive in suggesting that John and Jesus might not have been contemporary historical figures; I think it is a distinct possibility, albeit difficult or impossible to prove. If we accept it as a mere assumption, I think a possible explanation of NT and Mandean evidence could run along the following line: (a) GMark builds the story of Jesus' baptism by John in order to relate the character of John, which was popular among Jews and Judeo-Christians, to Christianity (similar attempts could have been made about James the Just, as Eisenman suggests); then the story becomes problematic in view of the emerging Christology, in which Jesus cannot appear as a repentant sinner; whence the different strategies of GMatthew (Jesus doesn't need to be baptised), GLuke (Jesus' baptism is separated from John, by being mentioned only after John's emprisonment) or GJohn (there is no mention of Jesus' baptism); (b) when Christianity spreads, the non-Christian disciples of John have to respond to the Christian stories involving their own founder (whence the Mandean story about Jesus betraying John).
Read you soon.
-
Rod P
Gumby & Narkissos:
I want to talk about the Gnostics who have taken the position that the New Testament is largely a forgery.
To begin, I am going to quote and paraphrase at length from the following internet source:
http://firstnewtestament.netfirms.com/various_schools_christian_gnosticism.htm
The historical record teaches us that by the first half of the first century ther were already 3 distinct schools of Christian Gnosticism, which suggests, once again, that in one form or another, Christianity had been in existence for some time. These schools are:
1) SIMONEANS - who were radical internationalists who rejected Judaism and its tribal deity Jehovah as redundant Literalist nonsense. They were left-wing revolutionaries who wanted to overthrow Jewish Literalism.
2) PAULINES - who were also internationalists who wanted to free Christianity from close ties with Judaism, but took a more moderate view, seeing Christianity as fulfilling and therefore surpassing Judaism. Being in the centre, they considered Judaism to be superseded by Christianity and therefore obsolete.
3) - EBIONITES - who were nationalists who saw Christianity as a specifically Jewish cult and wanted Christians to conform to traditional Jewish religous customs. The conservative Ebionites saw Christianity as a movement of reform within Judaism.
THE SIMONIANS:
The man defamed by later Christian Literalists as the "father" of Christian Gnosticism was an early first-century Samaritan known as Simon the Magus. The Church Father Irenaeus called Simon "the father of all heretics" (AH, 3.1). Justin Martyr wrote his Second Apology solely for the purpose of repudiating his fellow countryman: "And I despised the wicked and deceitful doctrine of Simon of my own nation. And if you give this book your authority, we will expose him before all, that, if possible, they be converted. For this end alone did we compose this treatise." (Second Apology, 15). Shortly after Justin wrote this, the Book of Acts was forged, in part to attack Simon; see Acts 8:9.
Acts 8:9 But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used Sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: (KJV)
Justin Marty, in 150 c.e., clearly did not know this work or he would have quoted it. Its appearance a generation later in the hands of Iraneous is profoundly suspicious. Because we have inherited a Roman version of the Jesus story and the Jesus myth in which the chief character dies in Jerusalem, we assume that Christianity was originally an exclusively Jewish cult. Actually, many early Christians, such as Simon, were Samaritans and there is no evidence to suggest that they set their Christ myth in a Jewish setting....
Simon is said to have been the most outstanding disciple of John the Baptist. The story goes that when John died Simon was in Alexandria, where he had received a Greek education, so another Smaritan Gnostic, Dositheus, became John's successor When Simon returned home, however, he became the acknowledged master. John the Baptist, Simon and Dositheus were linked to the ESSENES, either as envoys or founders of a breakaway school. John teaches in the wilderness, close to where the Essenes were based. Dositheus is said to have come from the same area. Essene teachings show the influence of Persian Zoroastrianism, which would explain why Simon was called "Magus", a Zoroastrian term for a sage.
Then the history account goes on showing Simon's successors.........
By the time of Marcion and his First New Testament it was too late since Marcion presented to the world upon a large scale the existing Pauline Corpus of writings which taught an allegorical Gnostic Christ. The emerging Catholic Church at Rome had now only one choice, which was to rewrite the New Testament and include within it forged epistles and Gospels under Apostles' names which refuted the "allegorical" understanding of "the Christ" and "Joshua-Jesus". Towards the end of the second century the Literalists therefore took this "forgery" approach. The Acts of the Apostles, the Pastoral Letters, 2nd Thessalonians, 3rd Corinthians and other documents were forged to refute specific Gnostic Pauline doctrines in the apostle's own name. They forged in his name the now thoroughly discredited "Pastoral Letters", in which Paul is made to spout anti-Gnostic propaganda. Throughout his Genuine Letters, however, Paul uses characteristically Gnostic language and gives Gnostic teachings, a fact that is deliberately obscured by Literalist translators. It is only in the later forged New Testament propaganda in Paul's name from the likes of Iranaeus and others do we find anti-Gnostic doctrines put into the mouth of Paul and the apostles in the later Gospels.
The rest of this whole article goes on to show more examples and evidences of the forgeries that took place.
Now first of all, I want to say that I find the above rather shocking! If this is all true as the Gnostics claim, then this means the New Testament is a total sham that has been foisted on an unsuspecting world with lies and deceit and cover-ups. I find this stretches ones credulity to the absolute limit. They are asking us to believe that for nearly two-thousand years all believers in Christianity have been duped by every Church leader, researcher and scholar of every religion professing Biblical Christianity, of all stripes and persuasion, and in every age since the time of Christ. That's got to be the world's biggest conspiracy of silence in the history of man! I could understand where a few leaders with ulterior motives might try to rewrite history. But are you going to tell me that there would not be a few honest souls along the way that would not hesitate to expose this scam for what it is. Give me a break!
Anyway, this is but my first attempt to find out what it is the Gnostics are trying to tell us, and to better understand where they are coming from when they discuss Biblical matters. I'm not saying they don't have anything worthwhile to consider, but "something smells rotten in the state of Denmark" here. I plan on pursuing this whole matter further in the days ahead, and I don't care where it leads me to next! No, I am not bitter, but I certainly am not convinced.
Regards!
Rod P.
-
Narkissos
Hi Rod P,
While your article offers a lot of interesting information, imo it suffers from a terribly loose definition of Gnosticism. For instance, I would certainly not consider the Ebionites as Gnostics. On the other hand, the "Simonian school" might be little more than a strawman set up by the orthodox, perhaps originally by judeo-Christians against Paul himself.
While I believe there is a lot of proto-Gnostic material in the NT (in Paul, Mark and especially the Johannine Gospel -- and perhaps letters), and also later anti-Gnostic material (Luke-Acts, the Pastorals, Jude / 2 Peter), I think any approach of Gnosticism should start with Gnostic literature itself (especially the Nag Hammadi texts, cf. http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Christianity/Other_Books/Nag_Hammadi/nag_hammadi_library.htm) and, with due critical caution, to the orthodox "refutation" of full-fledged Gnosticism in the Church Fathers (e.g. Irenaeus). In earlier literature we can only discern "trends" to this (or an opposite) kind of "spirituality" and "belief".
-
Rod P
Hi Narkissos'
I take your point about starting with the Nag-Hammadi texts and other related Gnostic documents that are credible. I have been aware of the Nag-Hammadi collection for quite some time now, but it has been on my list of "things to do". Congratulations, you have bcome the catalyst that has sparked my "curiosity engine" to really get into it, and for that I thank you. You realize, of course, this is a massive undertaking. It feels reminiscent of my full-course load back in University days, and that ain't easy!
You needn't worry about my being critically cautious when it comes to reading the orthodox "refutation" of full-fledged Gnosticism by early Church Fathers. I have, in fact, read a number of them and have noted their rancorous tenor and their proclivity towards judgment of the Gnostics on the side of heresy. Name-calling doesn't cut it in my books.
What puzzles me a bit is why you say that the information in my last post "suffers from a loose definition of Gnosticism". You do not consider the Ebionites as Gnostics. As regards the "Simonian school" you say it "might be little more than a strawman set up by the orthodox....."
Actually, I was quite tempted to include in my last post some rather interesting commentary of Gnostic wisdom and ideas from the same articles I was quoting from, as it would have provided some excellent juxtapositions with Jewish Literalism, and would have brought out some of the Gnostic spiritual concepts, allegory and smbolism embodied in the N.T. No doubt that would have been a more balanced presentation. Be that as it may, what I want you to realize is that the article I was using was written by a pro-Gnostic, and absolutely NOT someone from Orthodoxy. That is why I am surprised.
In the meantime, I notice you did not exactly venture an opinion about the "silent conspiracy".
TTYL
Rod P.
-
Narkissos
Hi again Rod P,
I read the article on the original page and understand where it comes from. However, I feel "Gnostic zeal" leads the author to enroll any kind of early Christianity which might (retrospectively) look "unorthodox" under the Gnostic banner. Characterising the Ebionites as Gnostics seems to rely only on Irenaeus' name-calling. I tend to think that "Gnostic trends" should at the very least imply some kind of distinction between the "god" of the material world, creation, or the Law on the one hand and the "God" of the elect, redemption, revelation on the other hand. Which I can discern in Paul or John but certainly not in James or the Ebionites.
As to the "conspiracy of silence", it is certainly a big word, but I think no one can deny that the emergence of the "Great Church orthodoxy" led to the construction of an "official history" or the origins of Christianity (starting with Luke-Acts and going on down to Eusebius) which has considerably obscured the early Jewish/Christian movements, beliefs and struggles. Of course many old works (and some likely "proto-Gnostic" ones, such as the early versions of Mark, John or Paul) were snatched away from the "heretics", but they went through an important process of "orthodox edition" (or "censure by addition", according to the ancient scribal manner) and were made somewhat harmless by their inclusion in the canon. As Robert M. Price once put it, there are always "orthodox guardians" standing around the potentially dangerous books (John between Luke and Acts, Paul between Acts and the Pastorals). And that works.
-
Rod P
Hey Guys!
Can somebody please help me here!
I have been trying to paste some of your comments onto my posts and then highlight them in a box with a yellow background like I see all of you do, but nothing seems to work. When I am in a post, it won't let me go into one of your posts and then use my "paste" icon to capture your "image".
Thanks!
Rod P.
-
Narkissos
Click on the "quotes" symbol which appears above the frame of your reply (just right of the smiley). A yellow box will pop up in your text, then you can paste whatever you want into it.