Sure, there are parallels between eastern religious ideas and Gnostics, but I was wondering whether there is anything concrete connecting them? Any record of association or exchanges of note?
@martynblackburn1977..so what you are telling me is that RA, the sun god, is a misinformation?so that would mean that many gods they worshipped;Horus,isis to name a few,were all misinformations,also the many symbols eg,sun discs,etc are all made up?Then that would mean that the egyptians were not polytheistic in their beliefs.I don't have to study Egyptology to recognize similarities in the religions that worship the Sun.Its in their symbols and their main objective.
@jazzman8844 Actually it was more like Amun, who manifested himself in the world as various gods, or neters, and particularly the sun -- which, to the Egyptian mind, wasn't the "sun," but the representation of the Primordial mound of creation. (the hierogyph for sun is even mound shaped). So to lable Egyptians as polytheists and sun worshippers is to misunderstand their entire culture.
@martynblackburn1..so what you are telling me is that RA, the sun god, is a misinformation?so that would mean that many gods they worshipped;Horus,isis to name a few,were all misinformations,also the many symbols eg,sun discs,etc are all made up?Then that would mean that the egyptians were not polytheistic in their beliefs.I don't have to study Egyptology to recognize similarities in the religions that worship the Sun.Its in their symbols and their main objective.
Hi, your video was interesting to watch. You certainly did seem to put a lot of research into it. If anyone would like to find out more about modern gnosticism, there's a modern day gnostic teacher who has articles, audio talks and videos available for free on his website about different aspects of gnosticism as well as discussions on ancient gnostic texts. If you'd like to check it out, the site is belzebuub*com.
all this philosophying is getting no where.First,I do agree that many religions have some what been influenced by the babylonians or eastern and ancient mythology.but christians were not called christians until the roman empire,,not before.not because i say that am a christian means that i believe what the bible says,hence them being called Gnostics.secondly,the babylonians worshipped the sun,so did the eygptians,so do eastern religions.bible believers only worship the most high God.
@jazzman8844 The Egyptians never worshipped the sun; that was a misinterpretation on the part of Egyptologists in the 1800-1900s. The Egytpians worshipped one god: Osiris under various aliases. This was in accordance with the abundance of life since the one true god was the first cause and the divine spark in both death and life, in things dead and living. The most high God was one god in Egypt, all other gods were just manifestations.
Ancient gnostics had no churches in ancient times. Gnostics believed that purifying the body is the only way to salvation, just like every other group of people on this earth before religions were created. Every culture has the holy spirit, but they have a different word .
Thank-you for validating what seemed to be obvious to me. The fact that the Gnostics were influenced by eastern ideas. Those I've brought this up to either seemed confused, or they denied any possibility that Christianity, in any form, could have been influenced by these philosophies.
The Bythos is the one true God. The Demiurge (the chief of all the archons) is the creator of physical reality and is ultimately a side effect of the "lowest" emanation of the Bythos - Sophia. All of this is essentially thousands of years of Middle Eastern thinking filtered through the prism of Platonic philosophy. Great stuff all around. Completely expanded my whole world view when I first started studying it.
Very true. The mythology/cosmology of gnosticism has roots that go all the way back to Sumer, humanity's first civilization. The idea of knowing (gnosis) God by knowing one's self is also far older than Christ. The idea of physical reality as a prison or distraction intended to keep us from our true potential can be traced back at least to Ancient Egypt, tentatively to Sumer, as well. In many ways, gnosticism is man's oldest monotheistic belief system.
@PortaCustodis We don't get 2 know God because we know ourselves. It's the other way round. How can finite, carnal man know himself unless God has revealed it? In what way do u know yourself that gives u understanding of God?
excuse me for interrupting, but what was really said at 11:08 into this video where the audio drops a full octave temporarily while due to an obvious splicing and overdub of the audio stream? definitely not a "slow computer" issue...
Your excused for interrupting. There was not a overdub nor splicing but I was on a slow computer. Or it's another huge conspiracy that you may need to look into...
I am also acutely aware that there are people in the world today that manipulate access to information in order to subvert challenges to the integrity of the existing body of knowledge approved by the beneficiaries of the status quo...
...and I've witnessed this exploitation of the public's lack of understanding of the mechanics of technology taking place on much smaller scale with less "controversial" material as opposed to gnosticism, so naturally I feel compelled to express my concern.
I mean to show you no disrespect - in fact, I only point this out to protect the pristine nature of the information you are freeing up for the rest of the world by making sure your most important points have not been subtly manipulated in a way that completely undermines your purpose, thus undermining your overall credibility as an expert and the credibility of the people that might potentially apply this new knowledge in a way that leads to an idea worthy of being evaluated as true "gnosis"
LOL no need to explain...Out of the hundreds of viewers I have seen all kinds of comments from people so I have to respond at times with preconceived notions about where the commenter is going with the topic and their world view. thanks for views and commenting. I believe I have enough references in the details section for viewers to check out themselves. I make no claims to being right. At time I don't even trust myself. LOL
if gnostics had any overlapping similarity it would be the rejection of much of what we would consider NT except for SOME paul and misinterpreting him.
So the argument about the canon being approved by the "ruling" Church is really a red herring, since once again, these are first century writings, and of the Christian documents that existed in that time, the NT includes the earliest and most reliable. Let's please PLEASE take this debate to private message now, can we? We're spamming up this video channel and that's not cool
lol..i kinda like a public 'debate'..i have nothing to hid & later maybe interested parties reading this may be stimulated to dig a little deeper..and question a little more.That to me is a good thing.
'most reliable'? For whom..and for what..to establish YOUR bases for a 'proper' christion faith' as opposed to a 'false/incorrect' one?Please.Thats hardly an objective definition or use of 'reliable' !lol
If in saying "the State/church of the fourth century sealed its selection" you mean nobody ever challenged the local councils that selected the 27 books of today's NT, then you'd be right. but no Ecumenical council declared that canon fixed until the Council of Trent (and the Protestants felt quite free to revised the OT canon at their whim, while the Eastern Orthodox had had their own OT canon centuries prior, and so forth).
Actually, your dating is off. The earliest NT documents were written in the late 40's (or early 50's) CE. The last of the documents were completed between 95 and 120 (at the very latest). That's 80 years (at the MOST, it's probably less), not "200 years plus." And what makes you think they were written by "one group" much less one lacking "objectivity"? This was three centuries before there was a state church (even before there was a legal religion!).
You're missing the point.There were many 'writings' from 40 ce-120ce..the movement to collect them into some sort of Cannon was a reactionary one by interested parties in one of the 2nd & 3rd century christion communities.Other communities developed other collections that they deemed 'authoritative'.And the State /church of the 4th century sealed it's selection.
your point is irrelevant... the earliest Christian writings ARE the NT writings. the so-called "Christian apocrypha" begins in the mid to late 2nd century and continues into the 4th (and even beyond with many forgeries attributed to an earlier period). "reactionary" according to whom? Marcion's choices were all included in the "orthodox" canons, they just didn't reject as many books as he did.
Not so...the earliest are lost..Q..source ,or sayings doc),for example & many of the 'Pauline' letters are 2nd century forgeries.All of which are not miraculously pristinely preserved documents,but come to the modern public through the interested & biased redaction's of the 2,3 & 4th century proto orthodox & orthodox scribes and the institutions they were building and trying to sustain.
Who knows why Hypatia and not some other friend. But who cares, honestly? We have no reliable, contemporary evidence that it was due to religion. The point is that since both Orestes AND Cyril were Christians, it's pretty silly to assert Hypatia was killed because she was pagan. A "Contrarian"? She wasn't Christian, so she couldn't have been a "heretic." By your logic, Orestes or his supporters should have killed Hypatia. He had equal reason, from the religious angle, after all.
By 'contrarian' i mean she was 'contrary',as Pagan,as a female mathematician, to the raising tide of the Christian conformities that was becoming public life in Alexandria.
My point earlier was, there doesn't seem to be any time for Jesus to join John's movement, become indoctrinated with John's worldview and theology and then LEAVE the movement and start his own rival group that became more popular. So he was a member for what, a few months? A year or two? It happened so quickly, that it seems to have left no evidence behind of it happening... just people claiming it did, many centuries after the fact. That is why I'm saying it's a bit of a stretch.
Greetings. I would have to agree with you here. I think that those with theological ambitions are pushing the envelope here. every group would like to think Christ was connected to their beginnings at some point. In reality Jesus was Jewish, with Qumran influences. Esseans possibly but maybe not. Or he was just part of the Charismatic movement like Honi the circle drawer. Thanks for chiming in on this.
Exactly my point yoruabablk3. Judaism in the 1st century was not "monolithic" in that time, so it would be foolish to use terms like "orthodox" or "heterodox" to refer to Jesus, his movement, or its rivals in that time. At best you can say Christianity was regarded as a "superstition" by the Romans, because it was a new religion, teaching a "new doctrine," at least that's how it was classed once it garnered their attention as being distinct from "Judaism" (as diverse as that was).
Of course, we have less reliable historical evidence of Honi than for Jesus, so people who insist that the former is historical but the latter not, are using special pleading (but you knew that).
@wayman29 The Orphics and Pythagoreans also held that 'knowledge" of self - along with asceticism and purification were key to free the divine soul from the prison of evil matter. The germs of Gnosticism could very well been planted in Greece.
..funny..The entire slant of the biblical Jesus biographies,trying to establish his 'messianic' bona fides, was a response by his advocates againts other claimants & their advocates.Not an objective disinterested recounting of chronological events.
funny, yorubablk3, I'm not denying that ALL histories are biased. However, if we were to throw out this evidence because the writers believed Jesus to truly be their Messiah, then we'd have to throw out most of history, because it is either written by pro-sources (and thus biased in favor) or hostile sources (biased against). even modern history is not unaffected. You're acting as if historians must either take it at face value as 100% fact, or throw it out.
Jesus was from Nazareth, not a vowed Nazorite, nor was he a member of a sect called "The Nazoreans" (though various sects did arise using that name, some apparently Jewish others apparently Christian, the modern group having no real connection to those first century groups, it's just a form of Protestantism). The confusion comes in similar words. It's like saying John the Baptist was a modern "Baptist." heh
The notion that Jesus was an essene of course isn't a popular view amongst scholars, and there's scant evidence for it. Other than sharing a few similarities in doctrine or practice, I can't see that there's really a connection. There were plenty of apocalyptic/messianic Jews in the first century, and plenty who advocated celibacy or were critical of the temple priesthood.
People, including some 'scholars', have their own 'Jesus' or are tied to institutions or communities based in accepting or denying his 'Divinity.Thats not how i approach or speak on this subject.
..actually there was no such documented town in Palestine/Galilee called "Nazareth",before the 3rd century. U can google that as well..it's general knowledge.
Actually, the guy who asserted that has been discredited (saying that "nazareth" was uninhabited or didn't exist at the time of Jesus), try modern scholarly sources, not cranks.
Since the New Testament was written in the first century, you're telling me everyone saw that it was speaking of a fictional or abandoned city and never tried to contradict it? that would have been a very easy way to discredit the NT back in the day.
The 'source' on Nazareth isn't some 'guy'... it is preserved Roman census records.btw,there was no "NT" in the 1st century.And works collected from that time that were included in the NT hundreds of years later were subject to later ideological redaction by biased copyist.
And works collected from that time that were included in the NT hundreds of years later were subject to later ideological redaction by biased copyist.
>>>>
Have you studied textual criticism? We can reconstruct the text to a high degree of accuracy, and there's simply nothing in there you can use to attack traditional Christianity or favor some "heresy" movement as the real deal instead, I'm afraid.
Yes, i've studied 'textual criticism' and i find it's much akin to studying ones navel,with similar results.And once again,u can get off your perpetual 'apologia' mood with me ..i'm not trying to 'attack' anything in favor of 'something'.I'm simply recounting here the findings of my research in regards to what you've posted here..
How long are you saying Jesus was a "follower of John the Baptist" before he started off on his own? Saying the Mandeans have a 2,000 year history really doesn't advance your theory that historical Christianity was a heresy derived from them.
It'speculative...but as Jesus was known as a Nasorei(Nazarene)..which are the collective leadership grade amongst these baptist types..and the fact that he obviously dominated the judean branch of the movement & what is known as the NT,redacts & reinterprets John as a precursor,not leader of Jesus,i would surmise he was one for a substantive period of time.
But thats my guess..more recently amongst marginal emerging religious movements with a high commitment index..leadership claimants have moved quite fast at the death of a charismatic sectarian leader,though.
Off the top of my head,the cases of J.Strang,as claimant of the seat of Joseph Smith as Latter Day Saint leader(a 3 month convert claiming the top position of a 14 year old movement) & the 27 year old Jim Jones,who made it plain he planned to succeed the 78 year old Father Divine,the leader of a 40 year old sect,after only 3 years of fellowship seem to show that some claimants can & do happen quite rapidly in some cases.
right, but if such things occur they leave historical traces behind. I find it mind boggling that such a take over could occur and leave NO EVIDENCE of such a thing happening. conspiracy theorists wish to torture the existing data and have us deny other data, and then fill in the blanks with speculation. predictably, then you can come up with whatever you want. I wish to avoid that trap
Once again, if the Christianity that sprang from the teachings of Jesus was derived from the Mandean sect, surely there should be some solid historical evidence for this... which is why I ask. If there is not, then we should rightly call it "speculation" rather than a historically well informed opinion, never mind "fact."
There were many versions of the teachings of Jesus of Galilee before the one that formed the nucleus of the Catholic confession was adopted as 'official' in the 4th century.
Yes, but there's no evidence that the "Mandean" heresy was actually the original, predating the New Testament. the NT itself pretty much excludes that version from being true, and the NT were the earliest Christian documents.
The 'NT" is a document culled from sources spanning 200 years plus,produced under the auspices of a grouping in which there was no 'objectivity' and an over abundance of slanted propaganda.Hardly "THE" source(a source,certainly)for a complete/balanced story.
Oh I "googled her." Hypatia was murdered, and her murder had nothing to do with religious belief. I found no evidence she had anything to do with the "mandeans."
So her case is completely irrelevant for what we were discussing. Happy?
On what basis do you deny the across the board scholarly consensus that she was murdered by a christian crowd(led by a Monk named Peter) in a church(after being stripped & dragged there naked) because of her 'Pagan' beliefs?
I have seen no "scholarly consensus" that Hypatia was "murdered BECAUSE OF HER 'pagan beliefs.' " If you can provide evidence of that scholarly consensus of interpretation, yorubablk3, that will help your argument. Essentially this assumption is merely repeated as fact, much as the assumption that Columbus discovered that the earth was round.
Hypatia's death was a political killing, as part of a violent feud between two leaders, both of whom were equally Christian.
no, she was "targetted" because she was a follower of Cyril's rival. Cyril's rival had one of Cyril's friends tortured to death, so the mob took their revenge on one of HIS friends. Had she been Christian, it would have happened the exact same way. It's sad, but it's no evidence for some extermination campaign by arrogant Christians against pagans, women, atheists, or scientists as modern day propagandists wish to paint it.
Cyril had other friends.Her status as an intellectual 'contrarian' was the reason she was targeted.The history of those who are perceived to successfully challenge or contradict christians in their totalitarian phase is well exstablished in historical reality.
There was no "Orthodoxy" in 2nd Temple Judaism, yorubablk3. That's my point. From whose point of view? The Sadducees would have considered the Pharisees "heterodox" (If you want to use the word, though it is anachronistic in this time). And the Pharisees became the Jews of today. So by that logic, there haven't been any real Jews since 70 AD (and only antisemitic nutjobs say that, and in turn contradict their hatred of jews!)
Historical facts don't change. Sure, our understanding of them may change with the discovering of new evidence, but you get what I'm saying.
If you're going to say that the Mandeans and Christians are heterodox NOW based on TODAY's Jewish standards, that's irrelevant. Today's Jewish standards might be heretical by the standards of Jews 2,000 years in the future. I'm saying there was no such thing as orthodoxy in 1st c. Judaism.
From the point of view of the Sadducees (assuming they were still living at the time of the Mandeans who revered John the Baptist and rejected Jesus) these folks would have been heretics as well. So it's incongruous to call Christians "heterodox" and not call Mandeans "heterodox" as well. I don't however buy the idea that there was such a thing as "orthodoxy" in 1st century, 2nd temple Judaism. It's anachronistic.
Of course Mandaeans are heterodox!Excuse me if i lead anyone to think otherwiseAlso,.I agree with you that there was no "Orthodoxy" in 2nd temple Judaism..thats why i use the term 'heterodox'.
If there was no such thing as "orthodoxy" then how can you call anyone "heterodox" in that time? That's what I'm asking you. It sounded as if you were privileging certain groups above others as to the truth. There's no evidence that Jesus was a "Mandean" so it's silly to call him a "apostate Mandean." Just because a group formed and decided that Jesus was a criminal, doesn't mean Jesus was ever a part of that group.
I'm not 'privileging or 'dis privileging' anything...Jesus was a John follower who left the group to start his own group. And John's followers have a 2,000 year history and so do Jesus's.Simple.
I'll send you a PM when I have more time, perhaps next weekend (not this coming one). I can check out the sources you've sent me and feel free to send more. Remember, ancient primary sources and modern scholarly sources. ;)
You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts!
That's not saying much for this supposed "Christian totalitarian state" of your's if it really took them twenty centuries to put "those heretics" to death! Again, show me the evidence that the "Christian state church" exterminated these Gnostics (whom you claim were the true and original Christians) in the 4th century. If you can't do that, then please stop stating this speculation of yours as fact.
The Nazis weren't killing people for being "heretics" but for being members of races they considered inferior (or else people who favored the overthrow of the state). I suppose you could say the Soviet Union went after "thought criminals" if you like, but that's not a religion, but an atheist political ideology. Once more, I'm asking for evidence of your supposed "purges" by the Church against Gnostics in the 4th century.
Modern "gnostics" really have very little to do with the Gnostics of the 2nd century or even the Cathars. They have more in common with 18th/19th century occultists and modern day neo-pagans (thanks to Gerald Gardner in the middle of the 20th century). They pick and choose from a variety of "exotic" sources and create their own religion, compatible with post-modernity.
There was NO SUCH THING as "Jewish orthodoxy" in the time of Jesus.
if you think there was, please show me your evidence. at best you can point to a LEGENDARY council at Jamnia that met for twenty years, at least FORTY YEARS after Jesus died. How could Jesus have adhered to an "orthodoxy" set by a group that wouldn't exist until four decades or more after his lifetime? Judaism was very diverse in the 1st century.
wait, so you're saying Jewish orthodoxy was defined in the 1st century by the Temple priesthood (the Sadducees)?
Also just to keep in mind, the term "heretic" in the 1st century merely meant "sect." It didn't have the negative connotation it had later of a schismatic group or deviant individuals who teach false doctrine corrupted from their parent tradition.
Mandaean leadership were part of a mix of heterodox mix of 'Hebrews" teachers who called themselves "Nasuri" that had developed on the theological outskirts of Samaritanism in the Babylonian exile period.
Temple Jews & Pharisees called such ones,Minim,Notzri & 'Christian' before Jesus of Galilee was even born.Some,not all "minim",& all "Notzri & 'Christians' were 'gnostic' heterodox Jews.John,who was channeling "Enoch"/Christ was baptizing & Jesus, an adept was seeking to join the Nazorean priesthood.
are you a Mandean, yorubablk3? Just because John the Baptist is regarded as a prophet by Mandeans doesn't mean he himself was a Mandean. Muslims regard John as a prophet as well, but John was practitioner of Islam, was he?
Mandeans are Gnostics. There's no evidence that John was a Gnostic. Just because Jesus was baptized by John does not mean John taught him everything he knew. If his teachings were identical, why didn't he stay a "follower" of John and keep all his followers together?
Nope.But i'm not blinded to historical realities as a 'Christian apologist' either.Things are as they are.Jesus was John' follower and for some followers his successor for others a usurper & for others the true 'Christ' of whom John was just a forerunner(the currently established veiw by Christians).
Are you saying I'm "blinded to historical realities as a Christian apologist"? Then prove it, by showing how the evidence favors your side and not mine. Show me the evidence of these vast "programs of extermination" by the "totalitarian state Church" against Gnosticism in the 4th century. Again, if you want to say Jesus was a liar and false prophet, you won't find much support here... from anyone.
Johns true /faithful followers were led by others,Dositheus,Simon of Gitta & such and because they opposed the movement of Jesus of Gallaiee,Johns followers split ,& the two movements have existed seperate/hostile ever since.
If you're going to go on here and say that Jesus was a heretic, apostate and false prophet, you won't get many defenders. Most of the folks on here either think Jesus was a good man, a prophet, or the Son of God. Even if they are Gnostics, they're not on the side of this Mandean group you're defending. Once again, just because a group revered John does not mean they understood him best or that John was a member.
No,i'm not proclaiming "Jesus" as a heretic,apostate or false prophet ,personally.But i am stating that that IS how his detractors viewed him...and he did have those..he was executed,after all, you know.
the "multi dimensional assessment" is that the usual crap you hear from people that Hypatia was a "martyr for science" or "an atheist" or some kind of pagan crusader are nonsense propaganda created hundreds (and then thousands) of years after the event. Her killing had nothing to do with religion. But her death is still being exploited by various people for their own ends. go figure
Well For the remnants in the South the teachers associated with the Sanhedrin & the Temple of Jerusalem & the royal family ,or in the North,those associated with the former ruling families & teachers that supported their world view & the restoration of their political power.
you cannot study gnosis, everyone who want to tell you that is lying ! If u know the bible, and you know theplatonic and corpus hermeticum, and the christian gnostic gospels, you wil do fine, but stoplistening to those morons, who think they live in a Da Vinci Code era, they like to read that sort of books, but never ever existentialy trying themselfes. after a week they are back in their pub/bar, carreer or whatever,the T-shirt of the day for them
There was a breakdown from WITHIN the church as well as from WITHOUT the church. The apostles and priesthood holders of the original church were put to death and by the time John was exiled the Apostacy was already taking shape.
That's what was meant by "wolves entering the flock" men with evil agendas to get personal gain unto themselves. This was prior to 100AD.
Thanks for posting this it's very helpful and some of the comments are strange based on it essentially being a reference of references with a few commonalities pointed out.
"How dare you provide basic elements or provide direction for further study." LOL!
many people study gnosis, but few try to experience it them selves.
This is what gnosis is according to my own practical experience.
The past is the past, it is finished, the aim of the gnostics is to live in the present, there is where the consciousness resides, there you can experience it when your not under influences of egos.
tritnity idea was created at council of nicea..!!! by constantine, before this there were variant of christianism (they never call their self chistian back then) and each of them have their own bible !!! and they didn't called jesus a god !! they just belief that jesus is one of god prophet..so with politic turmoil in roman impire back then constantine needed something to reunite the impire and it's judeo christianism (he infact still a pagan worshipper)
i believe in a lot of what the gnostics believe but i believe that jesus came from the actual god, what would i be?i also believe that the hindu god was the actual god
You have walked half the path, now let go of your commitment of "religion". It can be scary, but self truth tells us all that we are the prophets. peace
Thank you for posting this. Are there any writings that describe the gnostic views of women? I was raised traditional Christian, and I'm tired it only representing one side, the male side of the divine. I'm searching for answers.
The Gnostic Gospel Elaine Pagels. I believe in that book she had something to say about the topic. If this pasted twice sorry about that Youtube comments are messed up again..LOL
"Could you just tell me if you agree or disagree with the Gnostics? Is it valid? Why or why not?" Forcing my modern theology on to texts and literature of the past and judging if they are right or wrong personally, I believe dose a disservice to history and literature. The Gnostics were people who also had ideas about spirituality and who they thought Christ was. It's beautiful literature and should be read,scrutinized, and debated just like another text. Thanks for watching.
Ah, but do you have an opinion on their worldview? I could say something is "beautifully written" and still not agree with it. The Gnostics weren't writing poetry, they were teaching a theology. I don't think matter is evil, that the Jewish God is a pretender or that Jesus was a ghost, so I simply can't agree with it.
Your right it is also hard to pass off ascensions, resurrections, and and virgin birth accounts also. I believe they were struggling to understand the world just like we still are. Their view and theology just happened to loose out in the race to orthodox theology. It dose not mean they were wrong metaphorically.
'lost out'? Thats like saying eastern European Jews 'lost out' to Nazi German armies...No,State Christianity exterminated them through pogroms,executions/mass murder & economic boycotts!They were victims of 'orthodox' christian genocide.
"State Christianity" didn't exist until the 380s. There's simply no evidence that the "Gnostics" were the original Christians, or that they were "exterminated" by State Christianity. Even if you wanted to try to say that the upstart sect known as the "Cathars" (who ripped off much from ancient Gnosticism) were killed by the church (and believe me, the Cathars fought back, they were not pacifists) that still doesn't prove a thing about the "original Christians" or who was right.
that was a lot of wordy information... Could you just tell me if you agree or disagree with the Gnostics? Is it valid? Why or why not? Gracias brother.
Visit my Videos that explain Christianity from the very basic Principles and you do not need to follow others but draw the Gospel Truth through logical reasoning.
Hi wayman, lot's of information here. I'm particularly interested in the aspects of the Trinity being articulated 1,000 years before Nicea. Where can I find the early texts on that.
Also, being a student of the Johnnine texts (very anti-gnostic), I'd be interested to hear you comment on if you consider the modern day church on a "gnostic trajectory" and how you'd compare gnosticism to the Heaven's Gate cult.
The new "Gospel of Judas ms." is also not mentioned here.
Yes the trinity was a Roman Imperial cult idea. That became more popular with Vespasian and Titus. Read Wars of the Jews and compare it with the New Testament. In the text Ceaser's Messiah such parells are drawn and are quite disturbing.
The Trinity, as I understand it from Nickelsburg and Boyarin, emerged out of the Wisdom theology tradition of Judaism which predated the rise of the Roman Empire. It utilized interpretations of the "Old Testament" and (so-called) Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal writings.
pbcinla, George Nickelsburg and Daniel Boyarin are scholars of early Judaism and Christianity. I can give you the bibliography if you like. Is that what you mean by "a little more concrete than according to so and so"? They do use numerous citations from Christian and Jewish texts to back their arguments.
What's the alternative, pbcinla, that Jesus is God #2? The divinity of Christ is presented to us in several writings thought to be earlier than John 1 by scholars (the writings of Paul for instance and the other epistles, more subtle references in the Synoptics, etc).
Josephus doesn't need to give us this belief since he's not a Christian. Sure, the Testimonium Flavium includes "if indeed we should call him a man" but it's doubtful.
Sorry it took me three week to get back to you. Didn't get it from Josephus. Both Roman and Greek Hellenistic ideas possibly led to trinitarian thought in early Christianity. Such texts as Hagigah 5a, 15a,16a Sanhedrin 28b Sanhedrin 94a, Yebamot, 16b are a few examples on how the thought process progressed.
Good. My main concern is getting away from the popular notion that paganism "infiltrated" and "corrupted" Jesus' message after his death, and that's how the Trinity formed (or worse, the misconception that it was invented and imposed on everyone by Constantine in 325).
Hello Wayman, I am a Muslim and I'm interested in learning more about early christianity as well as about the gnostic tradition. There seems to be such a dearth of literature on the topic. What book(s) do you recommend as a good place to start? Thanks in advance.
"However, much of the Gnostic gospels where forgeries..." in the opinion of the orthodox movement. Many time texts were attributed to Apostals but not penned by them, just like those of the New Testment.
The Gnostic Gospels are late texts. The canonicals are much earlier, and not just in the opinion of the Christian church. The canonicals are anonymous, however, extraordinarily strong tradition attributes them to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. For Mark and Luke, there is no reason to ascribe them to them if they did not write them. They were not apostles. Matthew was a tax collector.
Texts were ascribe to aposals and biblical heroes that is reason enough. It was common in Jewish literature. Some examples would be Isaiah,Daniel,Esther. Modern theology at times clouds the reality of the literature. Take of the glasses and read the texts in the framework of Jewish literature as they were meant to be read.
Gnostic texts were written late and popular names of the apostles were attributed to them. Eg. the Gospel of Thomas. However it is important to realize that they had to copy some ideas from some place that may have earlier influence and references, even though it is influence my Jewish mysticism and proto-Gnostic ideas.
Of course many of the Gnostics would say their ideas came from divine gnosis, either they dreamt it (I guess) or "recieved it" mystically from a gnostic teacher. But the similarities in the system makes one think it developed over time from other philosophies.
My point was to go against the suggestion (that some make) that Gnosticism was the "original Christianity" or the (only or primary) inspiration for early Christianity. They certainly existed at a very early time (late 1st or early 2nd century), but as Ehrman would agree, they were one of many groups. We would be mistaken to see it as some kind of linear progression from Gnosticism to "orthodox" (even if we were to assume, without evidence, that Gnosticism was the original Christianity).
Of course Gnosticm wasn't the only group during Christianity. Actually there were several competing religious movements, alot of them having nothing to do with Jesus. Some eventually got asorbed into main Christianity which is where we get the hodgepoge of traditions in modern Christianity. I would never make the there was linear prgression between early gnostic Christainity and Christianity. Actually quite the opposite.
you're wrong yorubablk3. Jesus was not a "Mandean" (Gnostic). there's simply no evidence for this. The notion that "State Christianity" "wiped out" the Original Christians (especially if you think the "original Christians" were the 2nd century Gnostics) is a bunch of hogwash straight from the pagesw of Dan Brown fiction
lol..wow..a 'holocaust' denier.Well over 300 years of Roman & Byzantine law & practice , starting at 380 ad, prove that their was indeed an 'official & orthodox totalitarian Christian Church/state that brutally exterminated 'Gnostics' & those anathanized as heretics-a holocaust!
yorubablk3... a "holocaust denier"? Great, well first you show me the evidence that there was an official mass slaughter of Gnostics by the "State Church" and then we can talk about whether I'm in "denial" about it. Okay? I'll accept historical facts, not conspiracy theories. What "Gnostics" in 380 were you talking about?
"Anathema" is not the same thing as "exterminate," sorry.
Study the heretic purges of the late Roman antiquity Totalitarian Christian state.Those anathenized first were set up to be legally physically exterminated later,as in the 20th century totalitarian countries,targeted ones were defined as internal enemies first,then sent to prisons next ,then concentration camps & extermination centers last.
You're the one claiming these "purges" happened, so show us the evidence they did. Merely asserting they happened won't cut it, yorubablk3. Even so, just because a group suffers persecution doesn't mean its theology is correct. Nor does being the persecutor mean your theology is false. Anyway, we weren't talking about the 20th century, we were talking specifically about early Christianity in the first four centuries.
What was the fate of Hypatia & others?I'll give you three titles( i have plenty of others)..you read em,then get back to me,ok?.Tilley's "The Bible In Christian North America" Ellerb's" The Dark Side Of Christian History" and Freeman's "A.D.381"
Wrong, such language usage, with the likes of word puns, aggada, allegory, story motifs, Hebrew to Greek loan words, prophetic literature, place them in 30-70 a.d. Proof of this would be found in the Greek literature of Josephus which has the same word usage and Jewish writing style of that time period. Only Revalation falls later.
While it's possible that John was an earlier Gospel, most scholars put it around the 90's CE. The main argument (iirc) for saying Revelation was earlier is the possible references to Nero and a speculative belief that some believed he was going to rise from the dead after his suicide.
very nice description... if you are interested you might want to read some books by Gregory J Riley - specifically "One Jesus Many Christs" and "The River of God." Both are wonderful reads that deal splendidly with ancient Christianity.
that was alot of info,,,i heard you say the word jew,,,google benjamin freedman,,jews of today are not the hebrews of yesterday,,they are converts to the talmud of khazar decent,,ie-commies,,,and if they were of the arab bloodline,,they would be of the scribes and pharisis,,, jesus told or warned us about todays jews,,beware of those who say they are of judea,but are not,,for they are the church of satan,,if they were of old,,than they are the money hangers,,point,,dont trust the jews
"don't trust the jews" I suppose one could put any ethnic name in the text and have it read the way we see the world. The text you mention Jesus may be telling us to watch our very selves. Jesus also said Love your enemies and your neighbors. And it seems Brooksgeo, for you, it could be a multitude of people.
jesus said to turn your plows into swords,,,the jews/commie khazars/scribes= traitors,,,so put down your jew bible,dictonary or hatever jew book u read from,,and as i said,,google benjamin freedman,,,you look like some crack head in that viedo,,,
"so put down your jew bible,dictonary or hatever jew book u read from" Firs of all I amd not rad from no dictonary if u ms no. What do wish u me to reed, Mein Kemp...let me guss Holicost nver happen rite?
Sure, there are parallels between eastern religious ideas and Gnostics, but I was wondering whether there is anything concrete connecting them? Any record of association or exchanges of note?
Maarilat 2 months ago
@Maarilat - Scythianus
wayman29 2 months ago
@wayman29 Ah! Good -- thank you.
Maarilat 2 months ago
Simply excellent.
dobrinin 5 months ago
@martynblackburn1977..so what you are telling me is that RA, the sun god, is a misinformation?so that would mean that many gods they worshipped;Horus,isis to name a few,were all misinformations,also the many symbols eg,sun discs,etc are all made up?Then that would mean that the egyptians were not polytheistic in their beliefs.I don't have to study Egyptology to recognize similarities in the religions that worship the Sun.Its in their symbols and their main objective.
jazzman8844 7 months ago
@jazzman8844 Actually it was more like Amun, who manifested himself in the world as various gods, or neters, and particularly the sun -- which, to the Egyptian mind, wasn't the "sun," but the representation of the Primordial mound of creation. (the hierogyph for sun is even mound shaped). So to lable Egyptians as polytheists and sun worshippers is to misunderstand their entire culture.
danieljliversLXXXIX 5 months ago
@martynblackburn1..so what you are telling me is that RA, the sun god, is a misinformation?so that would mean that many gods they worshipped;Horus,isis to name a few,were all misinformations,also the many symbols eg,sun discs,etc are all made up?Then that would mean that the egyptians were not polytheistic in their beliefs.I don't have to study Egyptology to recognize similarities in the religions that worship the Sun.Its in their symbols and their main objective.
jazzman8844 7 months ago
Hi, your video was interesting to watch. You certainly did seem to put a lot of research into it. If anyone would like to find out more about modern gnosticism, there's a modern day gnostic teacher who has articles, audio talks and videos available for free on his website about different aspects of gnosticism as well as discussions on ancient gnostic texts. If you'd like to check it out, the site is belzebuub*com.
naaszan 9 months ago
@naaszan Thanks for the recommendation!
wayman29 9 months ago
all this philosophying is getting no where.First,I do agree that many religions have some what been influenced by the babylonians or eastern and ancient mythology.but christians were not called christians until the roman empire,,not before.not because i say that am a christian means that i believe what the bible says,hence them being called Gnostics.secondly,the babylonians worshipped the sun,so did the eygptians,so do eastern religions.bible believers only worship the most high God.
jazzman8844 11 months ago
@jazzman8844 The Egyptians never worshipped the sun; that was a misinterpretation on the part of Egyptologists in the 1800-1900s. The Egytpians worshipped one god: Osiris under various aliases. This was in accordance with the abundance of life since the one true god was the first cause and the divine spark in both death and life, in things dead and living. The most high God was one god in Egypt, all other gods were just manifestations.
martynblackburn1977 7 months ago
Ancient gnostics had no churches in ancient times. Gnostics believed that purifying the body is the only way to salvation, just like every other group of people on this earth before religions were created. Every culture has the holy spirit, but they have a different word .
kmichael212 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
watch google video:
Thomas McEvilley on 'The Shape of Ancient Thought'
wikipedia
Greco-Buddhism
qaplatlhinganmaH 1 year ago
Thank-you for validating what seemed to be obvious to me. The fact that the Gnostics were influenced by eastern ideas. Those I've brought this up to either seemed confused, or they denied any possibility that Christianity, in any form, could have been influenced by these philosophies.
memadCanuck 1 year ago
The Bythos is the one true God. The Demiurge (the chief of all the archons) is the creator of physical reality and is ultimately a side effect of the "lowest" emanation of the Bythos - Sophia. All of this is essentially thousands of years of Middle Eastern thinking filtered through the prism of Platonic philosophy. Great stuff all around. Completely expanded my whole world view when I first started studying it.
PortaCustodis 1 year ago
Very true. The mythology/cosmology of gnosticism has roots that go all the way back to Sumer, humanity's first civilization. The idea of knowing (gnosis) God by knowing one's self is also far older than Christ. The idea of physical reality as a prison or distraction intended to keep us from our true potential can be traced back at least to Ancient Egypt, tentatively to Sumer, as well. In many ways, gnosticism is man's oldest monotheistic belief system.
PortaCustodis 1 year ago
@PortaCustodis We don't get 2 know God because we know ourselves. It's the other way round. How can finite, carnal man know himself unless God has revealed it? In what way do u know yourself that gives u understanding of God?
The3in1trinity 1 year ago
Excellent video.
dobrinin 1 year ago
excuse me for interrupting, but what was really said at 11:08 into this video where the audio drops a full octave temporarily while due to an obvious splicing and overdub of the audio stream? definitely not a "slow computer" issue...
digitalhair 2 years ago
Your excused for interrupting. There was not a overdub nor splicing but I was on a slow computer. Or it's another huge conspiracy that you may need to look into...
wayman29 2 years ago
I actually really appreciate what you have to say and the academic style with which you deliver it.
digitalhair 2 years ago
I am also acutely aware that there are people in the world today that manipulate access to information in order to subvert challenges to the integrity of the existing body of knowledge approved by the beneficiaries of the status quo...
digitalhair 2 years ago
...and I've witnessed this exploitation of the public's lack of understanding of the mechanics of technology taking place on much smaller scale with less "controversial" material as opposed to gnosticism, so naturally I feel compelled to express my concern.
digitalhair 2 years ago
I mean to show you no disrespect - in fact, I only point this out to protect the pristine nature of the information you are freeing up for the rest of the world by making sure your most important points have not been subtly manipulated in a way that completely undermines your purpose, thus undermining your overall credibility as an expert and the credibility of the people that might potentially apply this new knowledge in a way that leads to an idea worthy of being evaluated as true "gnosis"
digitalhair 2 years ago
LOL no need to explain...Out of the hundreds of viewers I have seen all kinds of comments from people so I have to respond at times with preconceived notions about where the commenter is going with the topic and their world view. thanks for views and commenting. I believe I have enough references in the details section for viewers to check out themselves. I make no claims to being right. At time I don't even trust myself. LOL
wayman29 2 years ago
if gnostics had any overlapping similarity it would be the rejection of much of what we would consider NT except for SOME paul and misinterpreting him.
Can you say luther
ned262626 2 years ago
So the argument about the canon being approved by the "ruling" Church is really a red herring, since once again, these are first century writings, and of the Christian documents that existed in that time, the NT includes the earliest and most reliable. Let's please PLEASE take this debate to private message now, can we? We're spamming up this video channel and that's not cool
XSC3 2 years ago
lol..i kinda like a public 'debate'..i have nothing to hid & later maybe interested parties reading this may be stimulated to dig a little deeper..and question a little more.That to me is a good thing.
yorubablk3 2 years ago
'most reliable'? For whom..and for what..to establish YOUR bases for a 'proper' christion faith' as opposed to a 'false/incorrect' one?Please.Thats hardly an objective definition or use of 'reliable' !lol
yorubablk3 2 years ago
If in saying "the State/church of the fourth century sealed its selection" you mean nobody ever challenged the local councils that selected the 27 books of today's NT, then you'd be right. but no Ecumenical council declared that canon fixed until the Council of Trent (and the Protestants felt quite free to revised the OT canon at their whim, while the Eastern Orthodox had had their own OT canon centuries prior, and so forth).
XSC3 2 years ago
Actually, your dating is off. The earliest NT documents were written in the late 40's (or early 50's) CE. The last of the documents were completed between 95 and 120 (at the very latest). That's 80 years (at the MOST, it's probably less), not "200 years plus." And what makes you think they were written by "one group" much less one lacking "objectivity"? This was three centuries before there was a state church (even before there was a legal religion!).
XSC3 2 years ago
You're missing the point.There were many 'writings' from 40 ce-120ce..the movement to collect them into some sort of Cannon was a reactionary one by interested parties in one of the 2nd & 3rd century christion communities.Other communities developed other collections that they deemed 'authoritative'.And the State /church of the 4th century sealed it's selection.
yorubablk3 2 years ago 2
your point is irrelevant... the earliest Christian writings ARE the NT writings. the so-called "Christian apocrypha" begins in the mid to late 2nd century and continues into the 4th (and even beyond with many forgeries attributed to an earlier period). "reactionary" according to whom? Marcion's choices were all included in the "orthodox" canons, they just didn't reject as many books as he did.
XSC3 2 years ago
Not so...the earliest are lost..Q..source ,or sayings doc),for example & many of the 'Pauline' letters are 2nd century forgeries.All of which are not miraculously pristinely preserved documents,but come to the modern public through the interested & biased redaction's of the 2,3 & 4th century proto orthodox & orthodox scribes and the institutions they were building and trying to sustain.
yorubablk3 2 years ago 3
We can speculate all we want about these things of course... I'm just talking in terms of evidence and where modern scholars fall.
XSC3 2 years ago
XSC3 2 years ago
By 'contrarian' i mean she was 'contrary',as Pagan,as a female mathematician, to the raising tide of the Christian conformities that was becoming public life in Alexandria.
yorubablk3 2 years ago
My point earlier was, there doesn't seem to be any time for Jesus to join John's movement, become indoctrinated with John's worldview and theology and then LEAVE the movement and start his own rival group that became more popular. So he was a member for what, a few months? A year or two? It happened so quickly, that it seems to have left no evidence behind of it happening... just people claiming it did, many centuries after the fact. That is why I'm saying it's a bit of a stretch.
XSC3 2 years ago
Greetings. I would have to agree with you here. I think that those with theological ambitions are pushing the envelope here. every group would like to think Christ was connected to their beginnings at some point. In reality Jesus was Jewish, with Qumran influences. Esseans possibly but maybe not. Or he was just part of the Charismatic movement like Honi the circle drawer. Thanks for chiming in on this.
wayman29 2 years ago
But in the early 1st century, eastern near east & North Africa,just what exactly was 'Jewish'? Certainly not a monolith.
yorubablk3 2 years ago
Exactly my point yoruabablk3. Judaism in the 1st century was not "monolithic" in that time, so it would be foolish to use terms like "orthodox" or "heterodox" to refer to Jesus, his movement, or its rivals in that time. At best you can say Christianity was regarded as a "superstition" by the Romans, because it was a new religion, teaching a "new doctrine," at least that's how it was classed once it garnered their attention as being distinct from "Judaism" (as diverse as that was).
XSC3 2 years ago
Of course, we have less reliable historical evidence of Honi than for Jesus, so people who insist that the former is historical but the latter not, are using special pleading (but you knew that).
XSC3 2 years ago
@wayman29 The Orphics and Pythagoreans also held that 'knowledge" of self - along with asceticism and purification were key to free the divine soul from the prison of evil matter. The germs of Gnosticism could very well been planted in Greece.
DarrylWThomas 1 year ago
..funny..The entire slant of the biblical Jesus biographies,trying to establish his 'messianic' bona fides, was a response by his advocates againts other claimants & their advocates.Not an objective disinterested recounting of chronological events.
yorubablk3 2 years ago 2
funny, yorubablk3, I'm not denying that ALL histories are biased. However, if we were to throw out this evidence because the writers believed Jesus to truly be their Messiah, then we'd have to throw out most of history, because it is either written by pro-sources (and thus biased in favor) or hostile sources (biased against). even modern history is not unaffected. You're acting as if historians must either take it at face value as 100% fact, or throw it out.
XSC3 2 years ago
Jesus was from Nazareth, not a vowed Nazorite, nor was he a member of a sect called "The Nazoreans" (though various sects did arise using that name, some apparently Jewish others apparently Christian, the modern group having no real connection to those first century groups, it's just a form of Protestantism). The confusion comes in similar words. It's like saying John the Baptist was a modern "Baptist." heh
XSC3 2 years ago
Ummm..nooo...
yorubablk3 2 years ago
The notion that Jesus was an essene of course isn't a popular view amongst scholars, and there's scant evidence for it. Other than sharing a few similarities in doctrine or practice, I can't see that there's really a connection. There were plenty of apocalyptic/messianic Jews in the first century, and plenty who advocated celibacy or were critical of the temple priesthood.
XSC3 2 years ago
People, including some 'scholars', have their own 'Jesus' or are tied to institutions or communities based in accepting or denying his 'Divinity.Thats not how i approach or speak on this subject.
yorubablk3 2 years ago
..actually there was no such documented town in Palestine/Galilee called "Nazareth",before the 3rd century. U can google that as well..it's general knowledge.
yorubablk3 2 years ago
Actually, the guy who asserted that has been discredited (saying that "nazareth" was uninhabited or didn't exist at the time of Jesus), try modern scholarly sources, not cranks.
Since the New Testament was written in the first century, you're telling me everyone saw that it was speaking of a fictional or abandoned city and never tried to contradict it? that would have been a very easy way to discredit the NT back in the day.
XSC3 2 years ago
The 'source' on Nazareth isn't some 'guy'... it is preserved Roman census records.btw,there was no "NT" in the 1st century.And works collected from that time that were included in the NT hundreds of years later were subject to later ideological redaction by biased copyist.
yorubablk3 2 years ago
>>>
And works collected from that time that were included in the NT hundreds of years later were subject to later ideological redaction by biased copyist.
>>>>
Have you studied textual criticism? We can reconstruct the text to a high degree of accuracy, and there's simply nothing in there you can use to attack traditional Christianity or favor some "heresy" movement as the real deal instead, I'm afraid.
XSC3 2 years ago
Yes, i've studied 'textual criticism' and i find it's much akin to studying ones navel,with similar results.And once again,u can get off your perpetual 'apologia' mood with me ..i'm not trying to 'attack' anything in favor of 'something'.I'm simply recounting here the findings of my research in regards to what you've posted here..
yorubablk3 2 years ago 3
How long are you saying Jesus was a "follower of John the Baptist" before he started off on his own? Saying the Mandeans have a 2,000 year history really doesn't advance your theory that historical Christianity was a heresy derived from them.
XSC3 2 years ago
It'speculative...but as Jesus was known as a Nasorei(Nazarene)..which are the collective leadership grade amongst these baptist types..and the fact that he obviously dominated the judean branch of the movement & what is known as the NT,redacts & reinterprets John as a precursor,not leader of Jesus,i would surmise he was one for a substantive period of time.
yorubablk3 2 years ago
But thats my guess..more recently amongst marginal emerging religious movements with a high commitment index..leadership claimants have moved quite fast at the death of a charismatic sectarian leader,though.
yorubablk3 2 years ago
Off the top of my head,the cases of J.Strang,as claimant of the seat of Joseph Smith as Latter Day Saint leader(a 3 month convert claiming the top position of a 14 year old movement) & the 27 year old Jim Jones,who made it plain he planned to succeed the 78 year old Father Divine,the leader of a 40 year old sect,after only 3 years of fellowship seem to show that some claimants can & do happen quite rapidly in some cases.
yorubablk3 2 years ago
right, but if such things occur they leave historical traces behind. I find it mind boggling that such a take over could occur and leave NO EVIDENCE of such a thing happening. conspiracy theorists wish to torture the existing data and have us deny other data, and then fill in the blanks with speculation. predictably, then you can come up with whatever you want. I wish to avoid that trap
XSC3 2 years ago
Once again, if the Christianity that sprang from the teachings of Jesus was derived from the Mandean sect, surely there should be some solid historical evidence for this... which is why I ask. If there is not, then we should rightly call it "speculation" rather than a historically well informed opinion, never mind "fact."
XSC3 2 years ago
There were many versions of the teachings of Jesus of Galilee before the one that formed the nucleus of the Catholic confession was adopted as 'official' in the 4th century.
yorubablk3 2 years ago
Yes, but there's no evidence that the "Mandean" heresy was actually the original, predating the New Testament. the NT itself pretty much excludes that version from being true, and the NT were the earliest Christian documents.
XSC3 2 years ago
The 'NT" is a document culled from sources spanning 200 years plus,produced under the auspices of a grouping in which there was no 'objectivity' and an over abundance of slanted propaganda.Hardly "THE" source(a source,certainly)for a complete/balanced story.
yorubablk3 2 years ago
Oh I "googled her." Hypatia was murdered, and her murder had nothing to do with religious belief. I found no evidence she had anything to do with the "mandeans."
So her case is completely irrelevant for what we were discussing. Happy?
XSC3 2 years ago
On what basis do you deny the across the board scholarly consensus that she was murdered by a christian crowd(led by a Monk named Peter) in a church(after being stripped & dragged there naked) because of her 'Pagan' beliefs?
yorubablk3 2 years ago
I have seen no "scholarly consensus" that Hypatia was "murdered BECAUSE OF HER 'pagan beliefs.' " If you can provide evidence of that scholarly consensus of interpretation, yorubablk3, that will help your argument. Essentially this assumption is merely repeated as fact, much as the assumption that Columbus discovered that the earth was round.
Hypatia's death was a political killing, as part of a violent feud between two leaders, both of whom were equally Christian.
XSC3 2 years ago
regardless of 'their' feud,she was targeted because she was a prominent non christion female.
yorubablk3 2 years ago
no, she was "targetted" because she was a follower of Cyril's rival. Cyril's rival had one of Cyril's friends tortured to death, so the mob took their revenge on one of HIS friends. Had she been Christian, it would have happened the exact same way. It's sad, but it's no evidence for some extermination campaign by arrogant Christians against pagans, women, atheists, or scientists as modern day propagandists wish to paint it.
XSC3 2 years ago
Cyril had other friends.Her status as an intellectual 'contrarian' was the reason she was targeted.The history of those who are perceived to successfully challenge or contradict christians in their totalitarian phase is well exstablished in historical reality.
yorubablk3 2 years ago
There was no "Orthodoxy" in 2nd Temple Judaism, yorubablk3. That's my point. From whose point of view? The Sadducees would have considered the Pharisees "heterodox" (If you want to use the word, though it is anachronistic in this time). And the Pharisees became the Jews of today. So by that logic, there haven't been any real Jews since 70 AD (and only antisemitic nutjobs say that, and in turn contradict their hatred of jews!)
XSC3 2 years ago
Jewish reality changes with time...like all else,its not static.
yorubablk3 2 years ago
Historical facts don't change. Sure, our understanding of them may change with the discovering of new evidence, but you get what I'm saying.
If you're going to say that the Mandeans and Christians are heterodox NOW based on TODAY's Jewish standards, that's irrelevant. Today's Jewish standards might be heretical by the standards of Jews 2,000 years in the future. I'm saying there was no such thing as orthodoxy in 1st c. Judaism.
XSC3 2 years ago
The 'Judaisms' of 'today' are quite removed from the Temple centered worship of the 2nd temple era,as are the times.
yorubablk3 2 years ago
Well it's pretty hard to worship in a Temple that is no longer standing, isn't it? Judaism hasn't been about Temple worship for about 2,000 years.
XSC3 2 years ago
agreed
yorubablk3 2 years ago
From the point of view of the Sadducees (assuming they were still living at the time of the Mandeans who revered John the Baptist and rejected Jesus) these folks would have been heretics as well. So it's incongruous to call Christians "heterodox" and not call Mandeans "heterodox" as well. I don't however buy the idea that there was such a thing as "orthodoxy" in 1st century, 2nd temple Judaism. It's anachronistic.
XSC3 2 years ago
Of course Mandaeans are heterodox!Excuse me if i lead anyone to think otherwiseAlso,.I agree with you that there was no "Orthodoxy" in 2nd temple Judaism..thats why i use the term 'heterodox'.
yorubablk3 2 years ago
If there was no such thing as "orthodoxy" then how can you call anyone "heterodox" in that time? That's what I'm asking you. It sounded as if you were privileging certain groups above others as to the truth. There's no evidence that Jesus was a "Mandean" so it's silly to call him a "apostate Mandean." Just because a group formed and decided that Jesus was a criminal, doesn't mean Jesus was ever a part of that group.
XSC3 2 years ago
I'm not 'privileging or 'dis privileging' anything...Jesus was a John follower who left the group to start his own group. And John's followers have a 2,000 year history and so do Jesus's.Simple.
yorubablk3 2 years ago
I'll send you a PM when I have more time, perhaps next weekend (not this coming one). I can check out the sources you've sent me and feel free to send more. Remember, ancient primary sources and modern scholarly sources. ;)
You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts!
XSC3 2 years ago
Yes,and so are you.
yorubablk3 2 years ago
That's not saying much for this supposed "Christian totalitarian state" of your's if it really took them twenty centuries to put "those heretics" to death! Again, show me the evidence that the "Christian state church" exterminated these Gnostics (whom you claim were the true and original Christians) in the 4th century. If you can't do that, then please stop stating this speculation of yours as fact.
XSC3 2 years ago
The Nazis weren't killing people for being "heretics" but for being members of races they considered inferior (or else people who favored the overthrow of the state). I suppose you could say the Soviet Union went after "thought criminals" if you like, but that's not a religion, but an atheist political ideology. Once more, I'm asking for evidence of your supposed "purges" by the Church against Gnostics in the 4th century.
XSC3 2 years ago
Modern "gnostics" really have very little to do with the Gnostics of the 2nd century or even the Cathars. They have more in common with 18th/19th century occultists and modern day neo-pagans (thanks to Gerald Gardner in the middle of the 20th century). They pick and choose from a variety of "exotic" sources and create their own religion, compatible with post-modernity.
XSC3 2 years ago
There was NO SUCH THING as "Jewish orthodoxy" in the time of Jesus.
if you think there was, please show me your evidence. at best you can point to a LEGENDARY council at Jamnia that met for twenty years, at least FORTY YEARS after Jesus died. How could Jesus have adhered to an "orthodoxy" set by a group that wouldn't exist until four decades or more after his lifetime? Judaism was very diverse in the 1st century.
XSC3 2 years ago
In Jesus time,"Judaism" was heterodox outside of the ruling/temple class of Jerusalem.
yorubablk3 2 years ago
wait, so you're saying Jewish orthodoxy was defined in the 1st century by the Temple priesthood (the Sadducees)?
Also just to keep in mind, the term "heretic" in the 1st century merely meant "sect." It didn't have the negative connotation it had later of a schismatic group or deviant individuals who teach false doctrine corrupted from their parent tradition.
XSC3 2 years ago
Mandaean leadership were part of a mix of heterodox mix of 'Hebrews" teachers who called themselves "Nasuri" that had developed on the theological outskirts of Samaritanism in the Babylonian exile period.
yorubablk3 2 years ago
Temple Jews & Pharisees called such ones,Minim,Notzri & 'Christian' before Jesus of Galilee was even born.Some,not all "minim",& all "Notzri & 'Christians' were 'gnostic' heterodox Jews.John,who was channeling "Enoch"/Christ was baptizing & Jesus, an adept was seeking to join the Nazorean priesthood.
yorubablk3 2 years ago
Temple Jews,pharisees and teachers aligned with them ridiculed the Nasuri & their 'deluded' followers as "Christians"
yorubablk3 2 years ago
are you a Mandean, yorubablk3? Just because John the Baptist is regarded as a prophet by Mandeans doesn't mean he himself was a Mandean. Muslims regard John as a prophet as well, but John was practitioner of Islam, was he?
Mandeans are Gnostics. There's no evidence that John was a Gnostic. Just because Jesus was baptized by John does not mean John taught him everything he knew. If his teachings were identical, why didn't he stay a "follower" of John and keep all his followers together?
XSC3 2 years ago
Nope.But i'm not blinded to historical realities as a 'Christian apologist' either.Things are as they are.Jesus was John' follower and for some followers his successor for others a usurper & for others the true 'Christ' of whom John was just a forerunner(the currently established veiw by Christians).
yorubablk3 2 years ago
Are you saying I'm "blinded to historical realities as a Christian apologist"? Then prove it, by showing how the evidence favors your side and not mine. Show me the evidence of these vast "programs of extermination" by the "totalitarian state Church" against Gnosticism in the 4th century. Again, if you want to say Jesus was a liar and false prophet, you won't find much support here... from anyone.
XSC3 2 years ago
Johns true /faithful followers were led by others,Dositheus,Simon of Gitta & such and because they opposed the movement of Jesus of Gallaiee,Johns followers split ,& the two movements have existed seperate/hostile ever since.
yorubablk3 2 years ago
If you're going to go on here and say that Jesus was a heretic, apostate and false prophet, you won't get many defenders. Most of the folks on here either think Jesus was a good man, a prophet, or the Son of God. Even if they are Gnostics, they're not on the side of this Mandean group you're defending. Once again, just because a group revered John does not mean they understood him best or that John was a member.
XSC3 2 years ago
No,i'm not proclaiming "Jesus" as a heretic,apostate or false prophet ,personally.But i am stating that that IS how his detractors viewed him...and he did have those..he was executed,after all, you know.
yorubablk3 2 years ago
why do you care what "Jesus' detractors" thought of him? Everyone has detractors.
XSC3 2 years ago
To get a total multi dimensional assessment of an obviously important historical & cultural figure.
yorubablk3 2 years ago
the "multi dimensional assessment" is that the usual crap you hear from people that Hypatia was a "martyr for science" or "an atheist" or some kind of pagan crusader are nonsense propaganda created hundreds (and then thousands) of years after the event. Her killing had nothing to do with religion. But her death is still being exploited by various people for their own ends. go figure
XSC3 2 years ago
to use terms like "heterodox" and "orthodox" for 1st century Jews is anachronistic, yorubablk3. Who defines "orthodoxy" in the 1st century?
XSC3 2 years ago
Well For the remnants in the South the teachers associated with the Sanhedrin & the Temple of Jerusalem & the royal family ,or in the North,those associated with the former ruling families & teachers that supported their world view & the restoration of their political power.
yorubablk3 2 years ago
Interesting video.
yorubablk3 2 years ago
you cannot study gnosis, everyone who want to tell you that is lying ! If u know the bible, and you know theplatonic and corpus hermeticum, and the christian gnostic gospels, you wil do fine, but stoplistening to those morons, who think they live in a Da Vinci Code era, they like to read that sort of books, but never ever existentialy trying themselfes. after a week they are back in their pub/bar, carreer or whatever,the T-shirt of the day for them
Vergilius07 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There was a breakdown from WITHIN the church as well as from WITHOUT the church. The apostles and priesthood holders of the original church were put to death and by the time John was exiled the Apostacy was already taking shape.
That's what was meant by "wolves entering the flock" men with evil agendas to get personal gain unto themselves. This was prior to 100AD.
2 Thessalonians 2:1-3 is clear!
Acts 3:21
Revelations 14:6-7
FAIRLDSdotORG
TrueChurchLDS 2 years ago
Thanks for posting this it's very helpful and some of the comments are strange based on it essentially being a reference of references with a few commonalities pointed out.
"How dare you provide basic elements or provide direction for further study." LOL!
UnoRaza 3 years ago
many people study gnosis, but few try to experience it them selves.
This is what gnosis is according to my own practical experience.
The past is the past, it is finished, the aim of the gnostics is to live in the present, there is where the consciousness resides, there you can experience it when your not under influences of egos.
Have a nice moment:)
ptr1968 3 years ago
It seems many want push button Gnosis; it takes work, heart, endurance and sometimes suffering will provide a vehicle.
UnoRaza 3 years ago
tritnity idea was created at council of nicea..!!! by constantine, before this there were variant of christianism (they never call their self chistian back then) and each of them have their own bible !!! and they didn't called jesus a god !! they just belief that jesus is one of god prophet..so with politic turmoil in roman impire back then constantine needed something to reunite the impire and it's judeo christianism (he infact still a pagan worshipper)
IndoAtheist 3 years ago 2
i believe in a lot of what the gnostics believe but i believe that jesus came from the actual god, what would i be?i also believe that the hindu god was the actual god
rubiksking30 3 years ago
You have walked half the path, now let go of your commitment of "religion". It can be scary, but self truth tells us all that we are the prophets. peace
firstlk420 3 years ago
Which Hindu God? There are thousands.
Hermetiqa 2 years ago
Thank you for posting this. Are there any writings that describe the gnostic views of women? I was raised traditional Christian, and I'm tired it only representing one side, the male side of the divine. I'm searching for answers.
JetSetSinger 3 years ago
The Gnostic Gospel Elaine Pagels. I believe in that book she had something to say about the topic. If this pasted twice sorry about that Youtube comments are messed up again..LOL
wayman29 3 years ago
arnt there gnostic creation stories ?
IRSFRAUDEXPOSED 3 years ago
...this video is rubbish... no truth at all :P
Chris915136 3 years ago
The truth is you watched a video you didn't like. I hope you stopped before 12:34. I would feel horrible! :0P
wayman29 3 years ago
"Could you just tell me if you agree or disagree with the Gnostics? Is it valid? Why or why not?" Forcing my modern theology on to texts and literature of the past and judging if they are right or wrong personally, I believe dose a disservice to history and literature. The Gnostics were people who also had ideas about spirituality and who they thought Christ was. It's beautiful literature and should be read,scrutinized, and debated just like another text. Thanks for watching.
wayman29 4 years ago
Ah, but do you have an opinion on their worldview? I could say something is "beautifully written" and still not agree with it. The Gnostics weren't writing poetry, they were teaching a theology. I don't think matter is evil, that the Jewish God is a pretender or that Jesus was a ghost, so I simply can't agree with it.
XSC3 4 years ago
Your right it is also hard to pass off ascensions, resurrections, and and virgin birth accounts also. I believe they were struggling to understand the world just like we still are. Their view and theology just happened to loose out in the race to orthodox theology. It dose not mean they were wrong metaphorically.
wayman29 4 years ago
Fair enough, wayman.
XSC3 3 years ago
'lost out'? Thats like saying eastern European Jews 'lost out' to Nazi German armies...No,State Christianity exterminated them through pogroms,executions/mass murder & economic boycotts!They were victims of 'orthodox' christian genocide.
yorubablk3 2 years ago
"State Christianity" didn't exist until the 380s. There's simply no evidence that the "Gnostics" were the original Christians, or that they were "exterminated" by State Christianity. Even if you wanted to try to say that the upstart sect known as the "Cathars" (who ripped off much from ancient Gnosticism) were killed by the church (and believe me, the Cathars fought back, they were not pacifists) that still doesn't prove a thing about the "original Christians" or who was right.
XSC3 2 years ago
Denial is more than a river in central east & north Africa!
yorubablk3 2 years ago
that was a lot of wordy information... Could you just tell me if you agree or disagree with the Gnostics? Is it valid? Why or why not? Gracias brother.
enjoistaind 4 years ago
Hi,
Visit my Videos that explain Christianity from the very basic Principles and you do not need to follow others but draw the Gospel Truth through logical reasoning.
nijjhar1 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
OH MY DEAR CHRISTIAN FRIENDS!!
Do NOT blind yourselves from the truth!!
Allah says in the Quran;
"DEAF, DUMB AND BLIND, THEY WILL NOT RETURN (TO THE PATH OF TRUTH)."
(AL-QURAN - SURAH BAQARAH 2:18)
The Holy Bible also says:
"......SEEING THEY SEE NOT: AND HEARING THE HEAR NOT, NEITHER DO THEY UNDERSTAND."
(HOLY BIBLE - MATTHEW 13:13)
Islamonator 4 years ago
Hi wayman, lot's of information here. I'm particularly interested in the aspects of the Trinity being articulated 1,000 years before Nicea. Where can I find the early texts on that.
Also, being a student of the Johnnine texts (very anti-gnostic), I'd be interested to hear you comment on if you consider the modern day church on a "gnostic trajectory" and how you'd compare gnosticism to the Heaven's Gate cult.
The new "Gospel of Judas ms." is also not mentioned here.
pbcinla 4 years ago
Yes the trinity was a Roman Imperial cult idea. That became more popular with Vespasian and Titus. Read Wars of the Jews and compare it with the New Testament. In the text Ceaser's Messiah such parells are drawn and are quite disturbing.
wayman29 4 years ago
After that read Theophilus of Antioch, and Tertullian, who were big promoters.
wayman29 4 years ago
Well, I've already read those, and the concept as such is not there. Perhaps you can give me a quote? Have previously read Tertullian, too.
pbcinla 4 years ago
The Trinity, as I understand it from Nickelsburg and Boyarin, emerged out of the Wisdom theology tradition of Judaism which predated the rise of the Roman Empire. It utilized interpretations of the "Old Testament" and (so-called) Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphal writings.
XSC3 4 years ago
I need something a little more concrete than according to so-and-so.
I really start to think that people aren't engaging these original sources.
pbcinla 4 years ago
pbcinla, George Nickelsburg and Daniel Boyarin are scholars of early Judaism and Christianity. I can give you the bibliography if you like. Is that what you mean by "a little more concrete than according to so and so"? They do use numerous citations from Christian and Jewish texts to back their arguments.
XSC3 4 years ago
From the texts themselves. That is what a scholar must do.
Like this:
John 1:1,2 presents the concept that the "Word" (logos) was both distinct ("with God") and was yet the same ("was God").
Where do they see this in earlier writings?
I know of none so far.
Certainly having trouble getting that out of Josephus.
pbcinla 4 years ago
What's the alternative, pbcinla, that Jesus is God #2? The divinity of Christ is presented to us in several writings thought to be earlier than John 1 by scholars (the writings of Paul for instance and the other epistles, more subtle references in the Synoptics, etc).
Josephus doesn't need to give us this belief since he's not a Christian. Sure, the Testimonium Flavium includes "if indeed we should call him a man" but it's doubtful.
XSC3 4 years ago
The Trinity was an Imperial Roman cult idea?
Which part of Wars of the Jews are you getting this from, wayman?
XSC3 4 years ago
Sorry it took me three week to get back to you. Didn't get it from Josephus. Both Roman and Greek Hellenistic ideas possibly led to trinitarian thought in early Christianity. Such texts as Hagigah 5a, 15a,16a Sanhedrin 28b Sanhedrin 94a, Yebamot, 16b are a few examples on how the thought process progressed.
wayman29 4 years ago
Good. My main concern is getting away from the popular notion that paganism "infiltrated" and "corrupted" Jesus' message after his death, and that's how the Trinity formed (or worse, the misconception that it was invented and imposed on everyone by Constantine in 325).
XSC3 3 years ago
Hello Wayman, I am a Muslim and I'm interested in learning more about early christianity as well as about the gnostic tradition. There seems to be such a dearth of literature on the topic. What book(s) do you recommend as a good place to start? Thanks in advance.
mmfb420 4 years ago
Thanks for sharing what some of Gnostic beliefs are...and in reality Gnosticism is not dead. However, much of the Gnostic gospels where forgeries...
Estaah77 4 years ago
"However, much of the Gnostic gospels where forgeries..." in the opinion of the orthodox movement. Many time texts were attributed to Apostals but not penned by them, just like those of the New Testment.
wayman29 4 years ago
The Gnostic Gospels are late texts. The canonicals are much earlier, and not just in the opinion of the Christian church. The canonicals are anonymous, however, extraordinarily strong tradition attributes them to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. For Mark and Luke, there is no reason to ascribe them to them if they did not write them. They were not apostles. Matthew was a tax collector.
KabaneTheChristian 4 years ago
Texts were ascribe to aposals and biblical heroes that is reason enough. It was common in Jewish literature. Some examples would be Isaiah,Daniel,Esther. Modern theology at times clouds the reality of the literature. Take of the glasses and read the texts in the framework of Jewish literature as they were meant to be read.
wayman29 4 years ago
Gnostic texts were written late and popular names of the apostles were attributed to them. Eg. the Gospel of Thomas. However it is important to realize that they had to copy some ideas from some place that may have earlier influence and references, even though it is influence my Jewish mysticism and proto-Gnostic ideas.
wayman29 4 years ago
Of course many of the Gnostics would say their ideas came from divine gnosis, either they dreamt it (I guess) or "recieved it" mystically from a gnostic teacher. But the similarities in the system makes one think it developed over time from other philosophies.
XSC3 4 years ago
The same could be said of any philosophy. Actually I think that's pretty much true of all philosophies. Nothings original anymore.
soapidelic 3 years ago
My point was to go against the suggestion (that some make) that Gnosticism was the "original Christianity" or the (only or primary) inspiration for early Christianity. They certainly existed at a very early time (late 1st or early 2nd century), but as Ehrman would agree, they were one of many groups. We would be mistaken to see it as some kind of linear progression from Gnosticism to "orthodox" (even if we were to assume, without evidence, that Gnosticism was the original Christianity).
XSC3 3 years ago
Of course Gnosticm wasn't the only group during Christianity. Actually there were several competing religious movements, alot of them having nothing to do with Jesus. Some eventually got asorbed into main Christianity which is where we get the hodgepoge of traditions in modern Christianity. I would never make the there was linear prgression between early gnostic Christainity and Christianity. Actually quite the opposite.
soapidelic 3 years ago
Doesn't make their claims any less valid. A lot of what they say seems crazy but so does a lot of what modern Christianity claims.
soapidelic 3 years ago
ummm..the whole concept of 'Christianity' comes out of a heterodox exile 'Israeli/Jewish matrix'..'Jesus' was a Mandaean apostate.
yorubablk3 2 years ago
you're wrong yorubablk3. Jesus was not a "Mandean" (Gnostic). there's simply no evidence for this. The notion that "State Christianity" "wiped out" the Original Christians (especially if you think the "original Christians" were the 2nd century Gnostics) is a bunch of hogwash straight from the pagesw of Dan Brown fiction
XSC3 2 years ago
John the Baptist was Jesus leader & teacher and he was the last & Greatest prophet of Mandaeanism.Jesus of Galilee was an apostate Mandaean.Period.
yorubablk3 2 years ago
lol..wow..a 'holocaust' denier.Well over 300 years of Roman & Byzantine law & practice , starting at 380 ad, prove that their was indeed an 'official & orthodox totalitarian Christian Church/state that brutally exterminated 'Gnostics' & those anathanized as heretics-a holocaust!
yorubablk3 2 years ago
yorubablk3... a "holocaust denier"? Great, well first you show me the evidence that there was an official mass slaughter of Gnostics by the "State Church" and then we can talk about whether I'm in "denial" about it. Okay? I'll accept historical facts, not conspiracy theories. What "Gnostics" in 380 were you talking about?
"Anathema" is not the same thing as "exterminate," sorry.
XSC3 2 years ago
Study the heretic purges of the late Roman antiquity Totalitarian Christian state.Those anathenized first were set up to be legally physically exterminated later,as in the 20th century totalitarian countries,targeted ones were defined as internal enemies first,then sent to prisons next ,then concentration camps & extermination centers last.
yorubablk3 2 years ago
You're the one claiming these "purges" happened, so show us the evidence they did. Merely asserting they happened won't cut it, yorubablk3. Even so, just because a group suffers persecution doesn't mean its theology is correct. Nor does being the persecutor mean your theology is false. Anyway, we weren't talking about the 20th century, we were talking specifically about early Christianity in the first four centuries.
XSC3 2 years ago
What was the fate of Hypatia & others?I'll give you three titles( i have plenty of others)..you read em,then get back to me,ok?.Tilley's "The Bible In Christian North America" Ellerb's" The Dark Side Of Christian History" and Freeman's "A.D.381"
yorubablk3 2 years ago
Yes, why don't you tell us the "fate of Hypatia and others" (and don't get your info from fictional movies, but from actual history)?
You can give me a reading list if you want, but make sure they are from actual modern credentialed scholars in the relevant fields.
XSC3 2 years ago
Google her.
yorubablk3 2 years ago
sigh...Matthew was not an apostle?
wayman29 4 years ago
There is no scholarship witch gives them such an early date as, say, the Gospel of John which could very well date as early as the mid 1st century.
pbcinla 4 years ago
Wrong, such language usage, with the likes of word puns, aggada, allegory, story motifs, Hebrew to Greek loan words, prophetic literature, place them in 30-70 a.d. Proof of this would be found in the Greek literature of Josephus which has the same word usage and Jewish writing style of that time period. Only Revalation falls later.
wayman29 4 years ago
While it's possible that John was an earlier Gospel, most scholars put it around the 90's CE. The main argument (iirc) for saying Revelation was earlier is the possible references to Nero and a speculative belief that some believed he was going to rise from the dead after his suicide.
XSC3 4 years ago
very nice description... if you are interested you might want to read some books by Gregory J Riley - specifically "One Jesus Many Christs" and "The River of God." Both are wonderful reads that deal splendidly with ancient Christianity.
jflaugher 4 years ago
Gnosticsm seems to me that they were trying to merge the ancient world religions... Which is what should have happened...
godfather89 4 years ago
I am from holland and saturday i will be a member of the rosecrusians,a gnostic based learn of christianitie.
Youre doing a fine job and I hope you reach many people by this.
snuifski 4 years ago
Thanks for watching and glad you enjoyed the study. It's nice to hear from those who are part of that faith.
wayman29 4 years ago
that was alot of info,,,i heard you say the word jew,,,google benjamin freedman,,jews of today are not the hebrews of yesterday,,they are converts to the talmud of khazar decent,,ie-commies,,,and if they were of the arab bloodline,,they would be of the scribes and pharisis,,, jesus told or warned us about todays jews,,beware of those who say they are of judea,but are not,,for they are the church of satan,,if they were of old,,than they are the money hangers,,point,,dont trust the jews
brooksgeo 4 years ago
"don't trust the jews" I suppose one could put any ethnic name in the text and have it read the way we see the world. The text you mention Jesus may be telling us to watch our very selves. Jesus also said Love your enemies and your neighbors. And it seems Brooksgeo, for you, it could be a multitude of people.
wayman29 4 years ago
jesus said to turn your plows into swords,,,the jews/commie khazars/scribes= traitors,,,so put down your jew bible,dictonary or hatever jew book u read from,,and as i said,,google benjamin freedman,,,you look like some crack head in that viedo,,,
brooksgeo 4 years ago
"so put down your jew bible,dictonary or hatever jew book u read from" Firs of all I amd not rad from no dictonary if u ms no. What do wish u me to reed, Mein Kemp...let me guss Holicost nver happen rite?
wayman29 4 years ago
Jesus is a son of a jew
donnomar 4 years ago
Correct..
wayman29 4 years ago