What is "Gnostisism"?

Quahom1 · 03-23-2005, 02:11 AM

I think this deserves a thread all its own. I've heard of it, I've read of it, I've witnessed heated arguements over it. But it is, an original part of early Christian thinking, when Christianity was in an infantile state, and it seems to continue on to this day (albeit on the fringes of Christian thought).

I would like to understand what it is, not what may or may not be wrong with it, which is why I suggested this thread for it.

Your thoughts please...

v/r

Q

SOGFPP · 03-23-2005, 02:50 AM

The doctrine of salvation by knowledge.

Gnostics believed that human knowledge was enough to grant one salvation..... you could educate yourself into heaven... so to speak.

The first challenge against Gnosticism was from the Catholic Church. The last words of the aged St. Paul in his First Epistle to Timothy are usually taken as referring to Gnosticism, which is described as "Profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called [antitheseis tes pseudonomou gnoseos -- the antitheses of so-called Gnosis] which some professing have erred concerning the faith". Most probably St. Paul's use of the terms pleroma, the æon of this world, the archon of the power of the air, in Ephesians and Colossians, was suggested by the abuse of these terms by the Gnostics.

An extensive explaination of Gnostisism: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm

Peace,
Scott

didymus · 03-23-2005, 03:40 AM

Gnosticism is not simply defined. It was around before Christianity started in areas such as Alexandria Egypt. It was a philosophy/theology accepted by Greeks and Jews alike( not all greeks and jews).

Someone stated that Gnostics believe in knowledge to attain salvation, this is not true. The gnosis referred to is not head knowledge. It is an intimate knowlegde of God, or better put personal experience with God. Put in a more christian light it would be very similar to the way some christians say you aren't saved until you speak tongues or get the holy spirit or have some other manifestation of God.

We in English translate gnosis into knowledge because we have only one word to describe it. If anybody is familiar with foreign languages they have seen there are more than one verb form for various things. example; to know- in english we know a fact or we know a person. In Spanish for example there are 2 different forms of to know; there is to know facts or have knowledge, saber. To know a person or intimacy with a person is a different verb; conocer. This is the biggest mistake I have seen with people's definition of gnosticism.

I have read extensively on gnosticism and can say some is very spiritually uplifting and I believe it is just as divine as anything in the bible. There were some gnostic sects that I didn't agree with. On a whole, gnosticism is very reverant to God and Jesus Christ.

Quahom1 · 03-23-2005, 04:20 AM

Two well expounded views and two different views. I must reflect upon this information.

Thank you both.

v/r

Q

truthseeker · 03-23-2005, 06:15 PM

There's a fine line for just about everything, isn't there?

Abogado del Diablo · 04-06-2005, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SOGFPP

The doctrine of salvation by knowledge.

Gnostics believed that human knowledge was enough to grant one salvation..... you could educate yourself into heaven... so to speak.

The first challenge against Gnosticism was from the Catholic Church. The last words of the aged St. Paul in his First Epistle to Timothy are usually taken as referring to Gnosticism, which is described as "Profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called [antitheseis tes pseudonomou gnoseos -- the antitheses of so-called Gnosis] which some professing have erred concerning the faith". Most probably St. Paul's use of the terms pleroma, the æon of this world, the archon of the power of the air, in Ephesians and Colossians, was suggested by the abuse of these terms by the Gnostics.

An extensive explaination of Gnostisism: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm

Peace,
Scott

Timothy, as one of the so-called "pastoral epistles" is not generally accepted as having been authored by Paul and we have no surving mention of them or quotation from them from prior to C.E. 170.

The Gnostics themselves drew considerable meaning from Paul's use of pleroma, the æon of this world, the archon of the power of the air as supportive of their own interpretation of the writings of Paul. I would recommend Elaine Pagel's "Gnostic Paul" for how they viewed Paul's use of these terms as I could never do it reasonable justice on this message board (without violating her copyright).

The first "canon" of christian writings was put together by the Gnostic Marcion around C.E. 140, and consisted of ten of the Epistles (Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians combined, Romans, 1 and 2 Thessalonians combined, Laodiceans (Ephesians), Colossians, Philippians, and Philemon - but not the pastorals) and a different version of Luke.

It was in response to Marcion that early proto-orhtodox leaders like Irenaeus decided to make their own "canon" of approved scriptures near the end of the second century C.E., which, not surprisingly, included what appeared to be never before seen writings of Paul with such statements as the one you mention from Timothy.

Marcion · 04-10-2005, 07:21 PM

Marcion and the early church is a big interest of mine, so automatically I'd have to agree with the last post, that this is true

Before an actual canon of scripture existed in Orthadox churches (as in a closed Book/New Testament canon), the bishop from Asia Minor, Marcion had compiled what was called the original Gospel, it was simply called "Gospel of the Lord." In Greek (Evangelion). And Paul's original, uncorrupted epistles from his various churches, in Greek this was called Apostilikon. Thirdly, we have understood Marcion as compiling as work of his own, named Antithesis. This book was a special work of Theology and Ethic used to contrast the old testament god with that of the Christ of the Gospel. He was a Dualist, believing in a god of ultimate Good, who Christ called Abba (Aramaic for the heavenly Father) and then one who was cruel and arrogant, the Creator of this imperfect world with his strict judgement, who can be called Satan. Marcion was a Pauline Puritan, believing only that Paul understood the message of Christ. He was trying to preserve what he believed to be Pure Christianity, without any foreign interpolation of ideas, whether it be Jewish, Philosophical, or Pagan. He rejected most of the Catholic rites, saying that we are free from rites and the Law, because Christ had set us free from the evil judgement of Satan's Laws.

The Gospel of Marcion closely resembles the Synoptic Gospels: Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Now Church authority traditionally attributes Marcion's Gospel to that of Luke's, but a closer look shows that Marcion's was shorter than Luke's, and more like Mark's Gospel. There was no mention of the Nativity, or Birth story of Christ. (they had a different understanding of how Christ came here). Marcionites traditionally attributed this Gospel to Paul as being the author. This was defended by the fact that in Galations Paul spoke of his Gospel only being the truth, and defended this truth against the other apostles and angelic beings alike. So it would seem that Paul was speaking of a Gospel he himself had taught and perhaps later even wrote.

Now for something even more intrigueing: There is a Catholic document called "Dialogues of Adamantius" that details a conversation between a Marcionite bishop and a Catholic bishop, where they debate over which is the most true doctrine of Christianity. In the debate, the Marcionite quotes verses from Matthew, Luke, and Mark. But lacks verses from John, and even refutes one of John's verses.

I am a practicing Dualist myself and I've come to some interesting conclusions about Marcion's Gospel. For one thing we can't trust Catholic sources completely because it's coming from the enemy. But this is my own theory (and I'm not alone in this one) as to what the original Gospel may have had in it.

I think Marcion's Gospel is the earliest link to the so-called "Gospel Q," where scholars believe writings of the Christ's traditional sayings would have been kept, and used later to write the other 4 or so Gospels where they could be altered, edited and mixed with all kinds of narrated stories. Anyway, from what little information we have, It seems that passages from all 3 Synoptic Gospels were also in Marcion's Gospel. I have not yet found evidence that any of John's writings were included, but the Gospel of John has always struck me as quite Marcionite in character. One last thing I might add, is that the Gospel of John had become very important among the later Dualists in Armenia and Bulgaria, who were interestingly called, "Paulicians," followers of Paul

So could it be? that Marcion's single Gospel already had most of the sayings and stories of Jesus? Did the Catholic church completely obliterate this Gospel to fit their own canon in which they had none until after Marcion's compilation turned up? Did we ever really need a complete higharchy of Church leaders with their splendid palaces and rich estates? With so much Power that lead to so much war and confusion against so called "heretics?" Was not the true body of the Church that which resides in our heart with Christ? Certainly Something to think about

lunamoth · 04-12-2005, 02:00 AM

I know there's a discussion of this kind of started in the acceptance of christianity thread but I thought I'd pose a related question here.

It seems to me that the Gospel of John is the strong link to the letters of Paul. It is so very different in emphasis from the other three synoptic gospels of the cannon. Yet I've read recently 1) the Gnostic cannon had a gospel that was more like Matt-Mark-Luk and that maybe there was a Marcionite gospel that was like those three 2) Gnostics get much inspiration from Paul, 3) at least one person here has said that the Gospel of John is very Gnostic in emphasis, 4) that the gospel of John was not part of the gnostic cannon, 5) that another Gnostic member here has said to get rid of Paul and much else (leaving what???). So just what exactly is it that Gnostics are emphasizing from the Gospel and the rest of the NT? And what is in the gnostic gospels that can't be found in the cannonized gospels?

Besides some kind of emphasis on just "knowing" something, what is it that Gnostics have faith in? I'm not critical, just confused.

lunamoth

edit: I won't cut and paste it here as it might be missed by the original poster, but I'm referring to the last paragraph of post #28 of the Acceptance of Christianity thread .

http://www.comparative-religion.com/...7444#post27444

Marcion · 04-12-2005, 04:11 AM

Have you gotten a copy of the Nag Hammadi library? Its found at most large bookstores now. It's a bunch of Gnostic scripture that was discovered, well not too long ago. It broadens our understanding of Gnostic beliefs big time! Its got the Gospel of Thomas in there, another very early Synoptic text, but not in our modern Bibles today. I'm really interested in that one since Tertullian thought it was from the Dualists!

Gnosticism is very diverse, there were many different beliefs and sects within Gnosticism, so those adhering to a Gnostic system may all say something different. It's a Philosophy, Intellectual like Neoplatonism and Stoicism, rather than a Religion of inspired dogma like what you and I might believe in.

lunamoth · 04-12-2005, 04:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcion

Have you gotten a copy of the Nag Hammadi library? Its found at most large bookstores now. It's a bunch of Gnostic scripture that was discovered, well not too long ago. It broadens our understanding of Gnostic beliefs big time! Its got the Gospel of Thomas in there, another very early Synoptic text, but not in our modern Bibles today. I'm really interested in that one since Tertullian thought it was from the Dualists!

Gnosticism is very diverse, there were many different beliefs and sects within Gnosticism, so those adhering to a Gnostic system may all say something different. It's a Philosophy, Intellectual like Neoplatonism and Stoicism, rather than a Religion of inspired dogma like what you and I might believe in.

Hello Marcion, thank you for the reply.

No, I have not read the Nag Hammadi library. I have read Beyond Belief by Elaine Pagels, and perhaps should again to refresh my memory. I guess it just is confusing since it is so diverse. I thought that it was a religion

. After my post I figured it was probably wrong to ask what Gnostics had faith in since the term Gnostic says that it is knowledge, rather than faith. As usual my ignorance runneth over...

lunamoth

Abogado del Diablo · 04-12-2005, 01:08 PM

I agree with Marcion that Gnosticism is more akin to a philosophy than a religion. Aside from that, there is incredible diversity in the different ways of expressing Gnostic Christianity. There are a couple of things that are generally present though. It does not involve what you probably think of as "faith" or a quest for "salvation" and rarely concerns itself with religious doctrines.

You'll find that Gnostics do sometimes speak in terms of doctrine or myth (like the Valentinian understanding of the "God" of the Old Testament as a delusional "Demiurge" and not the "Father"). These sorts of teachings were meant to be taken figuratively and interpreted once one was initiated into Gnosis. Which is also generally their view of the Canonical Gospel stories - they are teaching myths written to illustrate ideas.

I'd recommend Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy's book "The Jesus Mysteries" for an introduction to some of the diverse ideas of Gnosticism and some of the evidence for its origins and history.

Abogado del Diablo · 04-12-2005, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lunamoth

edit: I won't cut and paste it here as it might be missed by the original poster, but I'm referring to the last paragraph of post #28 of the Acceptance of Christianity thread .

http://www.comparative-religion.com/...7444#post27444

I'm trying to figure that one out, too.

If you come up with anything, feel free to share.

Bandit · 04-12-2005, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lunamoth

I know there's a discussion of this kind of started in the acceptance of christianity thread but I thought I'd pose a related question here.

It seems to me that the Gospel of John is the strong link to the letters of Paul. It is so very different in emphasis from the other three synoptic gospels of the cannon. Yet I've read recently 1) the Gnostic cannon had a gospel that was more like Matt-Mark-Luk and that maybe there was a Marcionite gospel that was like those three 2) Gnostics get much inspiration from Paul, 3) at least one person here has said that the Gospel of John is very Gnostic in emphasis, 4) that the gospel of John was not part of the gnostic cannon, 5) that another Gnostic member here has said to get rid of Paul and much else (leaving what???). So just what exactly is it that Gnostics are emphasizing from the Gospel and the rest of the NT? And what is in the gnostic gospels that can't be found in the cannonized gospels?

Besides some kind of emphasis on just "knowing" something, what is it that Gnostics have faith in? I'm not critical, just confused.

lunamoth

this is what you do Luna, & it works (tease)..after you get rid of the bible faith in God & Jesus..you put your right foot in & shake it all about, then do the hokey pokey & you turn yourself around, that is what it's all about!

put your left foot in...

None of the 66 books are gnostic to me. YeeHaw

Be Good.

Abogado del Diablo · 04-12-2005, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bandit

this is what you do Luna, & it works (tease)..after you get rid of the bible faith in God & Jesus..you put your right foot in & shake it all about, then do the hokey pokey & you turn yourself around, that is what it's all about!

put your left foot in...

None of the 66 books are gnostic to me. YeeHaw

Be Good.

It's not unlike the "Trinitarian Three-Step." First, you take one step to the side . . .

. . . and that's it.

mosherosh · 04-13-2005, 06:45 PM

As a modern Gnostic Christian (Holistic Godhead vs. Dualistic Godhead) I am convinced the Asia Minor Johannine school or class of Christian theology that produced the "John" gospel, letters, and Revelation knew that Yahweh was an imposter god. Not in the usual classical Gnostic way as a secondary god below Sophia, or Wisdom of God, but as a son of EL Elyon, God Most High in the Canaanite pantheon. There are clear indications that these Johns knew what archeologists are now confirming with resurrected cuniform texts from ancient Canaanite sites. Somewhere along the line priests and scribes of Judah pulled a fast one and switched their tribal war god, Yahweh for God Most High and since Canaanites weren't around to call them on the fraud, their version got accepted as Jewish religious history.

03-23-2005, 02:11 AM	#1 (permalink)
Quahom1 What was the question? Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Maryland Posts: 7,856	What is "Gnostisism"? I think this deserves a thread all its own. I've heard of it, I've read of it, I've witnessed heated arguements over it. But it is, an original part of early Christian thinking, when Christianity was in an infantile state, and it seems to continue on to this day (albeit on the fringes of Christian thought). I would like to understand what it is, not what may or may not be wrong with it, which is why I suggested this thread for it. Your thoughts please... v/r Q

03-23-2005, 02:50 AM	#2 (permalink)
SOGFPP New Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: MA Posts: 14	Re: What is "Gnostisism"? The doctrine of salvation by knowledge. Gnostics believed that human knowledge was enough to grant one salvation..... you could educate yourself into heaven... so to speak. The first challenge against Gnosticism was from the Catholic Church. The last words of the aged St. Paul in his First Epistle to Timothy are usually taken as referring to Gnosticism, which is described as "Profane novelties of words and oppositions of knowledge falsely so called [antitheseis tes pseudonomou gnoseos -- the antitheses of so-called Gnosis] which some professing have erred concerning the faith". Most probably St. Paul's use of the terms pleroma, the æon of this world, the archon of the power of the air, in Ephesians and Colossians, was suggested by the abuse of these terms by the Gnostics. An extensive explaination of Gnostisism: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06592a.htm Peace, Scott

03-23-2005, 03:40 AM	#3 (permalink)
didymus Executive Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 506	Re: What is "Gnostisism"? Gnosticism is not simply defined. It was around before Christianity started in areas such as Alexandria Egypt. It was a philosophy/theology accepted by Greeks and Jews alike( not all greeks and jews). Someone stated that Gnostics believe in knowledge to attain salvation, this is not true. The gnosis referred to is not head knowledge. It is an intimate knowlegde of God, or better put personal experience with God. Put in a more christian light it would be very similar to the way some christians say you aren't saved until you speak tongues or get the holy spirit or have some other manifestation of God. We in English translate gnosis into knowledge because we have only one word to describe it. If anybody is familiar with foreign languages they have seen there are more than one verb form for various things. example; to know- in english we know a fact or we know a person. In Spanish for example there are 2 different forms of to know; there is to know facts or have knowledge, saber. To know a person or intimacy with a person is a different verb; conocer. This is the biggest mistake I have seen with people's definition of gnosticism. I have read extensively on gnosticism and can say some is very spiritually uplifting and I believe it is just as divine as anything in the bible. There were some gnostic sects that I didn't agree with. On a whole, gnosticism is very reverant to God and Jesus Christ.

03-23-2005, 04:20 AM	#4 (permalink)
Quahom1 What was the question? Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Maryland Posts: 7,856	Re: What is "Gnostisism"? Two well expounded views and two different views. I must reflect upon this information. Thank you both. v/r Q

03-23-2005, 06:15 PM	#5 (permalink)
truthseeker Executive Member Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Southern California Posts: 535	Re: What is "Gnostisism"? There's a fine line for just about everything, isn't there?

04-10-2005, 07:21 PM	#7 (permalink)
Marcion Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 35	Re: What is "Gnostisism"? Marcion and the early church is a big interest of mine, so automatically I'd have to agree with the last post, that this is true Before an actual canon of scripture existed in Orthadox churches (as in a closed Book/New Testament canon), the bishop from Asia Minor, Marcion had compiled what was called the original Gospel, it was simply called "Gospel of the Lord." In Greek (Evangelion). And Paul's original, uncorrupted epistles from his various churches, in Greek this was called Apostilikon. Thirdly, we have understood Marcion as compiling as work of his own, named Antithesis. This book was a special work of Theology and Ethic used to contrast the old testament god with that of the Christ of the Gospel. He was a Dualist, believing in a god of ultimate Good, who Christ called Abba (Aramaic for the heavenly Father) and then one who was cruel and arrogant, the Creator of this imperfect world with his strict judgement, who can be called Satan. Marcion was a Pauline Puritan, believing only that Paul understood the message of Christ. He was trying to preserve what he believed to be Pure Christianity, without any foreign interpolation of ideas, whether it be Jewish, Philosophical, or Pagan. He rejected most of the Catholic rites, saying that we are free from rites and the Law, because Christ had set us free from the evil judgement of Satan's Laws. The Gospel of Marcion closely resembles the Synoptic Gospels: Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Now Church authority traditionally attributes Marcion's Gospel to that of Luke's, but a closer look shows that Marcion's was shorter than Luke's, and more like Mark's Gospel. There was no mention of the Nativity, or Birth story of Christ. (they had a different understanding of how Christ came here). Marcionites traditionally attributed this Gospel to Paul as being the author. This was defended by the fact that in Galations Paul spoke of his Gospel only being the truth, and defended this truth against the other apostles and angelic beings alike. So it would seem that Paul was speaking of a Gospel he himself had taught and perhaps later even wrote. Now for something even more intrigueing: There is a Catholic document called "Dialogues of Adamantius" that details a conversation between a Marcionite bishop and a Catholic bishop, where they debate over which is the most true doctrine of Christianity. In the debate, the Marcionite quotes verses from Matthew, Luke, and Mark. But lacks verses from John, and even refutes one of John's verses. I am a practicing Dualist myself and I've come to some interesting conclusions about Marcion's Gospel. For one thing we can't trust Catholic sources completely because it's coming from the enemy. But this is my own theory (and I'm not alone in this one) as to what the original Gospel may have had in it. I think Marcion's Gospel is the earliest link to the so-called "Gospel Q," where scholars believe writings of the Christ's traditional sayings would have been kept, and used later to write the other 4 or so Gospels where they could be altered, edited and mixed with all kinds of narrated stories. Anyway, from what little information we have, It seems that passages from all 3 Synoptic Gospels were also in Marcion's Gospel. I have not yet found evidence that any of John's writings were included, but the Gospel of John has always struck me as quite Marcionite in character. One last thing I might add, is that the Gospel of John had become very important among the later Dualists in Armenia and Bulgaria, who were interestingly called, "Paulicians," followers of Paul So could it be? that Marcion's single Gospel already had most of the sayings and stories of Jesus? Did the Catholic church completely obliterate this Gospel to fit their own canon in which they had none until after Marcion's compilation turned up? Did we ever really need a complete higharchy of Church leaders with their splendid palaces and rich estates? With so much Power that lead to so much war and confusion against so called "heretics?" Was not the true body of the Church that which resides in our heart with Christ? Certainly Something to think about

04-12-2005, 02:00 AM	#8 (permalink)
lunamoth Will to Love Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: The Rockies Posts: 3,187	Re: What is "Gnostisism"? I know there's a discussion of this kind of started in the acceptance of christianity thread but I thought I'd pose a related question here. It seems to me that the Gospel of John is the strong link to the letters of Paul. It is so very different in emphasis from the other three synoptic gospels of the cannon. Yet I've read recently 1) the Gnostic cannon had a gospel that was more like Matt-Mark-Luk and that maybe there was a Marcionite gospel that was like those three 2) Gnostics get much inspiration from Paul, 3) at least one person here has said that the Gospel of John is very Gnostic in emphasis, 4) that the gospel of John was not part of the gnostic cannon, 5) that another Gnostic member here has said to get rid of Paul and much else (leaving what???). So just what exactly is it that Gnostics are emphasizing from the Gospel and the rest of the NT? And what is in the gnostic gospels that can't be found in the cannonized gospels? Besides some kind of emphasis on just "knowing" something, what is it that Gnostics have faith in? I'm not critical, just confused. lunamoth edit: I won't cut and paste it here as it might be missed by the original poster, but I'm referring to the last paragraph of post #28 of the Acceptance of Christianity thread . http://www.comparative-religion.com/...7444#post27444

04-12-2005, 04:11 AM	#9 (permalink)
Marcion Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 35	Re: What is "Gnostisism"? Have you gotten a copy of the Nag Hammadi library? Its found at most large bookstores now. It's a bunch of Gnostic scripture that was discovered, well not too long ago. It broadens our understanding of Gnostic beliefs big time! Its got the Gospel of Thomas in there, another very early Synoptic text, but not in our modern Bibles today. I'm really interested in that one since Tertullian thought it was from the Dualists! Gnosticism is very diverse, there were many different beliefs and sects within Gnosticism, so those adhering to a Gnostic system may all say something different. It's a Philosophy, Intellectual like Neoplatonism and Stoicism, rather than a Religion of inspired dogma like what you and I might believe in.

04-12-2005, 01:08 PM	#11 (permalink)
Abogado del Diablo ego eimi Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Texas Posts: 745	Re: What is "Gnostisism"? I agree with Marcion that Gnosticism is more akin to a philosophy than a religion. Aside from that, there is incredible diversity in the different ways of expressing Gnostic Christianity. There are a couple of things that are generally present though. It does not involve what you probably think of as "faith" or a quest for "salvation" and rarely concerns itself with religious doctrines. You'll find that Gnostics do sometimes speak in terms of doctrine or myth (like the Valentinian understanding of the "God" of the Old Testament as a delusional "Demiurge" and not the "Father"). These sorts of teachings were meant to be taken figuratively and interpreted once one was initiated into Gnosis. Which is also generally their view of the Canonical Gospel stories - they are teaching myths written to illustrate ideas. I'd recommend Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy's book "The Jesus Mysteries" for an introduction to some of the diverse ideas of Gnosticism and some of the evidence for its origins and history.

04-13-2005, 06:45 PM	#15 (permalink)
mosherosh Interfaith Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 11	Re: What is "Gnostisism"? As a modern Gnostic Christian (Holistic Godhead vs. Dualistic Godhead) I am convinced the Asia Minor Johannine school or class of Christian theology that produced the "John" gospel, letters, and Revelation knew that Yahweh was an imposter god. Not in the usual classical Gnostic way as a secondary god below Sophia, or Wisdom of God, but as a son of EL Elyon, God Most High in the Canaanite pantheon. There are clear indications that these Johns knew what archeologists are now confirming with resurrected cuniform texts from ancient Canaanite sites. Somewhere along the line priests and scribes of Judah pulled a fast one and switched their tribal war god, Yahweh for God Most High and since Canaanites weren't around to call them on the fraud, their version got accepted as Jewish religious history.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes	Rate This Thread
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode	Rate This Thread: