Philo,
1.Gnostic groups after Paul claimed him as their great sage.
(e.g.followers of gnostic Marcion had a gospel attributed to Paul)
2.It is only in the Pastorals that Paul seems anti-gnostic. These are all forgeries according to most scholars.
3.Paul uses Gnostic terms like "pneuma,gnosis,doxa,sophia,teleioi".
4.Paul quotes Aratus and other pagan sages like Socrates.
5.Paul claims to have ascended to "the third heaven". What, Philo,do you think he meant by that?
6.Paul mentions a "gnosis" that can only be taught to the "fully inititiated".....more gnostic thought.
7."By revelation the mystery was known to me" said Paul....Gnostic

Your beliefs are interesting Philo but they are also the beliefs of Paul. Paul was a gnostic so.........

Priscillian / Philo,

Cool it guys – remember Ghouss??

Who cares which one of you is right? What's important here is what's right.

Philo – thanks for explaining your views on the resurrected body of Christ – I can’t put my finger on your interpretations and don’t really wish to go much deeper (like Priscillian). I had some reservations in the past also regarding your interpretation of the trinity.

Priscillian - Your fixation with Paul’s teaching is clouding your reasoning and true understanding of the scriptural message of Salvation.

What I know is:

Jesus is the Son of God – The perfect and only lamb of God. He was fully human and fully God when He was on earth.

THERE IS NO SALVATION BUT THROUGH HIM.

He said it Himself. It was even prophesised centuries before His coming.

The Messiah image of a Conqueror was the expectation of the Jewish people who (like you P.) didn’t recognise him as their Saviour.

Does your bible mention the entry of sin into the world through the fall of one perfect man: Adam?

In the same way Jesus is the only perfect sacrifice acceptable by God for taking sin out of this world..

If you dismiss God’s perfect plan, what is your substitute?

Being a good person and doing good deeds? you are dangerously treading in “religious” territory.

All known religions – including Old Testament Judaism – have rules and laws for pleasing God (or god).

ONLY New Testament Christianity has a SAVIOUR.

For me complete Salvation has been DONE on the cross.

There is no need for trying to outdo what God has already done for us humans.

It does not have to make "human" sense to you. Give God some credit.

Jesus is not just a moral teacher or a great guy. (You are right : The world is full of such wise people.)

Jesus is God incarnate. He said it himself. He proved it by His life, death and self-resurrection.

He surely did not wait for the Gospel writers and Paul to explain Him

Coach
No need to cool it I don't think Philo is angry with me and I am certainly not with him. I enjoy his posts. He seems well informed even though we disagree sometimes.
I am not aguing here about the correctness (or not) of your personal beliefs. I never argue about the existence (or not) of a god. I never discuss the OT at all because this scripture is specific to the history of a certain small group of people and spread out over such a long timeframe that trying to set it in history would be impossible for one so ignorant as I. I have read the OT over a long time but do not consider myself any kind of authority on it.

All I am putting forward is that the NT can have an interpretation that is different from the normal literalist one when it is considered in it's historical framework.

If you feel to be in need of a "saviour" then it is fine by me that you consider Jesus to be yours.
If you think Jesus is God incarnate then that's also fine by me.
If you believe in supernatural occurances like resurrections then that too is OK by me. I will not try to convince you otherwise.

I will, however, argue strongly that to rely on NT scripture (as commonly interpreted by most Christians) as a basis for these beliefs is fallacy. I am arguing about the evidence for your belief system, not the belief system itself which is not conducive to rational argument.

Let me give an example:- Someone comes to me and says there is proof of a Loch Ness monster. The evidence is a piece of grainy film footage taken decades ago. I would apply the same reasoning to this person by studying and aguing the validity of the film evidence. This does not mean I know there is indeed no Nessy even though I may suspect strongly that this is indeed the case.

Pricillian,
What scholars claim the writings of Paul as forgeries?

The Roman Church in the 4th Century was totally Gnostic and deeply influenced by Zoroastrian dualism and religious mysticism. However they protected the writings of Paul though they did not understand them. When you read the late antenicene and postnicene fathers they are gnostic and so pagan in much of their thought. The writings the NT attributed to Paul indicates it was written by a trained Jewish mind. If they were forgeries they would have to be written by a Jew, and very few Jews existed in the Church in the 3rd - 4th century.

That Paul uses the Greek language and writers is no conclusion he was Gnostic. Paul was not Gnostic such a claim is presented by non Christians, probably Jewish, to discredit him. We owe it to Paul to fully understand the grace of God and freedom from ceremonial religious laws. The book of Romans is his personal defence for his stand against Jews who accused him before Caesar [Acts 28: 17 - 31]. They have never let up in seeking to discredit him.

Paul was in a deep sub-conscious state [a coma] after his stoning when he received his deep personal thoughts. I've been there myself after an accident and from that have received understanding on the text of Job; of which I have written a commentary.

sorry for late posts. much to do on monday. anyhow, philo and priscillian has much deeper discussion and detailed. i have no idea at all of what they're writing, since i don't know gnostic and those stuff and too lazy to surf the net for it. :) 1 note though, i agree with priscillian about christianity is the only one to offer salvation.

Coach, they certainly did prophesised about Messiah, and like you said, jews and muslem didn’t believe in Jesus Christ as Messiah. That’s what I know is the basic differences between muslem and Christianity, as they have the exact same bible of old testaments. The other muslem book that they used together with the old testament is the analogy of new testament for Christianity. This is 1 thing, apart from that, with all your beliefs, comments and everything, would you accuse of all religion in this earth is wrong except Christianity?

And don’t you find it weird that only Christianity offers salvation or “the only way to survive without perish” through the saviour? People don’t have to pay for their sin since jesus has pay for them through the cross. So when I died later, if I don’t want to perish, I HAVE to accept jesus as my saviour or perish. That’s why I wrote the analogy of someone pointing gun at you and say, if you want to live, you have to believe in Jesus. Basically, if you equate this world as religion, let’s say 50% is Christian, and the rest divided equally into different religion and others, 50% of this world would be perish and it’s their fault for not choosing “the one and only way but free choice?”

It doesn’t have to make “human” sense out of you and give god some credit? He got all the credit I can think of, but I don’t believe that you would follow something that doesn’t make sense to you

‘Does your bible mention the entry of sin into the world through the fall of one perfect man: Adam?
In the same way Jesus is the only perfect sacrifice acceptable by God for taking sin out of this world.’
So people that know OT, and believe in them, perish before the arrival of Jesus Christ in this world as saviour? Since before him, there is no salvation, is there? Even in 30 years of Jesus life, people still perished, since he hasn’t introduced Christianity to the world then?

‘If you dismiss God’s perfect plan, what is your substitute?’
I don’t have substitute. Why do you need substitute? Because Christianity taught you that you’d perish once you died if you’re not Christian? If you take out Christianity completely, then there is no knowledge of after life. You might go to heaven or reincarnate or you might perish. No one knows. It is a crap prospect, maybe.

‘He surely did not wait for the Gospel writers and Paul to explain Him’
He kinda did. His words to his follower/s to spread the gospel, which is about Christianity, God, and salvation, THROUGH HIM. :)

‘All known religions – including Old Testament Judaism – have rules and laws for pleasing God (or god).’
Do you worship God? Does praise and worship didn’t please our Father? Didn’t Christianity have rule and laws for pleasing God (not breaking the 10 commandment)? Not only OT of Judaism, but your own OT did have rule to please god. I’m referring to the blood sacrifice practised in OT