The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: huh?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I stand corrected...Thank you (see in situ)


I don't see how it is more correct. One thing I'll grant is that calling it pre-christian at least doesn't entail that it is christian, but it is still a problem to call it pre-christian when there are christian documents which pre-date gnostic documents:

P52 for example:

And also when the apostles of Jesus, who were Christians, were already Christians prior to the existence of gnostic writings.
What is notable is that biblical texts, like the Gospel of John, which have been shown to have existed prior to gnostic texts, are texts which disagree completely with gnostic theology. Christian theology, which pre-dates gnostic theology teaches about salvation through faith in Jesus and his atonement for sins, not salvation through secret knowledge. And you still have to deal with the old testament conflicting with gnosticism. Gnosticism is much like any cult offshoot of Christianity in it's rejection of the Gospel of Christ communicated by his apostles as well as communicated by those appointed by his apostles to lead churches. In fact, the Gnostic idea that material is bad and that Jesus was not a physical being is renounced in scripture:

2nd John 1:7 "For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist."

Do you consider yourself part of the new age movement? Do you agree with the gnostic idea that Jesus was not a physical being, that he did not come in the flesh?